RICKIE LEE JONES DOESN'T LIKE RIGHT-WINGERS, DOESN'T LIKE TURNCOATS... AND DOESN'T LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN

I can't believe the electricity went down in North-Central L.A. today-- where I live. Like 3 blocks from me, it was all cool, but I've been off line since 3AM. I want to get to work on some follow-up to yesterday's story on how Joe Lieberman and his fundamentalist and hypocritical allies tried to demonize rock'n'roll and youth culture and use it as a way to raise money and to scare voters. I've been hearing back from dozens of artists and managers today and over the course of the next few days I'll share some of the e-mails I've been getting. The very first one came in from one of the most talented singer-songwriters I ever had the honor of working with, Rickie Lee Jones. Rickie is also one of the best-informed artists I've ever talked with, not just intuitively progressive to the core but also right up to the minute on what's going on in the "real world." She dashed off an e-mail about her own impressions of Lieberman within minutes of reading my post. And... here it is:


Lieberman was the first indication that there were actually Republicans in the Democratic Party.  Forgive my naivety, but before the series of betrayals by Lieberman against important progressive legislation... I thought people with his sensibilities, voting for the war, for the Patriot Act, and voting against Medicare benefits for a very severely taxed generation of elderly ill, and against the few ideological stands the so-called left has been willing to brush up against since Bush took office... here were registered Republicans. Herr Lieberman helped me realize there is not much of a fine line left between the middle of the right and the edge of the left. We have moved so far over that even middle America stands perched on one foot, with it's one strand of hair tossed across its frowning face, trying to straighten the coffee in a cup that will forever be leaning far too right to ever feel balanced again. 

No good American can go out into the street today and not turn gray with nausea at the complacency of every single newspaper, financial institution, and influential individual in the conspiracy to keep this unqualified,  uneducated, unelected criminal in office.  Lieberman was an important candidate, and he, above all of them, is a turn coat who helped to nullify the potency of the left.

-Rickie Lee Jones
February 27, 2006


WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: LIEBERMAN MAY NOT HAVE RLJ, BUT HE DOES HAVE THE GOP!

One of Connecticut's largest newspapers reports today that the Republican Party is talking about endorsing Lieberman in his re-election bid. And why shouldn't they? He votes with them whenever it's important anyway. In fact, one of the fake moderate Republicans in Connecticut, Chris Shays, has already endorsed him (although Lieberman is supposedly campaign a bit for Shays' Democratic opponent, Diane Farrell, who, unlike Lieberman, opposes Bush's occupation of Iraq).

JOE LIEBERMAN-- BAD FOR DEMOCRATS, BAD FOR CONNECTICUT, BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY

Lieberman works hard at coming across as a nice man, and a nice man above partisan politics to boot. But Joe Lieberman has never been a nice man, just a successful actor, and he's never been above partisan politics, just a vicious and cut-throat practitioner of the art-- with a big smile. He started his political career in 1970 by going up against a Democratic Party boss, Arthur Barbieri, and outwitting him in manipulating elderly voters in Crawford Manor, a government-built retirement community, in an election for Connecticut State Senate in which Lieberman was challenging New Haven Democratic incumbent Ed Marcus. Lieberman "recognized that parties no longer deliver all the votes and money needed to win elections. You have to build your own machine based on personal loyalty. Lieberman recognized that too many voters had grown wary of automatically pulling party levers. [This very blue state now has more registered Independents than registered Democrats-- and has been regularly electing Republicans to the Governor's Mansion.] And appearing to the public as a nice guy now counts for more than breaking knuckles in the back room, because the media (especially TV) replaced the party as the prime means of reaching voters. Bland was in. Non-threatening was in. Plus you had to know how to make jokes on Imus and POLITICALLY INCORRECT."

But Lieberman was dealt 2 crucial political defeats before he started his real ascendancy. The party bosses bushwhacked him in a 1978 bid to become Lieutenant Governor and he was defeated in a bid for Congress by a Republican 2 years later. In his self-serving book, IN PRAISE OF PUBLIC LIFE, Lieberman delineates the 3 lessons he took away from that race: to rely on daily tracking polls, to never "let your opponent go negative on you without giving at least as good as you get in return," and, most important, to "never, ever let anyone attack you as a 'high-taxing, big-spending liberal.'" That third one's the one he's based the rest of his career in politics on.

In 1982 he ran for Connecticut Attorney General as a law-and-order candidate inching slightly towards the right and glomming on to an aggressively "pro-family" position that has served him very well. He won. For the next 6 years he marketed himself assiduously to Connecticut citizens. In 1988 he challenged progressive Republican incumbent U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker-- attacking from the right-- and beat him. Lieberman ran a brutal and viciously negative campaign, mocking Weicker personally and even red-baiting him for being soft on Castro (William Buckley formed a PAC to raise money for Lieberman and later Jack Kemp called him "one of us.") Today Lieberman is far more popular in Connecticut with Republicans and with conservatives than he is with Democrats and with progressives, and in 1988 conservatives gave him his small margin of victory over Weicker. Once in the Senate he went even further right and pro-corporate. "He accumulated the most pro-corporate record of any Senate Democrat-- and the millions of campaign dollars that came with them." He joined the DLC and became their president-- before that, the domain of right-leaning Southern Democrats.

This is when Lieberman, like a snake, shed his old skin entirely, discarding the last vestiges of anything vaguely Democratic, and became what he is today: a right-wing demagogue, a really vile politician who belongs in the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. He made racism quasi-acceptable by framing it as being against unfair affirmative action. An unrelenting homophobe, he joined Jesse Helms' campaign of defamation of gay people and he joined forces with far right extremists like Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed to promote school prayer and voucher programs for religionist schools. And then he got into my own business and my growing hatred for Joe Lieberman turned personal.

First a little disclosure. DWT is the nom de guerre for Howie Klein, former punk rock dj, former founder and president of alternative rock label 415 Records, former general manager and vice president of Sire Records and former president of Reprise Records. I am now retired from the music business but there is no question that Joe Lieberman's frontal assault on the music business was something that very much disturbed me. In fact, several of his and his allies' prime targets were personal friends as well as business associates. (And one of the albums he fussed and fretted about most obnoxiously, BODY COUNT, was a record I was Executive Producer of.)

The story starts with the founding of the PMRC and if you're too young to remember, you ought to read about that sad chapter in American political/cultural history (in that link back there or either this one here or this Gore-bashing right wing point of view here). The principals' names should all sound familiar: Tipper Gore (wife of Al), Susan Baker (wife of Bush family retainer/fixer James), Nancy Thurmond (one of the Strom wives), Lynn Cheney (lesbian pornography writer and wife of alcoholic current vice president Dick). This gaggle of powerful men's wives was the forerunner for three of Washington's most celebrated, loud-mouthed hypocrites: Bill Bennett, Sam Brownback and, of course, Joe Lieberman, who took up their campaign almost as soon as he was elected.

To quote the Republican National Committee (who carelessly hypocritically left out Lynn Cheney's participation in the PMRC, the group's mission "was to clean up raunchy lyrics and suggestive album covers in the music industry. The group pushed for a 'rating system similar to that for films, printed lyrics on album covers and under-the-counter obscurity for covers depicting violence or explicit sexual themes'... In August 1985, under pressure from PMRC and other parents’ groups, record companies agreed to place the warning 'Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics' on albums and cassettes containing explicit lyrics. However, for Tipper and PMRC, that language was not enough and the group continued its war on controversial music lyrics," eventually bringing the mess before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Artists like Jello Biafra, Ice-T and Frank Zappa showed how dangerous the PMRC's plans were for freedom of speech and expression, with Zappa explaining to the senators that "the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of toilet training program to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few," adding, dramatically "Ladies, how dare you?... Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are in my opinion more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of speech, freedom of religious thought, and the right to due process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain." (Among the artists specifically attacked by the PMRC were Madonna, Prince, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Def Leppard, Black Sabbath, Cyndi Lauper and Sheena Easton.)

People often ask me what happened and what was the big deal. Lieberman knew exactly what he was doing-- far better than the batty wives' group that preceded him-- when he insisted on ratings on CDs and it had nothing to do with helping parents supervise their children. Few people understand-- the way Lieberman did-- that in the late 80s something like 70% of all recorded music was sold in stores in malls and that malls have very stringent lease arrangements about their tenants not selling "pornography." Over the course of this controversy two of the Senate's most uptight and close-minded prigs, Sam Brownback and Lieberman, pushed for the kinds of stickers that would make it impossible for the kind of music they objected to-- like anything talking about masturbation or homosexuality, for example-- to be stocked by 70% of American retailers. The effect inside the music business was chilling-- and instantaneous. Suddenly a whole new internal bureaucracy had to be created to police every record and suddenly artists were being pressured-- sometimes overtly and sometimes less overtly-- to cave in to demands by two really reactionary fundamentalists whose values are far from mainstream. In one fell swoop Lieberman destroyed an alliance between young voters and the Democratic Party that had started with John Kennedy's election as he ham-fistedly savaged their culture for his own political ambitions.

Paula O'Keefe's insightful 1997 article called "Who Watches The Watchmen?" is an excellent account of Lieberman's fanatical post-PMRC hysterics and extremism on cultural issues which lead to his crazy and ultimately failed 2001 legislation, the Media Marketing Accountability Act, a bill to prohibit the marketing of “adult-rated media,” i.e., movies, music, and computer games containing violent or sexual material, to young people under the age of 17. Lieberman sought to empower the Federal Trade Commission to regulate the advertising of music, movies and games to young people. The proposed legislation, if enacted, would have injected a federal agency into decisions about the marketing of movies, music, and electronic games — and thereby potentially into decisions about what sorts of movies, music, and games are produced.

For part of the time I was president of Reprise an old friend of mine, Danny Goldberg, was chairman of Warner Bros Records, Reprise's parent company. Danny is a inspiring progressive and a brilliant thinker and writer. His book, DISPATCHES FROM THE CULTURE WAR-- HOW THE LEFT LOST TEEN SPIRIT, offers some of the best insights into the real Joe Lieberman anywhere. Danny acknowledges Lieberman's "affable demeanor," but points out his "self-righteous, intolerant, Puritanical streak." When former LBJ advisor Jack Valenti, then head of the movie industry trade organization, and a friend of Lieberman's was asked by Danny if he had ever told Lieberman about the First Amendment implications of the type of censorship he was advocating, Valenti replied, "When people get very religious and they believe their course of action is sanctioned by a higher authority, there's not much you can do to communicate with them-- left, right or center." Hmmm... maybe that's why Bush and Lieberman are always kissing!

Danny explains that while he and other people in the entertainment community have disagreed with politicians like the Clintons and Al Gore on cultural matters, they were still able to support them. "However, he writes, "I would never under any circumstances support or vote for a ticket with Joe Lieberman on it. Not only is he one of the most conservative Democrats with a national profile, but his self-righteousness about religion and venom toward popular culture would make him a serious threat to a free and intellectually diverse American society if he were to gain more power."

Danny isn't alone in his assessment of Lieberman. Scott Goodstein, a long time Democratic political consultant and co-founder of Military Free Zone, was Executive Director of punkvoter when they mobilized and helped register over a million previously unregistered young voters in 2004. Professionally unemotional about politicians, Lieberman comes close to getting his goat. "It's unfortunate that politicians like Joe Lieberman are so out of touch with young voters. He's one of that growing group of politicians who constantly blame music and entertainment as the root of all evil, support un-American legislation like the PATRIOT Act and other forms of censorship, and repeatedly judge and marginalize the next generation without ever having a real dialogue. Lieberman and politicians that use this moral superiority rhetoric instead of focusing on solving real problems-- like the hundred plus education cuts that this administration is currently proposing-– are simply turning off young voters instead of encouraging the next generation to continue their involvement in politics."

A few weeks ago I met Ned Lamont, the progressive Democrat who has challenged Lieberman, at a friend's house here in Los Angeles. He inspired a sense of confidence in me that was the polar opposite of how I reacted when I met Lieberman, basically a smarmy character oozing fake piety, fake openness and fake friendliness. Lamont listened when I spoke and asked all the right questions. I was surprised. A week later my friend Jane spoke with Lamont and mentioned my name to him and he remarked how I had explained the way Lieberman had used the Music Industry-- and youth culture-- as a fund-raising tool by demonizing it and doing all he could to cause discord and disharmony. The Joe Liebermans and Sam Brownbacks of the world are entitled to their moralistic world view but government should not be shoving that down the throats of the whole population. Not every taxpayer feels that if a song mentions homosexuality or masturbation (to go back to the 2 examples that offended Lieberman which I cited above) that it needs to be kept out of record stores. Big government is not an effective or suitable substitute for good parenting. Ned Lamont understood that intuitively. Lieberman will never understand that, just like he'll never understand how disastrous the Bush Regime's occupation of Iraq is for the Israel that drives his decisions.

If you don't vote in Connecticut but would like to see Ned Lamont retire Lieberman from public life, you can help by donating to Lamont's campaign via this ACT BLUE Page. Every cent goes directly to his campaign.

TREACHERY FROM BUSHCO ON PORTS DEAL-- LESS THAN 10% OF AMERICANS APPROVE BUT THEY DON'T CARE. BUSH CRIME FAMILY WANTS THEIR DOUGH!

The very first mention on DWT of Bush's outrageous ports sale was called "Why Is The Republican Congress Letting Bush Sell Off Our Ports To A Shaky Arab Emirate?" (exactly a week ago, Monday, February 20). A lot of hot air has been expelled and righteous indignation has been played out in front of the TV cameras but, the question still remains the same. Although every survey and poll shows that Americans overwhelming-- and vehemently-- reject this deal (today's AOL poll shows that only 9% of respondents want to see it go forward Bush is still as adamant as ever that this is "a done deal."

Bush, or BushCo-- whatever you want to call the regime-- seized power for a reason and, believe me, that reason wasn't to protect America; it was to enrich itself at the expense of America. This ports deal is worth billions to the Bush family and the family retainers and their cronies and contributors. They care as much about the national security dangers inherent in this deal as they cared about the warnings they got before 9-11 (first from the outgoing Clinton Administration, which they ignored with a smirk, and then from their own CIA, which they also ignored) and about the potential for catastrophe in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

Last week we saw a whole gaggle of ingenuous congressional Republican hacks try to get out in front of the parade of angry citizens who were apoplectic over Bush's ports deal-- arch-hypocrites like Peter King (R-NY), Mark Foley (R-FL; the one ridin' in the boat with Osama), and, worst of all, Bill Frist (R-TN), who should have been jailed long ago for all this bribes, corruption, fake charities and insider trading deals. Today the media is abuzz with the "compromise" Frist worked out with Bush. But, basically, the so-called "compromise" is just a cooling off period to get people's minds off the ports. Maybe Cheney will shoot someone else or they'll rattle some sabers at Iran or.... well, distracting the public's attention is the one things they actually do well, so I'm not worried about them coming up with the appropriate weapon of mass distraction.

The way the mainstream media is framing the "compromise" is to say that BushCo "will conduct a highly unusual second review of potential security risks in a business deal it previously approved for a United Arab Emirates-based company to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports." The new 45-day investigation-- by which Bush broke the law when he tried sneaking this through last time-- is geared to avert a showdown with Congress. Frist, predictably, is demanding senators back off and wait to see what the investigation comes up with. Same for loudmouthed windbag Peter King. John McCain, who's head has been so far up Bush's ass since Rove agreed to let him be the next president, has been one of the few senators supporting Bush on this. “The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short.” Huh???

TIME Magazine ran a story over the weekend about how the Republican Party is trying to find a face-saving deal for Bush and, of course Peter King has eaten it right up-- as he always does. But the main point, never broached by TIME or anyone in the "polite media," is that this deal is worth too much money for Bush and he's determined to deliver for his family's Dubai business partners-- regardless of the political fallout and regardless of the consequences to the security of the country. When he says he's not giving up on this, he means it.

And no one comes close to Joe Conason in explaining exactly why Bush has dug in his heels so firmly on this deal. For the sake of the people who put him in office-- and have gotten him through life-- he has to deliver! "For the president, his administration's lenience toward the Emirates recalls the unpleasant history of Harken Energy, the loser oil exploration firm that provided him with a handsome profit when he unloaded his shares during the summer of 1990. Years earlier, Harken had been rescued from bankruptcy by timely investments of millions of dollars from the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International, also known as the 'bank of crooks and criminals.' Although dominated by Saudi friends of Dubya's dad, BCCI was headquartered in the Emirates, specifically in Abu Dhabi."

Conason points out that this isn't just ancient history. The Bush family's intimate connections with the despotic and reactionary UAE "royal" families-- odd in itself for someone always running off at the mouth, however insincerely, about bringin' "democracy" to the Arabs-- has grown stronger and stronger and, as with most things Bush, you just need to follow the money trail. "Consider," Conason continues, "the Carlyle Group, the huge, politically wired private equity firm that has employed both the president and his father-- and from which the members of the Bush family and their closest associates, such as former Secretary of State James Baker III, have profited handsomely in recent years. With its sole Middle East office headquartered in Dubai, Carlyle has managed to attract substantial funding from the UAE government, which controls most of the tiny nation's oil wealth and channels that money into foreign investments. Last year, to cite only the most recent example, Carlyle's newest buyout fund won an infusion of at least $100 million from the Dubai Investment Corp. -- another state-owned outfit created by the ruling families to reinvest the enormous inflows of capital from rising oil prices and oil consumption. If that individual deal with Carlyle represented only a small fraction of the Emirates' investments, the upside potential of the relationship could be far greater in the future. The directors of Dubai Investment expect to invest as much as $5 billion every year for a long time to come. No doubt Carlyle will ardently bid to manage a slice of those billions -- and the president surely understands that maintaining good relations with the Emirates will enhance the prospects of the family's favorite equity firm. But to deprive Dubai of its $6.8 billion ports acquisition might well have the opposite effect. For a company that trades on its political influence as well as its business acumen, such incidents can be pivotal."

Believe it or not, Bush's brother Neil, the bankrobber, also figures into this mess. He's a real player in the UAE, constantly in pursuit of investors and government contracts there and he seems to have found a place where he is treated with the "respect and deference that have always eluded him in his own country. For reasons that must be painfully obvious, UAE royals have been quite eager to engage the former Silverado Savings and Loan director ever since his eldest brother entered the Oval Office. That embrace only intensified after 9/11."

Fortunately most of the Democrats in the Senate-- Lieberman (who still calls himself a member of the Democratic Party for some reason) excepted, of course-- are not buying into the GOP spin on this. And Chuck Schumer is introducing a bipartisan bill to stop Bush and his apologists in their tracks.

Despite the far right's endeavor to "shrink government and drown it in a bathtub," as their ethically-challenged/Abramoff-tained ideologue Grover Norquist demanded, all they've accomplished in their 5 or 6 years in power is destroying what works, jeopardizing the whole country and leaving us with a bloated, insanely expensive and incompetent bureaucracy (mired in corruption) that is a dumping ground for wild-eyed fanatics and the talentless sons of Bush contributors. And, despite Norquist and his followers, it turns out you need a government to protect the country-- from people like the Bush family and their foreign partners!

Today's NEW YORK TIMES carries an enlightening story by Robert Pear pointing out that alarmed governors-- of both parties-- think Bush's policies are ruining the National Guard. For the first time since Bush took office, most Americans now rate the Democrats more trustworthy on national security than the Republicans. Duh!


AFTERNOON UPDATE: DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TRIED TO NIX BUSH'S DUBAI DEAL

Looks like the Department of Homeland Security opposed Bush's plans to sell the 6 ports (before they found out about his financial stake in the deal)! Hat tip to Sean Paul at the Agonist.


MONDAY EVENING UPDATE: BUSHCO'S DUBAI BRANCH TRIED TO MUZZLE LOU DOBBS

CROOKS AND LIARS just broke the news that Bush's great friends in Dubai have been pressuring CNN, so far unsuccessfully, to make Lou Dobbs shut up about Bush selling the U.S. ports to that very shady, oil-rich emirate.

COLEEN ROWLEY FOR CONGRESS

I get so frustrated when I see all these learned analyses of the coming midterm elections that zero in-- using business-as-usual predictors-- on the seats that can change hands. And I'm not even a candidate! I spent a lot of time on the phone with one congressional candidate who says the DCCC won't lift a hand to help him although he has no primary opponent and he is challenging a Republican who is likely to be indicted on bribery charges. I had to explain to him that Rahm Emanuel is too busy with his irrational war on Christine Cegelis and other grassroots and progressive Democrats to pay any attention to a race like his.

But the race I was thinking about today was another one entirely, one that I just can't understand being written off or ignored by prognosticators, let alone netroots activists. Minnesota's 2nd congressional district is not some hopelessly red hell; far from it. It's a moderate suburban district south of Minneapolis and St Paul that was created in 2002, at which time the current congressman, John Kline, whose positions on almost every issue are far to the right of his constituents, beat moderate Democrat Bill Luther. 2002 was a very GOP year across Minnesota but Kline is far from secure. (A recent poll shows only a third of the voters in the district are ready to re-elect him.) And the best news of all is that the Democrat challenging him is one of the best anywhere in the country, Coleen Rowley. 2002 was also a banner year for Rowley, something far more singular and rare than being elected to Congress. She was named TIME Magazine "Person of the Year". Rowley was chief counsel of the FBI's Minneapolis field office, when, in a 13-page memo, she outlined how FBI headquarters thwarted agents' attempts to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June about the FBI bureaucracy that frustrates agents' attempts at innovative investigation and mires them in paperwork.

Rowley is a clear-headed, solution-oriented, common-sense progressive with a great shot at ousting an out-of-touch right-winger with questionable relationships to some of the people in the very center of the Republican financial scandals in DC. "Right-winger?" you ask. Isn't Minnesota famous for being a moderate state? Well, it is-- except for John Kline. The DCCC usually compares how Congressmen voted in relation to Tom DeLay to show how extremist they are-- the closer to DeLay the more extremist. Kline's score is actually worse than DeLay's!! ProgressivePunch's analysis of Kline's voting record shows him to be more extreme than DeLay! In Minnesota? His 2.13 overall score indicates that in the combined House and Senate there are only 19 members as reactionary as Kline! His rankings are miserable on every single one of the 14 major categories legislators are rated on and, in fact, he is FAR BELOW-- far more reactionary than-- even his Republican colleagues' averages. For a number of major issues he is the #1 most far right extremist in the whole United States Congress. Not one Republican beats him in right-wing fanaticism when it comes to Labor Rights, Housing, or Fair Taxation. Coleen Rowley is actually running against someone further off the cliff of right-wing nuttiness tha Tom DeLay!

I know it drives the DCCC Inside-the-Beltway power elite up a wall, but I love candidates who are clear and passionate on their websites and make the reader want to run out and get an absentee ballot so they'll be sure someone like Kenneth Blackwell or Katherine Harris won't count their vote wrong. And Rowley's website is completely awesome in that way-- no corporate bells and whistles, but really excellent content. After you read it you feel like you know her-- and want her in Congress! When Rahm Emanuel is counseling Democratic candidates to keep it general and not take any specific stands on anything controversial, especially not on Iraq, Rowley's piece on how to get us out of the war should be what ALL Democrats should be talking about. And she's just as clear about her plans to ameliorate the health care mess Bush and his congressional allies have consistently exacerbated.

Last year Rowley visited Cindy Sheehan down in Crawford right around the same time I did. When she went on HARD BALL there was some other vicious right-wing nincompoop on instead of that Matthews asshole-- a woman or drag queen named Nora O'Donnell and Kos' August 23 diary shows a candidate who really knows how to handle herself with strength and poise the wing-nuts fear.

Rowley was the very first candidate to whom I sent a check this year. And today I am starting an ACT BLUE Page for her here at DWT to make it convenient for anyone who would like to help elect a real American heroine to Congress and help her replace a worse than garden variety right-wing nutcase.

CULTURE OF UTTER CORRUPTION

People who are part of the blogosphere-- like you and me and Ken-- are painfully aware of all the corruption in D.C. these days. I don't mean all the normal corruption; I'm talking about this whole Republican Culture of Corruption that trumps anything that anyone has ever done before. I mean, let's be real, the Republicans had a point-- it was essentially wrong, but it was a point (and much of the mass media swallowed it entirely either through stupidity, laziness or partisan venality)-- that corruption is bi-partisan. The problem with this corruption pandemic sweeping Washington is all about power and with power, particularly the power of the purse, firmly in the hands of the Republicans, virtually all the systematic bribes are going to the Republican Party, it's myriad offshoots (like the K Street Project and the Ohio GOP political machine), and, of course, first and foremost, it's self-entitled greedball members, from big players like Dr. Frist, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Conrad Burns, Jerry Lewis, Charles Taylor, Duncan Hunter, John Doolittle, Katherine Harris, Denny Hastert, Roy Blunt, John Boehner to pathetic bottom feeders like "Duke" Cunningham, Virgil Goode, Rick Santorum, Richard Pombo, Tom Feeney, Marilyn Musgrave, etc.

But, primarily because the mass media buys into the Republicans' misleading "corruption is bi-partisan" defense, the general public barely knows anything about it. At most, some relatively astute citizens know about a "bad apple" or two like someone named Cunningham or someone named Abramoff or that DeLay fella down in Texas. But when it comes to their own representative? It's pathetic. Jerry Lewis, for example, is one of the dozen most corrupt scumbags prowling the corridors of power. He's from a relatively backward Southern California area, "the high desert," where he's got every lever of power sewn up and all the mass media in his pocket. Although he's on the verge of indictment for taking bribes from the same crooked contractors who were paying off Cunningham-- Lewis was the chairman; Cunningham was just small potatoes-- there is no primary challenge, no big-name, or even medium name, Democrat challenging him, no local media uproar... In fact there's barely a whisper of what he's been up to. The Democrat who is challenging him, Louie Contreras, is on his own, waging a brave, lonely battle with barely an acknowledgment from the DCCC that there's a race on.

And Lewis' constituents only know him as "our guy" and think he brings home the bacon. Meanwhile all the bacon's going into his own home and he's utterly sold out the district to Big Business interests. A 5 minute look at his voting record would convince virtually anyone that he is their mortal enemy, voting against everything they want from the government, particularly as relates to basics like health care.

This week's TIME Magazine has a story about Bush's very ethically-challenged Justice Department threatening that if Congress doesn't start policing itself, the Feds will step in and do it for 'em. (I'm sure they're all shaking in their boots-- not!) "A senior federal law enforcement official told TIME that the paralyzed and often lax House ethics committee has created a vacuum that prosecutors won't hesitate to fill. The House’s internal mechanism for keeping corruption in check is 'broken,' says the official."

After DeLay summarily fired Joel Hefly (R-CO), the Republican head of the non-partisan House Ethics Committee, for daring to allow the committee to criticize (mildly) his rampant Mafia-like regime, he inserted in his place "Doc" Hastings (R-WA), an extremely compromised Republican hack, with illicit connections to some of the worst of the DeLay/Abramoff scandals. Hastings promptly closed down the Ethics Committee, exactly what DeLay appointed him to do. So, for example, even after newspapers started writing about Randy "Duke" Cunningham's bribe-taking, no House investigation was launched and even after Cunningham was clearly headed for prison and it was as clear as day that he had been taking millions of dollars in bribes from Republican defense contractors he wasn't even removed from the super-sensitive Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the Intelligence Committee, access to which he had made millions from.

Larceny and avarice are in the blood of many men and it's up to the voters to be a little discerning about who they entrust with the spending of their tax dollars. Are the Democrats automatically less corrupt than the Republicans? Not a chance. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, operates like a mirror image of Tom DeLay in terms of being a self-serving, ruthless and hysterically authoritarian. He hired one of his cronies, a corrupt corporate lobbyist to run the DCCC's finances. But he doesn't have the power to be nearly as bad as DeLay-- yet. Mark Taibbi, in a brilliant ROLLING STONE essay about the endemic corruption of the Republicans in Congress, end with a serious warning: "The Democrats, whose innocence in the crimes of the last five years to date corresponds exactly to their lack of opportunities for corruption, may now get a chance at the helm. But it won't take much exposure to cheap stunts like a beaming Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi signing a 'Declaration of Honest Leadership' before people begin to remember how much the other guys can suck, too. Bush haters are celebrating this week as old villains descend to the death chamber, but they should be careful what they wish for. Trusting Washington to fix itself is a whole new kind of torture."

Can we expect Washington do anything about corruption? Well, obviously not with leaders like DeLay, Blunt, Hastert and Boehner, all creatures whose very essence in based on power and corruption. And I would expect no less from Emanuel on the Democratic side of the aisle. Are there men and women of good will in Congress who actually do want to change the system enough to take away the corruption? I absolutely know there are. Take a look at this little QuickTime video of Ned Lamont where he talks about the #1 biggest problem in Congress. I don't think there is any legislation that will solve the problem of personal greed, avarice and lust, but public financing of campaigns will go a long way towards taking the constant frenzied money hunt out of day-to-day politics. That would be a step towards Washington "fixing" itself, a big one.

RICK SANTORUM' TAKES ANOTHER DIP IN THE TOILET-- HIS OUTRAGEOUS CHARITY SCAM

Last week Santorum's little House of Fake Godliness was shattered by the well-researched Will Bunch expose in THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, which reminded me of how the Cunningham scandals started unwinding almost one year ago. Cunningham was undone by some monkey-business involving a bribe plan that involved mortgage financing. And that is exactly how Santorum has been bribed by some fat cat GOP corporate types as well.

This is far from Rick Santorum's first brush with severe ethics lapses. In fact, his whole K Street Project is one of the most corrupt and insidious plots ever perpetrated against the American people by their own legislators. But on top of all this, we now find out, courtesy of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, that Santorum was running one of those fake Republican charities (just like Abramoff, DeLay, Frist and other crooks currently in limbo between plea bargaining and prison terms).
What Little Ricky Man-on-Dog was doing, while we thought all he cared about was trying to ruin the lives of gay men and women, was collecting money (tax-free, of course; the Republican way) that was supposed to go to charity but instead using the bulk of it as political pay-offs for his aides and cronies. And, of course, the charities short-changed were those run by the religionist suckers who vote for dishonest fanatics like Santorum. Operation Good Neighbor, Santorum's scam, "donated about 40 percent of the $1.25 million it spent during a four-year period-- well below Better Business Bureau standards-- paying out the rest for overhead, including several hundred thousand dollars to campaign aides on the charity payroll, records show." The absolute minimum permissible for the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance is 65%-- and even that raises eyebrows. This seems to be a good time for me to point out that there is actually a good government, reform progressive who is running against Santorum (NOT the almost-as-reactionary-as-Santorum Bob Casey), Chuck Pennacchio and the thoroughly progressive ACT BLUE doesn't pass along only 40% of donations or only 65% of donations or even a stellar 90% of donations. If you contribute to Pennacchio or other Democratic candidates through ACT BLUE, 100% goes to the candidate's campaign-- everything, every dime; nothing gets raked off for anyone, the way Santorum was doing it. Please check out the DWT ACT BLUE Page which is collecting donations to put scammers of BOTH parties out of business. We offer an opportunity to contribute to the political demise of crooked Republicans like Rick Santorum and Mark Foley and to the political demise of crooked Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Henry Cuellar. Take a look. And even $10 helps!

Back to the Philadelphia Inquirer story. Turns out Santorum was paying his campaign staffers and fundraisers with fat salaries from his bogus charity. So when you thought you were contributing money for the neighborhood church to serve hot lunches to impoverished eldery folks, you were really contributing to bolstering Santorum's (shameful) political career. In true George W. Bush fashion, Santorum, of course, claims ignorance and says he wasn't involved with the day-to-day operations of this scam. Well, I'll believe that as fast as I'll believe Bush wasn't aware of the Dubai-U.S. Ports deal that would gigantically enrich his family, family retainers and political allies.

HOW MANY WIVES DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE IN UTAH BEFORE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE A JUDGE-- LET ALONE GET PROSECUTED?

Early last November I endeavored to introduce DWT readers to a part-time judge in Utah, one Wally Steed-- and to his 3 wives and 32 children. Finally on Friday ole Wally was ordered removed from the bench by the Utah Supreme Court. It was a unanimous decision in support of last year's ruling by Utah's Judicial Conduct Commission, to removal Steed for violating Utah's bigamy law. Steed had served as a judge in a polygamist community (Hildale) in remote southern Utah, for 25 years, ruling in domestic violence cases (among other misdemeanor crimes).

Utah's nutcase Republican Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, had refused to prosecute Steed, bitching that "If you charge one where do you stop? You start prosecuting 10,000 people and have 20,000 kids go into the (child welfare) system?" He only prosecutes the bigamy cases that involve violence and sex with minors, although the Supreme Court pointed out that "When the law is violated or ignored by those charged by society with the fair and impartial enforcement of the law, the stability of our society is placed at undue risk." (The Supreme Court says that Steed "has given every indication that he intends to continue his 'plural marriage' arrangement.") No one knows for certain how many wives Shurtleff and other Utah Republicans have but Steed maintains that removing him from the bench is a violation of his religious freedom.

A SATURDAY MORNING MEDITATION: GEORGE W. BUSH, G. HARROLD CARSWELL AND SOME POOP FROM A SICK ANIMAL

You know how some people see images of Jesus' mom everywhere, like on burritos and bagels and cakes and oil stains on bridges and stuff like that? And I know I read something about Mother Theresa on a sticky bun recently. Well, I have to admit, I'm kind of like that with Bush. Not sticky buns or bagel sightings or that kind of stuff, but I get reminded of him in ways no one else would. I mean, did anyone esle catch a Bush reference in the new Woody Allen film, MATCH POINT? My friends Craig and Ray saw MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS with me and they thought I was a little overboard coming out of the moving talking about how the same way newsreel images of Hitler in the film caused me to have a visceral negative reaction, for millions of people throughout the world, tv images of Bush-- or even just his voice-- cause an identical visceral reaction.

Now a couple days ago I was out for my morning constitutional and there was a big orange mound of really revolting-looking animal turd in the road. Like from a sick animal of some kind. Needless to say my mind went immediately to George W. Bush. I mean I didn't see his image in the pile of turd the way people see Mother Teresa in cinanamon rolls or anything like that, but the instinctual revulsion of seeing the sick looking turd did make me think of what Bush is doing to the country I love so much-- a country I wasn't only born in, but one I chose to live in after traveling and living around the world for nearly 7 years. America is the best, but Bush is doing a helluva job (with Brownie and the rest of his cronies) to change that.

My morning meditation on Bush and the sick animal turd led me in an unexpected direction though. When I was growing up in Brooklyn, there was this old adage that "anyone could grow up to be president." Well... I had some concerns, coming from Brooklyn, that "anyone" didn't include Jews, for example. (I mean even today I have run into so many people who eagerly acknowledge that Russ Feingold would be the best President of all the people being mentioned for 2008 but... well... isn't he Jewish? And just over half the people in the country are women and they never really seemed to be part of that "anyone" who could either (even though there have been effective women heads of state in England, the Phillipines, New Zealand, India and Israel, as well as in somewhat more socially-backward places like Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh). And then there's the little teensy-weensy African-American problem.

But Bush did break down one barrier to this adage-- and this may sound like I'm being a smart-ass, but actually I'm being serious. Just like John F Kennedy broke down the barrier that kept Roman Catholics out of the presidency, George W. Bush proved that someone with an extraordinarily low IQ and a serious learning disability (both exaccerbated by excessive drug use) could also one day grow up (more or less) and become president. Now, please forget for a moment that Bush is the scion of one of the most reknowned robber-baron families of our age and that his father was a president, albeit a mediocre, one-term one, and that his brother and several other powerful and corrupt power players actually stole the election for him. Just suspend that thought for a moment. Instead focus
on Bush himself. (I didn't take a photo of the sick animal turd but Sadie from the Art Department found that picture of Bush above that she thought would help you focus on where I'm going with this.)

It doesn't matter-- in this narrative-- that Bush is a son of wealth and privilege who never accomplished anything on his own in his entire life and, in fact, by any objective examination, has always been an utter failure in anything and everything he's tried. What matters is that he is ignorant and unlearned. Here's someone who never studied in school and is as far from scholarly as one can be and still not be a proven functional illiterate. I mean, sure Clinton knows there's a difference between Sunni and Shi'a, but even that isn't the point. One of my neighbors told me her alcoholic son knows the difference between Sunni and Shi'a. But what Bush has been able to accomplish is a complete denigration of intelligence and learning and replace these once esteemed-- even required-- attributes with a completely fake, if not blasphemous, religiosity. Where we once looked for someone wise and intelligent to lead us, we have now accepted someone who claims "God" talks to him and tells him what to do.

Who would've imagined we'd have this dullard in the White House today back when Roman Hruska (R-NE)-- pathetically trying to make a last ditch defense for Nixon's appointment of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court-- stood up on the Senate floor and actually said "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there." Forget the anti-semitic thrust and instead keep in mind that Hruska-- himself the least intelligent man to ever serve in the U.S. Senate until Tom Coburn was elected-- referred to Carswell as "mediocre," when he was being judged by the nation as a backward, unenlighted ignoramous. (He was later arrested, in true Republican style, in a public toilet attempting to have oral sex with an undercover agent.) But Carswell, rejected by the Senate as too dumb to sit on the Supreme Court-- and perhaps making "mediocre" people feel badly about themselves or, hopefully, isnpiring some students to study a little harder-- was far brighter and far more enlightened than George W. Bush!

No one remembers Carswell or Hruska but Bush is making more of a mark on history, one that may well be remarked on for many decades. Here is a man who makes one positively yearn for the days when Republicans actually served up merely mediocre public officials. Aside from being steeped in ignorance and darkness, a real problem for the ex oficio leader of what was once called "The Free World," Bush is clearly delusionary. He seems to believe that if he says it, it is or will be true. He'll publically promise disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina and the victims never heard another word about it. He makes promises to world leaders and they never hear anything from him again either. On January 4 Bush said "that U.S. efforts in Iraq are bearing fruit" and the promised goal for ramping down the American occupation-- the Iraqi Army being able to handle the country's security was on the way to becoming a reality.

"In January 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces," said Bush, flanked by his top aides, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. A year ago, Bush said, "only a handful" of Iraqis were trained and equipped to fight the insurgent forces. "Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead," he said. "That's progress." Was he high? Lying? Insane? Did God-- or someone impersonating God-- tell him this nonsense? Last September, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that only one Iraqi battalion was capable of conducting operations without U.S. support. Today CNN reported that that there isn't even one Iraqi division capable of fighting without American support. (Did John Murtha warn us of this a couple months ago? Why influential old-school Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden and Wesley Clark go along with this line of Bushthink is mortifying.)

CNN quoted Bush as saying "As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we will be able to continue with our stated strategy that says as Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down." Well, even though Bush doesn't hold much stock in reality, we now have less Iraqi forces in the lead (zero) than before (one). The 125 battalions? Thin air.


MONDAY EVENING UPDATE: NO ONE LIKES BUSH ANYMORE

The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high. I can't believe he's still over a third! Cheney on the other hand has sunk from 23% to 18%.

THE REPUBLICAN CULTURE OF CORRUPTION-- REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE SLAUGHTER HAS ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has come up with a very thorough 118 page document detailing the Republican Culture of Corruption in DC. The executive summary starts with a quote from a fellow member of Congress: "We've created a culture that just breeds corruption." Apparently Slaughter and the Democrats aren't the only ones who see through the disgrace of what DeLay, Pombo, Boehner, Cunningham, Ney, Doolittle, Lewis, Hastert, Blunt and the rest of the Republicrooks have served up to America over the past few years. That quote is from conservative Arizona Republican, Jeff Flake.

It gets better. You should give it a read. And Louise posted a diary about it at MyDD including some chilling statistics:


*14.2 million American seniors (including millions of our sickest and most vulnerable seniors) are stuck in a complicated, expensive, and inefficient Medicare prescription drug program because the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration allowed lobbyists from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to design this program.

*60 million American families who heat their homes with natural gas and 8 million families who heat with heating oil are paying higher bills this winter, even though the Republican Congress recently passed their "national energy plan" into law. Although this plan gives the energy industry billions in new tax breaks and subsidies, it doesn't lower prices for consumers or make our country more energy independent.

*The 150,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq may not have the equipment they need because of waste, fraud and cronyism by the Republican Congress and the Department of Defense. While Halliburton and other companies with Republican connections get their contracts, our soldiers still don't have the body armor and armored vehicles they need to fight the war.

*750,000 households in the Gulf region are still displaced today, more than 5 months after Hurricane Katrina hit that region, at least in part because the political hacks the Bush Administration put in charge of crucial homeland security functions were not adequately prepared to prepare for or respond to this disaster.

*More than 10 million students and their families will have larger student loans to repay because House Republicans, led by new Majority Leader John Boehner working hand-in-hand with his commercial loan industry allies, cut $12 billion from the student loan program in the recent reconciliation bill and shifted the costs on to students and their families.


ONE WEEK ANNIVERSARY UPDATE: REPUBLICAN SWIFTBOATERS ON THE ATTACK AGAIN

A band of degenerate Republican hatchetmen, the same extremists and maniacs who tried to swiftboat Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha and who were desperately trying to spin/plant stories of existence of Saddam's WMD in Syria during the election year in 2004, have gone on the attack against courageous New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and her extensive expose of the Republican Culture of Corruption. To these partisan bigots, Representative Slaughter is corrupt for exposing their corruption. Hey, it makes as much sense as anything that's come out of these clowns in the last 6 years.

THE RATS ARE TURNING ON EACH OTHER-- WADE IMPLICATES KATHERINE HARRIS AND VIRGIL GOODE, JR

News of a guilty plea from one of Duke Cunningham's main bribers, Mitchell Wade, broke early this morning. Cunningham was a relatively small fish in the scheme of things-- $2.4 million being relatively paltry compared to what big players like Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Jerry Lewis, Richard Pombo, Roy Blunt have managed to extort from their parts in the Republican Culture of Corruption. But in classic prosecutorial style, one goes after the small fish who then point to a bigger fish who then implicate a bigger fish and so on until you finally see the (inter)national catharsis of all mankind-- except for unenlightened multimillionaires-- rejoicing-as-one watching George W. Bush lead away in leg-irons... weeping.

But there are quite a few fishes that need to be reeled in before that. And today, it was Wade Mitchell's turn. The Associated Press is reporting that Wade, former president of defense contractor MZM Inc. in Washington admitted paying over a million dollars in bribes to Republican congressmen charged with securing our nation from attack. He "also acknowledged making nearly $80,000 in illegal campaign contributions in the names of MZM employees and their spouses to two other members of Congress, who were not identified," but who, it turns out, were two of the biggest money-whores in the Congress, crooked Virginia scumbag Virgil Goode, Jr. and the monstrosity whose cheating in Florida vote counting in 2000 allowed George Bush to assume the presidency, Katherine Harris.

"Prosecutors also laid out a second, separate conspiracy in which Wade was alleged to have paid bribes to a Defense Department official and other employees in return for their help in awarding contracts to his company. Wade pleaded guilty to this scheme as well." Wade was another of those super-connected Republican "businessmen," wheeling and dealing with Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter, John Doolittle and other GOP hypocrites with their hands on the spigot of defense appropriations. The SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE is covering this story-- as they did the whole Cunningham sage-- in an exemplary way and today a story implies an interesting inconsistency in the spin on this scandal. The claim is being made that neither Goode nor Harris were aware that Wade was illegally contributing to their campaigns. And yet, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Howard R. Sklamberg's summation "Wade made about $80,000 in illegal campaign contributions in 2004 and 2006 to two members of Congress [Goode and Harris]. The lawmakers were targeted because they had the potential to steer federal contracts to MZM." Well, if they weren't aware of Wade's largesse, why would they steer anything his way? And steer they did-- as did Cunningham, Lewis (who was then chairman of the committee) and Hunter.

As Murshed pointed out, the ironically-named Goode figures prominently in Congresswomen Louise Slaughter's AMERICA FOR SALE: THE COST OF REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"Since 2002, Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) has received more campaign contributions from defense contractor MZM, Inc. and its employees – almost $90,000, or nearly 10% of all the money he raised – than from any other single source.  The former president of MZM is Mitchell Wade, one of the co-conspirators in the Duke Cunningham (R-CA) bribery scandal.  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Goode inserted language creating or expanding MZM classified defense contracts in spending bills.  At one point, Goode added a $23 million dollar classified defense program for MZM that the Pentagon hadn't even requested.  In 2003, MZM-connected contributors gave Goode a total of $19,000 in the days surrounding the award of three Pentagon contracts to MZM.  In June 2005, the Pentagon revoked a $163 million MZM contract for work at the National Ground Intelligence Center in Goode's district, saying it should be open to competitive bids.  Local officials referred to this questionable project as 'Project Goode.'"

MORE REPUBLICAN INDICTMENTS AND GUILTY PLEAS IN CUNNINGHAM CORRUPTION SCANDALS

Most people who have been following the Randy "Duke" Cunningham case have realized that Cunningham going off to jail for a decade after pleading guilty to taking millions of dollars in bribes from defense contractors while he sat on Congressional Defense and Intelligence committees, is far from the conclusion of this revolting episode of Republican rule in Washington. What about all those co-conspirators named in the indictment? What about his partners in crime, from Jerry Lewis (R-CA), John Doolittle (R-CA) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Tom DeLay (R-TX)? And what about the actual bribers who paid the millions and got the lucrative government contracts in return?

Today the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS is reporting that the first of those corrupt Republican contractors, Mitchell Wade has agreed to plead guilty and cooperate with federal investigators. As we approach the November elections, indictments of at least Jerry Lewis and Duncan Hunter seem likely.

Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC have been so busy underming progressives and grassroots candidates across the country-- from Christine Cegelis in Illinois, Jerry McNerney and Brett Wagner in California, Dave Lutrin in Florida to Barry Welsh in Indiana-- that they have incompetently failed to work on races in districts where there are likely to be indicted Republican incumbents. Is Louie Contreras a serious candidate in California's 41st CD-- a pretty red district whose corrupt and venal congressman will soon be joining his pal Cunningham in prison? Has Emanuel's (and Ellen Tauscher's) inept meddling in California's 11th CD-- trying to impose Steve Filson on local Democrats from above-- strengthen Richard Pombo as his grotesque little empire starts falling apart? Even the most cursory monitoring of California's Republican congressional scandal would have seen major efforts to mount effective campaigns-- starting with good recruitment-- against Lewis and Hunter. Emanuel, however, has apparently been too busy making war on Christine Cegelis. No doubt the Democrats will never get a clue about how disastrous this guy is for the party until the post-election analysis when people wonder what went wrong.

Tip of the hat to Roy at Fired Up! America for the pre-dawn alert.


UPDATE: CUNNINGHAM SCANDAL GOES CROSS-COUNTRY

The first congressmen nailed by admitted Cunningham briber, MZM ceo Mitchell Wade, as part of his plea bargain deal are... drumroll... Virginia's notorious and hypocritical bucket of sleaze, Virgil Goode, Jr. and the uber-corrupt whore-and-a-half from sunny Florida Katherine Harris. The ironically-named Goode figures prominently in Congresswomen Louise Slaughter's AMERICA FOR SALE: THE COST OF REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION. Here's the relevent excerpt (hat tip to Mushed):
"Since 2002, Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) has received more campaign contributions from defense contractor MZM, Inc. and its employees – almost $90,000, or nearly 10% of all the money he raised – than from any other single source.  The former president of MZM is Mitchell Wade, one of the co-conspirators in the Duke Cunningham (R-CA) bribery scandal.  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Goode inserted language creating or expanding MZM classified defense contracts in spending bills.  At one point, Goode added a $23 million dollar classified defense program for MZM that the Pentagon hadn't even requested.  In 2003, MZM-connected contributors gave Goode a total of $19,000 in the days surrounding the award of three Pentagon contracts to MZM.  In June 2005, the Pentagon revoked a $163 million MZM contract for work at the National Ground Intelligence Center in Goode's district, saying it should be open to competitive bids.  Local officials referred to this questionable project as 'Project Goode.'"

IRAQ CIVIL WAR

I don't want to push this analogy too hard but the destruction of one of the holiest sites in the Shi'a Muslim world 2 days ago was Iraq's Ft Sumter moment. An Iraqi civil war has been on for some time-- despite the Bush Regime's and Wes Clark's contention that we're occupying Iraq to prevent one-- but the blowing up of the Golden Mosque, and the ensuing orgy of violence and mayhem, means only that we've come one step closer to where even Bush will recognize that it's too late to prevent a civil war. CNN reported that "the most powerful Sunni Muslim party quit talks to form a new government Thursday after Sunnis were attacked-- and many killed-- following the bombing of Samarra's... Golden Mosque."

Last summer Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi was already saying the civil war had begun. Although he is widely considered to be a Bush Regime lackey, Allawi told a U.K. paper that “The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq... We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak.” Like most people in trouble who have counted on Bush's word, he was dismayed by Bush's tendency to promise the world-- see: New Orleans reconstruction-- and deliver nothing. Allawi said that he had discussed the urgency of rebuilding Iraq’s military with Bush and Rumsfeld last year. “Bush earmarked $5.7 billion... but I did not receive the money,” Allawi said. (I wonder why no one suggested he get in touch with Jack Abramoff, James Baker or any number of known Bush bagmen and kickback experts.)

Meanwhile, Iraq isn't really a functioning state. Unfathomable violence, foreign occupation, a complete breakdown of civil society, endemic corruption, utter despair everywhere... are the hallmarks of George Bush's post-Saddam Iraq. The Shi’ites (nearly 60% of Iraq's population), who endured decades of oppression under Saddam, are threatening to purge former members of the (overwhelmingly Sunni) Ba’ath Party from the army and all levels of government, a move that is provoking fierce retaliation from the Sunnis.

Meanwhile the Kurds in the northern third of the country have their own functioning-- and largely peaceful-- de facto state and are determined to Iraq fall to pieces so that they can get their own independent Kurdistan. It appears that most Shi'a would also like their own-- oil-rich, theocratic-- country too, allied with neighboring Iran and free of haughty, aggressive Sunnis (many of whom believe in things that are anathema to fundamentalist Shi'a, like a secular society and equality for women. If only Bush would have thought a little about these things before his precipitous invasion and occupation of Iraq! But just to give you a clue about how utterly ill-prepared his regime was for Iraq, keep in mind that in 2003 they promised the American people that taxpayers' share of the cost of the entire operation would be $1.7 billion. So far $265 billion has been spent-- most of it going to Bush cronies-- and he just asked for tens of billions more.

CHRISTINE CEGELIS-- A GREAT CHALLENGER TO RIGHT WING DOMINATION

For me-- way out here in California-- Christine Cegelis' campaign has become a parable for the survival of democracy within the Democratic Party. But I know it means a lot more than a parable for activists and concerned democrats (and Democrats) in Illinois' 6th congressional district. I first heard about Cegelis from Howard Dean a few years ago, who said she was an exemplary and inspiring candidate and who was impressed that she took on one of the most entrenched members of the GOP power elite, powerful and uber-hypocritical Henry Hyde. Cegelis scored an incredible 44% of the vote against Hyde in 2004 and, in the process, has built up a wonderful grassroots following. Her clear and pointed, well-thought out positions on the important issues have further endeared her to people looking for a change from Bush and the Republican congress and all of their disastrous (and self-serving) policies. Sounds like a dream candidate for the Blue Team, right?

Not according to DCCC boss, Rahm Emanuel. Instead of welcoming the hard-working and dedicated Cegelis as a neighbor, and offering DCCC assistance to help her close the very attainable 7% gap between herself and the Repugs, Emanuel went on an emotional, irrational and-- much to the relief of Republicans (the major beneficiaries of Emanuel's unseasoned, divisive, heavy-handed "leadership")-- destructive rampage against her, doing all he could-- and he is a very, very vicious politico (especially when it comes to fighting progressives and grassroots Dems)-- to make her withdraw and to derail her campaign. He eventually recruited someone from outside the district, a decent Iraq war vet, to run against Cegelis and started a huge Inside-the-Beltway Power Elite drumbeat to make it seem that the Democratic nomination was all wrapped up-- as the power-mongers have done for the Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ohio senate seats and for dozens of House seats across the country. But, as sometimes happens in a real democracy-- something about which Emanuel has no clue-- his efforts backfired inside the district (where people like the idea of voting and choosing their own candidates).

Cegelis and her fired-up supporters redoubled their efforts and her campaign has been going strong. I know that Jim Dean and DFA are not seeking disputes with gutter-figher Emanuel but progressives from around the country have been urging them to help Cegelis overcome the "inevitability" drumbeat Emanuel has been trying to use to bolster the prospects of his hand-picked puppet. And yesterday DFA took the leap and enthusiastically endorsed 4 progressive Democrats for Congress, including Christine Cegelis. As a DFA member, I was very proud to be standing up and taking a stand against the Inside-the-Beltway hegemonists. The endorsement was simple and to the point: "A long-time resident of Rolling Meadows, Christine Cegelis lives and works in Illinois' 6th Congressional District. As a Dean Dozen candidate in 2004, Christine came within just a few points of toppling 30-year Republican incumbent Rep. Henry Hyde. This year Hyde is retiring and Christine's running again in a tough Democratic primary. The DCCC is behind another candidate, but Christine has earned the support of DFA groups across Illinois." She has also earned the endorsement of DWT and we have set up an ACT Blue Page for her that we help you will consider donating to.

Her campaign website is exactly what I love to see from a candidate and it is exactly why so many people are so enthusiastic about her. She's the kind of person who inspires excitement and hope that a real change could come and that it won't just be politics as usual. She's a people's candidate and I implore you to look into her candidacy and lend a hand. She has two fights on her hands-- first Rahm Emanuel and the Inside-the-Beltway power elite and after she shows him Democrats prefer democracy, she will face a garden variety right-wing hack. DWT will be with her throughout.

UPDATE: BUSH IS A BAD PRESIDENT

I passed by a tv this morning when I was getting dressed and the smirking chimp was at some kind of a cabinet "meeting" photo op. He was doing his best not to smirk when he held up a nicely bound report about all the non-finger-pointin'-blame-game-playin' mistakes-we-learned-from-to-better-protect-the-Amercan-people. The most I could make of it was that if we have better walkie-talkies and blackberries everything will be hunky-dory next time something "unforeseen" happens (as long as we keep Republicans at the helm). He also talked about our commitment to the Gulf and I think he's mixed up what he's doing with his pals the emirs and kings on a far far away Gulf and what he's not doing for the homeless and newly impoverished on our own Gulf Coast. Earlier today my friend David sent me a quote from former U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith.

January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware 
that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, ‘You mean…they’re not, you know, there... there’s this difference. What is it about?’”

Unforeseen? Only one catastrophe was unforeseen. We were warned about 9-11. We were warned about what Katrina would do to the New Orleans levee system. Even Tom DeLay is now warning how about the security threat inherent in selling our ports to a company controlled by the very shady, very corrupt-- and insecure-- Dubai royal family. So what was unforeseen? Well almost half the country didn't realize they were voting for the stupidest, laziest, most ignorant man who has ever run for president.

EVEN TOM DELAY TURNS ON BUSH-- PORT SALE A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Yesterday I mentioned something about how even the lowliest slugs from the depths of the Republican backbench, stealthy figures we never hear from like California whackadoodle Elton Gallegly, were crawling out of the darkness to give Bush the finger over his blatantly self-serving/America-destroying move to sell port operations to his pals in the Dubai royal family. North Carolina congressloon Sue Myrick went out of her way to make sure a terse and dramatic letter she wrote to Bush-- "Not just NO, but HELL NO!"-- was widely circulated. And that is a pretty good sign Bush's little power play is in trouble. But the capper for poor Bush must have been when indicted former GOP Capo di Tutti Capi Tom DeLay stuck his head up from whatever plea bargaining conference he's involved in to call Bush's little deal "pretty outrageous." And if any of Bush's closest circle knows what "pretty outrageous" is, it would be the former House Majority Leader. Other normally complacent Texas congresscritters also weighed in against Bush and DeLay complacently predicated that the whole mess will be overturned by Congress. "When it's a matter of national security, the president will be overturned. We will overturn it within the next few weeks." I wonder if he just made Bush mad enough to consider not granting him a pardon after he's found guilty for bribery and conspiracy.

WILL THE DEMOCRATS TAKE DOWN BOB NEY-- OR WILL RAHM EMANUEL RESCUE HIM?

I saw a poll recently asking which congressman would be the next to be indicted (this was post DeLay and post Cunningham). The overwhelming response was venal Ohio Republican Bob Ney. But today Associated Press' David Hammer wrote a fairly positive piece on his future. Hammer used GOP talking points, Republican wishful thinking, and sheer bullshit to denigrate the Democrats efforts to take on Ney in Ohio's 18th CD.

Although there are 2 strong candidates locked in an action-packed primary battle-- grassroots progressive Zack Space and socially conservative Chillicothe mayor Joe Sulzer-- Hammer's main point is that the DCCC's version of Tom DeLay wasn't able to recruit whatever nightmare candidates he was trying to impose on the district.

Hammer's story is a collection of pre-ordered quotes to prove his lame points plus some typical Inside-the-Beltway claptrap. Lots of stuff about Rahm Emanuel trying to recruit vanilla candidates with no point of view and light in the brains department (like State Representative John Boccieri). One thing that did catch my attention was this: "Emanuel's committee declined to comment on recruiting issues, but is struggling to decide between Joe Sulzer and Zack Space, two of the four Democrats who did enter the race." Here's proof that Emanuel is as stupid as he is Stalinist. He apparently hasn't learned from the disastrous response to his (and Chuck Schumer's) interference in the Ohio Senate race which drove Paul Hackett to pull out (and simultaneously drove up Mike DeWine's approval voter preference rating). Space and Sulzer both look like competent candidates and the Democrats of the district should be able to choose between them. That's called a primary. In a democracy. Mr. Emanuel.

A NEW REPORT: CHENEY WAS STAGGERING DRUNK WHEN HE SHOT HARRY WHITTINGTON

A few days after the Cheney shooting rampage a very old friend of mine, a Secret Service agent, told me that the press and the bloggers-- including this one-- were missing an important aspect of the story. "Oh, tell me." But I couldn't get another word out of him-- not even a hint. And I tried.

Today Doug Thompson at OpEdNews has a story called "Secret Service Agents Say Cheney Was Drunk When He Shot Lawyer." Thompson claims there's a written report from his personal detail that states he was "clearly inebriated" when he shot Harry Whittington. "Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited 'visible signs' of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions, the report said.
According to those who have read the report and talked with others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up."

There have been reports that Wyoming hunters who have gone shooting with Cheney says he never drinks beer when he's hunting because it makes him pee. He like whiskey. And acording to Thompson a White House aide said "This was a South Texas hunt. Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."

I don't know what to make of this report-- there are some well-known points (like about Cheney having had drinking problems before) and they're mixed with things that could be true of could be fantasies. We'll see...

LAST MINUTE UPDATE

Coincidentally, NBC News just announced that they have obtained new documents that show Cheney's account of the story is... um... good enough for NBC News to believe. Basically the documents being touted as proof Cheney isn't a criminal are hand-written memos from his friends on the hunt with him. It's obvious to everyone but NBC that these are coordinated stories that all claim Cheney wasn't drunk. This "scoop" makes me believe more than before that he was drunk.

MY INTERVIEW WITH "CANDIDATE X," RUSS WARNER, THE DEMOCRATS' BEST CHANCE IN YEARS TO RETIRE DAVID DREIER

This is going to make more sense if you read the article I posted yesterday called MEET THE DEMOCRATS' CANDIDATE X. I'll take it from there. The incumbent is the execrable David Dreier, another hypocritical, self-loathing Republican closet case, who has misrepresented California's 26th CD for 25 years. (It's a moderate suburban L.A. district not unlike the Northern Virginia districts that used to vote Republican but went overwhelmingly for Democrat Tim Kaine in the gubernatorial race there a couple months ago. It's usually thought of as the San Gabriel Valley, but it also extends into San Bernardino County and some of the better known communities are La Canada, La Crescenta, Flintridge, Rancho Cucamonga, Altadena, a bit of Pasadena, San Marino, Glendora, La Verne, Monrovia, Arcadia, Claremont, Upland... There is no primary and the challenger, yesterday's "Mr. X," is Russ Warner, a successful local entrepreneur.

I met Russ and one of his 3 sons, Greg, at a rally for Wes Clark on October 28 in Cheviot Hills. Greg, who's in the Army and had recently returned from Iraq, had urged his dad to run for Congress. I prefer to be able to look at someone in the eyes when I talk with them but I had trouble enough getting an interview with Warner to be too picky, so tonight I sat down and had a nice, relaxed, friendly conversation with him on the telephone.

I was half expecting a what I've been referring to on DWT as a Rahm Emanuel shill candidate; I thought I had it all figured out in advance. I didn't. Russ had his own point of view on issues-- some identical to mine, some very different from mine, all probably well-suited to the district he's lived in for the last 25 years. My best guess it that he'll be a moderate Democrat-- in the real sense of "moderate," not as a polite way of saying a "right-wing Democrat" like Jim Marshall, or Henry Cuellar or Ben Nelson.

On some of the tough issues, his reflexes were absolutely spot on. He's adamant that America needs universal health care and that the country is ready for it now. He speaks about it with conviction and passion and it's obviously a topic he's thought long and hard about. Most everything we talked about flowed through his life-experience as an entrepreneur, something I'm very comfortable with, having come from a similar background. His analysis of the state of the union finds grave fault with the greed, avarice and arrogance of Big Business. And, for Warner, salvation is the hard work, sweat and dedication of the enlightened entrepreneur and small businessperson. It could be a lot worse-- and for CA-26, it's pretty close to perfect.

One crucial issue for the race is going to be immigration. The loony and extremely xenophobic/racist Minutemen are strong in Southern California and some local right-wing drive-time radio show targeted Dreier in 2004 and hammered him mercilessly. Their motto is kind of "Anything But Dreier" because he supports Bush's corporatist immigration policies. (That wing-- as opposed to the neo-Nazi Tancredo wing-- of the GOP encourages a flood of immigration, illegal better than legal, in order to drive labor prices down for their corporate allies and to undermine union's bargaining power. The Republicans have always hated minimum wage laws, safety in the workplace laws, child labor laws, all the kind of stuff that differentiates free citizens with dignity from serfs and slaves-- the right-wing's ideal condition for the non-wealthy.) Anyway, the radio loons, "John & Ken," still hate Dreier, who fears them the way a 10 year old girl lost in a forest would feel a pack of hungry wolves. Dreier has tried to move a bit in their direction on the issue but they're not having any of his weasel-words and they never shut about how terrible and corporate he is. And he has some Minuteman type challenging him-- ineffectually-- in the GOP primary. Warner understands the immigration issue and his response is very reasonable: to crack down on the big businesses that encourage illegal immigration by hiring illegals.

His answer about equal protection for gays and lesbians was very matter-of-fact-- sort of like a moderate version of Paul Hackett's: we're all Americans and all entitled to equal protection under the law-- and he specifically brought up civil marriage. Funny how a happily married man, confident in his own skin, has no problems with gays while a closeted, self-loathing and petrified homosexual like David Dreier feels the need to victimize gay people every chance he gets as a legislator. Dreier's homosexuality, his hypocrisy in that area, and the scandal of his taxpayer-financed lover's inordinately large salary are issues Warner refuses to talk about-- even when prodded. He's a decent guy who is determined to take the high road.

My biggest specific problem with Warner was, probably predictably, Iraq. I think what drives Warner is his life's experience as an entrepreneur, a husband and a father and that these experiences are determinative of his positions. He's not an ideologue; he seems like a considerate and fair-minded problem-solver. The conclusions he's come to about Big Pharma's role in the deteriorating state of our medical system is a great example of how real life experience, not ideology, brought him to a common sense conclusion about the corrosive nature of Big Business in a democratic and middle class-oriented society. When it came to Iraq, however... his experiences are different from mine. When I put the question to him-- how do we get out-- he fumbled around a bit, perhaps still trying to get to the best solution to a problem that has too many grays. He started talking about troop rotations and getting Arab and Muslim and even NATO countries to send troops as we bring our boys home. I got a sinking feeling in my stomach.

I pointed out that other countries, even the ones we bribed initially, are withdrawing troops and that no one wants to send new troops in. He pointed out that that's because no one trusts Bush. I pointed out that he's running for Congress and that, in all likelihood, Bush will be around for his entire first term. In the end came what I was afraid was the inevitable answer: the way out of Iraq is to... elect Wes Clark president. Warner is a true believer and has tremendous faith in the general. I don't want to start another war with the Wes Clark supporters (and risk hundreds of pieces of spam, most of it either filthy, racist, homophobic or a combination, all over my blog again) but this illusion that history depends on a (military) strongman disturbed me-- big time. I respect Clark and I respect Warner's admiration and trust in him, but as right as Clark was about the Iraq war in the beginning (that it would be a terrible and costly blunder), he has been wrong ever since. Somewhat astonished that Warner seemed to be equating an end to the problems in Iraq with the election of Clark as president, I asked him if that was the only way out. He said the Democrats have a strong line-up of potential candidates who he trusted could solve the problem. He mentioned 3 others: Mark Warner, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

I think Russ Warner is a good challenger for David Dreier in the 26th CD. And a much better candidate than what I've come to expect from the DCCC. I think he has an excellent chance of winning and I think he'll be a decent congressman if he does-- far, far better than the inherently dishonest, conflicted mess we have in that seat now. Is he a DFA candidate? He seems to think so (although he doesn't even mention he's a Democrat on his website). I'm sure some DFA grassroots workers and donations would be welcome and useful. But this is a campaign that I think is one I'll be rooting for rather than participating in myself. The local DFA folks appreciate him and want to help and that doesn't really bother me if they have nothing better to do. (Francine Busby should be an incumbent by then. Progressive Californians in solidly Democratic districts should also consider helping Jerry McNerney to topple Richard Pombo and Charlie Brown to rid California of John Doolittle.) Still, on the very day-- today-- that DFA has endorsed 4 proud progressives, Francine Busby, Christine Cegelis, Mary Jo Kilroy and Lois Murphy, for Congress, I think it would be too much of a stretch for me to ask that organization to do likewise for Warner. Instead I'm calling my pals Bob, Mary and Grace in San Marino and asking them to give Warner a hand.

THE ENVIRONMENT-- THINK ABOUT IT WHEN YOU VOTE. THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE RICHARD POMBO ON ONE HAND AND PEOPLE LIKE FRANCINE BUSBY ON THE OTHER

Although protecting the environment used to be a thoroughly bi-partisan issue, promoted enthusiastically by both Democrats and Republicans, it has increasingly become something that Democrats support and Republicans sabotage. Until George W. Bush came along to sell off this country's natural wonders to his cronies and campaign contributors, every single American president since Teddy Roosevelt-- including Bush's father, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower, etc.-- has expanded protections for the American environment. But it isn't just Bush. There is now a firm Republican majority which espouses bulldozing and wrecking the environment in order to reap short-term profits for developers and polluters who bribe them with campaign contributions.

The poster boy for this is the head of the House Natural Resources Committee, right-wing California extremist, Richard Pombo. His record on pollution and environmental protection is absolutely dismal-- he scores a 6 out of 100 on ProgressivePunch's vote analysis-- and he comes up with really bizarre proposals, like selling off our cherished national parks. Yes, well Pombo exerts a real leadership role in this area but truth be told, the California GOP, with just a few notable exceptions, has turned into a real hotbed on anti-environment activism. California Republicans like Duncan Hunter, David Dreier, Jerry Lewis and Dan Lungren have almost identically hideous environmental voting records and John Doolittle's is even worse than Pombo's, probably the worst of any congressman in the history of California.

Although Californians concerned about the quality of the air we breath and the water we drink and about our environment in general won't have a chance to do anything about it (at the voting box) until November, there is an important congressional special election in San Diego County in April. This is the race to replace Randy "Duke" Cunningham-- another anti-environmental extremist-- who will be spending the next decade in prison for accepting millions of dollars in bribes in exchange for his congressional influence. The gaggle of right-wing Republicans in the race are by and large all anti-environment nut-cases who can be counted on to follow Pombo's lead over the environmental cliff. The pro-environment candidate is Francine Busby, the Democrat. She makes a point of going into some detail in her campaign about protecting the environment that is being raped and pillaged by the GOP.

Meanwhile, today's NORTH COUNTY TIMES, the local newspaper for the 50th Congressional District, has a pathetic report on the environmental records of the Republicans in the area. Conservationists in California are particularly unhappy with the extreme right-wing state senator from Oceanside, Bill Morrow, who is running against Busby. He had a grade of just 4 out of 100-- even worse than Pombo's!!! According to Rico Mastrodonato of the California League of Conservation Voters, "from an environmental perspective, we get very little support from representatives in that area."

There are a lot of reasons it is crucial for citizens of the 50th CD, for Californians and for Americans to elect Francine Busby in April. The contrast between her environmental stands and those of Morrow and the other Republicans running to replace Cunningham is just another in a long list. If you would like to lend a hand to Busby's efforts, I have an ACT BLUE Page where 100% of donations -- no middleman-- go directly to her grassroots, progressive campaign. Even small donations are very much appreciated. And SAY NO TO POMBO has an ACT BLUE page dedicated solely to retiring Richard Pombo and I heartily recommend you give them a visit too.

THE FILTHIEST REPUBLICAN PRIMARY EVER? KEN BLACKWELL IS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR OF OHIO-- & JUST WAIT FOR THE VOTE COUNTIN' TO BEGIN!!

Ken Blackwell will go down in history as one of the worst villains in the story of our great nation. Aside from being a hypocritical bucket of slime exploiting the paranoid delusions of Ohio's religionist fanatics to further his own political schemes, Blackwell is the man most responsible for conspiring with indicted Republicrook Thomas Noe and as-yet-unindicted Diebold ex-CEO Wally Odell to steal the 2004 presidential election for George Bush (and bringing such great misery on our nation). Blackwell was more responsible than any of the other stinking and corrupt individuals in the polluted Ohio Republican Political Machine for bringing all the loose ends together and financing Bush's theft of Ohio's electoral votes.

So I find it odd this morning that I have found some common ground with the execrable Mr. Blackwell. Blackwell is the furthest right of the 2 remaining candidates in the bid to take over the Ohio governorship from convicted criminal Bob Taft. Since Blackwell is still Secretary of State, responsible for running Ohio elections-- and well-practiced in stealing them-- it barely matters that all polls show Ohio voters have a wide and growing preference for Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland over either Blackwell or the also totally scandal-tainted Republican Attorney General, Jim Petro. Ironically Blackwell has turned his vicious nature against his Republican rival and using a blanket of radio and TV spots to point out (justifiably) just how corrupt and unfit Petro is to hold any public office. "Scandal!," intones the announcer, ominously. "CoinGate! A 53-count indictment. Governor Taft-- Guilty of ethics violations. Now Attorney General Jim Petro under an FBI probe. The CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER called for a Special Prosecutor. Petro gave $129 million in unbid legal contracts, and expected campaign kickbacks in return. He's used the special counsel program for fundraising... It's ethics worse than Taft's! Blackwell for Governor."

First of all, it's all true. The Taft administration is so riddled with corruption that he has the lowest approval rating of any public official in any state ever in the history of polling. And Petro is very much part of that corrupt and venal administration. Of course Blackwell neglects to mention that he was not only part of the same administration, but even more corrupt and far more dangerous to Americans than Petro!

Image if this is the kind of stuff Republicans in Ohio are saying about each other, what Democrats can say about them! And imagine how the pathetic and hapless Taft feels. Ohio's very corrupt GOP State Chairman, Bob Bennett, who hasn't been personally indicted for any crimes yet, accused Blackwell of "burning down the house" and putting the whole already tottering Ohio Party in jeopardy in his selfish quest for political ascendancy. Are these people disgusting or what?

Even when the Bushniks slip up, they wind up winning—in this case by diverting attention from the actual screw-up(s)

Probably it's just me, but when an issue gets the kind of public attention that the Dubai-owned company's port-administration contract is suddenly getting, I tend to suspect that it must be a fake issue. After all, it's hardly ever possible to whip up such frothing over real issues.

The bogosity meter ought in particular to be reading off the dial when we find ourselves listening to Reagan hacks like Frank Gaffney Jr.

"How would you feel," intones Mr. Gaffney, "if in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred?"

From what I understand—and Matt Brzezinski, who actually does know about national security issues, confirmed this to Rachel Maddow this morning on her Air America Radio show—the chump literally doesn't know what he's talking about. Port security was and remains the responsibility of the government. That has absolutely nothing to do with the business operation of the ports, which is what the P&O contract covers.

The real issue is that the government, which has the responsibility for port security, has done essentially nothing about it. Of course nobody, and certainly none of the people flapping their gums about the P&O deal, gives a flying fuck about the real issue. So the net result will be that—surprise, surprise!—the Bushniks win again. Attention is diverted from the real scandal.

This adds another jewel to the crown of the Bush administration's near-total success in avoiding substantive discussion of any actual national-security issues since 9/11.

• To what extent are U.S. ports truly vulnerable to terrorist or other threats?

• What can we do to deal with those threats?

These questions have nothing to do with the P&O contract, so naturally the right-wing loons are only too happy to pile on the port-administration question, thereby guaranteeing that not a productive word will be uttered that might lead to discussion of the actual issues.

Meaning that there will be not the slightest pressure ever to take steps to make our ports safer. At least, not until there has been an "incident." And then the issues will likely be dealt with with the usual evasion and incompetence.

Now, I am happy to concede that there is another issue involved in the P&O contract: more Bush cronyism. There's certainly no harm talking about that. This hardly seems the most egregious instance, though, and I don't see that there's much chance of engaging the public in it if the case of "Heckuva Job" Brownie couldn't do it. I sure don't see that the right-wing loonies piling onto the crusade are at all concerned about it.

Maybe somebody can figure out how to make the cronyism issue finally stick. I don't think so. (Can you imagine what Karl Rove would do with even a whisper of an issue of Democratic cronyism?) I'd love to see it, though.

ROCK THE BOAT WITH NED LAMONT-- YOU CAN HELP RID THE U.S. SENATE OF JOE LIEBERMAN

A few weeks ago I got to meet Ned Lamont, an energetic and progressive good citizen from Connecticut who's decided to take on the reactionary and corrupt Bush-allied fake-Dem, Joe Lieberman. I've never been an admirer of Lieberman's and I was really happy there was someone who was challenging him. But when I met Lamont, that consideration fell into second place to an even more important one, the prospect of a great new star in the U.S. Senate, replacing a really bad member with a potentially great one. Lamont has a clear, common-sense vision. He approaches problems from the point of view of an enlightened entrepreneur, not ideologically, but from the point of view-- so missing in BushWorld-- of common sense and common good and practical solutions. That's why I enthusiastically endorsed Ned Lamont and why I started an ACT BLUE Page for him here at DWT (which I hope you'll consider contributing to).

Today everyone at DWT was thrilled when we found out that one of the images created by the DWTArt Department was used in a cool new video put together by a dedicated Ned Lamont supporter in Connecticut. I'm not sure if it was Sadie or Adam or Sofie who came up with the idea but all of them hope you'll join us, our friends at MyLeftNutmeg, and the wonderful Hues Corporation in rockin' the boat and watching Beau Anderson's cool new Ned Lamont video clip.

MEET THE DEMOCRAT'S CANDIDATE X

Patient DWT readers, let me ask you to please bear with me on this one. I'll name names-- and, of cource, have le denouement tomorrow. For now, what I'm writing about is just an idea. Well, it's about a race for congress. The increasingly less and less popular/more and more out-of-touch with his moderate suburban constituents Republican incumbent is in trouble. He nearly lost his seat in 2004 and a vigorous, forthright ideas-and-issues-oriented challenger-- along with some luck, organization and finance-- would topple him in November. (It's kind of like when Glendale, CA, a similar district, made the switch a few years ago, sending it's out-of-step, right wing loon of a congressmen, Jim Rogan, packing with a measly 44% of the vote.)

A few weeks ago I was at a DFA meeting hosted by Jim Dean. We had just heard that Bill Casey, Pennsylvania's theo-con reactionary Democrat challeneger to theo-con reactionary Republican incumbent, Man-on-Dog Santorum, had gratuitously assured voters that had he been in the Senate instead of Santorum he would have voted exactly the same way Santorum did on Alito-- yes on confirmation and even yes on cloture! Talk turned to how unfortunate it is that national progressives have tended to buy into Schumer/DSCC hype that Casey's primacy was "inevitable" and that only he could beat Man-on-Dog, and how national progressives have tended to ignore the real grassroots progressive in the race, Chuck Pennacchio. And that led to a discussion of races closer to home.

One of the smartest and most energetic of the local DFA supporters talked about how important it is to support Candidate X (who will be revealed tomorrow). I had met Mr. X and talked briefly with him. And I had studied the X website and I still wasn't sure if he was a progressive or not. Would he stand with Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi and vote to extricate us from Iraq or would he buy into the Inside-the-Beltway nonsense that basically says that "now that we're (unfortunately-- bad Bush, bad, bad) there we have to stick it out and win" (pretty much Bush's position except for the "bad Bush, bad, bad" part)? What about the tough issues that seperate not Democrats from Republicans but progressive Democrats from... other Democrats? How would he tackle the thorny issues like equal protection for gays and lesbians, gun control, immigration, seperation of Church and State... I'm not one of those people who demands knee-jerk liberal orthodoxy of every issue, but I do like to understand how a candidate makes decisions and where he's coming from. (ProgressivePunch's vote analysis rates Hillary Clinton a 92 and Russ Feingold an 89. So she's more progressive? Maybe. But he's a far more attractive candidate-- a committed and dedicated fighter whose integrity and passion more than compensate for Hillary's studied political correctness on a few votes.)

Back to Candidate X. I had a note, presumably from his campaign, the other day urging me, and other local DFA members, to write to Jim Dean and ask the National DFA to endorse him. There is no doubt in my mind that Candidate X, the sole Democratic challenger to an egregiously right wing and dishonest Republican, should be a major priority for the DCCC and the Democratic Party in general. That's their job. But is he right for DFA? DFA uses its credibility and limited resources to help elect progressive Democrats, not just Democrats. Is Mr. X a progressive? I want to find out before I urge Jim Dean or the national DFA to get involved in the race.

I remember how haughty I used to feel, when I lived in Brooklyn, and Republican candidates for congress, who never had a chance to win, didn't ever mention they were Republicans. I mean their signs never mentioned a party and the Democrats had the name of their party as big as their own names! It worries me a little that Mr. X not only doesn't talk too specifically on his website about his positions, at least not about any controversial ones, but that he doesn't mention he's a Democrat. In 2002, 46.4% of the registered voters in the district said they were Republican (to 35.4% Democrat) but the district has been trending less Republican and the incumbent came closer to being defeated than any other California incumbent of either party (and by an unknown, un-financed, proud lesbian), winning by only 3% and underperforming Bush in the district.

I had a long talk with a charming local DFA leader in the area who is all gung-ho for Mr. X. Her local DFA affiliate already endorsed him. "Ah," thought I. "They must have interviewed him and found his progressive credentials sterling. Whew!" So I asked.

"He's not the most progressive guy, but he's the only Democrat running... I think it's important to wage a 50-state war, which means that every seat is contested. If we didn't support X in this race, we wouldn't support anyone. I want a Democrat in this seat. X was the only one brave enough to go for it... I don't think X is a DINO, I just think he's not a leftie in his heart. He spent most of his career building his own business; I don't think he's given serious liberalism much thought. I was happy to give him [the local DFA's] endorsement as thanks for entering the race. We don't have
money, so we won't waste any on him. We do have some members who live in his district and maybe they'll stump for him a little. We'll put some of his stuff on our table at the [local] Harvest Festival."

OK... I guess there's something to say about a little centralism inside organizations. Not that she's all wrong. But, like I said, all her points work perfectly well for why the Democratic Party and individual partisan Democrats should support Mr. X. Will he uphold a woman's right to choice? Will he risk alienating reactionary constituents-- and there are some in his district, for sure-- by voting for equality under law for despised minorities? Will he be a vote for wars and corporate advantages or will he be a vote for consumers and workers and for peace? I've been trying to find out for several months and finally the campaign has promised me a few minutes on the phone with Mr. X tomorrow. I'll get back to you.

LOOKS LIKE RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM HAS A COUNTERPART IN THE U.S. SENATE: RICK SANTORUM-- CROOK AND BRIBE TAKER

Today Will Bunch has a "must read" at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT called "With A Little Help From His Friends," the beginning of the end of Pennsylvania's extreme right wing, extremely corrupt Senator, Rick Santorum. The story sounds disturbingly like the early days of Cunningham's political demise!

The irony, of course, is that the politically inept and always tone deaf Dr. Frist-- himself still being investigated for Insider Trading and using his office to make hundreds of millions by aiding Big Pharma--appointed Santorum to craft a corruption reform bill for the embattled Republican Party, of late caught with far too many hands in far too many cookie jars. This was considered off at the time because it was Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum who were the masters of the ultimate in systematic Republican corruption, the infamous K Street Project.

Some thought it odd that Santorum, who has no other income-- at least no reported income-- aside from his $162,100 Senate salary, bought a (somewhat tacky suburban) McMansion-- they call it an "estate"-- in a northern Virginia development (cost $643,361). People who watch Santorum (aka- Man-on-Dog-Santorum) have long been aware that he's a slimy little crook who cheats on his expenses, charging all kinds of household items and little luxuries to his political Action Committee, which is, at best unethical and, at worst, illegal. The real problem for Santorum is that he re-financed his half million dollar mortgage from a shady private bank for the very wealthy (Philadelphia Trust), campaign contributors of his and it is clearly in the form of the kind of bribe that landed Duke Cunningham in the situation he's in now-- dickering with the judge whether he deserves 6 years or 10 years in federal prison for accepting bribes.

According to the AMERICAN PROSPECT, "government ethics experts said that even if Santorum didn’t take any action on Philadelphia Trust’s behalf, the mortgage deal carries the appearance of special treatment, which would violate the Senate ethics rules that Santorum is now charged with reforming. 'Anytime he gets something that a regular person couldn’t get, that’s an improper gift,' says Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who now heads the Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Sloan said the senator’s unconventional mortgage is the latest in a series of actions -- including his role in the so-called K Street Project to place Republicans in lucrative lobbying jobs -- that show 'he’s seriously ethically challenged.'” The whole article is well worth a read if you have any interest in all the little ways powerful Republican senators cheat and cheat and cheat and become completely and utterly immersed in a sea of corruption and deception and wind up with a life utterly out of alignment with that of the people they are supposed to represent. There is only one conclusion: Santorum must be retired from public life and his financial shenanigans need to be thoroughly investigated. I would very much like to recommend that progressives consider the candidacy not of the theo-con, Santorum-lite Democrat that the Inside-the-Beltway power elite is pushing to replace Santorum (anti-choice candidate Bill Casey) but Chuck Pennacchio. If you're a Democrat and live in Pennsylvania, you can vote for Chuck in the primary. If you're a progressive anywhere in the U.S., you can donate to Chuck's grassroots campaign right here. Even small contributions help-- and are very much appreciated. People give $5 and people give $500; it all adds up to Check being able to unseat one of the worst senators in the United States!

On top of all this mortgage fraud business, by the way, Santorum's wife launders more than just the family's dirty underwear. She's the bag-man for payoffs and kickbacks from a Pittsburgh political consulting firm that handles all Santorum's media ad buys (approximately $10 million). Mrs Dog-on-Man was paid $4,000 a month for... um... well, for being Mrs Dog-on-Man. She was also paid thousands of dollars by some whacky far right "think tanks" for writing a couple of extremely mediocre children's books.

MAYBE BUSH WANTS TO MAKE IT UP TO DEMOCRATS FOR BEING SUCH A DICK FOR 6 YEARS. HE JUST HANDED THEM A WINNING ISSUE

As I was driving home from a great lunch at the Jade Cafe, a delicious and healthy raw food restaurant in Silverlake, I turned on KCRW just as the NPR news started. The first story, not unexpected, was about Frist's transparent attempt to head off the near-universal furor enveloping the Bush Regime's grotesque (and politically tone-deaf) decision to sell operations at 6 American ports-- including New York, Philly and Baltimore-- to a company owned by the despotic and reactionary royal family of Dubai (with whom the Bush family has intimate financial relations). The deal itself is so bizarre and weird, it's almost as though Bush were saying to Congress, "Just try to impeach me if you dare, you wimps!"

Yesterday I wrote a story about how posturing Republicans-- particularly Palm Beach drama-queen Mark Foley (R-FL) and right-wing loons Tom Corburn (R-OK) and Vito Fossella (R-NY)-- went screaming to the media about the horror, the horror. And I predicted that when push came to shove, they would back off rather than the support the bill Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) were offering to derail Bush's invitation to terrorists and his blatant war profiteering (it runs in his family). The Repugs always make noises like this when Bush tries to wreck the Constitution and endanger the country, but once Cheney and Rove threaten them, they always fold with a whimper and slink off into the night.

But maybe I was premature. the furor is so loud and so deafening, and Bush is so utterly distrusted by Americans at this point, that the Republicans, with their backs against the wall, may actually have to take a stand. I figured Bush would work out some compromise and then save face by saying the committee that approved this was out of their gourds (although the committee approved it at the insistence of the Bush Regime, of course).

But the next story on the NPR news report was about how Bush is holding firm and threatening a veto it the Clinton-Menendez bill or a copycat Frist bill tries to derail his dangerous and unpopular decision. A veto? I figured no one ever told him what that was. He's never issued one before-- despite the most corrupt and over-spending Congress in the history of America. What an odd thing to use his first veto on-- particularly since any congressman who votes to sustain his veto would probably be signing his own political death certificate. Is Karl Rove lost in a sewer somewhere? This is the worst domestic political blunder this crew of Mayberry Machievellis has ever made. It makes the ill-fated nomination of Harriet Miers look like a stroke of brilliance.

This seems to be generating as much outrage against the Bush Regime as the cavalier way Bush reacted to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. And, on top of the widespread outrage over something as relatively innocuous as the Cheney shooting spree (which has caught the public's imagination in a way that all the corruption, incompetence and venality hasn't), this actually is starting to look like curtains for the power of the tottering and desperate Bush Regime.


AFTERNOON UPDATE: BUSH CRONIES MUST LEARN NEW TAP DANCING STEPS FOR THIS ONE!!

Even that grotesque slug of a Speaker of the House, the Illinois Republican blob Denny Hastert, humself being investigated for taking bribes from Turkey, has asked Bush to place "an immediate moratorium" on the Regime's seaport deal. This is unprecedented for Hastert who has previously never seen a deal that screwed America that he didn't rush to embrace the way a hungry hog rushes to a trough. Meanwhile New York's right-wing newspaper, THE DAILY NEWS, is running a front page story that claims "The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House," one of whom is... Treasury secretary John Snow!! The other is a venal Bush crony, David Sanborn.

As the Bush Regime gears up for the counter-attack to preserve their ports deal, I suggest you read "Port of Entry" by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, Jr. He makes a very water-tight, iron-clad case for why the righteous indignation of the American people is completely on the mark about this absurd and dangerous deal Bush made with the Dubai. "How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred?  My guess is you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country.  You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan -- and be determined to prevent it from happening. Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001 .  In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility. Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans -- to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract."

When CNN's Jack Cafferty was on their morning show playing the role of old right-wing curmudgeon, I used to occasionally write in to the station demanding they fire him for parroting Bush Regime lies and propaganda. I guess they showed him my e-mails and told him to either shape up or ship out. In the last few months Cafferty has indeed shaped up-- big time. And today he went bonkers on BushCo for this outrageous ports nonsense. Actually, he's been going on about it all day but he just did one of his rantin' and ravin' things with straight-man Wolf Blitzer that is classic and nearly a NETWORK "Mad as Hell" moment.

"Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell 6 U.S. ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually senators and congressmen and governors and mayors telling the White House 'You're not gonna do this.' And it's about time! No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well, this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get. A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at 6 critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks
that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads. Which way will we choose?"


WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: BUSH INCREASINGLY ON A LIMB OVER DUBAI DEAL

With Rove lost in a sewer somewhere, Bush is waging the battle to make sure the lucrative (for him and his family and cronies) U.S.-ports-to-Dubai deal goes through. But he's really, really stupid and without Rove (aka- Bush's Brain, remember?), all he does is botch it up worse and worse. First he claimed that the deal-- increasingly under attack from the both political parties, congressmen, senators, governors, state legislators, mayors, as well as from the media and from concerned Americans-- had gone through a process of "rigorous review... for national security concerns." Turns out that was a another bold-faced lie and Bush was contradicted by no-less than his Secretary of Defense (who would be in charge of such a review), Donald Rumsfeld. Judd at Think Progress has the details, which include an answer from Rummy to the question about whether or not he is confident that there are no security problems inherent with this cockamamie deal: "I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend." Oh? And that leads to an even more serious problem.

The law of the land-- another one utterly disregarded by George "I am the Law" Bush-- states plainly that this kind of transaction requires a 45-day investigation. Well, that never happened either, as Bush rushed this through for his own and his cronies' own financial benefit. Again, Judd at Think Progress has put it all together for us.

In the process of lavishing some (deserved) hero worship on Justice Stevens, the WashPost lets slip a hush-hush truth about our Supreme Court

There's some good news for those of us who are, as I've taken to describing it, to the left of Chuck Hagel. (This isn't intended at all as a facetious distinction, given the frequency with which Hagel distinguishes himself from the cadre of Senate wingnut zombies with flashes of principle and even occasional independent action.) In today's Washington Post profile of Justice John Paul Stevens, we learn that the justice, closing in on his 86th birthday, is in robust mental and physical health.

I expect I don't have to underline the significance of Justice Stevens' continued tenure on the Supreme Court. In fact, Charles Lane's Post piece is quite informative about the role he has played building coalitions to beat back the forces of darkness on the current Court.

No, what caught my attention was the rare acknowledgment that not only isn't Stevens a "liberal," but in fact there aren't any real liberals on the Court. Oh, Post reporter Lane does refer carelessly, in describing Stevens' understanding of the Court's internal dymanics, to "the liberals" on the Court. (The reference would be fine if "the liberals" were in quotes, since it refers to what we might call the "relatively liberal" bloc.) But he also allows a source he quotes to slip in the little-heralded truth while talking about Stevens:

"'He's a remarkable figure,' said Dennis Hutchinson, a law professor and Supreme Court historian at the University of Chicago. 'If you looked at his first three or four years on the court, you'd say he was a quirky middle-of-the-roader with no vision and not interested in playing the game. But 30 years later, he's moved into a very influential position. On a court with no true liberals in the '60s sense of the word, he's gotten as much out of the court in terms of left-wing results as anyone could.'"

There's certainly no question about conservatives on the Court. We already know that it contains two of the most rabidly extreme right-wingers to be found outside institutional care, and that the two newest members are, at the very least, several epochs more conservative than the late Barry Goldwater.

At present, the justice who seems most frequently in the crosshairs of the loony right is poor Anthony Kennedy, the loons' latest Judas. Yet I have no doubt that Kennedy thinks of himself as solidly and totally conservative. For that matter, I imagine that David Souter thinks of himself as a conservative too.

It's just useful to remember that, at a time when the far right's coercive power is exceeded only by its paranoia and delusional sense of persecution, the liberals it fantasizes holding power everywhere are nowhere to be found on the Supreme Court. Being to the left of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts and Sammy Alito doesn't make you "liberal." It makes you minimally brain-functional.

WHY IS THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS LETTING BUSH SELL OFF OUR PORTS TO A SHAKY ARAB EMIRATE?

A tiny bit belated, but finally the mainstream media is abuzz with the Bush Regime's plan-- they call it a "done deal; period"-- to turn over the running of many of America's most important and sensitive ports to a Dubai-run company, P&O. But they're not focussing on the best part of the story. "Democratic senators assailed an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports and said Monday that President Bush should stop the deal to better protect the U.S. from terrorists. 'We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government,' New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez said during a news conference. 'We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either.'" And, probably futilely, Menendez and Clinton are vowing to introduce a bill that prohibits the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

The real story is about why it's futile and about a redux of what's been happening lately with Republicans whining when the Bush Regime come up with their catastrophic, grossly unpopular plans (like this one) and how the Republicans, usually led by arch-hypocrites like John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Mike DeWine, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham in the Senate and a pitiful handful of even more pathetic fake-moderates in the House, always, always, always buckle as soon as Rove or Cheney says "boo" (or "9-11") or somehow threatens them.

The first person after a genuinely concerned Chuck Schumer on TV complaining about this latest dismemberment of America was one of the most dishonest Republican phonies in the entire Congress, Florida closet queen Mark Foley. Foley was all puffed up for the TV cameras sounding like a patriotic America. "Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9-11. If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says [over-wrought Repugs who talk this way get little visits from Karl Rove or maybe he and Foley will see each other for a friendly chat at a DC establishment they both frequent], we should be overly critical of handing over management of our ports to any foreign countries... Instead, this was done in the dead of night," Foley hissed. And on the floor of the House, Foley warned, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real." You go, girl! Anybody want to bet that Foley votes like the corporate ass-licker and Bush-puppet he always is? That's why these walking sacks of garbage like Foley have to be fought and expelled from the House in November.

And it's more than just Foley. Two other bag of wind/paper tiger/make-believe moderates, Chris Shays (R-CT) and Vito Fossella (R-NY) also got their panties all in a bunch. Fossella, who has a record of voting with Tom DeLay and the most extreme elements of the Bush Regime 90% of the time, warned that "we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism. This decision seems inconsistent with American efforts to enhance our national security. The lack of transparency has left many questions unanswered as to why the UAE would be granted control of United States strategic assets."

Another GOP windbag with a solid and cowardly record of never standing up to Bush when push comes to shove is the extreme right wing whacko from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, who whined that "handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror. I urge Secretary Snow to investigate this agreement that could seriously undermine our national security." Why doesn't he urge-- in no uncertain terms-- not the hapless Snow, but Snow's boss, who made the decision (and who, no doubt, is going to profit mightily from it), the man whose job is to make absolutely sure our national security is not undermined? Well, of course, for that you need a man like Russ Feingold, not a bag of wind like Tom Coburn or Mark Foley.

As an aside, even the violently far right "Moonie" TIMES in Washington, usually as reliable a mouthpiece for the Regime as Fox "News," was none to please with this latest outrage from the Bush crew. "Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where Al-Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?" they asked editorially. We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action." The "committee" is just doing what Bush told them to do and the Republican-controlled Congress has been well-trained that their function under Bush is that of rubber stamp, not check, not balance; rubber stamp. What how this whole port sale thing plays out the same way that the illegal wiretaps, the illegal torture and the unconstitutional so-called Patriot Act have all played out-- with Republicans making some noises and then running for cover as soon as Rove growls or Cheney starts fingering the safety-latch on his 28-gage.

JIM TALENT-- PORTRAIT OF EVERYTHING A LEADER IS NOT

Last fall the idea started floating that a nice counter-- and a far more positive and honest one, at that-- to the Republican Party's reliance on anti-gay ballot measures to motivate the hate-filled loons that make up such a crucial part of the GOP base, would be state ballot initiatives pushing stem cell research. Stem cell research is supported by virtually everyone in America outside of the most extremist lunatic fringe of the radical right.

And one state where this is going forward is Missouri (where polls find that pro-stem cell sentiment runs over 2-1 over the Neanderthal position which has been championed by right-wing loon incumbent, Jim Talent). Panicking after a series of polls showed Talent's Democratic challenger, popular State Auditor Claire McCaskill, beating him, Talent has now withdrawn his name as a co-sponsor of some fringe Republican anti-stem cell legislation.

Predictably this set off a furor from his extreme right-wing loony supporters who have been threatening revenge and screaming about betrayal. One frothing-at-the-mouth wackadoodle, Sam Lee, leader of a well-known hate group that calls itself Campaign Life Missouri threatened that his part of the right-wing base are "angry enough to skip voting for Talent in November."

Talent is wringing his hands and running around like a chicken without a head, looking like anything but a leader-- in a very tough situation. But with even hard core right-wingers like Bill Frist and Roy Blunt having abandoned the anti-stem cell barricades as indefensible, the divisions inside the GOP have left Talent looking so extreme (in a basically moderate state) that his hand was forced. With moderates turned off by his extremism and his own right-wing turned off by his flip-flopping on one of their core issues, people in Missouri and saying his word isn't worth the paper it's written on.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING RUSS FEINGOLD. WILL THERE BE MORE LIKE HIM?

A couple weeks ago Russ Feingold, his daughter Ellen and her boyfriend Ruben went to the Westgate Cinema in Madison to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. When asked what he thought afterwards, he said
"It's a wonderful movie. It ranks with 'Walk the Line' and is slightly better than 'Syriana.'" Big whoop? You think so? Try getting a review-- let alone a positive one-- out of another straight American politician and see what happens. (For that matter, try getting a review out of any of the GOP congressional closet queens-- David Dreier, Jim McCrery or Mark Foley-- all of whom probably went to see it in full drag so they wouldn't be recognized.) Bush's reaction was more typical. When asked what he thought he turned 20 shades of purple, giggled like an 11 year old girl and stuttered and mumbled semi-coherently.

But Russ Feingold does more than just speak his mind truthfully-- although after this current Washington bunch, just that would seem nearly miraculous. Feingold isn't afraid to stand up and take unpopular stands-- even if it means he's standing alone. The obvious example is how Feingold was the only Senator to stand up and say no to the Patriot Act when BushCo was beating the 9-11 fear tom-tom loudest and everyone-- or everyone else-- was scared the new McCarthyism would eat them alive. The Repugs thought they had a potent weapon against him in his 2004 re-election effort. They didn't. Although Kerry only beat Bush by something like 12,000 votes, Feingold glided home with a 330,000 vote margin. People in Wisconsin seemed to be saying that like honesty over weasel-words.

You may remember a week or two ago there was a momentary stirring of the last vestiges of patriotism and love of America in a handful of Republicans. You may have missed it if you sneezed but even the Old Gray Lady was excited enough to write on February 11 that "When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her "serious concerns" about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow Republicans were thinking, if not saying. Now they are speaking up — and growing louder." But not too loud, as it turned out.

The TIMES went on, promisingly, "In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law." Susan Collins (R-ME) claimed "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch." And when Bush sent Alberto over to the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer some questions from the normally complacent senators, 4 Repugs joined the Dems in a little act tough drama. You had noises of unrest coming out of Hagel (R-NE), Graham (R-SC), Specter (R-PA), Snowe (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK)... But, alas, some noises and an act is all it turned out to be.

Karl Rove stuck his head out of his hole, snarled and screeched that if one single Republican voted against the so-called "war-time president" on this they were dead meat. And that was that. One GOP wag said Hagel peed down his leg so bad that he had to hobble into the gents' room.

Pretty much the same thing happened last week when the Patriot Act came up for re-evaluation. Again there was some rumbling on the right and some tough talk from a few Democrats. And then everyone agreed to go along with BushCo and approve the Constitution-shredding thing again. Except one person. Russ Feingold mounted a one-man filibuster of George Bush's disgraceful charade to strip American citizens of their our rights.

Kicking off the obviously doomed filibuster, Feingold made it clear why he wasn't buckling: "What we are seeing is quite simply a capitulation to the intransigent and misleading rhetoric of a White House that sees any effort to protect civil liberties as a sign of weakness." Two days later CAPITOL HILL BLUE reported that "The USA Patriot Act is headed toward renewal with most of its onerous individual rights violations intact and broad Senate support for a White House-brokered compromise that adds a few token new civil liberties protections to the terror-fighting law." Only Robert Byrd, "the conscience of the senate" and retiring Independent Jim Jeffords voted with Feingold to reject this abomination which, Feingold points out still allows "government fishing expeditions" through the seizure of "sensitive business records of innocent, law-abiding Americans."

Meanwhile, on the same day, Dave Stout in the NY TIMES reported that "The Senate Intelligence Committee decided today not to investigate President Bush's domestic surveillance program, at least for the time being" and the following day the Bush Regime helped derail a Senate bid to investigate the illegal warrantless eavesdropping program by rejecting Congress's request to have former attorney general John Ashcroft and other officials testify. According to the NY TIMES "The actions underscored a dramatic and possibly permanent drop in momentum for a congressional inquiry, which had seemed likely two months ago."

Senate Democrats, wringing their hands, said the "Republican-led Congress was abdicating its obligations to oversee a controversial program in which the National Security Agency has monitored perhaps thousands of phone calls and e-mails involving US residents and foreign parties without obtaining warrants from a secret court that handles such matters."

No one is going to blow a trumpet and say, "OK, the American experiment is over and fascism is the order of the day. Everybody line up for your armband now. Mach schnell! No, we'll just keep drifting and drifting in that direction. There are a few people like Russ Feingold compelled to stand up to the fascist thugs for an American people who, for the most part, don't even have a clue they're being victimized and will tear their defenders apart after a few barks from the "war time leader."


10 PM UPDATE: HAGEL TAKES HIS LITTLE REVENGE ON THE EMPIRE

Although Hagel went along with the Bushites when Rove yelled and voted to allow them to shred some more Constitution, he got even today, not in the Senate (or even on late night TV which has been seeing an awful lot of stuff like this lately) but in the Omaha World Herald where he commented, snarkily, on Cheney's alleged hunting accident: "If he'd been in the military, he would have learned gun safety." SMACK! Now, you take that, girl! And don't you send that Rove out no more to make me pee in my good pants!


MONDAY MORNING UPDATE: BLAME MIKE DEWINE'S SUPINE COWARDICE FOR ANOTHER ADVANCE OF FASCISM

Today's WASHINGTON POST has an inside look at how the Bush Regime derailed a bipartisan investigation into their illegal, unconstitutional spying. In the words of the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (who shamefully voted for cloture in the Alito confirmation and against fellow Democrats fighting desperately to save constitutional government), "The White House has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job." Embarrassed by their roles as impotent and pathetic fake moderates, Hagel and Snowe both refused to answer THE POST's questions but the most sickening role of all was played by Ohio political hack, Mike DeWine, who offered to carry BushCo's water and offer the fig-leaf of cover so that another piece of our precious Constitutional protections from tyranny could be stomped all over. No one who loves American freedom or liberty should consider voting for DeWine in November. He's a viper beneath contempt who has traded away our rights for a pat on the head (and access to Diebold voting machine codes?) from BushCo.

DIEBOLD TAKES OVER CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT!! BRUCE McPHERSON MUST BE RECALLED

A couple years ago I was in DC, a city I had hoped to not return to before the vile usurper was removed from the White House. But I was there for an important Board of Directors meeting for a large national civil rights organization I'm part of. After the 2-day business meeting was adjourned there was an informal political briefing and discussion. Every issue and strategy involved in the upcoming 2004 elections was brought up and examined. Except one. I raised my hand and asked how any of this mattered at all if the Republicans would just steal the election again electronically with the aid of their Diebold collaborators. An uncomfortable question for Democrats; and is there an answer? There still hasn't been-- certainly not in the uber-corrupt one-party states like Ohio and Florida, where Republicans ruthlessly control all branches of government and where there are no checks, no balances whatsoever. And nationally... well, it's pretty much the same story. Sometimes I wonder if California, as true blue a state as you could want, get away from these fascists (corporate and otherwise) and their crazy right-wing religionist nut allies, mired in fear, darkness and superstition. Just a dream; we're stuck with Mississippi, Alabama, even Utah, for eternity. We either make them better or they make us worse.

Have you ever heard of Bruce McPherson? Even Californians haven't-- and he's our Secretary of State. How could we have not heard of him? Simple: another little GOP extra-electoral coup. The elected Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley was unceremoniously run out of town on a rail because one of his staffers had the taint of corruption about one-one millionth as strong as the taint of corruption of any Republican congressman in America, allowing Schwarzenegger to appoint a partisan GOP hack, McPherson. So who cares? What does the Secretary of State do, anyway? Take notes at meetings? Well, remember Katherine Harris, Secretary of State of Florida in 2000 and Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State in Ohio in 2004? Yeah, those two treasonous villains who, respectively, stole the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections for BushCheney with the use of electronic voting fraud. But this is California, not Florida or Ohio or Nebraska. It couldn't happen here. Right?

It just did. On Friday night, after the close of business hours, at the start of a 3-day weekend, Schwarzenegger's unelected right-wing scumbag of a Secretary of State (who, of course, makes a point of portraying himself as a "moderate") certified easily hackable-- and widely discredited--Diebold voting machines for California elections. This could be the end of democracy in our state. Really. There's now no way to know if a vote was counted fairly and every time that happens... Republicans get "elected."

The Diebold machines had been prohibited from being used in California 2 years ago because of the endemic corruption involved with their use in other states. McPherson's sneaky end-run to destroy fair elections in the state of California was done despite the Independent Testing Authority lab's finding that the exact same machine re-certified for use in California was easily tampered with in Florida and that has many as one-third of all the Diebold machines tested were flawed.

Debra Bowen, a much-admired and well-respected State Senator from Redondo Beach has decided to run against McPherson in November. Following his re-certification of the Republican vote counting machines Friday night she released the following press release.

Under a barrage of right-wing propaganda, Californians grew tired of our imperfect middle-of-the-road governor Gray Davis and recalled him, replacing him with the less grey, more charismatic action hero movie star, Herr Scharzenegger. If ever there was a time for a recall, it is NOW. McPherson should be removed from office at once and the office should be left open, with its functions run by a political, non-partisan staff overseen by a panel of judges, until the citizens of California can actually elect-- fairly elect-- a real Secretary of State.

Bowen understands what Josef Stalin and Republican operatives absorbed with their first breaths: it doesn't matter who votes; it only matters who counts the votes. All Americans need to understand why that's not just important, but crucial for our national survival.

MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS: GEORGE W. BUSH AS ADOLF HITLER

So what does Bush have to do with MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS (the new Judi Dench film)? Well, nothing intentional, I'm sure. And when I ran it by Craig and Ray who I saw it with, they didn't see a real connection the way I did. But I did see it and, more important, feel it. Images can be so powerful. The film takes place just before and during the first couple years of WWII. It's superbly acted. (An aside: the previews looked good but the reviews panned it and I decided not to see it. But I sat next a really delightful woman on the plane ride up to the Bay Area last week and she and I saw eye-to-eye on everything-- starting with the Al Franken book I was reading-- and she had seen the film and was raving about it. So I went. And it was very good.) But the superb acting did nothing to conger up any thought about Bush or even of his grandfather illegally trading with the Nazis during the war. But suddenly, in the midst of all the naked boobs the movie is always displaying (not Dame Judi's), Hitler does the blitzkrieg thing on France and the screen is filled with the actual newsreel footage of Hitler in Paris and of German troops marching through the streets of occupied France.

My grandfather instilled a visceral hatred of the extreme right in me. They have always been my mortal enemy. No matter what era, no matter what locale, the political right always winds up murdering Jews, intellectuals, nonconformists, gays, free-thinkers, leftists... And when I saw Hitler, the ultimate icon for the Far Right, and his Nazi troopers on screen I had an instant reaction of revulsion and disgust... almost Pavlovian. And you probably already know where this is going, I'm sure.

For millions of average men and women around the world, the kind of revulsion and disgust and hatred (and fear) that I felt when I saw Hitler's visage during MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS, is what they feel, quite understandably, when they see Bush and, unfortunately and tragically, when they see American soldiers marching through an occupied country.

Now when I asked the Art Department to take one of the famous Hitler-in-Paris photos and put Bush's mug on it, there was a lot of grumbling. It went beyond the normal "Can't we just do another Mean Jean Schmidt picture?" You see, the Art Department is a bunch of elderly Jews living in South Florida, trying to avoid doing any art by sitting around yenta-ing it up all day and studying The Zohar and listening to tapes of Madonna singing "Dreidl Dreidl." They all escaped from a camp. They think they own all the Hitler outrage. ALL of it. What about all the union members? The Russians and Poles? The gays and disabled? The Christian objectors? Oy, and the gypsies and the Jehovah's Witnesses... "No, he killed 6 million Jews." That's a lot. He nearly wiped the Jewish population of Europe out-- his stated goal. But he killed between 20 and 40 million Russians and Ukrainians. And millions more in the foul, unprovoked war he plotted and pursued. Don't their descendants own a little fear-and-loathing too?

Well, a funny thing is happening while I'm writing. The Art Department pulled their heads out of The Zohar and they're all IM-ing me. I don't know if they've been hitting the Manischewitz but they've worked themselves up into a frenzied state reminiscent of when Katherine Harris tricked them all into voting for Buchanan instead of Al Gore and that lovely Joey Lieberman in 2000.

Verbatim: "The holocaust was focused on the Jews and the Nazis stole their wealth, their power, statistically the amount of Jews that were killed cannot be compared to any other group. These assholes who say that 'Oh, more gentiles were killed.' It is a false dichotomy, the Jews have made an unsurpassed impact on world history and science and art. There are only 13 million left, at the time around 1/3 were killed off (by the way that was predicted in Jewish prophesy). Anyway, you can't compare it statistically." And "Not to mention the holocaust was aimed at the Jews, not specifically at another group, its main purpose was to wipe away the Jews. I get angry when these idiots give me these arguments about 'Well 12 million gentiles died too, more than Jews.' Yea, but there are billions in the world. (OMG! Did she really just say that? She was never a Depeche Mode fan or she'd have remembered "People Are People" and not have been so crass.) Oy and there's more: "Jews were at the top of the scientific and economic system, they had art and wealth and it was stolen out of jealousy. Fuck the Nazis and fuck the pricks who say the Jews do not deserve Israel. And then just when I thought the clamor and righteous indignation had died down and they had gone back to looking at the roots of Kaballah or maybe dancing around to Madonna Esther again, along came Adam: "It pisses me off. Every empire that tried to wipe the Jews away was destroyed in the end, every single one."

As you see, it's a touchy matter. But they did the art for the piece. And they've all quieted down now with some warm milk and kugel. They sure got me off the topic I meant to be writing about: Bush and why equating him with Hitler can mean something other than extermination camps for Jewish people. Hitler-- like Bush-- also means fascism, unprovoked war against weaker states, state terrorism, illegal spying, lots of lying and propaganda. And so much more. What I saw in the film when the German troops were marching around Paris was how they wrecked the hopes and dreams of so many millions of innocent people, not just the ones they killed-- hideous beyond redemption-- but also the ones who were left. How is Bush different in Iraq? Someone tell me.

SENTENCING COMIN' UP FOR FIRST CONVICTED REPUBLICROOK OF 2006

The SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE has all the details but basically, the Feds are asking the judge for 10 years and Cunningham, who admitted he accepted millions of dollars in bribes, is begging for only 6 years.
“'Cunningham used his status as a war hero to get into Congress, and then he used his congressional office to get rich,'” prosecutors wrote in the 35-page memorandum. “'For the better part of a decade, Cunningham, in effect, erected a "for sale" sign upon our nation's capital.'” Besides the 10 years, prosecutors also asked the judge to order Cunningham to pay over a million and a half dollars in taxes on his ill-gotten booty. Still no word on how the investigations are going of the other Republican Congresscritters who were in on it with Cunningham, particularly his partners in crime, Jerry Lewis and Duncan Hunter.


SUNDAY MORNING UPDATE: UNADULTERATED SCANDAL

The 35 pages of documentation-- the Prosecutors' Sentencing Recommendations for Cunningham-- are pretty startling, even for someone who has been following the story for 9 months that way we have at DWT! This is why the Democrats are calling it a "culture of corruption" and this is why a reform-minded Democrat is going to win what was a pretty safe red Southern California district in April's Special Election.

ACTIN' BLUE FOR NED LAMONT-- THE MAN WHO COULD RID US OF THE PERNICIOUS JOE LIEBERMAN

Just before I went out today to see that new Judi Dench movie-- Bush-oriented review to follow-- I took a look at what MyDD was up to and I found another great piece from Matt Stoller called "Ned Lamont, the Political Entrepreneur". On my (Safari) browser the picture is screwed up so I decided to write a comment commending Matt on his piece about Lamont and suggesting people click on the DWT Art Department's awesome rendition (shown on this page). And then I decided to through in another comment as an afterthought. I noticed that Matt had donated $500 to Lamont and I thought that was awful generous. So I suggested to the MyDD readers that I would match any DWT ACT BLUE Page donations that came in the next 24 hours (up to the legal Feingold-McCain limit, of course). And then I went to meet Craig and Ray for the movie and dinner.

When I got back, I saw that the ACT BLUE Page had had hundreds of new visitors and over $1,000 in contributions already! I guess people really don't like Lieberman!! I can't wait to put my credit card down tomorrow and I sure hope it's for the full $2,100. One of the really cool things about the MyDD readers who came over is that some of them also donated to the other candidates on the page, Francine Busby (CA), Ben Cardin (MD), David Lutrin (FL), Lois Murphy (PA), Chuck Pennacchio (PA), and Ciro Rodriguez (TX).

Have you ever visited the DWT ACT BLUE Page? Click here and check it out. And remember, if you give Lamont $10 it's like giving him $20 because I'm gonna match you today. And if you're feeling flush and think Lieberman is as much of a viper as I do, give $50 and it'll be like donating $100 to bring him down. And thanks! Update tomorrow!

Hallelujah! It's not always about the money! That's not a stinking money trail running through Senator Specter's office, it's just a miracle!

I made multiple efforts yesterday to write about my favorite news story of the day, the revelation that 19 watercolors done in 1805 by the great poet and artist William Blake, intended as illustrations for the then-popular poem "The Grave," which turned up astoundingly some five years ago in a Glasgow bookshop, are about to be broken up and sold individually to the highest bidder(s) at Sotheby's.

(Note: On the NYT website, you can see a slide show of more of the watercolors than appeared in the newspaper.)

If I had managed to write the story, it was going to run under a head like—

Breaking news, and remember you heard it here first: It's all about the money, and it pretty much doesn't matter what "it" is

Somehow, though, I couldn't keep from getting bogged down in detail—fascinating detail, I think, but a long way to go to get to what was to be my nomination for the distinction of Dumbest Human Talking, at least for yesterday. (This is not an award that we dare bestow on a long-term basis. Maybe we should just call it Doodyhead of the Day.)

You or I may think it nothing short of a miracle that these 19—out of the original 20—watercolors have survived together for these 200 years. To at least one doodyhead, however, it's more significant that one drawing did somehow get separated from the others, eventually finding its way to the Yale Center for British Art. This fact, in the "mind" (for want of a better word) of the doodyhead who will oversee the dispersal of this remarkable set, justifies breaking it up:

"It's not complete, so in a sense it's already been broken up," said George Wachter, director of old-master paintings for Sotheby's worldwide.

"Since one of them is at Yale, it makes the most sense to do it this way," he said of his decision to auction them one by one.

Naturally in a story like this there's rarely just one greed-crazed doodyhead, and it would be hard to deny the claims to greed-crazed doodyhead status of London art dealer Libby Howie, who put together a clandestine syndicate of investors to buy the watercolors when Tate Britain was unable to raise the $6.6 million it would have needed to add the set to its world-famous Blake holdings. Howie has devoted untold energies these last several years to making possible the dispersal of the set as a memorial-for-the-ages to her imbecility, vileness and greed.

"One would always be happier to see them together," Ms. Howie said. "But in the end I think it's best to let people choose what they most like."

What brings this all back to mind is that today's wackiest story suggests that maybe in fact there is a higher power than greed.

The story is Jeffrey H. Birnbaum's Washington Post follow-up to the minor hullabaloo that broke out yesterday after USA Today reported—as Birnbaum summarizes it—

that [Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen] Specter claimed credit for securing 13 narrowly focused allocations, called earmarks, worth $48.7 million over the past four years for six clients represented by Michael Herson and the firm he co-founded, American Defense International.

Herson's wife, Vicki Siegel Herson, had been an appropriations aide to Specter, but six months ago took a one-day-a-week job in Specter's office dealing with issues related to Israel.

It turns out that the senator claims credit for nothing. In fact, in what's shaping up to be perhaps the greatest miracle since the Virgin Birth, it turns out to be all one giant coincidence!

All that Senator Specter was doing, he says, was bringing in the boodle for Pennsylvania institutions. (Okay, "bringing in the boodle" may not have been his exact words.) As Birnbaum notes in the Post:

[Specter] added that neither Herson nor his firm had lobbied his office, but rather that other firms had done the lobbying. In addition, he said that as far as he knew, Vicki Siegel Herson had not been involved in recommending that the senator push for the earmarks.

In addition, Specter said he was not lobbied personally by Herson. "I don't know that I would recognize him if he was in a crowded room," Specter said.

But given the controversy now swirling on Capitol Hill over earmarked appropriations, Specter said he intended to ask more questions. He said he is making an inquiry to see what information his staff had on the appropriations, what the competitive factors were and why the recommendations were made.

I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly holding my breath to hear about those "competitive factors." I'm just gonna go with the Miraculous Virgin Earmarks theory.

WILL HEALTH CARE GET ANY BETTER UNDER A CORPORATE DEMOCRAT THAN IT IS UNDER BUSHCO?

The day I first met Howard Dean I didn't know much about him. He hadn't broken into double digits in the polls yet but he had offered to make it real easy for me by coming to my house for breakfast. He understood why half a papaya with blueberries, pecans and flaxseeds were way better for him than pancakes and a slab of bacon. And he told me something that turned me into a Deaniac on the spot. He told me why he got into politics and what he wanted to accomplish in politics-- basically the same thing. As an M.D., Dean was more aware of the shortfalls in the American medical system and the medical insurance system than any politician I had ever spoken too and when he talked about fixing it he talked about what he knew. Now all moderates and even relatively reactionary politicians are giving at least lip service to his ideas. But Bush neither fits "moderate" nor "relatively" reactionary.

According to my doctor, almost 50% of Americans living today will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. The day that happens is a really scary one-- as bad as looking up and seeing a stewed and cockeyed Dick Cheney lunging at you with a 28-gage shotgun. Today I still had Dick "above-the-law" Cheney on the brain when I abandoned my computer and headed out into the world. Randi Rhodes wasn't on yet so I tuned in KCRW, the local NPR affiliate, and I heard a story worse than Dick Cheney's murderous shooting rampage.

Turns out Genentech, part of a multinational pharmaceutical behemoth, has a drug, Avastin, developed to treat colon cancer, that seems to work real well on other types of cancer, like breast cancer and lung cancer, two of the biggest killers in America-- like a gazillion times bigger than people dying from planes being flown into buildings. Kind of arbitrarily-- and they do have a monopoly on it-- Genentech has decided to charge $100,000 a year for the drug. While you absorb that, also absorb that it was developed with taxpayer dollars and that there's a law that says if a drug is developed with taxpayer dollars it has to be sold for a "reasonable price." Oh, and Big Pharma donates $30 million annually to politicians to make sure they get to define the word "reasonable."

Genentech already brings in over a billion dollars a year from Avastin but they'd like to bring in $7 billion. And that's what friends are for. The corporations get taken care of and wealthy cancer patients are OK and the politicians get their cut-- mostly, but not exclusively, Republicans-- and... middle and working class cancer patients... well, they can just go die. They should have worked harder and prayed to Jesus harder. And besides, some of them are insured. Of course with annual co-pays of between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, that's still a stiff one to swallow... if you're not a Bush or a Cheney.

And it doesn't actually cure anything; it just prolongs your life. If you can't pay for it, well you'd die sooner or later anyway. What's a few extra months or years if you're poor anyway?

TAKE A PEEK INTO A MIND RAVAGED BY RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM, ONE THAT WANTS TO BE IN CONGRESS: HOWARD KALOOGIAN, A TRUE FANATIC

I have to admit that I don't listen to their radio shows or watch their TV farces and I don't go see their standup comedians (like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin) or read their newspapers or magazines. I've always read widely in history and I've seen quite enough of what the far right inevitably does, to waste time marveling at their vicious lies and self-deluding nincompoopery. I'm not even curious about their twisted and demented delusions. That said, this evening a friend of mine-- knowing how strongly I feel about Francine Busby, the progressive good-government candidate who's running for Congress down in San Diego-- sent me an advert taken out by one of her wackier opponents in the Washington DC's "Moonie Times." I've written about this guy before, a sleazy street fighter named Howard Kaloogian but the ad has to be seen to be believed.

Basically the ad is a call to arms among the looniest of the far right crazies. If you ever wonder how they think and how they twist up reality, here's a chance. I guess if you already watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh and go to their fake political churches you already know. But for me it was fascinating. Keep in mind this is the district formerly represented by another far right maniac, Randy "Duke" Cunningham who recently resigned in disgrace after admitting to being part of a gigantic bribery operation which netted him millions of dollars. Although he has plead guilty and is cooperating with Federal prosecutors against other Republican crooks, Kaloogian only mentions Cunningham resigned and is ominously quiet about the issues involving reform and cleaning up government that have propelled Busby to a lead in the polls in this once safe red district.

But where it gets really funny is when Kaloogian, somewhat well-known as a lowlife smear artist (even among Republicans), tries to insinuate that Busby is involved with a "violent contingent of anti-war protesters" and that she's taken some kind of secret vow to impeach Bush. And there's a real culture clash here. His ad prominently features Bush, whose approval ratings are back below 40%, and tries tarring Busby with some kind of "guilt by association" with people and organizations admired by people who don't populate the wild fringes of right-wing extremism: Air America, MoveOn.org, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, President Clinton... It's almost as though Busby could run much of the same ad for herself!

Oddly, Kaloogian also denounces budget deficits, a very strange thing for a Republican to run on, considering who has controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency while the worst deficits in our nation's history were run up (right after a Democratic Administration had turned Republican deficits into a huge surplus and economic prosperity). His list of backers is pretty wild too. I mean if this list of crazies and psychopaths doesn't motivate Busby's supporters to get out and vote, nothing will!


THURSDAY MORNING UPDATE: MONEY

The Art Department is always chastising me for not reminding everyone about our ACT BLUE Page for Busby. It's a great and easy way to make a donation to a victory against a one-party state and towards a good-government candidate who will make a real difference in Washington. Even $10 or $20 will help Busby maintain the financial advantage she needs to stay competitive in this formerly-red-trending-purple Southern California district. (If you need a little impetus to dig deep, look at that Kaloogian ad again and think of an America like that!

CHENEY'S SHOOTING SPREE A CONVENIENT DIVERSION FOR A WHITE HOUSE IN SHAMBLES

One would have to be irrational to conclude that Cheney coldly took out his shotgun and purposely let loose on poor old Harry Whittington to divert the easily divertable-- and inordinately short-- public attention span away from the far more serious matters he and Bush are having troubles with. But one would have to be incredibly naive to have not allowed it to cross one's mind.

Today's WASHINGTON POST goes into some detail about how last week's much ballyhooed congressional investigation into the Bush Regime's illegal spying scandal is losing steam inside the Beltway-- though not among actual Americans. (You remember that one, right? The real serious one that made everyone start talking about impeachment and made Karl Rove threaten the prostrate ass-lickers who make up the Republican Senate Caucus, particularly McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Hagel and a small gaggle of other fake moderates, with imperial displeasure and excommunication? Think, think... it was before Cheney shot Whittington in the face, neck and chest and left him to die for 2 hours before calling for medical help. The one where the pathetic, senile, old chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts (R-What's-Wrong-With-Kansas), pretty much said whatever Bush does is by definition legal...

"The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Democratic-sponsored motion to start an inquiry into the recently revealed program in which the National Security Agency eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court. Two committee Democrats said the panel -- made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats -- was clearly leaning in favor of the motion last week but now is closely divided and possibly inclined against it." Everyone insisted on anonymity, of course, but both Democrats and Republicans admit that pressure from the White House, particularly from Rove and Cheney, has been "intense" and, according to Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Dem on the committee, "heavy-handed." (In fact, yesterday Cheney chose to make his point, fresh from his hunt, at a secret, Republicans-only meeting on Capitol Hill.)

"Lawmakers cite senators such as Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to illustrate the administration's success in cooling congressional zeal for an investigation. On Dec. 20, she was among two Republicans and two Democrats who signed a letter expressing 'our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority.' The letter urged the Senate's intelligence and judiciary committees to 'jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations.' In an interview yesterday, Snowe said, 'I'm not sure it's going to be essential or necessary'..."

Combine this with the cascading and deepening financial and bribery scandals, more scary details of the Cheney-Libby-Gonzales-Rove conspiracy and cover-up of the outing of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent and you will see plenty of reasons why the Regime would be kind of desperate to re-focus the public's attention on some kind of dead-end soap opera. As usual, no one sums it all up better than Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold who asks "If Democrats won't stand up to an executive who doesn't worry about trampling the rights of innocent Americans, what do we stand for?" Hmmmm... I was wondering about that last night too.

"It took a long time for Democrats to step up and challenge the administration's baseless assertions that the Patriot Act could not be changed without threatening the security of the American people. When we finally did so, when we decided to make the case that we can fight terrorism and protect our American principles at the same time, it looked like Democrats were finally ready to stand on principle and offer strong leadership. Instead, too many Democrats have folded, and momentum for critical changes to the Patriot Act to protect our freedoms has been squandered. Some Democrats may be breathing sighs of relief that the president can't use this issue to paint them as "soft" on terrorism. But we're not doing the party or the country any favors by refusing to challenge an administration that views our freedoms as collateral damage in the war on terrorism. If Democrats aren't going to stand up to an executive who disdains the other branches of government and doesn't worry about trampling on the rights of innocent Americans, what do we stand for? Expect Democrats and some Republicans to insist that they have won some significant improvements to the Patriot Act. Don't believe it. The few minor concessions they got from the White House are a fig leaf to disguise a complete about-face. Thanks to this deal, the White House will be emboldened in its fear-mongering, Democrats will be perceived as timid, and the American people will still face the prospect of government intrusion into their private affairs. Some deal."


WEDNESDAY 2PM UPDATE: BUSH SPYING SCANDAL GETS WORSE-- MUCH WORSE

UPI is reporting that a NSA whistleblower has told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security that there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights. Russell Tice claims this program is "far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress." I think Cheney may have to start shooting actual members of Congress to make this one go away!


WEEKEND ENTERTAINMENT UPDATE: AEROSMITH MEETS DICK CHENEY

Such a nice song: "Cheney's Got A Gun," and no download necessary.


WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: STILL WANT MORE ON THE CHENEY SHOOTING SPREE?

I now realize that the story of this soap opera is more than the just the ridiculous diversion from the real crimes of the Bush Regime I originally thought it was. The other day my youngest sister, Fern, called from New York to wish me a happy birthday and almost immediately asked me what I think about the Cheney shooting. I mentioned that I thought Bush's give-away of 6 of our most important ports, including the one in NYC near where she and her family live, is far more important-- as are Bush's Constitution shredding and law-breaking activities involved with domestic spying. I lost her. Her interest in the deprecations of the Bush Regime, like so many, many citizens, gets lost in the haze. The Cheney shooting spree is easy and fun-- and just like a TV reality show! I'm rolling with it now. Everybody who's into it should read Tom Engelhardt's wonderful story at AntiWar.com today , "A Quailhawk's Cakewalk".

WHAT THE HELL IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ANYMORE?

I heard a lot of pain and a lot of frustration on the radio today from Democrats who felt Paul Hackett has been speaking for them. Hackett, like pretty much everyone, didn't come up through the Democratic Party organization; he was a maverick with a clear, straightforward, un-nuanced, from-the-gut message. Sherrod Brown may be more traditionally "progressive," even more politically correct in a good sort of way, and more reliable and a known-quantity. But Hackett's passion and guts have come to strike a nerve among people all over the country-- not just in Ohio and not even just among Democrats. The pain and frustration-- and anger-- I heard coming out of my radio speakers goes right to the heart of a bigger question than Paul Hackett's Ohio senatorial primary drama. Who actually is the Democratic Party?

Historically it grew out of Thomas Jefferson's 1790s coalition of small farmers, traders and artisans and it was always, more or less, the anti-elite "people's" party, as opposed to the "aristocratic" party. It has always been riven with sectional and ideological tensions. It didn't plan on being a big tent; it was born and raised that way.

Today there is an intense kind of tension between two major groups tugging in different-- though not necessarily ideologically different-- directions. The grassroots citizens who vote and, to some extent, financially support, the party are finding themselves less and less aligned with the careerist politicians, consultants, managers, party bureaucrats and assorted other pro's who run it. With the advent of the internet and the netroots, the citizens are finding it more and more easy to express themselves and to define themselves-- and to challenge the status quo the careerists want more than anything.

Without the unifying figure of a president to have the last word and for both groups to rally around, the tension is putting the whole concept of Will Rogers' old party under severe stress-- and he said "I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat!"

What virtually all the folks calling in on the radio were saying today is "Who are Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, 3 Inside the Beltway careerist hacks, to think they can derail democracy in Ohio and kill a chance for a primary?" If tempers won't cool these 3 bungling imbeciles just guaranteed another 6-year term to Mike DeWine by making sure Hackett admirers are now invested in Sherrod Brown's defeat.

Today Kos talks about how the party establishment dragged Hackett out of the race and how idiotic they are for fearing, instead of embracing, primaries. That's because today the Inside the Beltway political parties-- both of them-- are businesses, run primarily for the benefit not of the stakeholders, let alone the shareholders, but for the managers. And more specifically, the party has become a vehicle not for social change, not for any ideologies or values, not even for creating an effective strategy to counter the right wing onslaught that they have so abysmally failed to protect us from, but for the career protection and advancement of the pros.

These are the trashy slimeballs we fought tooth-and-nail to get Howard Dean elected Chairman of the DNC. And these are the trashy slimeballs who have done everything they could to sabotage Dean every step of the way. Take for example, one of the most disgusting examples of a self-indulgent, pompous, Inside-the-Beltway, thrilled-with-the-sound-of-his-own-voice windbag, the plagiarist-who-would-be-president, Joe "not as bad as Lieberman" Biden. Soon after the grassroots overwhelmed the Beltway opposition to make Howard Dean DNC Chairman, the ridiculously arrogant senior senator from... Delaware (a constituency smaller than my neighborhood) puffed himself up and babbled "The Democratic chairman does not speak for me, an elected United States senator. No party official speaks for me anytime, anyplace, under any circumstances." Wow! Isn't he something! John Edwards made a similarly unhelpful remark about the Party's popular chairman, calling him "a voice" he doesn't agree with and asserting that Dean "is not the spokesman for the party."

The Inside the Beltway crew did a lot of damage to the Democratic Party today by what they did to Paul Hackett, a man far more admired and respected than most senators and congressmen of either party. Howard Dean's sincere attempt to clean up the mess made by his mortal enemies may have started the process of healing. But a statement that probably resonates louder with progressives and activists was made by the DNC's chairman's brother, Jim Dean, head of DFA. "Today we are deeply saddened by the announcement that Paul Hackett is withdrawing from the race for U.S. Senate in Ohio. We and many of you supported Paul in the Ohio-2 special congressional election last year. While we had not taken a position in his senate race (in deference to DFA members in Ohio who support Sherrod Brown), we nonetheless were thrilled that Paul had stepped up to run for higher office. The integrity and activism that his campaign embodied were—and remain—critical to a Democratic victory over the Republican incumbent. Paul has been, and always will be a man of integrity, guts, authenticity, and courage—characteristics that too often don't seem to matter to our Party's congressional leaders in Washington. Whether you agree with Paul's positions or not, his campaign has represented the resurgence of the authentic candidate. One who speaks honestly and openly about his or her values and political positions because it is the right way to communicate with voters, and the ONLY way to gain their respect.

"Anyone who has looked at poll results knows that the Democrats have been losing for over 15 years because voters don't trust Democrats on the issues. Paul's campaign gave all of us hope that the Democratic Party can again have candidates who are honest and open about their positions; thereby regaining the interest of the voters. More importantly, Paul's campaign gave us hope that the Democratic Party has the discipline and drive to innovate by embracing the entrepreneurial competition of ideas and candidates which are so critical to honing our message and preparing candidates to battle the right-wing spin machine. Our community understands the importance of this, and regrets that we must continue to baby-sit the congressional leadership until they have the maturity, confidence, and discipline to embrace and encourage the kind of innovative campaigns that Paul brought to the Party. Today that baby-sitting job got a lot tougher. Even after 15 years of losing, too much of our leadership continues to waste valuable time and donors' hard earned money trying to maintain a party machine in second place. They do this by trying to bring new and exciting ideas to heal for the sake of their own second place status, because to them second place in DC is better than fighting for our country, our values and our party.

"Thanks to Paul, the drive to take our country back for those who built it continues at full speed.
Paul, thank you for everything you have done. Take some well-deserved time off, but please, please, come back to the fight as soon as you can. You are the future of our democracy. You are the future of the Democratic Party—or the next Party—depending on whether the Democratic leadership in Congress can ever get beyond its remarkably oversized sense of entitlement.
Today they lost, but you kept your word and didn't compromise your values. We thank you for this, hope to see you soon, and wish you and your great family all the best."

Can you imagine a statesmanlike message like that coming from a lowlife sleazeball like Rahm Emanuel or Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer or any of the Inside the Beltway hacks? I can't-- but until I can, I'll think of the DFA more as my party than the Democrats.

At a time when every imaginary "misstep" of Howard Dean is big news, why isn't anyone else screaming about Boss Rahm?

The Rolling Stone whitewash of Boss Rahm cited by DWT is interesting.

I have some sympathy with the notion that politics is a dirty game, so we gotta have our own players. But it seems to me that DWT has outlined a pretty consistent and pretty damning case against the actual day-in, day-out practices of "our" attack dog, the case being that an inordinate amount of his attacking is directed at Democrats, and in particular the kind of Democrats who might help drag us out of the present political morass.

After all, to an alarming extent, if Boss Rahm succeeds in getting his candidates elected, the end result is hardly any change, since with most any policy issue that comes before the House, we will be stuck with the argument that we have to accept a "Bush lite" position because so many House Democrats—including all these stiffs Boss Rahm is trying to force-feed into Congress—won't go along with anything more enlightened.

Meanwhile in the Senate, as DWT has pointed out, the drive by certain party leaders to anoint the Lieberman-like Casey as the choice to take on the extremely vulnerable Santorum without giving Pennsylvania Democrats a say in the matter winds up at best burdening the Senate Democratic caucus with . . . well, another Lieberman. Fine for Bush and whatever pondscum comes after him, not so fine for the country.

What I'm wondering is why Boss Rahm seems to be getting so little media scrutiny, when no opportunity seems to be lost spreading lies about how Howard Dean is ruining the Democrats' chances. (Of course this isn't really a mystery. The Far Right not only conrols its own media noise machine but sets the agenda for the mainstream media, and Dean-bashing seems to bring Rush and Sean & co. about as close to a sexual thrill as they get.)

You know, I knew that Dean's position reminded me of someone, and it finally occurred to me. I'm thinking of former Iranian President Khatami, who despite his lack of real power (in a job that sounds like it should carry some clout) seems truly to have attempted to move his country in a reformist direction, in accordance with both present-day realities and the apparent wishes of the Iranian people.

Powerless as he was, Khatami seems to have been a serious irritant to the ruling theocrats, because he kept the existence of alternative policies alive and therefore possible. So when the time came, the mullahs made sure to purge the irritant, and make sure that nothing like it could take Khatami's place. It's mostly only after the fact that we can see that he really did make a difference: not by accomplishing much positive, but by keeping things from getting even worse than they did.

It's all so depressing. And as DWT keeps pointing out, there's plenty of evidence that it's also unnecessary, that Boss Rahm and the DLC and the other "Bush lite" Democrats simply have no idea what's actually happening "out there" in the country. Of course, DWT has also suggested that it wouldn't make any difference if they knew, because their only interest seems to be entrenching their own little enclaves of power.

Which ironically will remain little enclaves, because they're so afraid of a more inclusive politics.

PAUL HACKETT'S CAREER DESTROYED BY RUTHLESS DEMOCRATIC PARTY BOSSES

I had no ACT BLUE page up for either Paul Hackett or Sherrod Brown. I think either man would have made an excellent U.S. Senator, better than most. Brown is tried and true. Hackett is brash and unpredictably refreshing. I sent Hackett a contribution when he ran against Schmidt last summer and I would have done the same for whomever the Democratic primary voters chose to represent them against Mike DeWine. But we'll never know who the voters would have chosen because the Inside the Beltway party bosses, as is their wont, have driven Hackett out of the race AS THEY ARE DOING TO GRASSROOTS CANDIDATES AND PROGRESSIVES ALL OVER AMERICA.

Back in July, one of my first stories on Hackett was called "Straight Talkin' Guy." He had made a great impression on me. Let me quote myself:

What about the Far Right's most divisive hot-button issue, the one they have been using most successfully to frighten working people into voting for them (and thereby for their policies that are so damaging to the vast majority of people who don't make millions of dollars a year)-- the "gay issue." With a viciously homophobic opponent who eagerly voted against gays' rights in the Ohio legislature, Hackett took this issue on in his typically forthright way. "Gay marriage -- who the hell cares?"
Hackett is married and has 3 kids and unlike half the GOP officials in Washington, isn't worried about hiding a secret life. He says he doesn't feel the need to defend his marriage through the national Defense of Marriage Act, or any other anti-gay marriage legislation. "If you're gay you're gay -- more power to you," he said. "What you want is to be treated fairly by the law and any American who doesn't think that should be the case is, frankly, un-American." More Democrats talking good common sense like this and we wouldn't be on the verge of a fascism in this country.

This would have probably been an incredible U.S. Senator, someone very different from the Inside the Beltway swine-- regardless of party-- who speak a language of their own and only to each other. But, as I'm sure you know by now, Hackett told the Democrats to screw themselves after they went behind his back to funders and pressured them to stop the money flow to his campaign. He pulled out of the race Reid and Schumer lured him into after Reid, Schumer and the hideous monstrosity of the Democratic Party (our very own version of Tom DeLay), Rahm Emanuel stabbed him in the back and pressured him out. This is what a straight talkin' guy can expect when he gets into the water with these barracudas and man-eaters. The Democratic Party really is predominantly just one thing now: a vehicle for the careers of its elected officials and their employees. I had hoped when actual grassroots Democrats got Howard Dean the DNC Chair he would be able to make a difference. But no one can make any difference with this nest of filthy poisonous vipers. They literally have one thing, and one thing only, going for them: the Republican Party is far worse.


8 AM UPDATE: A CLASSY GOODBYE

I like Hackett's clear, straight talkin' explanation of why he's bowing out of politics. We lost a good man. Sherrod Brown will be a good Senator from Ohio though. Howard Dean also has a classy and sincere letter about this on the DNC blog, which can be commented on by readers.


WEEKEND HACKETT UPDATE

MOTHER JONES has an inside look at how the Beltway Insiders forced Hackett out of the Ohio Democratic primary here.

YES, CHENEY IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY MURDEROUS BASTARD. IS THIS NEWS TO YOU?

Of all my friends, no one is less into DWT than Roland. He poo-poo-ed my revelations about Cunningham and Noe last spring and Roland will be the last person on earth to still believe that Bush actually was elected president. But today, Roland and almost everyone I know-- not to mention the entire Art Department (which feels there's a Piece of Schmidt moment here)-- are howling for a piece on Cheney. Every single aspect of this story-- from humor to outrage has been covered. Very nice. I have nothing to add. And anyone socializing with Cheney deserves whatever they get anyway. However, as a public service, let me recommend the dozen great Cheney-as-shooter stories on FireDogLake-- which is also where I pilfered these two fine pieces of art (since our own Art Department is currently passed out drunk after following Timothy Mahoney around all day, looking, futilely as it turns out, for an interesting camera angle).


11 PM UPDATE: JANE CONTINUES TO POST ABOUT CHENEY'S SHOOTING SPREE BUT THERE IS MORE!

There's a great diary over at DAILY KOS that elegantly explains how the Cheney shooting is a perfect analogy for the entire catastrophic Bush Regime. It's really good.


TUESDAY MORNING UPDATE: OH GOD! THIS STORY WON'T GO AWAY

I wish the mass media would be as interested in BushCo shredding the U.S. Constitution and wrecking our standing in the world as they are in Cheney's hunting accident. But this is easier for them and easier for their dumbed-down viewers and listeners. And last night it was prime fodder for all the late night comedians. Meanwhile, it's 7AM and Jane Hamsher continues to have the best coverage of the Cheney shooting spree anywhere-- with something like 15 awesome stories on the whole gruesome affair. And of course Molly Ivins can always be counted on to have a unique perspective on anything bizarre connected to Texas-- and the Cheney shooting rampage would fit that of course.

HOW MANY REAL DEMOCRATS WILL RAHM EMANUEL REPLACE WITH SHILL CANDIDATES?

I've written so much about DCCC boss, Rahm Emanuel on this blog that I just don't feel like doing another story about him ever. But then up rears his head again-- and pretty much always on the wrong side of everything. What I don't want to get into this time is how Emanuel has tried to sabotage Christine Cegelis' grassroots campaign for the open seat Henry Hyde is abandoning in Illinois-- not because that story doesn't perfectly illustrate exactly the point I'm trying to make, but just because the story has been told again and again and again and again. Nor do I want to write about another nationally well-known tale of Emanuel wrong-headedness, his treachery towards Paul Hackett in Ohio last summer. (Ironically, though, Emanuel is up to his old tricks again with Hackett, spreading rumors and applying pressure to get him to withdraw from the Senate contest and-- and here's the irony-- run against Mean Jean for the House seat he would have won if Emanuel hadn't shunned him the first time out!)

I've spent quite a bit of time talking with candidates, campaign managers, DCCC staffers (scared ones) and the picture that comes up of Emanuel is not a good one. Like I said, I've written about it ad nauseum here and here and here and all over the place. Rolling Stone has a big story on him, "The Enforcer", that is pretty positive ("he may be a scumbag but he's our scumbag" kind of thing). They point out that he was Clinton's political heavy. "Intense to the point of ferocity, he was known for taking on the most daunting tasks -- the ones no one else wanted -- and pulling off the seemingly impossible, from banning assault weapons to beating back the Republican-led impeachment. [DWT to Rolling Stone: Clinton was impeached.] 'Clinton loved Rahm,' recalls one staffer, 'because he knew that if he asked Rahm to do something, he would move Heaven and Earth -- not necessarily in that order -- to get it done.'" The article doesn't mention he was also Clinton's point person on passing the basically catastrophic, Republican-oriented NAFTA legislation.

"Friends and enemies agree that the key to Emanuel's success is his legendary intensity. There's the story about the time he sent a rotting fish to a pollster who had angered him. There's the story [patently false] about how his right middle finger was blown off by a Syrian tank when he was in the Israeli army. And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead! and plunging the knife into the table after every name. 'When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,' one campaign veteran recalls. 'It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you.'" Ahh... yeah-- and I have no doubt that way back when, there were some decent enough Republicans who thought the same thing about Tom DeLay. Am I equating Rahm Emanuel, a Richard Daley-oriented Democrat, with GOP crime boss Tom DeLay? Exactly.

In the past-- in fact, just yesterday at Daily Kos-- whenever I try to raise the warning flag about Emanuel I get a knee-jerk reaction from uninformed Democratic partisans who don't understand what Emanuel is all about. A typical one: "Yeah, go on, attack Rahm Emanuel. its so easy and convenient for you. Are you at the DCCC and do you know what strategizing is? Sometimes, hard choices have to be made especially with the limited financial resources the DCCC has. Hell, if a hard core progressive has only $10k available against a formidable opponent like Foley, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you aren't going anywhere with meager campaign funds. That's a hard fact. And also, by your logic, Democrats shouldn't accept Republicans who see the light and want to join our party? Tell me that's not what you're thinking."

ProgressivePunch rates every member of Congress based on their votes in 14 categories (and about 150 subcategories). Any score over 80% is pretty progressive-- Barbara Boxer is rated 95, Obama 93, Hillary 92, Lieberman gets a 76, Ben Nelson a 50 (same as McCain), while DeLay gets a 3, Pombo a 6, Frist a 4. And Rahm Emanuel gets a respectible 87.64. He has two weak areas though-- "Justice For All" (76) and "War & Peace" (81). Too often when there have been controversial votes about Iraq, Emanuel has been on the wrong side (the Bush-DeLay side). And when Democratic challengers want to debate the war, Emanuel goes bonkers. He seems to think that between corruption scandals and retirements he can pick up a net of 15 seats and that the Republicans will basically defeat themselves. He's not looking for a tsunami and he's not thinking about much beyond the low-hanging fruit. He's as far from Howard Dean's strategy of taking them on in every district-- and fighting them with superior ideas-- as he could be without actually being a Republican!

I'll go back to the race that engendered the comment in a second-- the contest between a progressive Democrat bristling with ideas and passion (Dave Lutrin) and an opportunistic country-club Republican with a brand, spanking new Democratic Party registration and no ideas whatsoever except how nice it would be to be a member of Congress (Timothy Mahoney) like Emanuel promised him he could be. The primary winner will challenge Republican homophobic closet case, Mark Foley in mid-Florida's pretty red 16th CD. But before I get to this race, I want to point something else out, something I've been hearing from Democrats all over the country.

Ole Rahmbo, or whatever he likes being called to make himself the big macho-man fools buy into, has been systematically scouring the country and honing in on the races of any vulnerable Republican incumbent (so far so good, right?) to utterly and viciously sabotage anyone who dares oppose Bush's war in Iraq or anyone who is a grassroots Democrat or anyone who dares to take progressive stands on issues. FL-16 is just one typical example. Elton Gallegly is a right-wing extremist-- a complete loon-- in a changing, moderate suburban Southern California district just north of Los Angeles, mostly Ventura County. In 2004 Brett Wagner, a national security expert and a progressive, built a strong grassroots base when he took on Gallegly (not unlike what Francine Busby, Christine Cegelis, Jerry McNerney and Lois Murphy did in their first-time races against Republican incumbents). None of these 2004 challengers won their races but all are poised to try to win in November. Except for one thing: Boss Tweed Emanuel. There wasn't much he could do about Murphy who came tantalizing close in a Pennsylvania swing district but the others, who are all in pretty red districts, have been pressured to step aside for a docile, vapid, homogenized, Emanuel-picked candidate. They've all told Emanuel and his surrogates to go screw themselves. The battle in Brett Wagner's case has become pretty public and pretty ugly.

Although the Emanuel attack dogs only whisper that Wagner is unelectable because he's openly gay, they attack him with a ferocity and vigor they have never turned against Gallegly, eager to install a vanilla, easy-to-manipulate puppet candidate in his place. Emanuel routinely gets uninformed Beltway Democrats to "sign on" for the shill candidates he's pushing. But no one tells Barney Frank what to do or who to support. This is what he had to say about Wagner: "Brett Wagner is a first-rate candidate. He is thoughtful, energetic and articulate and his particular expertise is the national security area, which has of course become especially prominent in our politics since the mass murders of September 11, 2001. His membership on the faculty of the Naval War College, his expertise with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the high regard for which he is held for his thoughtful understanding of national security issues makes him a particularly qualified Democratic candidate. Of course he combines his national security expertise with a strong and articulate commitment to other important values. It is the unfortunate habit of many in the political community to pigeonhole openly gay candidates as people who somehow lack the overall perspective needed to effectively serve in Congress. In Brett Wagner's case, his outstanding credentials in the national security area means that any such effort to minimize him by stereotyping him will fail, and I must tell you that his presence in Congress would be enormously helpful in the causes we believe in."

Now when you go to a race where a grassroots challenger is just getting started-- without the name recognition a 2004 run gave Wagner, McNerney, Busby, Cegelis and Murphy-- Emanuel has found it much easier to push people out of races. But not always-- which brings us back to FL-16 and Dave Lutrin. As you may know, the DWT Art Department is located in FL-16 and this is a race we are watching very carefully. After examining both candidates-- Lutrin the progressive Democrat and Mahoney the opportunistic, millionaire, country-club Republican recruited by Emanuel-- we decided to support Lutrin. (You can too-- right here, right now as Kyle Minogue, Fatboy Slim and Jesus Jones would all tell you.) Lutrin was just endorsed by the Florida Democratic Black Caucus but at the same time, he got a letter from one of Emanuel's local minions in a 4th or 5th attempt to drive him out of the race. Our Art Department tells us that the latest attempt, as transparent and anti-democratic as the previous, accused Lutrin’s candidacy of “having a divisive effect on the Democratic Party in the 16th District” and will lead to “polarization and hurt feelings” if he does not reconsider his candidacy now. I suppose there might indeed be polarization within the party if the only real Democrat in the contest (Lutrin) was repeatedly asked to quit. Expect other attempts to fail. Lutrin’s response to the latest “requests” for him to vacate the race was “I am in this for the duration…Democrats need to have the opportunity to vote for a Democrat. And when I am told that I don’t have enough money to win, I remind them of how Barack Obama was out-raised 2-to-1 as the underdog in the primary and won by 55 points.” The only selling point Emanuel has for Mahoney is that he's a millionaire. But I've watched these supposedly self-funding candidates in the past and they never live up to expectations of what they're supposed to kick in money-wise.

WHEN RIGHT WING THUGS STEAL AN ELECTION IN AMERICA, PEOPLE CHANGE THE CHANNEL. IN HAITI THEY DO WHAT PEOPLE WHO LOVE DEMOCRACY DO

Haiti freed itself from the scourge of slavery long before the U.S. did. Politicians in the American South dragged their feet for decades and decades and finally dragged us into a bloody civil war to be able to keep human beings in bondage and with no more rights than sheep or dogs. Politicians in the American South have imposed a different kind of bondage on us today-- the bondage of rigged elections with fraudulent vote-counting. When their allies in Haiti just tried to do the same thing, the Haitians reacted far differently from our own overly-complacent citizenry. While Americans sat back and allowed Bush and his reactionary neo-Confederate circle to steal not one but two presidential elections, Haitians did what any self-respecting people would do: took to the streets!


THURSDAY MORNING UPDATE: PREVAL TO BE DECLARED HAITIAN PRESIDENT-- RIGHT WING ELECTORAL SHENANIGANS FOILED BY PEOPLE-ACTION!

Yes it worked for the Haitians this time. If only Americans were paying attention!

REPUBLICANS EMBRACE CHARITY-- BIG TIME! ABRAMOFF, FRIST, CUNNINGHAM, DELAY...

I remember how revolted I was-- and outraged-- when I read about how the Republican Party Machine of Ohio Governor Bob Taft had systematically looted the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Fund. And not just looted it to the tune of at least $50 million but actually used the money to steal the 2004 Ohio presidential election for BushCheney. The Ohio Republican political machine used the compensation fund for working men and women to perpetuate their one party rule, to enrich themselves and their friends and to undermine democracy.

And not much has come of it. One of the masterminds of the whole scam, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, uses Diebold's electronic voting systems to determine every race in Ohio. So, although, for example, Governor Bob Taft is the least popular elected official anywhere in the U.S. in the history of polling (currently with an 11% approval rating, up somewhat from 6.5%) when it came to viting on electoral reforms, which independent polls showed had overwhelming support... well, by the time Blackwell was finished counting the votes, guess what-- NO REFORMS. He's running for governor now-- and still counting the votes, like he did for Bush and for Mean Jean Schmidt.

Well, stealing for the Workmen's Compensation Fund you have a fiduciary responsibility to safeguard is pretty low. But then I started noticing that Republican Party officials were systematically setting up charities and charity-like front operations to launder and steal money all over the country. Former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is on his way to prison after admitting to making off with millions of dollars in bribes laundered his loot through his Top Gun Enterprises, a dubious company he owned selling patriotic memorabilia. But that's nothing compared to the activities of more fleet-footed Republicrooks like "Dollar Bill" Frist and Jack Abramoff.

Frist had some bogus "charity" that he strong-armed people with business before Congress to donate to and then, according to the Associated Press "paid over 10% of the funds raised to two companies with strong politial ties among other questionable activities." Most of the money was "donated" by just 18 people eager to bribe the Senate Majority Leader (each giving between $100,000 and $250,000 to Frist's World of Hope). Nearly half a million dollars was also paid in "consulting fees" to some of Frist's political cronies. Frist coldly claimed he was raising this money, much of which wound up in the pockets of his suporters, to fight AIDS. According to investigators "the donors included several corporations with frequent business before Congress, such as insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield, manufacturer 3M, drug maker Eli Lilly and the Goldman Sachs investment firm." Many people consider Frist to be the lowest varmit in the Senate. Kent Cooper, formerly of the Federal Election Commissionf, said the big donors' motives are suspect. "These tax deductible gifts were earmarked through Senator Frist," Cooper said. "They were raised in the political arena at the 2004 Republican Convention and the natural question is were they given to the Senate majority leader to gain favor or were they given for true charitable purposes?" He also pointed out that the consulting fees were "excessively high" and the fact that they were "paid to primarily political consultants also raises questions about the long-range strategic benefits for the 2008 presidential race."

Now, where there is a profitable scam going on, you could always count on GOP crime boss Tom DeLay to have his snout in the mix and, of course, no one was better at extorting money and using it to corrupt the political system than GOP lobbyist/Bush close personal associate Jack Abramoff. And, sure enough. Friday's L.A. Times ran a story called "Abramoff's Charity Began At Home" which explains how Abramoff now "admits he used nonprofits to evade taxes, pad his pockets and bribe officials."

According to the TIMES story "There was the time he laundered money through a religious group's accounts to try to bribe a congressional aide. He diverted funds from a youth athletic foundation to bankroll a golf junket for a congressman and to bolster the bank account of his Washington restaurant. He used two other nonprofits to line his own pockets with millions of dollars defrauded from clients. Charities are supposed to advance the public interest, which is why they aren't taxed. But Abramoff, by his own admission, used them to evade taxes, enrich himself and bribe public officials, according to a plea agreement he signed with federal prosecutors in January." (Before you hear Hannity-Limbaugh-O'Liely bleating in unison how this is a bi-partisan scandal, keep in mind that every single cent that Abramoff ever gave to politicians [100%]-- by his own admission-- went to Tom DeLay, Conrad Burns, Bob Ney and as many as 60 other Republicans; no Democrats. Not even one, no matter how much the Amen choir wants to bleat their fat asses off to the contrary.

The amount that Abramoff was able to scam from charities may never be fully known but best estimates are certainly over $50 million. "One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political influence," said Mark Everson, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Bush is currently making believe he doesn't remember ever meeting or hearing about Abramoff, although he appointed him to a temporary job in the Deptartment of the Interior, a job he used to launch a systematic campaign to defraud the American Indian tribes (whose welfare is entrusted to the Interior Depratment) of hundreds of millions of dollars that he and DeLay used to maintain control over the Republican caucus in the Congress.


3 PM UPDATE: NOE FINALLY CHARGED IN OHIO REPUBLICAN COIN SCANDAL

And speaking of our old friend Tom Noe-- well, not mine or yours, but Mike DeWine's and Bob Taft's, and Bob Ney's and George W. Bush's and Arnold Schwarzenneger's and Jim Petro's and George Voinovich's and, of course, Ken Blackwell's... and just about every other corrupt creepy crawly thing that makes up the Republican Party of Ohio-- it appears like this is one Republicrook looking at 175 years in prison.


WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: MORE SUBPOENAS IN ABRAMOFF/DELAY CHARITY RIPOFF

Yesterday Federal investigators issued more subpoenas for documents involved with the U.S. Family Network, a DeLay/Abramoff non-profit that was part of the Republican scam to rake in millions of illegal dollars.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS-- REPUBLICANS FOR LIEBERMAN (NOT SO STRANGE); PROGRESSIVES FOR CASEY (VERY STRANGE)

I love MoveOn.org/ It's an organization I've supported and contributed to and it's an organization I take seriously. When they raised the anti-Lieberman banner a few months ago I responded at once and when Ned Lamont jumped into that race last week I was one of the first bloggers to interview him, write a story on him and set up an ACT BLUE page to raise money for him. It doesn't surprise me one bit to have learned today that 2 big-time Republican hacks and lobbyists, Craig Fuller and H.P. Goldfield, hosted a fund-raising dinner for Lieberman a couple nights ago at Goldfield's Washington home, a home that is often used to raise money for people named Bush. Nor does it surprise me that most of the dinner's host committee were, in fact, lobbyists.

But what did surprise me was when my pal Matt from Pomboville pointed out which reactionary Democrat MoveOn.org has endorsed and is actively raising money for. Right now MoveOn has 6 people up on their 2006 Endorsed page. I was surprised enough to find neither Ciro Rodriguez nor Francine Busby, two progressives with special elections coming right up. But then I was appalled at what I did see up: Bob Casey a somewhat reactionary Democrat who gratuitously announced he would have not only been the 20th Democrat to have voted for the cloture bill Move On so vigorously opposed, but that he also would have voted to confirm Alito! While MoveOn is urging us to help put an end to the disgraceful political career of Joe Lieberman-- a wonderful goal-- they are also complicit in creating the next Senator Lieberman. Now, you may say, we must get rid of Rick Santorum (R-Opus Dei)-- I certainly do-- and that even if Casey is a reactionary Democrat, he's still a Democrat. (Yawn.) But that's an argument for after the primary, not an argument to prematurely endorse a miserable candidate when progressives have a potentially great candidate, Chuck Pennacchio, who we should be doing all we can to bolster in the face of heavy-handed DSCC interference (whose goal is to make a Casey v Santorum race look inevitable).

MoveOn went out of its way to make sure its members knew how crucial the Alito votes were. (Aside from Casey, they also endorse both Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett of Ohio, the correct thing to do in my eyes too; Nick Lampson, a Democrat poised to help with some well-deserved DeLay petard hoistin' down in Texas; and two cloture supporting senators, Robert Byrd and Bill Nelson. How did they leave out Ben?) I'll be examining everything that comes my way from MoveOn.org a lot more carefully from now on.

WHY DO JOE LIEBERMAN AND BUSH HATE ISRAEL?

I've always said that Joe Lieberman of Connecticut may have been elected as a Connecticut Democrat but he neither represents Connecticut nor is he a Democrat. He actually represents the far right of the Israeli political spectrum. Like the other neo-conservatives who have hoodwinked the oh-so-hoodwinkable idiot daily disgracing the institution of the American Presidency, Lieberman-- and and a small handful of (mostly L.A. area) Jewish congressmen-- have always thought helping Israel was tantamount to taking down Saddam Hussein. People like Lieberman gave Bush and Cheney cover they needed to invade Iraq for far more sinister reasons than just to protect Israel. Today the BBC is reporting that the head of Shin Bet, Israeli's FBI, said that Israel may come to regret Saddam's overthrow. "Yuval Diskin said a strong dictatorship would be preferable to the present 'chaos' in Iraq, in a speech to teenage Jewish settlers in the West Bank."

What Diskin and millions of Israelis get-- what an oaf like Lieberman still can't see-- is that "when you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos." Diskin thinks the chaos could well be worse for everyone concerned than even Saddam's hideous brutality.

ANOTHER RIGHT WING NUT-CASE, DAN LUNGREN GETS A CHALLENGER-- WELCOME BILL DURSTON, MD & VIETNAM WAR VET

Dan Lungren is probably the most extremist right-winger among a pretty disreputable batch of California Republican loons. While other lockstep rightists in the California delegation voted between 92% and 96% with indicted ex-Republican crime boss leader Tom DeLay, Lungren voted 99% with DeLay. There's a man who has no trouble making up his mind (since he doesn't have one of his own). A few weeks ago I was asking why there wasn't a good Democrat running against this whacko. Well, thanks to Matt from Pomboville for turning me on the answer. An emergency room doctor and much-admired Northern California activist, Bill Durston, has filed to run against Lungren in the 3rd CD.

This is a very red district-- the current loon having won by 62% last time-- but Durston is the right man to give him a real battle. A former Vietnam veteran, Durston says he is "saddened to see our country involved in another war started on false pretenses. Like many other veterans, I support the sacrifices our troops are making, but I don't support sacrificing our troops. I will work toward a prompt but orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and replacement of U.S. forces by a truly international security force." His views on the so-called "War on Terrorism" also show that, unlike Lungren, he isn't suckered by the Bush/neo-con nutty agenda. "History shows that conventional military force is not only ineffective, but counter-productive in combating terrorism. The Bush Administration's belligerent military response to the September 11 terrorist attacks has created more terrorists than it has eliminated, and security in our own country has been weakened by deployment of reservists and diversion of resources abroad. We need to adopt a smarter approach to terrorism that includes international cooperation, better coordination of intelligence, and addressing the root causes of terrorism. The Bush Administration has scorned international law, the Geneva Convention, and the U.S. Constitution. I will work to restore democracy within our own country and to restore our country's tarnished image abroad."

Everything I read about Durston tells me he's a thoughtful grassroots progressive who would make a great congressman. A working physician-- rather than a big pharma pawn operative like "Dr" Frist-- Durston is particularly interested in health care. He believes that access to necessary health care "is a basic human right, not a privilege based on one's ability to pay. Throughout my career as an emergency physician, I have provided the best possible care to patients without regard to their financial status. As a U.S. Representative, I will continue to be a patient advocate."

With progressive grassroots positions like Durston's, it's reasonable to assume Rahm Emanuel will find some corporate shill to fight him tooth and nail. Boss Emanuel, like Lieberman, won't put up with any challengers opposing Bush's war in Iraq.

Bill grew up in what is now known as the Silicon Valley. He was president and valedictorian of his high school class. Rather than go directly on to college, though, he enlisted in the U.S. Marines at the height of the Vietnam war. He served in Vietnam with the Marines 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, and he received the Navy Commendation medal for bravery under combat. Uh oh-- an American hero; someone call the Republican swift boaters so they can start the smear campaign! After completing his military service, he graduated first in his class in Biochemistry at U.C. Berkeley and entered Medical School at the University of California, San Francisco, where he was a Regent's Scholar. He is board certified in both Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine and has practiced in Sacramento for over 20 years, where, among other things he served as Chief of the Kaiser, South Sacramento Emergency Department from 1985-1989. He helped found the UC Davis/Kaiser Emergency Medicine Residency in 1989. More recently, he served as Injury Prevention Chairperson of the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (Cal/ACEP) from 2000 to present. He has helped craft state legislation related to injury prevention, and he has testified on numerous occasions before committees of the California State Legislature. He received a special Cal/ACEP Injury Prevention Award in 2002 for service to the people of California. He was President of the Sacramento Physicians for Social Responsibility from 2003 until he stepped down to run against the reactionary Lungren.

Three (or at least two, anyway) thoughts about the clash between the vigilant supporters of General Wes and DWT

(1) I've never had any interest in General Wes as a candidate, but now I'm thinking, is it maybe time for a Democrat who not only knows how to enforce Message Discipline (or has people who do) but knows how to answer back, quickly and with necessary force? If Al Gore or John Kerry had been able to do this, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today.

Oh, sure, the Radical Right in combination with the usual Democratic fractiousness would have made it impossile for either Gore or Kerry to actually govern, but wouldn't government paralysis resulting from violently acrimonious partisanship be a heady improvement over what we've wound up with?

(2) I forget what (2) was. Before I finished writing (1), I was struck with the need to get (3) down while it was in my head. By the time it was down, (2) was gone, poof!

As best I remember, (2) was a wickedly smart observation that would have impressed everybody on all sides of the issue (possibly on all sides of all issues), brought peace to the Middle East and possibly cured cancer. If the current state of my memory is any guide, I'll probably think of (2) in just about an hour. Strangely, though, it won't be nearly as smart then. Somehow its time will have passed.

You're probably pointing and giggling and saying, "What a dufus! Can't even remember his own stupid point!" This is harsh but not unwarranted. It suggests, though, that you're still too young to realize that someday, and possibly a day much sooner than you imagine, this will happen to you too. The way I look at it, I may have lost (2), but I've still got (1) and (3), and under the Official Scoring Rules—made up by me, as it happens—this still puts me ever so slightly ahead of the game. By the thinnest of margins, I'll admit, but slightly ahead.

(3) Everyone keeps saying, "That General Wes is, whew, such a real smart guy." Yeah? So what?

Again, I grant you that, all things being equal, a smart guy is probably better than a dumb guy. (Again, offered in evidence: the lump who's been squatting in the White House since Jan. 2001.) But the world is full of smart people. Where has that gotten us?

Understand now that I'm speaking not about General Wes in particular but about smart people in general. Being smart doesn't stop people from saying and doing dumb things, and I mean really, really mind-bogglingly dumb things.

Does this point really still need to be made?

Obvious as it is, evidently yes. And so, in the same way that one hates to be always bringing up a cautionary fable as blatant as "The Emperor's New Clothes," and yet one is forced to do so because old Hans Christian Andersen nailed a phenomenon that seems destined to be permanently with us (in fact, we seem to be living in a culture that's modeled on the emperor's fashion regime), I'm afraid I'm forced to remind everyone that those ghastly long years of death and destruction that were the Vietnam War were brought to us by "The Best and the Brightest," as David Halberstam made sure we would all remember them forever.

We do all remember, don't we? Anybody?

Again, I'm not saying that General Wes is just like those other smart guys. Just that I'm not interested in hearing about how smart he is. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara--to pick a not entirely random example--was one real smart cookie too. Ask him today how that worked out.

WOW! TODAY I GOT FREEPED BY WES CLARK! AND WELCOME TO DWT, CLARKIES!

First a little disclaimer: I only met Wes Clark once and I only heard him speak in person once. Maybe it was a bad night. And I do want to say that anyone with as charming and gracious a wife as Gert, can't be all bad. In fact, the general himself seemed like a nice enough fella-- and not stupid at all. If I was a betting man and I had to bet who could find Iraq and Afghanistan faster on a map, Clark or any sitting U.S. Senator, I wouldn't hesitate to put my nickel down on Clark. And I have no reason to believe he's anything but a top-notch military man.

A couple nights ago I met Ned Lamont under very similar circumstances to the circumstances in which I had met the general-- I had been invited to the home of a supporter, along with a few other people, to meet and greet and listen to a stump speech. Lamont's was inspiring, fresh and powerful and made me hope he wins his Connecticut senate race against the odious Joe Lieberman. I didn't just revel in Lamont's progressive policies and his over-all vision for our country-- which you can easily read on a website or in a newspaper interview-- but I was knocked over by his energy, his enthusiasm, his open-mindedness, his life-experience, the gestalt I detected in the man in terms of how he looks at a problem and attempts to deal with it. Parenthetically, there was a throw-away line in the story I did about Lamont: "He went right to Jack Murtha and showed me immediately that not only does he support a plan for withdrawal but that he has a far better grasp of what the war is all about than old-line Democratic 'thinkers' like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark (all of whom are still babbling nonsense about 'winning,' an absurd concept to begin with)."

Well... who'da thunk the general and his little troopers would have even noticed, let alone get in such a snit? But when I woke up at 5AM I noticed an inordinately large amount of traffic here at DWT. "Wow," I thought, people actually are reading that long-drawn out schpiel I wrote last night about Bush's reverse Robin Hood Budget." I was impressed. But I immediately realized I was wrong. (Actually a couple people did read it-- and even left comments, but the surging traffic was because of the great plug the Lamont piece got on firelakedog, one of my favorite on-line hang-outs.)

Later in the morning, I found a very different kind of plug. The general's non-campaign campaign site put out an alert to all the general's little troopers (with 4 exclamation points, no less; I don't think I've even used that many in anything I've posted, not even about the deprecations of Cheney and Bush!): "Needs response!!!!" directing the Clarkies to respond to my disparagement and "disservice" done by yours truly to their beloved strong man, the general. So there they were rooting around on my site and on firelakedog. The first comment I saw was by someone I know, like and respect, Steve from the SteveAudio Blog. I met Steve at, of all places, a Clark rally. His comment was "Howie had no interest in attending our little meeting with Gen. Clark last Saturday, and I think he might have been surprised, since Clark actually talked about 'getting out.' It was really a 'between the lines' kind of thing, but still, it was better than the last time I spoke with him, when it was full on 'stay the course.'" Poor SteveAudio doesn't realize that by having accused the general of having said what he said at the rally-- the he believes in staying the course-- he could be subjecting himself to endless pestering by the general's silly little fanatics. His is the most party-line-only (one could almost say Stalinist) campaign I have ever seen (from a Democrat) in my life. These are very thin-skinned people. Anyway, although I didn't feel I would be welcome at the second Clark event, it wasn't that I had "no interest;" I had a little bit of interest, just not enough to start up the car and stuff. But it's true--I had just found Clark to not be worth paying much attention to as a presidential or vice presidential candidate. Remember what I said about Lamont's gestalt a couple paragraphs up? Would that I could say something so kind about the general's.

My impression of Clark-- from my one short meeting-- was of a nice guy, a sincere guy, a pretty smart guy. And I know some VERY smart people who say Clark's even smarter than they are. I don't mean to get his relatives', friends' and little troopers' panties all in a bunch, but-- like his supporter SteveAudio-- I absolutely heard him advocate staying the course. He laid out a policy at a rally attended by quite a few people (apparently mostly his supporters from his former race for the presidency) that was perhaps subtly different from Bush's-- but only subtly. Like Jack Murtha does comprehend but, alas, something the general apparently cannot, the U.S. cannot and will not win a war of national liberation inside an Arab country. The Iraqis want us out of there-- as we would want invaders out of here. That's how it will play out. Lamont gets it. Feingold gets it. Pelosi gets it. Dean gets it. Murtha gets it. Biden doesn't. Hillary doesn't. And when I met Clark, he didn't. Now SteveAudio says the general is making some tiny baby steps ("between the lines") in the direction of foreign policy sanity.

Clark will never be president (of the United States) so why does it matter? Well, for one thing, he is a smart and principled guy and he is admired and respected by a lot of people-- Democrats, independents and even Republicans. And, unlike most Democratic senators, Clark opposed Bush's unwarranted, dishonest attack on Iraq from day one-- and for the right reasons. There is a huge schism in the Democratic Party right now between idealists, who are behind Murtha, and possibly well-meaning but definitely ill-advised "pragmatists" who are afraid to join the majority of the American people-- let alone (god forbid) lead them-- in opposing Bush's war. Many of the so-called pragmatists' arguments for their position go no further than "Well, Wes Clark supports this and he's so smart and so experienced and he must be right."

One of Clark's little troopers left a comment on firelakedog that is more indicative of those who attach themselves to the political fortunes of a militaristically-minded strongman than the more interesting and worthwhile and thought-provoking one left by SteveAudio. A Clarkie only willing to identify himself as "W." (suspicious in itself) had this to say "Howie is a stupid motherfucker to conflate HRC, Biden and Clark. How can we trust him on Lamont if he can't be bothered enough to state the truth about Clark? And even if he is right about HRC and Biden, he could have avoided subjective language deliberately chosen to ridicule their positions. Jesus God. We are so doomed with supporters like Klein."

Thanks for the plug on your website, general, and, again, welcome all you Clarkies to DWT. The art department whipped something up especially for you. Oh, one more thing: last time I disagreed with the general about something I was bombarded with e-mails accusing me of hating the military. That's the kind of "argument" I've come to expect from Clarkies. Many members of my immediate family proudly served in the military and not only did I contribute to Paul Hackett's congressional campaign very early on, I also convinced a large organization I'm on the Board of to endorse him, someone who they hadn't even heard of previously. I honor and appreciate Clark's service in the military. He was correct about Bush making a catastrophic blunder by attacking Iraq. He's been wrong on the issue since. If he's changing... AWESOME. I'll be happy to welcome him into the majority.

SOMETHING I LEARNED FROM TRENT LOTT-- WE HAVE AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM

I woke up this morning at 5, cognizant that I had sort of semi-promised last night to put forward the DWT solution to the mess in Washington, the one I thought of because of Trent Lott. Apparently the Art Department had sobered up enough before passing out around 2 AM to have finally done the art work for yesterday's story on Bush's reverse Robin Hood syndrome. (I'm sure if I had asked for another photo of Ohio right-wing crack-whore, Mean Jean Schmidt, I would have had that on time instead of a day late.) But I realized that the reverse Robin Hood art will work just as well for the D.C. solution thing since, just about all things between men, as philosophers from Karl Marx to Tom Gray insist, revolve around money anyway. I'm jumping ahead of myself and you're probably wondering how Trent Lott fits in with such distinguished thinkers like Karl and Tom.

Well, ever since I became aware that CNN had signed on to the Bush Regime propaganda operation to deceive the American public, I've been boycotting. These days I get all my news from my pal Jane. I don't get out much. But I happened to pass a TV set the other day when one of the friends asked me if I could come over and help her get a washing machine gone berserk under control until the plumbers arrived to put it out of its misery. I didn't even see Trent Lott, just a teaser about how pissed off he is at the insurance industry because of how his insurance company is responding to the problems caused him by Hurricane Katrina. I couldn't do much about the washing machine-that-would-take-over-Silverlake but a light bulb did click on in my head! Trent Lott-- pissed off? At the insurance industry?

The key words in that sentence were, of course, "his" and "him." Suddenly, ladies and gentlemen, Trent Lott found himself in a very bizarre situation for an inhabitant of a world known as Inside the Beltway: his interests and those of the people he represents (i.e., his constituents) were ALIGNED. Because God hates George Bush, Katrina had devastated much of the Gulf Coast, wreaking havoc and destroying property and lives. Lott, like so many in that region, had lost his house. His insurance company, like insurance companies do, was trying to out-do the hurricane in a contest to see who could bring more misery into his life. But Trent Lott isn't like most people in Mississippi. He's a senior Republican senator who can stop doing the bidding of lobbyists and other bribe-givers for a few minutes, and give the insurance company back a little of what they have been giving him-- (and his constituents). Now keep in mind that Trent Lott has always been the kind of fella-- the kind of legislator, the kind of Republicrook-- who thinks people are not supposed to do anything to corporations that fuck them over. Ole Trent, like all Republicans are 100% on the side of corporations and against consumers, workers, stakeholders. But this is his nice house in Pascagoula and this was him who was getting screwed by State Farm (not just a bunch of schnooks who vote for him 'cause he hates the coloreds as much as they do).

So the creaky old wheels in my mind started turning (creakily) and I thought, "Wow, what if there was a way to make the interests of those folks who live Inside the Beltway-- you know, the ones who control our lives-- aligned with the interests of the rest of us?" My neighbor, Cynthia, agreed.

Almost all the members of legislatures are millionaires. More than a few U.S. Senators have more than $50 million. Do they feel our pain? Did you look at the Bush Budget that will be routinely rubber-stamped by his pet Congress? (Take a look at the story just below this one for the details, but this is a budget-- and Bush's have been a series of budgets-- that would never be approved by working class or middle class legislators representing the interests of their constituents. These Bush budgets represent the interests of multimillionaires and corporations; no one else.)

So how do you bring the interests of the legislators and their constituents into alignment? You have practically unfettered interaction from the corporations and wealthy to make sure there is no alignment. (You heard about that whole lobbyist thing and the Tom DeLay/Rick Santorum K Street Project, right? That's the system for keeping government perpetually in the hands of Republicans (or-- if you fucking insist-- corporate or "business" Democrats occasionally) by bribing them with gigantic unimaginable amounts of money and goodies in return for ignoring the interests of their constituents. Well, not really ignoring as much as blatantly opposing.

Look who we elect: a bunch of rich, old white men. I'm not saying anything more than rich old white men are over-represented in the halls of our legislatures. There are some really good rich old white men there too-- like Ted Kennedy... and Kerry's a good senator is a noblesse oblige kind of way. Of course Frist, Shelby and DeWine are all incredibly conflicted nightmares from Hell but... Lautenberg is cool. But imagine if election campaigns were publically-financed and we weren't practically asking-- let alone permitting-- our elected representatives to spend most of their time and energy on fund-raising (see: Tom DeLay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney, Rahm Emanuel, Conrad Burns, Jerry Lewis, Richard Pombo, Rick Santorum...). And, while you're in the imagining mood, image if we had representatives whose interests were automatically aligned with their district's citizens because their income was the same average income as that of the people who live in their district? I mean congressional salaries are HUGE ($165,200 year + immense benefits and perks). I mean when you get Republicrooks like John Doolittle (R-CA) and Ole Trent (R-MS) making excuses that bribery should be allowed because they can't be expected to either pay for their own meals or eat in (shudder) a Baja Fresh or a McDonald's (like their constituents do-- or wish they could!) you know the misalignment has gotten out of hand.


2 PM UPDATE: KERRY AND SALAZAR HAVE A GOOD IDEA IN REALIGNMENT: THE DUKE CUNNINGHAM ACT

This is probably mostly a political ploy-- it obviously has no chance of ever passing, no matter which party is in power, let alone with these Republicrooks in control-- but it is actually a really great idea. The Kerry/Salazar proposed legislation would deny taxpayer-funded pensions to members of Congress who are convicted of bribery, conspiracy (I guess that's in there for DeLay) or other serious ethics offenses. I like! Why should we pay millions of dollars to fund cushy retirements-- very cushy retirements-- for convicted criminals like Cunningham? Let's get this passed pronto so it's not ex post facto for Pombo, Ney, Doolittle, Boehner, Hunter, Lewis, Blunt, et al.

ANOTHER-- MUCH WORSE-- REVERSE ROBIN HOOD BUDGET FROM THE DISGRACEFUL ANTI-CHRISTIAN BUSH REGIME

Today the Bush Regime presented its 2007 fiscal year Budget to his rubber stamp Congress for its rubber stamp. It's even more catastrophic than most people expected. Like the overwhelming majority of people who love our country and have read through it, I am absolutely horrified. Clinton made governing look so easy, that the citizens got too mellow and even while we watched Bush's very motivated and salivating thugs stealing the 2000 election, no one took to the streets. We've been paying the price ever since. In fact the whole world has been. And all the while BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GENERATIONAL WEALTH is being created for favored Regime supporters. If you don't understand that the Bush "philosophy" of governance is all about stealing everything and redistributing it all upward, you've missed the whole point of the last 6 years. (Sure, Norquist's idea of drowning government in a bathtub is nice, but it's always been all about the Benjamins for the Bushes-- and Cheney.)

Today the brilliant Bob Scheer did a piece for TRUTHDIG! about the Bush budget called "Take From the Poor, Give to the Military" and although the 7% increase for "The Pentagon"-- or, more to the point, for Bush Regime supporters in the contracting businesses (plus the 3.3% increase for "Homeland Security or, again, more to the point, for Bush Regime supporters in the contracting businesses)-- looks like "the military" is the big gainer from this hideously political budget, the actual big gainers-- as in all things Bush-- are the wealthy and the political and financial backers of this most partisan of all regimes. The losers, of course, are whichever segments of society the predatory right-wing ideologues could find who are weak and "unprotected." There are frighteningly steep cuts in health care, environmental protection, mass transit, agriculture, assistance for the needy and elderly and, of course, for education. (And slimiest of all was Bush's unending mania about destroying Social Security. Though his vile plans were soundly defeated on the field on public opinion, Allan Sloan in today's WASHINGTON POST exposed how the sneaky little bloodsucker still won't leave it alone. Read "Bush's Social Security Sleight of Hand".

Medicaid patients will be forking over higher co-payments and deductibles. College loans will be more costly for students from working and middle class homes. Bye-bye federal aid for child support enforcement. And while you're at it, you ladies getting government assistance, you're just gonna have to work a little bit harder. And rich folks will share not at all in the sacrifice but will reap more benefits to make up for the taxes the wealthy had to pay going all the way back since FDR came along and saved capitalism from Bush-like excesses in the 1920's!

As the fascist pig president prepares to send another $120 BILLION to the ratholes of Iraq and Afghanistan, I listened to a run down of some of the programs singled out for elimination, almost entirely programs for society's most needy, and it nearly broke my heart: food for low-income seniors, assistance for disadvantaged students seeking to finish high school and go to college, preventive healthcare for "under-served populations"... Bush seeks to cut $105 billion out of Medicare, gut the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the National Institute of Health (particularly singling out programs dealing with cancer, blood diseases and heart and lung diseases for the Bush touch). His cuts to Federal education funding-- at every level-- are the biggest in the entire history of our country.

Remember the first responders-- firefighters, policemen, emergency medical services? Cuts across the board for all, from over 50% to 80%. You live in an area with a meth problem? You're on your own, suckers; the programs are eliminated. (This is especially interesting since at least one recent study purports that counties with meth addiction problems are as strong a base for Bush politics as are the religionist fanatics!) But one of my favorite ironies is that he's also trying to cut the Army Corps of Engineers by over 11%-- you know, the men and women trying to fix the mess he made of New Orleans. And speaking of gross Bush hypocrisy, he sure is shoveling a lot of billions towards the lobby-rich military contractor businesses but when it comes to supporting the troops-- more proof that the greatest catastrophe that happened to our nation since the Civil War is spelled B-U-S-H. When it comes to medical care, veterans and their families are treated with the contempt with which the Bush family and their wealthy allies hold all people of modest means. Even enlisted men will suffer, grievously, in the healthcare arena from Bush's hatred of the non-rich as health care enrollment fees double and triple. So called "middle income" veterans ($27,000 to $40,000/year) are kicked out of the VA programs and prescription drugs double for all vets.

I have no doubt the non-existent Republican moderates will do nothing significant to help and I've long given up on the pathetic Democratic minority in either house. But if the Democratic Party can't at least turn this outrageous budget into a winning campaign platform, it is totally time for a complete revamping. You know what... that time passed long ago. But I have another idea for a solution I'll try to remember to mention tomorrow; it's something Trent Lott made me think of.


FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: GEORGE BUSH BLITHELY RIPPING APART OUR SOCIAL FABRIC

Yesterday, the Associated Press put together a list of 141 programs that Bush's reverse Robin Hood Budget will either eliminate out-right or devastate. Watch how your congressman and senator vote on the worst, most harmful and most far-reaching budget in American history.

GREAT NEWS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-- JAMES WEBB IS CHALLENGING GOP NUT GEORGE ALLEN IN VIRGINIA

First the good news: the Virginia U.S. Senate seat held by reactionary Republican George Allen is now in play. Former Reagan Administration Secretary of the Navy James Webb declared his candidacy yesterday. Everyone who comments on the story is sure to mention that Webb is running as a Democrat, not challenging Allen in a Republican primary. And that brings up a worry: how much better would Webb be than Allen. Well, for starters he'd vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader and he'd vote to organize the Senate along Democratic lines so people like Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy and John Kerry will be chairmen of key committees instead of right-wing robots like Grassley, McConnell, Hatch, Lugar, Cochran, Stevens... Tactically, if you're a Democratic Party person first and foremost, you can take comfort in the fact that he will totally energize the electorate in a state that has been trending kind of Democrat lately and that he will be extending the Senate playing field into a state the Repugs thought was "safe." He adds to the whole "fighting Dems" image the party is cultivating which is a plus for many people and not much of a negative for anyone. And this'll force Allen to take more moderate positions and not just cater to his drooling base of religionist nuts, homophobes, xenophobes and racists and will also keep him hard at work in Virginia, not running around the country raising money, etc for a presidential bid in '08, a bid I hope Webb reminds Virginia voters about at every opportunity.

But, more important than any of that tactical political party stuff, Webb is a national defense hawk who is aggressively opposed-- and has always been opposed-- to the neo-conservative Middle East agenda, adopted by the weakest-minded and most utterly unfit "president" ever installed in the White House. However, other than that stuff... well, would he have been the 20th vote for cloture in the Alito debacle? How is he on women's issues? Gay issues? Trade issues? Is he another DINO? I posed the question today to someone in Virginia who was crowing about how great it was that Webb had thrown his hat into the ring on Daily Kos. The answer was great-- and very encouraging:

"Parent" writes that Webb is "a good Democrat with a strong history and that's a good thing.
James Webb however is something truly special, and where Northern Virginia Democrats may be willing to listen to Harris Miller, all Virginians will be willing to listen to James Webb. James Webb was first in his class at Quanico, a member of the legendary Annapolis class of 1968. The winner of a Navy Cross, Silver Star, Two Bronze Stars and Two purple hearts in Viet Nam, he was the only Officer in history to graduate Annapolis, serve in the Military and become Secretary of the Navy." [No doubt the Republican swift boat crowd is already preparing. Whenever these GOP shills hear about heroism, they get out their knives-- and the mass media are always ready to accommodate their vicious and anti-patriotic excesses and partisanship.] "As Secretary of the Navy, he opened up more positions for women than anyone before or since. James Webb was also an early, reasoned opponent of the Iraq war, calling it a 'mousetrap', saying that our soldiers there would be seen as 'targets' not liberators, and asking the question 'Do we want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?' All this before the war began. Webb is an Emmy Award winning journalist with 6 best selling books under his belt, and a list of film credits. He defended Chuck Robb against Oliver North's unfair attacks and John Kerry against the 'Swiftboat' attacks. He is the author of a book called Born Fighting, which chronicles the history of the Scots-Irish who helped to build the nation and
still have a powerful voice in Virginia politics, especially in the Shenandoah.
James Webb also went out on a limb and said the following:

'the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries.'

"There are many statues on the national mall, but there is only one statue of a black man. That statue is in the Viet Nam memorial, and it's there because Secretary Webb fought to put it there.  In fact, Mr. Webb's combat boots from Viet Nam were used to craft the boots on that statue. Northern Virginia, the capital region, Shenandoah, Tidewater, across every region of the Commonwealth Democrats have not been able to get their message heard over the right wing scream machine. Democrats will listen to Harris Miller. All Virginians will listen to James Webb. There's a storm coming, we need to get ready. When James Webb stands up to fight the radical conservatism of George Allen, we have the chance to be ready to support him. I, for one, am dying for the chance."

JOE SHOULD GO-- NED LAMONT'S FIRST FUND-RAISER

I just got back from meeting Ned Lamont. I went because I dislike everything about Lieberman and have since I first heard about him as a sleazy, right wing local pol in Connecticut, long before he became part of a national or international nightmare. I was so sure I was going to be unimpressed with Lamont that I didn't even bother to bring my checkbook to this-- his very first-- fund-raiser. I was so completely impressed that the first thing I did when I got home was rush to the computer to add him to the fledgling DWT ACT BLUE page. (Alas he's not even on with them yet but I'll get one going as soon as Act Blue gets him in their system.)

The last minute e-vite came a few days ago from friends with impeccable progressive cred-- some early (pre-cover of ROLLING STONE) activists in Howard Dean's California state campaign. It was for a hastily put-together fund-raiser for Lamont, who has been planning on being in L.A. months ago on non-political matters. Lamont is an entrepreneurial guy from Greenwich and all most people know about him is that he's taking on the odious Bush-Democrat from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

Yesterday Lamont created a "candidate committee," which isn't the same as declaring but does allow him to start collecting contributions. Liberal activist/Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group Tom Swan is heading it-- a good sign.

The mostly DFA crowd filled the house and Nick and his gracious, friendly wife, Anne and some friends spent time talking with everyone individually before he launched into a great talk about the race. Look, I go to a lot of these candidate meetings. This guy looks great, sounds great and it all seems very kosher. I was a little nervous because all I had read about him was that he was a millionaire businessman. His story is a lot more compelling than that. First of all his a quintessential all-American kind of entrepreneurial guy-- a living embodiment of the best in the American dream. He's as far from a corporate type of Big Business monster as you can be. He completely understands why it's essential for business that reforms like universal health care get hammered out. (He reminded me of Howard Dean when he talked about that.) This guy teaches entrepreneurship in Bridgeport High, a tough inner city school.

Although he was a town selectman, not only is Ned not a politician, he has a vibe that told me that even if he's elected to the U.S. Senate, he'll never become some kind of careerist self-server, but will always look at his role as that of a civil servant and guardian of his constituents' interests.

As soon as he walked in the door, just a few minutes after me and a good 30 minutes before the crowd showed up, I got to chat with him about the issues. The first thing I wanted to get a sense of was how he left about Iraq. I was wary of hearing any double-talk or weasel words. There were none. He went right to Jack Murtha and showed me immediately that not only does he support a plan for withdrawal but that he has a far better grasp of what the war is all about than old-line Democratic "thinkers" like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark (all of whom are still babbling nonsense about "winning," an absurd concept to begin with). Later when he talked to the whole group he contrasted Bush's (latest) approach (shared not just by Lieberman but by even some well-meaning-- if limited-- Democrats) which is basically that the U.S. will step back when "the Iraqis" step up with a more well-reasoned and thought-out approach which is that the Iraqis will step up when-- and not until-- the U.S. starts stepping back in a serious way. "The invasion of Iraq was a colossal foreign policy disaster." That's clear. That's simple. That's what Democrats running for office should all be saying.

He talked a lot about the harmful trend of the Federal Government increasingly intruding into the private lives of American citizens and how that trend has to be turned around. He told us that for him Alito was not a close call. I have no doubt that he saw Alito as much a dangerous threat to American liberty as I did. In fact, he seems like the kind of guy who's going to carefully consider every issue and come up with the right approach across the board-- kind of a polar opposite of Joe Lieberman.


THURSDAY EVENING UPDATE: ACT BLUE JUST ACTIVATED NED LAMONT'S ACT BLUE PAGE

Here's your chance to tell Lieberman what you think of him in language he understands. And at the same time, advance the candidacy of a potentially great, progressive U.S. Senator. It's easy. Start right here.

DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO PULL IT OFF IN NOVEMBER? MAYBE

Looking at the websites of the DCCC-recruited candidates, speaking with local political activists, campaign managers and candidates themselves, I'm getting a sinking feeling that the Democratic Party strategy for November is to let the Republicans defeat themselves. The Inside-the-Beltway Democrats-- the consultants, congressional leaders and professional losers who have authored a series of catastrophic Democratic Party defeats that have brought us the ugliness of the current Regime-- think shining a light on the excesses of the culture of corruption is somehow going to convince voters in red districts to overthrow the existing order.

Yesterday's WASHINGTON POST ran a guardedly optimistic article called "Handful of Races May Tip Control of Congress" by Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza. They site a handful of vulnerable Repugs caught up in the myriad of GOP scandals-- the odious Santorum, Conrad Burns, the hapless and pathetic Mike DeWine in Ohio-- as likely victims. "Not since 1994 has the party in power -- in this case the Republicans -- faced such a discouraging landscape in a midterm election. President Bush is weaker than he was just a year ago, a majority of voters in recent polls have signaled their desire for a change in direction, and Democrats outpoll Republicans on which party voters think is more capable of handling the country's biggest problems. The result is a midterm already headed toward what appears to be an inevitable conclusion: Democrats are poised to gain seats in the House and in the Senate for the first time since 2000. The difference between modest gains (a few seats in the Senate and fewer than 10 in the House) and significant gains (half a dozen in the Senate and well more than a dozen in the House) is where the battle for control of Congress will be fought."

Balz and Cillizza postulate that "what makes the year ahead compelling is the tension between two powerful factors: the broader political environment plainly favors Democrats, but the on-the-ground realities of many races give Republicans an advantage as they seek to preserve their majorities." The on-the-ground realities are what have been disturbing me as well.

Are there enough districts (which haven't been gerrymandered for incumbent protection) in play? (And this is a bi-partisan scandal.) Look, for instance, at my own horribly gerrymandered state of California. Aside from Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who has already plead guilty to taking millions of dollars in bribes and is now cooperating with investigators against "others," there are at least half a dozen entrenched Republican congressmen who may well wind up indicted or even in prison before their hand-picked voters turn them out of office! Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis were in on almost all of Cunningham's bribery schemes-- and more. Cunningham was small potatoes and a clown compared to these two powerful-- and powerfully greedy-- committee chairmen! Neither seems seriously in jeopardy from Democrats; both have more serious worries from law enforcement agencies. Further north in the state Richard Pombo and John Doolittle have clearly been two cogs in the DeLay-Abramoff-K Streetwheel of corruption in Washington. Both have excellent grassroots challengers, respectively Jerry McNerney (who Emanuel is trying to drive out of the race for some clueless shill of his own) and Charlie Brown. But it is yet to be seen if the DCCC, busily depleting its funds on Emanuel's maniacal thirst to drive progressives out of the races, will be able to finance the races against entrenched Republican gut fighters like Doolittle and Pombo-- on their own inhospitable turf. Last time out, only 32 districts were won with less than 55% of the vote-- i.e., not many close calls there.

According to the POST story "Republicans and Democrats have adopted contrasting strategies in the race for the House. Democrats hope to nationalize the elections around the issues of corruption and dissatisfaction with Bush. Republicans want their candidates to run strictly local races. 'Incumbents don't get beat because there's a bad national environment,' said Carl Forti, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). But Joe Gaylord, top political lieutenant to Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) during the 1994 takeover, said Republicans should not underestimate the impact of national tides. 'If you have mechanics without message, you have no motivation," he said. "The danger is in a bad year, as the Democrats would remember from 1994, is that you have supporters who stay home.'" Can the rough-and-tumble Rahm Emanuel, a man who never lets ethical considerations stand in the way of anything, pull off a '94 Gingrich-style power-grab? The POST says the Dems, have done a good job at recruitment-- highly debatable in terms of the House until after the first Tuesday in November-- and at fund-raising (presumably the funds Emanuel is squandering trying to wreck the challenges from grassroots, progressive and anti-war Democrats). Well, the DSCC has raked in a lot of dough. (Yippeee, I guess, given the inherently corrupt and sickening anti-democratic-- and anti-Democratic-- way we finance our elections.) Emanuel's DCCC hasn't done nearly as well as the DSCC-- or, more importantly, as the NRCC. And, in any case, the right wing party holds a $28.5 advantage over the Democratic Party.

The POST seems to accept the professional Beltway November outlook: "the number of genuinely competitive House races ranges from a low of 25 or 30 to as high as 40 in the most optimistic Democratic scenarios." They think the Democrats' best chances are in open GOP seats (being vacated by Kolbe in Arizona, Beauprez in Colorado and Nussle in Iowa), which would be a completely pathetic scenario were this a campaign based on ideas and solutions, but, under the current circumstances, not an unrealistic scenario at all. The POST also points out the Dems should be able to oust DeLay and Ney since they are so tangled up in the Abramoff (and other) scandals and then throws in a couple of vulnerable Indiana congressloons (Sodrel and Hostettler). If the Dems can't do better than that in this political environment, with as many as 60 Republicans tainted in the worst scandals since the administration of Ulysses S Grant and after 6 years of Bush's failed governance, it should finally be apparent to progressives that the current Democratic Party has utterly failed as a vehicle for our national aspirations (and minimal needs).

Today's ROLL CALL features a story called "Democrats 'Recalibrating' Message Strategy" which shows a Democratic Party still reeling from internal fissures. "National Democratic leaders remain engaged in strategic talks over how and when to unveil their 2006 campaign platform, with recent discussions focused on laying out the party agenda in installments rather than all at once." No doubt the national aspirations of progressives, represented by the popularly-elected grassroots-oriented Howard Dean, are still not completely subsumed by the more modest goals-- i.e., personal career-preservation-- of the Beltway slime who actually control the poor little Party.

“I think we are recalibrating,” said one senior House Democratic staffer. “We are reconsidering the strategy. It’s not clear that we have to go out with a bold, comprehensive package.” God forbid! The very concept entailed in a word like "bold" is anathema to careerist party officeholders. They haven't stopped Bush from instituting anything-- and even derailing his destruction of Social Security, which many treacherous Democratic scumbags were/are willing to sit down and "negotiate" on, had far more to do with genuine grassroots revulsion at Bush's plans than with anything the Democrats as a party were able to accomplish.

ROLL CALL mentions that "Democratic leaders have been huddling for more than a year on the message, slogan and agenda the party will embrace as they try to reclaim House and Senate majorities. Led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Congressional Democrats unveiled their theme for the cycle— Together, America can do better— late last year and unveiled a major focal point of their platform in January when they called for a more honest government free of corruption and influence peddling."

Well, that sounds nice and cautiously non-controversial-- and probably easy enough for Rove to overcome in his sleep. "A senior Democratic aide," continues the ROLL CALL piece, "said the party is still split over some aspects of the agenda, including both timing and substance. This staffer said House and Senate leaders, as well as national party officials, have never seen completely eye to eye on the planning... Early draft copies of the Democratic platform have consisted of a half-dozen items, but leadership is now talking about narrowing it to two or three broader topics with specific policy proposals attached. Among the individual initiatives are energy independence within the decade, more access to affordable health care and higher education, stronger national security and an ethical government."

They're keeping it all under wraps because they don't know how to fight on the field of ideas. They're a pathetic, leaderless flock of geese. Emanuel at the DCCC and Schumer at the DSCC think playing political games-- which they almost always lose anyway-- are easier than a battle of philosophies that would convince Americans what is already apparent, that the Far Right has captured the GOP and that their ideas are harmful and destructive and un-American. They think it is better to hold off telling anyone what the party platform is "until closer to Election Day in order to avoid having to weather months of Republican criticism of their proposals, as well as minimizing internal strife between conservative and liberal Democrats."

The one sane voice in the Democratic Party hierarchy, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, sees this whole debate over timing for the bullshit it is. “I’m not too worried about the timing, given that Gingrich came out with his message in September of the election year. Whatever we end up doing I think will be OK. The only thing I think we’ll worry about [is] the time it takes to get people on the same page.”
And with a non-authoritarian non-top-down party like the Democrats, that will take more time than it takes the Republicans to just issue marching orders to their mindless stepford candidates.


WEDNESDAY MORNING UPDATE: OR MAYBE NOT

As if in answer to my question, a whole slew of foot-in-mouth disease Beltway Dems decided to parade their grotesque stupidity for NEW YORK TIMES readers today. Many people argue that the TIMES' Adam Nagourney is the all in all least intelligent political writer in America, but that's no excuse for elected Democratic officials to try to outdo him in the race to the bottom of the barrel. Try this on for an into: "Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November." And what do our careerist vehicles for progressive change have to say? Well, with vehicles like Chris Dodd, who needs Republican spokesmen? "We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about." Does that mean it's time for him to resign? Or time for progressives to make the vehicle work better-- a lot better?

FEINGOLD EXPOSES BUSH'S LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (AGAIN). GONZALES' NEWEST EXPLANATION FOR BUSH'S LAW-BREAKING: HE ISN'T A LAWYER

Besides giving us his word of "honor" (rotflmao) that he'd protect us from the vastly powerful human-animal cloning industry, Bush told a helluva pacel of lies last week when he addressed the nation. Although, of course, Bush will never deign to be questioned by any elected representatives of the people-- until he's impeached, I guess-- today the Senate Judiciary Committee got as close as they could. They grilled that despicable little weasel Bush has as his Attorney General, Alberto "the torturer" Gonzales. Yesterday here at DWT Helen explained why we can't trust Gonzales, a compulsive liar and sneak, to investigate this Regime, and today Senator Russ Feingold demonstrated it for the whole country-- or at least for anyone who was watching the hearings.

Among Bush's many lies and distortions was his patently absurd claim that "previous presidents" had used the same "constitutional authority" he has been trying to claim to justify his unauthorized, unconstitutional spying on American citizens. Feingold knows first hand what a slippery character Gonzales is-- and that besides torturing detainees, he's also adept at torturing the English language-- so he was very clear and very precise with him in front of the cameras. Going right to the heart of Bush's blatant lie, Feingold started with a very straightforward "Do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed?"

After some uncomfortable "ums," Gonzales, who had been sitting there while Bush was lying his ass off last week at the SOTU, hemmed and hawed some more. "None come to mind, Senator. But maybe... I would be happy to look to see whether or not that’s the case." Isn't he sweet. Feingold had already checked for himself though. He would just like this scoundrels to face up to their own pack of lies. He followed up by asking Gonzales if he could interpret his answer as a "no" unless Gonzales got back to him with an answer. Gonzales' non-answer: "I can't give you an answer."

Earlier Gonzales has stonewalled Dianne Feinstein when she asked about the authority for Bush to implement illegal propaganda aimed at the American electorate (a clear violation of Section 503 of the National Security Act which mandates that "no covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence the United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media." Since this is the very heart of the Bush governance philosophy and how Rove has been operating since he got control of the domestic policies of the United States, Gonzales was put in a tight corner. "Senator, this will probably be my response to all of your questions of these kind of hypotheticals. Questions as to whether or not— can Congress pass a statute that is in tension with the President’s constitutional authority? Those are very, very difficult questions, and for me to answer those questions sort of off the cuff, I think would not be responsible." Another non-answer from Mr. Weasel, the Attorney General. Before that he had told Feinstein that "the president is not a lawyer," when she pointed out that Bush had deliberately deceived the American public when he said "a wiretap requires a court order". He may not be a lawyer-- obviously he doesn't have the intelligence to have gotten into a law school, let alone the stamina or work ethic to have passed even the Texas bar exam-- but he sure has millions of dollars worth of high-priced attorneys working for him-- including the clown who was on the witness stand.


MONDAY NIGHT UPDATE: WHY IS OUR GOVERNMENT SPYING ON US?

If you were offended that I referred to Gonzales as "a despicable little weasel" (apologies to all weasels) and that I pointed out that "The Torturer" also tortures our language, you must have missed the hearings today. After answering Joe Biden's questions about eavesdropping on Americans who have nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda with a flat "Sir, I can't give you absolute assurance"... well if you listen to Al Franken on Air America, you are familiar with the expression "weasel words."
Anyway, he then went on the show that his contempt for his adopted country crosses party lines; he just hates America, Republicans as well as Democrats. Questioned by GOP Senator Arlen Specter he continued to evade and to lie just like he did to Feingold and Feinstein. Specter's jaw dropped when Gonzales sprayed this bomb at the committee hearing late today: "We’ve never asserted that FISA has been amended. We’ve always asserted that our interpretation of FISA, which contemplates another statute and we have that here in the authorization to use force, those complement each other. this is not a situation where FISA has been overwritten or FISA has been amended. That’s never been our position."

Stunned, Specter could only say "That just defies logic and plain English." Well, if Gonzales proved one thing today it is that plain English is totally not his forte. Perhaps if we try this again we should consider sending him down to Gitmo for a little softening up-- only using the methods he approved, of course-- or, if that isn't feasibly, how about a Honduran interpreter?


TUESDAY UPDATE: SPECTER GOIN' FOR THE HIP HOP VOTE WITH HIS OLD SKOOL ATTACK ON GONZALES?

I'm not makin' this up. Maybe the WASHINGTON POST did though. "When Gonzales argues that the Constitution gives the president undisputable powers to conduct warrantless surveillance despite a statute aimed at requiring him to seek court approval, such an interpretation 'is not sound,' Specter said in the interview. '. . . He's smoking Dutch Cleanser.'" Oh man... I gotta call KRS-One and tell him about this!

MOST GEORGIA REPUBLICAN STATE SENATORS WANT RALPH REED TO WITHDRAW SO HIS CORRUPTION PROBLEMS DON'T SINK THE WHOLE GOP TICKET

In Georgia the presiding officer of the State Senate is the Lieutenant Governor and this year the race for that office has been a big deal, primarily because of the candidacy of former Georgia Republican Party State Chairman and Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed. But the interest in Reed isn't because of his two former jobs per se but because how he peddled the influence he gained from holding them. And that Little Ralphie did with his pal indicted/convicted Republican sleaze-master Jack Abramoff. Abramoff admitted paying Lil' Ralphie over $4 million in order to get him to bamboozle dumb-as-doornails right-wing "Christian" voters to help with the fleecing of American Indian tribes in a pointless series of casino turf battles-- pointless except for the huge payments extracted from the Indians for Abramoff, Reed and their GOP circle. Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon (an ex-DeLay aide who has also plead guilty) have no respect for Christianity-- the real thing with Jesus, not the political hate-based crap purported to be Christianity by the likes of Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, George Bush and Fred Phelps-- and even referred to the suckers who Reed was bringing into their scheme as "the wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."

But Ralph decided to tough it out and keep running-- it is Georgia we're talking about here, not exactly a bastion of clean government or even an aware, educated electorate. Yesterday, however, the biggest newspaper in the state, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, reported that the overwhelming majority of the Republicans in the State Senate signed a letter to Reed asking him to withdraw from the race for the good of the Party and the state.

"Twenty-one Republican state senators on Friday called for Ralph Reed to withdraw from the contest for lieutenant governor, declaring that his ties to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff could jeopardize the re-election of Gov. Sonny Perdue and the rest of the GOP ticket. 'For the good of the Republican Party, for the good of Georgia, we encourage Ralph Reed to withdraw from this race,' stated the petition signed by the senators, all of whom support Reed's GOP rival, state Sen. Casey Cagle of Gainesville."

Reed told the senators they could kiss his ass and Reed's far right lunatic campaign manager, Jared Thomas, accused the senators of short-circuiting the party process. The newspaper report points out that "an open, written call for the departure of an established, well-funded candidate from the GOP primary by nearly two-thirds of the Senate Republican caucus is unprecedented— and reflects growing worries within GOP ranks about the local impact of an expanding corruption scandal in Washington."

One of the first senators to sign, Chip Pearson of Dawsonville, explained that "We've got our own politics in Georgia we have to deal with on a daily basis. "We don't need to be dealing with national politics in Georgia races." [Editor's note: By "national politics," State Senator Pearson meant the Republican culture of corruption and sleaze that has enveloped Washington and is flushing down the toilet the careers of prominent Republicrooks like Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Jerry Lewis, Bob Ney, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, John Doolittle, Roy Blunt, Conrad Burns... and, of course, Little Ralphie Reed.]

PART OF THE RIGHT-WING RELIGION IS TO HATE GOVERNMENT-- SO NOW THEY WANT TO SELL OFF ITS FUNCTIONS TO THE HIGHEST BIDDERS

Looks like Helen is back! She helped out with explaing why Alberto Gonzales is not to be trusted (below) and now she's put together this report on how the Repugs are starting to sell off the national infrastructure. I know she's also working on a report about what's going on with the effort to root out the sleazy DeLay pawn in her own congressional district in upstate New York. Look out Sue Kelly!

I know there is a frenzy of greed going on but this is too much. Selling off our highways to foreign countries for their profit? It seems that we are becoming a rental society, and foreign countries our landlords as well as our banks.

There is an article in the NY Times today about a 157 mile toll road, known as "Main Street of the Midwest," that may soon be leased to a Spainish-Australian company for 75 years. How weird is this?

They would pay $3.85 billion for it, be responsible for maintaining it and keep all the profits from the tolls. If the Indiana legislature approves this, it would be the biggest highway privatization deal in history. It already passed in the Indiana House and will soon be voted on in the Senate.

Some Democrats are objecting ("Hello, Democrats" - anybody home?). Some are actually saying it is bad policy to sell off public assets for private profits. The company should break even in about 17 years. Then they will earn around $21 BILLION in profit over the next 58 years of the lease. Nice deal! Not for the citizens of Indiana, however. As the House Democratic leader said, "That is money that could go to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren." Citizens will also find the toll fees rising, quite steeply I would imagine. The Repugs says that there would be limits on toll increases and, get this: if we ever get into a war with Australia, we can take the road back right away!

Private toll roads are "catching on." The Chicago Skyway has already been turned over to the same Spanish-Australian company for the next 99 years. And in Europe, this is already popular.

And guess what else they say? Drivers would benefit from "having some private-sector discipline." Good service at a reasonable price!

What else will be turned over to the private sector? FEMA? The Army? The Post Office? The Department of Motor Vehicles? Just think how much better off we'll be when everything is run for profit, pocketed by a foreign nation. I mean, what'll they do next, sell off the internet??

WHAT'S ALL THIS SPYIN' HULLABALOO ABOUT ANYWAYS? IS SOMEONE SPYIN' ON US AND IF THEY ARE WON'T THAT GONZALES FELLA GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT?

Well, if you haven't been paying close attention-- and now that the big ball game is over-- as a matter of fact, someone has been spying on us and that someone is the odious Regime of the (not quite legally elected) President of The United States (of America). Today's WASHINGTON POST has a really exhaustive look at the whole awful mess. Basically, as has been reported for several weeks, all the thousands of manpower hours have been a huge waste of time and resources. All of Bush's spying and eavesdropping has yielded nothing at all, at least nothing "pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use. Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as 'terrorist surveillance' and summed it up by declaring that 'if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why.' But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no."

Few people think this could possibly impact on them or anyone they know. They're wrong. If you ever read my other blog, the Around The World Blog you may be aware how impressed I was with Anwar, the guy who drove us all around Bali for a couple of weeks earlier this year. In fact, I was so impressed, that Friday Anwar and I concluded negotiations for a little tourist enterprise we are now partners in. I had my bank wire him a sizable amount of money in Bali. As I was doing it, it occurred to me that his first name, Mohamed, might trigger some automatic mindless scrutiny. I don't know about you but, although I have nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda, I don't fancy untrustworthy, unintelligent authoritarian Mayberry Machievellis like a Bush or a Gonzales listening in on my phone conversations.

"The Bush administration refuses to say-- in public or in closed session of Congress-- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000. The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears. Successive stages of filtering grow more intrusive as artificial intelligence systems rank voice and data traffic in order of likeliest interest to human analysts. But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, 'wash out' most of the leads within days or weeks. The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush's circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged 'reasonable' if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable. Other officials said the disclosures might shift the terms of public debate, altering perceptions about the balance between privacy lost and security gained."

The loudest defender of Bush's illegal spying also happens to be the Regime's most consistent liar and probably the most deceitful person to ever work in the Executive Branch, Cheney. He lied to a TV audience via CNN to claim that illegal eavesdropping "has saved thousands of lives." That, of course-- like most of what Cheney says-- is a bold-faced lie.

Bush and Gonzales and Cheney-- all of whom have shown repeatedly how completely untruthful they are-- are asking they we trust them. If someone like this says "Just trust us," all alarm bells should start ringing off the hook. This is the crew that started on a not quite right foot by conspiring with electronic voting machines to steal the 2000 election from Al Gore. Having gotten away with that, they've been upping the ante ever since! Today on NBC's increasingly less credible "Meet the Press," Arlen Specter, senior Republican senator from PA and head of the Judiciary Committee (which starts an investigation into the Bush Regime's illegal spying tomorrow), strongly rejected one of the Regime’s legalistic justifications for the domestic surveillance program. After being challenged by the Regime propaganda operative, who parroted the Gonzales/Cheney/Bush nonsense about how the authorization to attack Iraq includes the right to spy on Americans, Specter shot back: "I believe that contention is very strained and unrealistic. The authorization for the use of force doesn’t say anything about electronic surveillance. The issue was never raised with the Congress. And there is a specific statute on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says flatly that you can’t undertake that kind of surveillance without a court order."

I was able to roust DWT recalcitrant team member Helen away from some ball game she was watching today to get her to explain how the concepts of "trust" and "Alberto Gonzales" are two twains that will never meet. Here's Helen's report:

A few years ago, the Justice Department shut down an investigation of Jack Abramoff, related to some shenanigans on Guam. The U.S. Attorney for Guam caught wind of "lobbying fees" being paid to Abramoff, to the tune of $324,000. The money was being sent to him through a lawyer in $9,000 increments in order to avoid detection. Abramoff had been hired by judges on the island to protect their turf: they wanted to stop proposed legislation in Congress that would create a court above them and thereby reduce their power and influence. The U.S. attorney, Frederick Black, had held this position for twelve years, however, it was a "temporary" position. He had a reputation for integrity. Oh uh...we know how anyone with integrity fares in this administration, don't we?

At this time, Black was investigating the Governor's office for corruption. Specifically, the Governor appeared to be diverting funds for his own personal gain. The Governor had also hired Abramoff, who claimed he had contacts in the Department of Justice who could get rid of Black.

Black asked a section of the DOJ for assistance in investigating Abramoff, as he was pursuing the investigation of the Governor and his resources were limited. Apparently, the DOJ passed on this information to Gonzales, who was then White House counsel. Even though the DOJ refused to assist Black, he convened a Grand Jury, which subpoenaed the Abramoff contract with the judges. The very next day, viola! The Bush Administration announced that Black would be replaced as U.S. Attorney on Guam! A remarkable coincidence! This type of demotion has been known to happen before in this regime when it does not like what is going on. Black was demoted to Assistant U.S. Attorney on Guam.

The DOJ then sent an Assistant U.S. District Attorney to Guam, who barred Black from doing any further investigation of corruption cases. He also demanded that all new cases be approved by him-- a very unusual procedure. Thus Black's case with Abramoff was stopped in its tracks.

Apparently the FBI and the DOJ Inspector General are now looking into the circumstances of Black's demotion, which were shady, to say the least. Chuck Shumer and another Senator are advocating for an independent counsel as the DOJ itself is far too involved. Exactly who interfered to stop Black's investigation of Abramoff? Who was responsible for the Administration's decision to replace Black? Did the White House help Abramoff out? How can the public be confident in the DOJ investigation of this matter when Gonzales himself may be a target along with his deputies, former White House colleagues, his predecessor and his boss?

Trust them?

THAT'S A RELIGION???-- A GUEST BLOG ABOUT ALL THE CARTOON & RIOTING HUBBUB

Two of my oldest friends, Sandy Pearlman (1965) and "Gracie" (1967) warned me about a breaking story early last week. I didn't pay it enough attention because it seemed so utterly silly to me: some primitive religionist fanatics acting like children far, far away.

This morning "Gracie" suggested I read an editorial in the TELEGRAPH called "Democracy Has a Gun To Its Head" and the L.A. TIMES' "Drawn Into A Religious Conflict". After some discussion I asked him to do a guest column for DWT. Being a public figure and a celebrated writer-- you're about to see why-- he asked me to use his old Harvard nom de camp. "I don't want to die the Death of a Thousand Cuts," he IM-ed. "These people are lunatics!!!" So with no further ado, I give you... "Gracie"...

I see that certain politicians have issued what may turn out to be the most craven statements of their careers (Bill Clinton, Jack Straw, et al) indicating that they feel the pain of the Muslim rioters who are burning embassies and threatening death to those responsible, in any way whatsoever, for the publication of some not-very-good cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. It's a sin to depict he who is presumably without sin (yeah!), and it is proscribed for Muslims to do so. Now it seems to be a sin for everyone else as well. Apparently, commission of this sin by non-Muslims (!) is rightfully met by the retaliations of mobs shrieking of fire and blood to be heaped upon all those responsible, even unto the destruction of property (and lives) belonging to the governments of the artists who created the cartoons. This cannot stand.

One is reminded of those stories in the local section of the newspaper, wherein a fight breaks out in the pre-dawn hours of a Burger King, and someone is shot and killed by a gunman who justifies the act with such defenses as "He gave me the evil eye," or "he dissed my bitch." Murder is not, by our dear old Western standards, the remedy for these humiliations, but these killings are few, don't attract much attention, and are understood to be some primitive sort of revenge for emasculating the perp, using superstition and macho pride as an excuse. The law, in those countries whose culture derives from Enlightenment principles, does not allow for the Superstition Defense in cases of violence nor for paralyzing threats of revenge and murder by mobs. That is as it should be.

The unspeakable American State Dept. issued an opinion that "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief." Well, unacceptable to whom? And what are to be the penalties for this unacceptable behavior? It is unacceptable to fart in a nice restaurant, but there are no penalties other than social. Penalties, on the other hand, should be, and are, available against physical demonstrations like rioting and threatening death to the offenders. But when it comes to the scary mob in London promising a repeat of the bus and subway bombings of last summer? That's OK, according to British government official Jack Straw. Jack knows how irretrievably you’ve been damaged upon learning of the existence of these cartoons.

Bill Clinton as well understands your pain at being confronted by such unacceptable drawings. What a pussy.

More rational by far is the statement by a Member of Parliament named Mr. Winnick, who acknowledged that the cartoons were offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims, but added “it is totally unacceptable that, on British soil, there should be thugs demonstrating for people to be beheaded and actually glorifying the atrocities of July 7. It is to be hoped that prosecutions will follow very quickly indeed." Winnick added that those responsible who were temporarily in Britain should be deported. Bravo.

Bravo as well to the German political leader who made it clear that at the heart of the civilization of Western Europe is freedom of expression, perhaps the most treasured of "civilized" values. One hopes that sensible, non-slavering politicians in Europe (it is too much to hope for in America) will continue to make it clear that governments facing destructive rampages by outraged Muslims can be expected to respond, not in kind, but in declarations and actions of support for free speech and free expression. Those who do not care to live under such governments are welcome to leave at any time and had better consider their possible departure quite seriously; because if fanatics bring destruction in the name of their god or prophet or whatever-the-fuck into the cities of Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Scandinavia, etc., then they are bad citizens, and should be sent to a place where their sentiments have greater resonance among their fellows than in the West. Such as prison, or Saudi Arabia. (Or, they can just be killed and boiled, like those chickens who won't lay eggs in Pride and Prejudice, but I know it makes me one of them to say that, so I won't.)

That's for starters. One would like to hear from at least one American politician, blogger, or Wise Man, NOT merely that we feel the pain that descends upon Muslims when they hear about a cartoon, but that they'd better cool it, because nations created according to Enlightenment principles will not tolerate the injection of despotic, medieval, theocratic, destructive political activities in their midst.

One is reminded of the very hilarious 1955 B-movie "Cult of the Cobra," wherein snoopy soldiers on some Pacific island put on schmattas (like Michael Jackson going to the market in Dubai) and infiltrate a religious ceremony featuring a cobra in a basket which turns into a beautiful priestess (Faith Domergue) upon hearing the appropriate chants. Some dumb American shoots off a flash bulb, there is a riot, the temple is burned, and the surviving soldiers are hustled back to their little lives in New York. Following them, however, is the enchanting/enchanted priestess herself, who seduces the disrespectful soldiers one at a time, turns into a cobra when she gets them alone, fatally envenomates them, and then leaves thru a slightly cracked-open window. Towards the finale, one survivor has this process figured out, and hauls his girlfriend into a taxi to rescue the other survivor from the fangs of Faith; his angry companion wants to know why he's urging on the cab driver so vehemently that she can barely put her makeup on, and so he tells her this story: "Well, when we were stationed on......and I guess we desecrated their religion, so the Cobra In Chief is back here killing us all." Astonished, the hero's girlfriend stares at him, and exclaims "THAT's a religion???"

My sentiments exactly; in other words, keep it as you will, but kindly do us the courtesy of keeping it to yourselves, out of sight.


MONDAY MORNING UPDATE

Gracie sent along an article from THE GUARDIAN for us all to read. These primitive folks get so incensed with all their superstitious nonsense. At least when that artist put the image of Christ in a jar of urine all the far right Christian nutcases did was stage a coup and give us 8 years of George W, Bush and the destruction of American democracy; who could have handled a bunch of rioting Christian fundies?

VICIOUS BARE-KNUCKLED FIGHT TO THE DEATH AMONG REPUBLICANS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA-- AND IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT

Today RJB over at WORDS HAVE POWER has a great diary up called "Mud in the Water- CA-50," about the race for the seat formerly occupied by disgraced Republican cog in DeLay's wheel of massive DC corruption, Duke Cunningham. While the dozen vile Republicans slander each other and tear each other apart like a pack of mad dogs who smell raw meat-- and let's be real, for a dying Republican congressional caucus, that's all that's left, a few more months of bribery and stealing whatever isn't nailed down-- the good government/ reform-minded campaign of Francine Busby is rolling up all the contributions and winning the overwhelming support, not just of Democrats and independents but even of moderate, decent Republicans who are sick and fed up with the DeLays, Neys, Cunninghams, Bushes, Roves, Libbys, Cheneys... the whole grotesque menagerie.

The mud seems to pit the extreme ultra neo-Nazi right-wing lunatic candidates against the merely extreme ultra right-wing lunatic candidates. A widely circulated anonymous hit piece-- probably from the vicious and crazed Howard Kaloogian, but who knows with this crew?-- savages conservative ex-congressloon Brian Bilbray, pointing out that he's not as far right as is acceptable and that he has a history of corruption. (LOL!! He was a Republican congressman. "History of corruption!" Are they kidding? Have they never read about how Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and George Bush have been running Washington in the last few years?) The other typical GOP-style hit piece went after the poor old far right codger, Bill Morrow, pointing out that he has committed a capital offense among the over-the-cliff extremists: he may secretly be in favor of stem cell research (as are over 80% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans).

No one will ever know for sure who sent out the attack pieces but everyone agrees it smells like the desperate wingnut Howard Kaloogian. Bilbray won't say who he thinks is doing it but he says he's pretty sure it's a Repug. No shit, Sherlock! You can do the ACT BLUE thing for Francine Busby right here (<----- 7 words back there).

CREEPY MOMENT OF THE WEEK: C.W. BILL YOUNG ABANDONS WIFE TO THE TENDER MERCIES OF THE JACKBOOTED FASCIST THUGS

It was creepy enough when Cindy Sheehan was dragged out of the House of Representatives before the babbling chimp made his pathetic SOTU speech. But then I started wondering why whichever Republican schnook hires the Capitol Police Chief decided on some nut-case authoritarian with a Hitler mustache. And then I started thinking about Beverly Young, the wife of C.W. Bill Young, an 18 term right-wing fossil who is the longest serving Repug in the House. I don't know Bev's age (CW's 76) but I do know that even right-wing loons like these two don't deserve to be treated like helpless victims of the police state that Young has been dutifully involved in building (he got a 9-- out of 100-- on the ProgressPunch rate-o-meter, with a particularly abysmal voting record as it pertains to the 17 subcategories making up the War & Peace ratings (CW only gets a .88-- not quite a 1 out of 100) and of course he has a zero on gay rights, human rights, and... freedom of speech. But all C.W.'s fans and detractors already know he's one of the most reactionary assholes in Congress. The thing that really creeps me out is that when the gestapo Capitol Police dragged away poor old Mrs. Young for inappropriate apparel, he just stayed and watch Bush read and stumble through the pathetic content-less speech. I mean unless C.W. has a special stake in making sure Bush would drive a spike through the heart of the burgeoning animal-human cloning industry, don't you think he should have left with his fine, patriotic damsel? I mean... gross, no?

THE BRAINS, A COOL BAND FROM GEORGIA, ONCE DID A SONG CALLED "MONEY CHANGES EVERYTHING." THEY SURE HAD THAT RIGHT!

Going into the November midterm elections, the burning question is whether or not Rove and Diebold can overcome a daunting and growing 12% preference among American voters for Democrats in congressional races. No one knows the answer, of course, but "experts" always say to follow the money.

I've been pretty pissed off to see Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC systematically putting contributions from rank and file Democratic contributors into primary races to smother grassroots, anti-war and progressive candidates. And in some cases, he's even recruited Republicans, who change their registation and make believe they are Democrats so they can knock out the progressive candidates Emanuel abhors and fears, clearing the way for the re-election of the corrupt, corporate Republicans this sack of sleaze feels so cozy and comfortable with.

Studying the just-released cash-on-hand figures in congressional raises paints a very mixed picture. Entrenched incumbents, even ones on the verge of indictment like Jerry Lewis (R-CA), or ones with questionable ties to DeLay and his whole operation, like David Dreier (R-CA), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), and Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), have sucked up millions of dollars in dubious contributions from... well, let's be honest here-- from businesspeople looking for favors and willing to bribe sleazy officials to get our tax dollars into their pockets. Dreier, for example, who was the only California incumbent to come close to losing his seat in 2004, has amassed a war chest of over $3,000,000 to duke it out with local businessman Russ Warner in their suburban L.A. district. (Dreier has to fight so hard, not because it has become known that he is another Republican homophobic closet queen but because it has become known that he and his boyfriend/chief of "staff"-- who is the highest paid staffer of any congressman-- have been taking lovely vacations all over the world at the taxpayers' expense, LOTS of them. Oh, and because the policies he pushes are atrocious and at varience to the wishes of his district-- although they are popular in Texas, which explains why David Dreir has voted with Tom DeLay a whopping 96% of the time, an astounding figure for a congressman claiming to represent a moderate suburban district in California!)

It is also hard to believe that Jerry Lewis will get to serve out his next term-- since he will probably be serving a prison sentence for bribery and corruption. A close look at his sleazy operation is proving that his junior partner Randy "Duke" Cunningham was just a piker in comparison. Yet Lewis has sucked in over a million and a half dollars for his campaign-- in a district that is considered to be among the dozen safest Republican areas in the whole U.S.! (A report on this district is being thoroughly researched as we speak.)

Mark Foley, another Republican closet queen who is addicted to voting against human rights for gay people has more in common with Dreier than... well, you know. Both are in the top 5 among incumbents in the entire House of Representatives when it comes to fund-raising for November's election. The execrable Foley has thus far managed to squirrel away almost two and a half million dollars and, believe me, this money is not coming to him from local Florida admirers in $20 and $50 checks. This key ally of indicted Republican crime boss Tom DeLay gets over 90% of his PAC money from business groups who want "special treatment." Other crooks with inordinately large campaign warchests on hand (all around a million and a half or more each) include Tom DeLay, of course, Clay Shaw (R-FL), Tom Davis III (VA), Joe Barton (TX), Nancy Johnson (CT), Don Young (AK)... This is pretty prohibitive for challengers and goes a long way towards explaining why incumbency is the best predictor of electoral victory.

One challenger, though, who is far from daunted by this is former Congressman Nick Lampson, who has gotten the most contributions of anyone callenging a sitting congressman anywhere in America, over $1 million. That's because Nick is running against the GOP Mafia's Capo de Tutti Capi himself, DeLay. The only other challenger with over a million dollars on hand is a DCCC-backed state senator in Florida, Ron Klein, who is taking on the ethically-challenged Clay Shaw. Klein is being pushed big time by the Inside-the-Beltway Dems. Aside from these two there are only 10 Democratic challengers (not counting open seats) who have even a quarter million dollars in cash on hand at this point-- and several of them are facing tough primary fights with grassroots and anti-war activists (and one of these Democrats, Juan Vargas, is actually challenging a solid progressive hero, Bob Filner, in a intra-party contest that seems to be based only on ethnicity and on Vargas' personal ambitions!)

The 3 Democrats running in Connecticut, (Diane Farrell v Shays, Joseph Courtney v Simmons, and Chris Murphy v Johnson) are all doing pretty well in the money department, as are Lois Murphy in Pennsylvania, Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana, Patricia Madrid in New Mexico, Francine Busby in California, and the DCCC-recruited Heath Shuler in North Carolina.

You look at the massive corruption scandals in the Republican-controlled congress, the abuse of power in the Bush Regime and with their legislative allies, the polling results showing how soured people are on the Republicans and how little trusted they are, and you have to think November is going to be a great election for Democrats, maybe even a tsunami. But with a horribly corrupt DCCC Chairman, too many weak candidates, poor funding, too many seats with no challengers, and far too many Democrats who have no grasp of the burning issues of the day and are just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for the Republicans to self-destruct, there is no reason for unbridled optimism. (Kos, though, does have a more upbeat read today. He sees "a great early picture for Democrats in the battle for the House. We have more challengers, better-financed candidates in open seats, and better-financed candidates in marginal seats." I sure hope he's right and I'm wrong.)

WAKING FROM OUR COLLECTIVE STATE OF DELUSION-- PAUL KRUGMAN, RUSS FEINGOLD & MAXINE WATERS LEAD THE WAY

Yesterday, Russ Feingold did a diary for DAILY KOS called "Pre-1776 Mentality". It probably won't get MSM coverage, nor have Congresswoman Maxine Water's pre-SOTU plainspoken comments about why Congress should be getting more serious about impeaching Bush. "His message tonight will not deal honestly with the mistakes that he's made. And I believe that the latest revelations about him and his spying on American citizens-- no matter how he tries to frame it-- are impeachable offenses. I believe that this president is not only spying on American citizens in the way that he's describing it, but to indicate in any shape form or fashion that he's been authorized by Congress to do it on the vote that was taken after 9-11 is plain dishonest. And further to try to imply that he's supported by the Constitution of the United States is even more dishonest. And so, I think that this issue that he's been caught red-handed on is really typical of who he is, how he handles this presidency, and what his leadership is all about: spying and lying. And I think it is important for us to understand that all of the other issues that we're going to talk about today - and particularly the war in Iraq - will continue to exemplify how he has lied and misled the American public."

Senator Feingold, currently the consistent Democratic presidential front-runner in netroots polls, is barely more tolerant of the Bush Regime's rampant criminality after he heard him deliver the SOTU message. "I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on.  It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause?  All for violating the law?

"The President and his administration continue their spin and media blitz in attempts to defend the fact that they broke, and continue to break, the law.  Their weak and shifting justifications for doing so continue.  The latest from the President seems to be that basically the FISA law, passed in 1978,
is out of date. His decision that he can apparently disregard "old law" fits the pattern with the President and his administration.  He's decided to disregard a statute (FISA) and the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) by continuing to wiretap Americans' phone calls and emails without the required warrant, while at the same time claiming powers of the presidency that do not exist. (Perhaps he feels the Constitution is too "old," as well.)  This administration reacts to any questions about spying on American citizens by saying that those of us who stand up for our rights and freedoms are somehow living in a 'pre-September 11th, 2001 world.'

" In fact, the President is living in a pre-1776 world.

"Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America and fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.
   
"Many of you saw this week's story in the Washington Post on the exchange Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and I had during his confirmation hearing in January of last year. Mr. Gonzales misled me and the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath about whether the President could spy on Americans without a warrant. (Many of you blogged about it when the story first broke and I thank you for getting the word out.) That exchange is extremely telling about the depths to which this administration will go to grab power. I look forward to a little more honesty from the Attorney General when he testifies about the spying program before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.
 
"I don't have to tell you how important this issue is. It gets to the core of what we as a country are all about. We all agree that we must defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. Why does this President feel we must sacrifice our freedoms to fight terrorism? This is a gut check moment for members of Congress. Do we sacrifice our liberty? Do we bow to those who try to use security issues for political gain? Do we stand and applaud when the President places himself above the law? Or, do we say enough?
 
"Stop the power grab, stop the politics, stop breaking the law.

"It's time to stand up - not to cheer, but to fight back." 

Feingold has come a long way. Unfortunately, he has a couple dozen Democratic colleagues in the Senate who are yet to get off the dime. How come Feingold gets it while Ben Nelson (D-NE)-- but one particularly egregious example-- doesn't have a clue? Can Feingold convince the American people to open their eyes and see what Bush really is, if so many Democratic senators are still so firmly and stubbornly in the dark?

Yesterday I had a water leak emergency. The plumbing company insured that it got worse ad worse as the day went on until, finally, at around 8PM there were torrents of water gushing through a broken pipe. The young plumber they had sent by then-- replacing 2 previous incompetents-- got the problem under control professionally. Eventually we got to talking and since he had been in a punk rock band and said he loves Green Day and the Dead Kennedys, I explained what I do with my time. He asked me what a fascist is. I gave him a little history lesson starting with the French Revolution and going through WWII and making sure he understood why and how today's GOP is part of that ghastly tradition. As he was leaving to drive back to his home in Orange County, he said "You guys in L.A. sure get more into politics than people down where I live." Well, I guess so-- and more than where Ben Nelson lives too.

But maybe if the folks in Orange County and Nebraska read more Paul Krugman and watched less mind-numbing TV, they'd be less likely to be living in a state of delusion. There, I think I've solved all our problems-- get everybody to read Paul Krugman. Of course, first you have to get everybody to read. Anyway in yesterday's "State of Delusion" column-- so widely unread in the O.C. and Nebraska-- Krugman looks back on Bush's more blatant SOTU lies. "So President Bush's plan to reduce imports of Middle East oil turns out to be no more substantial than his plan-- floated two years ago, then flushed down the memory hole-- to send humans to Mars.

"But what did you expect? After five years in power, the Bush administration is still-- perhaps more than ever-- run by Mayberry Machiavellis, who don't take the business of governing seriously.

"Here's the story on oil: In the State of the Union address, Mr. Bush suggested that 'cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol' and other technologies would allow us 'to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East.'

"But the next day, officials explained that he didn't really mean what he said. 'This was purely an example,' said Samuel Bodman, the energy secretary. And the administration has actually been scaling back the very research that Mr. Bush hyped on Tuesday night: the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is about to lay off staff because of cuts to its budget.

"'A veteran researcher,' reports The New York Times, 'said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol.'

"Why announce impressive sounding goals when you have no plan to achieve them? The best guess is that the energy 'plan' was hastily thrown together to give Mr. Bush something positive to say."

Just like everything else-- other than a concentrated program of self-enrichment for already far too wealthy Republican supporters-- that this Regime has been, usually so tragically, involed with. And with 53% of Americans now open to impeachment (which is the identical percentage of Americans who the latest Gallup Poll says feel Bush deliberately misled the country about the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction), this news is bound to reach Orange County and even Mr. Nelson's constituents... sometime.

IT AIN'T AS EASY SELLING THE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS AS IT USED TO BE. VIGUERIE CLAIMS 77% OF CONSERVATIVES ARE PISSED OFF-- AT REPUBLICANS

There's a magazine that caters to direct marketers, DM NEWS, short for Direct Marketing News. Right wing database guru Richard Viguerie is a legendary figure for these folks and his bald pate graces the cover of their current issue. But the songs he's singing these days aren't the sweet siren tunes conservatives are used to. He's pissed off at Bush and the bunch of crooks who are running the Republican congress and he claims that 77% of conservatives are "either seriously disappointed with Republican congressional leaders or want them replaced." [Add to that 100% of non-conservatives, except, apparently Rahm Emanuel who is doing all he can as head of the DCCC to keep them in power.]

Just the way progressives are discussing whether or not to refrain from donating to the corrupt, reactionary DCCC and DSCC, Viguerie claims that grassroots right-wingers are having the same debate about their crooked, lame leaders. According to DM NEWS, he states that "54 percent of conservatives feel so abandoned by the president and the Republican Congressional leadership that they plan to reduce their contributions and grassroots work for GOP candidates this year"-- and 70% say they would support a "principled conservative challenger runnings against an established incumbent" in a primary. Sounds familiar!

Viguerie's radical righties rate Bush and the DeLay crowd D's and F's on the important conservative issues and Viguerie's assessment is even worse. "It’s reconfirmation that things are getting progressively worse in terms of how conservatives, who are the base of the party, how they view the Republican leadership, the president, his cabinet, the Republican members of the House and the Senate... They’ve been expanding government, giving mostly lip service to the traditional values. Bush has increased non-defense spending about 33 percent in the first five years of his presidency. He’s the longest serving U.S. president not to veto a single piece of legislation. It just puts paid to the lie whenever he talks about fiscal responsibility.”

And he warns that whenever the far right base gets pissed off, there are consequences for the Republicans to pay. He thinks those consequences will be felt in November. "Conservatives have a history of staying home when their Republican leaders betray them and that’s what this poll shows. That’s more frustration with the Republican leaders now than I’ve experienced in my whole political life. Senate campaign contributions are way off. I know just about every conservative organization is facing a fall-off in support. People are just discouraged and they say why support Republicans if they’re going to govern like Democrats? Karl Rove and George Bush, when they came to the White House, they seemed to have a one-word strategy for governing and re-election: bribery."

Viguerie and his nutty base are happy about two things-- very happy, in fact: Roberts and Alito. But that's it. And he says when you look at the whole social issue agenda, Bush has failed conservatives overall. Join the rest of us!

GEORGE W. BUSH'S ONE MOMENT OF GREAT HEROISM AND LEADERSHIP

Americans want a president who will stand up and defend them-- you know make sure there are no more 9/11's (though it would have been nice if there hadn't been a first 9/11), make sure we don't get ripped off by oil and gas companies and Enron, make sure real (instead of imaginary) enemies don't acquire nuclear weapons, make sure decent folks' marriages don't get ruined by lesbians marrying each other... all that stuff. But most of all, we Americans look at our leaders and we say, as one, "Please protect is from human-animal hybrids." We don't mean the offspring of Bill Frist and Ann Coulter either. We don't want Ann Coulter reproducing with a platypus or Bill Frist going too far in his headlong rush to repent for having spent his life as a cat murderer by personally impregnating felines whenever he has time off from insider trading. Obviously nothing can be done about Coulter's coupling with any beast that takes her fancy, but Bush is expected to have a heart to heart with "Dr." Frist. Bush made this burning controversy the centerpiece of this year's not much-anticipated State of the Union speech the other day. Straightening his shoulders aggressively and looking sternly right at Senators Frist and Coburn, Bush, in a no-uncertain tone intoned: "A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research-- human cloning in all its form -- creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids..." What guts! What charisma! What foresight! What a LEADER!

And the stunned congressmen reacted with deafening applause, Joe Lieberman jumping to his feet and screaming like a madman as though he was at a Yehudi Menuhin concert. Sam Brownback, known as the most spiritual of all DC salons, help up a lighter and prayed. Ever since The Night all Washington has been abuzz about Bush standing up to the powerful lobbyists and the special interests pushing so hard in the human-animal cloning arena-- not just Rick Santorum and his K Street friends but the hugely powerful and sometimes violent Dasiy Mae Hathaway, the take-no-prisoners lobbyist for Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circuses. People are also wondering who wrote it.

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, A PROVEN PROGRESSIVE, NEEDS HELP IN SOUTH TEXAS

South Texas' 28th CD is so Democratic that no Republican is even contesting it. Of course, they probably felt they didn't have to because the current "Democrat," Henry Cuellar, is as likely to vote with the Republicans on important issues as he is to vote with his own party. (He even endorsed Bush for president in 2000!) But because there is no Republican running, the March 7th Democratic primary which pits the reactionary Cuellar against progressive former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, will decide who the next congressman is from the 28th.

Take a look at Ciro's voting record. For anyone with progressive ideals, he's a true blue congressman, as good as you could ever hope for. And Cuellar is as bad as you could fear in your worst nightmare on issue after issue after issue. This should be an easy pick-up for the Forces of Light. Ciro needs money though and I'm starting an ACT BLUE page for him today.

Oh and if you watched Bush's SOTU speech the other night Cuellar was the Democrat sitting with the Republicans-- even Joe Lieberman didn't do that-- who Bush gave a big smooch to. Today's DAILY KOS has a great story on Cuellar and why it is so important that he meet up with unemployment next month. Cuellar is so right wing that even the Blue Dog Democrats rejected him! He's a man who defines himself as pro-gun, pro-free trade, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. According to Kos " Cuellar's entire political existence appears to be designed to provide Bush [and the Texas GOP] with "bipartisan" cover, from his days in the Texas House to the past two years in the US House. If Bush wants bipartisan support, he needs to earn it the real way -- through negotiation and compromise, not by flipping a switch with Henry Cuellar, his mole inside the Democratic caucus."


SUNDAY UPDATE: NETROOTS CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN TEXAS

Today Matt Stoller at MyDD has a great diary about how netroots contributions to Cirdo Rodriguez really can make a serious difference for America. "Ciro Rodriguez is a place where we can matter. Atrios makes the point that money going to Rodriguez is actually very well spent. $50 to Rodriguez matters, whereas $50 in a Senate race is a drop in the bucket. Primary fights where you can genuinely push a progressive candidate with a realistic shot are very rare, especially with the Tim Kaine-esque party we have right now. So this is a real opportunity for us."

I was proud and excited to see that some of the DWT readers joined me and put some money into our ACT BLUE Page for several of the candidates that I've been writing about, like Francine Busby, Dave Lutrin, Lois Murphy, Chuck Pennacchio. Right now Ciro Rodriguez really needs some
cash to help him replace a horrible reactionary imbecile with a shining example of a progressive fighter-- and in a deep red state. Like I've said before, even $10 helps if enough people kick in. The election is next month.