Heard a good line last night, quoted by my Sister to our only Republican friends: "Think outside the FoxBox."
From AlJazeera News:
The Reverend Jesse Jackson has met President Hugo Chavez, hoping to reduce tensions between the US and Venezuela after a religious broadcaster called for the president's assassination.
The US civil rights leader on Monday urged both sides to tone down their "hostile rhetoric" and said US President George Bush should strongly condemn recent remarks by conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson calling for Chavez's assassination.
Jackson said good relations are in both countries' interests since Venezuela is a top supplier of US oil. "I hope that we've done something to facilitate a detente on threatening rhetoric," Jackson said. "We're not going to have an oil war."
"We must make it clear that talk of isolating Venezuela, talk of assassinating its leader, this is unacceptable, and it must be denounced roundly by our president"
Well, whether or not you like Jesse, he at least said what our President should have said.
Posted by Judith at August 30, 2005 03:11 AMAnyone going to Washington D.C. September 24th?
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 30, 2005 04:26 AMyes...i'll be there...
Posted by kingweasil at August 30, 2005 04:47 AMCan't go to the biggie, but I'll sponsor someone who will go for me. Maybe this time, 9-24-05, the protests will make WP front page.
Posted by Malfeasance at August 30, 2005 04:55 AMWHERE IS THE NATIONAL GUARD? HOW MANY DO WE HAVE LEFT FOR THIS DISASTER?
Posted by JohnO at August 30, 2005 06:22 AMInteresting that the open thread brings discussion of oil and hurricanes. They are not unrelated. There is clear evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the oceans and that allows for more and stronger hurricanes. It's time to stop burning fossil fuels.
It's amazing to me that we are expending huge amounts of money, energy and manpower to seize control of the oil resources that we just can't afford to rely on anymore.
Public policy review time. Too bad that this country didn't direct all the money spent post 911 on the war on terrorism on a wholesale transition from oil consumption. But then we "elected" people from the oil bidness, so what chance was there for that?
Posted by angel at August 30, 2005 07:09 AMIdiosynchronic, I am going to try go.
Posted by Judith at August 30, 2005 07:18 AM
Krauthammer whines - http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1099171,00.html "I used to like Washington in summer - I could park where I wanted and I loved the heat. Then the Nationals showed up, I became a fan, and they started losing."
Who decided Chuck needed some "touch of the common man" like George Will?
As for the Cubs - " . . enter September for the first time in three years playing games that aren't meaningful for them for any postseason consideration. In fact, they can't really even play spoiler. Beginning Friday, when there will be 29 games remaining, only seven of those will be against a team with any realistic postseason hopes -- the seven games with the Astros."
Krauthammer, you're a whiny twerp. Just admit that you missed your big chance to revel in the Bsox's title last year and you now regret abandoning them in 1986.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 30, 2005 07:25 AMRegarding the 2006 elections I mentioned in an earlier comment, that 8 seats were up for grabs, it was from a WSJ article (july 2005). Who knows, maybe something will change from 7/05 to 11/06.
The reason is because of politcal gerrymandering. That is, redistricting efforts have made it so that in 2004, 416 of the 435 House Seats were non-competitive. They were won by margins greater than 10%. The only time a political party has a shot, is when a politician retires or moves on.
Those 8 seats are:
Colorado Dist 3 John Salazar (D)
Colorado Dist 7 Bob Beauprez (R) (retiring)
Illinois Dist 8 Melissa Bean (D)
Louisiana Dist 3 Charlie Melancon (D)
Ohio Dist 6 Ted Strickland (D) (retiring)
Texas Dist 17 Chet Edwards (D)
Iowa Dist 1 Jim Nussle (R) (retiring)
Penn. Dist 6 Jim Gerlach (R)
416 of the 435 House Seats were non-competitive.
meaning, even by your reasoning, 19 seats were competitive, not counting OH-2, where the margin in the special election was 3% (in the reddest of red districts). does that count as competitive?
but, sure, 8 is as close to 19 as osama is to saddam. Rs just aren't very good at math. or geography. or world religions.
Posted by benjoya at August 30, 2005 09:54 AMThere's a remarkable diary over at dKos called, Anatomy of a Freeper Rally in Crawford Several folks at ePluribus Media collaborated and slogged through some amazingly deranged, ignorant and hateful posts to expose the process of planning a pro-bush rally. I highly recommend you read it.
What really struck me was the mirror-image, Bizarro similarity that I, at least, perceived between the sense of close-knit, (as it were) community shared by the Freepers and, I have to admit it, dKos itself and some other blogs of the left.
I teach information literacy to my students and I have been commenting on the echo chamber effect that blogs, by their very nature tend to engender for quite a while. It is a little odd and unnerving to "hear" such a familiar echo, even though the content is wildly different.
Both communities are covinced the media is actively working against their interests, even though the Freepers were quick to recommend sending "exciting" new information to Hannity, Fox and the WSJ editorial board. How many times have we said something like, "Quick, someone sent this to Olberman!" In fact, I have sent some emails to Keith myself.
You need have no doubts about which side of reality I feel most comfortable with. I have been posting to Markos' site for at least 4 years and you can read any of my infrequent posts to see where I'm coming from. I have identified the Corporate media and Rupert Murdoch particularly, as the Mouth of Sauron for much longer. It was a truly strange experience, though, to read the extensive and fascinating saga of Freeper posts and recognize in them, something of myself.
Posted by DeminNewJ at August 30, 2005 09:54 AMSorry, Ben. Just reporting from the WSJ article. I don't know if the author was a (D), (R), or an (I). Who knows? But gerrymandering has made most seats non-competitive. It's unlikely that there will be much change.
Just like the legislature in CA.
When the politicians get to pick their voters, instead of the voters picking the politicians, democracy faulters a bit. Don't you think?
Posted by muckdog at August 30, 2005 10:05 AMLets see, what's Jr.'s approval ratings in those states:
approve/disapprove
IA 45/55
CO 45/53
IL 38/57
LA 48/48
OH 37/60
PA 40/56
Considering the way Jr. is botching the hurricane aid, I'm sure those numbers in LA will probably go lower.
Muck, even your hero Arnold won't meet with Bush because he is so politically toxic. Perhaps some of these R's will be able to distance themselves from Jr. but I'm willing to believe that the majority will not. The WSJ is also ignoring the collapse of the GOP in OH.
Even the WH has admitted that there isn't anything Jr. can do to improve those approval ratings and the approval ratings are likely to get much worse-even into the twenties.
Posted by Ga6thDem at August 30, 2005 10:06 AMAs one who has lived in the carolinas most of my life, I know a little bit about the congressional districts down here. Two NC districts, the 8th and the 11th are VERY takeable for the Dems. In the 8th, Robin Hayes cated the deciding vote for CAFTA after saying that he wouldn't in a district that has lost thousands of textile jobs. The 11th district is also in play, mostly because of the trouble that the current GOP congressman is in.
And this is just one state, my link also notes races to watch elsewhere. Yes, computer aided gerrymandering gives the GOP an advantege, but if around 60% or more disapprove of Bush for over a year, they're not going to pass up their one chance to mute the policies they disapprove of.
When presidents are in the high 30's-low 40's range long term it impacts congress. Scince WWII this has happened 5 times "1946,1954,1974,1986 and 1994. In 4 of these cases the presidents' party either lost control of at least one house in congress or in the Watergate election of 1974 saw their minority status go from competitive to non-competitive as a small Dem. advantege became to Ford's sorrow veto proof. Add to this the fact that 2006 will also be the sixth year of Bush's presidency the "six year itch" usually causes the president's party to lose big.
It is too early to forecast 2006, but the conditions are showing signs of forming (with apoligies to current gulf coast residents) a "perfect storm" against the GOP.
Posted by rlp at August 30, 2005 10:39 AM