June 2006

Petey’s Back

Get real, Larry. The issue is X’s homosexuality…

..which is widely … and I mean widely presumed among Republicans. If you’re going to be a “reporter” or even a fair columnist, you can’t give a nugget of the story and leave out the rest:

You wrote in your St. Louis gay rag: “even going as far as asking one central Illinois Republican legislator to deny he was gay after voting for a gay and lesbian civil rights bill”

Obviously, I didn’t query any other Repubs. who voted for the IL gay rights bill about their sexuality. X is a different animal: he likely has a special interest in the subject, or at least that’s what I was trying to confirm.

If X was an outspoken anti-gay legislator, your side would be clamoring to “out” him, and asking questions about “those rumors.” But because he’s pro-gay in a very conservative district, you cover for him and trash me. Interesting.

If you’re so proud of “gay” sexuality, or think it’s innocuous as to character, why do you enable people like X?

I just don’t believe “outing” should be a one-way street that serves your side. –pl

Actually, I’m against outing. Mainly because, I don’t really care what individuals do with other consenting adults. It’s not my business. I have better things to do than worry about that.

In fact, that was a key issue with the Keyes fiasco, but ultimately, I decided that Maya Keyes was an adult and out publicly. Others chose to err on the side of her age and I respect that.

Getting back to X, the logic just doesn’t hold. If the person in question takes a public stance and he sticks to it, that’s his position. The same as other candidate or officials regardless of who they are attracted.

And Peter, the reason you are such a fun target is your bizarre obsession with what other people’s genitals are doing.

I understand and respect that many people disagree with me on issues regarding sexual orientation. However, it’s not that you hold a different position than I do, it’s that you pursue it with such gumption and graphic details. Living, breathing caricatures are great fodder for a blog.

Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?

As many of you know from reading my posts, Jeff Smith, a friend from grad school, ran for Dick Gephardt’s seat in 2006. It was a 10 way race with several current/former office holders running including Russ Carnahan. Jeff ran one of the best grass roots campaigns, but came up 1724 votes short in a race with 107,000 votes cast. Jeff actually won in St. Louis County and Saint Louis City, but didn’t produce enough votes in Jefferson County. I still walk around the City wondering if we hit specific blocks hard enough.

Somehow, filmmaker Frank Popper saw something early in that race and followed the campaign for a few months up until the August Primary in 2004. The result is Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore? I won’t see it until the end of this month, but it was shown at the Washington DC Silverdocs film festival and won the audience award. I make a cameo in it, but everyone avoids telling me what I’m doing when I appear. This concerns me.

Fun moments that might have been included:
1) Me, a white guy from Central Illinois, and Artie Harris, the campaign press secretary and Jewish guy from Brooklyn, listening intently to the ads for black radio and determining which sounded the most authentic.

2) Jeff and I explaining the night before the election, pointing out micro-level neighborhood analysis of what to look for while the rest of the campaign folks site back and go, NOW, you are telling us this?

3) Artie and I having an argument about how to respond to the press about the count. This occurred at about 2 AM after many in the room had been up since 6 AM and working polls or otherwise and a fair amount of drinking had taken place. As I remember that moment, Frank had put down his camera so you’ll miss Josh Levin getting me to calm down.

4) Me sitting at the computer, swearing under my breath while I do calculations on vote totals and the proportion Jeff needed to win.

Fine missed moments by Frank include Artie, Nick and I driving through neighborhoods trying to rally supporters with a megaphone while trying to figure out where the hell the campaign volunteers went. Around the same time, walking around with some random guy who jumped on the bandwagon right there trying to find people outside on a 95 degree day. At one point Jeff was walking down the street dribbling a basketball and using the megaphone in about the only time he wasn’t at a poll or on the way to another.

As a bonus, I believe Iowa-02 Candidate David Loebsack makes a brief appearance in the film from election night–he came down to work on Jeff’s race.

From what I understand there are some truly awkward moments in the movie that deal with Jeff working on endorsements and running into institutions and people afraid to bet on what they perceived as a long shot.

For me, the film has two groups it’ll especially interest. The first are grassroots activists who, frankly, need a dose of reality. Jeff organized for Bill Bradley in Iowa, worked on several campaigns and had run some local campaigns. He knew how to raise money and he knew how to efficiently spend money and how to utilize volunteers. Before you crash the gate (and Jerome and Markos point this out), you have to have a plan and discipline to implement that plan.

The second group are people who are campaign pros, but are scared of the anything resembling mass participation. While the entire campaign was about defeating entrenched power, it was also about organizing and motivating a group of people who had not been that active in campaigns in the past.

While Jeff is often touted, and fairly so, as a candidate who worked the grassroots and almost pulled it off, his campaign wasn’t the amateurish, if we just speak the truth, they’ll listen. It was, these dumb bastards are ignoring us, so let’s sneak up on them and exploit every mistake they make. Ultimately, turnout spiked with the same sex marriage ban being on the primary ballot which threw all of the vote projections from early in the race out.

With that build-up, the let down is the film is only playing in Saint Louis and New York for now, but keep a look out for it wherever you are and I’ll certainly announce future engagements as the two producers are in frequent contact with me (okay, one lives like 3 blocks away-the other, maybe 10 blocks).

Official Site

Back

Thanks to the guest posters over the last two weeks. I very much appreciate it and enjoyed the reading as I could sneak a peak. If this didn’t scare them away, I’ll be looking for fill-ins later in the summer as well. Given how much time it can take, I’d like to find a few more guest posters so if anyone is interested drop me a line.

Peter Pride

Tomorrow (Sunday) is the annual Pride Parade in Chicago.

That means that someplace in crowd, mixing with the sweaty scantily clad men and leather daddies, will be our friend, Peter LaBarbera. [Link contains photo.]

Please report any sightings of this intrepid defender of family values. After all, we have to make certain that the right-wing watching are . . . well, watching. After all, how can one be certain that homosexuality is bad and heterosexuality is good unless one walks in the Pride Parade, ogling at every shirtless — and maybe more! — young man, out in the heat after a long march, dancing to disco . . . nevermind, I have to go now.

Oh, by the way: what event would in the Gay Games would be the best for an undercover right winger to enter?

Sears Target, Part 2: Scare Tactics

Well, we now have some more information about the arrests in Miami.

Mr. Gonzales acknowledged that the men, who had neither weapons nor explosives, posed “no immediate threat.” But he added, “they did take sufficient steps that we believe does support this prosecution.”

In general, Mr. Gonzales said, homegrown terrorists “may prove to be as dangerous as groups like Al Qaeda.”

News of the arrests touched off widespread television coverage of the plot against the Sears Tower, one of the tallest buildings in the world. But details of the indictment disclosed Friday at news conferences in Washington and Miami presented a less alarming picture. The indictment made clear that a pivotal role was played by an unidentified undercover F.B.I. informer who posed as a Qaeda member and met repeatedly with the reported ringleader of the group, Narseal Batiste.

More on Narseal Batiste:

But an uncle said he could not believe Batiste is capable of masterminding the murder of innocents.

“He’s a follower more than a leader,” said John J. Ford, 67, of Chicago. “He wasn’t no ringleader about nothing.”

And how serious was the threat?

Cline and other officials stressed there was no evidence the alleged plotters took any action in Chicago. They said they had no information that the men arrested had visited the Sears Tower to study it or make plans.

The plot “was never an actionable plan and, therefore, no one was in danger,” said Andrew Velasquez, head of the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communication.

People who have offices in the Sears Tower don’t seem too concerned, either.

From all the reports, it seems like this group of seven “terrorists” were not even capable of executing a major terrorist plot that involves the Sears Tower. After all, they even had to ask the undercover agent for boots [see last question] and a video camera.

These guys deserved to be busted up for the actions they took. It’s just like making a joke about a gun in the airport security line: the TSA takes the statement seriously, and gives your bags a thorough search.

But nothing that I’ve seen justifies the type of national and international press sought by the Department of Justice. This was not the kind of threat that should involve the Attorney General in a press conference. Arrest these guys, and give them a good scare. But there’s no need to make a national stink about it.

Or is there?

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking at a political luncheon in Chicago, denounced the decision to reveal the existence of the financial monitoring program and the earlier-disclosed National Security Agency surveillance program.

?What I find most disturbing about these stories is that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,? Cheney said. ?That offends me.?

Blogospheric Navel Gazing

Harkening back to the good old days of the great delink wars of 2002, TNR decided to suggest Kos is somehow controlling the blogosphere.

Because herding cats is so much fun.

I’m not on Townhouse so I can’t shed much light on all of this other than to say that coordinating message amongst activists is nothing new and is one of the true weaknesses Democratic activists have.

For those who don’t understand Markos’ reaction, essentially TNR is attacking him for offering a suggestion as to how to coordinate that message and found the Advertising Liberally as some sort of leverage he exerts. The problem with that is some of the Members of Advertising Liberally can’t stand Markos and go out of their way to tweak him fairly often.

More to the point, it’s not so bad that TNR takes on Markos for his message, it’s the assanine attack that he, by coordinating message with other activist journalists, is influencing content through financial control.

Zengerle’s bullshit line is here in a later post

From these e-mails, it appears there was a good amount of concern among liberal bloggers about the Armstrong SEC story and the allegations of “pay for play” against Kos and Armstrong, and some of these bloggers wanted to address these issues forthrightly. And, yet, after Kos subsequently wrote the e-mail quoted in my original post asking the bloggers to “ignore” the story in order to “starve of it oxygen,” there was virtual silence in the liberal blogosphere about it. That, to me at least, suggests that Kos does indeed have a good deal of influence over what other liberal bloggers write.

Or perhaps because it didn’t become a big issue on the blogs, and it’s only a side issue even now. Who goes out of their way to report on a problem with a friend or ally? Sometimes, but it isn’t that frequent. Given not much information is known about the subject, it’s kind of hard to write much about it. Either the non-partisan press or the opposition makes it an issue and barring a big blogburst on the subject why would someone on Townhouse write about it? Assuming malice when the more likely answer is there was no reason to highlight Jerome’s problem is silly.

I know that in discussions regarding Advertising Liberally, when Chris Bowers set out some basic network standards, there were a couple bloggers who had grand conspiracy claims about what Jerome, Chris, and Markos were doing (Chris did it, Markos just argued for the changes). It was silly. This is the same thing.

Markos’ response goes a bit off the rails because he is talking primarily to people who understand the entire context and the frustration with TNR over it trying to tear apart burgeoning infrastructure with this kind of crap. It’s not that TNR criticizes the ideas coming out of the blogosphere, it’s that it attempts silly ad hominen attacks. In one sense, everyone is talking past one another, but I’ll put most of the blame on TNR for not even trying to understand the language.

I’m going back to my rolling waves of nausea, but I was a bit annoyed reading all of this.