WHERE IS LOUIE CONTRERAS? DOES THE MOST CORRUPT CONGRESSMAN IN AMERICA HAVE AN OPPONENT?

I'm in the middle of a long piece about the dozen worst Republicans in the House. I'm not sure who #1 is yet, but there is no doubt that Jerry Lewis, a crooked extremist from Southern California, is a contender. A few days ago I updated a July 31 piece I wrote about how The Law closing in on Lewis, "The Nooses Tighten Around Jerry Lewis' Scrawny, Crooked Neck," with the latest outrage, a real estate scam. But my attacks on Lewis have fallen off considerably as the midterms approach. That makes no sense, right?

Right. Over the course of several months this past winter, I'd had spent hours on the phone with Louie Contreras, a political unknown who decided to run against Lewis. Louie seemed like a nice young guy and no one else was interested in taking Lewis on. I had even called a couple of local Democratic clubs to see if I could drum up some interest in finding someone with a shot to take on Lewis. I couldn't. The sprawling, suburban district has been pretty forbidding territory for Democrats. Not only did CA-41 have one of the highest percentage increases of votes for Bush from 2000 to 2004 of any district in the country (56% to 62%), the Democrats didn't even bother finding anyone to run against Lewis in '04. So Louie, a local insurance broker from fast growing Hesperia, came along and tossed his hat in the ring and kept a low, low, low profile and "won" the uncontested primary. He even got some traditional Democratic support from labor and the state party. The DCCC ignored the race but that's par for the course around most of the country anyway.

The last discernible activity on Contreras' website was in late March. When I call his office, it just rings and rings. There is no answer machine. It rings in the mornings and it rings in the afternoons and it rings in the evenings and it rings during the week and on the weekends. No one's home; ever. His cell phone-- the one I spent the hours talking to him on-- it's not his number any more. The woman who answered it said it was recently assigned to her. His brokerage office-- same story; someone else has that number now. Louie, who used to call me and e-mail me about framing his basic positions, hasn't answered any e-mails in months. I spoke to several local reporters who are covering Lewis. Not one has spoken to Louie, although a recent article in a local paper (with a DC byline) indicates that someone named Patrick Kahler is a spokesperson for Contreras.

I have friends who live in Big Bear. They say there is no sign that anyone is running for congress in their district. The Secretary of State's office confirms that Louie is certified as the Democrat on the ballot. While Lewis' campaign committee reports having spent $634,993 so far-- in all likelihood just a money-laundering op to enrich himself further-- with another $1,489,160 on hand, Contreras hasn't raised enough money to have even filed a report with the FEC. ActBlue has collected a total of $125 (from 3 contributors).


Lewis hasn't bothered to hire a campaign manager, or open a campaign headquarters and, apparently, he has no opponent. Lewis also has a history of buying off local Democrats and contributed a great deal of money to local Democratic elected officials. When I contacted the Chairman of the California Democratic Party, Art Torres, his assistant became furious and insists that Contreras' campaign is "up and running." When I questioned her about that she hung up on me. Two DCCC contacts told me, off the record, that they have no contact with Contreras either.

Even when reporting on his criminal behavior, the local media always couches the real story in Lewis' standard and unrelenting  propaganda about how all he ever does is help the district residents. (They fall for his line too.) But the question remains-- did the most corrupt elected official in the United States, currently under investigation for a myriad of serious crimes, pick (and maybe even pay for) an "opponent" to fill the Democratic Party slot, an opponent who then disappeared, leaving Lewis with no opponent at all-- except for the FBI and others looking into his massive congressional crime spree?

I hope I'm wrong about this and that Contreras has a strategy and is going to burst on the scene any moment to slay the evil dragon. I wouldn't bet on it though.


UPDATE: WHAT CAN YOU DO TO STOP THIS MAN?

Normally when I do a story like this, I give a link to a site where you can volunteer and contribute. In this case, I have a different suggestion. "Have You Had Enough?" Of the wire taps? Of the rubber stamp? Of the corruption? Of Jerry Lewis? It looks like we'll have to depend on the FBI to remove him because the Democratic Party is... well, you know. But we can do something about removing him from the committee chairmanship that has allowed the hundreds of millions of dollars in misappropriated, stolen and improperly earmarked taxpayer dollars to flow from us to... Lewis and his cronies. How? Glad you asked. The Blue America PAC is raising money to put radio spots on the air before the election. The spots are based on the song (at the link above) and will target especially bad Republican incumbents like Dirty Dick Pombo, Mean Jean Schmidt and Weepy Robin Hayes. If we can help Democrats win enough seats from the Republicans in November, Lewis-- and all the reactionary committee chairmen-- lose their power bases. If you could, please consider helping us with that effort at the Blue America ActBlue Page.


UPDATE: GOOD NEWS ON CA-41-- LOUIE SURFACES

I'm happy to report that Louie Contreras called me on Saturday and again this morning (and even gave me a secret phone number)... so he is around. Is he campaigning? Well, he says he's keeping it under the radar and doing a lot of grassroots pressing of the flesh. He points out, not unreasonably, that even if he could miraculously raise a couple of hundred grand, it would be swamped by Lewis' $2,000,000 and that Lewis' resources are virtually endless. Louie assures me that he would never, never be in cahoots with Jerry Lewis and that he feels he has a strategy for winning in November. "I'd say I have a 70% chance of winning."

I didn't ask him if that is predicated on Jerry Lewis being indicted before November. Louie claims he was led to believe he would get support from the California Democratic Party and from the DCCC and neither has come through. But he is undaunted by this. He has a series of surprises that will kickstart his campaign. He just doesn't want Lewis and local Republican partisans to be able to go on the counter-attack too early. It might be a viable strategy. He told me we'll see it start in approximately 10 days. I'll keep you posted. And if you want to help Louie out, his ActBlue page is open for business.

If the (mis)management at Air America Radio is truly the best that progressives can do, maybe voters are right not to entrust the country to us

"So many questions, so few answers."

"What in the hell is going on in New York? Is there major brain damage up there or what?"

"It does appear that the AAR suits are on a suicide mission, and as someone who has supported the enterprise from Day 1, monetarily and every other way, I'm very disheartened."

These are just a few random thoughts I gathered just now while reading through the comments on Rachel Maddow's blog (at maddowonline.com), which Rachel has opened up for venting on . . . well, on whatever the hell is going on at Air America Radio.

I noticed quite a few comments from listeners in the same position as me: They were big fans of AAR's brilliant Morning Sedition show, which had the plug pulled for no reason that management ever deigned to share with listeners, but then they became huge fans of the more information-based show that Rachel has done in the two-hour portion of the MS time slot she was given. But now . . . now . . .

I've refrained from commenting on what's been happening because I haven't been able to figure out what's happening. Now I see that apparently nobody knows what's going on at AAR, probably least of all the pathetic lost souls nominally in charge.

You hear repeated talk of an announcement when all the changes are in place. By now it's sounding like the tech guy who, not knowing what's wrong with your computer, and not much interested in figuring it out (assuming he can), delivers the ritual pronouncement, "It's the hard drive." (Who knows? It could be.)

As for what we actually know, last Friday, Sept. 1, the network's (surely ironically dubbed) "flagship station," meaning the station in the New York area that AAR has managed to wheedle into letting it squat on its frequency, switched from lowly WLIB to the even lowlier WWRL, whose signal is so weak that many people in the metropolitan area can't even get it. However, humble though the station may be, it apparently had the power to force AAR to leave its own morning show on the air.

Now it might not have been a problem that this show is geared to a black audience. Who knows? That might have been interesting. In the spirit of good old-fashioned liberal guilt, I felt rotten when Air America Radio first came on the air and knocked most of the minority-oriented programming previously aired on WLIB off the air. I mean, jeez, nobody wanted a progressive radio outlet more than I did, but did it really have to come at the expense of, apparently, the only radio listeners in the Greater New York area with even less broadcast clout?

So last Friday morning I brought an open mind to this morning show that AAR was inheriting on the new "flagship" station. I was assaulted with a show that can only be geared to an audience of morons. One cohost is none other than that poster boy for right-wing journalistic flimflam Armstrong Williams! Surely it occurred to the AAR suits that AAR is supposed to be the antidote to people like Armstrong Williams? The other cohost is a loudmouthed woman who seems actually to brag about knowing nothing about every subject that's discussed. This never seems to inhibit her from shooting off her uninformed mouth.

Supposedly Rachel Maddow's show is moving to the evening. At least that's what she has been told. She herself told us--back in those good old days when we New York liberals could hear her--that this is supposed to happen on Sept. 18. She said she'd been doing everything she could to get the AAR management to make some sort of announcement or let her make one. Obviously she felt obliged to say something before she effectively went off the air. (She is continuing to do her morning show for the stations--other than the "flagship" one, that is--that carry it.)

Meanwhile: It seems that as of Aug. 30, AAR summarily fired excellent night-time host Mike Malloy, once again in total secrecy and totally without explanation. Actually, Malloy had already been yanked from the New York lineup some months before, once again in total secrecy and totally without explanation. I've always liked Mike when I listened to him. I just don't happen to need radio companionship at that hour. I need a morning show! (And yikes, NPR's Morning Edition is even lamer than it was the last time I tried to listen to it.)

Also meanwhile: Majority Report's Sam Seder is apparently without either a new contract or much idea what the f--k is going on.

General suspicions seem to center around some sort of Push to the Center as a way of easing AAR's undoubtedly severe financial situation.

However, does anyone hold out any hope that anyone involved in this AAR management has anything at all to contribute to a solution to the financial crisis? About the only thing you want to hear from these people is an announcement--preferably in their joint suicide note--that they have found new people to take over the management of the enterprise who possess at least some skills for the job.

One theory is that the network is trying to hit up rich-rich people like George Soros for big bucks and is anticipatorily kissing butt by cleaning out on-air personnel who might be displeasing to even liberal solons. Hey, in the absence of any actual information, every theory is about as good as every other. If this one is true, though, it goes to show that the AAR suits are just as incompetent at pandering as everything else.

AAR has never even thought to bring listeners in on the financial problems, perhaps for fear that those goddamn listeners might actually be able to participate in some sort of solution. It does seem that few things fill AAR management with more dread than the thought of listeners feeling a sense of participation in the undertaking.

(Back in the days of Morning Sedition, they undertook a series of live broadcasts from food-serving locations around the metropolitan area, and even ventured to Boston--with who-knows-what sites to follow. Those shows gave every evidence of being riotously successful, confirming the intensity of the connection between the show and its growing audience. Naturally some suit put a stop to that!)

Oh yeah, AAR has sort of flogged its mysterious and barely comprehensible "premium" services. But they've done it in their usual shady-sounding way, which leaves you feeling all but certain that you're having your pocket picked.

Of course, I think we all have a pretty good idea how this is going to play out. One of these days--maybe tomorrow, maybe Sept. 18, maybe a month or a year later--word will come that, sadly, AAR is going out of business. Gosh, it was such a noble idea, but it just wasn't possible to make it work financially.

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't believe that liberals are uniformly this incompetent at running businesses, or that there are no progressives capable of making a fighting, feisty radio network a going enterprise. Possibly that effort might involve including listeners in the solution. However, it's clear that's not going to happen as long as you have management that treats listeners as at best a nuisance and at worst the enemy.


POSTSCRIPT--For fans of Mike Malloy

I just revisited Mike's website (www.mikemalloy.com) to check the date of his termination, and in his latest update--dated today, 9/8, as you'll see--I found this note:

ATTENTION MAJORITY REPORT LISTENERS!
Pssssst, Truthseekers . . . . over here . ...make sure to catch Sam Seder's show tonight and listen for a surprise guest late in the program!
9/8/06

Draw your own conclusions, and act accordingly.

WOULD RIGHT WING POLS TURN TERROR ON AMERICANS TO PROVOKE WAR? OF COURSE... AND THERE'S PROOF

You probably never heard of Operation Northwoods. Until today when ABC-News reported it, I never had either. "In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: 'We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,' and, 'casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.'"

This all came out in James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets. President Kennedy rejected the fascist scheme (put together by the far right maniacs who ran the Pentagon when Eisenhower was president, particularly drooling Republican fascist Lyman Lemnitzer)... but... well, they've just been sitting in the archives, and ticking away waiting for the right little cabal of obsessed fascist dickheads to find them. Did they? Would you reject the notion out of hand that they did? Were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole stinking regime as obsessed about destroying Iraq as the Pentagon was about destroying Cuba is the early 60s? Yeah, more so.

Bamford told ABC News that the Joint Chiefs kept the documents secret because they were so embarrassing. At one point someone wanted to include the murder of astronaut (later Democratic Senator) John Glenn in the plan. "The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Quote of the day: Republicans (mostly) love the horsies, plus Krugman bats back the loonies and Friedman targets "the center" in the U.S. and Iraq

"I'm for the horsies, too. I'll vote for it. . . . [But] I can't believe that we are here today using the very limited time left to this Congress to deal with horsemeat."
--Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), on the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, the most important business the Republican House leadership could think of yesterday

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank offered these highlights from the nearly four-hour debate on H.R.503:

"What we are exposing today is a brutal, shadowy, shameful, predatory practice that borders on the perverse."
--Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.)

"These horses are eating our cellulose and costing us ethanol."
--Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

"The horses are part of the history of this nation, and the West would never have been settled if it weren't for the horses."
--DWT fave Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)

"My horse Skychief Poco and I won the 1997 SandHills Rodeo and quarter horse shows team penning championship."
--Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.)


POSTSCRIPT--Where are they hiding "In the Loop"?

Much as I admire Mr. Milbank, I didn't actually set out to read his report on the Republican save-the-horsies brouhaha. I was taken to it by a Post newsletter link to what should have been Al Kamen's "In the Loop" column, presumably back--finally!--from vacation. Further rummaging around washingtonpost.com got us no closer to the quarry than a claim from this past Monday that the column "will be back Friday."

Maybe they use some kind of freaky calendar down there in D.C., or maybe there's some mysterious Beltway Dateline to be crossed, but where I am, it's Friday. Don't these bozos realize that there are people out here who have gone weeks now without having Kamen to rip off?


ALSO TALKING--Krugman talks back to the fans of economic inequality

"Political analysts tried all sorts of explanations for popular discontent with the 'Bush boom'--it's the price of gasoline; no, people are in a bad mood because of Iraq--before finally acknowledging that most Americans think it's a bad economy because for them, it is. The lion's share of the benefits from recent economic growth has gone to a small, wealthy minority, while most Americans were worse off in 2005 than they were in 2000."
--Paul Krugman, from today's NYT column, "Whining Over Discontent"

"We are, finally, having a national discussion about inequality," writes our Paul, "and right-wing commentators are in full panic mode. Statistics, most of them irrelevant or misleading, are flying; straw men are under furious attack. It's all very confusing--deliberately so. . . . "


ALSO TALKING TOO--Tom Friedman sees a "center problem" in Iraq

"We are in trouble in Iraq now not because of what the 'fringes' there, or here, believe, but because of what the center in both places has been willing to tolerate or unwilling to change."
--Thomas L. Friedman, from his column today, "The Central Truth"

"Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism," notes Friedman, "and let's have an unprecedented wartime tax cut and shrink our armed forces. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but let's send just enough troops to topple Saddam--and never control Iraq's borders, its ammo dumps or its looters. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but rather than bring Democrats and Republicans together in a national unity war coalition, let's use the war as a wedge issue to embarrass Democrats, frighten voters and win elections. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism--which is financed by our own oil purchases--but let's not do one serious thing about ending our oil addiction. . . .

"We are also failing in Iraq because of what the Shiite and Sunni mainstreams--not the fringes--are tolerating. Democracy fails when centrist forces either won't stand up to extremists or try to use their violence for their own purposes. . . ."

[Note: As usual, the full texts of the Krugman and Friedman columns will be posted in a comment.]

EVER WONDER WHAT THE KIDS ARE THINKING ABOUT BUSH'S WARS?

The September issue of Trends & Tudes, which purports to keep its readers connected to tody's youth audience, features a Harris Interactive poll showing declining confidence of American teenagers regarding the "war of terrorism" and the occupation of Iraq. Bush says he's leaving the tough decisions about cleaning up the messes he's made to whomever occupies the White House after he's gone. The 13-18 year olds in this poll are among the people who will be involved in the major operations it's going to take to fix all that Bush and his regime have broken.

The report finds that only 38% (down from 76% soon after 9/11/01) trust the Bush Regime to do the right thing about the war on terror. And they don't think the government can prevent future attacks and are pessimistic about the occupation of Iraq ending any time soon.

One thing that is working though is the Bush Regime's calculated plans to instill terror in the American public. "Terrorism and war have cast a shadow on the outlook of many youth. In the current poll, fielded a week after the London terror plot was revealed, a quarter of all teens (25%) relate that the war on terrorism has made them less optimistic about their future, surpassing the levels in the months following the September 11 attacks (20% in November 2001 and 12% in July 2002). In addition, teens today are slightly more likely to think that terrorism will strike near them (49%) than they were following the 2001 attacks (42%)."

IS LYING A CRIME? ASK BUSH'S AND LIEBERMAN'S POLLSTER

Yesterday Tracy Costin, owner of ViewpointUSA (formerly DataUSA) pleaded guilt today to fraud charges. She had been caught making up poll results-- for Bush. She also polls for Lieberman, which might explain the similar delusions of both of them. As part of the plea agreement, she agreed to repay over $80,000 to several unnamed clients. She faces 5 years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. I'm sure the fine's no biggie and Bush will no doubt pardon her when he pardons dozens of other Republican criminals on his last day in the White House.

According to a federal indictment, Costin told employees to alter poll data, and managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys. About half the data given to the BushCheney campaign was fake. See? And you thought all the stuff they were saying was just because they were stupid and bigoted.

WASHINGTON STATE'S TIM SHELDON-- WORSE THAN LIEBERMAN?

Sometimes if I go out in the middle of the day I get back and look at the number of e-mails that have come in and I just want to... run to the fridge and eat a bunch of grapes. That happened today. So I'm scanning like a madman the subject lines of the 300 e-mails and seeing what I can delete. One pissed me off. It was from Progressive Majority and the title was "Lieberman II-- Battle on the West Coast." I figured it was someone comparing Maria Cantwell to Lieberman again and I almost deleted it. But I didn't and instead I discovered as big a brand-wrecker as Lieberman. Meet State Senator Tim Sheldon.

Democrats don't get worse than Tim Sheldon. Unlike Lieberman he doesn't even make believe. He supported Bush for President right out in the open. Like he Lieberman he has lots of nasty, vicious Republican talking points to throw at Democrats, giving the media an opportunity to ascribe right wing clap trap to "bi-partisan" opinion. He called Howard Dean "the most extreme figure in national politics." He supported Dino Rossi, the extreme right wing loon Washington Repugs ran against Christine Gregoire, and after Gregoire's victory Sheldon joined Republicans in the state senate in a vote to not certify her. He has also contributed thousands of dollars to GOP candidates.

A vicious and unrelenting homophobe, he cast the deciding vote in 2005 against a bill that would have made it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation. Over all his voting record is more Republican than Democratic on issue after issue-- always voting for corporate ambitions to gut environmental safeguards-- and supporting the religionist right, even on stem cell research.

In less than two weeks, Sheldon faces a real Democrat challenging him and seeking to hold him accountable, Kyle Taylor Lucas. You can learn a lot about these two candidates for the Democratic nomination by reading the transcript of their debate. You'd think you were reading a Lieberman/Lamont debate transcript; it's uncanny. Even the state Democratic Party took the unprecedented action of coming out publicly against Sheldon and endorsing Lucas.

GEORGE AND OSAMA CELEBRATE FEAR

by Mags
(graphics courtesy of Bart Cop)

I see that Osama bin Laden has launched his own PR celebration of 9/11 to coincide with King George’s. And, make no mistake about that, George is celebrating this week. A movie supposedly portraying him as a hero on 9/11 as opposed to being more like the Goat-boy of DC is in the can, and headed for the TV set of this nation via ABC and Disney. It is good to be president. One can rewrite history when one screws said history up and disappoints one's countrymen.

Is it a coincidence that the FBI warns us to stay afraid as George launches another week of the same old tired speech about terrorism (he just might have it memorized by now)? Can one help but notice how convenient it is for both men? George admitted that Osama helped him in 2004; maybe a little ringy dingy from Cheney or Karl? James Baker cleaning up after George? I’m just saying. Some swear Osama is still a CIA asset. I wonder how much fervor Rove and company need to whip up to get Americans terrified again. I hope a lot more than this.

The mental chaos being created launching multiple programs in the PR blitz is serving at least to weary us. That much is for sure. Bush critics find themselves shifting constantly from one front to another. From critiquing and lambasting the upcoming ABC film, to analyzing Valerie Plame’s real role at the CIA to George's admissions of secret detentions, misdirection and redirection from one critical issue to another takes its toll on our ability to focus. It’s Bush's version of Mohammed Ali's rope-a-dope.

When I was reading the news today on MSNBC, I was given the opportunity to vote on what I thought about the upcoming movie to be aired on ABC, Path to 9/11. I voted that the movie was a definite attempt to mislead and 60% of MSNBC readers agreed with me so far. So I wonder if Americans in general are enjoying the party like George Bush and Osama? George and Osama love this attention fest. Again, two of the most privileged n'er do well sons of wealthy oil men who were in this world, given too much power.


Just what the rest of us needs, two egomaniacs with a sense of entitlement and who share delusions of grandeur having the power of the press to make them look like figures to be celebrated, two sick sick men who make it, once again, look like it is all about them.

I say, the party’s over. Get Osama, Impeach Bush.

I CAN PROMISE THAT THIS WILL BE MY LAST KATHERINE HARRIS POST OF THE DAY

I think it was just a day or two ago that I promised not to write about Florida again until the results of Katherine Harris' hilarious race against Bill Nelson come in. But, as Ken has pointed out over and over, I'm obsessed with this race. It isn't just because Harris is such a compellingly abysmal candidate-- or maybe just a garden variety Repug with a lot more spotlight shining. No, when it comes right down to it, all the wars, deaths, terror, corruption, hardships, all the systemic damage done to our government and our nation under Bush can all be laid at the feet of... Katherine Harris' calculated corruption in giving Bush Florida's unearned electoral votes in 2000.

So, it is with some degree of gratification that I read a statement from Florida Republican Senate candidate Peter Monroe yesterday. Monroe came in third in the GOP primary that Harris won. He blamed "name recognition," which he says "no matter how unfavorable, trumped substance and character. As Governor Jeb Bush has maintained all along, and as I relied upon in joining this race, Harris has little chance against Bill Nelson."

Monroe has no intention of supporting Krazy Kathy or even voting for her. He thinks she's absolutely toxic for the Republican Party and toxic for America. What he doesn't understand, although he should, is that she is the Republican Party. A plurality of Republican voters-- over 49% the last time I looked-- voted to have her as their Senate nominee... after months of revelations about character flaws, corruption, mental instability, anti-Semitism, after months of warnings from the Republican establishment, after a contemptible voting record in Congress. There's no getting around it now: Krazy Kathy is the heart and soul of the Florida GOP.

I have been a Republican all my life. I have loyally served two Republican Presidents in running two multibillion dollar agencies-- saving hundreds of billions of dollars in the process. To date, I have supported all Republican nominees. I fully and enthusiastically support Charlie Christ, Bill McCollum and Tom Lee.

However, I cannot support Katherine Harris as the Republican Party's nominee. Her anti-Semitic statements made to the Florida Baptist Witness were the last straw in a string of misdeeds during our race. They are indicative of a person who is unfit to serve in public office. I can't blindly support a nominee who has shown a complete disregard for the US Constitution and fundamental civil rights. As I have recently said, Katherine Harris should resign from Congress now. She is an embarrassment to Florida, the Republican Party, our nation, and herself. Given our party's heritage, I am disappointed that state and national Republican Party officials have condoned her statements by their silence.

I urge Republicans to focus their political energy on all other Republican candidates at the state and local level in Florida, as I will.

We need strong leadership in Tallahassee and Congress. I know that I will support Charlie Crist, Bill McCollum and Tom Lee in November. They are the ones who will be really leading our ticket in November, not Katherine Harris.

UPDATE: JEB TO KRAZY KATHY-- "THANKS FOR HANDING GEORGE THE WHITE HOUSE BUT YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, GIRL"

I thought the Bush Crime Family was built on loyalty. Apparently so did Krazy Kathy Harris. But... Jeb says he's not getting off his fat ass to help her doomed senate race.

Quote of the day: President Bush announces that the best way he can fight terrorism is by resigning to prepare for the first of his war-crimes trials

"If Guantanamo Bay has any purpose, it is for men like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, considered key players in 9/11. . . . [But] if the White House had not wanted to place terror suspects beyond the reach of the law, all 14 of these men could have been tried by now, and America's reputation would have been spared some grievous damage."
--from the lead editorial, "A Sudden Sense of Urgency," in today's New York Times

Okay, first thing, about that head above--you know, about the president announcing he's resigning: Just kidding! That isn't actually what he said.

As for what the president actually did say: All those who think that the lying thugs of the Bush administration won't get away with their latest, fairly breathtaking scam, raise your hands.

Oh, poor, innocent babes!

The scope of the effrontery, cynicism and dishonesty on display is mind-blowing, even by the standards of this bunch. These are people, after all, who consider telling the truth about anything, ever, a crime punishable by . . . well, we don't know what. The situation has never really come up.

Oh wait, there was the time poor Larry Lindsey tried to put some kind of dollar figure on the potential cost of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. He got fired. But administration sources claimed it was because he's fat, and we've always suspected that that's how the subject was crammed into the tiny bit of brain that Chimpy the Prez makes available for presidential business: Hey, the guy's a tub, and he won't even jog with you.

(In general, Bush admiministration officials who have strayed anywhere near the radioactive zone of "truth" have been unceremoniously returned to private life. Talk to, say, former Treasury Secretary O'Neill or former EPA Administrator Whitman. That's the "honor code" of the Bush Crime Family: Perpetrate the rankest ineptitude, preferably over the longest period of time, and you're all but guaranteed promotions and possibly medals; come anywhere close to telling the truth, and you're shit-canned.)

You'd think that the president's people would be concerned that acknowledging the existence of the secret CIA prisons from which the New Guantanamo 14 are being transferred might just add to the list of war-crimes charges "the boss" will face when his time comes. However, tactically speaking, it's likely that all that will matter is that by moving these 14 suspects to Guantanamo, the managers of our war on terror have increased the population of potentially serious terrorists there to, uh, about 14--which they hope will change all the legal math on how Congress and the country view the one war we know the administration is dead serious about: the war-to-the-death against U.S. and international law.

The NYT editorial writer wasn't fooled:

Two months before a Congressional election in which voters are expressing serious doubts about the Republicans' handling of national security, President Bush finally has some real terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Bush admitted yesterday that the Central Intelligence Agency has been secretly holding prisoners and said he was transferring 14 to Guantanamo Bay, including some believed to have been behind the 9/11 attacks. He said he was informing the Red Cross about the prisoners, placing them under the Geneva Conventions, and asking that Congress--right now--create military tribunals to try them.

Those are just the right steps. If Guantanamo Bay has any purpose, it is for men like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, considered key players in 9/11. They should go on trial. If convicted, they should be locked up for life.

But Mr. Bush's urgency was phony, driven by the Supreme Court's ruling, not principle. This should all have happened long ago. If the White House had not wanted to place terror suspects beyond the reach of the law, all 14 of these men could have been tried by now, and America's reputation would have been spared some grievous damage. And there would be no need for Congress to rush through legislation if the White House had not stymied all of its attempts to do just that before.

The nation needs laws governing Guantanamo Bay, not just for the 14 new prisoners, but also for many others who have been there for years without due process, and who may have done no wrong. . . .

[Note: The full text of the editorial is appended in a comment. (No, really! I already did it!)]

9/11 CONSPIRACIES HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE

Conspiracy theories scare me. I mean even if they're right it's too horrible to contemplate! But there were a whole spate of 'em up today. On the extreme right, ABC-TV is presenting some kooky fictionalized version meant to try to deflect blame from the incompetent Bush Regime. My TV hasn't hasn't gotten reception from ABC in a dozen years and I've never heard of missing a single important thing, so I won't worry too much about those corporate whores and what kind of propaganda they're pushing. I mean a slash and burn piece against Bill Clinton by the thoroughly discredited walking joke, Cyrus Nowrasteh? Someone is supposed to take this right wing delusional fairy tale seriously?

I was much more disturbed by a story out of the U.K. this afternoon. The Daily Mail reports that 75 respected American professors and scientists are blaming elements inside the Bush Regime for 9/11, perhaps more believable than ABC's silly spin, but far more frightening. They say it was an "inside job."

"Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries... But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated. Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history. He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US."


Even Tom Kean, the Republican co-Chairman of the official 9/11 Commission, a partisan lackey with a very questionable past reeking of racism and electoral cheating-- who has been a consultant and major shill for the ABC propaganda effort is now admitting that parts of it are fake. And why has ABC refused to allow President Clinton and other Democrats they are slandering see an advance copy?

Back to the conspiracy theory. Is there anything you wouldn't believe on Bush and the foul crew assembled around him? Anything? Me neither. I wonder if we'll ever find out. I doubt it. Unless we want to badly enough. But I think most Americans are way to scared to find out the truth about anything to want to enough.


UPDATE: DISNEY BUCKLES AND WILL RE-EDIT THE SLANDEROUS PARTS OF THEIR SILLY MOVIE

After hearing from President Clinton and several of the officials who worked for him that were slandered in the ABC mockumentary, Disney told ABC to make the problem go away. Senate Democrats hinted that if ABC served as a propaganda tool for the GOP, there would be trouble in the future.


FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: DISNEY BACKING OFF A LITTLE?


According to today's Variety, Disney and ABC are so freaked out that they've been caught trying to pass off their right wing fantasy as a documentary, that they are now considering pulling the whole contemptible series. Christy over at Firedoglake has all the contact info, phone numbers, fax numbers, Bob Iger's e-mail address... for the Republican propagandists at Disney and ABC who are planning on helping Bush win the midterm elections with their slanderous and idiotic movie. Just in case you want to make your feelings known. President Clinton told CNN yesterday that it's important for ABC to be truthful. The Center for American Progress has the video.

GREEN DAY'S GETTING THE PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY SPIRIT OF LIBERTY AWARD

More often than not, the big Inside the Beltway civil liberties and progressive advocacy organizations might be hard for regular Americans to relate to, especially Americans under 40. Hard as they try-- and the ones I'm in touch with do try hard-- there's often a social disconnect somewhere along the line. People For the American Way, the granddaddy of 'em all, just announced something that is very easily relatable for the vast majority of young Americans. On October 10, they'll be presenting their Spirit of Liberty Award to Billie Joe Armstrong, Tre Cool and Mike Dirnt-- GREEN DAY-- the 2006 Spirit of Liberty Award. PFAW has all the info about the ceremony, as well as the other nominees, here and I'm sure they add the Green Day information in a day or two. (It just happened.)

When I worked at Warner Bros, Green Day got signed. Warner Bros has never been real good at breaking new band from scratch. Warner Bros has always been VERY good at taking independent self-starters, like R.E.M., the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day, and helping to break them gigantically. When Green Day came to Warner Bros, they had been touring incessantly, releasing indie albums and building a fan base-- and selling hundreds of thousands of CDs. I stopped counting when the first album they released for Warner Bros., DOOKIE, sold 20,000,000, something few artists in history have accomplished.

It's wonderful when any artist has that kind of commercial success. It's even more wonderful when the artists are down-to-earth and real. Billie, Tre and Mike may be avid readers for all I know, but they don't get their core political ideas from books. It always struck me that those ideas and values came from their basic, formative life experience-- which makes them far more powerful and, in Green Day's case, more easy to get across to a mass audience.

In my view, American Idiot is as important to understanding the Bush era as is Daily Kos or books like David Sirota's Hostile Takeover or films by Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald. In the tradition of Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, and The Clash, Green Day are songwriters who have managed to harness their generation's most basic relationships to society and expressing it, powerfully and viscerally, for the entire world. I asked Norman Lear, the esteemed founder of People For the American Way, what he thought about Green Day being honored by the organization he founded. His enthusiasm was palpable. "Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that 'A man must be part of the passion of his times at the risk of being judged not to have lived.' By that standard, How fully alive is Green Day!"

Nothing's going to keep me from their presentation October 10. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame will be speaking too. Green Day and Joe and Valerie... what a combination!! The only other rockers who have gotten the Spirit of Liberty Award were Neil Young and Don Henley. Normally the kinds of people who get these awards have been Bill Moyers, Walter Cronkite, Ted Turner, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Kuralt, Aaron Sorkin, the South Park guys, Nancy Pelosi, Norman Lear, Ben Affleck, George Lopez, Barbara Jordan, Ed Norton, Gore Vidal, George Clooney, Dick Durbin... Meanwhile, I'll just keep listening to their great albums and watching their videos.

CHRIS CARNEY-- A CANDIDATE FOR A BLUE AMERICA

[Note: Today at 5:30 PM, EST Blue America is hosting a live blog session with Chris Carney at Firedoglake. Please join us-- at the comments under the story about Chris.]

As this year's electoral cycle got started, prognosticators realized there are a virtual goldmine of moderate Pennsylvania districts filled with citizens who have grown disenchanted with Bush and his rubber-stamp Republican Congress. The DCCC and other observers quickly identified 3 suburban districts near Philly (PA-06, PA-07 and PA-08) as likely targets. But as things started sorting themselves out Democrats started realizing they have a truly outstanding candidate, Chris Carney, running in PA-10. Even Rahm Emanuel, someone adamantly opposed to Democrats taking unequivocal positions against Bush's occupation of Iraq, felt he had no choice but to add Chris to the DCCC's "Red to Blue" quasi-campaign.

Everything about Carney spelled "ideal candidate." Except one thing: a powerful and entrenched incumbent in a very red district. How red? Until Howard Dean came along with his 50-state strategy, DCCC hacks haven't even been trying in the 10th. There were no Democrats running in 2002 or 2004 (Before a 2002 GOP redistricting that excised Democratic Scranton, another anti-choice reactionary Casey-- son of Gov/brother of current Senate nominee, Pat-- gave the current right-wing kook, Don Sherwood, a couple of close calls. Since then Sherwood has wracked up 93% winning majorities.) And Bush racked up a 60% victory in the district in 2004-- ironically just under what his unfavorability rating is now in the district: 61%.

So what makes Chris Carney think he can successfully take Sherwood on? The district looks and feels more like Appalachia than like Bucks County. It's virtually all white, mostly rural, and the medium annual income is just under $36,000. Carney isn't a politician and has never run for office before. He's just a civic-minded citizen who, like so many of us, has had it up to here with the Beltway shenanigans that have served the country so poorly of late. A Lieutenant Commander in the Naval Reserve, he spent much of the last 6 years serving either overseas, or at the Pentagon as a senior advisor on intelligence and counterterrorism issues. His other job is professor of political science at Penn State University in Scranton. A Fighting Dem and a teacher-- great combo. So why take on so onerous and unlikely a task?

This week he told me what pushed him into the race. "It was Palm Sunday, 2005 and I was driving back from the Pentagon. I pulled in to a gas station in Gettysburg and there was Don Sherwood pumping gas right beside me. But I knew he was headed in the other direction-- back to DC to vote in the Terri Schiavo "case." That was the final straw for me. Here was the Administration and the Congress playing the politics of division to the Nth degree and it frankly made me very angry. I had a couple hundred miles ahead of me to think about it and I made my decision along the route to run so I could help get the country back on the right track and away from this divisiveness."

I am fed up with Washington politicians leaving most Americans behind while our national priorities are forgotten. I am tired of legislators focusing on the extremes of issues instead of finding ways to move the nation forward. And I am tired of the values of middle America being ignored. Our families, our small businesses, our teachers, our farmers, and our children all deserve more from our representatives.

I am running for U.S. Congress to change the way congress does business. Now, more than ever we need an effective government that focuses on the issues that affect us all: National Security, Homeland Security, Retirement Security, Job Security, Environmental Security, and Energy Security. In the face of terrorism, growing deficits, disappearing jobs, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, the 10th District deserves a representative who has good judgment, who has the expertise to lead in a dangerous world, and who will always fight for the people of the 10th District.

Chris has moderately progressive, commonsense, non-ideological stands on the issues of the day, stands that are in sync with the area. He sounds like he's the kind of guy with real leadership abilities and a sound moral foundation. But can he win in this kind of district. Outside of his immediate circle, not many thought so-- at least not until May's Pennsylvania primary.

That changed everything and opened a lot of people's eyes-- inside and outside the district-- to the immense dissatisfaction people are feeling about rubber-stamp wing-nuts like Sherwood. His pathetic voting record shows a garden variety reactionary who has steadfastly gone along with every disastrous bit of Bush's and DeLay's horrendous agenda, an agenda that has especially hit most of his overwhelmingly working and lower middle class constituents very, very hard. When it comes to aid for the poor, the disabled, veterans, the unemployed, workers thrown out of jobs because of corporate trade agreements like the hated NAFTA and CAFTA, Sherwood has a closed fist and a raised middle finger. When it comes to tax policies that help the wealthy and subsidies for the kinds of corporations that give crooked Republican politicians big campaign contributions... well... if Sherwood was as generous to his own constituents as he is, always to big corporate interests, people would be doing a lot better in struggling towns like Carbondale, Williamsport, Kingston and Sunbury-- let alone in the depressed counties along the New York State border.

On election night Sherwood was in a state of shock when a completely unknown, unfinanced school guidance counselor, Kathy Scott, came close to beating him in the primary. In her campaign, she had emphasized that Sherwood is an outrageous corporate whore who takes millions of dollars from business PACs in return for his votes on their very special interests, even when those interests are at odds with those of the district's residents. She also brought up the bizarre sex scandal that has plagued the holier-than-thou fake family-values Sherwood and claimed that he "settled a $5.5 million lawsuit for alleged physical abuse brought against him by his 29-year-old mistress of 5 years." She explained to Republican voters that Sherwood's votes to cut benefits for Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, education, student loans, and job-training were not in their interests. Now it will be up to Chris Carney to pound that home.

Although an overwhelming disgust among social conservatives because of Sherwood's sexual peccadilloes, abusive behavior and grotesque hypocrasy, coupled with widespread anti-incumbent sentiment, may help Carney, he will have to overcome a gigantic financial gap between the two campaigns. A member of corrupt Jerry Lewis' earmark-plagued Appropriations Committee, Sherwood has had a "For Sale" on his back for many years and has amassed a sizable warchest to defend his turf. His biggest congressional ally, Jack Murtha, who has been on the campaign trail with Chris, has promised him a place of the House Appropriations Committee if he replaces Sherwood in Congress.

Chris, father of 5 energetic, beaming children, has been running a Values and Character campaign to help his neighbors focus on the stark differences between himself and Sherwood. And he pounds the issues relentlessly while a seriously debilitated Sherwood sends out childish press releases and mutters Republican talking points darkly. His most recent foible was to schedule a partisan fundraiser for the exact hour on 9/11 that planes were crashing. He re-elect numbers have been slowly shrinking as his constituents face up to the fact that their own congressman is a big part of what they hate about Washington. Since the primary it has dropped about a point a month and is currently hovering around 45%.

People in the 10th want change, real change, and they want a representative they can be proud of," Chris explains. I think they've found the right man. If you'd like to help, please consider giving Chris a hand at the Blue America ActBlue Page. The first 30 contributors today will each get a rare, cool CD sent to them, one that can't be purchased in any stores (or online) but that has music from Sarah McLachlan, Evanescence, Avril Lavigne, Pink, Fugees, Indigo Girls and several other artists with something to say worth listening to. (If you just want to give but don't want the CD, add a cent your donation as a signal.)

Quote of the day: So you thought hunting with the Veep was the only place Nino Scalia goes? Hardly! But what are we going to do about poor Souter?

"In 2005 [Justice Antonin Scalia] was the [Supreme] court's top globetrotter, with 24 expense-paid trips to locales domestic and overseas, including trips to Ireland, Turkey, Australia and--naturally--Italy.

"Law schools and legal groups paid for most of Scalia's travel, although Italian heritage organizations; media giant Time Warner Inc.; the Knights of Columbus in Baton Rouge, La.; and New York's Juilliard performing arts school, of all places, also helped out."

--from a note by Charles Lane on Justice Scalia's finally filed financial disclosure form (he was the only Supreme Court justice to file for an extension) in yesterday's Washington Post

Hey, did you get as much as a post card from our globetrotting justice?

In case you were wondering, among our supremes Anthony Kennedy (at 15 paid trips, foreign and domestic) and Stephen Breyer (at 14) were the distant runners-up. In fairness to Justice Kennedy, though, he did manage to log the entire month of July, except for a side trip to Prague, in beautiful Salzburg, Austria.

At the other end of the spectrum: "Several of today's justices are positive homebodies," notes Lane. "Justices John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas reported no paid foreign trips in 2005; the famously solitary Justice David H. Souter reported no paid trips anywhere."

For the record, even though no one asked, just this past Friday I took a trip to Governors Island, the little island--much of it, I learned, actually landfill from the excavation of the Lexington Avenue subway--last used as a Coast Guard base, about a four-minute ferry ride off the southernmost tip of Manhattan [seen at the top in our photo]. (That's four minutes' actual sailing time, not counting unmooring and mooring.)

Also for the record, the trip was entirely self-financed, including the snacks bought from one of the machines in the ferry waiting room on the island. (Um, local cuisine? They serve a mean KitKat.) Apart from the snacks, actually, the trip was free, having been offered on Fridays and Saturdays this summer by some agency or other, presumably to stimulate awareness of the island, which as far as I know usually isn't open to the public, though most of it--all but the 22 acres that make up Governors Island National Monument--has been sold back to New York City and State by the federal government for a dollar. The geniuses who handle such matters are still trying to figure out what to do with it.

For the record finally, there isn't a whole lot to see on the island. You do have spectacular views of New York Harbor, including the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the New Jersey coast opposite, and Staten Island and the Lower Manhattan skyline to either side [all off to the left of our photo; you know what they look like, right?]. But then, you can get those views just by riding the Staten Island Ferry. And unfortunately, not much of the island was actually open to the public. It wasn't possible, for example, to get to the other side, which is separated from the Brooklyn shoreline by the picturesquely named Buttermilk Channel [at right in our photo]. (I'm guessing that the name is a deal more picturesque than the channel itself.)

It seemed as if you had to pay for the official guided tour, so I went with the self-guided version from the useful handout provided free. It was nice. I caught the 3:30 ferry back. Howie often mentions all these exotic places he's been, and I just didn't want you thinking that I never go anywhere.

Now I feel bad, though. If I'd known, it would have been nice to ask poor Justice Souter if he might like to come along.

FAR RIGHT RETREATING ACROSS FLORIDA

Yesterday was a fairly bad day at the polls for Florida's right wing extremists. First off, they are now saddled with the insupportable and clearly delusional Katherine Harris as their U.S. Senate candidate. Polls show her losing to unpopular conservative Democratic Bill Nelson by as much as 30 points. Over and above that many of the furthest right candidates were trounced in primary contests across the sunshine state. Violent neo-Nazi and anti-choice extremist Randall Terry challenged mainstream conservative Jim King in a state senate race-- and lost 2-1. But even more crucial than the loss by the clownish Terry, was another state senate win. Senator Alex Villalobos won his re-election grudge match against a puppet of Jeb Bush. Bush was furious at Villalobos for helping to derail Bush's attempt to repeal a voter referendum that had mandated reduced class sizes.


The governor's race saw far right fanatic Tom Gallagher sink without a trace, swamped by mainstream conservative Charlie Crist (who Gallagher's campaign tried to paint as gay). In the 13th CD two Republicans will face off against each other in November-- multimillionaire car salesman and extremist loon Vern Buchanan and Republican-turned-fake-Democrat Christine Jennings (Rahm Emanuel's handpicked corporate shill) will see to it that Katherine Harris' old district gets no meaningful choice.

I suspect the next time I mention Florida will be to let you know how badly Harris lost to Nelson. Salon's got a preview of that today.

AN OPEN LETTER TO ABC ON THE PATH TO 9/11

My friend Kevin wrote a letter to ABC-TV. Maybe you should too.

Dear Mr. Kleiner,

I am looking forward to your airing of The Path to 9/11 mini-series. I'd like to see to believe that it is still possible that we have a bi-partisan media in the United States. It is time for the Fourth Estate to acknowledge their power and influence in the new era of "info-tainment" and to take responsibility for what has more often been a rush to judgment. Unfortunately, with the writer of your series, Cyrus Nowrasteh, being an openly activist right wing extremist, the prospects appear grim.

As you know, the path to 9/11, as it were, actually began in modern history during the period made most famous by the adventures of Lawrence of Arabia. Ironically, it didn’t directly involve the US at all, but it was the betrayal of the Arabs by the United Kingdom, France and Russia with the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and later the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that set the Middle East meets West ball rolling.

Tracing the chronology from that point through the establishment of Israel, its complex relationship with its Arab neighbors and the unblinking support of Israel by the US both economically and militarily, a bigger picture begins to unfold. Add to that the well documented overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh after he nationalized that country's oil reserves, resentment for our involvement and the impending "blowback" becomes much clearer. It was our installing Mohammad Reza Shah in as an American mouthpiece that began to breed US antipathy in the Middle East and gave rise to the first poster boy of that sentiment-- the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Years of our political, economical and cultural influence has continued to foster discontent. What they call imperialism, we like to think of as "spreading democracy." In fact, both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were active participants in spreading our democracy there when they befriended Sadam Hussein during the Reagan and later the George HW Bush Administrations respectively. As a Sunni, they saw him as an ally against the Shi’ite Iran and a protector of US oil interests in Iraq. To wit, the chemical weapons-of-mass-destruction that Hussein used against his own people were in part supplied by the US and because of our military and oil interests in the region. (It should be noted that Osama Bin Laden, too, is a Sunni though an avowed enemy of Hussein’s.)

Early reviews of The Path to 9/11 suggest that the film puts more responsibility on the Clinton Administration for the attacks than what the 9/11 Commission itself says of the George W. Bush Administration's own responsibility. Noted in Chapter 8 of their report, "The System Was Blinking Red." We now know, for instance, that the Presidential Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.” was all but ignored by Bush and Secretary Rice.

The commission report also says in Chapter 6 "From Threat to Threat" that "President Clinton was deeply concerned about [Osama] Bin Ladin." The public needs to be reminded that after the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and the Oklahoma bombings of 1995, the Republican controlled Congress refused to support Clinton’s request for roving wiretaps as just one example of how two-faced and destructive the Republicans have always been on the subject of terrorism. Time and time again, at the behest of the Republicans, the media focused more on Clinton’s infidelities than on his concern for the threat of terrorism and, in particular, bin Laden. There were repeated suggestions that Clinton was diverting attention from his personal scandal to the Islamic terrorist threat in a "Wag the Dog" scenario in reference to the film of the same name. Again, while Clinton signed an executive order authorizing bin Ladin's arrest or assassination in 1998, the reactionary Republican establishment not only showed no support, but chastised him for it. The press played it up to the hilt until his credibility was all but gone, but they sold a few papers.

Let us not forget that it was the news media that left Bush’s neo-conservative rallying cry to attack Iraq all but unquestioned. It is that media that allows propaganda to infiltrate what is presented to the public as "fair and balanced" reporting. Instead of selling commercial time at the risk of dumbing down the public and, by extension, giving free reign for Bush and the extreme Right to make America more vulnerable to attack, the day must come when politics do not influence news and commercial programming. While that pie-in-the-sky ideal may very well never come to be, anything short of it may allow for something much more dangerous falling from the sky within our lifetimes. In that event, the path to and from 9/11 will lead directly from the door of the fundamentalist conservative movement in our society and from the unabashed support given it by the US media itself. Either act responsibly now or be forced to accept responsibility when that dark day comes. In the interest of our own security, if not the world’s, sacrificing a few of ABC’s profits in the short term may reap untold rewards for you and your audience in the future. And all you need to do is tell the truth.

Sincerely,

Kevin Laffey
Los Angeles, CA


WEDNESDAY UPDATE: AND KEVIN'S NOT THE ONLY ONE WRITING LETTERS

The DNC has something to say about this fictionalization of 9/11... while an ABC executive assures right wingers that their anti-Democratic spin will be broadcast intact no matter what.

THE BEST AND WORST IN CONGRESS

September's Washingtonian has the annual best and worst votes this week. I think you need a subscription to get the whole list. I've pieced together dribs and drabs to come up with this preliminary list. Sooner or later someone will publish the whole list. (Remember, this is non-partisan, with staffers from Capitol Hill voting in secret-- deep secret.)

The House:
Most Spineless: Chris Shays, and North Carolina sell-out Robin Hayes

No Alter Boy: Don Sherwood

Meanest: Mean Bill Thomas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Mean Jean Schmidt

Worst Dressed: Rosa DeLauro, Mean Jean Schmidt, Cynthia McKinney

Best Dressed: Very cliched, but what can you expect from a bunch of frat boy Repugs? They think the snazziest dressers are the two high profile Republican closet queens, David Dreier, Mark Foley And John Boehner, who may or may not be a closet queen, but certainly takes in enough bribes from tobacco companies to dress any way he'd like.

Straightest Shooter: John Boehner tied David Obey WI), tied Steny Hoyer, Gene Taylor, John Murtha, Sam Johnson (TX)

Gutsiest: Jeff Flake, John Murtha, Chet Edwards

Worst Follower: Ron Paul, Chris Shays, Jeff Flake

Show Horse: Sheila Jackson-Lee, Mike Pence, Jeff Flake

Biggest Windbag: Sheila Jackson-Lee, JD Hayworth

House Member I'd Like To See Win The Presidency: Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, John Spratt.

Over in The Senate, staffers really seem to hate Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum. No one's ever accused him of having an IQ above room temperature but he tied with George Felix Macaca Allen as the second stupidest man in the Senate. (They call it "No Rocket Scientist.") The overall dumbest-- and to rank as stupider than Santorum and Felix, you've practically gotta be dead. And guess what... rumors have circulated for two years that this year's stupidest senator actually is dead: Jim Bunning.

Some of the other Senate categories I was able to track down:

Spineless: Bill Frist, Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter

Worst Follower: Lincoln Chafee, John McCain, Joe Lieberman

Falling Star: Rick Santorum

Meanest: Arlen Spector

Workhorse: Ted Kennedy, Arlen Spector, tie- Mitch McConnell, Carl Levin

Show Horse: Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Joe Biden

No Alter Boy (i.e.- crook): Rick Santorum

Brainiest: Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist, Paul Sarbanes

Straightest Shooter: McCain, Chuck Hagel

Funniest: Pat Roberts

Biggest Windbag: Joe Biden

Rising Star: Barack Obama

Best Leader, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dick Durbin

Hunk: John Thune, Barack Obama, Evan Bayh

Hottest Temper: Ted Stevens, John McCain, Barbara Milkulski

Meanest: Ted Stevens

Most Ethical: Russ Feingold, Lieberman (don't ask me; it must be a set-up by Repugs), Tom Coburn

Most Ethically Challenged: Conrad Burns, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy

Bridge Building Centrist: Lieberman. Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe

Senator Most Staffers Would Most Want to Shut Up: Ted Stevens

Senator I'd Like To See Win The Presidency: George Allen, Barack Obama, tie- John McCain, Hillary Clinton


INSTANT UPDATE: THE WHOLE LIST

Oh, the stories they tell. Get some Capitol Hill staffers together and you get the scoop on which bosses are nasty and which are nice, which senator has a sharp mind and which House member relies too much on staff.

So every election year we survey top aides on both sides of the aisle administrative assistants, press secretaries, legislative directors, and chiefs of committee staffs to get their up-close and personal, and anonymous, views.

This year, we sent out some 1,700 ballots and received back a nearly identical number of Democratic and Republican responses. For each we donate $1 to a charity: So Others Might Eat or the Metropolitan Police Boys and Girls Clubs.

Our survey shows that while there may be lots of partisan backbiting among the senators and House members, their staffers seem far more capable of putting politics aside and making honest judgments. It wasn t unusual for aides in both parties to name one of their own as spineless or give the workhorse nod to someone across the aisle. Some politicians were runaway winners: Senator Barack Obama, for instance, received more votes for rising star than all the other contenders combined. But in many categories, votes were scattered among as many as 60 or 70 names.

Here s our look at the Capitol Hill gang from the inside out.



The Senate



Best Leader

1. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

2. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

3. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

In a mostly party-line vote, Democrats unite around their soft-spoken, sharply partisan leader, while Republicans rally around their leader-in-waiting.



Worst Follower

1. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.)

2. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

3. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)

Chafee s the most liberal member of the GOP. Close behind are McCain, a little less of a maverick as 2008 nears, and Lieberman, a Bush ally on the Iraq war, much to his party s dismay.



Workhorse

1. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

2. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

3. Tie: Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.);Carl Levin (D-Mich.)

The Democratic lion still roars after more than 40 years in Senate; Specter barely missed a beat during cancer treatment.



Show Horse

1. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

2. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

3. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)

Getting votes from both sides, the New Yorker is the subject of the old joke: The most dangerous place in DC is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.



Brainiest

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)

2. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)

3. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.)

All but two of the former first lady s votes are from Democrats, while Frist s admirers are exclusively Republican. John Sununu is another GOP favorite.



No Rocket Scientist

1. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.)

2. Tie: Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); George Allen (R-Va.)

Aides on both sides wish the Hall of Fame pitcher had more than a good arm.



Straightest Shooter



1. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

2. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)

3. Tie: Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.);Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

McCain s Straight Talk Express is still humming. He gets votes from both sides, as does Hagel, considered McCain Lite.



No Altar Boy/Girl

1. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

2. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)

3. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)

Kennedy, getting votes mainly from Republicans, can t escape bad-boy past.



Hottest Temper

1. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

2. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

3. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)

Stevens, known for wearing an Incredible Hulk tie to intimidate friend and foe, and McCain, known to snap at staff when the cameras are off, get bipartisan votes.



Funniest

1. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)

2. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

The Kansan must need a sense of humor to chair the Intelligence Committee.



Most Eloquent

1. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)

2. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

3. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

The oldest man in the Senate can spin a yarn including Cicero and the beauty of his state. Obama, the youngest, woos young and old, black and white.



Biggest Windbag

1. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)

2. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)

3. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Biden set a record for the most question time (i.e. talking) during Supreme Court nomination hearings.



Just Plain Nice

1. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)

2. John Thune (R-S.D.)

3. Tie: Tom Carper (D-Del.); Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.); Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)

Lincoln, a mother of twins and former staff assistant in the House (before she beat her boss in a primary), is quite kind.



Meanest

1. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)

2. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

3. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

She may be under five feet tall, but Mikulski still strikes fear in staff.



Gutsiest

1. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

2. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)

3. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)

Coburn spent the year attacking his colleagues pork, while Feingold railed against their pay raises.



Spineless

1. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)

2. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.)

3. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

Heart surgeon was seen by Republicans and Democrats as forsaking science for politics with his Terry Schiavo video diagnosis.



Rising Star

1. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

2. John Thune (R-S.D.)

3. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

The 45-year-old Obama is a DC phenom, getting nearly half of all votes cast.



Falling Star

1. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)

2. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)

3. John Kerry (D-Mass.)

Frist s presidential dreams look dimmer. He gets boos from both sides, as does the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.



Hunk

1. John Thune (R-S.D.)

2. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

3. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)

Thune s farm-boy looks plus his win over Democratic leader Tom Daschle equals hubba-hubba for the GOP.



Babe

1. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

2. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)

3. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)

Cantwell hopes looks will help her in tough reelection battle. Landrieu s Southern charm also wins many votes and a few billion for Katrina victims.



Best Dressed

1. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)

2. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

3. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)

Smith dresses like the CEO he was; Obama could be on the cover of CQ and GQ.



Fashion Victim

1. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)

2. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

3. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)

The two meanest are also the two worst dressed. Someone need a shopping day?



Most Ethical

1. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)

2. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)

3. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

Feingold interns can t even accept a free hot dog from a lobbyist.



Ethically Challenged

1. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)

2. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

3. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

Republican continues to be burned by connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Reid gets hit for free tickets to boxing matches.



Bridge-Building Centrist

1. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)

2. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

3. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

Lieberman gets more votes from GOP than his own party. His support of the Iraq war cost the 18-year incumbent his party s nomination for reelection.



Senator I d like to see win the presidency in 2008

1. George Allen (R-Va.)

2. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

3. Tie: John McCain (R-Ariz.);

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)

Party-line vote: Republicans see Allen as president, while Democrats call him no rocket scientist. Hmmm, sounds familiar.



The House



Best Leader

1. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

2. John Boehner (R-Ohio)

3. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)

Democrats and Republicans both pick their number twos over their number ones.



Worst Follower

1. Ronald Paul (R-Texas)

2. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) 3. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

Paul has a reputation for listening to one person: himself. He s proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish income taxes and wants the United States to quit the UN.



Workhorse

1. David Obey (D-Wis.)

2. John Spratt (D-S.C.)

3. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)

Democrats unite around Obey and Spratt while Republicans admire Thomas s work ethic. The same three took top honors two years ago but in a different order.



Show Horse

1. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)

2. Mike Pence (R-Ind.)

3. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

Staffers have proposed a drinking game to honor the Texan, who gets more than twice as many votes as others: Sheila Jackson-Lee is on C-Span. Do a shot.



Brainiest

1. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

2. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)

3. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.)

Democrats and a handful of Republicans give Frank top honors, while Republi­cans and a handful of Democrats go for Thomas. New Jersey s Rush Holt is also considered a smarty.



No Rocket Scientist

1. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)

2. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.)

They get votes from both sides, but there were dozens of other contenders.



Straightest Shooter

1. Tie: John Boehner (R-Ohio); David Obey (D-Wis.)

2. Tie: Steny Hoyer (D-Md.); Gene Taylor(D-Miss.); John Murtha (D-Pa.); SamJohnson (R-Texas)

Are you kidding? They re politicians! wrote one aide in a category with little agreement and lots of choices.



No Altar Boy/Girl

1. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.)

2. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)

3. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.)

Kennedy follows in his father s footsteps with this dubious honor. He may need more than drug rehab to repair his image.



Hottest Temper

1. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)

2. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.)

3. Jim Moran (D-Va.)

McKinney made headlines this year for striking a Capitol policeman who failed to recognize her. And she came in second! Thomas doesn t suffer fools gladly. Moran s bark earned a third.



Funniest

1. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

2. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)

3. Ralph Hall (R-Texas)

Barney always tops the list.



Most Eloquent

1. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

2. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

3. John Lewis (D-Ga.)

A pit bull, yes, but a pithy one. Frank draws votes from both sides, as does Hoyer. Lewis s fan base is Democratic.



Biggest Windbag

1. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)

2. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.)

Both sides agree these are two big talkers, but Hurricane Sheila, as she s been dubbed by critics, gets twice as many votes.



Just Plain Nice

1. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)

2. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.)

3. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)

Good news from the Hill aides name scores of likable bosses. The former school nurse out-nices a father of four Eagle Scouts and the courtly Walter freedom fries Jones.



Meanest

1. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)

2. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)

3. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)

Both sides have darts for Thomas and Jackson-Lee, while Schmidt has rubbed mostly Democrats the wrong way.



Gutsiest

1. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

2. John Murtha (D-Pa.)

3. Chet Edwards (D-Texas)

Flake s eagle eye for spending excesses earns him kudos from both sides, while hawk turned war critic Murtha is a favorite among Democrats.



Spineless

1. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.)

2. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.)

3. David Dreier (R-Calif.)

Votes were widely scattered. Shays was the lone GOP voice calling on Tom DeLay to step down in 2005 that didn t win him many friends.



Rising Star

1. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.)

2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)

3. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)

The baby-faced Putnam has been mistaken for an intern and carded at Capitol Hill bars but was named chair of the House Republican Policy Committee.



Falling Star

1. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

2. Bob Ney (R-Ohio)

3. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.)

Blunt s loss to Boehner in the race for majority leader and Ney s retirement in wake of the Abramoff scandal send them downward.



Hunk

1. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.)

2. Connie Mack (R-Fla.)

3. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.)

Known for his coiffure, Taylor kept every hair in place even through Hurricane Katrina.



Babe

1. Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.)

2. Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

3. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

In our last poll, Bono edged out Herseth, but this time the Midwestern farm girl gets nearly double the votes.



Best Dressed

1. David Dreier (R-Calif.)

2. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)

3. Tie: John Boehner (R-Ohio); Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

The natty Californian wins in a bipartisan landslide, as he did in the 2004 poll.



Fashion Victim

1. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)

2. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)

3. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.)

DeLauro continues to get much bipartisan grief for her mismatched ensembles.



Most Ethical

1. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.)

2. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)

3. Howard Berman (D-Calif.)

Hefley was sacked as chairman of the Ethics Committee after rebuking Tom DeLay. Unlike DeLay, he s still around.



Ethically Challenged

1. William Jefferson (D-La.)

2. Bob Ney (R-Ohio)

3. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.)

Several choices this year, but hard to top Jefferson s $90,000 in the freezer.



Bridge-Building Centrist

1. Michael Castle (R-Del.)

2. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.)

3. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.)

Moderate Castle looks for consensus on divisive issues like stem-cell research.



House Member I d Like to See Win the Presidency in 2008

1. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

2. John Boehner (R-Ohio)

3. John Spratt (D-S.C.)

Hoyer and Boehner get the nods from their party. But the last time a House member went directly to the White House was more than 100 years ago.

Quote of the day: In a hurry? It won't take a second to fill you in on what our "updated" plan for fighting terrorism has to say about Osama bin Laden

"[Silence.]"
--from the newly released update of our official plan for fighting terrorism [pictured here is, uh, some guy; he looks vaguely familiar, doesn't he? but somehow we just can't seem to place the face--if you happen to recognize him . . . ah, nobody cares]

That's right. As David Sanger and John O'Neil report in the New York Times, "The White House today released an updated version of its plan for combating terrorism that focused more on decentralized networks of extremists than on Al Qaeda and that singled out Iran as a potential source of unconventional weapons for terrorist groups." But . . .

"[A]bsent from the report was any mention of Osama bin Laden. Instead, it recounted among the administration’s successes that 'most of those in the Al Qaeda network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, including the plot’s mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have been captured or killed.'"

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's the official launch of the 2006 Republican congressional campaign! Because, after all, nothing on earth is more important than keeping Congress in friendly hands to enable the New American Plutocracy to continue pursuing its divinely ordained mission of raping and pillaging the country at large.

The biggest unanswered question is whether the Bush administration's campaign of terror against the American electorate will require bombing Iran, or will it be enough to scare us into thinking that Iran is the cause of all our problems? Either way it's pretty hilarious coming from George W. Bush, who has done more than any other person in history to make Iran a danger to us.

Or it would be hilarious if any of this were the least bit funny--if it didn't look more and more as if the goons who installed the imbecile George in the White House are prepared once again to flout the apparently uniform judgment of our informed military leaders that military action against Iran is deeply ill-advised and likely to produce unfortunate results.

Of course by singling Iran out as our mortal enemy, the imbecile George does as much as anyone outside the country could do to strengthen the hand of wacko President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why, they form a veritable Axis of Imbecility, do Mahmoud and our Little George.

So if you have any clue as to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, keep it to yourself. It appears now that he's a representative of "Old Terrorism," as "yesterday" as Old Europe.

Unless, that is, you can arrange a photo op of Osama in captivity in his underwear. In that case, phone anyone you know and say, "We've got to get this information to the vice president." His people are probably listening to your calls anyway.


AFTERTHOUGHT--A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox

I was pondering the plight of poor Osama bin Laden, toppled so ignominiously from his lofty perch as No. 1 on the Galaxy's Most Wanted List, reflecting that if the guy's got an ego of any kind--and let's face it, who doesn't?--he's probably stewing in his cave about his loss of status, and what he would have to do to get back in the face of the galactic Decider.

He could, of course, mastermind some nasty, monumental act of terrorism. But apparently we've blocked him from doing that, by . . . well, as best I can tell, by saying, "Now don't you dare, Mr. Big Shot, you!" Short of that, his best shot at regaining his old standing as Enemy of Freedom No. 1 is to get captured. Should that happen, just watch how quickly he becomes more evil and dangerous than ever before!


UPDATE: BUSH'S PALS IN PAKISTAN TO BIN LADEN-- WELCOME BROTHER!

Literally! Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News. The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban. If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

IT'S TUESDAY... SO WHERE EXACTLY DOES CHRIS SHAYS STAND ON IRAQ? VERY, VERY UNSURE AND WEAK-- A TOTAL LOSER

Yesterday I was driving around and that Norman Goldman fellow who subs for Ed Schultz was on Air America and he started babbling about Chris Shays being a flip flopper because he used to support the war and now he's against the war. Well, Norman, you're a day or two behind the news and Shays is a flip floppin flopper. Welcome to Chris Shays' Olde Tyme Waffle Shoppe.

A few days ago I thought too many sensible people got taken in by Republican rubber stamp/jackass Chris Shays' sudden call for a timetable to end the catastrophic occupation of Iraq. But day before yesterday Shays was in full backtrack mode, floppin' over his flippers. Apparently he was for the war before he was against it and is against it if you want him to be but also for it of you want him to be-- just vote for him, please, please, pretty please.

I don't know if Rove got to him or if Lieberman said he would stop campaigning for him or if they worked him over together, but Saturday Shays told CNN's Late Edition that "I haven't changed my position one bit. I just want to light a fire under this government... I support the war in Iraq," he asserted, really pathetically, as though Gonzales had his kids on the other side of the camera with knives held to their throats.

Now Tom Kean's light-weight little boy, Junior, was feeling very alone in his call for Bush to fire Rumsfeld and he's probably pissing his his bloomers. Look for some flippin' and floppin' down New Jersey way soon. Unless he cares that Ohio rubber stamp Pat Tiberi also is in full flip flop mode. Yesterday Tiberi told The Columbus Dispatch that Bush's phone tapping shennanigans "might have" been illegal and that "I can’t defend how the President laid out the need for [going to war in Iraq]. I don’t support Rumsfeld... If I were President, he would not be the Defense Secretary."


UPDATE: CHRIS SHAYS GETS A DISTINCTION FROM THE WASHINGTONIAN

And quite a distinction it was! The new issue of The Washingtonian just came out with a list of the Best and Worst in Congress, as rated by Capitol Hill staffers. Shays was voted the #1 most spineless congressman (closely followed by cry-baby flip-flopper Robin Hayes. Shays also made it onto the "Worst Follower" list, comfortably nestled between Ron Paul and Jeff Flake.

WHAT DO BUSH AND HIS FAR RIGHT ALLIES REALLY THINK ABOUT JEWS?

It's too sad to argue with gay Republicans. I mean how many times can you say being a gay Republican is exactly the same as a Jew in the 1930's being a Nazi? Gay Republicans are usually self-loathing elitists. Or just stupider than a lemming. And then there are the Clarence Thomases, Michael Steeles, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyeses, Ken Blackwells, Thomas Sowells, Ken Hamblins, Larry Elders... opportunists, mostly mentally ill, and sell-outs one and all. I pray they never live to regret their support for the political party that has institutionalized within itself the KKK. But what about Jewish Republicans?

I grew up in Flatbush, a part of Brooklyn where there were no Republicans. Or none to speak of. In fact, they didn't even speak of themselves. Now and then some local Republican club would dig up a candidate to run for something and I always laughed that you could always tell from the campaign posters who was a Democrat and who was a Republican. All Democratic signs were emblazoned gigantically with the word "Democrat." The Republican was apparently ashamed to mention what party he was affiliated with, which at least showed a little good sense. (It's kind of like what some Republicans are trying to do now-- a little too late though, especially for notorious rubber stampers like Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Mark Kennedy (R-MN), Joe Lieberman (?-CT), Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Clay Shaw (R-FL), Heather Wilson (R-NM), Chris Shays (R-CT), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Jim Talent (R-MO), Nancy Johnson/Cheney (R-CT)... even a 100% rubber stamp imbecile like Santorum managed to cook up some cockamamie issue he disagrees with Bush on to show he's "independent.")

Anyway, it was a pretty Jewish neighborhood and everyone's grandparents understood that the political right was the mortal enemy of Jewishness. Sometimes a Jewish family in the 'hood would get rich or maybe just wanted to make believe they were rich (like my old grade school chum Norm Coleman) and then they would switch their political affiliation and often-- like the climbin' Colemans-- their religion too. As time wore on, I looked with dismay as some materialisticly-obessed Jews forgot the lessons our grandfathers learned about what the political right always has in store for Jews. Today as many as 25% of Jews have forgotten.

I've always been able to look at Bush's narrow, hateful face and see the bigotry right down to the core of his dark, dark soul. So it was no surprise today when I read at Raw Story that Bush was still pushing his evangelical claptrap about all Jews going to hell in 1998. In the new book about Bush's sick brain, The Architect it's revealed he repeated his 1993 statement about how only people who accept Jesus go to heaven. This time he was playing the role of Texas governor and talking to a couple of reporters. "You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" he asked a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman. Ken Herman, replied that he didn't know and Bush, apparently thinking he was a riot, blurted out, "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell."

I forgot which ring Dante would assign a monstrosity like Bush and I certainly hope his Jewish supporters, lik the disturbed African-Americans who support him or the homosexuals who support him, never live to regret their support for the American version of the far right that has done so much grievous harm over the centuries not just to their co-religionists, but to the entire tenor of human relations that allows people with differences to live together with respect and in a degree of harmony.

HAPPY LABOR DAY FROM DWT!

MY TRIBUTE TO THE ONE AND THE MANY
-by Mags


As I sit down today to pay a tribute to labor, to workers, the worker that comes readily to my mind is my husband. Don’t worry this is not going to be a lengthy treatise on the virtues of the man I married. When I met my husband he was a temporary worker. He is a journeyman millwright, and the plant where he had worked for 20 years had just closed the previous year. Working as a temp was a good thing for him for the time, because it gave him a chance to find another environment where he felt at home. He did find such a place in 1999.

This year in March that plant also closed. They packed up and went to Mexico. Even though the state offered them tax offsets to make up for costs of labor, they declined. The American workers at this plant could not compete with the barely $4 an hour a Mexican worker would make. We had the advantage of time. But, that does not mean that the transition was easy.

Luckily he landed on his feet. He was reemployed within a month due to a job tip by a friend. The pay is a few dollars less per hour. We must pay for our benefits, and there is little if any overtime. There is another twist here, this is a Ford supplier, and if you have been paying attention to the news, Ford is not doing well. So lay offs are underway. Temporary for now, but for how long? The company is working to diversify, but financially they are strapped.

We are the lucky ones. We have work. But, many here in our area were suppliers to companies who have moved to Mexico or China. China pays its workers just over a dollar an hour. And, the suppliers either moved or closed.

We hear a lot about the American worker being lazy. We hear a lot about the American worker being unskilled. But, many of those out of work here are skilled tradesmen. Tool and die men are struggling. I remember listening to Alan Greenspan opine that the American worker was uneducated, but we are educating people in this country who will come out of college to find no job waiting for them. Engineers are working as temps. There are few teaching jobs in states where literacy is high. Teachers who teach in colleges make very little money unless they are tenured, and universities have fewer and fewer tenured track positions. And, we employ a steady stream of immigrants whose skills are low.

When I am late on my mortgage payment a gentleman with an Indian accent conveniently named Don calls me. The bank has outsourced our records and collections to India. Isn’t that lovely? And, when I need a tech to answer a question about my computer again, Bob, from India is there to answer my question, I think. I often cannot understand him through his thick accent, but he tries. (Foreign countries are asking their workers to adopt American names so as not to upset Americans whose jobs they are taking.)

When we have x-rays taken, they are often read in India by a radiologist. The results are sent back here. I think that radiologist is educated and I think that there are Americans with similar education. Problem is that the cost of living here in America will not permit the American to take the job for the same wages.

I hope my husband will be able to make use of the extra education he is getting with computers in the factory at this new job to find another job should this one go south (literally and figuratively).

Many tell us that we need to move. We need to follow the work. I know that sounds logical, but we have 4 children who live in this area and two grandchildren. I know that this modern society has long torn families asunder, but we are not there yet. We like our state. We like our home. We do not mind change, but we do not feel that a complete upheaval and a relinquishing of our involvement in the lives of our kids and grandkids is a price we are willing to pay to find employment elsewhere that is likely to dry up and disappear as well.

Our prospects for retirement are almost non-existent. And, pension plans are increasingly under funded or are being revised. George Bush is trying to privatize Social Security, another name for siphoning off the funds and pocketing them. George and his buddies like to make money off of our hard work, since they can barely manage to do much work themselves. Imagine having a job where all you do is sit around figuring out how to make money from the work and lifeblood of others.

Corporate America has used up the American worker. They have sold us goods we could afford, and then they sold us credit so we could buy even more goods we could not afford. Corporations are moving, moving south to Mexico, moving across the oceans to China, to Russia. They are moving on to greener pastures, the pastures where the workers are hungry, and where the workers still have little if any credit. They moving on to sell the goods they now make for a pittance in these new countries. They will make more slick advertisements in new languages until the inhabitants of new lands think they need to fill their lives with meaningless clutter. Then, they will sell them enough credit to buy more.

Corporations have had no heart and no soul. They do not care for anything but the bottom line. The younger generations were cooed to sleep with the lullaby of profits, and so they accept that business is separate from everything else, that the bottom line is reason enough to do almost anything. But, this only leads to broken lives at the price of profit, not sustenance. And, contrary to all natural law, the one thing in the universe that must increase is profits.

So this is my tribute to working and out of work America. This is the country I truly love. I love it with my whole heart, not in the fickle way that the GOP loves it with pomp and showmanship of jingoism. I love this country and I love its workers. I love its spirit. I believe that we as a people will find a way to rise up and reclaim our history of being proud laborers in business and industry. I believe we will find a way to take back our country from the greedy and corrupt.

For all of you out there struggling to find work, for all of you who work years on end only to get little or no raises and in many cases taking cuts in your pay and/or benefits to keep a job. To all the workers who labor with little hope of doing more than being able to eat and keep a roof over your head, this tribute is for you, the many. Along with that, this tribute is for the one, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Quote of the day: Why are right-wingers so scared of people finding out that gov't-financed health care can work way better than our system?

Which is scarier: that this Tom Tomorrow strip dates back to August 1994, during the Clinton health-care-reform wars, or that it remains eerily topical? (Click anywhere on it to enlarge it.)

"[Conservatives] won’t let vets on Medicare buy into the V.A. system, not because they believe this policy initiative would fail, but because they’re afraid it would succeed."
--Paul Krugman, in his column today, "Health Policy Malfeasance"*

The QOTD staff thought for sure we'd have Labor Day off, and then word spread that Krugman's on the job today, meaning no holiday for us, as per the contract.

Now why, you're probably wondering, are conservatives so afraid of the success of the V.A. health-care system? "Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs," Krugman begins his column. He continues:

One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success--but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn't fit their conservative agenda. The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it's expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003.

Krugman notes that the V.A. system "achieves higher customer satisfaction than the private sector, higher quality of care by a number of measures and lower mortality rates--at much lower cost per patient." And it has been receiving more and more attention, including a recent piece in Time. Not surprisingly, more and more people have been looking at ways of expanding the V.A. model to the larger health-care system.

And that's the problem, Krugman says.

Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: "Conservatives," writes Time, "fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector."

No, the administration and its investor-owners prefer to pour money down the sinkhole of HMOs. After all, in their mind, the first test of any policy initiative, far more important than whether the goal is either reasonable or attainable, is whether their kind of people can make big bucks off it.

There's a lot that we need to come back to in the detail of Krugman's argument, but let's skip to the conclusion, bearing on the politics of it:

On one side, then, the administration and its allies in Congress oppose expanding the best health care system in America, even though that expansion would save taxpayer dollars, because they’re afraid that allowing a successful government program to expand would undermine their antigovernment crusade and displease powerful business lobbies.

On the other side, ideology and fealty to interest groups make them willing to waste billions subsidizing private HMOs.

Remember that contrast the next time you hear some conservative going on about excessive spending on entitlements, and declaring that we need to cut back on Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

One detail in particular we need to come back to, because I don't think most people understand it:

The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector--which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy--has shown little interest.

Are you shocked to hear that our private-sector health-care system "has shown little interest" in "keeping people healthy"? I know I was when the idea was explained to me--shockingly recently.

And I think shockingly few Americans have any awareness of this. Which is why we need to talk about it. I hope we'll be able to get back to it in the next few days.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Note: Please try the offered link to the Krugman column. I'd really like to know whether it works. If not, the full text will as usual be posted in a comment, assuming I remember.

YOU WANT A SAFER AMERICA? ELECT DEMOCRATS IN NOVEMBER

The front page of Friday's Wall Street Journal had an exhaustive and thoughtful piece on the erosion of the Republican Party's traditional electoral advantage when it comes to issues of national security. Polling shows people think Democrats would deal more competently with Iraq and would, overall, handle foreign affairs significantly better than Bush and his rubber stamp Congress. "Most simply put, time has worn the public's patience on Iraq-- and with it the Republicans' edge on security issues. With Democrats noting that the war soon will exceed the length of U.S. involvement in World War II, and with Iraq on the verge of sectarian civil war, the unpopularity of the war has become the year's central issue. Not since March 2004 has a Journal/NBC poll shown that a majority believed the Iraq invasion was worth the cost and casualties. Now polls consistently show a majority thinking the war was a mistake. Majorities favor troop reductions, though not immediate withdrawal. Two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Mr. Bush's handling of foreign policy, and of Iraq specifically."

Tomorrow, Democrats in Florida go to the polls to pick their candidates to fight Republican incumbents in November. In all the districts viewed as "in play," with the exception of FL-13, Rahm Emanuel has managed to clear the field of progressives and anti-war candidates in favor of his own favored corporate-oriented shills and party hacks. But Emanuel missed one obscure, under the radar district, FL-05, currently held by batty rubber stamp clown, Ginny Brown-Waite. FL-05 offers an opportunity to voters interested in pragmatic solutions from a progressive perspective. If you haven't run across Rick Penberthy yet, I want to introduce you to him.

All last week I have been posting a series at TaylorMarsh.com about why America would be safer and more secure with a Democratic-led Congress. An outstanding panel of progressive candidates-- Eric Massa, Congressman Sherrod Brown, Dr. Victoria Wulsin, Jay Fawcett, Coleen Rowley, Chris Carney, and John Laesch have explained where the Bush Regime has fallen short-- and how Democrats will do better-- on various aspects of national security, from bioterrorism, to intelligence issues, to port security and the Iraq quagmire. Today I posted the final chapter in the series, a piece on the National Guard and Reserve by the military veteran and school teacher, Rick Penberthy, who is running to turn Florida's 5th congressional district back to blue. Endorsed by all the major newspapers in the district as well as by organized labor, DfA and the Band of Brothers, a big win tomorrow will help focus national attention on this unglamorous, salt-of-the-earth "political backwater."

Rick explains how the unexpected reliance on the Guard and Reserve in Iraq not only raises serious concerns about the Guard's long-term ability to recruit and maintain troops but also causes concerns for states that rely on the Guard in case of natural disasters. And for the members themselves, Guard service has often been truly disastrous. For many it's meant economic ruin. "Their civilian jobs and salaries are disrupted but their mortgage payments, car payments, and credit card debt continue to pile up," Rick explained. "This puts their families at home in a terrible financial situation where bankruptcy is often the only way out... Increasing numbers of Guard and Reserve troops who have returned from war in Iraq and Afghanistan are encountering new battles with their employers at home. Jobs were eliminated, benefits reduced, and promotions forgotten."

Meanwhile Bush's rubber stamp Republicans disingenuously chant mantras about "supporting our troops," accusing the Democrats of abandoning them, while the GOP votes against legislation to ease their burdens. Almost 1 in 5 activated Reservists have no medical insurance but when Democrats introduced a bill expanding military health care to provide access for most members of the Reserves, Guard and their families for a low fee, the GOP leadership beat it back, 211 to 218. Similarly, last year HR 2528 was meant to provide an additional $30 million for veterans' health care that would have added funding for combat-related trauma care to support wounded troops once they return to their homes, medical and prosthetic research, and 100 additional staff to help process claims and pensions benefits. Bush's rubber stamp fake-patriots managed to kill that one 214 to 213.

Any one of the National Security Democrats on my panel would have provided that one vote to help. All of them have a point of view on how, specifically, the Bush Regime has fallen flat... and how a Democratic-led Congress will start righting those wrongs. Jay Fawcett, a graduate of the Air Force Academy who served for twenty years and is now running for Congress in James Dobson's home district and against James Dobson's handpicked extremist candidate, is an analytic, rigorous, outside-the-box thinker. His evaluation of the military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan goes far beyond the Republican talking points of "stay the course" and "cut and run." Jay has a detailed set of solutions that goes as far as initiating bi-partisan investigations into war profiteering and accountability of all funds being spent on the war as well as to and his most crucial point: "Without clear goals and objectives and a defined end state, there can be no timetable for withdrawal. This is the crucial point that the current debate misses. Under the existing guidelines we could remove our troops now or in forty years.

Similarly, Chris Carney, who worked in Intelligence in the Pentagon during the run-up to the attack on Iraq-- and even briefed key players like Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz-- understands the dangers inherent in putting weak, insecure, conflicted men in charge of national security. Sending in the troops shouldn't be a first resort. Cooperation with moderate and positive elements in the Middle East should be. And maintaining healthy intelligence resources, and using them properly, is crucial. "We need to redouble our efforts in developing robust human intelligence capabilities. We need to know what the terrorists are planning, thinking, and talking about. Just like fixing Washington, fixing our intelligence community is about finding the right people with the right skills and the right priorities. We need people who have lived in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, and in Pakistan and Afghanistan-- people who speak the languages and who understand the cultures and religions where terror is being bred."

Another national security Democrat with plenty of first hand understanding of the intelligence process is former much-celebrated FBI agent Coleen Rowley. She has written at great length of the misuse and abuse of intelligence to further partisan and ideological agendas that actually threaten our national security. "Republican officials, as well as unofficial Republicans like Joe Lieberman, are cravenly exploiting the recent terrorist takedown and the all-powerful fear factor to manipulate public opinion for political advantage. But their 'reminders,' as they refer to them, are not necessary. There is no question about the magnitude of the threat but that threat is most effectively minimized by smart, solid investigative work, not fear-mongering, 'security theater,' or projection of toughness."

As Special Assistant to General Wes Clark when he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Eric Massa has had a lot more first-hand experience in national security than boobs like Bush or Cheney will ever approach. Like Coleen, he is very concerned how "the misguided and misrepresented war in Iraq is sapping our military strength at an unprecedented rate. Both manpower and materiel are suffering across every branch of the service. The cost to replace critical equipment has already reached $50 billion-- for the Army alone-- and the tab is growing larger every day. The US Air Force is literally burning out its aircraft flying extended logistics and combat missions that were never anticipated in the pre-war planning. New aircraft are too expensive, and the latest generation fighters will not be available in time to bridge the widening gap. The Navy... is now reduced to its smallest size since well before the time when my father enlisted, back in the World War II era. Available ships are enduring double and triple deployments in hotspots around the world, with some on continuous duty in the Persian Gulf. Even regular crew rotations cannot change the simple truth: the equipment is wearing out and the people are wearing thin."

John Laesch is another Fighting Dem with hands-on Intelligence experience. He is currently running for Congress-- taking on one of the GOP mob bosses pulling all the congressional Culture of Corruption strings inside the Beltway, Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. Laesch examined a broad swath of Bush regime failures in national security policy, including how disastrously his regime has fallen down on protecting America's borders. "Democratic military members of Congress will insist on secure borders. The increased number of undocumented workers crossing our southern border is proof that we have left our back door open. During the Clinton presidency, the number of apprehensions at our southern border steadily increased to almost 2 million apprehensions per year by the year 2000. After Bush took over, we saw a drastic decrease in the number of apprehensions per year; by 2001 when terrorists struck the twin towers the Republicans had managed to let an additional 800,000 people slip through our borders. The effort to sell ports off to private, foreign corporations is further proof that Republicans just don't give a damn about America's economy or security."

The only actual member of Congress I asked to participate in the series was Sherrod Brown, currently running for the U.S. Senate against worthless rubber stamp nest-featherer Mike DeWine, a man with the distinction of having voted against his constituents' interests at every single opportunity since being elected. Sherrod was able to talk about not just what a Democratic-led Senate will do to make sure national security goes beyond Republican sloganeering, but filled us in on what he has already been doing, specifically in the area of making sure trade agreements do not gut national security demands to satisfy crony-capitalism's bottom line profiteering.

After BushCheney tried to sneak through the sale of U.S. port operations to a shady Arab company with financial ties to Bush's family and cronies, public attention was focused, if only briefly, on how Bush has always been willing to sell out U.S. security interests for some quick bucks for the people who were able to bring him to power. Sherrod's focus, on the other hand, has been anything but brief. He is widely considered to be the most knowledgeable person in the entire U.S. Congress when it comes to trade agreements and he has demonstrated time and again that they "are an integral part of national security and efforts to combat terrorism. We must revamp U.S. trade policy to meet our homeland security demands to better secure our borders and protect our communities. Trade agreements lower tariffs and open markets. But they also open our ports, our infrastructure, and our transportation lines. When we open our borders, the American people must know that we have done everything possible to protect them. For example, less than 5 percent of foreign ship cargo is inspected before entering the U.S. A trade agreement with the UAE or any other nation would dramatically increase these shipments. We must take the responsible course on national security and ensure that while opening markets our first priority remains the safety and security of the American people."


It's not such a bad idea to replace a few grubby, nefarious politicians with real experts in some of the most crucial issues with which Congress is going to have to grapple. And few members of Congress are either as grubby or nefarious as Mean Jean Schmidt in southwestern Ohio's second congressional district. Nor are many challengers as expert as Doctor Victoria Wulsin, an internationally recognized public health administration expert. Yes, she can help Congress fix outrageous national healthcare policies dictated by Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big HMO and Bill Frist's billionaire profiteering family. But that isn't what I asked her to discuss for our national security series. Dr. Wulsin explained how the Bush Regime has failed to take bioterrorism seriously and what needs to be done about it, step by step. She is a remarkable woman and if she can get her message out to voters properly, OH-02 could be represented by a brilliant, highly experienced professional instead of by a nutcase who thinks national security means getting her close friend Ann Coulter to cast evil eyes on people the two of them dislike. With Dr. Wulsin, like with all of our panel members, a lot comes down to the ability of being able to have their messages penetrate through the mass media barrage dominated by nearly insurmountable Republican campaign contributions-- legalized bribes-- from the Big Business interests which have prospered under Bush's reactionary regime and predatory policies. If you want to see the antidote, please look here. It's an antidote you can partake in. Today, the day Campaign 2006 officially gets started is as good a day as any.

TOMORROW IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THE LAST 12 MONTHS WERE PRETTY MUCH JUST PRACTICE.

And it gets worse for the Republicans according to today's L.A. Times. "I don't think I've ever before been willing to vote for someone just because of their party affiliation," a Virginia voter told The Times. The voter was walking precincts at the time for Democratic challenger Judy Feder, "even though she knew little about her." But she knew enough-- Feder is opposing long-entrenched rubber stamp nonentity Frank Wolf, who supports Bush on everything.

Bloggers have been fighting this campaign all year-- some much longer. That was all dress rehearsal for what starts on Tuesday. The vast majority of Americans traditionally tune in to politics a little right after Labor Day. Until now, they haven't heard much of anything. They just know they don't like the direction Bush has taken the country.

"Early this year, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report identified 42 House Republican seats as competitive; now it lists 55. The analysis sees only 20 House Democrats in competitive races. Democrats, who need to gain 15 seats to win control, also have narrowed Republicans' traditional advantage in fundraising. The mood of the electorate continues to be clouded by deteriorating conditions in Iraq. 'That's a recipe for a GOP disaster, and there is no reason to believe that things will change dramatically between now and election day to improve Republican prospects,' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan newsletter that recently predicted a Democratic takeover of the House."

The way the DCCC is running campaigns-- and forcing their candidates to run their races, soft-pedaling opposition to Iraq and trying to blur differences with Bush and Republicans who are so reviled and discredited-- I would say that without a real tsunami effect, the Democrats don't stand much of a chance. Rahm Emanuel is the least competent DCCC head imaginable and races that should have been nailed down and shut tight by now are still neck and neck. He apparently learned nothing whatsoever from Francine Busby's loss in the CA-50 Special Election. Almost every candidate I talk to tells me off the record that Emanuel is as much an obstacle, if not an outright enemy, than their Republican opponent. And then they tell me that if it weren't for the field organizers that are part of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy they would feel completely on their own. I just can't wait for Emanuel to do his victory dance after the Democats take over Congress despite him.


MONDAY MORNING UPDATE: REUTERS WEIGHS IN WITH MORE DOOM AND GLOOM FOR GOP

"I don't think the question any longer is can Democrats win control of Congress, it's can Republicans do anything to stop it?" said Amy Walter, House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter. "All the factors and issues are pushing so strongly against Republicans."

Nor is it only Democrats and non-partisan prognosticators asserting this stuff. Even right wingers agree that the Republicans are going to lose at least The House. "It's too late to fix the national mood-- it's not going to be fixed," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "The major issues are not playing well for Republicans this year, and Republicans are not playing well with America this year."


OH... WAIT! UPDATE. I FOUND A RIGHT-WING LOON WITH (MOSTLY) GOOD NEWS FOR THE REPUGS-- AT LEAST IN PENNSYLVANIA

Unless you live in Pottstown, Pennsylvania chances are you've never heard of Tony Phyrillas. He writes a column for the Pottstown Mercury and he has an eponymous political comedy site. He's kind of a poor man's Ann Coulter, only more clueless. Since Labor Day is the official beginning of the political campaign season for most Americans, I decided to find the stupidest prognosticator on the entire web.

Meet Tony Phyrillas, whose column from a couple days ago at WebCommunity, is startling for being wrong about almost everything. Maybe he's ingesting the same stuff Limbaugh does, but... wow... I've just never seen someone be so consistently wrong about almost everything. He predicts a Republican sweep in November. "Gov. Ed Rendell will lose to Lynn Swann... Sen. Rick Santorum will defeat Bob Casey Jr. The more you know about Casey, the less there is to like about this clueless ultra-liberal career bureaucrat." And he predicts victory for the faltering campaigns of almost the entire Pennsylvania Republican rubber stamp congressional caucus: Jim Gerlach, Mike Fitzpatrick, Curt Weldon, etc. He's alone in his predictions (which also include defeat for two incumbents: wildly popular Democratic war hero Jack Murtha and-- his one correct prediction-- GOP sexual predator Don Sherwood.)

This is a man whose online biography tries to insinuate, O'Reilly-style, that he won two Pulitzer Prizes-- he hasn't. I don't know if he's using controlled sustances or not, but unless the Pottstown Mercury is thinking of him as a humorist, he must be sharing something with whomever is in charge there!

BUSH CERTAINLY DIDN'T READ CAMUS OR 3 SHAKESPEARES. I WONDER IF HE MISSED KAFKA TOO

Last month I wrote a little story about Britain's fascist Home Secretary, John Reid, their version of an Ashcroft/Gonzales character. In the course of my research I came across Britain's former (fired) Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray. Murray's  take on the latest terror extravaganza-- all those planes that the Brits say were scheduled to be blown up-- was extremely skeptical. If you missed it, take a look.

Meanwhile today's Washington Post has a fascinating op-ed by Murray that I want to urge you to read, "Her Majesty's Man In Tashkent."

It's more a story about the value of the intelligence Bush and his cronies cook up to justify whatever crazed policies they are determined to carry out than some kind of romantic Silk Road adventure. Oh, and about the unsavory fellow-fascists the Bush regime cavorts with in pursuit of their agenda. I mean these are the people who created and empowered Osama bin-Laden; how many more like him are they busily bestowing on our children and their children?


Bush never boiled anyone in oil; even Gonzales hasn't done that. They just pay for the oil-- and then some. Ambassador Murray's Kafkaesque story appeared in the Post on one of the slowest news days of the entire year. But it shouldn't be missed. "I learned," writes Murray, "that there was a pattern to the confessions people were signing-- a pattern reminiscent of the testimony I had heard from an old Muslim man at the trial I attended when I first arrived in the country. He had signed a statement, the man said, asserting that two of the defendants-- his nephews-- were members of al-Qaeda and had met Osama bin Laden. Then, suddenly, he drew himself up: 'It is not true,' he said. 'They tortured my children in front of me until I signed this. We are small farmers from Andijan. What do we know of Osama bin Laden?' Few others were able to retract their forced confessions."

The CIA and higher ups in London didn't want an ambassador wasting so much time worrying about human rights and torture and ridiculous, worthless intelligence. They moved against him. "I had gone from 'over-focused on human rights' to 'unpatriotic,' according to my supervisor when he came to meet with me in March 2003. By August of that year, I was recalled from holiday in Canada to London, where I faced 18 reputation-wrecking allegations: I was an alcoholic; I was issuing visas in exchange for sex; I was taking bribes. I was stunned by the speed of it all, even more when I was told by a junior staff member that under no circumstances could I tell anyone about these allegations. I could not call witnesses; I was banned from my embassy; and I would be told later of the results of the investigation."

SUNDAY GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS

by Mags

The good news is, we have captured the #2 Al Qaeda man in Iraq. Yay!!!!

The bad news is that the #2 Al Qaeda man spoke to Americans this week to promote Islam [Americans converting to Islam, pshaw never heard of it].

Worse news: the #2’s do not match up. These are different guys.

**This week’s arrests and Al Qaeda announcements have been brought to you by Karl Rove's Department of Homeland Security and Public Relations Department of Fear Fear Fear All the Time and the number "#2".


The good news is George is still as fun loving as he ever was. Laughing and giggling and cracking jokes with reporters and staff.

The bad news is we have a president who gets a kick out of farting in front of new staff and making fun of those who cannot beat him in bicycle races. I don’t know about you, but I taught my kids long ago that actions like these were childish and immature.

But, wait there is more good news to go along with that. This explains a lot about Bush supporters. Turns out it was not our imagination, they do have a child-like understanding of politics. Which is sort of like bad news again. [Oh my god, will it ever end? Mags would like to point readers to Kenny's article below which expands on the theories of Bush popularity.]



The good news for Mr. Cheney is that his 1% doctrine seems to be catching on.

The bad news for the Veep is that it is working just as well for others as it did for him.
*Author’s note: Prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Same goes for Mr. Cheney.


The good news is that GOP influence and power is waning along with that of Mr. Rove.

The bad news is that they are going to be really really desperate and really really nasty. Expect more of the likes of what Rummy dished out. (The author knows that link goes to Keith Olbermann, but also believes one cannot get too much of a good thing. Expect to be called Nazis, Al Qaeda, or worse.

TOM KEAN DOES A LITTLE BOUNCY BOUNCY... WITH A TWIST: HE WANTS TO FIRE RUMSFELD TOO-- BUT KEEP ALL HIS POLICIES

Today Frank Rich makes a point about Bush being a divider, not a uniter, while Don Rumsfeld is finally being recognized as the united he always was. "With indefatigable brio, he has long since united Democrats, Republicans, generals and civilians alike in calling for his scalp." He even managed to insult a large and growing majority of non-Beltway Americans who favor the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq by accusing us of suffering from a "moral or intellectual confusion."

"What made Mr. Rumsfeld's speech noteworthy," writes Frank, "wasn't its toxic effort to impugn the patriotism of administration critics by conflating dissent on Iraq with cut-and-run surrender and incipient treason. That's old news. No, what made Mr. Rumsfeld's performance special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day. An on-the-ropes White House plans to stop at nothing when rewriting its record of defeat (not to be confused with defeatism) in a war that has now lasted longer than America's fight against the actual Nazis in World War II."

Even substantial numbers of Republicans aren't buying into all this Rovian claptrap. Take the GOP's pathetic and wimpy candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey, Tom Kean's embarrassing son, Tom, Jr. Junior can't wait to get to Washington to enlist in the ranks of Bush's rubber stamp senators. His whole sad campaign can be summed up in one phrase: "Send me to Washington and I'll support Bush." Even someone so obviously scraped off the bottom of the barrel as Kean had no choice but to publicly declare that Bush has to get rid of Rummy. He's still all for "stay the course" and the whole ghastly panoply of the Bush Regime's policies and over-all agenda... he just thinks Rumsfeld as a front man is... a spent force and an embarrassment.

Cognizant that his rubber stamp posture towards Bush is hurting him in the polls, he panicked when Senator Bob Menendez demanded Rumsfeld step down after his bizarre speech last week. Junior ran to the press shrilly screeching "me too, me too, me too." His message of desperation: "Bush good/Rumsfeld bad." Instead, most people are probably getting it: Junior is an idiot. I'm willing to bet that Lieberman or whichever Bush shill the Regime installs to replace Rumsfeld will be exactly as horrible as Rumsfeld since, let's face it, the rot starts at the head (Cheney, Bush and Rove).

Quote of the day: It's still too soon for Nancy Pelosi to order her "Speaker" business cards, but . . . (Plus: L.A.'s police chief toots his own horn)

"Privately, many Republican strategists fear there may be no way to prevent the Democrats from winning the House, where Republicans hold 231 of 435 seats."
--from a report by Dan Balz and David S. Broder in today's Washington Post, "More GOP Districts Counted as Vulnerable"

Balz and Broder continue: "One prominent consultant--who like many of the people interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer candid appraisals--put the odds of a Democratic takeover at 75 percent. Another strategist who has worked as part of Bush's campaign team said he believes there is a 9-in-10 chance that Republicans will lose their 12-year-old House majority."

What's more, the "strategists and officials in both parties" interviewed by Balz and Broder see the GOP "fighting to preserve at best a slim majority in the Senate."

Balz and Broder quote Portland (Oregon) independent pollster Tim Hibbitts, "who has been surveying voters for decades": "I'm not saying this is another 1994 [when the then-dominant Democrats lost the House and Senate]. But voters are not happy. It's not just Iraq. It's also that most people don't feel better off economically."

Just yesterday, you'll recall, Howie previewed today's New York Times front-page story by Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg, "Rove's Word Is No Longer GOP Gospel." Signs of panic are growing among Bush-plagued Republicans, who once revered master strategist Karl Rove and his sidekick Chimpy the Prez as God and His Boy Helper.


ALSO TALKING--And the Chief Didn't Even Mention His Own Candor

"I blow my own horn because I am good at it."
--Los Angeles Chief of Police (and former New York City Police Commissioner) William J. Bratton, whose overall success at the job he campaigned heavily for seems likely to earn him a not-so-easily-won second five-year term, reports the New York Times's Jennifer Steinhauer

And if you don't believe Chief Bratton about being good at blowing his own horn, just ask his former boss, then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who decided in 1996 that his city wasn't big enough for the two of their horn-blowing selves.

Re. W's bogus "summer reading list": Let's say Chimpy invited (the late) Albert Camus to lunch--do you suppose they'd split an order of freedom fries?

I've been thinking for weeks now what to say about this head-scratching business of Chimpy the Prez's famous fictitious summer reading list. I keep thinking that something really ought to be said, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what.

Beyond the obvious: that there isn't the slightest chance in hell that our Chimpy has read any of those books, is there? Personally, I'd be surprised if any part of his anatomy has so much as come into contact with any of them.

It would take a heap of proving to convince me that Chimpy has so much as touched a book since The Pet Goat. And we know how that worked out. Probably that nasty business only confirmed his existing conviction that reading books just naturally causes bad things to happen. (On a side note of high hilarity, can you imagine the man who hacked his way through The Pet Goat reading Shakespeare?)

Hey, don't knock the philosophy. It got Chimpy through Yale and Harvard Business School, didn't it? Unless you're one of those nasty spoilsports who think that what got him through those august institutions with his "gentleman's Cs" was the same thing that got him into them, which had nothing to do with books.

When you get down to it, the one question I can think of that's worth asking about the bogus reading list is: Why on earth have the Bush handlers created and then continued to feed this preposterous illusion of "W the Readin' Fool"?

Maureen Dowd got me thinking about it again in her NYT column yesterday. I'm not sure she did much more than lay some useful groundwork, but that's something:

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. W., the most simple, unreflective and Manichaean of men, communing with Will, the most subtle, reflective and myriad-minded of men.

Under Laura the Librarian's tutelage, the president is discovering the little black dress of 60's education, as one scholar referred to the president's summer reading list of "The Stranger," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth."

Mr. Bush's bristly distaste for the intellectual elite has been so much a part of his persona, from Yale on, that it's hard to wrap one's mind around a heavy W., steeped in French existentialism and Elizabethan tragedy.

On the 2000 campaign trail, W. told me that he did not identify with any literary hero, that baseball was his favorite "cultural experience," and that he liked "John La Care, Le Carrier, or however you pronounce his name."

He was a gym rat, not a bookworm. He told Brit Hume in 2003 that he rarely read newspaper articles, preferring to get his information through aides, and he told Brian Lamb in 2005 that he would fall asleep after 20 or 30 pages of bedside reading.

But the first lady must have grown alarmed at seeing her husband mocked as a buff bubblehead wrapped in a bubble. She began giving interviews saying her man did too read newspapers, and she slipped W. some Camus and other serious fare.

Now already in this last paragraph I'm dubious. First off, with regard to this notion of our Chimpy as "a buff bubblehead," I've said it before and I'll say it again: For all of his compulsive running and supposed "working out," far from being "buff," he looks to me barely fit. While he may have achieved a certain cardiovascular fitness that's of course not visible to the naked eye, in terms of general physical fitness, I swear that an average seven-year-old girl could beat the stuffing out of him--and I'd pay to see it. (Isn't it often the case that compulsive behavior fails to produce the result that the compelled person hopes for?)

Then there's the notion that Mrs. Chimpy is the source of this illusion-of-literacy campaign. I don't doubt that her husband's philistinism is a persistent source of embarrassment to her, but it can hardly be news to her, can it? Wouldn't you think she has long since made peace with the unfortunate decision she made all those years ago? More to the point, is there any indication that our George has ever paid attention to or even truly heard a word that what's-her-name--you know, the library lady--has said, apart from that single instance of the time she made him give up drinking?

A far likelier candidate seems to me the coincidentally arrived White House press secretary, Tony Snow. A right-wing media thug he may be, but he's a media thug of infinitely more subtle persuasion than your garden-variety Limbaugh or Hannity or Coulter or O'Reilly.

Which still begs the original question: WHY??? After all these years of Chimpy's unrelenting, savage assault on everyone smarter than a Pet Rock, why do the people who pull his strings suddenly want to make it look as if their puppet is something other than a braying jackass?

I really don't have the answer. But the evidence certainly seems unmistakable that suddenly it has, well, become important to them. So why?

Let me throw out a theory.

For starters, let's be blunt and say something we're not supposed to say, because it's "elitist." Does anyone doubt that a primary source of Jackass George's popular appeal has been that he makes a lot of people think that he's just as dumb a pile of doody as they are--and we're gonna show all those smart-ass assholes who think they's smarter'n us who's the real pile of doody?

Perhaps the Bush handlers, despite their truly limitless contempt for the intelligence level of the American public, have seen too many chickens coming home to roost to continue trusting in American moronitude. Perhaps in year six of the farrago of criminality and incompetence known politely as the Bush administration, it is becoming impossible to disguise the unremittingly catastrophic results of its disastrous policies, or the fact that a lot of those goddamn smart asses warned on the record that those policies could only produce catastrophic results. Sure, the average American voter is a pig-brained ignoramus, the puppetmasters may be thinking, but what if he/she isn't quite that stupid?

Worst-case scenario: What happens if the AAV should put one and one together and get two--make the connection between policies that could only have been inflicted on them by a screeching ignoramus and, you know, the goon who's been screeching at them lo these many years? If those AAVs get the sense that they've been hoodwinked, that for all these years they've been wallowing in donkey doody with a braying jackass who took them for total fools, there could be a political price to be paid.

It's still a leap from there to the pathetic spectacle of Chimpy pretending to read Camus [left] and then debate the history of existentialism. (Um, by the way, what about the history of existentialism?) But I'm afraid it's the best I can do at the moment.

Almost the least preposterous thing about the idea of this apostle of moronitude claiming to have read The Stranger is that the book and the author are, after all, French. (Sacre bleu!) I'll bet there are millions of fetuses of unborn freedom fries rolling over in the cold-oil graves to which the fickle right-wing champions of freedom pulling W's strings have consigned them.


POSTSCRIPT REGARDING CHIMPY'S INTELLIGENCE LEVEL

This is a subject I find exceedingly tiresome, but it can't be avoided when we're talking about George W as a functional moron, which I sincerely believe he is. The key here is that word "functional": a functional moron.

I am not saying that W is stupid. What I am saying is something that in my mind is much worse: that he has deliberately chosen to live his life as if he is an ignoramus. Somewhere along the line, I believe he decided that actually using the brain he was endowed with (whether by evolution or by God, it doesn't matter) is too much trouble, or inconvenience, or fratboyish-not-funness, to be tolerated. He also discovered that he didn't have to tolerate it. Son of a gun, things worked out just peachy for him, maybe even peachier, if he left his brain on idle.

I hope you know the sublime Fawlty Towers episode--okay, all Fawlty Towers episodes are sublime, but this one is special even so--where Basil did battle with the formidable Mrs. Richards. I'm sure you remember Mrs. Richards [played by the late Joan Richardson, seen here with the infinitely put-upon Manuel, in the classic scene in which Manuel's "Si, 'que' 'what'" was transformed--in the tradition of "Who's on first?"--into the mythical hotel manager C. K. Watt]. She was the hideous hard-of-hearing crone who, it turned out, actually had a hearing aid that worked perfectly but refused to turn it on because she didn't want to wear down the battery.

That's the kind of feeling I get about our Chimpy's determination to avoid using his brain.

Do I have to spell out why this is, to me, much worse than if the creep was in fact brain-challenged? It's one thing for a person to try his best and come up against the limitation that his best just isn't good enough. It's quite another thing for a person to say, "Frig it, I don't gotta try. Everything's just gonna work out peachy for me." Only Ivy League-type elitists--you know, the kind of folks who earn their diplomas and don't let you forget it, even brag about using their brains--are likely to blow the whistle on you. Which may also explain W's lifelong hostility to everyone who has a working brain and the bad taste to use it.

Actually, there is yet one more layer of complexity to the situation.

I think it's possible that our Chimpy doesn't even know that he never uses his brain. I think when, for whatever reasons, he stopped using it, and saw no adverse consequences, he tricked himself into thinking that he was making better use of his brain, an illusion that the circumstances of his life conspired to allow him to hold onto.

This is the phenomenon that former Texas Gov. Ann Richards [right] described as George having being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple. The results have been catastrophic for the country. All those years when Chimpy's shady financial backers used him as a figurehead CEO for all those companies that promptly tanked under his "leadership," it appears that he actually thought he was a real CEO, building up a resume of "accomplishment" like his beloved Poppy's. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was managing not to notice that everything he touched turned to doody.

It wasn't hard for him to retain his delusion of competence as governor of Texas, because the governor of Texas doesn't do much of anything, and that's what our George does best. However, being a "CEO president of the United States" with that kind of track record as a make-believe CEO has been an all-too-predictable catastrophe for the country.

So perhaps his handlers think it's worth trying to "dress up the pig," or rather the jackass--as an existentialist.

ROVE OVERSTEPS-- BIG TIME-- AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ARE SHUNNING HIM

This Labor Day weekend scores of Republicans attempting to cling on to a shred of human decency are shunning Bush's evil Machiavellian chief political operative, Karl Rove. Rove has sent out the word that Republican congressional candidates should capitalize on 9/11 by holding fundraisers at the very hours when the tragedy occurred. Although we have reports that at least a few of the worst and most desperate of the Republican incumbents have sent out invitations, most Republicans seem to be telling Rove where he can shove his idea. And not just this idea.

According to a front page story in tomorrow's New York Times, more and more Republicans "are disregarding Mr. Rove's advice" and avoiding public events with Bush, Cheney and Rove, many even going so far as to base their campaigns on distancing themselves from the Bush Regime's hateful policies. Even a complete far right hack like the uber-reactionary Republican candidate for governor of Michigan, Dick DeVos, loudly struck out against Bush and his horrible policies this week. DeVos, who inherited billions from his family and has helped finance the Far Right's political agenda "startled national Republican Party leaders with a searing attack on the president for failing to meet with the leaders of the Big Three automakers. 'We're being ignored here in Michigan by the White House, and it has got to stop,' Mr. DeVos said."

Rove, who was on his way to Michigan for a fundraiser when DeVos blasted Bush, let it be known that there will be plenty of more ignoring of DeVos' race. Rove is working on trying to minimize expected GOP losses in Congress and says the governors are on their own.


But many congressional candidates don't want his help, at least not publicly. The suggestion to politicize 9/11 has met with cold shoulders by many and it is widely believed that any Republican congressman who takes Rove up on this suggestion will probably suffer for it among voters. Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg report that "influential conservative commentators have openly broken with the White House, calling into question the continued enthusiasm of evangelicals, economic conservatives and other groups that Mr. Rove has counted on to win elections... Rove has warned associates that a Democratic takeover in Congress would mean an end to Mr. Bush's legislative hopes and invite two years of potentially crippling investigations into the administration."

As everyone has long suspected, The Times reveals Rove as Bush's puppetmaster. "Mr. Rove determines the bulk of the president's schedule and is a crucial figure in determining what Mr. Bush should say this fall." The 6 states where Rove has decided to take his last stand to try to hold onto congressional power are Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. In several of these states, Bush's presence "could be problematic" (especially Connecticut and Pennsylvania where candidates have begged Bush to stay away) and Rove is looking to offer some "below-the-radar help." DWT has gotten word that at least one endangered Republican incumbent, already on the outs with voters after being exposed for an extramarital and violently abusive sex affair with a young woman, has announced he will be doing a 9/11 fund-raiser at the very hour a plane went down. Another Republican incumbent, speaking on condition of anonymity, says this could be the death-knellfor his colleague's ill-starred campaign. "It's wrong to politicize this national tragedy and he's making a terrible mistake. The poor guy just had major bypass surgery and I don't think he's thinking straight. This isn't the time to be letting Cheney tell you how to run your campaign"


SUNDAY UPDATE: YES, YES, DON SHERWOOD IS ONE OF THE REPUGS CAPITALIZING ON 9/11 FOR ROVE

I've been deluged with e-mails today-- I thought everyone went to a bar-b-que-- about which Republicans would dare hold a crass political fundraiser at the very moment normal Americans with a straight set of values are observing a moment of silence for the Americans who were murdered on 9/11. Like I said, most Republicans have told Rove to take his sick idea and shove it. A few haven't. Can I prove it? Sure; here's an invite a friend of mine in PA-10 got to Sherwood's Rovian fundraiser. Notice the time.



UPDATE: DON SHERWOOD-- DUMB AS A BOX OF ROCKS OR SHARP AS A LOAF OF BREAD? YOU DECIDE

The Patriot News covers politics in a lively column called "Pennsyltucky Politics" by Brett Lieberman. Today's column asks a perceptive question about Don Sherwood. Wonderers are wondering if the sleazy congressman is "dumb as (a) box of rocks or sharp as a loaf of bread? Sherwood, facing a tough challenge from Democrat Chris Carney, is scheduled to hold a fundraiser on Sept. 11th. Yes, when most politicians will be attending memorial ceremonies in New York, Washington and Shanksville, Sherwood will be raising money with dairy farmers in Towanda. Paging campaign manager Jerry Morgan, the magic's fading, baby."


UPDATE: 9/11 FUNDRAISER EVEN TOO EMBARRASSING FOR DON LOWLIFE SHERWOOD. HE CANCELS

Gort42 has the early information on Sherwood canceling his embarrassing 9/11 fundraiser. Of course, like all Republicans who get caught doing something wrong or illegal, he immediately blamed people around him. Click over and see how Gort has made this very... graphic-- and oh, so appropriate.

Quote of the day: Ethnic tolerance may not be easily achieved or sustained, but it's a lot easier without war chants of intolerance and extremism

"More than any religious instruction, these stories [i.e., her father's stories of his Iranian childhood in "the largely Muslim town" of Khonsar] shaped my understanding of what it meant to be an Iranian Jew. In Persia, the land of Queen Esther, whose virtue overcame evil, one could, by wit or by wisdom, overcome every bigot."
--Roya Hakakian, in a NYT op-ed piece about the current threat to the historically uneasy but symbiotic relationship between the Jewish minority and the Iranian majority

"Throughout its 2,000-year presence in Persia," writes Hakakian, described as "the author of two books of poetry in Persian and the memoir Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran," "the Jewish community has helped shape the Iranian identity." Which is why, she says:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about the Holocaust may terrify people who don't know Iran. But those who do, find it, above all, tragic. By resuscitating symbols like the swastika and other Nazi-era relics, he is contaminating the Iranian social realm, where such concepts have scarcely existed. No doubt Jews have been mistreated in Iran throughout their long history, but to a degree incomparable to that suffered by Russian and European Jews.

Still, there was a price to pay. "Iranian Jews have had to hide their identity and restrain its expression. Of all the pain that Muslim Iranians have inflicted upon the Jews, the most persistent is obscurity. We have always been admired for being 'completely Iranian,' the euphemism for being invisible, indistinguishable from Muslims."

Non-Iranian Jews often don't get it, Hakakian notes:

Sometimes they are shocked when I say that my generation was on the streets chanting "Death to the shah!" But 1979 was a blissful, egalitarian moment when young people shed everything that defined them as anything but Iranian. . . .

The post-revolutionary regime has had the misfortune of ruling a people reluctant to embrace its radical message. That is why Iran remains home to the second-largest community of Jews in the Middle East--second only to Israel.

Obviously what Hakakian is describing is far from a paradise of egalitarianism and tolerance. But there is a strong suggestion that even the messiness of human relations is less messy when no serious hearing is given to the voices of extremism and intolerance.

The message has peculiar resonance for Americans who have to face the reality that the religious loonitude to which George W. Bush gives voice--under the cover of a crusade for "freedom" and "liberty"--is now one of the world's more more militant and therefore more dangerous war chants of extremism and intolerance.

This, of course, is my reading, and not something that Hakakian says. After you read her piece, feel free to draw your own lessons. I'll be surprised, though, if you too aren't left haunted by this final image of exile:

My father barely ventures out of his Queens apartment these days. When my siblings and I scold him for not getting out enough, he says that there is nothing here he wishes to see. "Tell me we're going to Khonsar," he says, "and I'll see you at the door."

FREE SPEECH

-by Mags

I am not as special as the likes of Sean Hannity who recently opined that it would be worth fighting for and dying to keep Nancy Pelosi from becoming Speaker of the House. Nor am I allowed to speak of killing a candidate whose politics are not sufficiently right wing enough for me as did Ann Coulter recently. It would not be wise for me to call for the killing of a foreign leader the way that Pat Robertson feels completely comfortable doing. And, if I spoke about blowing up the top of any building, much less the top floors of the UN as did Bolton, it would be a terrible mistake on my part.

I have been taught since I was a child not to speak ill of office holders in such a way as could be interpreted as a threat. It was drummed into me early in life that jokes about assassination, saying you will kill someone, or attempting humor by using the word bomb was a bad idea. There are laws against such things. People in high places hire people with guns to visit you if you are silly enough to think you are being clever by doing any of the above. I taught my kids the same thing. There are jokes and then there are things that are truly funny. Making violent statements are neither.

I was also taught that one is not at liberty to yell fire in a crowded theater, that freedom of speech was not license. I get that. There is a certain responsibility that goes with opening one’s mouth, if one has a proper upbringing.

But, here and now I want to make something clear. There is a reason why those of us on the left are very careful with our words, and that is because we know that we will be visited with consequences if we misspeak, if we foment actions which might challenge this administration, let alone if we foment a rebellious act of any sort. No matter how important the topic, no matter what is at stake, we know we must speak carefully. We must choose our words with utmost care.

Not so with O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Robertson. They are free to call for the death of anyone and any institution they do not like. Such freedoms do they enjoy that they can spew hatred and murderous intent on a daily basis. Here is the part that you may not have thought about; everyone accepts that it is okay for them. We KNOW they will not be harassed by authorities. And, we know equally well that if Howard Dean or Keith Olbermann said anything remotely as threatening, there would be a knock on their door. Ask any number of journalists whose careers have been destroyed for much less.

Hannity’s remarks are wrong on another level. He is saying that America is no longer a system of laws. He is saying beneath it all that his will and the will of the right wing is more important than our constitution and more important than our political process. In his obvious frustration, he is inciting violent acts against.....who?  Those of us on the left, is my presumption. Who else besides those who would vote Democrat? I know this is being written about everywhere, but I just had to put in my 2 cents.

Our constitution is being shredded daily by Bush and his cronies. They are robbing the national treasury blind, and they are mortgaging off our country to foreign interests. They have invested in our financial failure and they continue to stir hatred the world over for America and Americans. They wire tap our phones, and now they are calling for bids on a contract to monitor the American media... not foreigners, but the American media.

Those who support this band of thieves enjoy not only freedom of speech, but they enjoy a position above the law in promoting violence and hatred. We know no one is going to knock on their door. On the other hand, if I called for anything similar in regard to the upcoming elections, and I am not saying I would, we all know I would be wise to expect an investigation. I would be seen as dangerous.

How is it that national figures on the right have no boundaries? How is it that not only do we have freedom of speech, but even when we are supporting causes that our forefathers paid dearly for and for which they fought and paid for with their lives, we must choose our words very carefully? We must be as innocuous as possible. We will not likely get the chance to say we were only joking. Seriously, does anyone believe otherwise?

If you are done reading that lone nugget that I linked just above, consider how much more care you will have to take choosing your words in the future.

It looks like the Pentagon is taking bids on Sean’s war against the rest of us.

BILL WINTER AND JAY FAWCETT-- WHAT'S GOOD FOR COLORADO IS GOOD FOR THE USA

Today at 2 PM EST on Firedoglake we're being joined for a live discussion by two Fighting Dems from Colorado, Bill Winter and Jay Fawcett. And today these two national security experts are fighting two of the most extremist Republicans running for House seats anywhere in the country, the KKK's favorite candidate Tom Tancredo and James Dobson's favorite candidate, Doug Lamborn. There aren't measurement instruments finely tuned enough to find any discernible differences from these two xenophobic fanatics.

Let me start with Bill Winter's race to unseat Tancredo in CO-06, Denver's southern suburbs, where Bush got 60% of the vote in 2000 and 2004 and where the Columbine massacre took place in 1999. It's a district filled with white, upper middle class subdivisions and sprawling suburbs. It's rich and it's Republican, although even here national concerns have begun stirring the complacent inhabitants. And some people are even starting to feel embarrassed about being represented by an extremist and racist when they thought they were voting for a mainstream conservative. Tancredo is so extremist that he can barely be called a rubber stamp Republican. Of course when it comes to serving the interests of Big Business he's a total rubber stamp, but on social issues he's far to the right of Bush and other right wing Republicans. He once proudly referred to himself as member of Colorado's "crazies" in the state legislature, today he's one of only 4 congressmen to vote against the violence against women legislation, one of only 11 to vote to deny aid to Katrina victims, and one of a handful to try to scuttle the renewal of the voting rights act. Like I said, he's the KKK's favorite congressloon. Oh, and he has also pledged to completely eliminate public education. Got the picture?

Bill Winter is a 6'3"/230 pound ex-marine who enlisted right out of high school, served for 4 years and then enlisted in the Navy, which helped send him through college. He wound up with a law degree from Catholic University in Washington, DC. He's not the kind of man who will be intimidated by Republican hot button manufactured issues. "I'm a patriot and a marine," Bill told me last week, "and I've got 10 years of service that says I can disagree with any president I want any time I want to. And you don't have to be a veteran to exercise that right because the Constitution guarantees it for everyone." But can he win in such a heavily Republican bastion?

Tancredo has 85% name recognition... but only 44% of his constituents think he should be re-elected. "If the Democratic Party would take Tancredo on, a ham sandwich would beat him," insists Bill. The DCCC isn't doing that. On the other hand, the grassroots and netroots are firmly behind Bill. He won Russ Fiengold's PAC endorsement and Mark Warner's Map Changer, both voted for online. (As a mark of his character I want to point out that when Warner came to Denver to host a fundraiser for Bill as part of his "prize" for winning, he invited fellow Democratic challengers Ed Perlmutter, Angie Paccione and Jay Fawcett to share the spotlight with him and urged everyone to donate to their campaigns. To me that says a lot about the essence of this man.

I always ask our candidates how they stand on protecting minorities, guaranteeing women's right to choice, reforming the political system that makes politicians into corporate prostitutes for Big Business and about getting us out of Iraq. Bill had all the right answers. I especially liked his direct answer about Iraq: "Murtha or sooner!"

South and west of Bill's district, and completely dominated by Colorado Springs, is CO-05, being vacated by conservative Republican Joel Hefley. A bitter and viciously divisive Republican primary vomited up this Lamborn character, who is so extremist that Hefley has refused to endorse him and has been encouraging Republicans to look closed at the Democrat, Jay Fawcett. If they look closely enough CO-05 will have a Democratic congressman in January, although the district is even more Republican than CO-06. Bush took 66% in 2004!

Jay is an extraordinary candidate and yesterday I did a piece on him as part of a series at Taylor Marsh's blog about why America will be safer if we elect men like Jay and Bill and take back Congress. Rather than repeat Jay's national security credentials and his proposals for solving some of America's most pressing problems, I'd like to urge you to read the piece on Taylor's blog.

Jay's served at or worked in each of the 5 bases in the district. When he retired-- as a Lt. Colonel-- from the Air Force in 1998 he had seen 20 years of military service, including as an air liaison office for the Army in Operation Desert Storm. His leadership role in the Air Force and his keen, analytic mind have prepared him-- as few legislators are prepared-- to ask all the right questions if he should get into Congress and that body decides to fulfill it's constitutional oversight responsibilities.

He told me that there are 6 over-all topic voters bring up to him all over the district when he's out campaigning. Healthcare is the first he mentioned, like almost every candidate I've spoken to this year. In CO-05, with its heavy concentration of military vets, there is a great feeling of betrayal from Bush and his rubber stamp Congress, which extends beyond healthcare into all matters impacting on the lives of our country's military veterans. Jay says another issue which comes up as frequently is the deteriorating educational system which Bush has severely undermined with his unfunded mandates. And in Colorado, where Nature is a way of life-- and livelihood-- "environmental issues are not about tree huggers and spotted owls. It's a multi-billion dollar a year business here," Jay told me, "and the debate between 'pro-growth' advocates of sustainable growth is a big local issue. Development and the availability of water is a huge issue in Colorado.

With Tancredo right next door, the immigration issue (their gay marriage 2006 hot button) is big this year. "Immigration does not equate to invasion. The Bush Regime has fallen down on border security... they're very aware that they are taking in a great deal of tax money from immigrants that they'll never have to pay out, although state governments are forced to pay for services."

The last of the 6 issues, though certainly not the least, is terrorism. "It's all about intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. It's not about occupying countries; it's about finding terrorists and killing them... [Here at home] we should start by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. If my son had a report card like theirs [the Bush Regime's], he'd lose his X-Box."

Something tells me that if Colorado voters are wise and independent enough to send men like Bill Winter and Jay Fawcett to Washington to represent them, Bush will be losing a lot more than his X-Box. If you live in Colorado, please consider volunteering for Bill's campaign and Jay's campaign and wherever you live, you can help at the Blue America Act Blue Page. In fact, the first 30 people who donate to both Jay and Bill today at the Blue America page will get a 2-disc set of the June Carter Cash's hits collection, Her Life In Music, which includes several songs with hubby Johnny Cash.

Our pals at PoliticsTV traveled out to Colorado to augment our report on Jay and Bill with some video footage. You can click on each name and get to know our candidates even better. And for more on these races keep up with Tancredo Watch and SquareState.net.

COULD ANYONE POSSIBLY HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE IN RUMSFELD?

A friend of mine was a member of the British Parliament in the run-up to the first Iraqi war and he invited me to hear Margaret Thatcher make her big pre-attack speech. I always loved the concept of a vote of no confidence built into the English system, although no one used it the day I was there. Now I may get a chance to see it used here in the U.S., and used on someone in whom no one in their right mind could possibly have any confidence, the wily, incompetent and apparently senile Donald Rumsfeld. It isn't only Keith Olbermann who has noticed that something is seriously wrong with Bush's Secretary of Defense.


Today's Washington Post reveals that "congressional Democrats are planning to push for a vote of no confidence" in Rumsfeld this month. "In Rumsfeld, Democrats believe they have found both a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush and what they see as his blunders in Iraq. This week, Democrats interpreted a speech of his as equating critics of the war in Iraq to appeasers of Adolf Hitler." Since that seems to be equating something like 60% of American to Nazis, there's something worth looking into there. And beyond that, "accountability" has become an important word among Democrats lately. Even a dipshit like Rahm Emanuel managed to blurt out the right words today: "Secretary Rumsfeld's stewardship of this effort is a failure, and he has let down our armed forces." (He may be the worst possible DCCC chairman conceivable, confirmed yesterday by the effusive praise heaped on him by Bob Novak, but he's not 100% useless... just 90%.)


Barbara Boxer will offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution next week calling for Bush to fire Rumsfeld. One of the stupidest and most reactionary rubber stamps in the House, a clown named Thaddeus McCotter pretty much says "Bring 'em on," claiming that this will help right wing extremists like himself rally moderates and swing voters, who have been abandoning the GOP in droves. McCotter is a corrupt kook from Michigan's 11th CD, just west of Detroit, who is in danger of losing his House seat to a progressive and popular Democrat, talk show host Tony Trupiano.

SO MUCH FIRE TO ROAST HUMAN FLESH TAKES ON THE PENTAGON AND RECRUITMENT ABUSES

L.A.-based Arthur Magazine, the folks who exposed Godsmack for pimping for the Pentagon last May, are releasing a limited edition anti-recruitment CD. In the hope of giving young Americans a more balanced view of what military service is all about in BushWorld, the idea is to counter slick propaganda efforts for the recruitment campaigns.

According to Arthur editor Jay Babcock "An eye-opening study issued this August by the Government Accountability Office reported that 'allegations and service-identified incidents of recruiter wrongdoing' increased almost 50 percent between 2004 and 2005. Criminal violations more than doubled over the same period of time. Increasingly common tactics used by the nation's 20,000
military recruiters range from lying about the financial benefits of service to threatening high school students with arrest if they back out of an enlistment process already underway. Military recruiters have also been assisting recruits in the falsification of documents to cover up conditions like autism, mental illness and serious drug problems that would bar them from service if reported."

The 18-track CD, currated by musician Josephine Foster, is called So Much Fire To Roast Human Flesh and features exclusive tracks by many of the most admired members of the burgeoning psychedelic folk scene. Among the artists contributing songs are Devendra Banhart, Feathers, David Pajo, Goatgirl, Michael Hurley, Kath Bloom, Angels of Light and members of Espers and Spires That in the Sunset Rise. You can read more about the project and listen to some of the songs at the So Much Fire To Roast Human Flesh" MySpace page.

All profits will go to specific counter-military recruitment and pacifist organizations and programs who effectively advise high school students and other Americans at risk of being taken advantage of by the military's recruiters and omnipresent big-budget marketing campaigns.

Quote of the day: We need "some smart, bold populist politicians" to reverse policies that have been screwing workers since the Reagan era

"Wages may be difficult to raise, but we won't know until we try. And as for declining benefits--well, every other advanced country manages to provide everyone with health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do.

"The big disconnect, in other words, provides as good an argument as you could possibly want for a smart, bold populism. All we need now are some smart, bold populist politicians."

--Paul Krugman, in his NYT column today,* on "The Big Disconnect" "between overall economic growth and the growing squeeze on many working Americans"

The "big disconnect," writes Krugman, "will probably play a big role this November, partly because President Bush seems so out of touch: the more he insists that it's a great economy, the angrier voters seem to get. But the disconnect didn't begin with Mr. Bush, and it won't end with him, unless we have a major change in policies."

For "nonsupervisory workers," he writes, real wages (i.e., wages adjusted for inflation) "reached a peak in the early 1970's, at the end of the postwar boom. Since then workers have sometimes gained ground, sometimes lost it, but they have never earned as much per hour as they did in 1973." And the erosion of workers' benefits "began in the Reagan years, although there was a temporary improvement during the Clinton-era boom. The most crucial benefit, employment-based health insurance, has been in rapid decline since 2000."

Let's pause a moment to look at that timeline. After 1973 the great post-Vietnam inflation took hold, presided over by poor Jerry Ford. (Remember "WIN" buttons?) By the time Jimmy Carter became president, in 1977, buffeted by economic forces like the first great oil price shock and political traumas like the fall of the shah of Iran, he found himself unable to exert much control over the economy. And that, it seems fair to suggest, gave the Reagan mob that pushed him out of the White House ideal cover to set in motion the restructuring of the American economy we've seen completed by the mob that put Chimpy the Prez in the White House.

To return to Krugman, he concludes his case:

Why have workers done so badly in a rich nation that keeps getting richer? That's a matter of dispute, although I believe there's a large political component: what we see today is the result of a quarter-century of policies that have systematically reduced workers' bargaining power.

The important question now, however, is whether we're finally going to try to do something about the big disconnect. Wages may be difficult to raise, but we won't know until we try. And as for declining benefits--well, every other advanced country manages to provide everyone with health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do.

The big disconnect, in other words, provides as good an argument as you could possibly want for a smart, bold populism. All we need now are some smart, bold populist politicians.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*As usual, in case the link doesn't work, in accord with our NYT Columnists Held Hostage program, the full text of the Krugman column will be posted in a comment.


ALSO TALKING--About Chimpy the Prez's shiny new rhetorical toy (from the "For Learning-Challenged Tots" line), "Islamic fascism"

"The White House is just looking for a way to scare us again."
--a caller to Jerry Springer's Air America Radio show this morning

OUR HOLY WAR

by Mags

The Vatican's Chief Exorcist now claims that Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the devil. The Pope is considering embracing Intelligent Design. Evolutionary Biology is left off a list of fields of study that can be funded by federal funds.

Americans are second only to Turkey in the belief in a mythological creation above a scientific explanation. Doctors. refuse to prescribe the pill, and pharmacists are allowed to refuse filling prescriptions which contradict their beliefs.

How close are we to a closed society where you and I will be forced to profess Christianity? How long before out and out fantasy is taught in our public schools to our children? Who will enforce this national "faith?" And, what will we do when freedom from religion, the Christian religion, is no longer an option here in the good ole U.S. of A.?

How close are this regime and this government to waging openly religious wars, and engaging in religious oppression?

When a community in Kansas tried to vote in only board members who supported the teaching of creation, the citizens of that city voted in favor of real education. They voted against the closing of the minds of Kansas kids. But, I wonder what happens if the Pope (does he deserve capitalization?) embraces the mythological Intelligent Design. Will creationism alone be forcibly taught in all Catholic schools? Will the pope (screw his excellency; he gets no capital letters from me) experience an uprising from his loyal flock? And, who in a million years would think we would be asking these questions in America? Certainly not me.

Christian religionists around the country have been home schooling now for two decades out of fear that their precious youngster might learn something other than their proscribed doctrine. But, can a national movement like the anti-Science movement we see now reverse this trend and send the liberal children home for their education?

At a time when we are told that Americans must be more educated to compete in the global markets, one has to wonder. What is happening here? Advances in biological technology will require us to have solid scientific foundations to compete, but even legislative trends are pushing us backward.

But, I digress. My point here is that we are being pressed daily to move backwards to a time of ignorance. We are chided for not accepting the most archaic of ideas as fact. In short, bit by bit we are being dragged by our heels into a time not unlike the Middle Ages when the church ruled all peoples of a nation, controlled all aspects of their lives, from birth (baptism) to death (last rites), and everything in between (marriage, reproduction, absolution from our sins). We find ourselves leaning over the precipice about to fall into a time when The Inquisition and Crusades were part of rationality, where actions like that were sanctioned as noble.

I can imagine that that is a powerful drug for one such as his popeness. It is a temptation that the devils running our country are not equipped to resist. George, “the decider” sure likes the idea of theocracy. This is not the first time that power has enforced an ideology. No, those with unchecked urges toward power and greed always manage to get here, delusions of grandeur and all that jazz.

A TV special on Hitler and Evolution and a simple statement by a hack pundit like Ann Coulter and now the population wakes up to the nightmare of evolution=evil. Evolution equals the enemy. Evolution = holocausts. How long have they used the term holocaust in the anti-abortion movement? Science is not to be trusted. Not even you are to be trusted. We are all children who must be led by those whose minds can contain only the most simplistic of thoughts.

It comes to us now. We must grapple with the reality that a band of outlaws are in charge. So long have we taken our freedoms for granted that we have fallen asleep. Just now, we notice that the basic freedoms which we fought for over 200 years ago are being eroded by smooth double talking, for lack of a better term, traitors to the American way of life. It is preposterous. It is unthinkable, but this is the current theme.

Bush has set the world on fire. He has managed to set ablaze religious and nationalistic passions across the globe. Some would say, intentionally. If there is a formula for fomenting civil wars, let us admit that the USA has found it out. We only need look at Columbia, Chile, Afghanistan and now Iraq. This is such a partial list. Those in power have manipulated US policies to dabble in the lives of others that we have fairly lost count. This administration has done nothing to bring peace to the Middle East, but rather it offers a sword, and with no apologies, but plenty of PR double talk that seems to soothe the politically illiterate, the religiously indoctrinated. How easy it is.

What stage is being set here, within our country? What happens when a government abandons freedom of religion and officially adopts the language of religious fundamentalists? What happens when myth becomes policy? What happens when the educated cannot seek or teach fact, but must teach fantasy, when they must accept and proclaim a lie? At what point will we face the irresistible pull to hate those who force us to accept their doctrines, who would govern us according to their law? At what point will our own culture boil over? Soon?

At what point will I lose my right to a valid education? At what point will I lose my right to plan my family? At what point will I lose my right to govern my own affairs, my marriage, my children, MY family, my own conscience? And, if we do not hold onto our freedoms by peaceful means, will we have to fight for them again?

We have allowed fools access to seats of power. We have been lax in our vigilance regarding our freedom. As I type this, I do not know what to do. I am hoping that you will. As oppression and repression become socially acceptable, I ask myself at what point will Americans say enough is enough?

Are these men full of greed and lust for power sowing seeds of dissension purposefully? Are they setting us up? Is it their intent to rip apart their own culture, their own nation? Do they cross the line, knowing full well that this is what they are doing? This would not be the first time that those in power promote conflict to serve their own goals. With these pronouncements they force reality into uncertainty. By these means, they make fact debatable. By these means the rational become outcasts and what is irrational becomes the prevailing point of view. The dominant culture has never been much of a treat to begin with, but this forces it over a ledge that not even the dominant culture can survive.

We are not alarmists anymore, my fellow Americans. We are those night watchmen; we are the guards at the gates. It is time to sound the alarm.

Quote of the day: As Labor Day approaches, we wonder how the Superrich Right roused a country of working people to such contempt for work

"The most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor's share of national income."
--from a Goldman Sachs report cited by Harold Meyerson in his Washington Post column yesterday, "Devaluing Labor"

Am I the only one who noticed the head "Devaluing Labor" and at first mistook it for a policy initiative from one of the right-wing think tanks?

But no, it was a Harold Meyerson column, so it becomes reasonable to expect instead a rare actual expression of regret for the pass we've reached, where the country has been cowed into a state of contempt, even loathing, not just toward organized labor—an old right-wing bugbear--but toward the very idea of people making their living by doing work in exchange for wages.

After all, this is still a country of working people, isn't it? How did the ideologues of greed and selfishness turn us into a country of self-loathers?

Let's let Meyerson lay out his case:

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.

The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution. The median hourly wage for Americans has declined by 2 percent since 2003, though productivity has been rising handsomely. Last year, according to figures released just yesterday by the Census Bureau, wages for men declined by 1.8 percent and for women by 1.3 percent.

Clearly, our columnist knows what fate awaits anyone who sticks up for the idea of labor:

But finger a corporation for exploiting its workers and you're trafficking in class warfare. Of late a number of my fellow pundits have charged that Democratic politicians concerned about the further expansion of Wal-Mart are simply pandering to unions. Wal-Mart offers low prices and jobs to economically depressed communities, they argue. What's wrong with that?

Were that all that Wal-Mart did, of course, the answer would be "nothing." But as business writer Barry Lynn demonstrated in a brilliant essay in the July issue of Harper's, Wal-Mart also exploits its position as the biggest retailer in human history -- 20 percent of all retail transactions in the United States take place at Wal-Marts, Lynn wrote -- to drive down wages and benefits all across the economy. The living standards of supermarket workers have been diminished in the process, but Wal-Mart's reach extends into manufacturing and shipping as well. Thousands of workers have been let go at Kraft, Lynn shows, due to the economies that Wal-Mart forced on the company. Of Wal-Mart's 10 top suppliers in 1994, four have filed bankruptcies.

And he concludes:

For the bottom 90 percent of the American workforce, work just doesn't pay, or provide security, as it used to.

Devaluing labor is the very essence of our economy. I know that airlines are a particularly embattled industry, but my eye was recently caught by a story on Mesaba Airlines, an affiliate of Northwest, where the starting annual salary for pilots is $21,000 a year, and where the company is seeking a pay cut of 19 percent. Maybe Mesaba's plan is to have its pilots hit up passengers for tips.

Labor Day is almost upon us. What a joke.

Happy Labor Day, everyone.

PREDICTIONS OF A VERY BAD NOVERMBER FOR REPUBLICANS ARE COMING FAST AND FURIOUS... FROM REPUBLICANS

With prediction of a building tsunami of sheer hatred and mistrust towards Bush, his criminal regime, and the Republican rubber stamp Congress, the Democrats, being the only other political party seriously or semi-seriously, contesting the election, are likely to reap far more seats than their pathetic lack of leadership merits. According to a story in last night's Political Wire the Republicans are putting their last desperate hopes of clinging to power in the House on knocking off a few Democrats. So which Democrats? Are they going after the fiery liberals like Barney Frank (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) they love to revile? Uh... no. They're attacking the most reactionary Democrats who have consistently voted with Bush and the Republicans on substantive issues.

So thanks for voting to screw workers and consumers in favor of GOP corporate patrons, John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-8), Alan Mollohan (WV-1), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Jim Marshall (GA-8), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), and John Spratt (SC-5). You're the ones against whom the Republicans are turning the gigantic bribes contributions they get from those corporations whose agendas you were so loyal to. And there's not a single one I would shed a tear over-- so long as real Democrats like the Blue America challengers win seats to replace their one annual dependable Democratic vote-- the one for House organization.

My friend Jim just sent me a similar analysis from the Prince of Darkness. Novak claims the only real Republican chance for a pick up is in IL-08 (against Big Business shill Melissa Bean)-- and he rates that as a "leans GOP." He has nothing on the board for the category "Likely Republican Takeover." On Novak's Red to Blue chart, there's a lot more action predicted, including likely Democratic takeovers in AZ-08 (Kolbe's old seat), TX-22 (DeLay's old seat) and against Mike Sodrel (IN-09) and Geoff Davis (KY-04). The "Leans Democratic" column has 11 endangered Republican seats, some held by such well-known and reviled figures as bankrobber Charles Taylor (NC-11), flippity-floppy Chirs Shays (CT-04), 2 drooling far right savages from Indiana, Chris Chocola and John Hostettler, and so on. And he's missing so many under-the-radar races that haven't shown up in the mainstream media yet. Like this one in Minnesota.

MAGS ASKS THE QUESTION: IS GEORGE INSANE?

Just a week or so ago Joe Scarborough asked the question, "Is Bush an idiot?" What the Democrats and the grassroots have been asking for years was finally in print at the bottom of our TV screens.

The president countered with his reading list, and went on acting like an idiot.

I watched on C-span today the round table discussion of US Foreign policy. There again, real live human beings on national television, no less, stating the obvious, that our foreign policy was going    awry. No matter how politically correct they intended to be, the bottom line was obvious, America is suffering serious challenges brought on by our cowboy "diplomacy" and Bush’s tendency to shoot first and ask questions later foreign policy. What has been obvious to many of us in the last 6 years was being stated in plain language.

The Bush administration is working overtime to polish their already permanently marred image with a barrage of photo ops for Bush the lesser along the pristine beaches of New Orleans. Karl Rove even poked his bespectacled head out of his hidey hole recently to speak against the Democrats, Cheney likewise. Polls tell us that Bush is barely above 30% in popularity. The last poll I read on Cheney was around 19%, and new polls tell us that Americans do not like KKKarl either. The right’s feasting on its own has put Condi on hold. So desperate are they that yesterday, they bring out Donald Rumsfeld, dementia poster boy, to announce that those of us, far and wide who do not agree with Bush’s failed policies are Nazi’s and terrorists. [Personal note: I hope this works as well for Rummy as it has for the left. Here a Nazi, there a Nazi, everywhere a Nazi Nazi]

If FOX "News" is any indication of the way the wind is blowing in this administration, and there is no reason to believe it is otherwise, then I would say Georgie Porgie is ginning up for an attack on Iran. Oh, boy! Nothing like 3 failed fronts to lift American morale. Many would argue this is demonstrably insane.

Perhaps it is time to stop calling Bush and his cronies Nazis and for someone to step forward and ask a more serious question. And, that is this: Is George Bush mentally incompetent? I stopped asking long ago if George is an idiot; clearly he is. Would Joe have taken on that story if it were not easily demonstrated? But, here is a new one. It is a simple relevant question. Get Joe Scarborough on the phone! Isn't it time to ask, seriously, "Is George nuts?"

Imagine that scrolling across the bottom of the screen.


UPDATE: DAVID CORN'S WONDERING TOO

Well, it's not just Mags (and everyone we know) who's asking questions about Bush's mental capacity. This morning David Corn muses about what makes Bush incapable of understanding the difference between a goal and a strategy to achieve that goal.

BUSH DOES FUNDRAISERS FOR GOP CANDIDATES IN TENNESSEE AND ARKANSAS-- BUT NO PICTURES

Where are the photos? Don't Hutchinson and Corky want photos of themselves with El Presidente for their websites and their glossy mailers and their TV spots? But so far the only Republican willing to pose with Bush on this trip down South was his old friend and confidante on the right. According to tomorrow's Washington Post Bush rushed around the border states helping walking-dead right wingers raise money for their campaigns. First he did a very private-- no cameras allowed-- fundraiser for far right fanatic Asa Hutchinson, who is waging a pointless battle against popular Arkansas Attorney General and soon-to-be-governor Mike Beebee. And then he zipped over to Nashville to scrape together some cash for the Rove-inspired smear ads Corky is planning to unleash on Harold Ford, Jr.

And although Corky was careful to make sure he wasn't photographed with the highly toxic Bush, he has already run a terrible campaign that has allowed Ford to turn the race into a referendum on Bush's war in Iraq.

"The Tennessee Senate race is shaping up as one of the most interesting this year, with Ford mounting a fierce effort to become the first African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the Senate from the South. Tennessee is a conservative state, and political analysts here say Bush's popularity has not fallen as steeply as it has in other states." [Well, it hasn't fallen as steeply as it has in states in the Northeast but Bush's 58% August disapproval rating is pretty high-- and apparently so are the "political analysts" The Post invented for this paragraph.]

"But Ford has been making inroads by stressing moderate positions on social and fiscal issues. He has supported the war in Iraq but told the Nashville Tennessean this week that he does not share a 'stay the course' philosophy with the president. On Corker's campaign Web site, he says: 'We must complete our mission in Iraq, supporting the new emerging democratic government until Iraqi forces are prepared to defend their country'... John G. Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University who specializes in campaign advertising, said Ford is trying to 'turn the race into a referendum on the president, and some of Corker's moves have played into this,' including Wednesday night's fundraiser.

ARE ALL THE REPUBLICANS RUNNING FOR KATHERINE HARRIS' CONGRESSIONAL SEAT NUT CASES?

You probably either heard about or read about Pat Buchanan's new blatantly racist book, State of Emergency. Buchanan is usually wrong about almost everything but he isn't stupid. (Look he did call for Bush's impeachment yesterday.) What the guy is, is insane-- but we've known that for a long time. Now what we haven't known for a long time is about the other insane Buchanan. No, not Bay. I mean, yes, she's out of her skull too, but I'm not talking about her.


I'm talking about Vern Buchanan. Now this is a nut job. But in Katherine Harris' district, what would you expect? Ole Vern is a rich bully, much disliked and just pouring money into his bid to take the Republikook nomination. In fact, the GOP primary in FL-13 is now the most expensive race for a House seat anywhere in the country. Dropping over $2 million of his own money into the campaign, Buchanan, a sleazy huckster used car salesman, is spending over $4 million in total on the race. He clearly thinks he can buy the seat-- probably not a bad business proposition if he can steal at the rate of Republicrooks like Jerry Lewis, Bob Ney, John Doolittle, Tom DeLay and that pack.

Meanwhile, The St Petersburg Times was pushing a poll a couple weeks ago that showed Tramm Hudson trouncing Buchanan by double digits. Of course then Hudson broke onto the national stage by making a nutty racist speech at a Christian Coalition meeting. Remember? About Blacks not being able to swim.

While these two loons slug it out for first place, there are a whole gaggle of Republicans, like 7 I think, running for the seat. On the Democratic side, there's another Republican, who claims to be a Democrat, Christine Jennings, who Rahm Emanuel is pushing. There's also an actual Democrat, an independent-minded, progressive one, Jan Schneider (the type Emanuel hates and fears), who will probably win. Progressive and grassroots Democrats are horrified with Emanuel's interference and by the abysmal campaign Jennings is running for the DCCC. Schneider is the Blue America-endorsed candidate and you can contribute to her race here.

AN ALTERNATIVE TO MEAN JEAN SCHMIDT... MAKE OHIO PROUD AGAIN

Do you remember the whole unseemly Danny Bubp incident on the floor of the United States House of Representatives? Victoria Wulsin is a real alternative to that. Watch this:



And now, think about this.

MEET REP. BRAD MILLER (D-NC), ONE INCUMBENT REALLY WORTH GOING TO THE MAT TO KEEP

Today at 5:30 PM (EST), Brad Miller will be the featured live guest on the Blue America series at Firedoglake. He'll be talking about his race and about his work in Congress and he's open to answering any questions you might want to ask. So, just show up at 5:30 and go to the comments section of Blue America.

When I mentioned to my friends that I was interviewing a Democratic congressman from North Carolina I got a collective look of skepticism. A Dixiecrat? Of course not. But someone who doesn't understand North Carolina politics might think so. The state gave Bush 56% of its vote in 2000-- and 56% of its vote in 2004 despite the fact that the state's senior senator, John Edwards, was running for vice president and despite having seen Bush in action for 4 years! And the state's two current senators, the famously, even embarrassingly, incompetent Liddy Dole and the Stepford rubber stamp kook Richard Burr, are both far right extremists. And speaking of extremists, North Carolina has the distinction of being able to claim both the congressman and the congresswoman with the most reactionary voting records in the entire House of Representatives: Patrick McHenry and Virginia Foxx. And the 5 other Republican House members from North Carolina can all be described as being on the far right fringes of the Republican Party.

On top of that, even the Democrats aren't exactly shining examples of progressivism... except for two: Mel Watt and, the reason why we're here today, Brad Miller. When it came to the vital issues effecting middle class Americans, DMI examined the voting records of the North Carolina delegation and rated each incumbent. All 7 Republicans' voting records merited F's. The 6 Democrats rated B's and C's, an F... except Watt and Miller, both of whose records got A's.

Brad's the first incumbent we've invited to come over and blog with us here at Blue America. You may wonder why? The fact that he was also the only incumbent congressman to take part in Yearly Kos might give you a clue. But even more to the point, read his diaries at Kos (here too) and you will immediately recognize a kindred spirit. I found him extremely down to earth, brilliant in a policy-wonk kind of way and a man grounded in a solid set of progressive values. And then there's Vernon Robinson.

What can one say about a man who brags that he's "the Black Jesse Helms?" Remember I mentioned above that North Carolina has the most reactionary congresswoman in America, Virginia Foxx? Her voting record makes the most far right extremist loons like Mean Jean Schimdt, Tom DeLay, Adam Putnam, Ernest Istook, Lynn Westmoreland, Steve King, and J.D. Hayworth look almost mainstream! Well, in 2004 Robinson ran against her and attacked her as a liberal and ran TV ads with her face morphing into Hillary Clinton! In short, Vernon Robinson is probably the single most extreme right wing, bigoted maniac running for Congress anywhere. He's actually far worse than his hero-- and supporter-- Tom Tancredo.

I don't think I've ever asked you to look at a Republican candidate's website before. If enough people examine Robinson's, he won't have a chance to win. Take a look and watch his psycho videos: The Twilight Zone, his I hate Mexicans and gays clip and his crazy and offensive Beverly Hill Miller ad.

So why would anyone even think twice about an opponent like this, someone who is so obviously deranged and outside even the Republican mainstream? One word: money. "Two years ago he raised $3 million," Brad told me. "That amount of money is kind of scary... He taps into the most extreme sliver of the far right. It's like Ann Coulter. Most people, regardless of political party, find what they say repugnant but the sheer outrageousness appeals to that sliver. Over 80% of the money he raises comes from outside North Carolina; almost none comes from the district."

Aside from being a crank candidate and an extremist gadfly, Robinson doesn't have any real career. He runs a fake advocacy "group" that favors vouchers over public schools but when the "group" raised an annual total of $107,000, Robinson's salary was $104,000. Jack Kemp, a Republican corporate whore who will endorse anyone who favors vouchers, endorsed Robinson and then, on seeing his bizarre, xenophobic and fanatical positions, publicly withdrew the endorsement.

Obsessed with homosexuality and Hispanics, Robinson hasn't found a way to claim Brad is Hispanic (yet) but he pulled the same dirty Republican trick on Brad and his wife that Ken Blackwell tried pulling on Ted Strickland and his wife. Both homophobic Republicans had sleazy surrogates claim their opponents didn't have children because they are gay and have marriages of convenience. The blowback in Ohio seems to have ended Blackwell's chance to be taken seriously. There hasn't been polling in the 13th CD, so no one knows what effect Robinson's idiotic charges have had.

When I asked Brad what issues his constituents are most concerned about, first up were jobs and health care. Not only are people losing jobs, the wages aren't keeping up with inflation. He started a bipartisan caucus for community colleges because he sees it as a way for people to learn new skills to compete in a changing marketplace. But when it comes to healthcare, he told me affordability was just one part of the issue. "People are amazed at how hateful the whole system is to deal with." (Envision Bill Frist.) And, of course the other issue he hears about over and over is Bush's foreign policy blundering, namely the war in Iraq and the instability of the world and of energy supplies.

His committee work has had him dealing extensively with consumer protection, predatory lending and the issues around scientific integrity and the manipulation of science by policy makers. I'm going to leave the specifics of these issues for the live discussion with Brad in the comments section below. You can volunteer for Brad's campaign here and you can donate here.

Quote of the day: We hope Bill Moyers is chuckling as the man who tried to smear filth on his reputation gets caught red-handed again

"I believe it will become clear that this investigation was inspired by partisan divisions."
--far-right-wing pond scum Kenneth Tomlinson, responding to the eye-popping charges leveled at him in his latest investigative smackdown

Once again, I can't help thinking that there should be a "bonus" penalty for the ideological hooligans who get caught red-handed and bluff and bluster their protestations of innocence, and brazenly try to tarnish their accusers with the filth they themselves wallow in. (My bottom line here remains the same: At a very minimum, when these thugs' respective jigs are finally up and they've cut their deals with prosecutors, I want to see each of them drowning publicly in what I think of as "Duke Cunningham tears.") What's more, as more and more of the ultra-right-wing ideologues turn out to be shameless self-enriching crooks, it becomes harder to pretend that the association of ultra-right-wing ideology and criminality is casual or accidental.

Tomlinson is a brain-dead intellectual thug whose apparently lofty value to the loony right seems to reside entirely in his far-right-wing "ideological purity"--well, that and his utter shamelessness about the lengths to which he will go to impose his diseased values on the public. He was, of course, the hit man brought in to "right" the alleged ideological bias of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (Yes, he was the man who set about purging Bill Moyers.) As he quickly demonstrated, from a professional standpoint he makes the patron saint of propagandists, the late, great Joseph Goebbels, look fair and balanced--and I mean "fair and balanced" in the actual sense of the words, not the phonified right-wing-propaganda version.

In case you missed either part of the Tomlinson story, here's how Paul Farhi started his report in today's Washington Post:

A year-long State Department investigation has found that the chairman of the agency that oversees Voice of America and other government broadcasting operations improperly used his office, putting a friend on the payroll and running a "horse-racing operation" with government resources.

The report, released yesterday, marks the second time in less than a year that an internal investigation has found evidence of rules violations by Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

In November, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting inspector general found that Tomlinson had made improper hires, had tried to tamper with PBS's TV programming and appeared to show political favoritism in selecting CPB's president while he was chairman, Tomlinson resigned his CPB post that same month.

The new allegations against Tomlinson, 62, stem from his chairmanship of the BBG, which oversees the federal government's array of international broadcasting services, including VOA, Radio and TV Marti in Cuba and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

THERE'S A CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT ELECTION SEPTEMBER 12TH IN MARYLAND AND DONNA EDWARDS NEEDS YOU

There are primaries in every almost state and they are certainly important to the participants and sometimes to the other citizens of the states or at least the districts. Rarely do they rise to the level of being important to the whole country. Unfortunately.

Primaries are often the only time grassroots activists get a chance to hold legislators accountable. If I hate Henry Waxman-- I don't-- because he voted for Bush's unwarranted attack on Iraq-- he did-- the only shot I'd get would be in the primary because his district is solidly Democratic in makeup and the winner of the Democratic primary is, in effect, the winner of the whole ball of wax. With the technological advances in the science of gerrymandering, this is the rule across the country now, not the exception.

The Senate race in Connecticut, you probably noticed, was a race of great national importance. Ned Lamont is certainly an excellent and worthy candidate but without the collective decision of grassroots activists in Connecticut to hold their faithless senator accountable for his execrable record, Lieberman would have hardly even noticed he had a challenge. Eventually the race got traction with the media-- Lieberman, after all, was something of a national figure and has never been shy about running towards any microphone he had ever seen-- and the race soon took on referendum status on Lieberman's patron, George Bush and the whole Bush Regime agenda, especially in Iraq. Lucky Lamont! And skillful Lamont!

There's one other race like that before the real national referendum in November. In about 2 weeks voters in Maryland's 4th congressional district go to the polls to decide whether or not Al Wynn, who was first elected in 1992, should be returned to office or if he should be replaced with a local activist Donna Edwards. Today The Washington Post explained in an editorial why Donna's the one.

The similarities between Lieberman and Wynn are undeniable, although Lieberman, driven by an oversized ego, has been more of a showboat, while Wynn, somewhat powermad, has been more surreptitious. Each man's voting record, in terms of help for the middle class, was rated a C by DMI. Lieberman's record has been slightly more reactionary than Wynn's but Wynn's district is a far deeper shade of blue than Lieberman's.

The Post points out that Wynn's "votes have been at odds with good government and the interests of his constituents. He has backed the estate tax repeal, a measure that benefits the richest Americans at the expense of the poor and middle class. He supported the Bush administration's energy bill in 2003, offering subsidies to oil and gas companies even as they were headed toward record profits. He has flip-flopped on fuel efficiency standards and opposed campaign finance reform."

Like disinterested party looking closely at the race, they strongly back Donna. "The 4th District, comprising parts of Prince George's and Montgomery counties, is heavily Democratic, a profile that meshes with Ms. Edward's long involvement in liberal causes. She has championed a higher minimum wage, campaign finance reform and an array of environmental issues, and she fought for legislation to curtail domestic violence. Locally, she was an ardent opponent of National Harbor, the multibillion-dollar development underway in Prince George's, but she came around to supporting it when she was satisfied that it would include a balance of commercial, entertainment and residential components. Her assent removed one of the project's last major hurdles-- a fact that testifies both to her skill as an advocate and her openness to reasonable compromise."

Yesterday Matt Stoller had an even more persuasive endorsement of Donna Edwards at MyDD and a great explanation of why this race has great national importance. "Wynn is not only a viciously reactionary Democrat who voted for the war and has aided Bush at nearly every turn, but he's also brutish in his local political work in a way that Lieberman is not... Once could argue that Wynn is actually worse than Lieberman, because while Lieberman panders to the right and has to answer to the press in some form or fashion, Wynn is owned by the right and flourishes in silence. While Lieberman spreads unseemly rumors about his opponent, Wynn's staffers have actually beaten up supporters of his opponent. With a much less transparent political culture than Connecticut, Maryland is harder to penetrate. And that makes Wynn even more entrenched than Lieberman was, and harder to understand. Unlike Lieberman, his power is predicated on being ignored as he channels corporate money to his political allies, as opposed to being high profile on Sunday shows. While Lieberman was the leader of the Bourbons, Wynn is the silent corruptor."

DWT readers already know how strongly we feel about what a great member of Congress Donna would be. As she enters the home stretch in this crucial campaign, the race hasn't caught the attention of the national media the way Lamont's challenge to the more high profile Lieberman did. Consequently, Donna hasn't gotten the kind of financial support Lamont got. And she needs it. And we need her. There's a symmetry there and today would be a nice day to express it here. If Donna wins September 12, the message to every faithless incumbent will be loud and clear-- and will help make the Democratic Party far more worthy of the power they are probably going to win in November.

Take a look at this video of Donna explaining why she's running against Al Wynn:




AFTERTHOUGHT

Even the right wing loons whose agenda Wynn has served so faithfully are happy to see him in electoral peril.

WHY DUMPDOOLITTLE IS SO NECESSARY

by Marlene Rose

(I've been trying to get Marlene Rose, who lives way up in northern California near the Oregon border, to write a piece about her detestible congressman, John Doolittle for months. Something finally seems to have struck a nerve.- HK)
 
It is amazing the many ways Congressman John Doolittle has managed to fleece the American taxpayer. His latest came disguised as campaign literature, fancy, expensive, and certainly immoral.  The use of a magnifying glass ripped off the disguise and unmasked Doolittle’s unfair use of our money.
 
The series of elaborate, expensive, heavy stock, 4 color, 4 page campaign literature which Doolittle attempted to disguise as a message to his constituents revealed in the tiniest print possible an acknowledgment that this elegant collection of lies was "prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense." True constituent mail is an honest appraisal of what has been accomplished by the Congress, not a collection of self aggrandizing statements.
 
How can any challenger mount a campaign against this corrupt incumbent who not only has millions of dollars of campaign contributions (much of it from Abramoff and his cronies and from the corporations and lobbyists he services) but also freely dips his hands into the United States treasury? This is the same man who strongly opposes the use of union money to fund campaigns of which members may not approve but thinks nothing of using MY money (and everyone else's) to fund a campaign which many (including me) find totally repugnant.  
 
My real outrage, however, is focused on the distortions and beautification of his actual record.   Doolittle has an anti labor and  a pro-corporation voting record; he voted against raising fuel standards and against funding alternative fuels; he is rated 0% by the League of Conservation Voters; he voted yes on trade with China but no on even traveling to Cuba; he voted no on banning soft money but yes on restricting independent grassroots political committees; he voted the gun lobby position on every bill they promoted; his record for public health is 0%; he voted to permit offshore tax havens; he has a clear anti civil rights record; he has an anti-senior voting record; and he voted against measures that help those in poverty. On a broad swath of legislative votes put together to rate congressmen's impact on the middle class, DMI rates Doolittle a flat F. The list of Doolittle’s antiprogressive positions goes on and on.

To add insult to injury, Doolittle refused to respond to Project Vote Smart, even though John McCain urged him to fill out the National Political Awareness Test. It is so much easier to make lying generalizations as he did in his mailings than to answer specific questions that would actually reveal his positions.
 
Doolittle is a disgrace and has been shown to be both corrupt and ineffective. The 4th Congressional District is entitled to a decent, proactive candidate who will represent the interests of his constituents, not his contributors. That candidate is Charlie Brown, a veteran who wants a planned withdrawal from Iraq and a planned agenda to help the citizens of this country. The recent newspaper articles which revealed the declining wages of the poor and middle class while the corporations rake in record profits is only one indication of why we need Charlie Brown in California's 4th Congressional District. Charlie will be a Congressman we will be proud to claim as our own.

While of utmost importance to people in the Mother Lode Country and the Sacramento suburbs, Doolittle's gross unfitness to hold office has risen to the level where Charlie Brown's race to defeat him has national significance. Most of Doolittle's contributions come from outside the 4th CD, from the corporations whose agendas he supports (to the detriment of his constituents). Although Charlie Brown has been more successful than any other Democrat in raising grassroots money inside the 4th with which to challenge Doolittle, he could certainly use some help in the funding area. The Blue America ActBlue Page is ready for you if you're ready to make a commitment for a better America.

MAKING FLIPPY FLOPPY

BushCheneyRove have largely governed by waging successful propaganda wars (against the American people; no one else-- anywhere-- believes anything that comes out of this Regime). Other than encouraging their class to pillage the American economy and letting our infrastructure deteriorate (not to mention the very social fabric that holds our society together), they have no operative philosophy of governance-- unless you look at the most famous statement of their chief ideologue, the heinous Grover Norquist: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." (Small enough, no doubt, so that it wouldn't have the resources to pursue crooks like himself and his odious business partner Jack Abramoff as they ran a wide-ranging criminal racket that netted them and their allies millions and millions of dollars.)

As Paul Krugman pointed out in yesterday's New York Times, the Bush Regime has basically ushered in and presided over a field of broken dreams with Bush broken promises that essentially represent the Republican Party's utter inability to govern our country.

Today Republican political hacks are running for their lives-- or at least their careers-- to distance themselves from Bush and his regime's failed and disastrous policies-- especially in Iraq. Republicans electorally endangered by their 5 years of rubber stamp posture and their complete abandonment of congressional oversight responsibilities are using the ole Rove propaganda techniques to convince less discerning members of the electorate that they have not been Bush sock puppets. Even some of the most pathetic of Bush's cheerleading squad, Stepford-like rubber stamps like Chris Shays (R-CT), Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), the 2 GOP sissy-boys in suburban Philadelphia, Mike Fitzpatrick and Jim Gerlach, and even a far right maniac and extremist fanatic like Indiana's Mike Sodrel are all desperately trying to hide and cover-up their clear record of total support for Bush's Iraq policies.


The MyDD/Courage Campaign polling project, empirically proves that voters-- including independents and even Republicans-- are looking for candidates to clearly distinguish themselves from Bush. What an opportunity for Democratic challengers! Except, more frightened Republican incumbents are taking it seriously than are DCCC-backed Democrats. Non-DCCC challengers, especially independent-minded populists and Fighting Dems like John Laesch (D-IL), Eric Massa (D-NY), Rick Penberthy (D-FL), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Charlie Brown (D-CA), Coleen Rowley (D-MN), Larry Kissell (D-NC), Victoria Wulsin (D-OH), to name a few, are ignoring Rahm Emanuel's awful advice to downplay Iraq. The candidates who are looking for DCCC cash-- cash that comes with strings chains that bind and choke-- are following the same path that led Francine Busby to defeat in the CA-50 Special Election.

Even Busby herself may have woken up... a little. Yesterday one of Busby's strongest, earliest and most vocal supporters on the Internet, local blogger RJB at Words Have Power applauded Busby's attack on her opponent's aggressive support for the GOP "stay the course" talking point/slogan.

But he expresses the frustration virtually all California progressives have felt about Busby's inability to effectively take on Bush and the rubber stamp Congress where it matters most: Iraq. "Note to Busby: If you are going to attack your Republican opponent for not having a plan, it would be a good idea to have one of your own. Busby failed in June by being too cautious, she can't afford to make that mistake again. Take the battle to Bilbray!"

I hope she's listening. I hope all Democrats are listening. It's ironic that Republicans are. Some of the campaigns being waged by the DCCC's "Red to Blue" favorites are so pathetic and anemic that these once "sure things" are looking like they could be this year's losers.

Is Rahm Emanuel a plant from the GOP to sabotage Democratic efforts to retake the House? Nah; he just acts that way.

EXCITING NEWS FROM THE SQUARE STATE-- JAY FAWCETT NOT SUCH A LONG SHOT NOW

This Saturday the Blue America series at Firedoglake is featuring two of the most promising and inspiring Fighting Dems we've met yet-- Bill Winter, who is taking on the egregiously racist (and KKK-endorsed) Tom Tancredo, and Jay Fawcett, who is taking on James Dobson's shill candidate in James Dobson's town... and this guy is every bit as horrible as Tancredo, just not as famous.

Both of these candidates are from Colorado and both are considered longshots and have been basically written off by the DCCC. They are both far too independent-minded for Inside-the-Belway careerist political hacks like Emanuel and both have refused to follow the losing DCCC game plan of soft-pedaling the Iraq occupation. Neither Bill Winter nor Jay Fawcett is likely to ever soft pedal anything.

Today Fawcett's campaign had some extraordinary news. The Colorado Springs Gazette is reporting that retiring, longtime Republican congressman, Joel Hefley is so dismayed by the over the top extremist who won the GOP nomination that he is considering jumping back into the race and-- in effect-- throwing it to Fawcett!

Many conservative Republicans in the district have actually endorsed Fawcett saying that Doug Lamborn is simply not fit to represent the district in Congress. "In meetings with national political consultants, Hefley and his supporters have come up with yard-sign designs and the key messages of a possible campaign... Hefley, who has represented the 5th Congressional District for 20 years, has been the subject of a three-week push by high-level Republicans to take this nearly unheard-of step..." To be a write-in candidate, Hefley must file by 5PM today.

Most of us are aware that frothing at the mouth Rovians like Lamborn can always be expected to call their Democratic opponents gay and commies and all that crap but it is important to remember that that is exactly what they do to mainstream conservatives in their own primaries as well. Lamborn upset many in the GOP when he and his shills tried to make his Republican primary opponent, a conservative endorsed by Hefley, sound like a tool of the homosexual conspiracy.

"Hefley, who criticized negative campaigning at the May GOP congressional assembly, gained a reputation in his later years as a champion of ethics in politics. He led the House ethics committee when it chastised Majority Leader Tom DeLay-- a member of his own party-- and later lost that seat and was ostracized by DeLay and his allies." He is eager to make sure someone as clearly recognized as unethical as is Lamborn, not take over the congressional district.

Be sure to join us Saturday at 2PM (EST) at Firedoglake to meet Jay Fawcett himself and hear how this whole thing is making his race very, very viable. Even the DCCC has had to take notice!


UPDATE: HEFLEY BLASTS LAMBORN BUT HE WON'T RUN

Reached in Oklahoma, Joel Hefley told the Gazette that Lamborn "ran the most sleazy, dishonest campaign I've seen in a long, long time and I cannot support it." (I guess ole Hef hasn't been paying much attention to Lamborn's teacher, Karl Rove.) In any case, as much as he detests Lamborn and hopes he loses, the 71 years old Republican says he's decided not to jump into the race. He said he was unsure at this point if he would endorse Democrat Jay Fawcett or not. But I think his supports kind of got the point.

Quote of the day: To celebrate the Katrina anniversary, what do you say we line the entire Bush administration up in front of a firing squad?

"Funny thing about the murderously failed plan for the evacuation of New Orleans: No one can find it. That's right. It's missing. Maybe it got wet and sank in the flood. Whatever: No one can find it.

"That's real bad. Here's the key thing about a successful emergency evacuation plan: You have to have copies of it. Lots of copies--in fire houses and in hospitals and in the hands of every first responder. Secret evacuation plans don't work."

--from Greg Palast's account of the TV report he's done for Democracy Now on the devastation in New Orleans--from Katrina and afterward (the show transcript is here)


I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty darned tired of constantly thinking the absolute worst it seems possible to think of the behavior and motivations of the mutant life forms who make up the Bush administration and then finding out that the reality is worse, much worse--viler, more inhuman, more savagely ignorant, more ruthlessly incompetent, more psychotic, without any possible question criminally culpable.

Greg Palast [right] has done an investigative report for Democracy Now on the destruction of New Orleans and the aftermath, and it turns out that almost the least of it is that the Bush administration paid half a million dollars for an evacuation plan that never existed, perhaps because the money was paid to a bunch of droolers with no credentials except their history of Republican campaign contributions.

You'll also meet the top hurricane expert whose explicit (and accurate) disaster warnings were expressly ignored, and whose job has been threated for talking about it. And you'll learn that the administration had early knowledge of the breach of the levees, with pictures, information that no one "in the know" could be bothered to share with the people on the ground who were actually trying to cope with the catastrophe that was unfolding while the president farted.

I think maybe it's time to just line the whole crowd up in front of a firing squad and celebrate the huckuva job they've done with, er, fireworks.

Meanwhile the mainstream media debate whether Chimpy the Prez can regain his former "image" as a "leader." This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

LET'S DROP SOME BIG ONES NOW, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS... A GUEST EDITORIAL FROM JOHNNY WENDELL

A cursory stroll down Blogosphere Lane reveals varying levels of breathless anticipation and nervous trepidation, as per 11/7's upcoming midterms. Although the various projections in Democratic (and other opposition groups) gains span an enormo spectrum, from Chris Bowers' mild 15-25, to Kos' 7-10 seat gains, to DWT's own Howie, who speculates on a 30-40 seat gain, the general sentiment is more or less upbeat, but with a caveat.

Namely, it ain't exactly a Paul headed to Damascus revelation that Herr Rove und Die Media Korporate will be working overtime to divert and obfuscate. That the gears of the Ugly Hate Machine, from lowly mouth-breathers like Little Green Snotballs and Hindlicker all the way to the perilous radio summits of Slant-Head and Viagra-Contin man will be grinding out horror missives around the clock, like the smug Vichy/Tory wannabees they've always been

This barrage of ceaseless Chimp/Cheney fellation has been less effective by the news cycle and has fewer teeth than a trailer-bound Toby Keith fan and no one knows this better than the master baiter Cheney himself. Mired in miserable poll numbers with a cratering housing market and wage depression swirling about his ankles like effluence in the streets of Fallujah, a Hail Mary move right before the midterms would not only be in the works as we speak, but very bloody (pun intended) likely.

Some might say (a tip of the mug to Fox, so sue me) that a bogus Orange to Red alert on the Isle of Manhattan that culminates in massive arrests of dark-hued Asians is a possibility. Foiling the destruction of the Holland tunnel, the GWB (the bridge, not the monkey man, be still your perverted imaginations), mebbe the Empire State (to satisfy the atavism of various King Kong fans), perhaps a westward ho, from the DC ho's, as in saving LA or San Diego (not San Francisco, as much of America would be happy to see Sodom By The Sea disappear). But those are small potatoes (or is it "potatoees," Mr Quayle?)--a terraist plot foiled lacks the all-encompassing pizzazz of 9/11 and any homegrown or CIA remake risks one lowly whistle-blowers approbrium.

What they can control is the American military and the news cycle. Therefore, the military will carry out their whims, as they must do. And despite the fact that the Pentagon blunted their desires back in 2004, as per air-raids and bombings of Iran, it's a good bet they'll roll the dice and go for it, a week before the midterms, appropriately upon All Hallows Eve, for maximum symbolism.

Claiming a clear and present danger posed by the "madman" Ahmanidijad and a "refusal to allow inspections" of the newly proposed heavy water facilities (which Iran is entitled to as signatory to the NPT, their rivals in Tel Aviv aren't, natch), Cheney n' Co let forth with a blast from the sea, from aircraft carriers and subs, despite the dispersal of supposed nuke facilities all over Persia.

This carnage drives Iraq and Lebanon off the front pages. It re-asserts the doctrine of pre-emption. It defangs reason and brings it all back home to Die Partei Republikkkanische's favorite mode of entertainment-- air war as videogame for chubby couch pomme du terres.

With only one week to go before the midterms, the skyrocketing rise in gasoline prices will not kick in. Nor will the severing of American supply lines between Doha and Baghdad or the quite likely "Little Big Horn" like attacks on the Green Zone from Iraq's own Crazy Horse, Muktada Al Sadr.

They'll cross those bridges when they come to them. The wind will be out of the sails of the opposition, red, white and blue banners will fly from Fox to shining CNN, once again decals will proudly be attached to SUV's and neo-cons will be sucking down snifters of victory brandy by the gallon. All that counts is keeping the House and Senate and so what if the country is boarding the hand-basket to Hades on the 8th?

People say that I have a hyperactive and paranoiac imagination and they're right as rain. But I put nothing past these animales with their track record intact of treasury piracy via military outlay plus public hysteria and acquiescence. They have gone to any lengths and will continue to do so, to dominate and demolish our beloved land--moderation in the pursuit of think-tank based madness is not in their quiver.

We'll talk on 11/1, ok?

(Johnny Wendell is on KTLK-AM1150, in LA, Saturdays and Sundays, 10A-12, PCT. He has been a punk rock musician, columnist, actor, TV talking head on CNN and Court TV and playwright, too--one day, he'll have to get a real job).

GET READY FOR A NEW STYLE OF IRS AUDITING

by Helen Klein
 
Well, I had read somewhere a while ago that Bush and Company were considering outsourcing the IRS, with my usual reaction of "What more can this President do to screw things up?" Every week, I am amazed by some new angle this regime has concocted to hurt the average person and undermine democracy. Their creativity in this direction seems limitless.

Well, I just read in Sunday's New York Times (which still has some real news buried in there somewhere...) that yes, the IRS will begin outsourcing some of our tax collection!! According to an editorial in the Week in Review section, this will begin in a few weeks. So it is likely that down the road someone in another country, perhaps India, will be calling us on the carpet for our 1040's. Why should the government do anything when a private company can make a profit on it? Furthermore, the IRS will be reducing the size of the staff which audits returns of the wealthiest segment of our society-- their numbers will be cut in half. To me, this is a green light for the super rich to cheat-- even more than they already do-- on their taxes, or more politely, twist the rules, as hardly anyone will be checking up on what they are doing. This travesty will certainly reduce the amount of income our government receives, so there will be less money for needed programs.  Of course, this regime has been fighting tooth and nail to reduce or destroy these programs anyway, so why should I be surprised? Supporting the energy and arms industries are the primary concerns of this regime, and oh, maybe prescription drug, construction and credit card companies.
 
It also seems to me that there must be a security risk somewhere in this plan, for another country to have access to our tax records. Think about the social security numbers and personal financial records being looked over by who knows who. I don't know about you, but this makes me very uncomfortable. What about our privacy rights? Won't this information be sold by unscrupulous people working for these new companies? Who is going to monitor our new overseers? This appears to be another example of "Trust me." I guess "security risk" is like a faucet this administration knows how to turn on and off at will, depending on their needs/desires at the time. Remember their attempt to turn port security over and what a political disaster that was for them? This tax collection issue, however, seems to be gliding below the radar.

We are creeping inexorably toward earned income being the only means of supporting our government, which of course is a long term goal of Bush and Company. Yes, anyone who works for a living is getting squeezed. Changes in pensions, health care and bankruptcy laws are leaving average people high and dry. The discretionary spending money of the middle class is being eroded while the wealthy have more, as if they need it. As it is, the super rich are paying much less in taxes than they used to on their unearned income. Remember when a true English gentlemen did not work as it was considered beneath him? Well, here we go again... 

This regime continues to march toward it selfish goals of dismantling needed government institutions, enhancing corporations at every turn and making the super rich ever richer, while wages for working Americans actually decrease! The impact of these changes on our country appears irrelevant. Bush shows little concern for our future. He is milking his eight years in office for all he can. Like with the war in Iraq, he is taking no responsibility for the aftermath of his decisions. The mess will simply be handed over to the next administration.

What can we do? Let's boot some of the guys and gals who have shown themselves to be consitent rubber stamps ofr all Bush's schemes out of office in the November election. I can name one in particular who needs to go-- Sue Kelly in New York's 19th congressional district. She is a robotic, undiscerning supporter of all Bush's and DeLay's worst policies. I am supporting John Hall and my fingers are crossed that on September 12, he wins the Democratic primary for this Congressional race.

MY FAVORITE CAMPAIGN VIDEO SO FAR: A SLOW BOAT BACK TO CHINA FOR DICK DEVOS

I haven't written much about the Michigan governor's race. There's a good Democratic incumbent, Jennifer Granholm and a far right monstrosity running against her, a real radical right multimillionaire, Dick DeVos. It's pretty cut and dry, good vs evil. And Granholm is out ahead in the polls-- with momentum. The races features a cool local blog called DeVos is a Dick and some very innovative ads. My favorite ad is this campaign video that Michigan Dems did about DeVos. I hope you get as much of a kick out of it as I did. And if you want to get into all the sordid facts on DeVos and his wretched wife Betsy, Hector Solon has a very thorough diary at Daily Kos from earlier this month.

A GUEST BLOG-- HOW I WOKE UP AND SAW THE REALITY OF GEORGE BUSH'S REPUBLICAN PARTY... AND WHAT I DID ABOUT IT

A DWT reader, Leroy, wrote an interesting comment on an old blog (from almost a year ago to the week. I'm doing something today I've never done before-- rescuing a comment few will ever get a chance to read and putting it up front and top here. This is the story of a man's eyes opening to reality.

I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on George Bush. What was I thinking? Why did I let my right wing extremist, neo-conservative, neo-evangelical thinking get in the way of exercising sound personal judgment when I entered that voting booth?

Growing up, I was led to believe that the Republican Party was a grass roots party of the people & for the people. In retrospect, it is clear that the last 3 presidents produced by the Republican Party were nothing more then the rich man’s rich man hiding under the disguise of jingoistic patriotism and the lie of conservative values. The economic dark ages of reagonomics fleeced the middle and lower classes of this county simply to benefit the rich and wealthy and waste money on unnecessary unconstitutional military actions. George Sr. carried that same self-serving torch. George Jr. has quietly shifted this country back to those dark ages. Bush inherited a strong economy and squandered that real quick. And even though 9 -11 did happen, none of Bush’s reckless decisions are in any way justified by that day in history. It is clear that he never had any real salient foreign & domestic policies when he became president in 2000. Bush and Cheney have pimped the Presidency and turned the senate into an auction house for legislation to the highest bidder.

Now we have 3 more years of neoconservative republican lies and a growing body count overseas. When are people going to wake up to the truth that neoconservative political philosophy does not work for anyone but the rich and wealthy at the top? When are people in the USA going to wake up to the fact that neoconservative republican political philosophy does not even cross paths with reality? The main goal of the neoconservatives who have destroyed the soul of the Republican Party is to consolidate national wealth to the nation’s top 2% wealthiest at the expense of the middle and lower classes while imperialistically occupying other nations. This is promoted under the façade of promoting democracy elsewhere in order to hide ugly truth regarding the real agenda. It is imperialism but we are now trying to do it to other countries instead of the British doing it to us.

Anyone who believes George War Bush’s lies about promoting democracy in these Middle Eastern Islamic states is living in serious denial of reality. Those who believe Bush’s lies are simply easy pickins and victims of logical fallacies. Historians and political scholars realize that to impose such changes on another country takes decades and that is only if it seriously adopted. Something that you are not going to make happen in an Islamic state. Also, the very definition of democracy is not something that the United States has any claim of ownership to. But then, if one looks at Bush’s view of democracy, it more closely resembles Mexico where you have a small rich elite ruling class and no middle class. In short…..a plutocracy.

If we ever actually do get out of Iraq, nothing will have changed and nothing will have been gained. The American people have never been given a specific objective in Iraq or a clear definition of exactly what "victory in Iraq" is from the president. Invading Iraq never had anything to do with, WMD, freeing the Iraqi people or making Americans safer and secure. Statements about WMD, Freeing Iraq or Making America Safer are nothing more then a neo-conservative marketing spin used to hide the ugly truth and make the lies palatable to the American public and justifiable to the red necks who voted for him. Bush likes to make statements such as "It's worth the price" but he never says just what exactly "it" is. If he really believes that all of his waste of human lives and our tax dollars are worth it, then he should put his money where his mouth is and send his little party animals to go fight in Iraq. Isn’t it strange how all these young Republican youths that get interviewed claim to be for Bush’s private pseudo war, but very few if any at all are willing to enlist in the military???

The Republican Party is currently composed of a lot of chicken hawks. Those who believe that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. These chicken hawks are cowardly idiots who not only advocate wars, but they also believe that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require. You know the type… quick to judge, quick to anger and very very slow to understand. These Republican chicken hawks will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.

Under the current President of the USA, we have now seen what the Republican party really stands for now that they have had about 6 or so good years of unobstructed ruling power. Yup… they've had their chance to demonstrate what they are made of and we can all now see that they are not what they claim to be. They are basically, a bunch of uncompassionate, un-conservative hypocrites. Fake, Christian, hate mongering Taliban trash like Ann Coulter.

I for one am tired of our political party making all these huge messes that have historically fallen to Democrats to clean up. Clinton took the 2 trillion dollar deficit economy that he inherited from our boys Reagan & Bush Sr. and prospered the country into one with a surplus without overtaxing the rich, middle and lower classes. Wake up America! Bush created the mess in the Middle East starting with his personal desire to invade Iraq. "War on Terror???" Wake up America… you cannot wage war on a concept. Reagan sold this lie to us with his so called war on a concept we all know as the "war on drugs." This has done absolutely nothing for our country. You cannot wage war on a concept but Bush, Cheney and most of the Republican Party hope that most Americans are stupid and impressionable enough to believe their lies.

The Republican Party claims to be for smaller less wasteful government but the current administration is responsible for the waste of more money, resources and human lives then any past Democrat presidency. I have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that the blood of Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians is on my hands and the hands of those who voted for Cheney… I mean Bush. The real legacy of the Bush administration is going to be one characterized by lots of wrongful deaths, lots of money and resources wasted, unnecessary tax increases for our children and grandchildren and the unnecessary destruction of various social programs that were never in need of fixing or eliminating to begin with.

Thanks to Bush and his power hungry cabinet who all want to control Congress, the Senate & the Supreme Court, the USA is now a third world country hiding behind a lie of prosperity and so called society of personal ownership. In retrospect, I seem to own less now under this administration of "personal ownership" then I did during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their puppets, the USA is now a huge debtor country. The only ones with real ownership as a result of the current presidential administration are the rich and elite. Now that the USA owes all these hundreds of millions of dollars to countries like China, Germany, Russia & Japan, I wonder which language I need to learn for the day when these countries come to collect…

Respectfully,

Leroy

PS: Farwell GOP. Thanks for all the corrupt memories…I’m now a Democrat.

Welcome home, Leroy. Or, as George Allen might say, "Welcome to America!" Leroy did what all ex-Republicans should do; he sat down and analyzed reality, did some thinking and shared his insights with others. I hope I'm not being presumptuous to ask any ex-Republicans to do the same-- and to do this too (especially if you voted for BushCheney).

JOHN LAESCH-- NATIONAL SECURITY DEMOCRAT

If you look over at my blogroll, one of the blogs you'll see I link to is called TaylorMarsh.com When I want the best perspective on national security-related matters, anything military and anything to do with foreign affairs, that's where I go first. So what an honor it was for me last week when Taylor called and asked me if I would do a series of candidate-related pieces at her site. The series, about why America will be safer if we elect a Democratic Congress, started today.

Last week we read in the Washington Post that the Republicans have already lost the "security moms." Yesterday the Diageo Hotline Poll came out claiming "voters believe nation is safer now than before September 11 attacks, thanks to Bush and GOP." The right-leaning polling company's analysis goes on to claim that "Democrats would have made the nation less safe than it is today." This seems to fly in the face of reality, of common sense and of our most cherished hopes and dreams for our country. But, even if this poll isn't completely accurate, there seems to be a significant number of people buying in to the whole Orwellian/V for Vendetta society, where people blindly, willingly, even eagerly, trade their freedom for even the most tenuous sense of security. Terror, in the hands of people like Cheney, Rove, Big Brother or Chancellor Adam Sutler, can have a very powerful appeal for frightened, confused, struggling people.

And what do the Democrats have to offer in its place? It had better be more than our hopes and our dreams or common sense or apparently over-rated reality. I've assembled an impressive team of men and women who are experts in their fields to try to come up with an overall picture of how our National Security will look once there are some checks on the Bush Regime. The people I asked to help are more pragmatic than political. They are all about solving problems and all about making America safer. Some, like John Laesch, Jay Fawcett and Eric Massa are Fightin' Dems. Others, like Victoria Wulsin, a public health policy expert, and Coleen Rowley, a former FBI agent, have had their eyes focused firmly on safety within our borders.

Last week The New York Times published an impressive editorial called "Wanted: Scarier Intelligence." It isn't what The Times wants or what the American people want; it's what the Bush Regime is demanding of our intelligence services... again. The editorial concludes with a stark warning: "The nation cannot afford to pay the price again for politicians' bending intelligence or bullying the intelligence agencies to suit their ideology."

The premise is that as we head into the election season, Bush and his rubber stamp Congress-- in this case the contemptible tool Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)-- are desperate enough to try cooking the books again to hold on to power.

That's what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush's policy. And history appeared to be repeating itself this week, when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, released a garishly illustrated and luridly written document that is ostensibly dedicated to "helping the American people understand" that Iran's fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States.

It's hard to imagine that Mr. Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. But the report obviously has different aims. It is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. It fits with the fearmongering we've heard lately-- like President Bush's attempt the other day to link the Iraq war to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. It was not the work of any intelligence agency, or the full intelligence panel, or even the subcommittee that ostensibly drafted it. The Washington Post reported that it was written primarily by a former C.I.A. official [Fred Fleitz] known for his view that the assessments on Iran are not sufficiently dire.

The Hoeskstra crony and fellow rubber stamp Republican hack who heads the subcommittee, Mike Rogers, also of Michigan, is being challenged by just the kind of expert who won't let this genre of empty propaganda slip by. Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA officer-- and a classmate of Valerie Plame's-- jumped right on Hoeskstra's and Rogers' foolish campaign brochure.

"Mike Rogers has demonstrated time and again that he is out of touch with the security situation on the ground in the Middle East. His comments and his voting record make that clear. In May of 2004, Rogers described the security situation in Baghdad as being no different than 'walking in a rough neighborhood anywhere in America'... Yesterday, Rogers criticized the United States' ability to acquire intelligence, particularly nuclear intelligence. Yet three years ago, he-- a former FBI agent-- stayed silent and did nothing when a veteran CIA agent who specialized in nuclear security issues and WMD was 'outed' for political reasons. In June of 2004, Rogers voted against increased funding for counter-terrorism efforts."

Anyway, like I said, my first in the series is up now on Taylor's site. It features our old friend, John Laesch. Here's a taste of what John has to say:

"Democratic military members of Congress will insist on secure borders. The increased number of undocumented workers crossing our southern border is proof that we have left our back door open. During the Clinton presidency, the number of apprehensions at our southern border steadily increased to almost 2 million apprehensions per year by the year 2000. After Bush took over, we saw a drastic decrease in the number of apprehensions per year; by 2001 when terrorists struck the twin towers the Republicans had managed to let an additional 800,000 people slip through our borders. The effort to sell ports off to private, foreign corporations is further proof that Republicans just don't give a damn about America's economy or security."

Quote of the day: If Republicans really cared about squeezing more and more Americans out of a share in the U.S. economy, they might stop doing it

"Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s."
--from Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt's lead story in this morning's New York Times, "Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity"

Greenhouse and Leonhardt begin their story:

With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years.

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

It's nice of Republicans to give the matter as much as a second thought. It's a shame it's only because of their sudden queasiness about having to face an electorate that increasingly has been systematically squeezed out of it share in the American economy--by Republicans' philosophy and policies.

When any of the victims complain, of course, the Republicans--with too many plutocratic Democrats cheering on the sidelines--complain about "class warfare." What happens when ordinary Americans figure out who declared this war?

WHY A PAC?

If you've checked the Blue America ActBlue page in the last couple of days, you may have noticed a new addition. That ain't no candidate's face the second from the top. No, it's the graphic symbol that our sometime art director, Adam, did to represent our "campaign" theme sung by Rickie Lee Jones, Tom Maxwell and Ken Mosher, "Have You Had Enough?"

If you look at the totals, you'll notice that so far our netroots efforts at Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars and DWT have aggregated nearly $170,000 for our candidates. The median donation is around $30. That's what the power of a lot of dedicated, idealistic people can do. Much of that total is due to the concerted efforts we make every weekend at our candidate forums, where our communities come together with a different progressive Democrat each Saturday at 2 PM (est) to hear about the races and ask questions of the candidates. (All are archived here and I would encourage you to read through the exciting, fascinating sessions.)

But something else came out of one of the sessions. We were talking with Larry Kissell (NC-08) when fellow Tar Heel, Tom Maxwell made a contribution and later offered to lend his considerable musical talents to our efforts. Discussion later revealed that he was one of the key songwriters from the late, great Squirrel Nut Zippers. He and his partner in MaxwellMosher, Ken Mosher (another SNZ alum) offered to write and record a song for our campaign to clean up Congress. Another dedicated progressive musician, Rickie Lee Jones, joined them to record the song. All three have written about why they became involved.

Now it's getting played on some radio stations and online and it's working its way around the blogosphere. Mike McIntee, a supporter of one of our favorite candidates, Coleen Rowley (MN-02), has gone ahead and used the song for a little video. It's a hoot:



A John Laesch supporter is doing another one as we speak. A Jerry McNerney supporter who works as a dj is doing a re-mix with soundbytes from Dirty Dick Pombo. We love all that stuff. And Blue America has a plan for a next step too. And that's why we started the PAC. The PAC allows us to raise and spend as much money as we can, not for candidates per se but to get our 30-second spots on the radio. Unlike the full song, the 30-second spots don't say "It's time to throw the rascals out." They are geared towards each specific district and each mentions the local rascal that it's time to throw out, be it Kline in Minnesota, Brown-Waite in Florida, Doolittle in California, Kuhl in New York or Mean Jean Schmidt in Ohio.

The PAC wasn't easy to set up. My bank manager resisted for weeks, actually telling me that the bank didn't want anything to do with-- he said couldn't have anything to do with-- embarrassing President Bush! And there's so much paperwork! But now it's set up and ready to collect and disburse contributions. Do you want to help? Well, the obvious way is to send some dough, either at that link or by check to Blue America, P.O. Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027. But there's something else we need from you.

Because we're an official PAC now, the FEC doesn't allow us to coordinate anything with any of the campaigns. If you live in one of the districts for one of our candidates, we need volunteers who will help us figure out which local radio stations will be most effective. Suggestions and ideas for a grassroots endeavor like this are not just welcome; they are crucial. Meanwhile, send your friends and family and colleagues to our MySpace page to listen to the song and download it and read more about it.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN NANCY JOHNSON AND DICK CHENEY IN A ROOM TOGETHER? YOU HAVEN'T. IS CHENEY A CROSS-DRESSING CT CONGRESSWOMAN IN HIS SPARE TIME?

Or are Dick Cheney and Congressperson Johnson just twins separated at birth? A Connecticut blogger, Star A. Decise, has taken a moment away from sabotaging Joe Lieberman's computers to look into the eerie connection between the extreme right wing vice president and the formerly moderate, lately more extremist Connecticut congresswoman.

WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT BILL FRIST HAS RAISED A VICIOUSLY RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC PACK OF DRUNKEN BRATS? IT SHOULDN'T

Today's Sunday Times, the London one, has a noteworthy article by Tony Allen-Mills reporting about the exposed foibles of politicians' children. The billionaire robber-baron Frist family, deservedly, gets the brunt of it. Allen-Mills accepts Frists' fake demeanor as a man of "sober rectitude," instead of explaining that he's a grubby pol who has aggressively used his political position to enrich himself and his family by destroying the American health care system. But the "sober rectitude" persona helps paint a contrast with the pack of wild, savage, drunken spoiled racist brats he and his wife have raised.

"The same cannot be said of his son Jonathan, a Vanderbilt University student who recently appeared on the Internet wearing six cans of beer strapped to his belt. Nor has Jonathan's brother Bryan done much to help his father's attempts to strike a reasonable note about U.S. involvement in Iraq. 'I was born an American by God's amazing grace,' wrote Bryan Frist in an online profile. 'Let's bomb some people.'" Yes, the acorn hasn't fallen far at all, even though these turds haven't been polished up yet.

"Frist is one of at least half a dozen US politicians-- and at least one US Supreme Court judge-- whose public images have been dented in recent months by the Internet antics of their offspring. Pictures of scantily clad daughters whooping it up have become a staple of Internet gossip." Allen-Mills doesn't mention the more serious daughter scandals involving crooked Republican solons using their daughters as part of their crime operations, the way Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Conrad Burns (R-MT) have (not to mention GOP crime wave syndicate chieftain Tom DeLay).

But, as mildly funny as the story about GOP discomfiture might be, it isn't really a serious look into the blatant hypocrisy and criminality of what today's Republican Party has devolved into. "The popularity of teenage networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook is proving a goldmine for political bloggers keen to compare the pious proclamations of candidates running for office with the blogs and picture-sharing websites maintained by their children. No sooner had Congressman Louie Gohmert, a conservative Republican from Texas, unleashed a tirade against the moral inadequacies of Democrats opposed to the war in Iraq, than someone found Internet pictures of his daughter Caroline dancing on a bartop and posing with a man in his underpants." Cute.

At least the Frist crew's embarrassment is something a little weightier and more thought-provoking. I mean there is every reason to believe that these boys are destined to turn into future George Allens, if not the monstrosity their own father is. Jonathan Frist has been in and out of the papers for drunk driving, underage driving, racism and anti-Semitism.

Roll Call, the Washington insiders' newspaper published on Capitol Hill, recently reported that Jonathan Frist's Facebook entry declared him a member of the "Jonathan Frist appreciation for 'Waking Up White People' Group." It also mentioned a group where there were "No Jews allowed. Just kidding. No seriously."

Hometown newspapers, appropriately, took it more seriously than they take the stories about political offspring using drugs and booze and screwing their brains out-- the way the Bush family spawn do all the time. "Errant children have long been a fact of Washington political life, but have rarely caused any lasting scandal. Bush was untroubled by the underage drinking exploits of his twin daughters Jenna and Barbara. The president's brother, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, was not seriously damaged when his daughter Noelle was arrested on drug charges. His son John was arrested for having sex in a car in a shopping centre car park. The U.S. media has in the past treated adolescent follies as largely a private matter, but the mushrooming trend towards public self-exposure on the Internet is beginning to make life a misery for celebrities with children who blog."

Quote of the day: Isn't it odd that Boss Rahm is working as hard as his pal Holy Joe Lieberman to help the GOP maintain control of the House?

"Explain to me how two Democrats running is bad."
--Boss Rahm Emanuel, to New York Times reporter Jennifer Medina ("Senate Contest Casts a Shadow in Connecticut," in today's paper), about the Connecticut Senate race, where Joe Lieberman's to-the-death drive to hold onto his seat by bringing out his natural Republican base is likely to help save the Republicans those three House seats they stand to lose, thereby helping them retain control of the House

There are two possibilities here:

• Boss Rahm is as stupid as he's pretending to be. (Is there anyone else who even claims not to understand this excruciatingly simply proposition? I just explained it in 41 words: Joe Lieberman's to-the-death drive to hold onto his seat by bringing out his natural Republican base is likely to help save the Republicans those three House seats they stand to lose, thereby helping them retain control of the House.)

• Boss Rahm is being disingenuous, and in fact is every bit as comfortable as GOP Joe with the Republicans' maintaining control of the House.

I mean, it's not as if it's Boss Rahm's job to help the Democrats gain control of the House. Oh wait, isn't that exactly the job of the head of the DCCC?

Apparently not. Apparently he prefers the you-wash-my-back-and-I'll-wash-yours status quo to the possibility of "power sharing"--with fellow Democrats he may not be able to control.


FOOTNOTE

After reading Jennifer Medina's NYT story in my actual newspaper, I went online to get the URL for a link. I had no trouble finding the link, but the page itself didn't open! Do you suppose the Lieberman computer "hacks," the bozos who have been unable to keep their c1980-technology website up and running, got into the NYT system?

Quote of the day: Martin Short, talking about his Broadway show, makes you wonder if Karl Rove could do comedy (Yeah, but would it be funny?)

"It's a fictitious journey of my life, so we go through the phase when I was in Hair--not that I was in Hair, 'cause it's all a lie, the whole thing is. If you're going to tell your life, why not just make it up and lie to the audience? People do it anyway. There's no truth up there."
--funnyman Martin Short, explaining his one-man show, Martin Short: Fame Becomes Me, to Jon Stewart this week on The Daily Show


The exchange continued:

MARTY: And by the way, when you come backstage, I don't want truth from you.

JON: Really?

MARTY: No, I don't want to hear you say . . .

JON: Give me something that is a great thing to say, because I don't . . . go to these shows and come backstage, because I am . . . you don't know what to say. What would be a great thing to say when you come backstage at a big production like this?

MARTY: You would come back and say, [in character] "Oh Marty, come on, are you . . . [with hand gestures] what you do! . . . and it's, it's not even like we're aware of it, and yet it's been done!"

JON [writing]: "Done"?

MARTY: Yeah.

JON [still writing]: "What you do!"

MARTY: Yeah.

JON [still writing]: "It's been done!"

MARTY: Yeah. [back in character] "I mean, you walk into a room, and you are [gesturing with hands and fingers coming closer together] . . . because you've got that kind of extra-special [snaps fingers] something. And I don't think you're born with it. I think you also learn it."

JON: 'Cause here's what I was thinking: "Hey, man, what's up? Where's the cheese plate?"

MARTY: That will do.

JERRY McNERNEY: TURNING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA A DEEPER SHADE OF BLUE

If someone-- like Charlie Cook or Larry Sabato-- held a gun to my head and demanded I pick one congressional district that is the model for nationalizing a campaign I'd... try to get out of answering. But if I heard the gun cock, I'd say CA-11. That's the very oddly shaped district in northern California currently represented by Dirty Dick Pombo. He is being powerfully challenged by a non-politician, an alternative energy engineer named Jerry McNerney. Jerry is the Blue America featured guest today at 11 AM (West Coast) at Firedoglake where he'll be taking questions for a couple of hours.

Due east of San Francisco and Oakland, the 11th encompasses most of San Joaquin County plus chunks of Alameda and Santa Clara and a bit of Contra Costa. Median income is $62,000, almost $15,000 above the state median. The district voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but with more and more people from the Bay Area moving into the district and with Democratic registration growing, there is a strong feeling that this is the time for a change.


And then, of course, there's Dirty Dick Pombo-- not just your garden variety crooked Republican rubber stamp. Oh, he is crooked and he has been a dependable rubber stamp for every odious item on the Bush/Big Business agenda all right. But Pombo, as head of the House Resources Committee, has taken a leadership role in the worst environmental policies in the country's entire history. I mean this is the man who actually proposed selling off the national parks! Pombo, a reactionary through and through has a record that reads like a criminal rap-sheet and he's had his snout in every species of Republicrook corruption that the DeLay regime brought to the Congress.

Matt, a Democratic activist from the East Bay who started Say No To Pombo first helped me to understand how Jerry McNerney was the grassroots candidate and how the Inside-the-Beltway Rahm Emanuel crowd had tried to insert a corporate hack into the race when McNerney proved that Pombo was vulnerable. (Matt also showed me how to use ActBlue.) After McNerney and the California grassroots showed Emanuel that top-down DeLay-style boss politics don't go over well in California by kicking his sock puppet's ass in the primary, Jerry has pretty much been on his own against Pombo. Well, not exactly on his own. He's beloved by the California grassroots and generously adopted by the netroots. The DCCC ignores his race-- although the latest polling in CA-11 shows him ahead of Pombo-- and the only financing he gets comes from... us.

Although I've been writing about Jerry's campaign for over a year, this week was the first time I actually got to sit down and talk with him directly. Married to Mary for 29 years and father of 3 kids, Jerry has a Ph.D. in math and has been working in wind-energy technology since 1980. An expert in alternative energy, he believes the U.S. could produce at least 50% of our energy requirements from wind and solar energy. He's worked on both the giant wind energy projects in California, the one near Palm Springs and the one up in CA-11 near Livermore.

Although Jerry is as dismayed as most Americans by the direction the Bush Regime has taken America, he is very much the independent-minded, pragmatic progressive rather than an ideological partisan. A skeet shootin' gun owner he is not a fan of intrusive Big Government. He sees that Bush and his rubber stamp republican congress have fallen down on the job where government is needed-- like for national security and for strategic long-term planning-- and get it all wrong by butting in on the person lives of citizens. "They started an unnecessary war; they let Osama bin Laden escape; and now we're less secure than we were before the invasion of Iraq. With our dependence on foreign oil," he continued, "we're actually funding people who are potential terrorists. By subsidizing Big Oil instead of finding ways to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, Pombo [and the rubber stamp congress are] financing both sides of the war on terror."

Jerry feels that racism, greed and incompetence have been driving the Republican immigration and trade policies. Like Bill Clinton-- and unlike Bush-- he believes we should protect our borders and that it is the job of the president to make sure there are secure borders. "A good trade policy, fair trade will prevent shipping American jobs overseas and relieve pressure on our borders by establishing minimum labor and environmental standards overseas."

Because he's well-grounded and is rooted in a firm set of values, McNerney is immune to the Pombo/Rove hot button attacks. A woman's right to choice is a given, as is equality for all minorities, even whichever may be the Republicans' hated-minority-du-jour. The government has a job-- which Bush and the rubber stamp Congress hasn't been doing-- but law-abiding bothering people isn't it.

He sees an important message in Ned Lamont's startling victory over Bush/Lieberman, a message that goes way beyond the Connecticut borders. "Voters are looking for Truth and for someone who stands for something, for what Americans ought to be standing for. Our country doesn't stand for torture or for invading other countries without cause. Our country doesn't stand for corruption and for Halliburton and the United States is not about absolutely incompetent management of war."

If voters in CA-11 are hearing that same message, Jerry is a good bet to be at the swearing in in DC this January. Right now his biggest hurdle is name recognition. The DCCC is still holding back in it's support for Jerry-- although environmental groups, labor unions, the grass roots, the net roots, and the California Democratic Party are gung-ho. He's one of the top congressional candidates on MyDD/SwingState/Kos' Netroots Page and we haven't been doing badly on the Blue America ActBlue Page either, although we should bring it up a bit. In fact as a little incentive-- knowing that Jerry is a big jazz fan-- the first 25 contributors today get a Wynton Marsalis MOVADA PM COLLECTION cd. (If you want to give and don't want the CD, add .01 to your donation.)


AFTERTHOUGHT: IT'S NOT JUST ME WHO THINKS POMBO SHOULD BE IN JAIL INSTEAD OF CONGRESS

Take a look at how the Defenders of Wildlife feel about Dirty Dick:

LIEBERWHORE MOVES ONE STEP CLOSER TO PUBLICLY ADMITTING HE'S NOTHING BUT A REPUBLICAN

No one who reads DWT-- or even looks at the pictures-- doesn't already know that Joe Lieberman is a Republican-- if not by where he sits, then by how he behaves in the Senate. And today he went one step closer to starting to sit where he votes. The New Haven Independent reported today that Duplicitous Joe withdrew his endorsements from Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, the 3 Democratic challengers to Bush rubber stamps, Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.

"Declaring himself a 'non-combatant,' U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his 'independent' candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut-- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives." One of the most despised, selfish and egocentric pols in the Senate, Lieberman said "I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it's better if I just focus on my own race."

Support among CT Democrats for Lieberman has practically vanished in the 2 weeks since the primary and he is now getting nearly all of his support from Republicans. A half dozen reactionary corporate whores on the Democratic side of the aisle-- Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, Mark Pryor and, of course, closet Republican Ben Nelson-- are supporting Lieberman.

Update: I'm afraid there's no getting around it, you're really going to have to read all of Matt Taibbi's "The Low Post" columns

Since my earlier post, I've now read all four outings to date in Matt Taibbi's new online-only column, "The Low Post," for rollingstone.com (also posted on AlterNet), and all I can say is:

Wow!

Not only is the guy really, really smart, and not only can he really, really write, but he still thinks of himself as a reporter, doing real reporting, not to be confused with the thumb-sucking I do here. He gets out there and observes what he's writing about.

As I was reading, I found myself wanting to pass along just about every sentence. I can't do that, obviously, but let me give you a sample. First, let me give you the links again, with the rollingstone.com titles, which I take to be the author's own (the AlterNet posts have different titles):

• "The Mansion Family: Yuppie paranoia (and David Brooks) guarantees the Democrats are still--and forever--doomed" (posted 8/2/06)

• "Hill on Fire: Hillary Clinton copulates with the ghost of Richard Nixon" (posted 8/8/06)

• "Dead Man Coming: Don't hold your breath waiting for Joe Lieberman to go away" (posted 8/15/06)

• "Off With Their Heads: The Democrats march themselves to the gallows" (posted 8/22/06)

There's also an "archive" link, which will presumably become more valuable as the columns pile up. In addition, let me throw in a link for maybe the best single piece I've read on our Joe Lieberman: what appears to be Matt's most recent "Road Rage" column (this would be from Rolling Stone itself, right?), "Bush's Favorite Democrat."

The basic position will be familiar to DWT readers: that while, yes, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans, and those differences do matter, to an overwhelming extent the parties are dual agents of corporate control.

Now for the sample I promised. This is the end of the Hillary Clinton column:

To milk the blood of soldiers and innocent civilians for the principle of rank careerism is surely lower even than sacrificing young lives for oil or money, but the Democrats will get away with it, because American voters have always been too afraid to contemplate the reality of their monolithic system of government.

The only kind of change most dissenting voters in this country can contemplate is the rejection of an openly drooling imperialist like Joe Lieberman, whose real crime was not his war stance but his refusal to participate in the kind of craven cover-your-ass posturing the Hillarys and Joe Bidens and John Kerrys have indulged in this election season. Had Lieberman merely pretended to be antiwar once things went wrong in Baghdad, he almost certainly could have counted on the pusillanimity of the American voter to carry him to yet another Connecticut landslide.

Beltway pros like Hillary have long understood that in tough times, the vast majority of disgruntled Americans would rather find a way to convince themselves that their party agrees with them than face the fact that they never had any choice at all on a wide range of crucial issues. They're willing to be swayed by a carefully scripted display of canned anger like Hillary's outburst in the Senate because the alternatives--third-party politics, grass-roots activism, dropping out of society altogether--are too exhausting and radical to even imagine. Because getting to the root causes of things is so hard and scary, they'll settle for punishing an unpopular politician, even if it means electing his accomplice.

So they'll vote, even for a factory-produced fraud like Hillary Clinton, because voting is easy. Much easier than doing something. That's the real platform the Democrats are running on this November.

Wow! I know I said that already, but what else can I say?

BEAUTIFUL MUSIC FOR YOUR WEEKEND

An old friend sent me this incredible, powerful song that I want to recommend to everyone. If you hit that link it will start playing. "Katrina Mix" features the beautiful R&B tune "Hurricane Song" by Allen Watty counterposed against the false promises of George Bush and other government officials. It is a powerful statement on the eve of the anniversary of Katrina hitting New Orleans. Think about this while Bush and Rove roll out their fake photo ops like the nonsense they tried pulling with that Vaccarella shill yesterday.

I believe in the power of music to help affect change. As you probably know, Rickie Lee Jones and Tom Maxwell and Ken Mosher (from the Squirrel Nut Zippers) put together the campaign song, "Have You Had Enough" for the Blue America candidates. Yesterday our Blue America PAC opened and we are collecting contributions to put 30 second radio spots on the air to help our candidates. Please chip in.

Quote of the day: When a pol says something halfway sensible just to save his political hide, can he still get partial credit? And if so, how partial?

"My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal, a timeline of when the bulk of heavy lifting is in the hands of the Iraqis."
--Connecticut Rep. Christopher Shays, in a conference call with reporters from London yesterday

In her Washington Post report, Anushka Asthana has no difficulty finding people prepared to point out the political expediency built into the sudden conversion of Congressman Shays [left] to the onetime heresy of a withdrawal timetable. He is, of course, one of those Connecticut Republicans sweating bullets over the possibility of being swept out of office in November by anti-Republican and anti-Iraq-war tides.

The irony is that Shays now risks alienating potential support from his state's fighting senator, Joe "Joe Lieberman Fighting for Joe Lieberman" Lieberman, who now appears to be extending his fight to embrace bastions of the Republican Congress so dear to his heart--the very Republican Congress that made it possible for him to be . . . er, what he is today. Then again, surely Senator Joe wouldn't shun Chris over just his position on this one little issue, would he?

Shays can also expect withering aspersions on his patriotism from the fighting "centrists" of the Democratic Leadership Council. Oh wait, he doesn't have to worry about them, does he? They only go after non-"centrist" Democrats, right?

It's a tough game, this politics. And sometimes kinda confusing as well.


ALSO TALKING--Matt Taibbi on the DLC approach to "unity"

And speaking of the DLC, I followed a link of Howie's to a terrific new online column by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi [right], "Off With Their Heads: The Democrats march themselves to the gallows," in which he responds to a customarily fatuous but at the same time ever-so-artfully sinister attack by Boss Rahm Emmanuel on the Netroots community.

[It took me awhile to figure out--assuming even now I've got it right--that Taibbi has recently started writing an online-only column, "The Low Post," for rollingstone.com, columns that are also being posted on AlterNet. The series began early this month with a brilliant piece taking off from the lameness of NYT lamebrain David Brooks, "The Mansion Family: Yuppie paranoia (and David Brooks) guarantees the Democrats are still--and forever--doomed." In between it and the new column were pieces I haven't had time to read yet, devoted to a couple of pretty juicy targets: "Hill on Fire: Hillary Clinton copulates with the ghost of Richard Nixon" and "Dead Man Coming: Don't hold your breath waiting for Joe Lieberman to go away."]

Taibbi has much else to say in this latest column, and you should definitely read the whole thing. But for now I wanted to call attention to his once-and-for-all response to a favorite image used by Boss Rahm, that of a "firing squad in a circle," which is frequently used against "radicals" and "bloggers" (pretty much the same thing, no?) by corporate whores of the DLC persuasion:

What's amazing about the "firing squad in a circle" line is that it is inevitably used less than five seconds after the DLC speaker has just finished dumping on Michael Moore, peace activists, or whoever the party's talking-points-vermin of the day is (in this case, Sharpton and bloggers). He denounces Michael Moore as a disgrace to the party, then turns around and says that when we attack the party leadership, we're only hurting ourselves. These tactics are so transparent and condescending that one longs for some kind of cosmic referee to just drop down from the heavens and unilaterally disqualify their users on the grounds of their overwhelming general wrongness--but the maddening thing about these DLC creatures is that that referee never arrives, and Al From is back on page one again the next day, shaking his head and grumbling piously about "unity" and "consensus" and "the lost art of bipartisanship."

IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, KATHERINE HARRIS JUST DECLARED GOP CONGRESSMEN MARK FOLEY AND ERIC CANTOR UNFIT TO SERVE

Ken keeps warning me to stop telling Floridians that Katherine Harris has crossed the boundary into full-fledged insanity. He claims she might lose the primary, making it more difficult for Democratic corporate whore Bill Nelson to win. I don't care that much if Bill Nelson wins or not. He sucks. And the few Floridians planning on voting for Harris are voting for her because she's as insane and out-of-touch with reality as they are. She will win the Republican primary-- and they nurtured this base so they deserve her-- and then she will be beaten by Nelson by over 20 points, perhaps even 30 or more!

No news there, right? Right. But there is some Crazy Kathy news today. As I've mentioned before, her "campaign" has devolved into a religionist revival tent show. There is virtually no other organized groups of Republicans that will have her-- just the ones waiting for 40 virgins in Heaven or whatever our homegrown brand of religionist psychotics believes in. And she knows how to play to these folks, her folks.

Yesterday she told the Florida Baptist Witness that the separation of church and state is a fallacy. "We have to have the faithful in government and over time," the deranged Harris spouted, "that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers." Didn't Bush say something like that? But I thought it was a certain highly dishonest-- some would say treasonous-- Florida Secretary of State who chose Bush. Maybe, among all her other problems, she now thinks she's God.

Her "campaign" has come under the control of a shady "evangelical" character, her own personal Rasputin, and they have seen to have given up on conventional politics. Instead of talking about political matters, Harris tells her audience she's on her way to meet the Lord... "Because I loved your son and because I know he died for my sins. I know he was resurrected at your right hand and I served him. You know, we're covered with, our sins are covered with his blood and so we are blameless before him. We are as white as snow."

So Ken, no worries-- at this point, them's who are for her ain't changing their minds and them's who ain't, ain't. Does anyone think this is going to sway anyone's vote? Oh, and by the way, are there gay Republicans (other than Mark Foley) and Republican Jews in Florida?

But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is all right. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take Western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God, and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong.

UPDATE: A LITTLE BACKTRACK FROM KOOKY KATHY

OK, let's see if we can figure out what Krazy Katherine Harris is saying now. Hard to tell the way she manages to get both feet-- and an elbow-- in her mouth. Apparently when Jews went as ballistic as I predicted they would-- I mean who cares about gays but she said Jews were unfit to serve in Congress-- she tried backing down from her comments and said... Not sure what she said. She said it was ok because it was just for a Baptist audience (so presumably she thinks tailoring major pronouncements like this depending on who's listening is what Floridians are looking for in a senator). OK. And she also seems to be excusing her unbelievable bigotry by saying she's pro-Israel and believes the Holocaust happened. Bill Nelson is a really bad senator. Why should he be blessed with the worst turkey in a party filled with turkeys as his opponent?

THE WORST DEMOCRATIC CORPORATE WHORES

There are no elected Republicans who aren't corporate whores-- none. Every one of them takes money from Big Business in return for selling out their constituents-- not just the vile and loathsome bottom-feeders like Bush and Conrad Burns and Rick Santorum and Jerry Lewis and Duke Cunningham and Katherine Harris and Curt Weldon and John Boehner and Denny Hastert and John Doolittle and Dirty Dick Pombo, but also the slightly less blatant harlots like John McCain, Jim Talent, John Ensign and Mike DeWine. Unfortunately, the Democrats, as a Party, are only slightly better.

Today AlterNet ran a piece by Russ Baker that all progressives need to read. Certainly one of the constant themes of DWT has been about the rot from within that the Democratic Party is burdened with by Beltway Insiders. I sat in a living-room full of Democracy For America members a few nights ago and Charlie Rose was interviewing DLC sleazebag Rahm Emanuel on the tv. I don't think more than one or two people had even heard of Emanuel-- let alone that he is the Democratic Party's edition of Tom DeLay. And these were DfA members! If they don't know, who will? I handed out DWT "business cards."


Corporate hacks like Emanuel, Lieberman and their DLC buddies call themselves "centrists" but their agenda seems frighteningly close to George Bush's agenda. Both, in fact, are the agenda of Big Business. Over and over this year I have suggested that anyone who wants to know the real story about American politics read David Sirota's brilliant new book, HOSTILE TAKEOVER: HOW BIG MONEY & CORRUPTION CONQUERED OUR GOVERNMENT-- AND HOW WE CAN TAKE IT BACK. Let Bush make believe he's reading Camus. You should read Sirota. And today Sirota published an interesting story, a parallel to Baker's piece, at Working For Change.

"For a very long time, Washington insiders, faux centrist pundits/politicians, and organizations like the Democratic Leadership Council have waged a brutal war on the working-class base of the
Democratic Party... That war has fed off propaganda that inherently gives credence to both right-wing policies and dishonest Republican stereotypes of the Democratic Party... Presidential candidates like Sen. Evan Bayh (D) have given speeches regurgitating RNC talking points about Democrats and
national security - a real tragedy especially at a time when Democrats have such a terrific opportunity to redefine the national security debate in this country." He points out Chris Bowers review of the book Charlie Rose was talking with the sleazy Emanuel about on TV the other night, a book he co-authored with DLC shithead/corporate shill Bruce Reed. Sirota and Bowers point out the obvious: "these high-profile Democrats go out of their way to reinforce negative, right-wing stereotypes about their own party:"

In just a few paragraphs, Reed and Emanuel manage to reinforce virtually every anti-Democratic narrative in existence. We have no new ideas, we don't stand for anything, we are equally to blame for polarized politics, we have been taken over by the angry left, conservatism is the only good ideology, Democrats won't do any better, our predecessors expanded government too much, and maverick John McCain is the only hope for unifying this country. And so our national image as a party is completely destroyed.

It's worth reading Sirota's whole piece because he goes on to contrast the bottom-of-the-garbage-bin- Democrats-- Lieberman, Reed, Emanuel, Bayh-- with real Democrats like Montana's Governor Brian Sweitzer and Senate candidate John Tester. It gives you hope-- hope in the heartland.

Back to Baker's storyline. He starts by explaining that Lieberman's defeat in the Democratic primary actually is more than just a defeat for Bush's Iraq agenda. I don't call Lieberman "Lieberwhore" just because it sounds nice. I mean it-- and Baker explains it: "He is yet another example of someone who came to Washington as a purported idealist and turned into a creature of the capital's big-money culture. Lieberman's loss is a loss for Cheney and Rumsfeld to be sure, but it's also a loss for an army of sleazy political operatives and consultants. While Lieberman is best known outside of Washington for his neocon views, he's famous in the capital for his undying support for corporate causes. There are countless examples: Remember Lieberman's role in blocking the reforms of stock option accounting that former SEC chair Arthur Levitt was trying to enact? This was a question of honest accounting that became part and parcel of the corporate corruption scandals of recent years, and Lieberman was a champion of the wrong side. Beyond that, Lieberman happily has done the bidding of the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies and many others, thus establishing an unsavory underside to his more admirable record on environmental and other issues."

Baker goes on from there to talk-- in great detail-- about the 10 worst "Corporate Democrats-For-Hire." These are really vile money-grubbing political prostitutes like Mike McCurry, Jack Quinn, Mark Penn, Bill Andersen, Michael Berman, Leslie Dach... many of whom came right out of the Clinton Administration hell-bent for making a mint, regardless of what harm they would do to core Democratic constituencies. None of these monstrosities are elected officials and there is little me can do about them but watch and wait until a future Democratic president gives them license to feed at the public trough again.

But who are the worst elected corporate whores in the Democratic Party? The ones we can vote out of office? Well, we did great last month in Connecticut. And the message was a shot across the bow of every corporate whore who sells out working men and women for the sake of Big Business contributions. I would go so far as to say that if Donna Edwards beats egregious corporate prostitute Al Wynn September 12 in Maryland's 4th congressional district, you will see a huge change inside the Democratic Party. Bribe takers like the Nelson boys (Florida's Bill and, worse, Nebraska's Ben) are safe for now. But if we can elect Ned Lamont in CT and Donna Edwards in MD-04, a new day will have dawned.

When I interview candidates to see if they qualify for the Blue America Page, I ask them 4 questions: do they support a woman's right to choice, do they support Jack Murtha's call for redeployment from Iraq, do they support equality for minorities, including right wing targets like gays and lesbians, and will they turn into a corporate whore when they get to DC. If the answers aren't yes, yes, yes, no, they don't wind up on our page.


UPDATE: HOW DID I FORGET TAIBBI?

Here I was recommending all kinds of books and articles about Democratic whores and I left out the brilliant Matt Taibbi piece in the New Yorker (via AlterNet), "Firing Squad Looms For Dem Party Oligarchy." See, it isn't only me: "He's an amoral, showboating cock." Anyway, if you read DWT, you already know how I feel about the detestable Emanuel. Read Taibbi's article if you want to know what Emanuel thinks about grassroots and netroots activists. And does he hate bloggers!

Is it possible that Holy Joe and the Gerstein Thing have outsmarted themselves by allowing Dem voters to see the GOP-loving opportunist Joe is?

Man, I'm jived. I've already added two comments to Howie's post below, and I still can't let it go. This is, I guess, the blogospheric equivalent of jumping up and down shouting.

It's not Howie's original post, on the Lieberman Shrinkage, that's got me so worked up. It's the news he added as an "update": that His Holiness has now crossed the line and is scheduled to be campaigning today at the Groton submarine base in the company of GOP Rep. Rob Simmons, holder of one of the three Connecticut seats that the Democrats need to win to wrest control of the House from "Planet Denny" Hastert and his cohorts (and also, it turns out, with up-for-election GOP Gov. Jodi Rell).

I assume this is going to be covered with the claim that it's not an endorsement but a show of support for the submarine base, which Holy Joe boasts of having saved from extinction more or less singlehandedly.

But if His Joeness has truly crossed the line and is supporting Republican candidates from his state, then this has to be the end of him. It has to be turned into his political death warrant. Any Democrat who has any contact with him except to spit should be considered unclean.

Of course the Joe-calculation is that there's no price to be paid for supporting Rell's shoe-in reelection bid, but as long as he keeps claiming--so incomprehensibly--to be a Democrat (what do you suppose that means to him?), then he should be crucified for it as well. But contributing to the retention of those GOP House seats? Is there any Democrat--hell, any U.S. political observer--who doesn't know the significance of those seats to the future of the country?

I think maybe the Gerstein Thing has outsmarted Itself--not that that's necessarily such a monumental feat. Since Its boss, the Joe-mentum Man, doesn't give a damn about anything except saving his own hide, and the Gerstein Thing doesn't give a damn about anything except licking the private parts of Its boss, they may have failed to calculate the cost of showing their true colors so publicly.

Sure, they want all those Republican votes, and they should have them. Republicans should be voting for Joe--provided, that is, that they're not squeamish about the considerable depth of his personal dishonesty and disloyalty. (How squeamish they should be is not for me to say, of course.) But the more openly he courts those Republican votes, the harder it is to maintain his Good Old Joe act for his loyal suckers . . . er, constituents.

Holy Joe is just an amazingly good actor, and he's preternaturally good at talking the talk of this progressively oriented but above-the-partisan-fray sage he pretends to be. It's one of the great shams in American political history. Why, doesn't he have the Washington Post editorial board hornswoggled into insisting that what this country needs is more pols like him?

I'd say that three quarters of the Connecticut voters planning to vote for him think that that Mythical Joe is who they're voting for. And that's where the risk lies in having the curtain pulled on the Joe of Oz. If any number of those voters he's been hoodwinking all these years see what's really behind the curtain, it's curtains for Joe.

Certainly the heat level has just been raised on Lieberloving Dems who have continued to support the sanctimonious twerp. If the Democrats--actual Democrats, that is--handle this right, they can begin cutting him off from any outside political support other than from his real allies on the Far Right. And if he starts looking like a loser, his corportate patrons are going to start having second thoughts about pouring money into a losing campaign, however much they love their bitch. He's certainly of no use to them as a former senator.

Quote of the day: If Big Louie's at your door planning to realign your kneecaps for the IRS, ask him politely if he's a scammer duping you

"The Internal Revenue Service warned taxpayers yesterday not to be duped by scammers posing as private debt collectors the agency has hired to chase unpaid tax debts."
--start of an AP story by Mary Dalrymple

OK, so now when Big Louie comes to your door with sweet words of encouragement to "pay up the dough what youse owes yer Uncle Sammy, leastwise if youse likes yer knees in one piece," you get to ask first, "But Mr. Big Louie, how can I be sure that you're not a scammer duping me by posing as a debt collector hired by the IRS?"

Meanwhile, IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson [right] has responded to Paul Krugman's rather hostile column in the New York Times the other day (follow the "Big Louie" link above). In a letter to the editors published today, he announces that "when you strip away the rhetoric . . . what remains is a sound program that makes sense in a time of tight federal budgets and increased attention to deficit reduction."

The commissioner doesn't explain how exactly the IRS's recently announced plan to stop auditing rich people's tax returns fits into the grand scheme of "increased attention to deficit reduction." He does, however, assure us, "We will be closely monitoring [the contractors'] performance to make sure that they're following the letter of the law and our own stringent internal standards."

And we all know, if there's one thing this administration is famous for, it's following the letter of the law and its own stringent internal standards. Oh wait, is that two things? Or more like nothing.

LIEBERMAN'S CAMPAIGN DYING ON THE VINE AS HIS SUPPORTERS ABANDON HIM IN DROVES... DRIP, DRIP, DRIP

Having fired his whole campaign staff (ala Katherine Harris) after his stunning defeat by Ned Lamont, Lieberman's campaign is now being run by incompetent DLC hatchetman Dan Gerstein, a corporate shill with decidedly Republican instincts. The first results of Gerstein's stewardship came in today: two polls showing Lieberman's base of support shrinking... rapidly.

Both the Rasmussen poll and ARG (American Research Group) show considerable deterioration in Lieberman's numbers since consistently incompetent Gerstein took over the show. Of course some people point out that it is unfair to place all the blame on Gerstein because, although no one can argue that he has no clue what he's doing, it is really Lieberman's own identification with Bush, Rove and Cheney and the nature of his increasingly desperate and shrill campaign that have caused all the erosion. Others point out that this embracing of the Bush Regime and the spoiled child nature of his campaign are precisely the handiwork of the loathsome Gerstein.

In any case, Rasmussen and ARG show statistical ties now with momentum a powerful factor in Lamont's favor. Rasmussen has Lieberman up by 2 points-- 45-43 (with the other Republican at 6) and ARG shows a dead-heat. Just one week ago Lieberman was running almost 10 points ahead of Lamont. The Rasmussen has even worse long-term news for Lieberman: his favorability ratings are dropping as Lamont's are rising.

And although there are still a small handful of reactionary Democrats-- the ones who always vote with Bush and the Republicans when it comes to screwing over working people and consumers at the behest of big corporations, the Mary Landrieus, Ben Nelsons, Tom Carpers, Mark Pryors and Ken Salazars-- most of Lieberman's Democratic senate colleagues have been contributing money to and offering to campaign for Lamont.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold spoke for many when he said "We need more leaders like Ned Lamont in Washington and I look forward to working with him on a wide range of issues in the U.S. Senate." Russ called Lamont's victory "an affirmation of something much larger than Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. America knows that a disastrous mistake was made in Iraq... This is an enormous tragedy that has to stop. Ned Lamont understood that. He had the courage to run a campaign on that issue."

DNC Chairman Howard Dean was on Hardball today and Matthews tried picking a fight about Lieberman. "You're brother [Jim Dean, head, Connecticut resident and head of Democracy for America] is working for Lamont," he accused. "And so am I," shot back the leader of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. "Ned Lamont is the future. Joe is a good guy, but Joe is the past. And I think we need a new direction in this country. And it's not just the Lieberman-Lamont race. It's all over the country. People are looking for a different direction, a new direction, a change-- and I think the Democrats can bring that change. And we've got candidates like Ned Lamont all over the country doing that."

And closer to home, Connecticut Democrats are telling Lieberman to take his Republican campaign and shove it. Although he and the slimy Gerstein thing seem to have finally realized their website crashed