Month: October 2005

Sorta cross-posted to the Seattle group.  For photos of the playas in this drama, click here, thanks to dinazina for being our photog.

So we had our get-together on Saturday night, attended by 14 local folks).  We chatted with Nigel about the Pelz campaign before he abandoned us early (again), and talked a little baseball.

We got down to the nitty-gritty pretty shortly, though.  Brian from Washblog was there to make his case, and in the end, he sold us on adopting Washblog as our Washington state progressive politics blog.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, my blog and My Left Wing)

Is it possible for those of us in the progressive ranks to have a conversation about religion as it relates to politics without getting into some huge flame war?  I hope so.  Because I saw an exchange on this week’s Real Time with Bill Maher that I think everyone should read and at least consider.  After considering it, perhaps it is possible to simply discuss it without decrying this point of view or that dogma.  Let’s make an honest effort at civility, because if we can’t talk amongst ourselves about religion and the importance of its presence or absence in some of our lives, I fear we will be severely hamstrung by this weird brand of emotional hysteria (both for and against) surrounding progressive discourse on the subject of faith.

More after the flip.

What’s on your mind?

The “withdraw” word was mentioned several times this morning on CNN. Will Harriet Miers’ nomination mark “The End of the Conservative Dream?,” as Patrick Lang considered yesterday (buttressed by a Chicago Tribune story that blames Republican leadership‘s failure to stand up to filibuster threats)? Or, will the conservatives stay alive, and force Miers to withdraw?

The repeated use of the word “withdraw” today on CNN could mean nothing. It could be among the first indications — including yesterday’s Forbes magazine piece, “Conservatives to Bush: Withdraw Miers” (via Raw Story) — that pressure is growing for Harriet Miers to do the “right thing.” Toss in today’s report of Tony Perkins’ alarm over Harriet Miers’ sponsorship of a 1990s forum at her alma mater Southern Methodist University that, Perkins e-mailed to supporters, featured “an unbroken string of pro-abortion speakers.”

As Josh Marshall points out, “[T]he key issue [for nominations encountering opposition] is whether and how quickly they can find some committed group to mount a defense.”

Who does Harriet have to defend on her side besides Dubya, few administration apologists, and some Swift Boat spin-cycle artists (quoted but not vetted by the NYT)?

Our question: Do we prefer the devil we are getting to know, or the next one if Miers withdraws? What are we gambling with?

From CNN’s American Morning transcript:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well good morning, Carol.

Harriet Miers was in Dallas this weekend. That is where she was gathering records of really trying to bring forward her resume of accomplishments, past posts, as well as with the Dallas City Council. But of course the big question here, Carol, is whether or not Harriet Miers and the White House can convince conservatives that she does indeed deserve that position. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): While Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was attending Sunday morning church services in Dallas; in Washington, conservatives were declaring all-out war over her nomination, directing much of their anger at the president.

PAT BUCHANAN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Much of the conservative movement is at war with their own president.

GARY BAUER, PRES., AMER. VALUES COALITION: The problem that we have is that when you make a mistake with a Supreme Court appointment, it’s a 20-year mistake.

MALVEAUX: As some conservatives ratcheted up their rhetoric, calling for Miers to withdraw her nomination, others urged their fellow Republicans to cool down, saying Miers would be faithful to Mr. Bush’s agenda. Continued BELOW:

[WARNING!  This is NOT a significant diary!]  

No, G.O.P.S. is not a typo, and yes it is a seriously funny satire based on one of my favorite sitcoms, C.O.P.S.

What is it you ask?