I’m just glad to be here.

Years ago I was engaged in a conversation with an old acquaintance – we went on something of a metaphysical tack. He stopped the conversation with, “Well, you know, I’m just glad to be here.”

I’m also very glad that progressive blogtopia (yes, we’re very much aware that skippy coined the phrase!) is here in its present form (since our old media does such a uniformly poor job). The progressive blogs were not quite there for the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I had some interesting experiences on the Internets in the lead up to the 2004 election. I spent far too much time on the Forum for America, the Howard Dean campaign’s lesser know cousin to the much more famous (and less sophisticated) Blog for America.

One of those eye opening experiences was an interaction between denizens of the Dean Forum and Newsweek:

The Dean Dilemma, January 12, 2004

…The murmurs of doubt are faint, barely audible above the background hum of the Internet cosmos, but they are worth listening to at the moment, for the doubters don’t seem to be “trolls”–provocateurs in digital disguise–and they express concerns about their favorite son, Dr. Howard Dean, in the bosom of his own blogosphere.

“Dammit, tell him to get his mouth under control!” says “WVMicko” on a forum conducted by Dean’s official Web site. “He’s been all over the map on a lot of things, and the way he shoots off his mouth is a big reason why.” A poster to the site named “Lancaster” frets that his wife is put off by Dean’s confrontational personality. “Her initial reaction to Dean? ‘That guy scares me.’ Now, I’m not a full-fledged Deanie, but I’m strongly leaning that way… but she’s still not convinced that Dean is the right guy for the job.” A writer named “irmaly” also views Dean’s personality as a vulnerability. “I am a strong Dean supporter,” irmaly declares, “but I think the campaign is missing this most important point–the need to focus strongly on getting up over the perception of ‘mean, angry Dean.’ Dean is portrayed as a man who, rather than share a beer in a local hangout, will fight you for yours. I realize this isn’t true, but Bush and Company knows perception is everything, and they have already had some success at seriously hurting Dean on this perception. I don’t know how you get up over this, but you have to, or we will lose…”

There are a lot of lessons in those two paragraphs. The individuals quoted in the article spent an ungodly amount of time and effort trying to correct the record – to no avail. If I recall correctly the discussion on the Forum (the old archives are long gone – there are a few fragments on the wayback machine) pointed out that a stringer had taken the quotes and passed them on to Newsweek which just plugged them into their pre-existing narrative.

A question: How could Newsweek prove if someone was a troll or not?

The main lesson: Never give the media anything that detracts from your candidate’s messages and strategies. Another simpler lesson: The Internets are forever. If everyone on this public blog can read it, so can the media.

The memory of that early January 2004 distraction was dredged up by a series of exchanges I took part in this weekend on another political site I used to  visit more frequently in the past. Until this crazy season for the amateur fans of our candidates ends (I’m hoping for February 5th) the once venerable site will continue to be the equivalent of a bunch of junior high school students throwing food in the cafeteria.

Contrary to my best intentions, I got sucked into the vortex.

I’m old school when it come to snark. Sarcasm combined with experience and an economy of words can be far too much fun. Though directing snark at humorless and psychotic true believers can generate a lot of heat.

Too many of the undisciplined amateur fans (of all Democratic presidential candidates) spend their time perpetuating right wingnut stories, talking points, and memes by directing them at the other Democratic candidates. They throw everything against the wall in the hope that something will stick, never realizing, or caring about the long term damage. The reality is that one of those candidates will be the nominee – and our lazy old media will dredge up all kinds of stuff on the progressive Internets to fit into their pre-existing narrative.

A disciplined and savvy candidate fan intent on working the progressive blogs could reinforce their candidates’ campaign message while simultaneously directing their search engine skills at the foibles of whoever happens to be that day’s republican front runner. I know, it’s probably too much to ask.  

The right and their media stenographers have already started in on all of the Democratic candidates (as if any of us should ever believe anything Novacula writes). We don’t need to do their work for them.

Remember the 2000 campaign? Remember 2004?

Campaigns know about controlling their messages with the media. Too many amateur fans don’t have a clue. When I walked the Harkin Steak Fry in September the sea of campaign workers and volunteers seeing my red press credential avoided me like the plague. The campaigns drill that into their staff and volunteers at these events – that’s discipline. And discipline is what it will take to beat the republicans at all levels in 2008.

Repetition is sound pedagogy. Never give the media anything that detracts from your Democratic Party nominee’s messages and strategies.

When it comes to the Scott Eckersley firing, “mistakes were made”. Ed Martin fired the young lawyer and then, “with the full knowledge of the governor,  … orchestrated a taxpayer-funded character assassination unlike anything ever seen before in Missouri government.”  None of that should have been done.  

Luckily, our governor is not one to pawn off the blame on someone else.  Sure, Martin screwed up, but Blunt was cognizant of the smear that was publicized and the e-mails that were hidden, so he shouldered the responsibility, or … at least appeared to:

“I’m the governor, I’m responsible for what happens in state government.”

How very manly of him, except that he’s still not admitting to the lies that were told and the e-mails that were concealed behind attorney/client privilege.  

NPR’s “Media Matters”, speaking last spring about Alberto Gonzales’ stonewalling, offered a critique of political non-confessions:

COMMENTATER BOB GARFIELD:  So in the long tradition of politicians in whose hands cookies have been found, the passive voice was invoked. Because in Washington, that’s how things are done. The magical construction was popularized during Watergate by Nixon spokesman Ron Ziegler and since has become a Washington tense unto itself, dubbed by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider “the past exonerative.”

In January, for instance, on the subject of Iraq, the past exonerative was invoked by President Bush.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

BOB GARFIELD: Mind, that’s not the same as “my fault.” It’s more like “the buck stops here.” But it wasn’t put here by me. I didn’t even touch the thing. I mean, the thing wasn’t even touched by me.

And here’s Ronald Reagan in his 1986 State of the Union Address when the Iran-Contra scandal was discussed.

RONALD REAGAN: It’s obvious that the execution of these policies was flawed, and mistakes were made. I know the stories of the past few weeks have been distressing. I am deeply disappointed this initiative has resulted in such a controversy, and I regret it’s caused such concern and consternation.

BOB GARFIELD: That was a special historical moment because in the non-confession were combined the past exonerative with its non-apology cousin, responsibility once removed. In that case, one need never acknowledge wrongdoing, only others’ unhappiness that perhaps a wrong has been done.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused of pawing a number of women, for instance, he was heard to utter the classic, I’m sorry if anyone was offended – which didn’t really address his conduct but apparently was deemed more politically advantageous than, but they were so hot!

Now, it’s been pointed out in the editing process that all the examples you have just heard concerned Republicans. If anyone sees this as unfair, I regret it. I accept full responsibility, but I assure you no mistakes were made.

The only real mistake that was made in the Eckersley/Blunt/Martin fiasco was made by reporters who kept pressing for solid information.  And Blunt gave them the sort of answer that such impertinence deserves:

“If you’re confused, that’s my intent.”

The more I read Lakoff, the more I realize that language really does matter.  Take for example Fran Townsend, outgoing Homeland Security Adviser, reiterating a previous statement of hers on MSNBC regarding the failure of the Administration to capture Bin Laden.  “It’s a success that hasn’t happened yet”. Right!   Townsend then goes on to comment on the Bush torture program as being relatively small with limited “eligibility for the program”.  How cool is that, linguistically speaking of course.   The word eligibility casts a desirable hue on the ugly image of torture.   Compare that with a local congressman’s comment regarding single payer health care that went something like this; “I support Single Payer but I don’t think it is feasible to do at this time”. Lakoff would identify that statement as a “surrendering in advance” statement. In all fairness to the solidly progressive congressman, I was gently reminded by ricklm that he had signed onto the Conyers bill, 636 Medicare for All. “So, while his heart is certainly in the right place, it seems that his lingo has just not caught up..  It is not easy, especially when you have to ad lib at a moment’s notice.

But the other side is very hard at work. After 35 years and $4 billion, they have assembled a system of dozens of think tanks and training institutes staffed by right wing intellectuals. They have dominated the world of issues framing and have changed American politics.  A new post showing  at the Mother Jones site reports on a focus group recently held in Virginia to test-market language to get tougher on Iran.  According to a focus group regular this is how it went:

On November 1, she went to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she discovered that she had been called in for what seemed an unusual assignment: to help test-market language that could be used to sell military action against Iran to the American public. “The whole basis of the whole thing was, ‘we’re going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it?”

We live in a fast moving world of sound bites.  Lost in the cacophony is time for reason and reflection. Images from sound bites guide us. And the republican machine delivers up the sound bites that influence those images.    Consider the following; terror, terrorist, war, evil, evildoer, good guys, bad guys, mushroom cloud, bitch, (now tacitly approved by the McCain crowd to use against Hilary) bitchslap.   The images created by these bites arouse deeply embedded cultural attitudes, basic frames in each of us that represent our particular moral worldview.  More recently added to the repertoire are images evoked by the terms 9/11, jihad, and Islamic.   It is easy for the Republican machine to carry the day in framing the issues by building on the negative attitudes precipitated by the sound bite.  Democrats are left holding their hats and integrity in their hands.

Democrats would be wise to develop their own set of sound bites and avoid trying to operate off the Republican standard.  They only come off sounding defensive or inauthentic. Consider “cut and run” which is built on the images of war and evildoers.  It sold.  In a war it is cowardly to cut and run.  In attempts to counter this, John Murtha offered a slogan, “stay and pay” and Kerry came up with “lie and die”. According to Lakoff, the “pay” and “die” responses accept the war frame, but take the save-our-skins position, which in the war frame is considered cowardly and immoral. Needless to say, neither slogan flew. The progressive congressman’s “surrender in advance” comment exemplifies defensiveness.

Progressives missed the boat early on in allowing the occupation of Iraq to be termed a war.  Had it been appropriately termed an occupation, it would have greatly enhanced the progressive position for framing, just as it would have hampered the republican machine for mischief.  I have noticed a few stalwarts that have doggedly (and correctly) continued to refer to the Iraq mess as an occupation.  We have also fallen into the “illegal immigrant” trap.  Images created by this frame are felons, job usurpers, and social services stealers.  Lakoff recommends using the term “illegal employers” thus enabling us to reframe the debate based on demands for equitable wage and worker safety laws rather than pitting undocumented workers against American workers while overlooking a system that drives down all of their wages and endangers their health and welfare. Lesson number one is that we need to stop using the Republican playbook.

Progressives are well versed on historical facts and are able political analysts. We have a rich history of championing social and economic justice, and equality causes. We are not strangers to the struggle, witness the nurses on the line in Kentucky and West Virginia right now. But we do need to get a handle on our lexis and turn the tables on the Republican machine.  Otherwise they will keep us twisting in the wind as they pillage and plunder in the name of patriotism.

Freshman Senator Bob Corker (R – Tennessee)  stunned more than a few folks with his relatively honest assessment of aWol’s acumen re: Iraq…

“I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House,” Corker said.

Bob – if you continue down this path, we are going to have to show you the secret handshake known only to members of the “Reality Based Community.”

Twenty-seven candidates have filed with the Secretary of State to be on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 Missouri presidential primary. The list of candidates includes nine Democrats, six Libertarians and twelve republicans.

The Democratic Party candidates are (in ballot order)[name, address, first day of filing lottery number, date of filing]:

Hillary Clinton 4420 North Fairfax Dr. Arlington VA 22203 11 10/23/2007

Barack Obama 233 N. Michigan Ave., 11th Flo Chicago IL 60601 18 10/23/2007

John Edwards 410 Market St., Ste. 400 Chapel Hill NC 27516 10/24/2007

Ralph Spelbring 236 Bank Street Elkhart IN 46516 11/13/2007

Dennis J. Kucinich P. O. Box 110180 Cleveland OH 44111 11/16/2007

Bill Richardson 111 Lomas Blvd. NW, Ste. 200 Albuquerque NM 87102 11/16/2007

Joe Biden P. O. Box 438 Wilmington DE 19899 11/19/2007

Christopher J. Dodd P. O. Box 51882 Washington DC 20091 11/19/2007

Mike Gravel 1916 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 202 Arlington VA 22201 11/20/2007

In 1992 Ralph Spelbring received 537 votes (0.34%) in the Kansas presidential primary. In 2006 he received 10,324 votes (30.50%) in the Indiana 6th Congressional District Democratic primary. He does write letters to the editor.

The Libertarian candidates (in ballot order):

Wayne A. Root

Daniel Imperato

George Phillies

Michael P. Jingozian

Steve Kubby

Dave Hollist

The republican candidates (in ballot order):

Ron Paul

Fred Thompson

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Mike Huckabee

Virgil L. R. Wiles [from Missouri!]

Tom Tancredo

Duncan Hunter

Hugh Cort

Alan Keyes

Daniel Gilbert

I have a sneaking suspicion that Ron Paul will do fairly well in Missouri. Old time political conventional wisdom says that being at the top of the ballot translates into a few more votes.

…to one and all.

May your holiday be filled with joy and laughter and fun and family and friendship, and if football is your thing, add it to the list!

May you eat too much and have a nap and wake up and eat some more.

Here are some of the things I am thankful for today and every day:

My family – my husband, our son and daughters, our granddaughter and our extended families.

My friends – from those nearby, like Catherine in the corner unit to those far flung, like  all of you who have become  more than just text to me.

My home – not just the coop in the city, but my rural Missouri roots.  The grandparents who had a gaggle of grandkids swoop in on them for weeks every summer that kept us grounded and gave us a sense of permanence and place.

American citizenship – and the Constitution on which it stands.  While it has been cheapened and debased and degraded the last seven years, it is still worth fighting and dieing for, and it will take more than aWol Bush and Darth Cheney to destroy this country.  To that end, I am thankful that 1/20/09 is coming.

I am thankful for people who step up and serve.  People like my father and father-in-law, my husband, my nephew, my cousins and aunts and uncles and friends.  People who realize that there are things bigger than themselves and that those things are worth standing up for.

I am thankful for the internet that brings us all together, and lets us find our like-minded brothers and sisters.  I am humbled that so many of you come by here every day to read our ranting and offer your own feedback and perspectives.  I strive to inform, and it’s a two-way street – I learn from you all every day.   And for that, I am truly thankful.

After a brief respite, the letters to the editor have started up again.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males published in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], here [part 6], here [part 7], here [part 8], here [part 9], and here [part 10].

Two letters were published in today’s edition of the paper. One complained about the subject, the other was a lengthy diatribe.

The headers for the letters were provided by the paper.

The first letter:

Get Priorities In Order

“I have held off writing this letter, but enough is enough…

[a description of coverage of the story in the Kansas City media market]

…I am concerned that so many people in the community think this is such a major issue that they’re still writing and voicing opinions about it two months later…

…Please, people of Warrensburg, let’s prioritize things. Let it go.”

Gee, intolerance isn’t pleasant and doesn’t reflect well on the community when such sees the light of day in the local newspaper and beyond. Do you think maybe people should speak out against intolerance? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Sometimes a satirist is presented with something that is too good to be true – one might refer to it as “a target rich environment.” I usually refer to writing about something like this (satirically, of course) as the discursive equivalent of “clubbing baby harp seals.”

The second letter was quite lengthy and criticized the paper along with all those too tolerant elements in society:

Gay Unions Are Aberrant

“If you can stand it, one more letter on your engagement picture. I have known and worked with a number of gay people and generally found them to be good workers and decent people as long as they don’t talk about their other activities. Nevertheless I would not trust them in certain professions…

…In addition, such unions have no possibility of ever being fruitful. Hence, an aberration…

…Your story-picture about a gay union does two things, neither of which helps the community. First, it appears to give legitimacy to such unions and this advances the gay political agenda. Second, it tends to encourage young people still in their formative years, to believe that it is okay to experiment with homosexuality.

No doubt I will be castigated for this letter, but that too is part of the gay agenda…

…love the sinner, hate the sin.”

“…I have known and worked with a number of gay people and generally found them to be good workers and decent people…” That ‘s code for “some of my best friends are gay, but…” or “They’re nice enough, but I wouldn’t want one of them marrying my son/daughter…”

Priceless. “…as long as they don’t talk about their other activities…” My goodness, they might talk about going to a professional sporting event, or having dinner at a restaurant, or attending a church social event. I wonder if gay people put their pants on one leg at a time. Oh, the humanity…

“…Nevertheless I would not trust them in certain professions…” I guess that means king, or soldier, or scientist, or diplomat is out. Oh, I get it. It’s about teachers. There’s that fear that all the innocent children could catch being gay. Or maybe they’d catch tolerance? There’s a thought.

“…In addition, such unions have no possibility of ever being fruitful. Hence, an aberration…” I suppose that a loving couple who can’t conceive children for whatever reason would really appreciate being called “an aberration.”

“…Your story-picture about a gay union does two things, neither of which helps the community. First, it appears to give legitimacy to such unions and this advances the gay political agenda. Second, it tends to encourage young people still in their formative years, to believe that it is okay to experiment with homosexuality…” Actually, the story did a third thing. It brought a lot of intolerant people “out of the closet.” The irony is quite delicious, don’t you think?

It might be just me, but I figure the gay political agenda is to throw politicians out of office who cynically exploit a minority of narrow minded individuals’ fear of all things gay as a wedge issue for base political purposes. That sounds like a worthy enterprise.

“…No doubt I will be castigated for this letter, but that too is part of the gay agenda…” You think?  I figured the gay agenda was to promote tolerance for others, but I guess it really revolves around targeting isolated people who don’t cotton to their agenda.  It’s amazing what you can learn just by reading the local newspaper.

“…love the sinner, hate the sin”
Hate the bigotry and intolerance, pity the bigoted and intolerant.

And, while we’re at it, there ought to be a law against using too many paranoid clichés in letters to the editor.

How are you at deciphering political-speak?  Here’s some that needs decoding from the news story about Ed Martin’s departure from the governor’s office.  Blunt said that Martin “wants to pursue other opportunities” and spend more time with ….”  You could finish that sentence without my help, right?  Spend more time with his family, of course, just like Karl Rove.  Like Odysseus returning home from twenty years of war and adventures, the conquering hero just wants to snuggle up to Penelope and while away his dotage.

Translation:  He put us on the hot seat once too often, so we had to can his ass.  But don’t worry, he’ll end up working for the Archdiocese in St. Louis again.  And if that doesn’t pan out, we’ll find a slot for him in some think tank or agency.  We Republican high muckety mucks are loyal to the other big shots. We always find a wingnut welfare slot for our recently disgraced.

That’s what Matt would say if he dared.  Not that he does dare, but, in fact, he came perilously close to being honest.  When reporters pressed him to say whether he had fired Martin, he started out with, “Ed Martin resigned.”  (And he’s a wonderful person, blah, blah, blah.)  Translation:  Change the subject; I’m not answering that question. 

But reporters continued to press.  After they had asked the question four times, Blunt finally said:  “If you’re confused, that’s my intent.”  Impressive.  That’s more plain speaking than I would have expected from him.  It’s almost as if he didn’t want to flat out lie,  but considering his track record, that would be puzzling.  This late in the game, why get finicky about a little fib over firing Martin?

Whatever.  However the governor wants to explain (or not explain) it, Martin’s gone.  Too bad in a way:  The man had a talent for getting his boss in trouble, and he will be missed.  He was one of those family values people without any civic virtue, one of those abortion moralists who believed in lying, underhanded tricks, one of those people … who got caught at it.