Author: BooMan

Remember this Washington Post article from September 28, 2003?

Who the hell was the ‘senior official’ that was the source for that article?

And then there is this, from last night’s Hardball with Chris Matthews:

Howard Fineman also said:

Can rumor and innuendo get more compelling that that?

Imagine! People within the White House are telling Howard Fineman that they are out to get Karl Rove. Unless Rove is already as good as in jail it is almost impossible to imagine anyone openly defying him. Even to bad-mouth Rove off the record would ordinarily be too risky for members of the administration.

And I go back to that senior official from 2003 that jumped at the opportunity to slam Rove and Libby. How long have they been gunning for them. To me, that person may be as significant as Deep Throat, maybe more so, when all is said and done.

Since Philadelphia is the democratic blogging capital of the world, we have the most interesting Drinking Liberally meet-ups. For those of you that don’t know, Drinking Liberally is a national organization that convenes every Tuesday in over three dozen cities. Their purpose? Getting liberals together to have a few brewskis and to discuss politics.

Last night I had a long conversation with Duncan Black about voting reform, and talked with Chris Bowers about Act Blue, Lois Murphy, and the fact that google lists Booman Tribune number one when you type in muff shots. No kidding.

But I also had a long conversation with an activist from Brooklyn, who is trying to organize and promote a growing contingent of Democratic veterans of the Iraq War and former members of our intelligence services. He started out with the Draft Zinni movement, and has just kept going.

We talked for a long time over a couple of beers. And we had quite a lengthy conversation over the subject of abortion. I don’t know whether I was able to persuade him to my position or not, but the conversation was a microcosm of the discussion that has been going on on this site, and throughout the blogosphere.

He opined that the average swing voter does not want to talk about abortion and is totally turned off by the issue. He suggested that the best advice for a candidate, when questioned about abortion, was to change the subject to Iraq and national security. Something like: “This is not the most pressing issue right now, what is important is that we have over 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq…”.

I countered that only 20% of Americans support overturning Roe and that any issue where we enjoy 80% support should be an advantage, not a disadvantage. I gave Clinton’s 1996 Mediscare campaign as an example where we enjoyed a similar 80% advantage, and where highlighting, even demagoguing, such an issue worked to our advantage.

My argument was basically as follows: the Supreme Court is on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade even though only 20% of the American public supports such a move. This is only possible because the Democratic Party has failed to raise awareness of the stakes involved in Presidential elections. The most underrepresented group of Democrats (those with the lowest turnout) are single women of childbearing age. And we haven’t made it clear why they should turn out to vote, and to vote for us.

As a counterpoint, I looked at the issue of gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is one of the few issues where the GOP actually holds a real advantage with the public. Even though swing voters do not particularly enjoy, or want to discuss, gay marriage, the Republicans are unapologetically against it. They even went so far as to put the issue on numerous state ballots, and the issue boosted their turnout.

So, I suggested, it is better for us to raise the volume of our pro-choice stance than it is to soft-pedal it. Soft-pedalling our support for Roe does not inspire anyone, and it still makes swing voters uncomfortable. Soft-pedalling our support for choice has led us to a point where the federal protection of choice may be lost. It has been a failing strategy, and it is high time that we learned the lesson and began making it crystal clear to the populace where we stand.

He understood my argument but still believed that the issue was a loser. Wherever you stand on the issues and on strategy, it is always fun to drink liberally.

Roll Call (subscription) reports that the Dems are about to roll out their modern-day counterpoint to the GOP’s Contract on America:

It is a good idea to create a positive agenda for Democrats to campaign on, but it is a little depressing to realize that we are already half drowned in Grover’s bathtub. But, we can’t exactly campaign on massive new spending programs, while deploring the deficit spending of the GOP. Or can we? We could if we had no shame and always stayed on message. Alas, we are Democrats and that won’t happen.

When we talk about stronger investments in our armed forces, I hope that translates into more support for our troops’ training, pay, benefits, and equipment, and not to more massive spending on unneeded aircraft, anti-missile programs, and foreign expeditions.

I am particularly fond of the decision to focus on energy independence within ten years. I think Americans can understand that goal and get behind it. And I think it is probably the single best thing we can do to improve both our security and the global climate.

Universal college is an interesting concept. I suppose we will need to continue to be extremely lax in our immigration policy to fill all the jobs a nation of college grads refuses to do. And I expect immigration to be a tricky issue in the upcoming elections (for both parties).

In any case, I’m glad the Dems are putting forth a positive agenda, and that they have coalesced around a timetable (with benchmarks) for withdrawal from Iraq. Maybe the party won’t split in half after all. Maybe.

Are members suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or pre-plamegate indictment anxiety?

One person writes a rant about our military and sets off a chain of events that are still rippling the pond. Oh well.

Here’s one piece of advice: One diary doesn’t represent this site or its culture. No one can make you angry unless you let yourself get angry. It takes two people to start a flamewar. And someone, somewhere, said something about turning the other cheek.

In any case, Judy Miller talks to Fitzgerald again tomorrow, “a discrepancy between the grand jury testimony of Karl Rove and Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper is the reason Rove will testify again” and Cheney is cancelling speaking engagements.

And as Daniel Schorr points out:

Sorting out flamewars is sometimes a part of my job, but it is not one of my keen interests.

This is: