How should Democratic members of the House respond when the GOP introduces a bill based on a demonstrably false premise.  

I am, of course, refering to HR 895 (http://www.rules.house.gov/...), the GOP resolution condemning the Times for "leaking" the existence of the SWIFT program?

That's the question of the day.  

Josh Marshall points to an http://www.thehill.com/... article in The Hill that reports that House GOP members plan to introduce a resolution today condemning the New York Times for their story on the SWIFT program.

President Bush has already said that by disclosing the SWIFT program, the Times has caused the "great harm" to US security and characterized the decision to print the article as disgraceful.

Is there any doubt that the public had a right to know that for 3 years since 9/11 the Bush Administration was:

• using the NSA
  
• to conduct extra-judicial surveillance,
  
• of American citizens

BEFORE heading to the polls in November 2004?

Isn't "informed consent" a pre-requisite to democratic governance?

Isn't the press supposed to act on behalf of the public as a check on unbridled governmental power?

There is so much wrong with this story.  Unbelievable.

Josh Marshall reports that Fritz Hollings used a racially derogatory term ("Chinamen") at a Kerry rally with the senator present.

Kerry has not yet disavowed the remarks.

It will be interesting to see how the press covers this incident.

Hi folks:

I spent 45 minutes at the library recently reviewing our local paper's coverage of Howard Dean.  The results were shocking - the Kalamazoo Gazette has provided almost exclusively negative coverage to Dr. Dean in its editorial pages.

I would recommend that others do a similar exercise either for Dean or for the candidate of their choice.  Reviewing the content of your local paper's editorial pages and classifying each column mentioning Dr. Dean as positive, negative or neutral takes very little time and has a potentially large payoff.

I'll let you know if they publish my letter.

Here's the letter I just submitted:

*****

Dear Editors:

I recently reviewed the editorials, opinion columns and political cartoons published on the editorial pages of the Kalamazoo Gazette from December 21, 2003 to January 13, 2004.  Howard Dean was mentioned by name in twelve editorials or columns during this time.  Nine of those portrayed him in a negative light and two of them were neutral.  Only one painted a positive picture of Dr. Dean.

Two editorial cartoons published on your pages over this time period mentioned Dr. Dean by name - both were negative.  There were no corresponding positive or neutral references to Governor Dean in an editorial cartoon over this time.

As the sole newspaper in our community the Gazette has an obligation to present a balanced view of candidates so that voters can make informed decisions.  Given the importance of the upcoming Michigan Democratic Party caucus on February 7th, one can only hope that the Gazette will strive to present readers with more even-handed coverage of the Democratic frontrunner.

Sincerely,

KJD

Things seem to have stabilized.  I don't view Dean's uptick by 1 percentage point of Clark's downtick of 1 percentage point as particularly significant (either statistically of quantitatively).

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/

3-Day Results Jan 9-11

Braun 0%
Clark 19%
Dean 36%
Edwards 3%
Gephardt 4%
Kerry 10%
Kucinich 1%
Lieberman 10%
Sharpton 0%
Other 0%
Undecided 17%

Sample size 616

Democrats 425
Undeclared 191
Undeclared (%) 31%
Margin of error is ± 4 percentage points

I know that it's exciting to get caught up in the Iowa and NH horse races, but the reality is only Dean has the campaign infrastructure in place to do anything serious in the subsequent states.

Here in Michigan it is a similar story - my town is covered in Dean yard signs and I have not seen a single sign for any other candidate.

While we Deaniacs have been canvassing our town in the western part of the state for months now, I haven't even heard a rumor that any other campaign is doing similar work.  FWIW.

From

politicalwire.com

Candidates Fail To Qualify In New York

Sen. Joseph Lieberman "has failed to qualify delegate slates for New York's Democratic presidential primary in more than a third of the state's congressional districts," the AP reports.

Other candidates, including Wesley Clark, Sen. John Kerry, Rep. Richard Gephardt and Al Sharpton, "filed petitions for delegate slates that appear to contain an insufficient number of signatures from Democratic voters to qualify those slates for the March 2 primary ballot."

Only Howard Dean and Sen. John Edwards "appear to have qualified delegate slates in each of New York's 29 congressional districts."

I saw this on CNN during my lunch break today.  Check out how:

1. Ann Coulter asserts that Democratics are traitors (nothing new here), then
2.  Wolf Blitzer lets the charge pass (denial), then
3.  The liberal guest calls Coulter on the charge (confrontation), then
4. Blitzer goes back and provides Coulter with a very leading question, asking her to reassure the audience that she didn't say what she just very clearly said (more denial).

This is a classic example of how cognitive dissonance in the SCLM is enabling political hate speech by the Right.

The full transcipt can be found here.

BLITZER: All right. Here's an e-mail for you, Ann, from David in Oregon. "If anyone reminds us of George McGovern's style, it's the Republicrat from Connecticut. And the major reason Democrats lost the House of Representatives was passionless leadership of the man from Missouri, who is a lesser version of Watler Mondale. Dean is more vibrant; thus, Kennedy or Truman-like, inspiring and motivating voters."

A little rambling, David's thoughts from Oregon. But what do you make of it?

COULTER: I guess he is talking about Gephardt and Lieberman?

BLITZER: He is making fun of everybody. But he clearly likes Howard Dean.

COULTER: That seems to be the way things are going. That is the calculation Al Gore made. Although, I don't see much difference between any of the Democratic candidates. I keep citing Dennis Kucinich as my favorite. But there really isn't that much difference between Dennis Kucinich and the rest of them, other than Senator Lieberman, who really is the only one who is patriotic, and therefore is going no place in these primaries.

BLITZER: Matt, you worked in the Clinton administration. Have these Democrats, with the exception of Lieberman, moved back towards the more liberal left part of the Democratic Party?

MILLER: I don't think so. And I really have to say I am offended when Ann Coulter says only Joe Lieberman is patriotic, no other Democrat is. That's such rubbish, and it's the kind of smear tactics that just is -- it's so wrong, it almost doesn't bear response. But you can't let it go.

I think what's happened is, the Republican mainstream has moved so radically to the right, that Democrats who are basically for things like basic health coverage for everyone, better schools, and more efforts to make schools better for less fortunate kids, that those kids things, as well as strong defense and international foreign policy, are things that are in the mainstream.

Most of the Democratic candidates have colesed around that. And I think any of them will present a more powerful alternative to the kind of radical conservatism we're seeing at the White House.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to take a quick break, but I'll let Ann respond quickly. You are not questioning the patriotism of any of these Democratic candidates, are you Ann?

MILLER: That is what she said.

BLITZER: Well, I'm asking her.

COULTER: I'm saying -- I noticed that Matt immediately goes to, you know, universal health care, and not what I think is rather more pressing issue, the war on terrorism. And eight of the nine don't want to fight it.

MILLER: Why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?

BLITZER: But Ann, are you saying they are not patriotic? Is that what you are saying?

COULTER: I am saying they don't want to fight the war on terrorism. And the patriotic Democratic, the only one vaguely patriotic, is Joe Lieberman. And the rest of them, we would have to get used to having planes flying into our skyscrapers. That is their position.