Bouncy ‘bama?

Politico.com does a great job here of breaking down the number game in the wake of the conventions and running mate announcements. Whether or not they are correct will have to be measured after the first new national polls come out tomorrow.

Democratic Convention Coverage

Share your live reactions with the Weekly Filibuster, immediately following each night’s speeches. We’ll be broadcasting LIVE from the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver! Our team will provide immediate analysis on all of the night’s events, as well as TAKE YOUR CALLS LIVE.

Be sure to tune in, as we’ll likely be chatting with special guests from the convention floor….

Weekly Filibuster 2008 Democratic National Convention Coverage
Wednesday Night 11pm – Midnight Eastern
Thursday Night 11pm – Midnight Eastern
Friday Night 10pm-11pm Eastern

Bad Dinner Conversations

I have started a new blog here. Check it out and let me know what you think!

The WF Team Goes to DENVER!

Yes, the rumors are true. Three of our regular contributors to the show will be traveling to Denver for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ben Goodman, our courageous Moderator, as a delegate representing Sen. Obama. Tom Dec as a volunteer for the convention and an attendee to the College Democrats National Convention. And Robert Burack, one of the few lucky supporters from the State of Michigan to achieve a community credential [to INVESCO].

In addition to the show, you can read blog posts of our experiences at BenjaminGoodman.com, for Ben, and ThomasDec.com, for Tom.

See you in Denver!

The BBC on Why I Sympathize More With Russia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562611.stm

Russians losing propaganda war

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in Tbilisi on 13 August 2008
Most of the Western media is based in Georgia

The Bush administration appears to be trying to turn a failed military operation by Georgia into a successful diplomatic operation against Russia.

It is doing so by presenting the Russian actions as aggression and playing down the Georgian attack into South Ossetia on 7 August, which triggered the Russian operation.

Yet the evidence from South Ossetia about that attack indicates that it was extensive and damaging.

Blame game

The BBC’s Sarah Rainsford has reported: “Many Ossetians I met both in Tskhinvali and in the main refugee camp in Russia are furious about what has happened to their city.

“They are very clear who they blame: Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili, who sent troops to re-take control of this breakaway region.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on 13 August 2008
Has Moscow learned yet how to play the media game?

Human Rights Watch concluded after an on-the-ground inspection: “Witness accounts and the timing of the damage would point to Georgian fire accounting for much of the damage described [in Tskhinvali].”

One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so.

Most of the Western media is based in Georgia. The Russians were slow to give access from their side and this has helped them lose the propaganda war.

Georgia, meanwhile, was comparing this to Prague in 1968 and Budapest in 1956. Even the massacre at Srebrenica was recalled.

Mud sticks

The comparisons did not fit the facts, but some of the mud has stuck and Russia has been on the international defensive.

The visit by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Georgia is a signal of support for Mr Saakashvili.

Significantly, she is not paying a matching visit to Moscow but will return directly to the United States where she will brief President George W Bush in Texas.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington on 13 August 2008
Washington has accused Russia of widening the conflict

She has refused to condemn Georgia and barely acknowledged Russia’s point that it had to protect its peacekeeping forces (a battalion-sized unit allowed in South Ossetia along with Georgian and North Ossetian and South Ossetian forces under a 1992 agreement).

Instead she blamed Russia for widening the conflict by bombing beyond what the 1992 deal called the “zone of conflict” in South Ossetia.

She said: “This is something that, had it been about South Ossetia, could have been resolved within certain limits.

“Russian peacekeepers were in the area; that is true. And Russia initially said it needed to act to protect its peacekeepers and its people.

“But what Russia has done is well beyond anything that anyone could say is for the protection of those people and for those peacekeepers.”

HAVE YOUR SAY

Russia’s relations with the US may recover. Its relations with the “near abroad” are shattered forever

Stephen Thake, Valletta, Malta
Send us your comments

The Americans have sent in planes full of humanitarian aid, again a symbol of support.

But they have sent no military supplies. Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said: “I don’t see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation. Is that clear enough?”

US diplomacy is also concentrating on the issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity – which means that South Ossetia and the other restless region, Abkhazia, must remain within Georgian borders. Russian has questioned this.

Moscow’s anger

This widens the whole question into one of Russian behaviour generally, which is much surer ground for the Bush administration. The US will continue to press for eventual Georgian and Ukrainian membership of Nato.

The Republican presidential hopeful Senator John McCain also sees in this conflict an opportunity to put Russia in the dock, declaring: “We are all Georgians now.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) and Dmitry Medvedev at G8 in Japan on 9 July 2008
Germany, at least, has been notably reluctant to find fault with Russia

All this is likely to anger Moscow, which will feel that it has a case and that it is being ignored. Right from the start it said that the operation was not an invasion.

The adverse effect on US-Russia relations, about which Mr Gates warned, is going to be a two-way process.

There are signs, though, that there is some sympathy for Russia within the European Union – although not among the Eastern European states who still fear Russia and not in the British government, which has matched the US line about Russian “aggression”.

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel is seeing Russian leaders and while she too will urge them not to challenge borders, the German government has been notably reluctant to blame Russia.

Capitalist Freedom, If You Can Keep It

At its heart, capitalism is all about freedom. It is not the kind of freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights; it is not an intellectual set of sanctioned activities. It is unlikely to be discussed in complicated court cases and academic settings for hours on end, and it is unlikely to be hailed as a great moral accomplishment any time soon. Indeed, many people truly believe that capitalism is tyranny and that it ought to be destroyed from the Earth. Often, these people are South American revolutionaries who don military uniforms and give themselves titles that do not exist in real armies. Some of them have recently become quite powerful in places like Venezuela and Bolivia. These men talk a lot about liberation and liberty against profit. I have but one question for them:

What could possibly make me freer in my day to day life than to be able to spend the rewards of my work on virtually whatever pleases me, given by whoever I want it from, as often as I like without answering to anyone? I do not tend to exercise my freedom to criticize my government quite as often as I purchase food from cafeterias, nor do I attend church (quite) as often as I surf the internet provided by Comcast. I do not bear arms as often as I pay term bills to Harvard. Thanks to money and free markets, I have every right in the world to study where I place, browse whenever I want, and eat when I feel like it. How can I possibly be freer than that?

There are many voices out there, fortunately not many in America, that believe that collective choice and social control of capital somehow makes us freer. They believe that the state should provide health care for all, educate everyone, tax as much as is needed to meet everyone’s needs, give guaranteed wages to everyone, and build houses for every person. This, they say, makes people freer. After all, they protest, why should $40,000 be spent on a luxury car for a rich executive when it could provide textbooks for needy schools?

Every now and then, something comes up that makes me think another two seconds about how we distribute wealth in a capitalist society. This article was one of those things:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26182276/

Girls as young as eight getting bikini waxes. What an absolutely barbaric practice and a completely immoral waste of money. If people really are this stupid and materialistic, perhaps the socialists really are onto something. The people who came in to eat at the soup kitchen today could certainly have used the $115 or more it costs to strip off hair down there on a PRETEEN to keep from going hungry for the next week. One guy really, really could have used that money: he has been living out of the back of his VW Golf for quite a while now. He does not mind, though. After all, at least he has his own place for his stuff. If people really are superficial enough to make their tweens into bikini beauties, maybe we do need the state to come in, tax away, and redistribute money towards better causes.

Three things keep me a capitalist: people are not this stupid, the state is not any smarter, and the law is a pretty awful way to get people to care about each other.

I say again: people are not this stupid. Our airwaves are filled up with this crap because it still has the capacity to shock us. That is a really good sign that society may not be as bad off as the naysayers maintain. I will go out on a limb here and suggest that this article did not exactly inspire more mothers to decide to morph their kids into the next pinup girls. The overwhelming majority of people are still entirely disgusted by these kinds of priorities and still believe that no child should be made into a plastic princess before she even hits high school. Indeed, thanks to those feminists I am not generally a fan of, there are even hot-blooded secular opponents to the exploitative, falsely aesthetic culture out there. Most people are still content to spend their money on house payments, utility bills, food, medicine, schooling, and education. As for those who are not, well, they are nothing new. Their philosophical ancestors were sitting around ancient Rome making love to statues of Venus and caking on lead makeup in Victorian England. Evidently natural selection does not work mentally as well as it does physically nowadays. Pity.

If I am wrong and the people have fallen into true disgrace, though, the government is the last place I would look to right the wrongs. As a student of government who may well run for office some day, I feel quite comfortable saying that getting political power means diving to the absolute lows of society. Washington is chock full of adulterers, liars, egoists, pansies, and all-around moral wusses. If you are smart enough not to trust John Edwards with your girlfriend, Brownie with your disaster relief, Ted Kennedy with your keys, and Larry Craig with your boyfriend, why the hell would you be stupid enough to give these people your money? These are the guys who subsidized Viagra, mohair production, and research centers that may not even exist: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/the_10_dumbest_votes_in_the_us.php

The government’s guilt and people’s general intelligence might skewer the socialists in a pretty big way, but they cannot exonerate the bopper bikini waxers. Nothing does. Nothing can justify the gross materialism and addiction to money that lets markets for fourth houses, fully-functioning replica Batmobiles, and botulism toxin (where do you think the name BoTox comes from?) face injections flourish.

Instead of restricting the right of people to the money they have worked for and letting bureaucrats organize economic activity, how about teaching people to blush again? Where is the social pressure against disgraceful spending? We have learned through many years of experience that it is okay to hate Nazi rallies while still defending free speech and that we can call Scientology a whacked-out cult without offending freedom of religion. It is high time that we start calling for respectful self-restraint when it comes to money.

Every freedom is able to exist and flourish because it is used respectfully and to make a point. We do not cringe when we see violent or even suggestive art with biting social commentary, but we do and should slam artists who love the avant-garde for its own sake. Pushing the envelope must serve a greater means and not trespass the basic notions of decency held by society. Yale art student Aliza Shvarts learned that after a deluge of criticism came in when she told reporters that she had filmed herself aborting for the sake of challenging expectations. Our freedoms are alive and well only when we do not abuse them for our own warped pleasures and ideas of novelty. We need to realize that the same truth applies to the free use of money. Spending simply for the point of spending, pampering, and proving that you can is worthy of serious rebuke.

Noblesse oblige, asceticism, humility, and plenty of other fine moral ideals offer a different way to live. Rather than restricting personal wealth and forcefully redistributing capital, morality is the mechanism by which we call on the wealthy to remember the duties that come with their freedoms. It is not that we ask for duties as a consolation prize in exchange for giving the rich total freedom; it is that we all share duties in society in order to preserve our freedom. When each of us believes in life without intoxicating materialism and acts accordingly, our freedoms flourish and give us the prosperity that we hope for in them. When we ditch our own duties and leave morality for the philosophers, preteen girls lose their pubic hair.

And that, fellow Americans, is something we should never let the commies hold over our heads.

Give Peace a Chance

This summer, it seems like the victims of the culture wars just keep racking up. It used to be that the only battlefields for the culture wars were intellectual. Ann Coulter would publish a book about godless liberals and the New York Times would run a foreign culture piece about abstinent Americans. Occasionally Christmas would get caught in the crossfire between baby killers and capitalist pig-dogs. Otherwise, though, it was plain and obvious to most Americans that liberals are not actually Maoists in disguise and Republicans do not honestly want to sell the Supreme Court to the highest bidder.

The inflamed rhetoric and often comical excess of the culture wars all became shockingly and traumatically real this summer when, just a few weeks ago, a gunman entered a Unitarian Universalist Church in Tennessee during the production of a children’s show and opened fire with a shotgun, killing two adults and wounding seven others.

His declared motive for the attacks? “All liberals should be killed.” He truly believed that liberals are defeating America in the War on Terror and that homosexuality cannot be tolerated in society. Although he is hardly the stereotypical right-winger (he slammed a neighbor’s Christian beliefs earlier and said that everything in the Bible is false), he was a fervent believer in the necessity of fighting a culture war, inspired by books written by talk radio and television commentators from the fighting right.

Today, it appears that the madness is continuing. A man entered the headquarters of the Arkansas Democratic Party and shot the chairman. No one was killed in the attack, and no motives have yet been released, but in light of the last attack, it seems only too possible that this was the next flashpoint in the culture wars. I honestly hope that the next few days will prove me completely wrong and show the church shooting in Tennessee to be an isolated event, but as a conservative in outlook I am not naturally optimistic about such things.

It is tragic that the rise of participatory citizenship in the internet age has meant that such extremism has had outlets to grow. We are living in a day and age in which any person can get access to ideas and become an advocate for issues. This newfound sense of connectedness and awareness is absolutely fantastic for freedom and can help our country thrive in the next generation.

Unfortunately, the explosion in passion has not been matched by an upswing in principle. People still cling to labels and marketed identities, refusing to take the time to let reason inform their beliefs. This means that we have people who truly believe that political ideology is the starting point of morality, rather than an offshoot of it. Thus, when one attacks conservatism, they are godless scum who need to be cleansed from the Earth. Of course this belief cannot possibly fit within the label “conservatism,” which is all about traditional values, community rights, national sovereignty, and free markets.

Nothing in these ideas embraces the butchering of human beings.

The right-wing has gotten caught up in this mess more than the left because, for one reason or another, it has sold out its intellectual heritage. In past generations, the right believed in men of intellectual integrity and tested reason, like William Buckley, George Santayana, Russell Kirk, and Milton Friedman. These men were passionate and even temperamental at times, but always smart enough and grounded in principle enough to truly believe in the human scale and social harmony, at least to the point of refusing to allow terrorism to become a means of change.

Now, we are somehow left with Rush Limbaugh, who praises Red China’s socialist fuel subsidies; Michael Savage, who does not believe in autism; and Ann Coulter, who believes that the 2004 GOP convention was “heaven.”

Is it any wonder that such brutal stupidity and antithetical thinking leads to very real death?

It is time to call off these culture wars, fueled by blatant idiocy, brazen propaganda, and the embrace of the very same anti-intellectualism that conservatives once prided themselves in standing against.

And it is time for all of us to set aside our philosophical arguments and conjecturing for a little while and devote our thoughts and prayers to the victims and perpetrators of these awful crimes against humanity.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/13/arkansas.shooting/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/27/church.shooting/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/07/call_for_culture_war_truce.html

Edwards Admits To Affair

Just imagine this coming out if he was the nominee.

Think the pundits really can predict a VEEP?

Some historical context…

Never Surrender

Via Entertainment Weekly:

EW: Who controls the remote at home, you or Cindy?

McCain: Sometimes I win the arm wrestling contest, but foolishly she continues to try to assert her control over the remote. This is a battle that will continue for a long time. But there are shows we agree on. We like the reruns of “Seinfeld.” I really like “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” I kind of like “Dexter,” too, although it certainly has a macabre side to it. I’ll tell you that Cindy likes “Big Love” — I haven’t watched it much, but she enjoys that. And I like The Wire” a lot, too. That’s a great show.

These little things are a glimpse into a candidate’s psyche? 100 years, anyone?

Something to Consider…

Obama-Winfrey ‘08?

Picture this:

A running mate with over 20 years executive experience, a self-made billionaire, and a women who has risen to be one of the top players in the media industry.

Oprah Winfrey has a unique story – similar to that of Sen. Barack Obama’s. She was born of a teenage pregnancy in rural Mississippi. She lived in poverty for much of her childhood and lived with a dysfunctional family – living in Wisconsin and Tennessee and was molested by her own family members. Despite this, she was able to win scholarship to high school and later college, and she was soon off on her way in the media industry. Most notably, she now hosts the Oprah Winfrey Show (which has been playing since 1986) and she is one of the most well-known media icons of the century. Her net worth is now estimated to be 2.5 billion dollars, which would certainly be a nice financial advantage to have. Oprah also has a magazine, has produced feature films, a website with over 70 million views a day, and commands a daily viewership of over 8 million. Who wouldn’t want a woman of this stature on the ticket?

Winfrey endorsed Sen. Obama months before Iowa, and she could certainly be an asset in places like the deep south, the working class and white suburbia. She has lived the American Dream, and that message can resonate with anyone. In times of economic crisis, why not bring an African-American woman with tremendous executive experience onto the ticket?

I must admit that is not one of the more serious considerations, but then again, the media has pretty much considered anyone.

This is not an endorsement. Thomas still feels Sen. Biden (D-DE) is the best choice for VP.

Miss tonight’s show?

Click HERE to listen to the broadcast in it’s entirety.

Obama Goes Negative?

Republicans Back in the Fight. Well, sort of.

Big Oil

This is a response to Matt’s post suggesting that the noble Republicans are off fighting to protect the interests of the average American while the Democrats are off on vacation.

At long last, it looks like Congressional Republicans are taking up the war banner again. The GOP men and women in Congress have finally found their voice and are using it to slam Democrats on one of the biggest issues in the coming election: energy policy. With new polls suggesting that clear majorities of Americans support offshore drilling, additional exploration for oil, and anything that promises to expand fuel supplies in the coming years, a cohort of Republicans is preaching to a chamber of ordinary Americans. Since Congress is not in session, Republican members have invited tourists to fill the chamber’s seats and are frantically sending out audio clips, vlog posts, and Twitter updates in an effort to get the word out: Republicans have a solution to one of America’s problems and are ready to bring change.

I see this as a political attempt to try an block the dems from actually passing a comprehensive energy policy that doesn’t include offshore drilling and as an attempt to win some political points. Republicans want to try and make a big spectacle showing that they will not back down from their position on offshore drilling and consequently their fight to reduce gas prices (they fail to mention their support for big oil though). Where were these noble Republicans back between 1994 and 2006? If the Republicans had half of the ambition that they have now, I am sure with clear majorities in Congress and a Republican President they would be able to pass a comprehensive energy policy. If a comprehensive energy policy was passed six or eight years ago, we would not be in quite the situation we are in today. Since 2006 the Democrats have not passed any massive energy policy either, but that is arguably because of Pres. Bush and his veto pen, and because of the slim majorities the Democrats have in both houses of Congress.

Face it. The Republicans are scared that once the Democrats advance their majorities in both the House and Senate and once the White House turns blue, they will be ignored and quite powerless. This is an attempt to save big oil and create a political scene that is sure to seem as though they are for the American people. They had their chance. It is time for real change.

At least C-Span isn’t covering the event….

Republicans Back in the Fight

Ever since 2006, it has looked like the Democrats are running the show in Washington. From Congress to the campaign trail, the blues are flexing their considerable polling majorities and setting the agenda for the country. With hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending, countless new regulations for businesses, and debates over the adoption of new social programs, Democrats have plenty to talk about. Republicans, on the other hand, have spent most of their time trying desperately to hold the line, using President Bush’s veto while trying desperately to distance themselves from his policies. It seems like the beleaguered Republicans have been reduced to defining what they are not and why they should not be kicked out of office.

At long last, it looks like Congressional Republicans are taking up the war banner again. The GOP men and women in Congress have finally found their voice and are using it to slam Democrats on one of the biggest issues in the coming election: energy policy. With new polls suggesting that clear majorities of Americans support offshore drilling, additional exploration for oil, and anything that promises to expand fuel supplies in the coming years, a cohort of Republicans is preaching to a chamber of ordinary Americans. Since Congress is not in session, Republican members have invited tourists to fill the chamber’s seats and are frantically sending out audio clips, vlog posts, and Twitter updates in an effort to get the word out: Republicans have a solution to one of America’s problems and are ready to bring change.

This kind of stunt bodes well for John McCain’s presidential campaign, if he can get the point. By using cutting-edge technology and appealing to the same desire for change that Barack Obama has used to propel himself in the polls, McCain may yet have a dog in this fight. After all, McCain promises a world of change in Washington, too. He supports a cap-and-trade carbon emissions program. He opposes advantages in getting citizenship for illegal immigrants. He wants to break the monopoly that employers have on providing health insurance. He wants to hack and slash the bloated budgets that draw special interests to Washington. McCain also wants to revolutionize the way we educate America’s youth, offering up far more of a departure from tradition than Obama. And he was dead right in Iraq in calling for a surge, back when that was a massive change in policy.

If McCain can cast himself as a man with solutions and real change in the way America works, learns, earns, and heals, he might be able to tap into that American urge to use markets and freedom to solve our problems.

That is, if he is willing to become the maverick fighter against the establishment that is at the core of his career and join his Congressional comrades in fighting the Democratic-set agenda of the past two years.

St. Paul Protests

From truckers to conspiracy theorists, it looks like every cause is going to attempt to grab the national spotlight when the Republican Convention comes to St. Paul in early September. We’re likely to not see the kind of widespread protests we saw at the 2004 convention, given that: the convention that year was held in New York City, it was at the height of the Iraq War, and this year’s election seems certain to be a gain for Democrats.

Miss Sunday’s Show?

CLICK HERE.

I Don’t Want Caroline for Vice President

…and here’s why:

Caroline Kennedy has experience as a lawyer and a member of our greater American and world community.  Not only has she represented Camelot and our nation, but she’s been a witness to the inner-workings of government for decades, while maintaining her role as an outsider.

There are 1,143,358 lawyers as of the end of 2007 according to the American Bar Association. Ok, so she is a lawyer…a lot of people are. She runs a couple non-profits (like the Kennedy Library Foundation and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund)… a lot of people run non-profits. That by no stretch of the imagination gives them any type of grounding as to experience or familiarity in the beltway, or should lead us to suspect any of them could be VP. How has she exactly been a “witness to the inner-working of government?” I fail to see that claim justified. Caroline Kennedy has been outside of the political sphere up until she endorsed Obama a few months ago. Watching the political process is not the same as being in it. She wrote a couple books. A lot of people have written a couple books.

Critics have said that Senator Obama can’t put another woman on the ticket as it might anger Hillary supporters.  I think they are right.  Putting Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket is simply putting a female governor on the ticket to put a female governor on the ticket.

Ben, isn’t putting a Kennedy women the same thing as putting Kathleen Sebelius…just with a Kennedy name a less executive political experience? Instead of justifying why everyone else is bad, you should explain why Kennedy is good. And cut the BS with rhetoric that does nothing to substantiate your claims.

Caroline Kennedy would not be my optimal choice for VP. She would be a poor choice for the Democratic Ticket.

Matthew Yglesias joins us Sunday

Join us this Sunday at 10PM EST as we talk to Atlantic Monthly blogger Matthew Yglesias about his book Heads in the Sand, the US political climate, foreign policy, and the ‘08 presidential race.

“Weekly Filibuster’ featured on MSNBC, Politico.com

Our recent interview with David Shuster was featured on Wednesday’s edition of KoteckiTV, and then played on MSNBC-TV!

Click here to see us featured on KoteckiTV
Click here to see us featured on MSNBC

The Sovereigntist Counterargument

Flags of many nations flying

“Matthew Yglesias makes it clear that the path to redemption is open, if not always pothole-free. Americans no longer support reckless Republican policies and the time is ripe—not for a new direction, but for the return of a tried-and-true direction. With Heads in the Sand, he provides a starting point for politicians, policymakers, pundits, and citizens alike to return America to its role as leader of a peace-loving and cooperative international community.”

Matthew Yglesias will be coming on the show Sunday night at 10 PM to discuss his new book, Heads in the Sand, with us. It should prove an interesting starting point for a real and meaningful conversation about the objectives of foreign policy and the best way to proceed after eight years of devastating neo-conservatism. If the jacket of his book has anything to say about it, Yglesias will be calling for liberal internationalism as the ideology that ought to drive American foreign policy. In the wake of neo-conservative arrogance, using military prowess and strong-armed treaties to deal with our enemies, a new age of cooperation and peace is undoubtedly appealing.