There are two Americas. The America that gets tote bags at Take Back America 2007, and the America that doesn’t. I am in the America that got a fancy tote bag, and that my friends is the highlight of this greatest of liberal confabs.
Honestly, it’s a really nice tote bag. The kind of bag you would get as a reward for donating to NPR or PBS. The issue is, from here inside Blogger Boulevard (which has been shunted off to the side but still up front enough to have random nice people tell me they enjoy my work), not everyone got these tote bags. We’re supposed to be all about equity here on the left, but clearly a two-tiered system has been implemented.
On to the games.
The main hub of activity at TBA is the exhibition lounge, where various groups shopped their wares, varying from The American Prospect, The Nation and organizations like The Blue Fund who seek to invest in progressive-friendly organizations that — wait for it — actually make money. Then there are your pro-impeachment folks who don’t want to hear anything about practicality as well as people lobbying for marijuna legalization. Oh, and a guy dressed like Ben Franklin was walking around, being as Ben Franklin as possible. I am a little skeptical of some of the layout, as some organizations like Democracy Corps were positioned one level deep - no word if this is payback at James Carville for vouching for Scooter Libby. If anything, they’ve got free fast wifi and comfy chairs, and its well air conditioned. From this enclave, we plot the revolution.
The two panels I attended were kind of underwhelming, and I don’t say that to be mean but to be honest. Although I’m sure the panel I’m speaking on tomorrow will rock more than a world or two. At the “Conservative Failure” panel, it started out with a bang showcasing Max Blumenthal’s excellent short film from CPAC but sadly slid downhill quickly after. The stage was monopolized by Connie Rice (cousin to Condi Rice) who spoke extemporaneously about… well, I’m not sure what. She certainly had the conference staff up in arms, speaking way over her alloted time about Life, The Universe, And Everything. People are too polite at these events to tell someone to shut up, but no matter how worthy the cause you’re advocating happens to be I don’t think it excuses just random rambling about what happens to poke into your head.
The other panel, The New Progressive Majority, was less traumatic. Wunderkind pollster Stan Greenberg treated us to a bunch of slides telling us how awesome progressives are, how well the Democrats did, though he did end on a slide with a chart explaining just how much disdain Americans have for both parties. The Democrats are only slightly less hated, on balance. I also discussed with Page Gardner of Women’s Voices, Women Vote why her organization seemed so focused on increasing turnout among single women exclusively. She essentially said that the cost to get out the vote with progressive-leaning single women was less than converting a conservative-leaning married woman who was already prone to vote in the first place. That answer kind of troubled me, because I think it cedes too much ground and makes the voting population into a bunch of micro-targets. There should be focus on the entire voting bloc and not just segments that already lean our way. That’s how you get yourself one of those majority deals.
More to come…
Why bother taking back America? Why dont you just move to Cuba?
Sam, that was wonderful and insightful. Do you have anything left in the tank for a follow-up? No? That comment took it all right out of you? That’s a shame.
We’re actually importing the hammers and sickles to America.
1. Import hammers to America from Soviet Union at $2.00 per
2. Sell to Air Force at $600.00 per.
3. Profit
Hey! This one has a step two!
Seriously, no one will believe you about the totebag until we see a photo of CK sitting next to it (or in it.)
Hi!
For someone from Germany reading this excellent weblog, could you give a short explanation on WHY Bush can’t be impeached? Isn’t his presidency very much the definition of why the process for impeachment was invented in the first place?
I’m really not asking to get into any kind of discussion about why he should or shouldn’t be impeached, but I really want to understand the forces that drive a Democratic majority to not even talk about the possibility… after the Republicans had the Clinton-witch-hunt you’d think they would be eager to teach them a lesson…
Thanks in advance
J.
I like how the Tancerdo supporter in that video calmed down considerably after he realized that Blumenthal was completely umimpressed by his bluster and use of naughty words.
Good question, Joh, here’s my view. Others may have other opinions:
1. The congress can impeach anyone they want, but if they can’t get a conviction they’re afraid they’ll look stupid.
2. Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, with the jury being a Senate that is very evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats
3. While evidence of Bush’s incompetence is beyond reasonable doubt, it would be very difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a divided Senate that his incompetence was intentional. Thus it would be very difficult to gain a conviction for “high crimes and misdemeanors” (the standard specified in our constitution).
4. Ironically, I think the failure of the Clinton impeachment to gain a conviction, and the scorn that the Republican congress earned in that whole process has made the democrats afraid that the same thing will happen to them. (though if they were smart they would realize that despite the popular sentiment against the republicans at the time of the impeachment, the republicans went on to win the White House and maintain control of congress in the next national election).
5. Given the fact that even if Bush were convicted he would be replaced by Cheney (unless Cheney is impeached and convicted also), many members would prefer to wait till the next election, only a year and a half away, to institute a change of leadership.
6. Democrats are too fearful of appearing “divisive”. Republicans have feasted on the politics of division and personal destruction for decades, but the corporate/conservative media gives them a pass and tend to label any assertiveness among the democrats as “radical” or “divisive”.
So, to sum it all up in one sentence: the Democrats in Congress are yellow-bellied chicken-shits. I’m not sure how to translate that into German.
I must be one of those chicken shits because I think impeachment is a horrible idea. It won’t work, we’ll look only slightly less dumb than the 90s GOP when it doesn’t pass and it will color the entire election in a way that favors the GOP.
I mostly agree with Oliver, it’s pointless. I will point out though that while Clinton was a popular President and the public didn’t support impeachment, this President has about a 30% approval rating. (Cue wingnut moron asking why don’t we impeach Harry Reid)
I think impeachment is a fantastic idea, and in fact shouldn’t even be in question, but sadly here in the real world it’s very likely to horribly backfire, meaning that George will come to the end of his eight years having essentially got away with it.
By the way, none of our trolls even qualify for this, do they?
… it will color the entire election in a way that favors the GOP.
Hate to disagree with our esteemed host, but… bullshit. No matter how bad the repubs looked 1999, they won in 2000, and one of Bush’s successful memes was “bringing honor and dignity back to the White House” (oh, what an irony-loving bitch History is).
could you give a short explanation on WHY Bush can’t be impeached? Isn’t his presidency very much the definition of why the process for impeachment was invented in the first place?
I’ve been asking myself that for four years. There is enough criminal activity to put anybody else behind bars.
Mr. Gently,
only in DeLong’s mind is “supporting Bush” one of the qualifications of being a conservative. When Bush supports conservative ideals (tax cuts, national defense, Constitutionalist judges), we support him. When Bush chases after non-conservative ideas (McCain Feingold, Medicare D, Harriet Myers, Immigration, Pork) we take him to the woodshed.
And of course a couple of conservatives he labels as “honest” (Sullivan and Clarke in particular) aren’t honest at all. Case in point: Sullivan let Bush’s stanch on Andrew’s one pet issue (Gay Marriage) color how he views Bush on EVERY OTHER ISSUE. That’s not being “honest and intellectual”, Mr. DeLong.
Since when is Harriet Miers not conservative? She’s actually quite lockstep with the current GOP. Oh yeah, she didn’t join the Federalist Religion…er, I mean Society.
(or maybe she did, I don’t know, but the way the current cultists put it, membership in that group is neccessary to get anywhere).
Back to the main point… good luck Oliver!
I sould very much like to prove Brad DeLong’s point, while simultaneously protesting it on general principles.
“When Bush chases after non-conservative ideas (McCain Feingold, Medicare D, Harriet Myers, Immigration, Pork) we take him to the woodshed.”
Aaaahhahahahahahaahaaha! Thanks, Farris… funniest thing I’ve read all day. Conservatives taking Bush to the woodshed… wow…
My take on impeachment is ‘use it or lose it’. I think the Founders intended it to be used rarely against a president, but not once-a-century rarely.
The impeachment of Clinton was designed as inoculation for future Republican malfeasance, and not impeaching Bush is a kind of inoculation against impeaching a Republican who isn’t quite as bad as Bush.