From Mark Schmitt on the Tennessee Senate GOP ads:

[L]ook at the independent ad in question. Then look at Republican Bob Corker’s own ad, here.

The independent ad begins with an African-American woman saying, "Harold Ford looks nice. Isn’t that enough?" The Corker ad begins with an African-American man saying, "Whoo, he looks good on TV!" (Apparently that’s the basis on which black people decide who to vote for. I did not know that.) It ends with someone else saying, "but he looks good on TV."

In between, the two ads have a virtually identical rhythm and look -- very short, person-on-the-street clips, alternating white and black, men and women, in a staccato rhythm, all cheerful and direct. . . . Together . . . these two ads sure look like a well-coordinated attempt to echo a single coherent message: He’s a pretty boy, he’s not from here, has weird values, ("He’s just not right," the independent ad concludes).

It's been a while since we checked in with Schapelle Corby who is doing 20 years in a hellhole of an Indonesian prison.

Schapelle describes her conditions in a new book to be published in two weeks. Australia's Women's Weekly pubished an excerpt today. The article is not online, but quotes from it appear in the news.

The intersection between freedom of association and government employment can be tricky to navigate. A teacher can’t be fired for exercising her right to support the NAACP, but what if the teacher joins a cult that advocates the sexual enslavement of children? The Constitution protects the right to associate with others for the “vigorous advocacy” of “lawful ends” (NAACP v. Button), but it doesn’t protect membership in a criminal conspiracy.

Standing between these extremes is Robert Henderson, who lost his job as a state trooper when the State of Nebraska discovered his membership in a white supremacist organization: the Knight’s Party, an offshoot of the KKK.

The Web site's sponsor, the Knights Party of Harrison, Ark., is run by Thomas Robb. [Arbitrator] Caffera described the Knights Party as an attempt to "cloak the 'friendlier face' of the Knights Party from its ultimate corporate parent, Robb's faction of the KKK."

This “friendlier” version of the KKK may or may not advocate unlawful behavior, but white supremacy presupposes the suppression of equal rights for nonwhites. Since police officers are sworn to uphold the law (including the Constitution), it’s easy to understand Nebraska’s concern that Henderson’s interest in subverting civil rights renders him unfit for his job.

I have just returned from working the past three days in gorgeous Telluride. A huge thanks to Big Tent for keeping TalkLeft current on political issues in my absence.

I probably won't resume blogging until the morning as I have a few hundred work and blog related emails to read first, many voicemails to listen to, a lot of mail to open and family members to check in with.

For the past 30 years, my heart has belonged to Aspen, but I have to say, Telluride is one of the most charming, laid back, beautiful towns anywhere. I'm just glad I don't have to choose between them.

And yes, this is an open thread.

I gave discussed George Lakoff before and much of this post will sound familiar. But Lakoff has a new post that, I think, illustrates my earlier points. Lakoff writes:

The right wing has worked for decades to alter the meanings of concepts that define our way of life. The Bush administration's distortions of language are a culmination of these efforts. To restore the meaning of values such as respect for the rule of law and reverence for human life, we all must do our part. We have many strong progressive leaders who are working to reclaim these concepts, but, as in the election at hand, they can succeed only when we are all fully engaged in this struggle.

Fair enough. Nothing to quarrel with there. Now let's consider what Lakoff specifically proposes.

In my earlier post on Andrew Sullivan, I argued that regarding the philosophy of federal government, there are no conservatives. I argued that FDR routed the conservative movement during the New Deal and that the idea of a philosphy of conservatism as generally understood simply does not play a role in our mainstream political discussion.

I think this reply to Sullivan from Ramesh Ponnuru makes my point. There is no overarching discussion or debate on the role of government, but rather whether supporting a particular position on an issue is "conservative" or not, without reference to what a conservative philosophy might favor.

Watch this.

E.J. Dionne:

There has long been talk about the rise of a "radical center," made up of voters essentially moderate in their philosophical leanings but radical in their disaffection with the status quo. This looks to be the year of the radical center. If it is, the Democrats will win. And if they win, their task will be to meet the aspirations of a diverse group of dissatisfied and disappointed Americans. Not an easy chore, but one that certainly beats being in the opposition.

The negative extremist brand has been stuck on the Rubber Stamp Republicans. Obama, take heed please.

Brilliant, not:

Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, sounds similarly entitled:

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, came under fire last week when it was pointed out that he had contributed only $15,000 this year to the party’s senatorial committee. Heyjohn.org, whose creator has remained anonymous, highlights the fact that Mr. Kerry has $14 million in his campaign accounts.[...]

“Cowards can hide behind anonymous Web sites,” Mr. Wade said, “but Democrats out in the country, party leaders and real net-roots activists know how hard John Kerry has fought to win these elections.”

So Kerry works hard to make inroads with the Netroots and David Wade decides to piss it all away. Nice job David.

The Media hard at work:

The New York Times sorted 362 of Mr. Lieberman’s war-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks into content-related categories, and found that he has alternated his arguments about the parties and the war’s prosecution, shifting tone at critical points as political circumstances have evolved.

In other words, the Lieberman Principle:

So this is the Lieberman Principle. What is good for Joe is good. When it is good for Joe to criticize the President, then it is good to criticize the President. Only then. When it is good for Joe to be partisan, then it is good to be partisan. Only then. When it is good for Joe to abandon the Democratic party, then it is good. Only then.

What a mendacious unprincipled hack Joe is.

Ezra Klein gets at one of the main problems of Obamarama:

There's a real danger here for the left who, so long out of power, are ready to jump on whichever train looks likeliest to pull into the White House on time. That may (or may not) be a good strategy for returning to power. But throwing your lot in with the smoothest talker and hoping for the best once he achieves power is a terrible method for building a movement, or popularizing ideas. The left needs to set up incentives so presidential contenders to pledge fealty to their priorities -- their support should be contingent on ideological agreement, and should never precede it. As other have remarked, when David Brooks and Joe Klein both throw their weight behind a putatively "liberal' cause or candidate, smart leftists will look for the catch.

Obama is not building a new Democratic identity. Indeed, he seems to be selling himself as an other-Dem, not like the rest of them. This disdain for party politics and Democratic Party branding is the essence of my complaint regarding Obama.

Phil Singer of the DSCC sounds the alarm:

NEW FROM BUSH: Yesterday, Bush revived his plan to privatize Social Security, calling it one of the “big items” he wants to get done next year. Watch video of Bush yesterday:

Watch Bush

And Bush's merry band of GOP Senate candidates who agree with him on privatizing Social Security on the other side.