Phriendly Jaime, I May Buy You That Beer Yet

I may owe Jaime over at West of Shockoe a beer yet. I’m still skeptical about Gore running in 08, but as I’ve said many times, if I hear certain names I’ll get interested. Well as this post in the NY Times political blog, The Caucus, shows, one of those names popped up. It's Peter Knight, a long time Gore insider and he's organizing a reunion dinner for former Gore fundraisers to mark the 20th anniversary of Gore's first run for president. Here's what the Caucus had to say about the event scheduled for May 8:

It’s not a Gore ’08 strategy session (at least not officially), but about 20 former fund-raisers and supporters of former Vice President Al Gore will gather in Washington next month to talk about politics, memories and Mr. Gore’s future at a dinner being organized by Peter Knight, his close friend and political ally.

On the other hand:

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said Mr. Knight and another former Gore fund-raiser, Mary Pat Bonner, were organizing the dinner at their own initiative, and that Mr. Gore — while honored — would not be attending.

Well, I'm not convinced that Gore is going to run. And this may just be an innocent little reunion dinner to sit around and reminisce about the good old days. Yeah, right.

I’m listening. I’m hoping. And Jaime, I hope I will owe you a beer. If he runs, you name the location.

SAVE THE DATE FOR THE FCDC LABOR ROUNDTABLE ON THURSDAY

JOIN US

for the first ever

Labor Roundtable

Democratic primary candidates (SD 39, HD 34 and 40)
will join area labor leaders and activists to discuss issues of concern to working men and women in Fairfax County.

Thursday, April 26 at 7:30pm
Fairfax County Government Center
12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax

What issues resonate best with working families?

• What does the Republican incumbents’ voting record say about their support for labor?
  
• What can Democratic candidates do to connect with and motivate union voters?

• What part can unions play in electing pro-worker candidates?
  
  Paid for and authorized by the FCDC Labor Committee, www.fairfaxdemocrats.org.

This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
The Labor Committee is a Standing Committee of the
Fairfax County Democratic Committee.Please RSVP to the FCDC Labor Committee at labor@fairfaxdemocrats.org

Healing Words and Leadership from Chap Petersen

For one of the most balanced, compassionate posts about the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech and what possible next steps we can take, go here to Chap Peterson's Ox Road South blog.

Chap struck the right note of balance, respect for all points of view and multiple approaches in a serious discussion that has to take place. It's no longer possible to shout past each other and try to score ideological points off each other. People have to begin feeling their way gently and with compassion and try to find ways to prevent further tragedies. We need the humility to realize that we will never be able to prevent every horrific event but we also need the courage and political will to learn from this tragedy and improve the lives and safety of all Virginians.

And there is no one panacea. First, we do have to respect the rights of law abiding citizens who own guns. Chap reminds his readers that he is one of them. But he comes up with a couple of common sense suggestions such as better accessibility to mental health treatement, a more stringent database that would prevent somebody as severely mentally ill as Seung Hui Cho from being able to buy guns. This something that already is in the law but loopholes in that law made it possible for Cho to still gain access to deadly weapons. We can tighten those loopholes while still protecting legitimate privacy rights of our citizens and the rights of gun owners.

Finally, Chap says that high capacity gun magazines are not appropriate for civilian gun owners. They had been outlawed until 2004, when Congress let the ban on semi-automatic weapons expire.

In his writing, Chap has proved himself a leader willing to step up and take a principled stand that is courageous, compassionate and respectful. I applaud him for it and urge you to read his own words.

A Time To Heal

Cross posted at Raising Kaine

Ecclesiastes assures us that there is a season and a time for everything under the heaven. A time for war and a time for peace; a time to weep and a time to laugh; and a time to mourn and a time to dance. There is also a season and a time to heal.

I am uncomfortable with phrases like “we have to move on” though. To me it feels more like moving into a different space, one of gradual healing. Let’s take it slow. There are no timelines to the grieving and healing process and just as each of us grieves differently, each of us will heal at our own pace.

But healing often doesn’t happen without some will to do it and some tangible acts that help move the process along.

One suggestion – and it’s the same one that was given after 9-11 – is to turn off the television. Stop flooding yourself with waves of images and sounds of the tragedy or you’ll eventually drown in them. Get out of your homes and out of yourselves.

At times like this, people need connections and not just virtual ones. Until now, the blogs have provided many of us with a place to come together to grieve, to vent, and to feel connected. A special thanks has to go to Ben Tribbett for his Not Larry Sabato, and to Raising Kaine, for providing places for people from across Virginia to come together and to feel like they are part of a larger community.

But it’s time to turn the computer off too because it can’t take the place of real human contact. One of the things that struck me about Cho Seung-Hui was how radically disconnected he was to those around him. Unlike in high school where, the word is, he was bullied and laughed at, it seems that people at Virginia Tech tried to reach out to him and he kept refusing every offer of kindness from teachers and students. By the time he reached VT he was already so badly damaged that they couldn’t reach him.

Yet, connectedness is the best antidote to despair and anger. It blesses you with empathy for others. It’s what makes us human. Its total absence is what turns us into monsters.

That doesn’t mean that everybody has to be a joiner or an extrovert. There are plenty of introverts, people who prefer privacy and small intimate gatherings with fewer people to large parties and big crowds. That’s very different from somebody being completely disconnected from all people. Introverts often have satisfying relationships and deep connections though with fewer people. It’s the crowds they don’t feel comfortable in.

But every human needs some connection to others. And every human being needs hope. So, if you have not yet been to one of the memorials, see if there’s something to attend so that you will be surrounded with others like you who still have grief to work through. The good thing about all of these memorials is that for all the tears, they also leave you with a sense of hope in the goodness of other people and a sense that evil will not overcome goodness and mercy.

If you’ve missed the memorials in your area, go to a church or synagogue or mosque or temple this weekend. I’m sure they all will acknowledge this terrible tragedy and share the sadness as a community. And they too will not let evil be the final word. They will lift you up and carry you out on a hopeful note.

Finally, be with your family and friends. This promises to be a gorgeous weekend across Virginia, warm weather, and sunshine, the beginning of spring. Go out for a hike, play ball, go on a picnic. Enjoy those you love. Give them a hug and savor every moment with them.

The very best way to honor those who died tragically is to continue to live in love while carrying their memories in your heart. That way evil does not triumph. We will have beaten it. We will have prevailed.

I’ll see you all next week!

April 30, 2007

On April 30, you can count me in on this.

A Million Ways To Mourn

The tragedy at Virginia Tech has everybody grieving across Virginia. And across the blogosphere. And the ways and forms that our grief takes illustrate how very differently people mourn.

Over on NLS, and elsewhere, a thread where people were expressing mourning for the young victims has turned into a debate on guns, with people expressing anger at those who have turned this “political.”

Terry Hartnett, president of the Million Mom March and a longtime anti-gun activist, was roundly criticized for this by some and defended by others. And Republitarian and others were equally criticized for making the point that if somebody had had a gun, they might have been able to stop the shooter in his tracks.

But I respectfully disagree with those who have accused those on both sides of the spectrum of politicizing this or of opportunism.

People express their grief in different ways and need different ways to find comfort. The author Leo Tolstoy once observed that “all happy families are alike but unhappy families are all different in their unhappiness.”

I think that’s true. And I think it’s a myth that tragedy brings us together. In fact, we are more likely to be unified in the times when we celebrate than in the times when we mourn.

That’s because we all have different styles of explaining tragedy. And also because mourning and grief contain an element of anger anyway. Indeed, the late Dr, Elizabeth Kubler Ross, who devoted her life to working with the dying, observed five stages of grieving and one of those was anger. Another was attempting to “make a deal with God.” Another was denial.

Often the loss of a child in a family does not bring the parents closer, seeking comfort from each other. Sometimes it does. But it is just as likely to lead to divorce.

Here in Virginia we are seeing the many ways that people explain tragedy to themselves as well as express their grief and they are all valid expressions.

For somebody who has made gun control a major part of their life, it seems so obvious that banning guns would have saved lives that reacting in anger to the availability of guns becomes a natural expression of very real grief, not a chance to exploit the opportunity to promote their political views. Their real concern is saving lives and their anger and opinions are a natural expression of that concern and of their grief.

Likewise, for those like Republitarian, defending the right to own a gun becomes crucial at such a time. He truly believes that somebody who was armed might have been able to stop a killer. I don’t know whether that’s true or who is correct in this debate. And that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that neither of these good people is exploiting an issue. Rather this issue is deeply who they are and bringing it up is a natural expression of real grief as well as a legitimate desire to prevent future tragedies.

It’s fair for others to say, we don’t want to hear it now. For them, grief is expressed much differently. The kindest thing we can do is to respect each other’s different ways of mourning.

Right now my prayers are with all those at Virginia Tech. Ben Tribbett, at NLS is right. Today we are all Hokies. But that doesn’t mean the discussion about what to do next isn’t valid. Or that the people raising it are being exploitative. We are all just different in our unhappiness.

Godspeed to Virginia Tech

Tonight they need our prayers. Here is Gov. Tim Kaine's statement:

"It is difficult to comprehend senseless violence on this scale.
"Our prayers are with the families and friends of these victims, and members of the extended Virginia Tech community.

"The state is working closely with Tech officials, local law enforcement, and the community health system to provide whatever additional resources and support may be needed.

"My staff has made arrangements for me to leave Tokyo today, where I was set to begin a two-week Asian trade mission, so that I can return to the Commonwealth on Tuesday.

"I urge Virginians to keep these victims and their families in their thoughts and prayers."

Toy Trucks and Girl Bloggers

Years ago, when I was active on a fan site for the TV show The West Wing, some of us started a thread for aspiring writers on the site’s message board. We swapped tips and tricks to stay motivated, solve plotting problems, and fight the inevitable procrastination that most fiction writers – and maybe many writers in general – seem to encounter.

One suggestion that a contributor came up with came from her teacher in a writing workshop. Have a toy truck, the message board contributor advised.

What she meant by that was to have another story or writing project that a budding author could turn to when she ran dry of ideas in her main project. The object was to take a needed break from the work in progress but to not lose the habit of sitting down and writing something every day.

It was good advice. Many self-help books on writing advise would be authors to sit down every day even if they do nothing more than stare at a blank screen. That advice, however well meaning, is counter-productive. Stare at the screen – or even a blank page – for too many days and you’ll throw in the towel for good.

Instead, sometimes when you step away and think of something completely different, your subconscious mind will still be working on the original project and will come up with the perfect idea or solution to whatever has been blocking you.

That’s true in every creative endeavor including research science. There’s a famous story of a nineteenth century German chemist, Friedrich Kekule, who couldn’t solve a mathematical problem pertaining to a formula he was working on. Finally, he just took a break from his work and went to sleep one night. During the night, he dreamed of a snake swallowing its own tail. That dream inspired him to solve the problem of the correct structure of the benzene molecule.

So switching gears, taking a nap or having the toy truck, helps you to step away and come back with a fresh perspective. At least, that’s what happened to me.

I stopped blogging because I wanted to try my hand at fiction. At first I was going great guns blazing. I did a short story that I posted on a Website for writers. I began a novel and wrote 58 pages, working steadily. Then I hit writer’s block. I didn’t feel like doing it any more. I actually knew where I was going with the broad outlines of the story but the motivation had dried up.

At about that time, a few bloggers began telling me how much they missed my blog. And truth to tell, I missed doing it too. So I began to spend more time surfing the blogosphere, posting comments on everybody else’s blog, writing occasional diaries for Raising Kaine, and even doing a couple of guest posts, at Jim Hoeft’s invitation, on Bearing Drift.

And guess what?

If you guessed that I got passed page 58 and ideas totally unrelated to blogging began to flow again in my other work, you would be right.

But, I’m actually a little embarrassed to come back after the great fanfare that accompanied my saying goodbye. So many people wished me well that there’s something to be said for quitting while you’re ahead and staying quit. Also, I don’t want people to think my good bye was some sort of ploy. I can assure you that at the time I was very serious and sincere about leaving.

In addition to the desire to do a different type of writing, blogging was taking a lot of time. Several bloggers had left citing the same reason. And I envied each and every one of them for walking away when they did. So I followed suit.

One of the strains of blogging had been the sense of obligation to post something every day. When I started blogging, the received wisdom was that you had to post daily, and possibly update your site several times a day, to keep your readers. If there were nothing new, they’d stop coming around. That seemed logical.

But now with blog aggregators it’s possible to post less frequently and still get an audience. As the blogosphere has expanded, almost nobody can keep up with everything out there, so more and more people are going to the aggregators’ sites as a one-stop shop to find out what’s going on and who’s saying what. Also, most blogs have Lefty Blogs, BNN, or Waldo’s aggregator on their sidebars. So, if readers go to one of the larger, better-known blogs, if a post somewhere else catches their eye, they’ll click on the link. Most people who use the Web are inveterate Web surfers, looking for other links anyway.

That works beautifully for me. I don’t take advertising and I don’t need constant traffic to my site. If I have nothing up and nobody clicks on my site for three days or three weeks, it doesn't matter to me. When I’ve got a post up, it’ll show up on the aggregators and people can surf over and read it if it’s something that arouses their interest. That’s good enough for me.

Also, since I stopped blogging, a lot has changed with the blogging software. Blogger has made it easier than ever to update a blogroll, post links, etc. Although I learned the basic HTML coding needed to do things on a site, it was never my ambition to do Web design. I wanted to write, not code and worry about graphics. But I wanted a crisp, professional looking site. And I wanted to link and have a blogroll that showed off other bloggers. Now I can do those things on Blogger with just a few clicks of a mouse.

The other thing was that I had been blogging with AOL dial-up for a good deal of the time I was doing it. Then I switched to Verizon, which kept crashing. The technology was frankly driving me bonkers because I’m not the most patient person in the world. Nor am I a computer geek who finds problem solving all that interesting. Again, I wanted to write, not fiddle with all the techie stuff.

But now that everything is running smoothly and I can concentrate on penning opinions again, I have decided to try my hand at blogging once more. Just as all the technical hassles had pushed me in the direction of leaving when I was sorely in need of a break, so the solution to those hassles and my own natural inclination to want to spout my opinions at the blogosphere have paved the way for me returning. It just feels right.

Holding My Breath Until I Turn Blue?

No, just going back to being a Democrat now that April Fool's Day is over. The only thing I was serious about yesterday was that I do want to keep the domain since I still use the name Anonymous Is A Woman. Every once in a while I'll Google just to see what's going on, and I've noticed that somebody else is using the same name on eBay and another person on YouTube. I promise you that they are not me. I don't bid on eBay and I don't have a site on YouTube. I also don't have a copyright on the name Anonymous Is A Woman, which is actually a famous quote frequently attributed to Virginia Wolfe. Nevertheless, I would like to hold onto the name and this domain.

On the other hand, I really did write a guest post on Bearing Drift, which is what Jim Hoeft was referring to in the comments section yesterday. It grew out of a few emails that we sent back and forth and Jim very graciously invited me to do so. I don't want to embarrass him but he's a good guy.

Nevertheless, if I never complete my novel and win a Pulitzer Prize, I can now always blame him for distracting me from my true calling. The truth, though, is that I seem to have gotten to page 58 before writer's block set in. Which could be just as well since one of my characters was a reincarnation of Torquemada. I promise you that you really don't want to know.

But I actually did write one short story that may even be readable. It's posted here. And I also wrote a personal essay on suffering and faith here.

To post comments on that site, I think you have to sign up, so if you don't want to go through that rigamarole, don't worry about it. If you're interested, just click on the links and enjoy reading "what I did on my winter vacation" when I abandoned blogging.

And I'll be back in a few months, unless the spirit moves me sooner :)

Exciting April 1st Announcement for AIAW

Well, it’s time to throw up a post on this site again – just to keep from losing the domain. After all, I don’t want somebody taking it over to hawk Cialis, socially useful and medically necessary as that drug is.

However, I’m also excited to be announcing that I have decided to return to full time blogging, but as a Republican. I’m even turning my site red, which is such a better color anyway. Remember, there’s a shade of red out there that could flatter everybody.

Let’s face it, living with a union thug and advocating for the needy are boring. And frankly, I hate the Birkenstocks. Ann Coulter is right.

What I long for is to wear six-inch stilettos in a cute fuchsia and puce (if I figure out what puce looks like).

I want big hair and lots of black eyeliner and scarlet lipstick to go with my scarlet manicure. Color coordination is so important.

In fact, the more I think about it, the hell with politics. I am going to dedicate my blog to the really important stuff – fashion. From now on, I’m going to call it Anonymous Is A Fashionista. And I’m buying my stuff at Wal Mart only if it’s imported directly from China.

Ooops, gotta go, Dan just got back from another damn outsourcing rally.

The End of the World as We Know It: I Agree With Robert Novak on Something

You know it’s the end of the world as we know it when I agree with Washington Post columnist Robert Novak about anything. But in his column today, he’s spot on in his analysis of why both Hollywood’s elite billionaire donors, like Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen and Stephen Spielberg, as well as rank and file Democratic activists around the country, are so wary of Hillary Clinton.

Here’s his astounding comparison of Clinton and one of her opponents, John Edwards:

“What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."

His analysis of the difference in style and substance between Clinton and Edwards is spot on. Where Hillary cautiously parses every word, every action, and every position, Edwards has already come out with a bold plan for universal health care, admitted that it would mean raising taxes on the wealthy, and stated the plan’s costs. In addition, he declared that he was wrong on Iraq and his vote for the war was a mistake that he regretted.

To be sure, Novak isn’t completely kind to Edwards. He points out that in 2004, Edwards started out as a Southern centrist in the mold of Jimmy Carter. According to Novak, when Edwards saw that it wasn’t working, he recast himself as “a leftwing populist.”

Novak thinks that many Democrats are as uncomfortable with Edwards as they are with Clinton because they consider Edwards a shallow trial lawyer. Indeed Novak believes the true beneficiary of Clinton’s early stumbles and disappointments will be Barack Obama.

While this might be true – only time will tell – the most important point of Robert Novak’s column is the contrast between Edwards, the courageous, and Clinton, the cautious. That’s his characterization, not mine.

Still, it’s an accurate take on the difference between those two, and it deeply disturbs me that Hillary can’t just come out and admit she made a mistake.

Like Novak, and like the Democratic activists he cites, I’m seeing a politician who wants it both ways. She wants to neutralize the anti-war sentiment among voters by blaming the way Bush handled the war, but she doesn’t want to admit that the war, itself, was a mistake in the first place.

The most troubling aspect of this is that Hillary is a woman who doesn’t like to admit that she made an error at all. She’s got a stubborn streak. And that reminds me all too much of somebody else who would rather go it alone than say those magic words, “I made a mistake, I’m sorry. Now, how can we correct this together?”

An admission like that doesn’t make you weaker. Indeed, it’s requisite to being a strong and credible leader.

Since Barack Obama wasn’t wrong about Iraq and hasn’t been around long enough to have cast an embarrassing vote on anything (and trust me, if you stay in elective office long enough, you’ll have some vote or some statement you’d like to kick yourself around the block for), it’s hard to know how he’d handle a situation where he had to admit he was wrong. You can’t blame the guy for being right. Or for, so far, being on the side of angels and casting votes that most Democratic activists approve of.

But it’s hard to say if that’s because his judgment is uniformly sterling and prescient or just because he hasn’t been around the block yet.

Since I’m a bit of a contrarian, I believe that everybody screws up sometime. And I want to know how my candidate will handle it when he or she does. And that’s something I already know about John Edwards and also, unfortunately, about Hillary Clinton.

Sam Brownback's Strange Bedfellows and Opus Dei Connections

Note: This is being cross-posted on Raising Kaine. Also, I am not reviving AIAW on a regular basis. But Rob from Raising Kaine had suggested that I cross post back here when I do a diary for them. It seems like a good idea just to keep my domain from becoming public and being taken over by somebody hawking Viagra or Cialis. So, once in a while - very rarely - when something disturbs me enough, there will be a new post, probably in both places.

Kansas senator, Sam Brownback, formally threw his hat into the Republican presidential ring with yesterday's announcement. On the surface, he's the ideal candidate for the pro-life, religious values voters. But his real agenda goes far beyond what even a lot of them want to see for our government.

Indeed, over the years, Brownback has burrowed himself into the leadership role in a network of secretive cabals with a dangerous theocratic agenda that most Americans, even the so-called values voters, don't support. And in some cases, his view is extra-biblical, relying not simply on biblical principles but on the rule a religious elite who believe they know Christ's true plan for our nation and are dedicated to imposing it on the rest of us. Their goal is nothing short of the abolition of free will and individual conscience.

Most people don’t expect Brownback to actually win the Republican nomination, but as this Rolling Stone article points out:

"Brownback is unlikely to receive the Republican presidential nomination -- but as the candidate of the Christian right, he may well be in a position to determine who does, and what they include in their platform. 'What Sam could do very effectively,' says the Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical activist, is hold the nomination hostage until the Christian right "exacts the last pledge out of the more popular candidate."

But Brownback's role as the deal maker for the right is no where near the only threat posed by the softspoken Kansas senator who manages to carry a big stick with a great deal of political clout.

Brownback has managed to amass a movement that is nothing less than an old-fashioned tent revival meeting, composed of far right evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics from the ultra-orthodox Opus Dei movement.

According to Terry Mattingly’s On Religion website: (please note, emphasis is mine)

"This latest ceremony at Catholic Information Center will not draw the attention of the Washington Post. But that happened last year when Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas entered the fold. Some of McCloskey's earlier converts also caused chatter inside the Beltway -- columnist Robert Novak, economist Lawrence Kudlow and former abortion activist Bernard Nathanson."

Father C. John McCloskey III, the priest referred to in the above article, is a brilliant Catholic apologist with an Ivy League education, who has worked for Merrill Lynch and Citibank on Wall Street before becoming a priest in the personal prelature of Opus Dei.

For all his brilliance, Fr. McCloskey certainly doesn’t win any points for religious tolerance. Again, from On Religion.

"In addition to winning prominent converts, McCloskey has bluntly criticized the American Catholic establishment's powerful progressive wing, tossing out quotations like this zinger: 'A liberal Catholic is oxymoronic. The definition of a person who disagrees with what the Catholic church is teaching is called a Protestant.'

"It is also crucial that McCloskey openly embraces evangelism and the conversion of adults from Judaism, Islam and other world religions. For many modern Catholics this implies coercion, manipulation, mind control and, thus, a kind of "proselytism" that preys on the weak.

" 'That's pure trash. That's a false ecumenism,' said McCloskey. 'That's simply not Catholic teaching. The Catholic church makes exclusive truth claims about itself and cannot deny them. It doesn't deny that there are other forms of religion. It doesn't deny that these other forms of religion have some elements of truth in them. ...

" 'But we are proclaiming Jesus Christ and where we believe he can be most fully found and that's the Catholic church. We cannot deny that.' This issue will become even more controversial as America grows more diverse. "

But what’s especially bothersome about Fr. McCloskey's narrow minded views is his cultivation of those in power:

"But words like 'conversion' and 'evangelism' draw attention when a priest's pulpit is located on K Street, only two blocks from the White House. The flock that flows into the center's 100-seat chapel for daily Mass includes scores of lobbyists, politicians, journalists, activists and executives"

However, Opus Dei is actually just the tip of the iceberg for Brownback. Much more troublesome is his long term association with a shadowy group in Congress called The Fellowship. Here’s a rather lengthy description of them, their goals, worldview, and influential members, taken from the Rolling Stone piece cited above:

"One of the little-known strengths of the Christian right lies in its adoption of the 'cell' -- the building block historically used by small but determined groups to impose their will on the majority. Seventy years ago, an evangelist named Abraham Vereide founded a network of 'God-led' cells comprising senators and generals, corporate executives and preachers. Vereide believed that the cells -- God's chosen, appointed to power -- could construct a Kingdom of God on earth with Washington as its capital. They would do so 'behind the scenes,' lest they be accused of pride or a hunger for power, and 'beyond the din of vox populi,' which is to say, outside the bounds of democracy. To insiders, the cells were known as the Family, or the Fellowship. To most outsiders, they were not known at all.

" 'Communists use cells as their basic structure,' declares a confidential Fellowship document titled 'Thoughts on a Core Group.' "The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four-man squad. Hitler, Lenin and many others understood the power of a small group of people.' Under Reagan, Fellowship cells quietly arranged meetings between administration officials and leaders of Salvadoran death squads, and helped funnel military support to Siad Barre, the brutal dictator of Somalia, who belonged to a prayer cell of American senators and generals.

"Brownback got involved in the Fellowship in 1979, as a summer intern for Bob Dole, when he lived in a residence the group had organized in a sorority house at the University of Maryland. Four years later, fresh out of law school and looking for a political role model, Brownback sought out Frank Carlson, a former Republican senator from Kansas. It was Carlson who, at a 1955 meeting of the Fellowship, had declared the group's mission to be 'Worldwide Spiritual Offensive,' a vision of manly Christianity dedicated to the expansion of American power as a means of spreading the gospel.

"Over the years, Brownback became increasingly active in the Fellowship. But he wasn't invited to join a cell until 1994, when he went to Washington. 'I had been working with them for a number of years, so when I went into Congress I knew I wanted to get back into that,' he says. 'Washington -- power -- is very difficult to handle. I knew I needed people to keep me accountable in that system.'

"Brownback was placed in a weekly prayer cell by 'the shadow Billy Graham' -- Doug Coe, Vereide's successor as head of the Fellowship. The group was all male and all Republican. It was a 'safe relationship,' Brownback says. Conversation tended toward the personal. Brownback and the other men revealed the most intimate details of their desires, failings, ambitions. They talked about lust, anger and infidelities, the more shameful the better -- since the goal was to break one's own will. The abolition of self; to become nothing but a vessel so that one could be used by God.
They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls 'Jesus plus nothing' -- a government led by Christ's will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything -- sex and taxes, war and the price of oil -- will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It's a good old boy's club blessed by God. Brownback even lived with other cell members in a million-dollar, red-brick former convent at 133 C Street that was subsidized and operated by the Fellowship. Monthly rent was $600 per man -- enough of a deal by Hill standards that some said it bordered on an ethical violation, but no charges were ever brought.

"Brownback still meets with the prayer cell every Tuesday evening. He and his 'brothers,' he says, are 'bonded together, faith and souls.' The rules forbid Brownback from revealing the names of his fellow members, but those in the cell likely include such conservative stalwarts as Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, former Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma and Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma doctor who has advocated the death penalty for abortion providers. Fellowship documents suggest that some 30 senators and 200 congressmen occasionally attend the group's activities, but no more than a dozen are involved at Brownback's level.

"The men in Brownback's cell talk about politics, but the senator insists it's not political. 'It's about faith and action,' he says. According to 'Thoughts on a Core Group,' the primary purpose of the cell is to become an 'invisible 'believing' group.' Any action the cell takes is an outgrowth of belief, a natural extension of 'agreements reached in faith and in prayer.' Deals emerge not from a smoke-filled room but from a prayer-filled room. 'Typically,' says Brownback, 'one person grows desirous of pursuing an action' -- a piece of legislation, a diplomatic strategy -- 'and the others pull in behind.'

"In 1999, Brownback worked with Rep. Joe Pitts, a Fellowship brother, to pass the Silk Road Strategy Act, designed to block the growth of Islam in Central Asian nations by bribing them with lucrative trade deals. That same year, he teamed up with two Fellowship associates -- former Sen. Don Nickles and the late Sen. Strom Thurmond -- to demand a criminal investigation of a liberal group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Last year, several Fellowship brothers, including Sen. John Ensign, another resident of the C Street house, supported Brownback's broadcast decency bill. And Pitts and Coburn joined Brownback in stumping for the Houses of Worship Act to allow tax-free churches to endorse candidates.

"The most bluntly theocratic effort, however, is the Constitution Restoration Act, which Brownback co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another former C Streeter who was then a congressman from South Carolina. If passed, it will strip the Supreme Court of the ability to even hear cases in which citizens protest faith-based abuses of power. Say the mayor of your town decides to declare Jesus lord and fire anyone who refuses to do so; or the principal of your local high school decides to read a fundamentalist prayer over the PA every morning; or the president declares the United States a Christian nation. Under the Constitution Restoration Act, that'll all be just fine.

Brownback points to his friend Ed Meese, who served as attorney general under Reagan, as an example of a man who wields power through backroom Fellowship connections. Meese has not held a government job for nearly two decades, but through the Fellowship he's more influential than ever, credited with brokering the recent nomination of John Roberts to head the Supreme Court. 'As a behind-the-scenes networker,' Brownback says, 'he's important.' In the senator's view, such hidden power is sanctioned by the Bible. 'Everybody knows Moses,' Brownback says. 'But who were the leaders of the Jewish people once they got to the promised land? It's a lot of people who are unknown.'

"Every Tuesday, before his evening meeting with his prayer brothers, Brownback chairs another small cell -- one explicitly dedicated to altering public policy. It is called the Values Action Team, and it is composed of representatives from leading organizations on the religious right. James Dobson's Focus on the Family sends an emissary, as does the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America and many more. Like the Fellowship prayer cell, everything that is said is strictly off the record, and even the groups themselves are forbidden from discussing the proceedings. It's a little 'cloak-and-dagger,' says a Brownback press secretary. The VAT is a war council, and the enemy, says one participant, is 'secularism.'

"The VAT coordinates the efforts of fundamentalist pressure groups, unifying their message and arming congressional staffers with the data and language they need to pass legislation. Working almost entirely in secret, the group has directed the fights against gay marriage and for school vouchers, against hate-crime legislation and for 'abstinence only' education. The VAT helped win passage of Brownback's broadcast decency bill and made the president's tax cuts a top priority. When it comes to 'impacting policy,' says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, 'day to day, the VAT is instrumental.'"

Sorry for the very long quote, but if I tried to paraphrase any of this, you wouldn’t believe me or would think that I was just being paranoid.

In addition to Opus Dei, The Fellowship, the Values Action Team and his other shadowy, undemocratic cells, Brownback announced that one of the major advisers to his presidential exploratory committee will be Thomas Monaghan,, the founder of the ultra-conservative and controversial Ave Maria University, which you can read about here. In addition to moving Ave Maria from Michigan to Collier County, Florida, Mohaghan is attempting to build his own theocratically governed private town, also named Ave Maria. The town will be set up and governed on orthodox Catholic principles such as banning pharmacies from distributing contraceptives

According to this report from the Media Transparancy website:

"Tom Monaghan 'is putting his money and influence' into making Brownback "the next president of the United States," McClatchy Newspapers' Matt Stearns recently reported. The extremely wealthy, and controversial conservative Catholic, 'is advising the 2008 presidential exploratory committee for Brownback, a longtime social conservative who converted to Catholicism a few years ago,' Stearns pointed out.

" 'In the Catholic community, he's looked upon as kind of on the fringes,' the Rev. Robert Drinan, a liberal Roman Catholic priest and former Democratic congressman who teaches at Georgetown University, told Stearns. 'The worldview is, "We have to get back to a Catholic civilization." They want to go back to a Christian society imposed from above...It's just another world they want to build.'"

If this all frightens you, it frightens me too. There are a lot of good, sincere people out there who oppose abortion, worry about the increasing crudeness that passes for culture in our society, and sincerely believe that religion has value in the public square. But what Sam Brownback is involved with goes way beyond that well-intentioned debate about societal reform.

Brownback is not just involved but is the leading force in groups whose goal is to remake America as an authoritarian theocracy, guided by biblical law as dictated by an annointed few. Incredibly, they believe that "the Bible is for the masses," and their vision is for an extra-biblical dictatorship, perhaps based on biblical principles, but ruled by a small cabal who impose their religious and social views on everybody else. These are people who have made alliance with the leaders of El Salvadoran death squads and brutal Somalian dictators. Theirs is a scary vision for America, indeed for the world.

Brownback, the Fellowship, and their fellow travelers like Jim DeMint, Ed Meese, Tom Coburn, and others mentioned above need to be taken seriously and watched carefully. Theirs would be a dangerous America indeed.

It's Another Door Opening

I believe things happen for a reason. Sometimes, there seems to be more irony than reason in the way events unfold, but I think that life has a purpose and there truly are explanations for why things occur even if we don’t’ always discover the answers in this lifetime.

But sometimes it seems that events do push you down a specific path.

I just discovered that since I switched to Blogger’s beta version my posts have not been getting picked up by Lefty Blogs. I had been wondering why there were so few comments on my blog. Surely my opinions hadn’t grown any less offensive to those readers who always found me disagreeable. Maybe I had gotten more boring – a distinct possibility that I can’t really discount.

I certainly have been less observant than usual because I didn’t notice until late yesterday that Lefty Blogs hadn’t picked up two things I had posted a couple of hours earlier. So, out of curiosity I went to their site to see if they had dropped me. After all, perhaps I’m not lefty enough. Another distinct possibility.

Nope, I’m still on their Virginia blogroll. I surfed around and to my surprise discovered that a lot of other bloggers who used Blogger and switched to the beta version were having the same problems with their feed.

In my case, it amused me because it’s just the shove in a direction I’ve wanted to take for a while. I’ve even mentioned it to a few friends and fellow bloggers.

I’m going to hang up my dancing slippers and slip away.

There are a few reasons for this, which actually have little to do with Lefty Blogs. That they aren’t getting my feed is just a fortuitous coincidence.

The main reason that I’m taking a break from blogging is lack of time. To really do it right, political blogging needs to be an on the spot, up to the minute response to breaking news. In today’s instant headline world, blogging is not the place for the leisurely, thoughtful in depth analysis that I like to write and read in others. The most relevant bloggers do short, choppy and timely posts, updating several time a day. And I just can’t do that anymore.

I think you can get away with updating just once a day. But when you go longer than two or three days, you really get less relevant. Or at least that’s my take on it.

And blogging is fairly time intensive. Unlike some other forms of writing, such as fiction, memoirs, and personal essays, it’s impossible to do political blogging without a lot of reading of other blogs, newspapers, and magazines. You can’t do the type of blogging that I was trying to do without being well informed and without being willing to do intensive research and linking. That more than the actual writing is what makes it so labor and time intensive.

I enjoyed every minute of doing it, almost to the point of addiction. Indeed, on any given night, long after I had researched, linked, and written my own blog entry, I’d still be up surfing the net and reading other people’s blogs, and writing comments on their sites too.

But I can’t keep doing that. As much fun as it’s been, I’ve been informed by those who love me that I need to take my life back. I need to stop neglecting family members. Having lost my mother nearly a year ago, it became very clear to me that the people I ignore today may not be here tomorrow and I may not ever get the chance to make it up to them.

Nor should any of us put off doing the things we want to do for that mythical tomorrow that may never come. And I’ve been putting off doing something that I’ve wanted to try for way too long.

I alluded to it in another post (no, I refuse to link this time, I’m tired of linking). In "No Republican Blogger Died In the Making of This Blog," I mentioned that I was getting interested in writing fiction. I gave you a brief snippet – but a sort of tongue in cheek sample.

The truth is I know I’m a decent enough writer of non-fiction and of doing the type of writing that works on a blog or even in an off-line op-ed piece. But I have no objective proof that I’d be a good fiction author. Still, I’d sure like to try.

I don’t expect my first efforts to be dazzling because the first essay I wrote back in fifth or sixth grade wasn’t brilliant either. It took work and practice to be an effective non-fiction writer. And it will probably take effort to be even a little bit good as a novelist or short story writer.

I’ve made my first effort and joined a writer’s workshop at my local library. When I read my short story it was very well received and that gave me encouragement to keep trying. It’s when I start sending work out to actual editors and publishers that I expect to taste a bit more humility. But that’s what having a support group like the one I joined is for. To get the feedback and validation to keep plugging away when the going gets tough.

So, I’m going to try my hand at writing fiction. And I’m going to take more time to savor my family and friends and rejoice while I’ve got them.

And next year, I’ll probably get so impassioned, once again, by the state of politics that I’ll be back. Or maybe not. I’m not closing the door on blogging. But for now, another door is opening.

Janet Oleszek Will Challenge Cuccinelli

Ben Tribbett has this up announcing that Janet Oleszek will take on Ken Cuccinelli in the state Senate race next year. Ben has changed this race from leans Republican to a toss up. I think he's right.

Some of those who posted comments to his article pointed out that voters in this district voted for Davis or Wolf (depending on which part of the district they live in) in the most recent election. But the district also has gone for Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Leslie, Byrne, Creigh Deeds, and Jim Webb. And both Davis and Wolf are viewed as moderates. Cuccinelli definitely isn't.

I like Ken a lot. Every election day when I work the polls at Fairview, he's also there and I can schmooze with him all day without getting frustrated. He's enormously personable and likeable. But I think he's way more conservative than the district he's representing.

So, despite his personal attributes and the power of incumbency, against a candidate as formidable as Oleszek, it's going to be close.

Right now this is going to be one of the races to watch. With Chap taking on Jeannemarie Devolites Davis and Janet Oleszek challenging Ken Cuccinelli, we're not going to get a dull 2007.

Two Fighting Scots-Irish Celebrate Victory

Photo courtesy of Bill Burke, Page One

The photo was taken at the AFL-CIO's Congressional reception in Washington, DC on Tuesday, November 13. The enthusiastic guy hugging Jim Webb is Dan Duncan, a fellow Scots-Irish descendant who hails from Tennessee. He's the nominee to be the next president of the Northern Virginia Central Labor Council and he led the successful Northern Virginia labor-to-labor GOTV effort.

He was also an early Webb supporter. In fact, he brought his copy of Born Fighting to his first meeting with Jim Webb back in March 2006 and got it autographed.

Oh yeah, he's also Mr. Anonymous. Am I a proud wife, or what?

Defining A Real Democrat Just Got Easier With Jim Webb

Defeated and somewhat demoralized Republicans, like Mason Conservative, are consoling themselves with a new narrative about Jim Webb. According to their new meme, Jim Webb is going to be a big disappointment to the Democrats who worked so hard for his election because Webb is really a "Pat Buchanan Conservative."

I think that's a stretch. They're misreading Webb and fooling themselves, probably because right now they need to in order to avoid admitting that Americans really did repudiate them for their handling of the war and the economy.

Their main argument, though, for comparing the two men is that Webb has an independent and sometimes conservative streak. Especially, they point out gleefully, where Second Amendment rights are concerned. Webb, like Buchanan, is against gun control and is comfortable around people who like guns. MC and other conservatives believe this will cause Democrats to become disillusioned with Webb.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that most Democrats knew Webb's position going in. In fact, one district chair said to me that although, as a part of leadership, he was publicly supporting Webb, his wife could never vote for Webb precisely because of Webb's stand on gun control. That was a minority reaction but it proves that Democrats knew exactly what they were getting in Jim Webb. And by the way, both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine also had "Sportsman for (Warner or Kaine)" bumper stickers, which was virtually an admission of being pro-gun ownership. However worthy their cause, most of the proponents of gun control have given up that fight in Virginia as unwinnable at this time.

But other than on the gun control issue, there are significant differences between Webb and Buchanan.

The most obvious is that Buchanan is a real wedge issue social conservative. Webb is not. Even during his Reagan years, Webb was considered moderate when it came to social issues like abortion. Webb is pro-choice, in favor of stem cell research, and opposed the so-called marriage amendment. So he's much more in step with Democrats than with Pat Buchanan Conservatives.
As for his opposition to Iraq, every Democrat who won last week was anti-Iraq. It's Buchanan who is marching in step with us on that one, not visa versa. Likewise, on the economy, Buchanan's populism puts him out of synch with free traders in his own party as well as Harris Miller style Democrats. But plenty of Democrats, including Brian Dorgan and Carl Levin, are also economic populists. If you're a Democrat, it's called being pro-union, something Buchanan actually isn't, but Jim Webb is.

And Webb showed his true colors today in this Wall Street Journal op-ed. Webb nails it in this piece, which is brilliantly written and literally hammers home the inequities that are bothering people.

There’s a popular misconception among the mainstream media and political pundits that populism doesn’t work in American elections because most voters don’t resent rich people. Indeed, they aspire to be rich themselves. No matter how far fetched the reality, most Americans appear to believe that the ability to achieve great wealth is within their grasp, so they support laws that favor the rich even if that appears contrary to their real economic interests.

That’s only a partial truth, though. Most Americans don’t resent the rich because most Americans are generous of spirit and kind of heart. As long as they are economically comfortable, prosperous, and secure, they are not envious. And as long as they perceive that the system is basically fair and provides equitable opportunity they are not resentful.

But too many people have been affected by downsizing, outsourcing and automation or have seen neighbors and family members affected by these forces to feel really secure. And too many have either experienced, seen, or read about the erosion of pensions and health benefits. At the same time, they’ve also read about golden parachutes, fabulous wealth and perks awarded to CEOs and corporate executives, even while their companies are performing poorly.

Most people are aware that “it’s not what you know but who you know” nowadays that determines economic well-being. Americans aren’t resentful and aren’t natural populists. But too many of them are getting fed up with the unfairness they are seeing around them. Indeed, inequity seems to run like a seam through the rock of the American economy and it's causing a crack in the surface of our civil society. Jim Webb just exposed the fault line and proved he’s a real Democrat who holds our core values. He's not a Pat Buchanan Conservative, as MC and others would have you think. Jim Webb is a Jefferson-Jackson-style Democrat.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Ok, the most obvious fact is that it’s neither Monday nor morning. It’s actually two days after the elections. Nevertheless, it's time for me to give you my take on the results. Here's my pick for winners and losers in the 2006 elections.

Jim Webb was a very big winner. He came into this race a complete novice. And he was never supposed to win. To a lot of so-called hard headed pragmatists, if Webb had simply slowed down Allen's momentum to keep him from a cakewalk into the Republican presidential nomination, it would have been enough. But here was a guy who was a reluctant politician, introverted (I mean, he writes books for a living - that's 8 hours of sitting in a room all alone working at a solitary pursuit, not great preparation for glad handing the general public), and obviously uncomfortable asking strangers for the huge amounts of money it takes to run. Yet despite all that, he slayed a giant. If anybody deserves the hearty thanks of Democrats all over this country, it's Webb. Against all odds, this novice took back the Senate for Democrats.

The most obvious loser is George Bush. This was a referendum about him. His management style, his policies, his administration. People wanted change and they trusted the Democrats to deliver it.

Surprisingly, the biggest winner (other than the actual successful candidates) might also be George Bush. He showed immediately that he got it. His humble demeanor as he admitted at a press conference that Republicans had “taken a thumping” reminded Americans of what they had originally liked about him, back in 2000 when he still acted like a regular guy you’d want to have a beer with. It’s been a long time since anybody’s caught a glimpse of that humble side. He’s been all arrogance recently. Look for a return to the famous charm offensive of early 2001. Of course, it didn't work the first time and I'm not sure it will, with Democrats, this time either. It's not really meant to charm them anyway. It's meant to appeal the public, though, so he can blame Democratic obstructionists who will definitely oppose him on Iraq, social security privatization, and any number of judicial appointments.

The big losers, Democrats. Now they've got to govern. At some point, they have to agree upon a legislative agenda, including a plausible plan to extricate us from Iraq without appearing reckless or weak. That's a lot harder than it looks from the minority side of the aisle. Governing is more difficult than it appears, especially with a divided government. Both sides are going to do a lot of finger pointing and posturing and jockying for favorable position with the public leading up to the presidential elections in 2008.

But a big loser was Karl Rove whose strategy of exciting the base - independents and swing voters be damned - finally failed. Good politics always is about building coalitions, not depending on only one narrow segment of the electorate to win and govern.

So-called values voters were another big loser. For all their bragging after 2004, they couldn’t deliver the winning margins in state and local races when they were overtaken by events like the war in Iraq and the economic erosion of the middle class. Pragmatism trumped the culture wars when it came to candidates winning this year.

On the other hand, values didn’t lose. Voters were disgusted by Republican scandals from Abramoff to Foley. Voters proved that they didn’t define values as narrowly as the social conservatives did. Honesty, integrity, concern for economic fairness and social justice, and good environmental stewardship concerned them.

On the other hand, traditional moral values are hardly dead. In Virginia, the marriage amendment won and I am afraid that same sex marriage is a loser. Although I personally support anybody’s right to be married to whomever they want and to have the full legal protections of a marriage, for now laws to define marriage as between one man and one woman have a better track record than those that seek to expand the definition of marriage to give the right to same sex partners. That's true across the nation.

Right now, gay activists need to do the hard work of convincing the American public of the basic fairness of extending to same sex partners the same legal protections for their unions that straight people have, and not focus on whether its called marriage or something else. Sometimes incrementalism and pragmatism win.

The Republicans’ famous 72-Hour Project was a loser. Not that it failed. Just that Democrats don’t need to fear it. When they set their minds to it, Democrats can get out their votes too. The Democrats’ GOTV effort was a winner.

I’m prejudiced on this one, but another winner was Virginia’s organized labor, which was with Jim Webb from the beginning. Although a few unions backed his opponent in the primary, most of labor supported Webb, including the incoming president of the NoVa Central Labor Council, who met with Webb back in March and supported him immediately. The Northern Virginia CLC, by the way, knocked on 4,000 doors and made 2400 phone calls in one day in their labor to labor GOTV effort, probably the most they've ever logged in an election. In a squeaker like this, that's got to give them some credit for turning out labor voters for Webb that helped put him over the top. Good job!

Other very big winners were Larry and Leslie Byrne, who took Webb around to Democrats and labor. Chap Peterson was also right there lending his name and considerable credibility to Webb’s run. And the fact that both Leslie Byrne and Peterson could put the 2005 Lt Governor’s primary behind them to unite behind Webb's candidacy can teach a lesson in graciousness, pragmatisim, and party loyalty to some of the leadership of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee. Enough said about that.

A big winner was the Virginia blogosphere.

Without them Allen’s maccacca moment would have been relegated to the last page of the metro section of the Washington Post without much coverage anyplace else. In the past, the press thought of themselves as the gatekeepers who decided which news the public should get. Those days have ended. For better or worse, the general public now knows what’s whispered in the halls of Richmond and Washington the same as the reporters and the legislators do. Nobody was better at up to the minute coverage, gossip, rumor, innuendo, and spot on analysis of polls than Not Larry Sabato. Ben Tribbett is the must read blog for all Virginia bloggers, regardless of party or ideology.

Another big winner was Raising Kaine's Josh Chernila and Lowell Feld . They were the first Webb supporters. In fact, without their encouragement, there might not have been a Webb candidacy. They helped to persuade him to run. And the rest of the RK gang provided coverage, support, enthusiasm, and great YouTube footage to readers. We probably have to thank the Indian-American college student, Siddarth, who first put YouTube and maccacca on the map - or at least the late night comedy shows. Congrats to all!

Finally, a special mention has to go to Mason Conservative who has been incredibly gracious on his blog and over at NLS. He is a true Virginia gentleman and he makes me proud to be a Virginia blogger. We will lock horns again, my friend. But for now you have all my admiration and you are one of the true winners for showing style and class. And good luck to your Redskins. You deserve some victory joy.

Finis!

Well, it's all over but the shouting. And hopefully the celebrating.

Like most of the political bloggers, regardless of which party, I had a busy day. It actually began with a doctor's appointment, then I headed to my polling place to vote. I stayed to work the polls for a few hours. Then I was supposed to make get out the vote calls. When I got to the precinct where my contact was supposed to give me the phone list, she hadn't shown up yet so I stayed to pass out some more literature. She had a lot of people working the polls. We had three Democrats to one Republican passing out lit.

When she showed up, she said she had the phone calls covered so I stayed a while longer. Then, because they seemed to have enough people, with more coming in later, I headed back to my own precinct. They had about four or five people too, with the promise of more to cover the all important 5 to 7 shift. Meanwhile, four of us passed out literature for a couple of hours while there were no Allen people at all. We basically had the playing field to ourselves.

Finally, an Allen supporter showed up, spent some time on the phone - no doubt to call for reinforcements - and began passing out his literature.

For me, the best moment, one where I wished I had a camera, was when one of our supporters, a young man who wore a Firefighters For Webb tee shirt over his turtleneck sweater helped an elderly disabled lady out of a car and escorted her to the polls. He did the same for another elderly woman who was having difficulty walking. It was all very chivelrous and touching.

I saw Ben Tribbett at Fairview Precinct, which is my precint, and the place I spent the most time. Ben also introduced me to Too Conservative's little sister. A nice young woman, even if she laughed when I went back to the left side. Honestly, the Dems in Fairview always seem to take the left side and Repubs the right. Has been that way for the 12 years that I've worked there. And they've always gotten along well. In previous years, there were Republicans who would hug me in greeting. And I'd return the hugs enthusiastically. They were fellow Burke residents who I saw around the stores and restaurants and we had real relationships beyond election day.

Politics has gotten so nasty lately that we forget that human touch. But when you see somebody else who feels just as passionate about his beliefs standing beside you in the rain on a chilly November day, there is a common bond, even if it's just that your both shivering and huddled under umbrellas.

I have to admit that I've met some of the nicest people among Republicans while working the Fairview Precinct. I miss some of the ones who have moved on and aren't there anymore.

Meanwhile, I hope our side wins. But even more, I hope someday we find a better, more fair, kinder way to do politics.

As Mason Conservative said yesterday, it's not personal. It's politics. And because it's Virginia, we'll all be back in six months for the next race. So, rest up.

Vote For Jim Webb And Andy Hurst Tuesday

And if you’re in the 10th Congressional District, vote for Judy Feder.

I’m going to make my plea to those who live in my own 11th CD to please vote for Andy Hurst as well as for Jim Webb for U.S. Senate this Tuesday, November 7.

It is long past time for some oversight in our government. The problem with the one party rule that we’ve experienced for six years is that there has not been adequate checks and balances.

That’s not the way to run a government. It’s not even the way you run a good business. In business, there are accounting standards that demand checks and balances and even audits to ensure accountability and honesty. If that’s how a private business is run, then surely a government, which is responsible to its citizens, should have even more transparency and accountability. The citizens, after all, foot the bill for the government.

And those citizen-taxpayers are dissatisfied on a number of fronts.

They want a solution to the war in Iraq that gets our soldiers out of harms way without compromising national security. Yet reports have shown that our presence in Iraq has actually made us more vulnerable to terrorist threats rather than safer. And in a stunning blow to the current administration, all the branches of our armed forces have called for Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s ouster.

Basically our people in uniform have voted no confidence in the Secretary of Defense. Yet President Bush has vowed to “stay the course” on keeping him. You can’t credibly say that our military leaders simply have a partisan gripe with their civilian leader. Everybody can see how badly things are going in Iraq, just as they can see how badly its going in the rest of the Middle East, North Korea, and around the world. The military is merely echoing the no confidence that civilians feel with the course we are being urged to stay.

Democrats certainly don’t have all the answers. Democrats, if you will recall, have been systematically excluded from leadership and marginalized by this administration and by Republican congressional leaders. Without access to meaningful intelligence reports it’s difficult to say what to do differently with any certainty.

But Democrats do agree on some alternatives including sending the National Guard troops home, moving Special Forces troops to friendly countries so they can monitor conditions in Iraq and contain terrorism in that country. They also favor seeking a diplomatic solution to the civil war there, which would bring Iraq’s neighbors and our European allies into the solution. Democrats want to ensure that our security needs are met, contrary to Republican claims, and find a way out of the morass that we are in, in Iraq.

On the economic front, Republicans are baffled that the country is not overjoyed at the economy they’ve created. We’ve had years of solid growth, high productivity and low unemployment, although growth has slowed dramatically this quarter and productivity is also on a downward spiral. Only the unemployment rate has dipped even lower. Now, investors fear the combination of a tight employment market and low productivity might drive wages up and spike inflation.

For ordinary workers, it’s a no win situation. When business growth was sizzling and profits were shooting sky high, high productivity kept their wages low. In fact, that was a favorable condition to economists, who always fear higher wages as a sign of inflationary pressure.

So, if workers cannot share the gravy in the good times, and any advance they make is a threat to the good of the economy (whereas astronomical salaries, generous bonuses and stock options, and munificent perks for CEOs are all considered justifiable expenses), what stake do employees have in the economy?

That’s what explains the sourness the ordinary voter feels for the economy. It’s why good economic conditions have not given Republicans any traction and why voters trust Democrats more with the economy.

And they’re right. Democrats understand the difference between greed, which contrary to Gordon Gekko, the character in the movie Wall Street, is not good. Rational self-interest is very good. Encouraging businesses to share the good times with workers, instead of resenting them as a necessary but evil expense that cuts into business profits and bonuses, is rational self-interest.

Democrats would raise the minimum wage and work with businesses to find ways to make healthcare more affordable and to encourage secure pensions. And they would do it in ways that would strengthen business because nobody wants to see business hurt; that’s killing the goose that lays the golden egg. And that, by the way, is the difference between rational self-interest and greed. Most workers don't want to gain benefits that hurt business in the long run. They want good salaries and good benefits only to the degree that it helps business not hurts it.

Republicans fear that Democrats would repeal Bush’s tax cuts. They probably would.

Instead, they would encourage targeted tax cuts that benefit the middle class and working people because economists have shown that when you give tax cuts to wealthy people, they do not spend it in ways that stimulate the economy. They stick it in savings or investment. But with the economic slowdown now a fact, we are going to need to stimulate the economy again and the fastest way to encourage people to spend is to give them money in their pocket as a tax cut does. The people who actually spend tax cuts in ways that stimulate the retail sector are poorer people. That’s because they’re the ones who have to put off purchases and if you give them an extra dollar, there’s stuff they actually need but couldn’t afford. So they’ll buy.

Tax cuts could also go to businesses that provide decent health coverage to employees to help offset the expense. There are other ways to use tax cuts to reward businesses for helping employees with healthcare, pensions, and even daycare for workers.

Because Democrats have different priorities than Republicans they will use tax cuts differently than Republicans. Not just to benefit the top one percent of the wealthiest members of society, but to benefit the middle class and working people.

Jim Webb and Andy Hurst have both demonstrated that they understand the needs of the middle class. Both of them want to find a solution to the mess in Iraq and realize staying the course isn’t it. Both men have demonstrated integrity and independence.

This country needs a change and both of them can help find it. They would represent Virginia with an integrity that is sadly lacking in Washington right now and Virginians could be proud to call them respectively Senator and Representative.

Vote Tuesday, and vote for Jim Webb for Senate and Andy Hurst for the House of Representatives.

And vote for Judy Feder in the 10, because everything I’ve said above applies to her too. And she would bring tremendous intelligence and experience to Congress.

On The Marriage Amendment Vote NO

Most of the liberal/Democratic blogs are urging a no vote on ballot issue #1, the so-called marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution. Opponents of this amendment, also known as the Marshall-Newman amendment, cite its unanticipated consequences as one of the major reasons to vote it down. The language is so vague that it could encourage costly lawsuits.

For the best coverage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment, Vivian Paige has been doing a masterful job over at her blog. Go here , here, and here

What's striking is a number of Republicans and Republican/conservative leaning blogs are also urging a no vote. Bearing Drift gives the reasons why its contributors are urging readers to vote the Marshall-Newman Amendment down.

And in the Burke Connection, Delegate Steve Shanon, a moderate Democrat, who was originally a strong supporter of laws to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and who, indeed, was one of only two Democrats, Chap Peterson was the other one, to vote in favor of this law in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2004 (I yelled at him for it, at the time) has now come out against the Marshall-Newman amendment.

And finally Rick Sincere has a good post on prominent Republicans voting No to the amendment.

I don't usually cut and paste others work, but there's enough out there about how bad this amendment is that I don't need to repeat what others have done better than me. Let it suffice to say that I urge you to vote No on Tuesday.