Today 4 teams completed a 132 mile race in the desert. The top 3 cars were from the Stanford and Carnegie Mellon University teams. Our socialist big government system does it again.

It is a triumph of socialism over capitalism. How come the big corparations couldn't do this? It took the government to come up with race and its  paltry 2 million dollar prize. The capitilists didn't have the money to get this project going? The government has shown once again that it is the true engine of scientific and economic progress in the world.  

The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge also marked the begginning of the end for the teamsters. The day is coming when the society will no longer have to pay people to drive vehicles. The expense for labor, and the liability from accidents will be greatly reduced. The savings will be passed on to everyone.

 Wikipedia Entry, and DARPA Grand Challenge Official Website.

This watershed event is a sign post in the road to the end of work. Karl Marx spoke of a workers' paradise. We are creating it, and by the way, the workers' paradise is where you don't have work.

The Dirty Tricks Machine in the Republican Party is a disgusting disease that is endagering our democracy. Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and most Republicans on down the line won't hesitate for a second to smear a political figure, and it has never been their last option. With "Swift Boating" of John Kerry to Willy Horton to Max Cleland to Paul Hackett we see the worst this country has to offer. It is a disgrace and a complete lack of Honor.

Some, like Bill Clinton, have said they only use it because it works, so stop whining about it, and engage back at them. I disagree completely with this. If the Democrats need to stand for anything it is for honor and integrity in politics, not juvenille hate speech and other nefarious frat boy antics.

Unfortunately, the members of Daily Kos, MyDD, and the Swing State Project have found it perfectly acceptable to engage in the same Rovian types of sexual related smears against the campaign manager of Jean Schmidt. We can do better.

If you haven't read the story, it goes something like this: the campaign manager for Hackett's opponent  had his email adressed traced to a S&M site. Swingstateproject has taken down all the offending material due to a denial/legal threat from the campaign manager. DavidNYC at SSP is a lawyer, so he probably doesn't want to get sued by the man, but do we need legal threats to do something that shouldn't have been engaged in anyway?

I question the motives of people who would want to tarnish the honor of Paul Hackett and the great campaign effort put forth by the left wing netroots. Why would you want to engage in Republican-lite hate tactics? Because it works? Fighting your ass off in Iraq with honor works too, and coming back to face improbable odds works too. Let's win with honor. Let's follow Paul Hackett's example.

 

Tennessee State Sen. John Ford Placed Under House Arrest.

This is going to hurt his nephew Harold Ford Jr. as he runs for Frist's Senate seat in 2006. This is not some DUI or sexual escapade gone wrong. He is on tape being bribed and threataning to kill someone.

The Ford dynasty in Tennessee just took a major blow that will be difficult to explain away. The Republicans will have an easy time taking advantage of such criminal behavior.

This also hurts Democrats at a time when Tom Delay is being savaged, and rightfully so, for his corrupt political practices.

 

Sticking with our guys. Being loyal to the team.
Towing the party line.

I see this type of language being used on the net more and more on Democrat leaning blogs. These ideas  are the essense, not of the modern democratic party, but of the republican party.

There are two things all republicans believe in: lower taxes and being a team player. They believe in discipline and group cohesion. They truly believe in partisanship. They believe that there is an enemy to be fought.

Partisanship is a manichean mindset. If left leaning people try to emulate the republicans to compete, it just plays right into the republicans' hands. Left wingers believe in thinking and talent. Liberals believe in moral relativism and multilateral cooperation.

Republican Conservatism will not be beaten with Democaratic liberalism.  

Conservatives believe that they are a member of group that is right, and is fighting the good fight against an enemy. They will always have the numbers over liberals becuase it plays on peoples' fear, and at the same time, their private aspirations to virtue. Conservatism relies on partiship to survive. Partisanship is a conservative frame. It appeals in the way a well reasoned policy never can.

The enemy could be external like terrorists or communists. The enemy could be imaginary like 'liberals', a word reserved for Americans not on their team.  

I agree with growing liberalism. Liberalism is not Democratic partisanship.

Small case study. Bush has the most Jacobin, radically liberal foreign policy wanting to make all these countries in the world liberal democracies. Why don't liberals support that? Most conservatives, in their heart of hearts, don't really care about Iraqis or the Afghans freedom, but they are team players and always support their commander-in-cheif's policy. Liberals do, in their heart of hearts, support liberal govenments around the world but are, for the sake of partisanship, opposing it.

The only way to win is to adopt a non-partisan approach that deals with problems on a case by case basis (like good government does).

If the Democrats want to stick their guns, fall into the trap of the partisan dichotomy, and oppose everything, the Republicans will just label them obstructionists and sore losers. And win again.

I wanted to repost this from Paul Goodman, from a previous diary thread, because it is a great comparison of Centrists and Leftists:

I will take a stab at it, though I dont know if I am a centrist or whatever, I think I understand the mainstream.

   1. Welfare state: Centrist: the welfare state exists to strengthen the middle class and provide a middle class standard of living to the working class. Leftist: The welfare state exists to help the poor and lower the rich so that we are all roughly equal.

   2. Taxes: Centrists: Taxes should be enough to cover the cost of the welfare state, no more. Leftists: Taxes exist to pay for the welfare state and to redistribute wealth and make people roughly equal in income.

   3. Race relations: Centrists: The government should step in when bigotry prevents equal rights. Leftists: The goverment should step in to bring the races into balance by taxing the white majority to make up for the damage caused by colonialism, slavery, racism etc. Affirmative action is a kind of tax.

   4. Foriegn Policy: Centrists: Ameirca should lead the world and gain the benefits that accrue to the leader. Leftists: America should expend energy to undo the results of colonialism and raise the third world to equality with the first.

   5. Environment: Centrists: Steps should be taken to make the consumption culture sustainable forever without stopping growth. Leftists: Preservation of the environment takes precedence over consumption and growth. Consumption and growth are also held by some to be anti-goods.

   6. Religion: Centrists: Religion is a private matter which should not be allowed to enter the public sphere, especially in a divisive way. Leftists: Typically antagonistic to the old religions in a preparation for a new kind of collective consiousness, weakly defined.

   7. Abortion: Centrists: Abortion is distasteful, but perhaps a necessary evil given the tendency for people to screw up in  a free society. Leftists: Abortion is a practical tool for undermining patriarchy and ensuring that women can pursue non-biological roles in society. Both: Enforcing abortion laws is a practical impossibility and is likely to cause more harm than good.

   8. Homosexuality: Centrists: Rights for gays is presumed to be covered under existing laws. Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue. A non-issue. Leftists: Gays need distinct laws to protect them from widespread discrimination and attacks and allow them to freely operate in society.

   9. Trade: Centrists: Trade policy should benefit the middle class, tarrifs to protect jobs, trade to stimulate consumption and income. These goals can conflict. Leftists: Trade should be used to raise the standard of living of third world peoples. Trade should be used as leverage to bring laws of the third world to the level of the first world. These goals can conflict.

  10. Immigration: Centrists: Illegal immigration should be stopped. Leftists: Illegal immigration should be tolerated or legalized as it undermines white domination of the society. There is a presumption that illegal immigrants will become leftwing voters.

  11. Education: Centrists: The school system is a means of social mobility and undergirds the middle class economy. Leftists: The school system should become a means of political education or be abolished. Both: The school system is a major source of government jobs.

  12. Military-Industrial Complex: Centrists: Preserves the global economy which undergirds the middle-class lifestyle. A somewhat inefficient component of the welfare state and somewhat inefficient source of government jobs. Leftists: Almost total antagonism.

  13. Energy: Centrists: Supports innovations that will allow the middle-class lifestyle to continue after the oil runs out. Leftists: Want a total non-fossil-fuel economy.

In terms of 'framing the debate,' its not possible to frame anything if you are wrong side of the issue. Illegal immigration is one of those issues that, if the Dems want to be reformers and win, they have to confront honestly.

In the presidential campaign we saw Kerry hint at possibly closing the borders and enforcing our current immigration laws. The president said more was being done at the borders and that his plan for guest worker cards was a step in the right direction. Kerry slammed him by mentioning 4,000 to 8,000 illegals cross the borders every day into  America.

It is clear where America stands on illegal immigration and our porous borders. Americans don't like it and want something to be done.

There are three arguments that are against the oppostion to illegal immigration:

1. It is racist to oppose illegal immigration, rights, and benefits for illegal immigrants.

2. It benefits America more than it hurts America, and people don't want to do the work illegals do anyway.

3. Military intervention to seal the borders just won't work.

None of these arguments stand up to reality.

Many people oppose illegal immigration on the basis that has nothing to do with race but with their pocket books. Then there is the fact that it is illegal and  against the due process many legal immigrants must go through to get into the US.

Secondly, we have enough labor in this country and unemployed people to take up the jobs that illegals do. The people who hire illegals and help bring them in are criminals too and need to be arrested. Not only are they breaking the law for  hiring them, but the work environments for illegals are often times are out of regulation.

The arguments that the borders just can't be sealed do not understand the capabilities of our military. The approach can be a hard one- we shoot people attempt to come across even after being warned. It can also be soft- the US soldiers arrest the illegals and hand them over to Mexican officials. We could seal off the borders provided we get out of Iraq and either commit national guard to it (the natural choice) or we could commit some active duty forces to rotate out of border duty or put some bases on the border to make it easier. The troops that are going to be pulled out of Germany and Korea back to the US could be used.

If the Dems wake up to the growing anger over illegal immigration they can win and win 'big time'. If the republicans beat them to it, they will be lose again. If nothing gets done, I suspect a third party will come along.

Sometimes, its not enough to frame the debate. Sometimes, you have to have the right policy.

The democrats in the house are vowing to block the appropriations bill because the republicans won't promise to stop pushing bills though congress without time to properly review them before passage. This is a start. I just wish they blocked it on the principle of pork barrel spending and in the interest of balancing the budget.

If the democrats are trying to rebrand themselves as reformers this is precisely the right opportunity. The republicans like to accuse the democrats of doing the same thing years ago, they did, but I doubt the democrats were trying to put in some fascistic provisions in their bills. Correct me if I am wrong.

This interview on rushlimbaugh.com is indicative of the infighting the republicans are going to go through in the next 4 years because they won and now have to govern.

The republicans have no one to blame but themselves now, and I feel that isn't a good thing. These last two weeks I've seen the republicans just lie about a range of things- like the approprations bill, and intel reform. No one has held them accountable yet. Lying will most likely increase in Bush II, barring some catastrophe.

I have read many of the postmortems on the Kerry campaign. Some tread on the worst parts of hind sight  and i-told-you-so-ism while others give their thoughtful criticism of what I thought was overall a very well run campaign.

As a Veteran for Kerry, recently coming back from Iraq, I got invited to be a part of the campaign. I noticed right away that the operatives at first were very receptive and wanted to here what I to say. They invited me to go and speak on stage with some of Kerry's swift crew, and I even got to meet and talk to one his "band of brothers" cremates.

I vowed to help show people that the administration had treated the soldiers like political chess pieces and forbid us in some cases to do our jobs at the expense of soldiers lives. In particular, the soft gloves approach to al-Sadr and not going after and killing him, after we were told that was our mission in Najaf, I will never forgive this administration. Resolve? Bullshit.

Although the Veterans for Kerry was almost a separate campaign apparatus onto itself with its own "chain of command", I told there were rules that needed to be followed. The campaign operatives made it explicitly clear that anything I said would be vetted in advanced and had to go up their "chain of command" before speaking at official Kerry campaign events.

I was uneasy about the restrictions because I do have some foreign policy differences with his campaign, but I was willing to compromise in the spirit of advancing and persuading people to support Kerry.

When I brought up some of the differences I had  with one of the operatives in charge of the Veterans' campaign in the area they started getting militant and hostile. They repeated again and again to never ever say anything contrary to Kerry's message.

I also was immediately struck by how doggedly partisan they were to the point where it was turning me off. These operatives were out of touch - the only one who I think understood how most people are was Kerry's cremate who admitted he voted republican many times before, and his prime motivation was his personal bond with John Kerry and his opposition to the war which he drew comparisons to his war in Vietnam.

One of the things they were the most concerned about was the swift boat thing. I thought they shouldn't have said anything and let the thing run its course. The lies were being refuted left and right. I think by responding belatedly Kerry extended the play time of the whole dirty mess.

Before I committed all my energy to the campaign I checked with JAG to see what the legal limitations there were on a soldier's (I was taking terminal leave at the time; transitioning back to civilian life, but still considered active duty) political activities. Speaking in public and associating with a partisan group, and actively supporting a partisan group in public was forbidden. That cut everything I wanted to do short which I regret in some ways, but in hind sight was a good thing.

In my heart, I am deeply saddened by what the election has brought us. John Kerry would have been a great president. Hey, you don't like him- he isn't progressive enough- he is the best the democrats have. He has seen combat. As someone who also has been branded in the flames of battlefield, I see who he truly is: a passionate intelligent diligent fighter. He has true virtue.  

Look in your heart- think very carefully- who does the left have that as a man is as good as John Kerry. No one. Unfortunately, this country doesn't vote on the man- it votes on the identity. The majority of Americans don't trust the democrats as much as the republicans.

I'm sad that our country chose the wrong man. I am truly sad. Yes, I think those grass roots ideas do need to be incorporated into the campaign, so different voices with different outlooks can speak to support the candidate. The unfortunate part is that candidate is, by nature, very protective of his message. After all, he has to get 51% of the vote to win.

These 527's were in my mind one of the prime examples of the Democrats inability to discipline the various voices into a cohesive message. The voices of of the 527's are diverse, yet disparate, and produced a cacophony that didn't reach out to the swing voter- the middle class suburban white- special interests rarely do.

I sympathize with his the campaign's effort to get some discipline and control of the rest of the left with respect to the campaign. That's how you win- look at any winning team, the republicans, for an example. Alas, Kerry did miss out on an opportunity to bring the so called "net roots/grass roots" people into his campaign.

In the end the problem wasn't a matter of campaign dynamics. I feel like the campaign didn't even matter except for the smear tactics of the republicans dirty tricks machine.

One final comment, as a Veteran, I find it an empty allegation to accuse the Bush administration of ties to the Saudis and all the evil that entails, and it is wrong, and then not call for immediate military action against them. Just saying "oh, but look at the Saudis we aren't attacking them," does nothing. Calling the republicans on hypocricy while being spineless does nothing  unless you are willing to pick up a rifle and out hawk these chicken hawks.

Didn't the first JFK defeat Nixon, in part, because he out anti-communist the anti-communists?