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

With the main work of the Minnesota Canvassing Board on the Minnesota recount complete, it has been reported that Al Franken holds a 48 vote lead. What's left to do? One thing is to deal with certain rejected absentee ballots. The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling that required the parties to try and work it out and identify which ballots should be counted (MN NPR reports the camps have come up with a system for dealing with these ballots but as I read it, it is an agreement to agree to a system, not an actual agreement). It can safely be assumed that the parties will not agree on all or even most of the ballots. But one assumes a consistent standard will be applied eventually. More importantly, Norm Coleman wanted none of these ballots counted and Franken wanted all of them counted, meaning that both campaigns believe there are more Franken votes than Coleman votes in these rejected absentee ballots.

To wit, Coleman seems to be behind the 8-ball now if the Canvassing Board tallies are the final word. Are they? Well, Minnesota provides for a contest procedure More . . .

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

I won't be blogging until Christmas Day or after, but I did want to note:

• Congrats to Joe Tacopina who got an acquittal for actor Lillo Brancato on second degree murder and burglary charges (Background here.) Brancato won't go free immediately, he was convicted of attempted burglary and faces a 3 to 15 year sentence on the count. But he's been in jail awaiting trial for 3 years, so he'll get credit for that against any sentence imposed. More news on the verdicts here and here.

And wires, wires, everywhere.

• The Washington Post explores the secret tapes used against Rod Blagojevich.

• Also in WaPo, the FBI's wiring of a peasant Afghan farmer to convict a member of the Taliban in U.S. criminal courts of "narco-terrorism."

I'll be back in a few days, BTD and TChris will be posting as their schedules permit. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Former major leaguer Doug Glanville, who played winter ball there in the 90s, pens an ode to Puerto Rico in the NY Times today. It's a nice piece.

This is an Open Thread.

[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 . . .

It's warm in Florida. I think I'll stay here for a few days.

This is an Open Thread.

Five men charged with plotting to attack Fort Dix have been acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of conspiracy. The jury deliberated for six days before arriving at the verdict. TalkLeft's most recent discussion of the evidence against the defendants is here.

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

It's cold in New York. I'm going to Florida today. J is not available today. Hopefully, TChris will be.

Corrente is organizing house party discussions on health care. Health care geeks are encouraged to add their thoughts to the discussion.

From the TalkLeft diaries, lilburro is still on the torture beat, discussing Biden's statements on prosecutions. Dalton Hoffine, like me, does not think much of "experience" in politics. Jacob Freeze finds some humor in the "oversight" of the TARP bailout.

This is an Open Thread.

Glenn Greenwald writes in more detail on the statements by Vice President Dick Cheney that directly implicate the top Congressional leaders on intelligence matters. Glenn identifies the Dem players:

Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:

* Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader)
* Jane Harman (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee)
* Jay Rockefeller (Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee)
* Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader [or Tom Daschle, depending on the date of the meeting]).

To coin a phrase - what did they know and when did they know it? And what did they say in response? It has been reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller wrote a letter (PDF). The statements made by Rockefeller in the letter have been challenged by Cheney. At this point, Cheney's gone on the record. So must these Democratic leaders.

Speaking for me only

Watch the heads explode:

Joe Lieberman's 2006 primary campaign manager, Sean Smith, who accused Ned Lamont of hacking their website the day of the Connecticut primary in 2006, has been selected to be the new Administration's spokesperson at the Department of Homeland Security. If there's any federal department that needs truth-talking more than DoJ, it's likely DHS. . . . Americans have many good reasons to distrust DHS.

Putting Sean Smith at the podium at the Department of Homeland Security is not going to advance the credibility of the department. Recall, please, that Sean Smith first proposed the "hacked website" canard in Connecticut the day of Ned Lamont's primary victory over incumbent then-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman

That's a good point actually. This Smith fellow probably is the wrong choice here.

Speaking for me only