In 2010, political consultants should have a hard time. Why? Because political messaging will be a blip compared to the real issue - the referendum on Democratic governance. As Kos puts it:

Republicans have broken our country, both militarily and economically. If Democrats deliver on their promises and start repairing the damage, the talk of "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi" will be as effective as it has been the last two election cycles. If Democrats fail to deliver, then that will be taken into consideration by the voters, as it should be.

The only messaging issues that matter are the messages the Democrats will need to enact an effective agenda - an agenda that addresses the needs of the country. I believe that agenda is a progressive agenda. And indeed, the country thinks so too. The progressive agenda is now the Centrist agenda. The question now is do Democrats in power believe that too. I think that most do. We will see if that is true.

Speaking for me only

The NYTimes wrote today in an editorial:

Mr. Cheney was simply dishonest about Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize spying on Americans’ international calls without a warrant. He claimed the White House kept the Democratic and Republican Congressional leadership fully briefed on the program starting in late 2001. He said he personally ran a meeting at which “they were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike” that the program was essential and did not require further Congressional involvement.

But in a July 17, 2003, letter to Mr. Cheney, Senator John Rockefeller IV, then vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he wanted to “reiterate” the concerns he expressed in “the meeting today.” He said “the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues” and created “concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology and surveillance.”

(Emphasis supplied.) If Cheney was "simply dishonest" as the Times states, why are the Dems implicated by Cheney's dishonesty not calling Cheney a liar?

Speaking for me only

[Obama said] "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice. But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.

It is now clear that President-Elect Obama's choice of the Reverend Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation has been an extremely divisive decision. Beyond the substantive issue, it was a political mistake. For this reason, it makes E.J. Dionne's take particularly strange in my view. More . . .

Dkos diarist John Campanelli points to this blog post on Rick Warren by Melissa Etheridge's partner.

It seems to me both posts miss the point. I doubt too many object to talking with Rick Warren (it is worth noting however that Ms. Etheridge's partner seems woefully ignorant about Mr. Warren's views on gays and lesbians.) I believe the objection is to President-Elect Obama's tapping Mr. Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.

In any event, that is my objection. Ms. Etheridge, President-Elect Obama and anyone who feels it would be productive should talk to anyone they choose -- but honoring Warren by tapping him for the inaugural invocation sends a terrible signal in my estimation.

Speaking for me only

Vice President Dick Cheney defended himself and the Bush Administration today on Fox News Sunday.

Cheney expressed no regrets in today's interview, vigorously defending the Bush administration's war and counterterrorism policies and saying he was untroubled by opinion polls showing that he and Bush are among the most unpopular White House occupants in modern times. "Eventually you wear out your welcome in this business, but I'm very comfortable with where we are and what we've achieved substantively," he said.

In discussing his views of broad executive power on national security issues, Cheney said Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt "went far beyond anything we've done in a global war on terror," and said that all U.S. presidents since 1973 have viewed the War Powers Act -- which gave Congress the role of declaring war -- as unconstitutional.

He also mocked Joe Biden. The transcript is here.

The fact that the NYPost endorses Caroline Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat is no reason to oppose Kennedy for the Senate. By the same token, the fact that Geraldine Ferraro opposes Caroline Kennedy for the Senate seat is no reason to be for her. Eventually, my friend Al Giordano provides good reasons to be for her:

Caroline Kennedy's campaign has just answered a few policy questions . . . First, Kennedy "supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples." . . . "Caroline opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. She supports President-Elect Obama's plan to work with our military leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal."

More on issues, less on personalities please.

Speaking for me only

Docudharma and Democrats.com are sponsoring the following petition:

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued 22 pardons today.

One went to Marcus Lyons, who served three years in prison before DNA established his innocence.

The "pardon based on innocence" allows Lyons to apply for around $85,000 in compensation for the three years he served, said his attorney, Jane Raley, of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law.

But perhaps more importantly, she said, "it begins to address the enormous suffering he's endured."

Politico asks:

Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?

Republican talking head Brad Blakeman answers:

I would rather see the New York Times prosecuted for their constant and continued abuse of the First Amendment. Their treasonous behavior on almost a daily basis is far more damaging to our country than anything a Bush Administration official past or present is alleged.

This is one of the Serious People of the Washington Establishment. That is why so much went wrong and so much wrong was done in the past 8 years - because people like Brad Blakeman are taken seriously while people who ask that the rule of law be upheld are considered DFHs.

Speaking for me only

and do what they do. Kos remembers this critical point:

Obama wouldn't be out there making perhaps the strongest statement in support of gays and lesbians by a president (though he's still not technically one, I know) if it wasn't for the sturm and drang this choice generated. It is precisely this backlash that has forced Obama to clearly affirm his commitment to equality. And it will be continued pressure that will force him to do the right thing on the issue. If we shut up, he'll take the path of least resistance. And that path of least resistance is kowtowing to the conservative media, the clueless punditocracy, and bigots like Warren.

Emphasis mine. Speaking for me only

Responding specifically to Kevin Drum and to those, like me that share the "widely held view" Kevin espoused about the need to addresss income inequality for sustained economic growth, Krugman writes:

This is a widely held view, and I’m as much in favor of a strong middle class as anyone. Nonetheless, I’d say that in terms of strict economics it’s wrong. There’s no obvious reason why consumer demand can’t be sustained by the spending of the upper class — $200 dinners and luxury hotels create jobs, the same way that fast food dinners and Motel 6s do.

Krugman cites NYC as an example. Far be it from me to disagree with a Nobel prize winning economist, but this seems antihistorical to me. Mature economies have depended upon a large middle class. NYC in particular has a large middle class outside of Mahattan (even larger if one consider the entire metropolitan region.) In any event, this gives me a research project on economic history and I will try and see if I can disprove Krugman's argument.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum takes up an issue I discussed on Monday - "secular stagnation" (Paul Krugman's term) and income inequality. Drum, responds, as I did, to something Krugman wrote:

Bob argues that nothing will, unless the government does it. This is a modern version of the "secular stagnation" view popular in the 1940s (and visible in Keynes himself), which argued that there would be a persistent shortfall of private demand, and that we'd basically need a permanent WPA to support the economy. This view turned out to be wrong for the postwar decades . . .

As I argued in my piece, Drum points out that Krugman is ignoring the different situation we now face in terms of income inequality: