(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

From the extreme Right Wing Republican site Red State:

Democrats have been increasingly distracted by an effort to discredit our President. In the process of carrying out this parochial assault, they have egregiously demeaned our great Republic. This has largely been ensconced in and driven by domestic political motivation but found a complimentary partner in the global socialist agenda.

. . .To make a bad situation worse, a New York neighborhood mostly inhabited by Democrats [that's Harlem to you and me, in case you weren't keeping up with the race baiting Republicans] hosts the "after party" for Chavez and cheers his anti American remarks.

. . . Appropriately, this specious attempt to advance parochial politics, disguised in the name of debate and Constitutional liberties has come full circle and roosted on their doorstep. It is an action that is un-American since it demeans our values, underestimates our intelligence and obscures or primary goal in a time of war, to keep our citizens safe.

Memo to wingnuts, "socialism" is passe as a boogeyman. It's "Islamofascism" we're aligned with now. You need a few lessons in the New McCarthyism.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Reading my posts (here, here and here) that touch on Barack Obama you might get the impression I do not like him. To the contrary, I see in Barack Obama a potentially transforming politician. Noam Scheiber gets it:

I like John Edwards. I think he's a well-intentioned guy with good ideas and considerable charms. But he's no Barack Obama. Spend a little time with each of them and you quickly realize there's no comparison between the two men's intellects--Obama is much smarter and has a much more sophisticated view of politics. Edwards is charismatic, but Obama is far more so. (Just compare their performances at the 2004 Democratic convention.) And, unlike Edwards, Obama spent years grappling with public policy issues before he got to the U.S. Senate--first as a community organizer in Chicago, then as a constitutional lawyer and state senator. Except for the last, none of that is a knock on Edwards. Obama is easily more intelligent, sophisticated, and charismatic than 99 percent of the politicians I've come across. (Bill Clinton is the only one I can think of who combines all three talents in similar proportions.)

I concur. Edwards is terrific. Obama is one in a generation. That is why it frustrates me so when he makes the mistakes that he does. I scold him because I love him . .

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Matt Yglesias wrote a curious post that had me scratching my head. So I spent some time thinking about it. First the essence of the post and on the flip my thoughts:

I've always been puzzled by the realignment theory of American elections. I never really studied US history or US politics at the college level, so I've never been in a position to claim to be able to assess the arguments offered pro and con for this account of things. It's clear that American political journalists act as if the political science underlying realignment theory is strong and sound. I've also always felt, based on my philosophical background, that the theory looked like a slightly absurd superstition. But who was really to say? Then I saw that one of Steve Teles' recommended books for aspiring journalists is David Mayhew's Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre of which Teles remarks:

"American political journalists continue to talk as if "realignment" was still a meaningful phenomenon. Mayhew shows in this cool and clinical book that it's not, and what is more, probably never was. He also makes some very suggestive comments on what might substitute for realignment as a large-scale explanation for political change."

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

David Broder is angry. Not at the President of course. Not at Republicans. But at those nasty foul mouthed bloggers":

Now, however, you can see the independence party forming -- on both sides of the aisle. They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society -- the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and the doctrinaire religious extremists on the right who would convert their faith into a whipping post for their opponents.

You see, Broder has taken a whipping the past week for his inanities and yearns for the return of the rightful respect that he, as Dean of the Washington Press Corps richly deserves.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

From TRex, via Steve Gilliard:

During a news conference last week, [Georgia Republican Governor Sonny] Perdue said, "It is simply unacceptable for people to sneak into this country illegally on Thursday, obtain a government-issued ID on Friday, head for the welfare office on Monday and cast a vote on Tuesday," according to a transcript provided by Perdue's press office.

Richard Hofstadter is right again:

Amid the current dizzy political scene--with its snake-oil preachers, and anti-Darwinian Social Darwinists , and Indian casino rip-off artists, and a president whose friends say he thinks he is ordained by God--Hofstadter's sharpness about the darker follies of American democracy seems more urgently needed than ever.

by TChris

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down!

Unless you're a senator. If you're in the Senate, you might want to build a fence around the country -- or at least the southern half of the country (or at least 700 miles of the southern border), despite the easier time terrorists would have crossing the northern border. Maybe Robert Frost didn't know any senators.

The idea of building a ridiculously expensive and environmentally harmful 700 mile fence is problematic. Okay, let's be plain: it's just stupid. The concept nonetheless enjoys support among elected officials of both parties. Fortunately, as with the proposed legislation concerning the interrogation and trial of terror suspects, it is Republican squabbling that has so far saved us from a stupid idea.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Hugh Hewitt's replacement blogger appears to believe that Virginia conservatives are antisemitic. How else can you explain this reaction to the George Allen is Jewish story:

[T]he attempt to "tar" Allen as a Jew in a southern state was at the very least disturbing, and I actually consider it sickening.

Tar Allen as a Jew? In a Southern state? Say what? Frankly, Dean Barnett's statements seems pretty overtly anti-semitic to me. Does Hugh Hewitt tolerate this type of stuff? Maybe Hugh should not be handing the keys to someone like Barnett.

More.

by TChris

The Republican Senate has exhausted itself with fierce debates about gay marriage, the protection of stem cells, and flag burning amendments, while showing little interest in legislation that might benefit the public. As Republican leaders waste their time ranting about "moral issues," Al Gore unveiled a plan yesterday to combat global warming. Gore recognizes that avoiding the destruction of life on the planet is a greater moral issue than those that motivate the religious right.

"This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue -- it affects the survival of human civilization," Gore said in an hour-long speech at the New York University School of Law. "Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours."

Gore isn't alone. Religious groups are increasingly focusing on stewardship of the environment as a moral issue.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Since, unlike Jeralyn, I am not a blog leader ("Pres. Bill Clinton sat down with leaders of the lefty blogging community in his Harlem offices 9/12 and TalkLeft 's Jeralyn Merritt noted those in attendance . . . [not me] . . .") I don't get to ask President Bill Clinton questions. And to add insult to injury, Jeralyn has already thrown me overboard, offering my guest blogging gig to Clinton (yes I am sulking over here). All that said, I asked myself what I would have liked to discuss with Clinton. I thought of this issue most of all - 'does Clinton think his Third Way/New Democrat approach, that worked so well for him (did it work for the Dem Party?) in the 90s (of course since he is the best politician of his generation it is not clear that using of other approaches would not have worked for him) is the right political approach in today's hyperpartisan age of Bush Republicanism?'.

Anyone who has read my posts here knows by now I tremendously admire the work of the late Richard Hofstadter (an admiration shared by The Mahablog) and believe that our current Democrat political rock star - the new Bill Clinton - Barack Obama (a tremendously talented politician in his own right) has much to learn from him, as well as FDR. I think blurring the differences between the parties is bad politics, and that we Democrats must highlight the differences between Democrat amd Republican. I wonder what Clinton thinks and on the flip are some of the thoughts I would present for his consideration.

by TChris

Sunday funny:

by TChris

This news will upset the "America is for white Christians" crowd:

Muslims appear to be moving [to the United States] again in surprising numbers, according to statistics collected by the Department of Homeland Security and the Census Bureau. ... In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents -- nearly 96,000 -- than in any year in the previous two decades. More than 40,000 of them were admitted last year, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

They believe in the ideal of freedom -- something they might find after the Bush administration is out of office.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

The DLC needs to drop the D as long as the Dem hater and smearer Marshall Wittman remains on their payroll:

For months, the Moose has observed that if you seek anti-Semitic and anti-Israel filth on the internet, look to the left side. Comment threads and diariists regularly rant against Jews and the Jewish state. What is striking is the degree to which it is tolerated and the "respectability" these sites receive from the Democratic establishment.

Well, there has been a significant development of awareness in the Jewish community about this rancid phenomena. The Anti-Defamation League has submitted a letter to MoveOn protesting the anti-Semitic hate that was found on their site.

Of course, the bloggers will defend themselves by suggesting that they are not responsible for the comments on their site. Perhaps, just perhaps these so-called "progressives" could pause from their efforts to purge centrists and take some time to wipe their site clean of hate.

The question is why Democratic leaders continue to collude with the anti-Semitic appeasing left? This should be a time for introspection for a party that relies heavily on Jewish support.

First, Wittman, as he always does, lies. As I pointed out earlier, Move On did remove the comments 3 weeks ago.- and long before Joe Lieberman asked Abe Foxman to discredit the ADL with his misguided letter against Move On.