They're working at state and local (and now national) levels to slash the role money (and thus corporations) plays in politics.

Back candidates who back them.

Why can people like Dianne Feinstein be in office? Because they're just about the only people who can afford to run for office. Nowadays even someone like her, in a safe Senate seat, will still spend $5 million to defend it (assuming she doesn't retire). Hotly-contested Senate seats cost as much nowadays as the Presidential campaigns of the 1990s.

Want to put an end to this? Back the Clean Elections movement, which is working, starting at the state and local levels, to get the money out of politics (or at least reduce it to manageable levels). Go to http://www.PublicCampaign.org to find out more.

Geez, Al, why is it inflammatory to point out facts in context?

If you think that Jonathan Pollard should be freed, then it's only fair that you back giving freedom to Mordechai Vanunu, right?

They'll have a ways to go, as Newt's set the bar so damn high:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/22/gingrich-liberalism-vatech/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/17/gingrich-plantation/

http://www.nobodyaskedme.com/newtoped.htm

Unless you think that NY and CA are the same thing.

Damn The NYT For Abolishing Times Select...

... now Brooks' radioactive garbage, which is written with the same Mad Libs program that David Broder's columns are, has been leaked into the general populace again.

-- norbizness

You got it, Norb.

Meanwhile, the right-wing troll "Dick Cheney" does exactly what Glenn G. sez that dweebs like Brooks do: Make a pronouncement, then mysteriously fail to provide actual evidence to back it up -- because of course the dweeb knows that he can't, as the facts, as Greenwald has shown again and again, are against him.

Dictatorial Elites

Katharine Mieszkowski seems to be one of those people who wants the government to compel everyone to live her preferred lifestyle: crammed into rabbit warren high rises and subway cars.

Personally, I fled New York City and financial limitations precisely to avoid that lifestyle.

I don't mind her living as she pleases, but would prefer it if she took a similar attitude toward me and the majority like me.

-- elwin9

So you'd rather see the entire earth paved rather than walk a few blocks? What a pig, dictatorially demanding your "right" to rape the earth just so you can thump your Limbaugh-loving "I got mine" chest.

He earned his money without selling out.

The basic things I took away from Aravosis' piece (and his followup comments (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/permalink/3a9a6c2977b235d5611bc91ad9bb7ef1.html), which nobody here has bothered to address):

1) For 29 of the past 30 years, ENDA has been LGB, and everyone was happy with it; the T was only added and removed very recently, and suddenly the same people that were happy with now aren't, though it's still the same bill they backed over the previous 29 years.

2) ENDA in its original and now current form stands, according to Aravosis, a lead-pipe-cinch chance of passing the House (and with veto-proof margins) and a good chance of passing the Senate. ENDA with the transgender provisions will go down in flames in both houses.

Assuming that the first point is a fact not seriously in dispute, let's look at the second:

As it stands now, ENDA, even without the T provisions, will fall to Bush's veto as the Senate probably won't override it. But will that be the case two years from now?

Right now, the DCCC is rolling in $22 million worth of dough (http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/democrats_outpacing_republican.html) -- three times what it had two years ago, before the historic tsunami that swept the Republicans narrowly into the minority -- and the NRCC is $4 million in the hole. A similar funding situation obtains for the Senate races: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/dems_senate_campaign_unit_held.html

If there ever was a chance to get T-friendly Democrats into even the most conservative Congressional and Senatorial seats, that chance is now -- and with the next president likely to be a Democrat, the veto fear all but vanishes.

So rather than wasting time and breath telling Jon Aravosis what an evil man he is (he knows already, I'm sure), why not work to prove him wrong by working to get electable progressive Democrats in the upcoming primaries, so that even an ENDA with T provisions passes easily come 2009?

That way, everybody wins. :-)

"Chris Wallace, you've said hurtful things about your father (legendary reporter Mike Wallace) recently. Do you pray for him to live or die?"

But really, the best thing she could do is to stay off FOX entirely. Don't lend them credibility.

Glenn, for writing these posts exposing Foxman and his ADL for the Bush/GOP-worshiping neocons that they are, and Pantanal, for giving some personal experience of the group.

I'm getting the word out to our people, with your 9/19 FISA piece as talking-points material to use when chatting up our congresscritters.