Reading notes

Each of the Democratic candidates vying to replace George W. Bush has a serious electability problem. The problem has nothing to do with their biographies or temperaments — and everything to do with a significant, but unnoticed, structural divide in American presidential politics. …

Using the Tax Foundation’s analysis, it’s possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are Givers. …

The Democrats’ electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states — while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states. …

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It’s shrewd politics.

Shrewd politics. But hellbound behavior. (So it seems to me. Actually, of course, God knows, I don’t.)

What’s certain is “give and we shall receive” won’t work forever.

Thanks, Daniel.

[via hester]

The Black Commentator — “commentary, analysis, and investigations on issues affecting African Americans” — on the impact of U.S. corporate media consolidation (CPM = Corporate Power Media) on this presidential campaign:

Howard Dean has joined the list of victims of U.S. corporate media consolidation. Dean shares this distinction with Dennis Kucinich and the people of the formerly sovereign state of Iraq, among many others. Dean was stripped of half his popular support in the space of two weeks in January while John Kerry — tied in the polls with Carol Moseley-Braun at seven percent just two months earlier — rose like a genie from a bottle to become the overnight presidential frontrunner. … Neither Dean nor Kerry had done anything on their own that could have so dramatically altered the race. Corporate America decided that Dean must be savaged, and its media sector made it happen. …

If a mildly progressive, Internet-driven, young white middle class-centered, movement-like campaign such as Dean’s — flush with money derived from unconventional sources, backed by significant sections of labor, reinforced by big name endorsements and surging with upward momentum — can be derailed in a matter of weeks at the whim of corporate media, then all of us are in deep trouble.

Very well done IMO. Deny the Matrix at your own peril.

Man. I think a revolution’s brewing among people who do their own thinking.

[via PhillipG]

Evangelical Christians have traditionally voted Republican based on the pro-life/abortion issue alone. This created the voting bloc known as the “religious right” and the powerful Christian Coalition lobby. With a sometimes token stance against abortion, the Republican Party co-opted us into an entire economic and foreign policy agenda that has nothing to do with biblical values and commitments. …

Instead of voting based on a single issue, Christians for Dean encourages voters to consider all the issues and embrace a consistently pro-life position as it relates to peace and foreign policy, compassion for the poor, capital punishment, access to health care and education, creation care, economic justice, and racial reconciliation.

The truth is, Jesus is neither Republican or Democrat. As Christians, we should be fiercely independent and deeply thoughtful, supporting leadership that best reflects our ideals and convictions.

Additional interesting links at Another Christian for Dean.

This Salon article about Judy Dean’s appearance with Howard on Primetime Live with Diane Sawyer (transcript and video links) is one of the loveliest things I’ve read this month.

Let Wesley Clark have the endorsement of the Material Girl; Howard Dean has the support of the Unacquisitive Girl.

One of the reasons I was so moved by Judy Dean’s heartfelt declaration of independence from our Thing Culture is that it reminded me so much of my mother — who was the ultimate nonthing person.

When she died, she left behind no prized possessions — not surprising considering her habit of giving such things away. …

People like my mother and Judy Dean stand in stark contrast to our national obsession with consumption. Our “Supersize Me!” society has so elevated the manufactured over the meaningful that when somebody dares question the value of our collective covetousness we react like they’ve impugned the legitimacy of the scriptures.

I’m fascinated to read Arianna reporting that many men have told her they have a crush — based on her authenticity — on Judy. I came away from the interview thinking, man, she’s the kind of person I would fall for, too.

(Good news is, in all the important ways, I did fall for someone like Judy!)

BuzzFlash interview with George McGovern:

Let me say that one thing that Richard Pearle and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have in common is that none of them have ever been near a combat scene. They’re perfectly willing to send younger people — other people’s sons — into war. …

It makes me furious to see people like that beating their chests on how patriotic they are, waving the flag, glorifying God, while young Americans are needlessly being sacrificed in wars that they have devised, not our troops. These theorists sit around dreaming up wars for young men to die in.

What they’re doing is blasphemy, by definition: “blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence.”

Markos presents a mass of Dave Sirota’s Googled evidence (from CAP) that, despite White House spokesman Scott McClellan’s claims to the contrary, the administration did use the adjective “imminent” in front of the word “threat” concerning Iraq multiple times, along with several others like “mortal threat,” “serious and mounting threat,” “immediate threat,” and “unique threat.”

As Markos assesses, “the administration made shit up, assuming that Iraq would have banned weapons to vindicate it. But it didn’t. It had nothing.”

“It turns out we were all wrong,” said David Kay, who resigned last week as head of the Iraq Survey Group. “That is most disturbing.”

Honestly, if justice means anything, then if it’s okay to impeach someone for lying about a blowjob, then it’s imperative to impeach someone for lying us into an unprovoked, unsubstantiated war in which 10,000+ of God’s children have died and roughly that many more are now maimed and wounded.

Doesn’t matter in the slightest to what degree Bush the person is responsible. If you’re in charge and a f*ckup of this magnitude occurs, you’re out. Period.

If Republicans won’t impeach for this, then they must apologize to the country for putting us through so much impeachment crap with Clinton over something of nearly infinitesimal significance relative to this. If they neither impeach Bush nor apologize for impeaching Clinton, then I think their credibility is shot through altogether. I take not one word they say without a boulder-size grain of salt.

Why not wait until November 2004/January 2005 and just drum ‘em out naturally? Well, if we impeach quickly now, think of the lives that could be saved, military men and women who’d be alive to see another Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s.

(No, I don’t really expect an impeachment to happen because (1) expecting just and honorable behavior from men like this is like waiting for roosters to lay eggs, and (2) a President Cheney would only amplify the nightmare.)