Missing Stories

Rummaging through our "to-do" list, we stumbled across a reminder to note a few "Missing Stories".  Forthwith, some stories that will be making news in the days ahead (and your nominees are welcome!)

France, "Non", and TINA - there is no alternative if France votes "Non" on the proposed EU constitution next May 29.  Daniel Drezner is on this like a fedora on Matt Drudge; we will get worried if he does.  And let's be fair - the Times has not ignored this (permalink not available).

The Dem's Contract With America - at some point, the lack of an alternative Democratic agenda had the potential to become mildly embarrassing - sure, they are against Bush's Social security reform, and his judges, but what are they for? 

Now, via The Poorman, we see that Senate Dems have a nine-point plan.  In their problematic intro, they warn us that "If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.” 

Hold on!  We are heartened to see that their "Metaphor Mangler" is in worse shape than our own, but really - shouldn't that be "Push the button" on the nuclear option?  Won't this confusion about firearms and nuclear launch mechanisms cost the Dems much needed credibility on both guns and national security?

Oh, well.  Here are the nine points.  Perhaps a numerologist could tell me, why nine?

1. Women’s Health Care. “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women. [Link]
   
2. Veterans’ Benefits. “The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005” will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation. [Link]
   
3. Fiscal Responsibility.  Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement. [Link]
4. Relief at the Pump. Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump. [Link]
5. Education. Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students. [Link]
6. Jobs.  Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage. [Link]
7. Energy Markets.  Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity. [Link]      
8. Corporate Taxation.  Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas. [Link]    
9. Standing with our troops.  Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families. [Link]

On point 4, Laughter at the Pump, we will recycle the Times editorial from roughly one year ago, which mocked Dems for pandering on gasoline prices and raiding the SPR.  C'mon, the Dems are the party of conservation and higher gasoline prices - get over it.

UPDATE:  Harmonic (Con)Fusion: yesterday, Ron Brownstein of the LA Times told us that "Internet, Polarized Politics Create an Opening for a Third Party".

Today, careful readers have noticed that Sen. Harry Reid's press release is titled:

Deomcrats Moving Forward With Promise Of America Agenda

Who are these "Deomcrats?!?  And are they any relation to "Dummycrats" or "Dimmycrats"?

Maybe someone on Reid's crisp, professional staff ought to install "SpellChuck".

UPDATE 2:  The MinuteMan gets results!  An alert staffer has fixed the typo, thereby spoiling my afternoon.  But they can't take away my morning!

And someone equally alert on the other side has saved a screen shot.  (Not that it proves anything in this Photoshop world....)

LAST GASP - Props to valued commenter "Appalled Moderate" for tracking down links to the Dem agenda.

Comments

[Huggy]

Nine is the number of completion. This list shows the Demos have completely lost their minds and have made complete fools of themselves.

[Nick]

I find #9 amusing... "Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families." What does that mean exactly? How are we not doing that already now and what are you going to do about it? Its like they felt the need to put something in "about the troops" just because.

Of course #3 is amusing as well ... "Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement." since #1, 2, 5 and presuably 9 talk about spending increases.

[Mike]

And if the Republicans don't pull the button (or whatever the metaphor is), the Nine Point Plan goes back into the drawer? That is, the power to filibuster judges is more important than "fiscal discipline," "bringing down prices at the pump," "standing up for our troops and their families," and all that jazz?

[James Stephenson]

I really like number 7. If the damned government in California would not have attempted to manipulate the market, Enron would have been in trouble sooner. It probably would never have got of the ground except for that stupidity.

So by trying to manipulate energy costs, they could cause another enron. God help us all.

And obviously 1 is to pander to the security moms they lost in the last election.

6 of course will end up costing jobs as anytime the government tries to fix something they break it instead. Do they not see what has happened in europe? We are on pace to double their economy in about 10-20 years. Lets leave well enough alone.

[Jor]

People are taking these points too seriously -- AT least as I understood it, its as a counter-attack to the republicans going nuclear. I agree that point 4 is rather silly. The other points all depend on details, but in terms of sound bites -- it would sound pretty bad to vote against them.

Nick, and at least with health care, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Increasing contraception if it led to decreases in the # of abortions, would probably save money overall.

As an aside, the polling for the nuclear option is abysmal for the republicans.

[creepy dude]

Some recent news:

It's now definite Plame's name was leaked by an SAO. Questions now=where did (s)he get the name? Great interview with Wilson a few days ago on Daily Kos.

Iraq survey group concludes there never were any WMDs in Iraq. Rightwing still in denial; thinks it was an honest mistake.

Filibuster battle-looking great for Dems. Best case for Repubs=they get the last 10 nutcases on the bench. Worst case=Repubs can't produce the votes and the Dobsonites unleash hellfire. See FreeRepublic-the fanatics are already extremely agitated. (Note-if Repubs have the votes-why don't they just do it already?).

Social Security Reform. Dead. Dead. And more Dead. And Bush doesn't know it (!!!) confirming he is kept in some Michael Jackson-like hyperbaric bad news free bubble.

Still no government in Iraq. And they haven't even started discussing the hard stuff-they can't agree on who will discuss it. Look for major Shiite street protests soon. What are we going to do for these poor bastards?

[Carolynn]

This hurts.

But guys, we have to show people why things like a higher minimum wage actually hurt the people the Dems are trying to protect.

We also have to say that we want education reform too -- but that we know that can't happen until Unions are reformed.

[creepy dude]

And, oh yes, Osama bin Laden remains at large!?! Does anybody care about this besides me?

[JorgXMcKie]

The polling on the "nuclear option" is a result of MSM hyperventilating. I sincerely doubt (since I just finished giving finals in Intro to Am Govt to undergrads) that 1 in 10 Americans has any idea at all what a filibuster is or how it works or what it does or what it means. Polls about this are driven by hype.

I could run a poll that would easily demonstrate that "Americans think judges nominated by the President to the federal courts deserve a speedy up or down vote, as called for in the Constitution" (I know, I know, it doesn't exactly say that in the Constitution) and probably 85% would support it. (That's about the support such questions had in 1998 or so when the Democrats were trying to get Clinton judicial appointments accepted.)

[JorgXMcKie]

creepy dude, no, no one cares much what you worry about. I just wonder why you aren't inflamed by John Kerry outing an agent during the Bolton hearings. Besides, it should be obvious by now, even to the liberal mind (?) that no law has been broken in the "Plame affair" (scare quotes deliberate). Any interview of a demonstrated liar like Wilson belong on Kos. Evidently the Left is still in its Stalinist "show trial" phase in which you don't have to actually break an actual law to be found guilty. But, then, why should we expect anything else.

The Left lies, and millions die (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, you name them.)

[creepy dude]

So they teach Intro to Am Govt at Bob Jones University?

[Appalled Moderate]

Challenge to readers:

Find the bills Reid is referring to in his 9 points, and comment on them or discuss them.

I will give you an initial hint. Point 1 of the Demo list has been introduced as Senate Bill 20. Read the bill, find some of the congressional propoaganda. Before you mock, take a look. (Informed mocking is much more fun.)

[lvc.iii]

"Deomcrats Moving Forward With Promise Of America Agenda" - I might be inclined to take this more seriously had they managed to spell "Democrats" correctly. As it is, let's just call it their "Compromise of America Agenda."

[TM]

OK, GREAT job spotting "Deomcrats".

Now, Women’s Health Care. “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will be followed by the "Frist Precention Act of 2006".

Sorry, I can't get over "Deomcrats".

Developing...

[BumperStickerist]

Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.”

as opposed to what?

Becoming Whigs?

[R Xapt]

#10 MASSIVE TAX INCREASES ......to pay for #1, #2, #5, and increased unemployment "benefits" that will be needed after they implement #6.

[Appalled Moderate]

Chucky Schumer is the leading light behind the raid of the Strategic Petroleum reserve. See here. If you want to entertain yourself, go to Sen Schumenr's website and run a search on Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You will see he has requested, nay demanded, such a raid in 2005, 2004 and 2000.

[Senators For Sale]

Wait, I'm confused. So, the Democrats don't believe any of those 9 legislative priorities are worth pursuing? Why are they only threatening to try to enact liberal health and education bills if the Republicans get some judges appointed? Although I disagree with the Democratic positions, they were hired by voters who WANTED them to push these types of liberal issues. By tying their own core platform to some unrelated procedural move by Republicans, Democrats are saying, "Look, we know what stupid ideas these are, and we promise not to try for them unless you make us look bad on judges."

DON'T THE PARTISAN DEMOCRATS IN THE U.S. SENATE REALLY BELIEVE IN ANYTHING ANYMORE?!

[Jason Van Steenwyk]

I see. Going out and taking the war to the terrorists where they live doesn't make the top nine on the hit parade.

Victory is not a priority, apparently, with the Democrats.

Jason Van Steenwyk

[Jason Van Steenwyk]

I see. Going out and taking the war to the terrorists where they live doesn't make the top nine on the hit parade.

Victory is not a priority, apparently, with the Democrats.

Jason Van Steenwyk

[Marko]

It is so good of creepy dude to demonstrate in depth why the 9-point plan might be seen as a brilliant beacon of fresh water when compared to the left's rhetoric of the last couple years (why does it seem like decades?).

It actually has a simple-minded coherence once the bullet gets off the launch pad.

[Appalled Moderate]

Looks like the bill addressing point #7 was introduced here. Worthy of mockery? Looks reasonable to me.

BTW, the typo business says a lot about the Dem response to the nuclear option. They realize now there is very little they can do about it, and enacting the proposed threat to shut congress down would be to be to bring the wrath that hit Newt Gingrich all those years ago upon themselves. This is one issue where I don't think the politics (or the equities) favor the Democrats. The only reason it's even close is the GOP's anti-judiciary fit brought on by the Terry Schiavo case.

[Knemon]

"Look for major Shiite street protests soon."

Okay, creepy dude. We'll look for them, along with the always-just-around-the-corner civil war, the rising of the Arab Street, and the millions of refugees.

...

...

nope, don't see them. Can you lend me your binoculars?

[Knemon]

Appalled Mod (nice name, btw), slowing down Senate business isn't on the same level as Gingrich's actual gov't "shutdown." It might spark a backlash, but I wouldn't count on it.

[TM]

On the manipulation of energy markets - the Feinstein bill includes this:

Provide CFTC the Tools to Monitor OTC Energy Markets. For Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives that perform a signifi-cant price discovery function, the bill requires large sophisti-cated traders to keep records and re-port large trades to the CFTC. This does not change the law, only applies the law that exists for futures con-tracts to over the counter trades in theenergy markets.

The CFTC - OTC derivatives wars have been endless (and one wonders how Chuck Scummer positions himself, since this is normally NY - Chicago thing.)

Anyway, the banks will hate this, I bet.

That said, the NYMEX is big in energy contracts, so maybe Schumer's loyalty is divided.

[Windhamite]

Why 9 points?

Because the Republicans' Contract with America from 1994 had 8, and we all know that Democrats are at least one point better than that. Therefore 9 points it shall be. Thou must not number them 10, neither shalt thou stop at 8.

[triticale]

Social Security Reform. Dead. Dead. And more Dead.

Can we at least bring it to a vote now, so that when the bill for not fixing it now comes due the Deomcrats who voted against it will have to explain their inaction on the Presidential campaign trail?

[Joe]

...You guys don't get it.

Set the contents of the bills aside for the moment.

The whole "what, they don't care enough about these issues to normally fight for them?" deal is ignorant of the rules of the Senate.

Normally, bills such as these would never make it out of committee -- the Republican majority would kill it. There's an obscure procedural loophole (Call it the 'sister' of the nuclear option) that can be used to get these, or any other bill, on the legislative calendar.

When they're on the calendar, Dems would be united behind them. And on the ones that look really bad to the swing voter to vote against, such as the 'support our troops' stuff, they could probably peel off enough votes (by Republicans who don't want to look really bad for the 2006 elections) to win on at least 3 or 4 of their 9 bills.

Essentially, it would be the minority governing using obscure rule loopholes and political fear.

As opposed to, you know, the majority violating the idea that judges aren't just about 51-votes-up-or-down by using obscure rule loopholes.

As much as I'm against about 1/3rd of these bills, the tactics used are perfect. Reid is saying that there are enough rules loopholes in the Senate that if the Repubs try and use one to increase their own power, the Dems will do the same, and so it's to the advantage of both sides to simply keep it in a 'Cold War' mode.

Republicans started this, really; when they removed rules that had previously, for quit some time, allowed the minority party to stop particularly objectionable judges, such as a 'blue slip' from the judge's home state senator in committee.

[Brennan Stout]

These nine points look terrific. The one issue is that they look terrific to places the Democrat Party already controls. The "Contract" is supposed to do conversions, or swings, or, heck, they should do something. One thing you are not going to do with a contract is sign up people that have already signed up. You have those folks already. Ya need to sign up new people.

However, maybe this isn't a contract to enlist new supporters, but rather an attempt to maintain the current roster so they don't lose them to free agency. Although, I can't imagine which political party NARAL, Planning Against Parenthood and Emily's List have interest from other than the Democrat Party.

Is this list in order of priority? Is the number one issue for the Democrats to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies? Should it be surprising that Senate bill for this issue calls for a 500 million dollar appropriation increase for "family planning services". Those services wouldn't be dominated by the enterprising Planning Against Parenthood would they?

But please lower may fuel costs. We have two Democrat Senators in Illinois and they both support the asinine winter and summer fuel mixtures that reek havoc on gasoline prices when the state law mandates the seasonal switch. In addition, the two fuel mixtures are refined at a refinery that produces fuel mixtures for 4 separate states, each with their own unique fuel mixture. So the refinery is actually producing roughly 10 different fuel mixtures in a year and its driving the price of production through the roof. Too bad Obama and Durbin can't filibuster the midwest fuel mixtures.

And California...they're petroleum regulations are worse than Illinois. Hey, they have two Democrat Senators as well. What gives?

[josh]

I believe it is spelled "Dhimmi-crats"

[Appalled Moderate]

Can't imagine any self-respecting GOP member wanting to oppose point 2. Particularly the ones who have learned the Nixon lesson of "spend like a Democrat and they'll never criticize you." Of course, we have no idea from the bill text how much this will really cost.

[Greg]

"ending health insurance discrimination against women"

Would that be complaining about health plans that cover Viagra (a drug used to treat a medical dysfunction) but not birth control pills (a drug used to stop a function that's working perfectly well)?

I want to end insurance discrimination against men. We men pay more for life insurance and auto insurance. We pay the same for long term care insurance and get the same annuity benefit despite shorter life expectancies. This must end! :)

[Appalled Moderate]

Mysterious rule XIV is explained . Is that the best they can do? The resolution to put the bills on the floor is itself debatable, and they will likely lose any vote by the same margin.

By the way, a google search of senate rule XIV calls this little article right up. It's a lot harder to exploit arcane rules, if they are this easy to find.

[Crank]

You should know that contracts aren't the Democrats' strong suit. How about a Tort for America?

[BD]

"SpellChuck"

Proprietary software in which all Senate Democrat Caucus press releases are first vetted by artificial intelligence simulating the thought processes of the "non-Hillary!" Senator from New York, and thereby rendered incomprehensible.

[Ursus]

I just wish they'd realize that moving to Europe is a lot easier than moving Europe here.

[J Thomason]

Let me expand on Mike's comments. Why exactly are the Democrats threatening to push their agenda in response to the "Constitutional Option", instead of ... pushing their agenda? Normally, if you have an agenda, you think that these are worthy endevours and try to have them enacted. So why are the Dems apparently not even trying to do so?

Are the Dems currently confining themselves to merely obstructing Republicans? Their "big" threat is to actually try to do something that they think is constructive instead? That's pathetic.

[Appalled Moderate]

I believe the threat is to call their bills directly to the floor and force possible embarassing votes on them. The result would be to crowd stuff out the GOP wants to talk about.

Problem is, looking at the Rule XIV article I botched the link to (sorry TM)), I wonder how effective that's going to be.

[J Thomason]

"Republicans started this, really; when they removed rules that had previously, for quit some time, allowed the minority party to stop particularly objectionable judges, such as a 'blue slip' from the judge's home state senator in committee."

This has been building for decades now, at least since the Bork hearings. Laying all the blame at the Republicans' feet for a relatively recent occurance doesn't make much sense.

Also, you neglect that in the past such "blue slip" rejections were (presumably) for valid complaints against a certain judge. The Democrats have, unsurprisingly, considerably corrupted the process under Bush. Just look into the stated reason Stabenow and Levin have given for their "blue slips" to 4 Bush nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from Michigan - Bush refuses to re-nominate two of Clinton's nominations.

[Bill Arnold]

"pull the trigger on the nuclear option" seems to be an equal-opportunity mixed metaphor, attributed to at least one Republican senator, and often found with full irony quotes. Perhaps it's a senate in-joke?

[J Dahmus]

Why do the Democrats start off with "Women's Health Care?" Every statistic on the subject that I have ever seen shows women living 5-7 years longer than men. Does this mean that Democrats want to further widen that gap? If the reverse was true (i.e., men living longer than women) don't you think that people like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer would be demanding immediate action to close the gap?

[DaveP.]

The hilarious one is Number Nine: The party of slashing defense appropriations to the bone, spitting on returning veterans, disemboweling the CIA, and restoring the draft SPECIFICALLY because it'll damage military readiness... is going to support the troops.

I'm sure that the troops will be just tickled pink to hear THAT good news.

[Victor]

Greg -- health insurance discrimination against women ...

Yeah, that's the only thing I can think of: contraceptives. Men, of course, have nothing to do with reproduction and no responsibilities if contraceptions fail. Ergo, it's a *woman's* health problem, and if a 64-year old woman wants to buy health insurance, she should put in her fair share to help that 23 year old pay for contraceptives. The 64-year old woman is clearly a sexist bigot, willing to subjugate women. Or something like that.

[Appalled Moderate]

Greg. Don't speculate, read the . Or just read the bill.

You'll find out your educated guess is correct.

[Appalled Moderate]

Bill is here

[Cecil Turner]

You coulda just told 'em they were right. I like the short version of Title III:

This Act may be cited as the `Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act'.

[chuck]

I fully support the Nine Points.

1. Women’s Health Care. Clearly, the people in this country who are engaging in risky sexual conduct and creating a huge number of unintended pregnancies and abortions have only done so because of a lack of sufficient funding for family planning.

2. Veterans’ Benefits. Of course disabled veterans should be able to collect disability, full retirement, and social security benefits, and probably should also get a new additional entitlement.

3. Fiscal Responsibility. I agree with this point in full. There is no reason that taxes should not be continuously increased to meet every special interest's most extravagant desires. What is wrong with a 90% tax rate for everyone who makes more than $5,000 a year?

4. Relief at the Pump. Everyone knows that the release of the pitifully small strategic petroleum reserve will cause gas prices to fall to a nickel a gallon.

5. Education. I am sure that the Democrat party's education plan will continue the unequaled gains in education we have had throughout the 40 year history of Democrat control of the education establishment. I am particularly impressed with the Street Talk Primer for those students that have not had the advantage of being born into the 'hood.

6. Jobs. Yes. It is certainly time for double time for daily hours over 5 and weekly hours over 20. And the $50.00 per hour minimum wage will finally allow our most disadvantaged workers a living wage.

7. Energy Markets. It is about time for the government to completely control all electricity generation and distribution. The government's excellent ability to manage programs is well known.

8. Corporate Taxation. Every corporation that sells anything within the U.S. must be forced to pay U.S. taxes on every dime of revenue they realize throughout the world. (Especially Toyota!)

9. Standing with our troops. The Democrat party is well known for their support of our troops and their mission.

[Neo]

I say respond by making it hurt.

Set the minimum wage for entertainment professionals (lights, sound, sets, makeup) at a mere $250.00/hr. Yes, that reads two-hundred-fifty per hour.

This will take money out of the mouths of celebs and into the mouths of entertainment workers.

[Appalled Moderate]

What do the Democrats mean by fiscal responsbility? Find out here.

[Appalled Moderate]

In Demospeak, "Standing By Our Troops" means this. More jobs means passing this. The education bill the Demos have is this .

Somebody else is going to have to unearth the tax policy they are referring to. I'm tired. But, you all now have all but one of the links to figure out what the Demo 9 points mean, and how they intend to get the bills on the floor. I look forward to informed comment.

[Forbes]

Yes, it would be better if we individually examined each bill proposed by the Senate Deomcrats, as Appalled Moderate sensibly suggests, but let's just make one obvious observation; one that the list shouts out: #3 and imposing the pay-go budget rules as demonstration of their fiscal responsibility bona fides.

Such simplistic approaches merely enforces the reality that the Deomcrat Party is the party of higher taxes--higher taxes being the holy grail of fiscal responsibility.

None of the other proposals require elimination, or a reduction, of any government spending program. Therefore we have a set of proposals guaranteed to increase taxes, and substantially so.

These tax increases are caused by an increase in spending (1, 2 & 5), increase the scope of government through regulation (4 & 7), and an increase in corporate taxes (8).

And don't you just love the idea that increasing the cost of labor (6) is suggested as benefiting jobs.

Is it possible the Deomcrats could be more out of touch?

There isn't a single proposal that addresses immigration, entitlements (Social Security or Medicare), national security (terrorism, homeland security, or intelligence), or foreign relations (trade-CAFTA, or the U.N.), much less regarding the environment, farm bill price supports, or asbestos litigation reform, i.e. issues more important on the national radar screen than full emplyment legislation for teachers' unions and college professors.

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. The Deomcrats are in high dungeon over the possibility of having their obstructionism regarding appellate court judges rolled, and they're threatening votes on.....a fair minimum wage, free condoms, and a roadmap to college!!

Talk about unserious. Next, if the Republicans don't play fair, the Deomcrats are gonna take their ball and go home!

[GAB]

Quick poll for those interested in the budget deficit. Only two choices to dealing with it. Would you a.) raisse taxes? or b.) keep borrowing? Those are the only two options.

Thanks

[Cecil Turner]

"Would you a.) raise taxes? or b.) keep borrowing?"

History suggests the answer is: "both."

[TM]

Good job by Appalled, and thanks very much.

[Aaron]

Raise taxes, and keep borrowing. Because in the end, those options will lead to a drastic CUT in government.

Sure it will require recessions, curreny depreciaions, and a possible default, but finally some bureaucrat will have to be fired.

[creepy dude]

And Osama bin Laden remains at large.

[creepy dude]

Furthermore, since all the Instahack crowd is here,let's have a little wager:

Please post the date the nuclear/constitutional option will be invoked by Majority Leader Frist. "Price is Right" rules apply, i.e. if you guess past the date, you are dsq-ed.:

I'll start-

IT WONT HAPPEN!

[Jason Newcomb]

Blah blah blah blah blah,

You can have everything, blah blah blah.

And no one has to pay for it.

[Cecil Turner]

"And Osama bin Laden remains at large."

And the Dems' alternative is "standing up for our troops and their families"?

Persuasive.

[Jamie]

The whole "Osama bin Laden remains at large" thing... What's the solution, then, creepy? If we pass a law saying he's no longer at large, is he then no longer at large? If we move all our troops currently stationed in Iraq to Afghanistan to beat the bushes for him, do we necessarily find him? If we rightly keep our troops where they are but recognize a need to bulk up the search party, do we enlist the help of the Peace Corps? The UN blue-helmets (hide your daughters)? The Audubon Society - after all, they have binoculars? What's the solution?

Or, what's your point?

Iraq survey group concludes there never were any WMDs in Iraq. Rightwing still in denial; thinks it was an honest mistake.

As opposed to, what, a conspiracy? Newsflash: Leftwing still in denial; thinks it was an evil Rove plan.

Still no government in Iraq. And they haven't even started discussing the hard stuff-they can't agree on who will discuss it. Look for major Shiite street protests soon. What are we going to do for these poor bastards?

We started by giving them the ability to determine their own destiny. We continue by giving them tremendous material support in training and equipping themselves to deal with the responsibilities of democracy in a region where it's traditionally not popular. We continue to continue by bleeping not leaving until they're ready. They act with deliberate haste to name a Kurd president and to divide the VP positions between the major factions; they're nowhere close to Constitution Day; and you dare to complain that they haven't yet established Arbor Day? "Poor bastards" my tired feet... Your sympathies, sir, are either misplaced in time, or false.

[creepy dude]

My point Jamie is I want revenge for the murder of 3,000 people.

Do you believe we have exacted revenge for September 11?

[moopsybuns]

Wow - this reminds me of the movie where the actor (Leslie Neilson?) pulls a gun on himself and declares "stand back! I've got a hostage and I'm not afraid to shoot!" Only this time the Deomocrats apparently have a "nuclear" gun that they will "pull the trigger".

If I'm a liberal I have to wonder -

Where's the support for affirmative action the environment and abortion?

Nine agenda items and no mention of any of these?

This seems more like a threat to liberals that the party will branch off into the mainstream.

I also love the irony of 4 and 7. They are funnier in reverse.

7 - we are going to work to stop manipulation of the engergy markets!

4 - we are going to manipulate the energy markets to drive down energy costs!

[Cecil Turner]

"My point Jamie is I want revenge for the murder of 3,000 people."

Sounds like you want to send the US military on a snipe hunt in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan. (Of course, if you want to do it yourself, go ahead . . . most of us would cheer.)

"Do you believe we have exacted revenge for September 11?"

Revenge? What's the point?

[TM]

My point Jamie is I want revenge for the murder of 3,000 people.

Do you believe we have exacted revenge for September 11?

That off-message announcement from the "no death penalty" party.

Personally, I want to prevent the next 9/11, not avenge the last one.

[Forbes]

Well, it is par for the course that the creepy dude changes the subject. Can anyone say "hijacking the thread." Apparently he has nothing substantive to offer regarding TM's post--but then that's nothing new!
;)

[Marko]

No, c.d., your point is to frantically cast about for Nancy Reid/Harry Pelosi talking points (you seem to have missed the 9-point plan memo), totally devoid of any personal conviction beyond the need for payback for perceived wrongs against liberal power in '00/'04.

Seriously, that 'revenge for 9/11' strawman only seems lifelike when animated by axe handle blows in the DU/DK forums.

[creepy dude]

CT adopts the old chickenhawk argument...nice. Most right wingers hate that one.

TM wants to prevent the next 9/11. Great. Perhaps capturing or killing Osama bin Laden would help in that endeavor.

As for Forbes and Marko-true believers it seems-come on, take me up on my offer and name a date the Repubs will invoke the Constitutional option.

Or are you feeling burned that the Repubs just caved on the ethic rules changes you no doubt defended in January and don't want to be played the fool once again?

[Appalled Moderate]

Funny. I track down the basis for most of the Dem talking points, hoping for substantive debate on what is one of the more civil commenting venues and we get:

Where's Osama;

DeLay's ethics;

Chickenhawkery;

No WMDs, neeter, neeter.

It's enough to make one compose a limerick or haiku or something, or start whistling "Send In The Clowns"

[Cecil Turner]

"CT adopts the old chickenhawk argument...nice. Most right wingers hate that one."

I rather like the chickenhawk argument, as long as you extend it to mean only veterans can have legitimate opinions on defense issues.

And my point was actually more along the lines of TM's statement. Vengeance is personal, national defense is the military's proper role. You want vengeance, you're on your own. And capturing Bin Laden is decidedly not an effective use of military power.

[Marko]

c.d., how's this for a true believer:
- The federal government should not have wasted one minute of effort on the Terry Schiavo case.
- Bush should apologize to the electorate for holding hands with the Saudis and with the mental cases on the religious right.
- I don't care who the pope is, it will make no more difference to me than whether Bush gets his appointments approved.
- Bill Delay/Tom Frist talking points suck almost as badly as democratic talking points.

The issue is that despite the huge opening here for the Democrats (look at recent Fox/Bush ratings), the lack of any convictions cripples you and you are still trying to argue the losing issues from 2004 like Iraq, 9/11, WMD and national security with the same losing front line of Dean/Kerry/Pelosi and Reid.

You also need to get your story together on why I need to worry right now about making a living wage at Walmart, but once I reach retirement and SS kicks in, I've got no worries.

It isn't that I can't find things that suck about Republican politics, it is that the Dems 9-point plan sucks so much more deeply and loudly, with slurping.

[Neo]

I like how 6. Jobs and 8. Corporate Taxation, usually an action/reaction phenomena, are de-linked by having them not be what they are titled. Jobs is actually a minimum wage and overtime issue with no promise of help for making more jobs. Meanwhile the Corporate Taxation issue isn't about taxes but the repatriotization profits.

[creepy dude]

"And capturing Bin Laden is decidedly not an effective use of military power"

Actually I never mentioned using U.S. military power.

Have we placed sufficient pressure on the Pakistanis?
I think not. And if Bush would place his hand around Prince Abdullah's neck rather than in the Prince's hand that might help as well.

[creepy dude]

Marko-I am glad you possess elements of rationality. I'm not the Demo party spokesman, however. I represent a party of one. IMHO, however, the Dems are currently doing ok.

I mean look at this thread. Despite my repeated taunting, no one apparently has faith to guess a date when the Repubs will invoke the nuclear option. Oh ye of little faith...

[Cecil Turner]

"Have we placed sufficient pressure on the Pakistanis?
I think not. And if Bush would place his hand around Prince Abdullah's neck . . . "

Both governments are helping to the point where they're endangering themselves--and in both cases the alternatives are far worse (the primary competitors are Al Qaeda supporters in the Saudi royal family, and Pakistani Islamists). Also in both cases, the contrast with the period before 9/11 (when Pakistani Intelligence was supporting the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia was funneling money to Al Qaeda) is stark. If that's the best plan you can come up with, well . . . you must be a Democrat.

[creepy dude]

You're right CT. President Bush is just handling things perfectly.

[Cecil Turner]

"You're right CT. President Bush is just handling things perfectly."

Judging by the quality of the "improvements" proposed by the "loyal opposition," he must not be doing too badly. (Alternate theory: the Democratic Party is totally bereft of ideas? Hmm . . . needs more study.)

[martin]

Why are you people scoffing at going after bin Laden.

It's like you came home one day to discover your family massacred by a serial killer twisted enough to leave his calling card, e.g. "Hi. I'm Ted Bundy and I just killed your family"

You figure Bundy is hiding in the wilds of Utah. So you:

Delegate the hunt for Bundy to the Utah State Police (ignoring their extensive connections to the Bundy family);
Then you go to the worst neighborhood in town and take down the local gang leader as part of a strategy to reform the neighborhood to prevent conditions that spawn the creation of future serial killers.

Ok, a little goofy, but yes, you're thinking long term...meanwhile:

THERE'S A FUCKIN' SERIAL KILLER ON THE LOOSE!

[Ames Tiedeman]

THE TRUTH:

All immigration is not equal. The European stock that arrived on the shores of America and built this country was reared by Western Values: advance through higher education, work hard, advance ones self, build a grand society, fear God. Thus the rise of the United States of American began.

Immigration: From 1920 to 1964 the United States of America had a near zero immigration policy. America did however still let people of European stock enter the United States and apply for citizenship. In 1920 for instance we specifically banned all immigration from Asia, less Japan, because too many Asians were coming to America as the U.S. Congress stated. America has enjoyed long periods of very little immigration where the assimilation process was allowed to work its magic.

1964 CHANGED AMERICA FOR GOOD: The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1964 changed the face of America forever. This act was signed by President Johnson and was drafted by a very liberal congress. It stated that America would no longer allow a bias toward the European Immigrant. That is, no favoratism would be made toward people built of European stock. You can find this act by running a search on Google.com. The discussions are legendary and the usual suspects are all over it. Ted Kennedy was his usual and of course voted in favor of this act. Anyone who still thinks women are not as smart as men really needs to read this. A wonderful female analyst argued with all the passion God gave her in opposition to this Act. I often wonder where she is today and how she feels about this cultural destruction we have been watching take place in America since 1964.

AMERICA IN 2005:

Today the United States of America is facing a cultural crisis. We have a huge number on uneducated, unskilled people pouring into our country from Mexico. This huge influx of people is creating a country within a country. The racial, cultural, and language differences of the Mexican people, combined with their huge numbers have created a situation where by they do not need to assimilate. It is as if they are simply extending the size of Mexico by simply breeding and moving north. The Mexican government actually encourages and promotes this exercise.

WHAT MUST BE DONE:

We must seal the border with Mexico. We must drive all illegal Mexicans out of the United States of America. Further, we must be prepared to strip every Mexican/American of their citizenship. This will not be an easy task. First, they will burn much of Southern California when we force the illegals to leave. Huge protest rallies will rise up all over the West. It will be very ugly. NAFTA will be cancelled in this process as well. The United States Military will be placed on the border. The Mexicans who have U.S. Citizenship will turn against America in droves. This should be met with a stripping of their U.S. Citizenship. When will what I am suggesting happen, if ever? The seeds have been planted for this kind of final confrontation, but it is decades away. The Mexicans will only have themselves to blame when this happens. Groups like La Raza want Mexico to take back, through their massive birth rate and migration north, control of the west. La Raza holds summer camps where it teaches young Mexican /Americans that California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas belongs to them. Thus, when they reach for empire and are driven from this land, they will only have to blame themselves for being thrown from America. We will not be controlled by these people forever. Our culture and way of life will not be ruined by these un-American savages who hate the white man and do not assimilate because of their hatred and racism against whites. It should be noted that I am often called a racist. The truth is, I am in favor of immigration from all parts of the world except Mexico . No other group that comes to this country dreams of taking it back, killing whites in the process, and destroying America. END ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NOW OR FACE WAR DECADES FROM NOW.

[dsquared]

and the scary thing is, if I point out that this guy's a racist, /that/ would be "uncivil".

[TM]

So, Dsq, you actually bothered to read it? My brain went on "auto-delete".

[Ames Tiedeman]

Look, facts are facts. If you do not think that La Raza holds summer camps where it teaches Mexican/American kids that one day the western part of the United States of America will revert back to Mexican control, then you are simply blinded by truth. Go to the University of Texas. Call on the La Raza chapter there and simply see for yourself what is going on. Go to San Diego State University. Go to that La Raza chapter and see for yourself what is going on. It is not scary, it is TREASON. Even Bill Clinton had the sense to suggest that illegal immigration has the potential to unwind our 50 state union. If you neglect to see a major problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, then you are neglecting the USA. Make no mistake about it. A civil confrontation of sorts a few decades from now is not out of the realm of possibilities. I simply do not see how you can let a people of a different race, culture, and language enter your country and create a country within a country and have eveything work out just fine. The Mexicans want so much more than this. They want the the western part of the USA, plus Texas, back in Mexican control. Keep in mind, to understand the deep seeded hatred of the USA by Mexico you need only read the papers in Mexico City. Their cocktail of hatred against the USA is just as toxic as the hatred from Islam.

[Cecil Turner]

Dude, you can argue against illegal immigration without using terms like "stock" or "breeding" or proposals to "strip every Mexican/American of their citizenship." The only real justificaton needed is that "it's illegal." Try toning down the above post until it's boring. Then you'll be close to something reasonable. (Though I'm not sure why you'd bother, since Michelle Malkin has the subject covered.)

[Ames Tiedeman]

If you cannot figure out that all immigration is NOT equal then you are a complete moron. I would take 500 broke Koreans over 500 broke Mexicans any day of the week. Further, if you do not have the intellect to digest a term like "comes from good stock" then you really are a mental midget. People of British blood for instance have invented 85% of all things ever produced. If one were to then suggest that the British come from "inventive stock" it would neither be racist or offensive.

[Ames Tiedeman]

Look, facts are facts. If you do not think that La Raza holds summer camps where it teaches Mexican/American kids that one day the western part of the United States of America will revert back to Mexican control, then you are simply blinded by truth. Go to the University of Texas. Call on the La Raza chapter there and simply see for yourself what is going on. Go to San Diego State University. Go to that La Raza chapter and see for yourself what is going on. It is not scary, it is TREASON. Even Bill Clinton had the sense to suggest that illegal immigration has the potential to unwind our 50 state union. If you neglect to see a major problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, then you are neglecting the USA. Make no mistake about it. A civil confrontation of sorts a few decades from now is not out of the realm of possibilities. I simply do not see how you can let a people of a different race, culture, and language enter your country and create a country within a country and have eveything work out just fine. The Mexicans want so much more than this. They want the the western part of the USA, plus Texas, back in Mexican control. Keep in mind, to understand the deep seeded hatred of the USA by Mexico you need only read the papers in Mexico City. Their cocktail of hatred against the USA is just as toxic as the hatred from Islam.

[Ames Tiedeman]

The fact is race influences politics, society, and culture. The great explorations, scientific discoveries, inventions, literature, art, and architecture encompassed by Western Civilization have no rival anywhere in the world. European Christian heritage is essential for the survival of our standard of living and way of life. There is no superior replacement for the civilization that has evolved through the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons.

[Cecil Turner]

Oooh. "Complete moron," "mental midget," eh? Very persuasive. (I'd also point out that as a retired Marine, I'm quite inured to people deriding my intellect--though normally they do it with more humor.)

The genetic links to intelligence are not in doubt. (That's why, for example, my kids are likely to be smarter than yours.) Demonstrating the racial distributions are a bit more problematic, and in any event variance between individuals is more significant than between races.

But if you'd like any chance of implementing your modest proposals, you have to convince some of your countrymen to support them. And I think it should be obvious that a public that's not willing to endorse racial profiling of Middle Eastern men to deter Islamic terrorists is unlikely to support stripping those of mixed Hispanic blood of their citizenship. If you want some advice: mop the flecks of foam from the lips, focus on the benefits of legal immigration, and make a case that's mundane enough to appeal to more than 50% of the electorate. Or don't bother.

[Ames Tiedeman]

Look, facts are facts. If you do not think that La Raza holds summer camps where it teaches Mexican/American kids that one day the western part of the United States of America will revert back to Mexican control, then you are simply blinded by truth. Go to the University of Texas. Call on the La Raza chapter there and simply see for yourself what is going on. Go to San Diego State University. Go to that La Raza chapter and see for yourself what is going on. It is not scary, it is TREASON. Even Bill Clinton had the sense to suggest that illegal immigration has the potential to unwind our 50 state union. If you neglect to see a major problem with illegal immigration from Mexico, then you are neglecting the USA. Make no mistake about it. A civil confrontation of sorts a few decades from now is not out of the realm of possibilities. I simply do not see how you can let a people of a different race, culture, and language enter your country and create a country within a country and have eveything work out just fine. The Mexicans want so much more than this. They want the the western part of the USA, plus Texas, back in Mexican control. Keep in mind, to understand the deep seeded hatred of the USA by Mexico you need only read the papers in Mexico City. Their cocktail of hatred against the USA is just as toxic as the hatred from Islam.

[Ames Tiedeman]

One of the bigger things that kills me about this whole immigration movement bullshit is the bullshit argument that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc. were somehow "stolen" from Mexico by the big, bad, evil USA. Oh, because, that's right, Mexico was such a peace loving utopia with the most magnanimous leaders this world has ever seen until we provoked them into finally taking up arms (and, they would have us believe, they did so begrudgingly). GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. Ever heard of the Constitution of 1824??? Where was your fucking peace-loving Mexican Utopia when Santa Anna decided to wipe that Constitution with his ass??? If any nation was ever a war-mongering, land-grabbing nation it was Mexico, and Spain before it. We stole the southwestern states??? Go cry me a river. Apparently history began when Mexico lost their land. Bullshit.

The only thing someone who professes this bullshit can say, while still being honest, is that we won, they lost, and they are bitter about it. And it's not as if their culture made such a huge impact at the time to even claim that it was a de facto Mexican state. This isn't the Rhineland. This isn't Alsace-Lorraine. The culture(s) in these regions, be they American, German, Scandinavian, Irish, American Indian, or anything else, not only rivaled but overpowered the "overwhelming" Mexican influence they claim they had. These regions were more Americanized than angry Mexicans today could ever hope to believe (why do you think Santa Anna rescinded the Constitution of 1824??? Texas was becoming too American and too hard to control under Mexican rule.). Most Mexican culture that is now commonplace in these regions is because of the gracious, freedom-loving culture of the US that embraces other cultures and allows outsiders to practice their customs freely, not because these regions are just "so obviously Mexican". If Mexico wants to claim these regions as their own, then I suggest they order their "army" to gather both their rifles, get on their squadron of mules, and just try to "take it back". Otherwise, shut the fuck up, stop taking advantage of a putrid welfare system, and, hey, here's an idea, maybe try to improve your own damn country instead of holding the US responsible for it being the shithole that it is.