AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE TRAGEDY OF KATRINA-- THE TANCREDO PERSPECTIVE

Most people would agree that the Bush Regime has botched the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina-- and botched it horribly. Even extreme right-wing loon, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), the KKK candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, remarked that "this whole fiasco has been a perfect storm of corruption and incompetence at all levels.” Unfortunately, Tancredo departs from the rest of the human race just after that.

According to today's Hill Tancredo is demanding that all spending on reviving New Orleans and the Gulf Coast be stopped once and for all. He said it's “'time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station' and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago. 'The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called "recovery" efforts has been mind-boggling... Enough is enough.'"

One wonders if the good and decent citizens in the Denver suburbs will ever get that notion in their collective heads.

And don't think Tancredo is completely alone in his thinking about adandoning New Orleans. Many on the extreme fringes of the right, the kooks and loons who don't believe in the power of government to play a positive role in civilized society, all just over it (though, to be honest, I don't remeber this particular segment of the population ever beeing into it). Where most Americans see our neighbors and countrymen in need of help, they see moochers rejoicing in their own wrecked lives at the opportunity to live, albeit miserably and hopelessly, at the expense of others. This is, after all, the face of contemporary Republicanism: Larry Craig meets Grove Norquest:

Nobody is owed a living for the rest of his life because he had a bad break two years ago. Yet, we still have people affected by Katrina who have FEMA paying their rent. How sad and pathetic is it that these shiftless people are still leaching off their fellow citizens? Since when is being in the path of a hurricane supposed to give you a permanent "Get Out of Work Free" card?

A LITTLE UPDATE: TROUBLE ON THE BIG SCREEN

This morning started with a discussion of how the Bush Regime has been able to perpetrate its crimes in the full light of day, partially with the skillful use of propaganda, something even foolish members of Congress have been seen falling for. Count the reasons presented every single day for exiting from Iraq and you would get dizzy. Apparently one flurry of Powerpoint presentations by a man in a uniform and one too many congressmen seem to swoon.

If reading about the Bush Regime's out of control criminality in the NY Times and Washington Post doesn't do the trick for you, how about a nice new movie by Brian De Palma? Redacted is De Palma's "new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family. [It] stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears."

De Palma mentioned that "The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people." I hope he has more success than the Times or Post seem to be having.

ABOUT RON PAUL: THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS NOT ALWAYS MY FRIEND

by Noah

We live in a soundbyte age. It is an age where what we know, presume to know, or, are misled to know about someone is neatly encapsulated in a phrase or a brief moment in time preserved on film. A tiny fragment of a person's life is recorded, inserted into the news cycle and looped hypnotically over and over again before our eyeballs, or, passed from inbox to inbox thanks to YouTube and its like. It is drilled into our brains.

A few words that a person utters can be the entire image of that person, IF we are not careful and we don't dig deeper. A few words can become the slogan of a campaign, whether the campaigner wishes it so or not. John Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion before I voted against it" was used against him. So-called President Bush's "I'm a uniter not a divider" was used for him. Millions of naive Americans believed an obvious lie and the rest is a nightmare of history. Hell, the BIG LIE worked for a failed Asutrian painter in Germany; why shouldn't it have worked for an AWOL brain damaged thug who has failed at everything he's touched in his entire life, including trading Sammy Sosa and not even being able to find oil in Texas.

And now we have Rep. Ron Paul (14th District, TX), running for President. The thought of Ron Paul as President brings various thoughts to my mind. The frivolous ones are: Do we really need more leaders from Texas and should Texas even be considered part of The United States? Weren't Tom Delay and Dubya afflictions enough? Is this some twisted gods' way of telling us to pay more attention before we go into the voting booth and touch the screen on the big rigged machine? OK, with that out of the way, let's get into some of what sets off alarm bells when I hear the name of Ron Paul, and it isn't just the idea of having someone with three first names sitting in the Oval Office.

Here's the Ron Paul soundbyte: The scene is the first Repug debate of the current campaign season. Of all the pathetic pygmies™ on stage, Ron Paul pointed out that 50 years of interventionist U.S. foreign policy has led to an extremely negative opinion of America throughout the Middle East and that that contributed to the 9/11 attacks. He stated his view that neither The Constitution nor the founding fathers had such policies in mind for our country. He also discussed at some length how his party had lost its way by attempting nation building and interventionist foreign policies in spite of  Chimpy's campaign promises to the contrary. I'm certain that most Repugs expected a flaming pit to open up under him and swallow him up, never to be seen again. Didn't happen. What did happen is exactly what any ad exec or campaign manager would wish for from any soundbyte moment. Ron Paul stood out. He alone wasn't the "mayor of 9/11"/married his cousin guy, or the guy who strapped the family dog to the roof of the car and drove down the highway at 70mph (Michael Vick ain't got much on Romney, although, judging by the lack of media attention to the incident, you'd never know it). He certainly wasn't the senile "straight talk out of both sides of his mouth" guy, and, he wasn't one of the propeller beanie clowns that said they don't believe in evolution. 

So, consider the context. Ron Paul said something he actually believes. On a stage of  steaming green puss for brains, demon possessed oozing slimebags, Ron Paul said something relatively honest and correct. He not only dared to go against the grain of current Repug doctrine, he even got attacked for it by the volatile and highly unstable Rudy Julieandrews. Rudy puffed himself up and claimed he'd never heard of such concepts and demanded that Paul take back his sacrilege. In so doing, he inadvertently made Ron Paul famous, even if the corporate media ignored Paul's soaring post debate poll numbers. But, is it enough to point out something that led to 9/ll, something so obvious for so long? Is it enough to say we shouldn't be in Iraq? Is that enough to get someone to vote for him? More importantly, is that all there is to Rep. Ron Paul? 

Are we so focused on the war that we are willing to hear what we want to hear, ignore all else, and gloss over the bad parts of a candidate? As you dig into who Ron Paul is, you see that he actually has a very mixed voting record on the war. What Paul said, in the context of his voting record, sounds great but it is not the same as actually being against the war, and it's not nitpicking to say so. His words contradict his voting record. That contradiction gets to the core of who this candidate is. Haven't we had enough deception and doublespeak?

Ron Paul seems like a pretty affable, charming guy. It hardly bothers me that he looks like and has a voice that sounds like the "Purple Shroud Guy" (Marshall Applewhite, late Heaven's Gate Cult leader) who was able to convince his naive all too willing followers that they could all go see Jesus or whomever it was on the Hale Bopp Comet as it approached Earth, if only they would join him in wrapping themselves in some spiffy purple shroud duds and join him in committing suicide in one big happy display of togetherness. But, politics has now also become cultism. If you only pay attention to the superficial soundbyte or sloganeering when you decide who to vote for, you may be acting like a lemming heading for a cliff.

Let's take a look at Rep. Paul's Iraq vote record first. Yes. It's a fact that his voting record on Iraq is better than any of the Repugs he shared the stage with at their debate, but is that so hard? That, together with his words on the subject are a big part of what has excited many people of all political persuasions about him. If only they took the time to find out another few facts: 1) Each of the 11 Democrats who are running for President has a far better record on the issue than Ron Paul does, even Shillary Clinton, who I also don't plan on voting for. 2) He has voted WITH BUSH/CHENEY on the matter close to 20 TIMES! 3) In addition, he has voted neither yes or no but "present" (or absented himself numerous other times). It's real easy to say you voted against the war when you don't have to get specific about what the specific bills were actually about. It's also real easy to say you voted against a war bill when you don't mention that you also voted for so many others, or even fail to mention that you cowardly decided not to even show up, just so you can say you didn't vote for something. Talk about your cynical, disingenuous politicians! Not only that, but Paul believers claim to love him for being a man who stands on principle. Too bad he's so damn selective and part time about it.

A comparative examination of the Iraq-related votes of every House member shows that Paul voted against Bush's toxic agenda more than any other Repug. However, every Democrat with the exception of 4 arch reactionaries (and the now converted John Murtha) have better Iraq voting records than Paul. The other 4 Democratic congressmen with worse, though very similar, voting records than Paul are Chris Carney (PA), Bud Cramer (AL), Gene Taylor (MS) and Jim Marshall (GA), each widely considered a traitor to the Democratic caucus and each most Democrats at least silently wish would lose the next election.

It's also too bad that Paul gets away with it because people accept him and his words at face value, and it's also too bad that none of the traditional media morons have the desire to ask any follow up questions; so much for an informed public. Against the war? Doesn't look so! Ron Paul's fans claim he would bring transparency to government by rolling it back, but how is a deceptive man who refuses to be transparent himself going to achieve that?

But wait! There's more! Paul gets a 100% rating from the John Birch Society (Higher than they give such wonderful humans as KKK fave Sen.Trent Lott (66%, highest in the Senate), Sen. Norm "Fratboy" Coleman, Sen. Susan "How do I love thee GWB? I can't count the ways" Collins, and uber-crackpot Sen. Tom Coburn). Robert Welch, the JBS founder once referred to the last acceptable Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, as "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy." Uh, huh. What a nice way to say thank you for winning WWII, creating the Interstate Highway system and shepherding a system of government that, among other things, provided for a growing, strong, successful middle class that built so much until one of our worst presidents, Ronald Reagan, declared war on it upon his election in 1980.                                                                             
Paul's JBS admirers aren't big on Civil Rights. They'll tell you it says nothing about rights for Blacks, gays, and women in The Constitution. I guess the JBS was mighty pissed when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock so that some African-American kids could go to school. How un-American of him! What a commie pinko! How un-constitional! You see, the John Birch Society advocates the repeal of civil rights legislation. Paul ain't for it either but probably doesn't say too much because that might not go over with the majority of Americans in this century, outside of a few of our most backward states. He doesn't mention his massive support from the JBS on his website either. Why not Ron? Aren't you proud of the endorsement? Such a much bigger endorsement than even a well known quantity like Trent Lott gets? Hey, it's very easy to say you oppose civil rights or the war on Constitutional grounds. It's also very easy to hide behind the Constitution, even when your party's current "president" is taking every copy he can find to the shredder as fast as he can have one of his slobbering lapdog minions carry it. You can say or not say whatever you want, but, once again, do your words match up with your voting record? I seriously doubt that the John Birch Society followers dwell on the fine points anyway. The JBS had its big day in the 60s, during the civil rights movement. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the JBS as a group that "advocates or adheres to extreme antigovernment doctrines." Oh, and just who was John Birch? Answer: An early funda-MENTAL-ist Christian goon. I don't know if he was ever found with a stack of porno mags in his car or a young boy in the trunk. Probably not. They didnít have cars back in his time.

Paul defines himself as a constitutionalist. Sounds great. After all, we Progressives find that very appealing, especially when we see the Constitution viciously assaulted every day. For Libertarians, and that's what Paul really is, the Constitution is something else. They believe Bush is a criminal. Fine, so do I. No argument there. What Libertarians mean when they say they want a strict interpretation of The Constitution is what the most extreme conservative Repugs think; the Constitution as it was originally written. For instance, the Constitution, as originally written, grants voting rights to all men of property. That leaves out a lot of people, half the human race in this country, without even getting into color, for starters. Renters need not go to the polls, and, any of you female Ron Paul supporters who want to vote for him better do so quickly. If he gets his way, and his followers come along to Washington with him, you might not be able to vote for him a second time. Oh, I'm sure he wouldn't say that... yet.

But, if you've read this far, why would you believe him anyway? Strict Constitutionalistas want all power to go back to the states; let each individual state decide. That's what George Wallace was fighting for when he stood in the door way at U. Alabama and said "Segregation then. Segregation now, and segregation forever." Think it couldnít happen again? Some states are still fighting the Civil War. Why encourage them? Paul will tell you, as he has, that he has a lot of friends in the JBS. He will go on to imply that that doesnít mean he agrees with them. Some bothersome little factoids, though: Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against a medal for Rosa Parks. He was one of two congresscreeps who voted against the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. In 2004 he was the only congresscreep to vote no to a commemoration of the anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Time for a quote from Ron, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of Blacks have sensible political opinions!" I just have a feeling about where he stands. Just a feeling. Oh, and one more thing related to the subject; David Duke is a big fan. That's right-- the Grand Wizard of the KKK who the Repugs ran for Senator in Louisiana. Great pal to have! Paul's disagreements with "his friends" must be about something else. Not to worry though, if you think the troops should come home and you're a racist, you can still be consistent in voting for Ron Paul!

Church and State? Should there be a wall between the two? Not according to constitutionalista Ron Paul-- "the notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of the founding fathers." That's Ron Paul writing in a little paranoid diatribe, in December 2003, on the alleged war on Christmas and religion in general. Now, let us hear from a man who may have also had his faults but still did some great things in his life, Thomas Jefferson. "In every country in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." Sounds like a man who believed in that wall. I also believe he qualifies as a Founding Father! He wrote your Constitution, Ronnie! Well, maybe not your Constitution, but he did write mine.

Ron Paul also doesn't believe in the IRS. All of us joke about the IRS and paying taxes but Paul and his friends at the JBS want to actually abolish the IRS. Me, I don't like paying taxes, but, I do like things like the Center For Disease Control, educational grants, an air defense system, the FDA and FEMA (the way they used to be structured, before Dubya), riding on the interstates, park rangers who help combat forest fires, etc. Taxes pay for those things. Have you noticed how bad the highways have gotten since Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? That's right-- lots of potholes, lots of damaged cars which the owners now have to pay for, couple of collapsed bridges.. Yep. Taxes for the wealthy are down but car damage and traffic fines are up and you have to pay for it. The cost of highway travel has been passed on to you, the sucker. Rather than repair the roads, you have to repair your car. Is that Repugly, or what? Our infrastructure is collapsing...    literally. Are you about to get on a bridge that's ready to fall into the drink due to a lack of funds to keep up repairs? Expect even more of such things under a Ron Paul "government." "Hey, if youíre not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." Drive on! Isn't this brand of repug extremism grand?

What else? On the Daily Show, Rep. Paul indicated that he was not only against the IRS, but also the Patriot Act. There ya go; something I can agree with him on. Same with NAFTA and the WTO. Don't like gun control? You can easily find a Democratic candidate you can agree with on that one; at the very least, most of 'em wonít touch it, and, as I said before, you'll like their stance on the war better. Paul would also abolish the Department of Energy. Is it possible for Big Oil to have even more control over our lives? You bet. Bush is merely paving the way for someone, maybe a fellow Texan like Ron Paul who might push the envelope even further. Medicare? Gone. Let the market decide who lives and who dies! Clean Air Act? Voted no. Minimum wage hike? Voted no three times. Campaign Finance Reform? Voted no three times. This guy's terrific! Department of Education? Gone. Dumb 'em down some more. We don't need no stinking literacy. You thinks it's bad now when all some people can read or even want to read is US magazine or STAR?  Wait 'til they can't even make sense of the pictures!

I can certainly see why any sentient human on Earth would completely despise George or any other Bush. Dubya has an exceedingly bad character and no redeeming qualities. He is an utter, complete failure as a human being and as a president, but replace him with Ron Paul just because you think he's against Bush's war for oil and Halliburton money? Would you vote for Ron Paul even though he'd attempt to take the deregulation started under Reagan that has led to jobs going overseas, lack of enforcement of mine safety laws, food that makes us sick, bridges that collapse while bridges to nowhere are built in Alaska, etc. further? Ron Paul says things that, on the surface, don't sound too looney and may even sound great. He has mastered vagueness. There's something in most people that makes them want to trust and believe. His website ignores the things he'd rather we didn't know or think about. It's "don't look behind the curtain." His campaign is pretty net savvy. He's just another packaged candidate. The bad signs and indicators are there but the naive ignore them to the peril of all. That's how we ended up with the lowlife that we currently see wrecking our nation.
 
I recently heard Ron Paul being interviewed by Stacy Taylor on AirAmerica. Paul went on the show apparently just expecting to be asked about his stance on Iraq. He was caught off guard when Taylor started asking him about his positions on various social and economic issues. Taylor asked the very same questions that he would ask and has asked any other candidate. Paul, however, felt ambushed. He has said very loudly that he will never go on AirAmerica again. I guess he felt uncomfortable. So where on the radio does Ron Paul feel comfortable? Try the self-described "8 lanes to the right" Larry Pratt. Paul has been on his show many times. Pratt is known for his connections to the White Supremacist, Anti-Semitic, Christian Identity movement. So were the folks who brought down the federal building in Oklahoma. Pratt has endorsed Paul's campaigns and Paul has accepted his endorsements. Out of the other side of his moth, Paul claims he opposes racism, but, at some point the company you keep begins to reveal something about your character. Again, Paul will claim that he merely opposes Civil Rights on Constitutional grounds. Again, whose Constitution? It's not a constitution for the select few. Jefferson didn't write it as something to hide behind. At some point, the potential Paul supporter has to look at Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, and the likes of David Duke and ask where does it end? At some point, you have to say to yourself, if it walks like a duck... (even if it decides to not really talk like a duck).

Yes, he likes Larry Pratt; feels damn comfy with him. With Stacy Taylor, he had an aide call up a give Taylor a new one as soon as he left the air. Stacy Taylor, very professionally, looked behind the curtain into the forbidden closet. The aide ranted big time and then hung up. Is this a man who is honest about his positions and isn't trying to hide anything? If you're so damn principled and forthright, just answer the questions and move on. Some of Taylor's listeners called up to defend Rep. Paul. How dare Taylor ask Ron Paul questions that might inform the listeners! Such actions point to a budding fanaticism. This is the cult of Ron. It's: we love the guy. Try on the Purple Shroud! The hell with the truth. The hell with reality. Well, Bush has said it best when he has accused those who disagree with him as being "part of the reality-based community." President Paul? Meet the new boss. Same lame as the old boss. Crazier? Hard to beat but time will tell. Paul is what you get when you don't impeach. If you let Bush get away with his evil, someone else will come along and try to keep pushing the envelope. If it isn't Ron Paul, it will be some other clown in the future, if there is a future.

JOHN WARNER BEATS LARRY CRAIG TO THE RETIREMENT PUNCH

Genuine warmth between the future and the past in Virginia politics

Unlike Larry Craig, John Warner is not a backbencher. He's a major Senate player. He just announced, as expected, that he won't be running for re-election in 2008. He's given up on being able to impact the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. He realizes he's too old (80) to do the kind of job he'd like to be able to continue to do.

The announcement is a surprise to no one.

"I will conclude my service to Virginia as a senator when I complete this, my fifth term, on January 6, 2009," Warner said. The former Navy Secretary and past chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he wrestled with the decision, which he came to "in the last day or two."

His decision to not run will probably precipitate a major party change, if not a name change, for that seat. Wildly popular ex-Governor Mark Warner (D), who had long said he had too much affection and respect for John Warner to run against him, will now declare and probably win the senate seat. He is likely to be challenged by conservative Congressman Tom Davis (VA-11), although it is likely that a far right extremist like Eric Cantor or that Gilmore kook will also consider running. If Davis gets the GOP nod, there is every chance in the world that his moderate blue-trending district will elect a Democrat, perhaps Andrew Hurst who held Davis to a 55% win last year. (Bush barely took 50% of the district's vote in 2004 and was won by Democrats Jim Webb and Tim Kaine since then.)

Tony Snow, Bush's latest mouthpiece, is also retiring. And Larry Craig needs to either do it or get off the pot. Sources say it could be within minutes this weekend.

WHO'LL BE THE NEXT REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITE TO BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE CLOSET SCREAMING ABOUT MEDIA WITCH HUNTS?

A certain lil' congressman allegedly likes his trade rough

Lil' Patrick McHenry isn't a character in Comedy Central's brilliant Lil' Bush, which features Lil' Cheney, Lil' Rummy, Lil' Condi, Lil' Tony Blair, Lil' Jeb, Lil' Hillary, Lil' Mikey Moore, Lil' Obama... but not Lil' Lil' Patrick McHenry. He's too... lil'! But he may be about to get a lot bigger, at least in terms of the traditional media that has made Larry Craig a household name-- and soon. DWT readers already know that the North Carolina arch-conservative (other than 3 nut-case freshmen, McHenry's got the most reactionary voting record in Congress) is allegedly another hypocritical closet queen waiting nervously for his moment on the national stage.

And yesterday BlueNC gave Rep. McHenry's closet door a nice, loud jolt. In a scandal that will prove to be far bigger than South Park's outing of Tom Cruise (covered in great depth and detail by Wikipedia), it looks like there is a connection between McHenry and a murderous Republican homosexual love triangle/escort service.

The murdered gay Republicans include Ralph Reed's purported ex-lover, Ralph Gonzalez (former head of the rabidly homophobic Georgia Republican Party), David Abrami and McHenry guy-pal Robert Drake, the shooter. All three were found last week in a murder-suicide in an Orlando apartment. According to right-wing website, the North Carolina Conservative "All three men were active in Republican politics." They mention that Drake is "an associate" of McHenry's but don't define that. He is alleged to be an associate of quite a few younger men, some of whom are gay and some of whom are just gay-for-pay. (Note: The websites in this GOP report are graphic, pornographic gay prostitute sites and if you don't want to see that kind of stuff DO NOT copy and paste the links. They are purposely not in the form of links.)

Gonzalez was an influential political consultant, who owned Strategum Group, and managed Congressman Tom Feeny’s 2002 campaign. The house was owned by Gonzalez; Abrami lived with Gonzalez. Newspapers and political websites have been abuzz with posts from friends and associates of Gonzalez, who speculate the motive for the murder-suicide as being a gay love triangle gone wrong.

...Another, more sinister motive has been put forth by several sources, including CrimeBlog.us. Reporters there say that Drake was associated with the owner of a gay escort service in the Virginia Beach area. The owners of that escort service are facing charges that they murdered the owner of a rival company catering to the gay community. A source for the Crime Blog reporter states:

“My solid, but unconfirmed, sources say that Drake was trying to hit Gonzalez up for cash to raise money to defend a kid (Harlow Cuadra) who is on trial for murder up in Pennsylvania. The 26 year old “kid” ran a gay escort and porn business in Virginia Beach and may have had several Republican clients–Drake being one. (See www.norfolkmaleescorts.com and www.boybatter.com). . . My sources say Drake may have approached Gonzalez for funds for Cuadra’s defense, threatening to blow the lid off everything by MAKING THE REPUBLICAN CLIENT LIST OF THE GAY ESCORT BUSINESS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.”

More sordid GOP details are available. Meanwhile there are jailed Republicans, dead Republicans, outed Republicans... And McHenry's office... well, the press secretary is on vacation so they have no comment. I couldn't get them to put me on the phone with Lil' Congressman McHenry. Maybe he was making preparations for the Republican National Convention.

LOOKS LIKE LARRY CRAIG IS ABOUT TO BE AVAILABLE FOR NON-SENATORIAL BARBERSHOP QUARTETS

Four of the more odious right wing Republican closet cases: Roy Cohn, Mark Foley, Jim West and Ed Schrock

I wanted Larry Craig to turn his nightmare of closetry, homophobic hypocrisy and betrayal into a story of human redemption. But he never called me back. Instead, all sources say he's resigning today tomorrow. We'll update you as soon as he announces he isn't gay, hasn't done anything wrong and is stepping down to spend more time with his family. Meanwhile, you might spend some time considering Joe Conason's excellent piece about crippling Republican homophobia in today's Salon.

The RNC has let Craig know that either he resigns or they will publicly demand that he do so. John Ensign, Craig's right-wing colleague from Nevada, and the head of the RSCC, joined the other Republican senators howling for Craig to get his gay ass out of their caucus. Craig senses a witch hunt but he's blaming the media and, even now, refusing to see that the witch hunt is an outgrowth of extreme right-wing politics and vicious, demented homophobia that encourages entrapment and targeting of gay men and women.

Larry Craig should have spent the last few days reading ex-Congressman Robert Bauman's book, The Gentleman From Maryland-- the Conscience of a Gay Conservative. His salvation, as a human being, would be to stand up and face his homosexuality and embrace it, apologize for his insane right-wing behavior and move on-- being a decent senator for the next year and a half. That, alas, is not what is about to unfold.

A BLUE AMERICA POLICY CLARIFICATION-- BUSH DOG'S NEED NOT APPLY

In the last couple of days, in between Larry Craig's adventures in Republican Toiletland stories, we've had a few posts about the $50 billion supplemental to the supplemental. Basically Bush wants another $50 bil (on top of the outrageous $147 billion) for his war profiteering schemes in Iraq. Seventy of our kind of Democrats sent him a letter saying the only money they would vote to approve is money for a safe and speedy redeployment of our troops. Yesterday Ken did a piece on the GAO report that exposes the Bush Regime's blatant lies about how swimmingly everything is going in Iraq-- and how they are now trying to force the GAO to "edit" the report conform to Regime propaganda.

In lieu of impeachment, treason, and war crimes trials for Bush and his cronies, don't you think Congress should put their foot down now just and say no? Just "no." I know we're ready to say just no to anyone, regardless of political party, who votes yes on the Bush supplemental or on any compromise to funnel any more money into the Iraq war rathole. Of the incumbents Blue America has endorsed so far, 4 have already pledged to vote no on Bush's request for more money-- Steve Cohen (TN), who is under vicious attack from Harold Ford's rightist political machine, John Hall (NY), Jerrold Nadler (NY), and Hilda Solis (CA). I feel confident that our other incumbents, Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Patrick Murphy (PA), Tom Allen (ME), and Jerry McNerney (CA), will do likewise next week. If they don't, you still will be able to donate to their campaigns if you want to-- but not through Blue America. And the only incumbent currently scheduled for a Blue America endorsement and live session is our old friend Paul Hodes (NH) and he has already pledged to vote against any funding that isn't to bring the troops home. If I'm being too subtle here, Scarecrow has an explanation over at FDL.

Yesterday I was on the phone for a while with a campaign manager for a Democrat running for a House seat. He was speaking for himself and not his candidate. He told me that the problem in Iraq is very real and the dangers inherent to it are very grave and that the solution is not a soundbyte. All true, but not really relevant to what Congress can accomplish. The war was wrong when it was started and it is wrong now. The American presence there has always done one thing and one thing only: made a bad situation worse. There is no good answer to Iraq-- other than war crimes trials for Bush and Cheney, et al-- but there is one thing that must change and must change as fast as possible (tomorrow, next week, a month?) and that is the presence of American troops in Iraq.

Even a hack and tool like Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) recognizes the Bush Regime Greed Zone congressional dog and pony show for what it is. Not a word that comes out of Bush's mouth or the mouths of any of his cronies can be believed under any circumstances whatsoever-- which is why he should have been impeached and why an increasing number of people are seeing Nancy Pelosi as complicit in the Regime's crimes. Now Inside the Beltway war criminals are calling for the ouster of Bush's favored, hand-picked (not legitimately elected) Iraqi puppet, Nouri al-Maliki. Will he be the next Ngo Dinh Diem?

This morning's NY Times has three unrelated stories which should make every American furious enough to demand we get the hell out of Iraq-- a story about us re-doing the disaster known as the Iraqi police force; another in the endless tales of Bush crony corporate corruption in Iraq; and a thought piece on how the gulf between Sunnis and Shi'a has widened since Bush-- who had never heard of either before deciding to take over the joint-- came on the scene and destroyed civil society. These all point to what the cowardly Colin Powell told Bush before the invasion he supported (even if only reluctantly). Powell mixed up his duty to the citizens of the United States of America with his loyalty to the madman who had stolen the 2000 election and was determined to make a name for himself. By telling Bush that if he "broke" Iraq he would "own" it-- a concept that was certainly too abstract for a functional imbecile like Bush to understand-- Powell may have thought he had done his duty. He thought wrong.

There was one Iraq story in the Times that I absolutely loved. An airplane carrying right wing warmongers Mel Martinez (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), James Inhofe (R-OK) and Bud Cramer (D-AL) was shot at taking off from Baghdad and forced to take evasive maneuvers. These are 3 rubber stamp Republican senators and a Bush Dog, all 4 of whom very much deserving to be charged as enablers in Bush's war crimes. Of course, in something like this "almost" doesn't count.


UPDATE: KENDRICK MEEK COMES BACK FROM IRAQ READY TO JUST SAY NO

Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL) just came back from Iraq with a very different impression than Brian Baird. Baird, Jason Altmire and other Bush Dogs may happily go along with the regime's odious agenda, but Meek makes it clear that he has a more thoughtful-- and more sensible-- position.




UPDATE: VOTERS IN NORTHEAST MASSACHUSETTS CONSIDER DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO WAR FUNDING

The Blue America-endorsed candidate in next Tuesday's MA-05 primary, Jamie Eldridge opposes any more funding to escalate Bush's war agenda and only supports spending money to safely and redeploy our troops out of Iraq. Eileen Donoghue has essentially the same approach. James Miceli has the extreme Bush Dog point of view: let's see what General BetrayUs has to say. Front-runner Niki Tsongas, the one with the name recognition because of her former husband, the senator, also seems to be running with the Bush Dog crowd, as does Barry Finegold. If you'd like to express an interest in ending Bush's Iraq agenda, you can consider donating to Jamie's campaign.

A CASE FOR OBAMA, OBAMA

Listen to the lyrics; they're... provocative.

FREDERICK OF HOLLYWOOD ANNOUNCES HE WILL ANNOUNCE-- AFTER THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE NEXT WEEK

swashbuckling???

As you may have heard, Senator Larry Craig was recently very abruptly tossed out of the closet. And it only took a full 2 decades after it first came to public attention that he was thrusting unwanted attention on other men. It may seem as long, but it's only been a few months, for Frederick of Hollywood to finally come out too. Yes, finally Republican lobbyist and actor Fred Thompson, after being charged with skirting campaign finance laws by raising money for a presidential campaign he was denying existed, and after being threatened by the ultra conservative Manchester Union Leader that he'd better participate in the September 5th New Hampshire debate. Instead Thompson has announced he will be announcing-- but not 'til a day after the debate.

He was primed to be the summer's big blockbuster and the script was written in advance: A dispirited party finds its great hope in a swashbuckling Southern senator, riding to the rescue to save Republicans from themselves.

It hasnt quite worked out that way. Instead, he's been posting miserable fundraising numbers and has been questioned closely about an unscrupulous lobbying career that could be more disturbing to Republican voters than even Abramoff's criminal behavior. Larry Craig may have seen Frederick of Hollywood's momentum circling a toilet in one of the many public restrooms he's always visiting.

IT'S 2007. WHY DO REPUBLICANS STILL INSIST ON POLICE ENTRAPMENT OF GAY PEOPLE?

I just listened to Senator Larry Craig's entrapment tape. It seems obvious to me that if the police wanted to have safe bathrooms in public places they would have uniformed officers on patrol. Instead they sent out the prettiest boy in the department who many gay men would find attractive. What a revolting set-up! The irony, of course, is that society allows this kind of disgusting waste of time and resources-- time and resources that ruin peoples' lives-- because of hypocrites like Larry Craig (R-ID), David Dreier (R-CA), Jim McCrery (R-LA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Allen (R-FL), Mark Foley (R-FL) and dozens of other Republican lawmakers trying to capitalize on human frailties to seek votes from ignorant and bigoted constituents. Today New York points out why the whole attitude of homophobia just isn't funny.

A different part of that tape that seemed very gross to me was the discussion about Craig's hand. He was reaching down he said. not to signal that he wanted sex with the undercover cop but to pick up a piece of toilet paper. Do you pick up stray pieces of toilet paper from the floors of public restrooms? I don't touch anything in a public bathroom... except with my shoe.

On a lighter side one of my friends wondered what Senator Craig would have said if the cop actually allowed him to go through with his intentions-- like in the good old days-- before arresting him. Picture Senator Craig with his disinterested, uncomprehending Mrs. by his side at a press conference:

"A c*ck in my mouth, you say? No, no, I don't think so."

"My goodness, I had no idea. I can't think how that could have gotten there."

"Oh, is THAT what it was? It tasted like chicken."

"Um, I remember reaching for a pretzel, but you know, I can't see a thing without my glasses."

"Damn kids are always leaving stuff lying around. You have kids? What're you gonna do?"

"It's all the liberal media. They hound me because they know I have such high moral standards."

"It's not as if it was a really BIG one."  [Not recommended highly--this kind of just makes you a size queen.]

"It's shocking, the things scientists say an average person has in his mouth on an average day."

"If I do you, maybe we could forget all about this? You ARE awfully cute, you know."

"DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"

Or, maybe the Idahoan could have just handled it with a stiff upper lip-- like a British legislator would:




UPDATE: MEET LARRY CRAIG'S ACTUAL OPPONENT

Judging by today's news you'd think Larry Craig's biggest political opponents were his erstwhile GOP allies, who are all now viciously attacking him, particularly two of the most heinous individual politicians in America, Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell. And judging by the Republican Party-inspired diktat to get this guy off the scene asap, you'd swear that it was all being cheerled by all the regular suspects, especially Fox News and the Republican network of Hate Talk Radio hosts and hostesses.

But there is actually a credible Democrat, Larry LaRocco, whose been running for the seat even when Craig's bathroom trysts were just grist for the DC rumor mill. Flip Flop Mitt and all the supposedly outraged Republicans screaming about it the loudest now were well aware of what was up with Senator Craig for many years. Today former Congressman LaRocco posted an introduction at Huffington Post.

OH GOD-- WHEN IS THIS GOING TO END?

It's official: People in gov't who write honest reports not only expect their drafts to be falsified by regime loyalists but are trying to fight it

You've probably heard about the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the results of the Iraq surge, which was requested by Congress and will be delivered in final form Tuesday. Today's Washington Post carried a report ("Report Finds Little Progress on Iraq Goals") on a "strikingly negative GAO draft" that was leaked to the paper.

This is not to be confused, of course, with the pack o' lies 'n' spin--er, report--that the White House will be serving up the second week in September. That will be the official response to the "just wait till September" line of bull the Bush regime has been feeding us all summer. Congress has taken the precaution of commissioning more reliably objective reports: this one from the GAO and an evaluation of Iraqi security forces from an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones.

Lane Hudson was struck, in a News from the Left post, by a curious detail in the Post report caught, detailing how the paper got hold of the draft: "The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq."

I think by now all DWT readers are familiar with this drill as practiced by Bush regime loyalists. The very definition of a "draft report" in this regime is a report that hasn't been "fixed" yet. I think it's safe to say that there's no such thing as a report that a really loyal Bush loyalist can't "fix," especially if he/she is blessed with total ignorance of the facts. (This comes in really handy when it's time to rewrite reports that were once science-based--before the regime hoodlum took his/her ax and crayon to it.)

Now, Lane notes, we have an indication that government insiders are coming to grips with, and looking for ways around, this reality:

Interesting, huh? Government officials are now leaking reports because they fear the White House or the Pentagon will change them so much that they will no longer accurately reflect the truth. It's pathetic that I'm not surprised one tiny little bit. That's how far gone my trust in the Administration is. It's also all the more reason why Congress needs to stand up and put an end to this charade and stop the War.

So you've come to DWT expecting another round of childish, tasteless Larry Craig-being-gay jokes? Yeah, okay, can do

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)
Celebrating a Quarter-Century
of People Gossiping About Me Being Gay
(1982-2007)

In his younger years, our Larry plays dress-up with
"one of the nation's most requested cowboy entertainers" (by
his own description), Cowboy Rudy. (cowboyrudy.com)

Attention, people, this is serious. It's our Larry's silver anniversary. Which naturally raises the question:

What do you get for the man who's had folks officially gossiping about his homosexuality for a full quarter of a century?

Is he listed anywhere?

Oh, you don't think it's a problem? Okay, let's say you think long and hard and come up with something really thoughtful and appropriate. A solid-silver cock ring, say.

It may be a tad familiar for someone you've never so much as personally shared an adjacent men's-room stall with, but what the heck, you decide to run with it. You're going for "the personal touch." (If there's a pun in there, it's mostly intentional.) And then it turns out he's already got one! If not an entire collection. Or else he's a tad shy about keeping it with the rest of his jewelry, where his wife might see it and get that same wrong idea people have been gossiping openly about for a full quarter-century now.

So now he has to go try to exchange it for something he needs, like maybe a set of butt plugs. (I'm just making it up as we go here.) But he doesn't have the receipt! Have you ever tried to do that? Have you?

But seriously, what are you planning to give our boy? Isn't it tacky just to send a card, presumably from the "Congratulations on Not Being Gay (Wink-Wink)" section. Say, did the Singing Senators make any records? (I can't find any on Amazon.com.)

My own inclination would be a copy of Michelangelo Signorile's Outing Yourself: How to Come Out as Lesbian or Gay to Your Family, Friends, and Coworkers. Amazon's got the paperback edition for $11.05 plus shipping, with used copies from $1.37. Our Larry might also appreciate Signorile's still-stirring Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, for its consideration of the "closet of power" dearest to the senator's heart, the one in Washington, D.C.


COUNTDOWN POSTSCRIPT

By the way, did you catch the Countdown Players' Dragnet-style dramatic reenactment last night--straight from the official officer's police report--of the great men's-room encounter? Favorite moment here: when "the senator" hands the officer a business card, and says, "What do you think of that?"--and we see a business-size card that has nothing on it except the hand-scribbled word:

SENATOR

UPDATE: HOWIE WEIGHS IN

Just when I had finally decided that I had had it with Larry Craig stories, Ken ambushed me with the one above. How could I resist jumping back in? (Were I a Republican I'd say, "He started it!") I've thought a lot about this since it first came out that Senator Craig was arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom, something he has been prone to do-- and deny-- over the years. I went from mean-spirited schadenfreude on Monday afternoon to pity on Tuesday and anger towards his Republican homophobic tormentors on Wednesday.

Today I called Senator Craig's office to offer a redemptive strategy that will help him capture his dignity and his soul. I don't think he'll bite. But I very much agree with Barney Frank, who kind of outed him back in October of '06 on the Bill Maher show. He didn't actually out him. He just left the question hanging and said something about hypocrisy: "The right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy and people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door and do it themselves."

This morning Barney took issue with Craig's homophobic colleagues, playing to the GOP's Know Nothing base, like John McCain and Norm Coleman, who have called for Senator Craig to resign at once. Barney's message to Craig: resist!

The GOP is after Craig's scalp so they can go to their base and say, "See, we'll not all toe-tappin' homos and when we find one, we root him out." They actually applauded David Diapers Vitter (R-LA) when he admitted he had broken the law by hiring hookers. No one asked him to resign from his committees. And no one asked Ted Stevens (R-AK) to step down from his committees, let alone from the Senate, after the FBI announced an investigation into a massive and systematic bribery operation Stevens has been running, an operation based on abusing his committee assignments. But Stevens and Vitter are straight, so Republicans don't even care what laws they break. "What he did, it’s hypocritical," said Barney of Craig this morning, "but it’s not an abuse of his office in the sense that he was taking money for corrupt votes," a subtle slap at Stevens and Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, a closet queen himself, who is leading the charge to purge Craig.

Barney went on: "It’s one thing to say that someone can’t be trusted to vote without being corrupt, it’s another to say that he can’t be trusted to go to the bathroom by himself."

And as far as resigning, Jeff Merkley the ballsy Democrat looking to replace Oregon's rubber stamp Republican Gordon Smith, has a far better target than the pathetic Larry Craig. Merkley sent the pathetic George W. Bush an evite suggesting he resign.

WILL THE GOP TRAINGULATE ITSELF INTO A REGIONAL SOUTHERN PARTY INCAPABLE OF COMPETING IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS?

If you read Tom Schaller's brilliant book Whistling Past Dixie, you know that giving up all but the most flimsy pretense of seriously contesting the African-American vote was part of the Republican plan-- what is often called "Nixon's Southern Strategy"-- to lock up the South. The Republicans have winked and nodded their way into the politically polar opposite of what one would expect from the party of Abraham Lincoln-- in the South, for starters, they are unquestionably the party of racism, bigotry, hatred and the respectable face of the KKK.

The strategy-- and the Democrats inability to effectively counter it-- came to its climax in 2004 when they were able to claim control over all three branches of the federal government plus an unprecedented number of Southern legislative seats and gubernatorial chairs. They are likely to continue gaining southern legislative seats and to fatten their hold on much of the former Confederacy, but they have set the stage for turning themselves into a backward, theocratic regional party that will be incapable of competing nationally.

And instead of foreseeing the systemic electoral disasters ahead, the most reactionary elements of the party-- firmly in control-- have set out to worsen the problem by targeting the fastest growing voter bloc in the country, Hispanics. Today's Miami Herald points out the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in Univision's Spanish-language presidential debates. The Democrats will engage with Spanish-speaking Americans on September 9. The Republican debate, scheduled for September 16, was cancelled yesterday.

Only John McCain had agreed to participate in the Republican debate. "All eight Democratic candidates are slated to show up Sept. 9, and party leaders plan to highlight the contrast. The New Democratic Network, a nationwide political group, is planning news conferences and inviting Hispanic leaders, including Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, former Cabinet member Henry Cisneros and U.S. Rep. Luís Gutiérrez of Illinois."

Last year a market research firm, LatinInsights, reported that about 9% of American voters are Hispanic and that about half of that 9% prefer to speak Spanish. Until recently the Republicans have made tremendous progress in winning a substantial share of this fast-growing segment of the population-- from just 21% in 1996 to 35% in 2000 and to what will probably prove to have been an apex of 40% in 2004. But even before the xenophobic explosion of Know Nothing bigotry and hatred inside the Republican Party-- which has crippled Republican efforts among Hispanic voters-- the trend had reversed. Here are the key findings from the LatinInsights report:

Key Finding 1: Hispanics are disappointed with Bush and unhappy with Republican government. Recent electoral gains made by Bush in this community have been wiped out.   
No matter how the numbers are cut, President Bush and the Republicans have seen a dramatic eroding of their standing with Spanish-speaking Hispanic voters.
   
In 2004 Kerry beat Bush 59%-40% with all Hispanics, and 52%-48% with those Spanish-dominant. In this survey Hispanics confirmed the closeness of the 2004 result. When asked who “did you vote for in 2004?” the result came back 38%-36% Kerry-Bush.
   
When asked how they would vote if the Presidential election were held today, this group gives Democrats a remarkable 36-point advantage (59%-23%). For Republicans this is a dramatic drop from the 52%-48% Kerry-Bush result with the Spanish-speaking sub-group in 2004. 
   
Bush’s standing with this group has plummeted. In the 2004 cycle, Bush regularly received a 60% favorable rating from Hispanics. In our survey this was reversed, as 38% see him favorably, 58% unfavorably, with 40% very unfavorable towards the President.

Democrats have a very significant advantage in favorability, with a 65%-25% favorable/ unfavorable result. Republicans come in at 41%-51% favorable/unfavorable. For the first time in any Hispanic poll we’ve seen, The Republican Party is seen more favorably than Bush. It is would not be a stretch to now say that President Bush has become a drag on the Republican Party with Hispanics.

On almost every major issue, not just immigration, overwhelming majorities of Hispanic voters think the Republican approach is wrong and harmful. That includes Iraq, the economy (rated #1 and 2 by Hispanic voters in terms of importance). "Of 20 major issues tested, Democrats outperform Republicans on 17, including 'family values,' 'better use of my tax money' and 'respects more my religious beliefs.' The loss of faith of Republican government to achieve things of value for the Hispanic community should be a major concern to the governing Party." 

Seven years ago there were over 28 million US households in which Spanish was the most-spoken language. Over 40 million Hispanics live in the U.S. Only 4 countries in the entire world have more Spanish speakers than the U.S. (Mexico, Colombia, Spain and Argentina). In 2000 there were 5 states where over 20% of the population spoke Spanish as a primary language, New Mexico (43.27%), California (34.72%), Texas (34.63%), Arizona (28.03%), Nevada (22.80%). Since then Colorado and Florida have probably crossed the 20% line as well.

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH-- AND A LIST OF DEMOCRATS

Yesterday at Daily Kos McJoan asked a crucial question every American should be asking herself or himself, Can we get 218?. What we need are 218 members of the House of Representatives to go along with the sentiments expressed in a letter to Bush and signed by 70 House members with spines. It starts with a simple and clear declaration:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

In other words: take your illegal war and occupation and shove them up your ass. McJoan suggests that everyone phone or write to his or her congresscritter and urge or demand that they sign on. I'm down with that. I would also recommend that the grassroots stop donating to the re-election campaigns of any Democrats who don't sign on. Right now Blue America has endorsed 8 incumbents for 2008. Of the 8 John Hall (NY), Hilda Solis (CA), Jerrold Nadler (NY) and Steve Cohen (TN) signed on. You do what you want but when I have some spare change for incumbents these are the 4 I'll be thinking of first.

The whole list of signatories:
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA);
Rep. Barbara Lee (CA);
Rep. Maxine Waters (CA);
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA);
Rep. Rush Holt (NJ);
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY);
Rep. Diane Watson (CA);
Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ);
Rep. Barney Frank (MA);
Rep. Danny Davis (IL);
Rep. John Conyers (MI);
Rep. John Hall (NY);
Rep. Bob Filner (CA);
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY);
Rep. Bobby Rush (IL);
Rep. Charles Rangel (NY);
Rep. Ed Towns (NY);
Rep. Paul Hodes (NH);
Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO);
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR);
Rep. Albert Wynn (MD);
Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA);
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC);
Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC);
Rep. Hilda Solis (CA);
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY);
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY);
Rep. Michael Honda (CA);
Rep. Steve Cohen (TN);
Rep. Phil Hare (IL);
Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA);
Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL);
Rep. James McGovern (MA);
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH);
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL);
Rep. Julia Carson (IN);
Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA);
Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ);
Rep. John Olver (MA);
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX);
Rep. Jim McDermott (WA);
Rep. Ed Markey (MA);
Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA);
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ);
Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX);
Rep. Pete Stark (CA);
Rep. Bobby Scott (VA);
Rep. Jim Moran (VA);
Rep. Betty McCollum (MN);
Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN);
Rep. Diana DeGette (CO);
Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA);
Rep. Artur Davis (AL);
Rep. Hank Johnson (GA);
Rep. Donald Payne (NJ);
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO);
Rep. John Lewis (GA);
Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY);
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI);
Rep. Gwen Moore (WI);
Rep. Keith Ellison (MN);
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI);
Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI);
Rep. David Scott (GA);
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL);
Rep. Lois Capps (CA);
Rep. Steve Rothman (NJ);
Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD);
and one libertarian Republican, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

So it isn't just the Jim Marshalls, Gene Taylors, Collin Peterson, Bud Cramers, Dan Borens, and Brian Bairds who haven't expressed support for this, the only way Congress can actually bring this brutal and catastrophic occupation to an end. It seems to me that it won't matter a great deal if you ask Allen Boyd or Jim Matheson or Heath Shuler to support this approach; they are lost causes and no better, at least on this, than your garden variety rubber stamp Republican. But I can name at least as many easy targets we could affect as the ones who have already signed on. For starters, I suspect it wouldn't take much at all to get Mazie Hirono (HI), Peter Welch (VT), John Sarbanes (MD), Carol Shea-Porter,(NH), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), John Tierney (MA), George Miller (CA), Henry Waxman (CA), and Xavier Becerra (CA) to agree to this right away. Do any of these folks work for you? My congresswoman has already signed.


UPDATE: MORE DEMOCRATS SIGN ON

Nine more Democrats have signed the letter to Bush:
Chris Murphy, CT
Jesse Jackson, Jr., IL
Melvin Watt, NC
Corrine Brown, FL
Gregory Meeks, NY
Mike Thompson, CA
Anthony Weiner, NY
Dave Loebsack, IA
Dennis Kucinich, OH

EVERYTHING IS GETTING BETTER, RIGHT? ESPECIALLY IN NEW ORLEANS AND IN IRAQ AND THEN THERE'S THIS GREAT ECONOMY...

The Bush Regime says there is progress in Iraq and soon, despite all the epirical evidence to the contrary, they have the media repeating it as if it were obviously true. Even Democrats of a certain bent and persuasion-- a Brian Baird (D-WA), for example, comes back from a few dizzying, jetlagged hours in the Greed Zone declaring that the war is-- lo! and behold!-- being won.

I just drove home from dinner and I heard Bush on the radio, broadcasting from New Orleans where he was celebrating the tremendous progress he-- and he alone-- claims his regime has made in rebuilding the city. The only president to have ever lost an American city, Bush stood up and, with a straight face, said this to the long-suffering citziens, and ex-citizens of the once thriving and beloved city of New Orleans:

When Hurricane Katrina broke through the levees, it broke a lot of hearts, it destroyed buildings, but it didn't affect the spirit of a lot of citizens in this community.

...It's sometimes hard for people to see progress when you live in a community all the time.

Laura and I get to come-- we don't live here. We come on occasion. And it's easy to think about what it was like when we first came here after the hurricane and what it's like today. And this town's coming back. This town is better today than it was yesterday. And it's going to be better tomorrow than it was today.

Is he really as clueless as his speech- writers make him sound? Does he believe this heartless drivel? Is he blind? Maybe he needs to go to Australia and get the perspective he claims the citizens of New Orleans don't have. Or perhaps he could just watch Katie Couric's video report on New Orleans.

Two years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, people in New Orleans are still frustrated with the slow place of recovery.

At the time the wild storm left thousands of residents stranded on rooftops, while others made do in sub-standard shelters.

America was criticised for initially mounting a Third World response to a massive domestic crisis.

...In New Orleans two-thirds of the residents are back - the French Quarter survived Katrina and the music and restaurant scenes are recovering.

But few neighbourhoods are thriving, much of the city looks like a wasteland and businesses and homes are still abandoned.

With bells ringing to mark the moment the levees began to break, many residents have a lingering sense of abandonment and frustration at the rebuilding efforts.

Everyone I know who has visited beyond the Quarter and every TV report I've seen, shows the same thing: utter neglect and devastation, a complete lack of vision, competence and will from the top to actually accomplish the daunting task of reviving and rebuilding the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. Many years ago I used to smoke dope to this when it was first released. Maybe Bush did too:

YOU WANT TO MEET A REAL DEMOCRAT WHO'S A MEMBER OF THE PARTY BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN PROGRESSIVE VALUES? COMING UP NEXT WEEK: MARK PERA

In the past we've covered many disloyal, reactionary Democrats, the Jim Marshalls, John Barrows, Chris Carneys and Gene Taylors of the world. The ones who piss me off most are the Democrats in solidly blue district who betray their constituents to vote with the Republicans and with insidious corporate interests. Illinois' 3rd congressional district is afflicted with one of those fake Democrats, Lipinski, a Tennessean who inherited the seat from his father.

The latest outrage regarding Lipinski was when he joined a handful of other renegade Democrats to vote with the Republicans and pass Bush's outrageous and unconstitutional FISA legislation. A week from Saturday, Blue America will be hosting a session at Firedoglake with Mark Pera, a real resident of IL-03 and a real Democrat. The chat is at 1pm (Chicago time), 11am on the West Coast. You'll have plenty of time to meet him then and ask him whatever questions you'd like. I'm bringing him up today, however, because he just issued a statement on why he would have opposed the FISA legislation. Here is a very clear distinction between a rabidly anti-choice conservative-- who even opposes stem cell research-- and a progressive Democrat who will fight it out in a primary that will determine the next congressman to represent IL-03.

Last year Blue America helped a dozen Democrats replace a dozen rubber stamp Republicans. We plan to do the same thing this year-- and at the same time, we also hope to replace some rubber stamp Democrats with real progressives. Mark is one of those progressives. This is what he had to say about Lipinski's rubber stamping of Bush's FISA bill:

On Aug. 5, before he left Washington D.C. for vacation, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski gave President Bush and former-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez permission to run the domestic wiretapping program without judicial oversight.

A Congressman who is aware of the troubles befalling our nation should know by now that this Administration won't just let the wiretapping program gather dust. We can be sure that sometime during the next six months, President Bush will exercise the power given to him by Congress.

It is shocking to see such blind trust from "Democrats" like Lipinski who willy-nilly throw away Congress' own power in deference to a President who has routinely demonstrated to the American people and to Congress that he cannot be trusted.

In my experience as Assistant Cook County State's Attorney, I requested wiretaps and I respected the protocol involved in the process, of going to a judge and having a third party sign off on the request. It never impeded my ability to do my job.

It is particularly troubling that Lipinski again capitulated to Bush's and other Republicans' blatant use of concerns about terrorism in presenting the proposal. By bucking the Democratic Party and voting with the Republicans, Lipinski has again withered in the face of fear mongering.

This whole issue brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin once said, "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

What makes Lipinski's vote that much more egregious is it granted expanded powers to the former Attorney General, someone who has lost credibility with even the staunchest Republicans. The Gonzalez resignation is another reminder that we, the critics of this Administration's rampant disregard for our Constitutional system, must remain vigilant against a "unitary executive."

While the Bush Administration and Lipinski claim a high regard for democracy and the rule of law, their actions demonstrate a deep-seated contempt for both. Congressman Lipinski took an oath to uphold the Constitution but by repeatedly voting in lockstep with the Bush Administration and shirking his responsibility to check presidential power, he has violated that oath and our trust.

A Congressman that understands his responsibility to the American public would do well to remember that two years ago, Americans voted for meaningful, purposeful change. As this FISA vote demonstrates, that demand has fallen upon deaf ears in the 3rd District of Illinois.

It's time to stand up to the President and say 'No more!' Dan Lipinski won't do anything about this Administration; it is time to send someone to Congress who will.

You can see all the contrasts between Mark and Lipinski at Mark's website. If you'd like to lend a hand to Mark's grassroots campaign against a bogus Democratic incumbent, we just added him to our Blue America page today.

ROMNEY CLAIMS NONE OF THE OTHER REPUBLICANS RUNNING FOR PREZ PASS THE SMELL TEST WHEN IT COMES TO CORRUPTION

"I know a hot tea room down the road apiece."

According to Bob Novak, Mitt Romney thinks he's best positioned to capitalize on his former Idaho campaign chair's bathroom escapades! He fired Senator Craig as soon as word of his toilet foibles leaked out earlier this week-- and followed it up by prohibiting his son, Josh, from even setting foot in Boise, apparently nervous he might end up being another of the Boys of Boise. Anyway, here's Novak:

The admitted improper behavior of Craig in an airport men's room stunned his Senate colleagues, but it provided an opening for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his Republican presidential campaign to underline his theme of Washington being a pit of corruption. He is the only candidate, Romney says, totally free of the capital city's taint.

Flip Flop Mitt is certainly correct about the endemic corruption represented by Giuliani, McCain and Republican lobbyist Fred Thompson. Giuliani may be the most corrupt man to have ever been seriously considered for the White House by a major political party. But what about the rest of the pathetic pygmies™? Does Flip Flop know something about Huckabee, for example, that the rest of us don't? Or is this just more typical Romney take-no-prisoners lust for power, regardless of who or what (like Truth) he steps on?

Novak speculates that whether Senator Craig being caught with his pants down helps Romney or hurts him, it could be a great boon for Democrat Larry LaRocco. LaRocco's best chance of taking the senate seat next year in what is one of the reddest of states would be to run against the scandal-plagued incumbent. Insiders say that after Craig was caught in a toilet in Union Station in 1994 fellating a stranger he had decided to retire form politics next year. But the commotion over his latest sexcapades and his disappointment about how the Republicans have tossed him overboard so quickly and brutally is making him reconsider. Today Coleman and McCain, two complete sleazebuckets themselves, demanded Craig resign without further ado. He may run just to get even!

The revelation of Sen. Larry Craig's (R) arrest in an airport men's room under suspicion he was soliciting sex from a male plainclothes officer, and his subsequent guilty plea for disorderly conduct, have complicated the situation in this Senate race.

Craig had openly been mulling retirement, and the question now is whether he will resign early. Considering his defiant comments Monday night and Tuesday to the media and his reputation as stubborn, Idaho and Senate sources speculate Craig has no intention to fold easily. Party pressure could combine with unpleasant media attention to make Craig change his mind. In any event, he won't be the GOP Senate candidate in 2008 unless somehow he is able to show all the charges to be entirely false.

When a simple Craig retirement was on the table last week, Lt. Gov. Jim Risch (R) seemed the most likely Republican to step up for the 2008 campaign. He served well as acting governor last year, and is a skilled, well organized politician. His rising star might have been enough to crowd out other GOP contenders. However, even before Craig's arrest became news, well-connected Idaho Republicans sensed that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (R) (a former Senator and former Governor) might want to return to his old job in the upper chamber.

If Craig resigns, Gov. Butch Otter (R) would get to appoint a replacement who would serve out the remainder of the 110th Congress. This could actually play to the advantage of Republicans, who would have the opportunity to put up a sitting Senator in 2008 rather than filling an open seat. This possibility boosts the speculation that Rep. Mike Simpson (R) might be the next Senator-- and also the GOP candidate in 2008. Simpson, always mentioned for the seat when Craig started talking retirement, had decided not to run as long as Risch was considering running. An appointment could eliminate a primary, thus thrusting Simpson back into consideration.

Meanwhile a new SUSA survey shows that most Idahoans know about the toilet incident and feel Craig should resign. His approval rating is now down at 34%, almost as low as George Bush's and heading in the direction of Dick Cheney's. (A majority of self-described "conservatives," still approve.) Floridians don't want to see all the fame their state was getting for gay bathroom sex by Republican lawmakers slip away to Idaho. So today's Palm Beach Post has an advice column about public bathroom etiquette. In denying that Craig is a homosexual and that he solicited the cop, his office described it as a "He said, he said." Be on guard, watch out:




UPDATE: REPUBLICAN BIGOTS FORCE SENATOR CRAIG TO GIVE UP COMMITTEE POSITIONS-- UNLIKE A CRIMINALS LIKE STEVENS AND VITTER

Crew's got the whole story but wonderers are wondering why McConnell is rushing around like a chicken without a head to make Larry Craig disappear when he never asked Ted Stevens (R-AK) to step down from any committees-- and Stevens actually used his committee positions to solicit millions of dollars in bribes. I never heard anything about Craig trying to play any potty games with any veterans or oil executives. And David Diapers Vitter (R-LA) already admitted he broke the law by hiring a prostitute. But he's still on his committees. What's with McConnell's double standard. What will happen early next year when the evidence on him is splashed all over the newspapers and TV screens-- I mean after he denies everything? Will he be forced to step down as Minority Leader?

WHAT'S WITH THESE RIGHT-WINGERS CALLING ON BIKERS TO INTIMIDATE THEIR CONSTITUENTS? LIKE MEAN JEAN SCHMIDT AND MITCH McCONNELL?

Last night TRex helped expose Kentucky's closeted gay senator, Mitch McConnell for what he is-- a brittle, uptight authoritarian who resorts to vigilantism when confronted by constituents angered by his rubber stamp support of Bush's occupation of Iraq. And Miss McConnell isn't the only panic-stricken Republican incumbent calling the Hells Angels to strong arm disgruntled, peaceful voters. DWT Mean Jean Watch correspondent, Karen Allen, is worried about a "Reich-wing trend" taking over the GOP. Here's Karen's report on the latest from Mean Jean World:

In the southwest Ohio congressional district represented by Mean Jean Schmidt, leaders of the Iraq Summer group sponsored a 24-hour "Support Our Troops, End the War" vigil outside of her suburban local office from Monday afternoon through Tuesday afternoon.  The many protesters ranged from committed high school students all the way to senior citizens.  They had signs, candles... a guitar.  Someone even ordered pizza to be delivered to the friendly and decidedly peaceful group.  As cars drove by,  drivers honked their horns, smiled and gave the "thumbs-up" symbol to the protesters. A poll of district residents showed that 70% favor a responsible and speedy withdrawal from Iraq (unlike their congresswoman, who is the quintessential Bush-Cheney rubber stamp and is a knee-jerk supporter of "Stay the Course.")
 
A panicked Schmidt sent out emergency phone calls to her goon squad buddies in her hometown in Clermont County.  Before long, a few motorcycles flying large flags probably "borrowed" from schools began arriving at the protest site. The drivers sported baseball caps, large overhanging beer bellies, dirty hair and several missing teeth.  They milled about across the driveway from the peaceful protesters, shouting insults and doubting that the protesters were "true Americans".
 
A resourceful attendee drove across the street to a party supply store and bought numerous American flags and distributed them to the protesters to carry.  Goon squad Hell's Angels types have no monopoly on American flags, and it took away some on their panache.  Eventually, Jean Schmidt's chauffeured SUV pulled into the driveway.  Without getting out, Schmidt thanked her outnumbered goons for their support.  She said nothing to the anti-war constituents on the other side of the driveway.
 
What a democracy lesson for the high school students to observe!  Trust Mean Jean to foul up anything and everything.

Last year of all the outstanding progressive Democrats endorsed by Blue America who ran for the House, Victoria Wulsin, was our top pick. We raised more money for her than for anyone else running for a House seat. And she came within a handful of votes of dislodging Schmidt. This year we've endorsed Victoria early and donations have already been flowing in. There is no clearer choice-- not just on Iraq, but across the board-- on how to govern America than between Victoria Wulsin and Mean Jean Schmidt. And I can guarantee you that it would never cross Dr. Wulsin's mind to call out a goon squad on her constituents. Please think about contributing to Victoria's campaign here at our Blue America page.

WHY IS REPUBLICAN CLOSET CASE MITCH McCONNELL IN SUCH A TIZZY OVER LARRY CRAIG? I BET YOU CAN GUESS

Voting-wise, Larry Craig's record is a bit to the right of Miss McConnell's but, when it comes right down to it, the two of them see almost eye to eye on everything: both are classic Bush-Cheney rubber stamps. Several of my friends can't understand why two closeted homosexuals have been so virulently anti-gay. I'm not a psychologist (though I gave it a shot yesterday) so let's just stick to the politics on this. And the GOP leadership is playing hardball-- against one of their own. After his pathetic "I'm not gay" press conference yesterday Tim Russert, on Nightly News, said "I talked to Republicans today -- they just want Senator Craig to exit, to leave."

In 2002 the two closeted far right extremists each went for the #2 slot in the Senate Republican leadership. McConnell beat him. Yesterday McConnell released this statement on behalf of the Republican leaders in the Senate:

Late yesterday we became aware of the incident involving Sen. Larry Craig and his subsequent admission of guilt in a Minnesota court. This is a serious matter. Due to the reported and disputed circumstances, and the legal resolution of this serious case, we will recommend that Sen. Craig’s incident be reported to the Senate Ethics Committee for its review. In the meantime, leadership is examining other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required.

Interesting that McConnell is moving rapidly against his fellow homosexual-- who loudly denies having done anything wrong-- while he never did a thing when it came to David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), who admitted to hiring prostitutes (a crime).

The right-wing grassroots is howling for homo blood and McConnell is more than aware how quickly that could turn against him-- and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is already in trouble with the violently homophobic Know Nothing wing of the GOP for his support of Bush's immigration agenda. One extremist, Robert Bluey, writes "How very sad for a party that once stood for moral values," while another is demanding something that scares the bloomers off McConnell:

I would like to argue that we should stop the bleeding, but if we're going to clean house then it might get a lot worse. Until we learn that daylight is the best cure for scandals, and that moral values mean more than a campaign slogan, there will be many more Larry Craigs elected to office, and our nation will suffer for it.

Today's NY Times wonders aloud what's next for the scandal-scarred GOP? Characterizing Craig's press conference as "a bizarre spectacle," the Times points out that it is "only the latest in a string of accusations of sexual foibles and financial misdeeds that have landed Republicans in the political equivalent of purgatory, the realm of late-night comic television."

“The real question for Republicans in Washington is how low can you go, because we are approaching a level of ridiculousness,” said [a Republican operative], sounding exasperated in an interview on Tuesday morning. “You can’t make this stuff up. And the impact this is having on the grass-roots around the country is devastating. Republicans think the governing class in Washington are a bunch of buffoons who have total disregard for the principles of the party, the law of the land and the future of the country.”

Then again, Washington does not have a monopoly on the latest trend among Republicans. Just ask Thomas Ravenel, the state treasurer of South Carolina, who had to step down as state chairman of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign after he was indicted on cocaine charges in June.

Or Bob Allen, a state representative in Florida who was jettisoned from the John McCain campaign last month after he was arrested on charges of soliciting sex in a public restroom.

And Romney, of course, fired Craig from his campaign in nano-seconds of the toilet revelations coming out. Flip Flop Mitt didn't want to hear any of that "I did nothing wrong," crapola, not from someone who everyone in Washington knows is a frustrated closet queen who has been prowling public restrooms look for quickie sex for years.

In an interview Tuesday on Kudlow and Company on CNBC, Mr. Romney could not distance himself fast enough. “Once again, we’ve found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence,” Mr. Romney said. “Very disappointing. He’s no longer associated with my campaign, as you can imagine.”

The religionists aren't all that forgiving, not when it comes to homosexuals. Vitter in diapers chasing prostitutes for decades is one thing but a senator tapping his foot in a gay code in a public restroom is something else entirely. And, as the Times points out, this is hardly the beginning or the end of the Republican Party's addiction to high profile scandals. "...there is a sort of 'here we go again' sense among Republicans these days, especially since news of the Craig arrest broke on Monday afternoon. It is tough enough being in the minority, weighed down by the burden of the war in Iraq. Now Republicans have an even more pressing task: keeping their party from being portrayed not just as hypocritical and out of touch with the values of people they represent, but also as a laughingstock-- amid headlines like 'Senator’s Bathroom Bust,' which ran all Tuesday afternoon on CNN. The story also ran at the top of all the network evening newscasts on Tuesday."

Perhaps Craig should redo that press conference, the way Lauren Caitlin Upton, Miss South Carolina, got to do hers on NBC. South Park has carefully choreographed a more suitable response for Larry Craig, although I think that Miss McConnell, Lindsey Graham, David Dreier, Jim McCrery, Patrick McHenry and the rest of the boys team should be-- at least-- in the chorus.

MORE OF OUR MONEY-- BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS-- TO FUND BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ WILL SOON BE APPROVED BY CONGRESS

Do you want your congressional representatives-- we each have two senators and a congressmember who we employ-- to vote to continue the occupation of Iraq? Polls show that if you do, you're part of a rather small minority... unless you're an Inside the Beltway person. They're different from the rest of us. And I suspect that real Americans-- Democrats and Republicans-- who live in the U.S. would pretty much agree that if our entire insider political class, along with the lobbyists and pundits and others who swim in their orbit, vanished tomorrow we'd probably be a lot better off. Unlike the rest of us, they have lots of reasons why keeping America tied up in the Iraq Civil War, perhaps even expanding it into Iran, is a swell idea.

Front and center in today's Inside the Beltway Post is a story by Tom Ricks about Bush's latest request for $50 billion to continue the occupation. How would you choose if you were voting on one of these: $50 billion more down the Iraqi rat hole or trials and firing squads for every single person in a high level position in the Bush Regime. (If you're an anti death penalty fanatic, you can opt for a codicil in your vote requiring something other than a firing squad; fair enough?)

Two days ago there is no doubt how Brian Baird would have voted when Bush goes to Congress and asks for the $50 billion. After his accountibility moment with his constituents, he either changed his mind or could be facing the prospect of looking for a new line of work come next year.

The $50 billion request follows the $480 billion already approved for 2008 for the Pentagon plus $147 billion in a supplemental for continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly Iraq. "The request is being prepared now in the belief that Congress will be unlikely to balk so soon after hearing [Bush's pet general Petraeus and his ambassador/viceroy] argue that there are promising developments in Iraq but that they need more time to solidify the progress they have made, a congressional aide said."

I don't have a doubt that the Democrats will fail to prevent Bush from continuing on this mad course. Do you know the phone number or e-mail address of your 3 congresscritters? If enough of us tell them they we won't vote for them if they vote for the $50 billion, they may get the idea that the American people are serious about this. Not sure if yours are among the most likely Democrats to betray us? The worst of the worst in the House are all at that link two steps back, although I expect that there will be dozens of other Democrats who will also show their true color (red). In the Senate, the half dozen Democrats most likely to vote with the Republicans on Iraq-- the ones who almost always do-- are (the ones up for re-election next year are in bold):
Ben Nelson (NE)
Max Baucus (MT)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Tom Carper (DE)
Mark Pryor (AR)


UPDATE: AND, OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOME DEMOCRATS WE KNOW WE CAN COUNT ON TO FIGHT HARD TO GET US OUT OF BUSH'S IRAQ DISASTER

Like Senator Chris Dodd:

READY TO IMPORT IRAQ'S QUIRKY LITTLE PROBLEMS TO AMERICA?

A few weeks ago I posted a story called What Will Bush-- Or Hillary-- Do With The Iraqi Quislings? and I want to bring up a thoughtful comment that was left by an anonymous reader:

I used to be an admirer of this blog. I would guess you just hate and fear Arabs and oppose their immigration.

I've been to Iraq and know some of the people you call "quislings." Of course, by using this term you equate the US to Nazis and the murderous Iraqi insurgency, composed of murderous Baathist ex- secret police, Al Qaeda units which kill barbers for shaving people and drive bombs into markets crowded with civilians and other religious fanatic killers, to the Allies and Norwegian resistance.

The Iraqis who work with us a largely secular intellectuals who believe in things like the electoral democracy we imposed on the country. Many are people who opposed Saddam's fascist regime. Whatever you think about the war, their motives are mostly patriotic.

I neither hate nor fear groups of people-- not races nor nationalities nor ethnicities. If I hated Arabs I don't think I would have travelled to Morocco a dozen times since 1969. The third proposition, though, is one worth talking about: opposing their immigration to this country.

Today's NY Times ran a story, Obstacles Keep Iraqi Refugees From US, and when I opened it I was thinking, "OMG, did Bush actually do something right for a change?" That was unkind of me, as well as incorrect. The Bush Regime seems more than willing to take in thousands of Iraqi refugees as that country crumbles further into an all out civil war entirely of of their (the Bush Regime's) making. But like with most everything the U.S. has stuck its nose in there, even that is failing.

Despite a stepped-up commitment from the United States to take in Iraqis who are in danger because they worked for the American government and military, very few are signing up to go, resettlement officials say.

The reason, Iraqis say, is that they are not allowed to apply in Iraq, requiring them to make a costly and uncertain journey to countries like Syria or Jordan, where they may be turned away by border officials already overwhelmed by fleeing Iraqis.

Americans of all political stripes who have come to know Iraqis due to this most horrible of circumstances-- the invasion, brutal occupation and complete breakdown of civil society-- are advocating bringing Iraqis who worked for the Bush Regime efforts there, over to America to keep them from being killed as traitors. Raise your hand if you think the people of this country favor importing thousands of Arabs to America.

The culture clash-- as demonstrated all over Europe-- isn't one that's going to work out. The idea of assimilation isn't something they're looking for. I listened to an interview today on KCRW with Lucette Lagnado about her highly acclaimed new book The Man in the Sharskin Suit and you can too. Her father was a wealthy Egyptian Jew who came, reluctantly, to the U.S. to escape persecution after Nasser took over and Jews became unwelcome in Cairo. From the interview I got the impression that her father was a religionist fanatic, albeit a peaceful one, who didn't fit in and was miserable in America. Something tells me his America is like a picnic compared to what it will be for a bunch of Iraqis-- who are less peaceful and, at least in some cases-- maybe even in cases not yet born-- just as fanatically religionist.

Do we have enough problems here without importing the misery of the Middle East? Ask the English if they'd like to do it over again. This is a problem that should not be dictated by the asshats inside the Beltway before it is thoroughly debated by the American people.

LESS THAN REAL MEN GETTING READY TO ATTACK IRAN? DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE CAJONES TO STOP THEM?

Well, now that we've all been reassured that Larry Craig is not gay, we can move on to Bush's nuclear saber rattling at Iran. You remember when you couldn't turn on the TV back in 2002-2003 without hearing some NeoCon hack crowing that "Real men want to go to Tehran," right? Real men like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Steinfels, Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, Robert Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagen, Gary Schmitt, Frank Gaffney, "Scooter" Libby, Ken Adelman, William Bennett, Michael O'Hanlon, Rich Lowry, Martin Peretz and, of course, Holy Joe Lieberman? Actual real men-- and real women-- have been fighting and dying needlessly in Iraq while these war profiteers have been hooting it up back home. Every single one of them should be tried before a war crimes tribunal-- along with the dimwit who fronts for them.

And today, Dimwit, the lamest of lame ducks, with over a year left for causing mischief in the world and-- if we are to judge by the inability of congressional Democrats to show any resolve, unity or spine--nothing whatsoever to hold him back, was barking about Iran again. He's done such a fabulous job in Iraq. In fact, despite the doubled casualties for American fighting men (the "real men," not the ones he hangs out with) and tripled casualties for Iraqi civilians-- not to mention the complete destruction of their society fro top to bottom-- Dimwit will soon have the most craven of his pet generals declare that his failed and catastrophic policies in Iraq are not just not a disaster but that they are succeeding. Well, by all means, Mr. Presidunce, if you can convince the American public and the idiots who represent them in Congress that Iraq is a success, you have earned the war in Iran you so crave.

Although I have no doubt that if the whole world voted, the United States, and especially the Presidunce in charge of Decidering, would be declared the world's leading terrorist, Bush seems it differently and branded Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust." I'm in the camp that isn't positive that this is just Bush bluster. Today Raw Story cites a credible study that says Bush is preparing a massive strike against Iran.

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

...The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

I GUESS WE'LL GO BACK TO CALLING 'EM FRENCH FRIES

Even though the Brits seem unethusiastic about following Bush and Cheney into Hell, Bush's new French pal Nicholas Sarkozy is ready to sign on. Is O'Reilly still boycotting?

President Sarkozy called Iran’s nuclear ambition the world’s most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed if it persisted in building an atomic weapon.

The French leader used tough language towards Tehran in the first broad survey of his plans for extending Gallic influence in the world since the start of his hyperactive presidency in May. President Sarkozy also gave full backing to Bernard Kouchner, his Foreign Minister, who was forced to apologise yesterday for calling for the replacement of Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Ostensibly, Obama's response to Bush's bellicose rant today was a slap at the Presidunce. But in actuality it was a reminder that Hillary and Edwards both voted for with a minority of Democrats who supported Bush's criminal attack on Iraq.

There is an eerie echo to the President's words today. Five years ago, he made a misleading case to the American people that the trail to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden somehow led through Iraq, and too many in Washington followed without asking the hard questions that should have been raised. Now we are dealing with the consequences of that failure of candor and judgment, and the President is using the politics of fear to continue a wrong-headed policy. It's time to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney strategy and conventional Washington thinking, remove our combat troops from Iraq, mount a long overdue surge of diplomacy, and focus our attention on a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

LARRY CRAIG AND OTHER REPUBLICAN CLOSET CASES SHOULD LEARN A LESSON FROM FORMER GOP CONGRESSMAN BOB BAUMAN

We should offer Larry Craig compassion, not cruel parody like this artwork Adam forced me to put up

I've been attacked almost as many time for writing that Larry Craig is a closeted gay hypocrite as I was for writing the same thing about Mark Foley. Whatever Schadenfreude I may be feeling about Craig's exposure is directed towards his extreme right, bigoted and hate-filled segment of the Republican Party, not towards Larry Craig the human being. And Larry Craig is-- more than an extremist, more than a Republican, more than a gay basher-- a human being. Caught in a public toilet (again) soliciting anonymous sex from a hunky young plainclothes policeman, Craig has been kicked to the curb by his right-wing allies. The far right blogosphere is demanding he resign this week. Mitt Romney fired him as head of his Idaho campaign and senatorial outreach program and has forbidden his son Josh to even travel to Boise. I don't hear any of Craig's barbershop quartet buddies-- like Trent Lott-- coming to his defense and I don't hear the other closeted Republican homophobes in the Congress-- like Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) or House members David Dreier (R-CA), Jim McCrery (R-LA), Phil English (R-PA), Denny Hastert (R-IL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), or any of the others-- asking for understanding and sympathy.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, on the other hand, goes beyond just the obvious hypocrisy of a rightist Republican consistently voting against equality for gay men and women and their families while prowling public toilets for anonymous sex.

What’s up with elected officials like Senator Craig? They stand for so-called "family values" and fight basic protections for gay people while furtively seeking other men for sex. Infuriating pathetic hypocrites. What more can you say?

There is sad irony that a United States senator from Idaho has been caught up in the same kind of thing that destroyed the lives of dozens of men in Boise in the 1950s, so tragically chronicled in Boys of Boise.

The Task Force goes on to ask an equally important question, one legislators like Larry Craig (not to mention Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, David Dreier, Patrick McHenry, et al need to be thinking about): Why are Minneapolis tax dollars being used to have plainclothes police officers lurking idly in airport restroom stalls?

And I'll add something to that: The policeman they used was total gay bait. Although that Florida Republican who offered to pay a plainclothes policeman $20 for the pleasure of performing fellatio on him later claimed the cop was fat and unattractive, no one will be saying that about Officer Dave Karsnia, who wouldn't get out of any gay bar in the country without being showered with drinks and marriage proposals. (In fact, unless you're gay you probably don't even want to go to the trouble of finding Karsnia on this unrelated video about runaway airport carts. He's interviewed about the dangerous carts-- not dangerous Republican closet cases-- at 2:30 and 3:05.)

And then you find progressive gay activist and prominent blogger, Mike Rogers with a message of hope and redemption:

Larry Craig should stand up and be honest with the citizens of Idaho about who he is. Tonight is a historic opportunity for Senator Craig to run for re-election as a proud gay American. What a great turning point for one of the most conservative states in the country to be represented by an openly gay Senator.

But this isn't a path Craig is likely to take. Larry Craig comes from a very different place-- and I don't mean Idaho, which recently elected an openly gay woman state representative. Idaho, like most of America, has changed. Larry Craig hasn't, nor is he alone. Men and women brought up to believe homosexuality was "bad" or a "sin" or "unnatural" and who have had that drilled into their heads-- and in right wing Republican circles there has been a certain unrelenting obsession in that direction-- find themselves in a serious bind. The society that nurtures them and defines their identity and even their humanity, condemns part of their essence. Locking that part in a dark closet is the solution that has come as natural to politicians, especially Republican politicians.

I cannot imagine that there are more gay Republicans than gay Democrats-- despite how it looks from the police blotters. There are two reasons for that. Gay Democrats are not under the same kind of societal and social pressures as gay Republicans. They are generally not closeted, accept themselves and are accepted by friends, family and colleagues. Congressmembers Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Barney Frank (D-MA) are two of the most admired and respected members of Congress. Even Republican members forget about the "gay part" and just deal with Barney as the brilliant and powerful Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Gays who are not hiding in closets don't have to lurk around public restrooms in train station, shopping malls, parks and airports. About that, closeted gays usually all know the "humpy tea rooms" (i.e.- the public toilets where other closeted gays congregate). "According to the Minnesota Monitor, the restroom where the senator was arrested is 'well known among men who seek sex in public places.' Directions to this particular restroom are posted on a gay website bulletin board, and one visitor to the website said, 'This is the best spot for anonymous action I’ve ever seen.' The police know these facilities too.

I pity the Larry Craigs and Mitch McConnells and Jim McCrerys of the GOP. Whatever arrangements they have made with the women they "married" by political convenience is one thing, but the really sad part is the self-loathing that closeted Republicans have for themselves. That their judgments are warped is clear from their risky and even suicidal behavior. Larry Craig couldn't control himself. In 1994 he was exposed for having sex in a men's room in Union Station. It was unlikely he would have run for re-election in 2008. But to do a repeat performance of the same behavior in an airport restroom is almost unthinkable. Unless you are self destructive and extremely disturbed. Republicans in Congress all knew about Larry Craig, just like they all knew about Mark Foley. But they didn't reach out to him and offer him wise counsel. They swept it under the rug and now far right-wing extremists who loved his fascist-leaning voting record are already blaming the impending 2008 Republican disaster on him and the ultra-extremist Idaho Values Alliance is calling for his resignation.

One larger issue must be addressed. The Republican Party platform clearly rejects the agenda of homosexual activists. The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig’s situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.

No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior. It is time for the Republican Party to be the party that defends the American family in word, deed, and by personal example.

I think Mike Rogers' suggestion is a lot healthier and a lot saner. I think Larry Craig, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham should give a press conference on the steps of Capitol Hill today and tell the world that they're gay and that they're sorry for their homophobic behavior and that from now on they will lead lives just like ordinary Americans-- no more closets, no more furtive sex in public toilets, no more lying and cheating. Larry, Mitch, Lindsey, come out, be proud of who you are. Save yourselves from the misery and aguish. Congressman Bob Bauman (R-MD) was a far right GOP congressman and a founding member of both the Young Americans for Freedom and the Conservative Union (of which he was chairman). In 1980 the congressman was arrested for having sex from a 16 year old boy. He was defeated in his re-election bid and his wife, who was also a YAF member, had their marriage annulled. Bauman wrote a book which all elected Republicans should read, The Gentleman From Maryland. He wrote poignantly about how his secret double life was so stressful that it led to alcoholism. He finally admitted he was gay and became a bit of a gay activist, in a conservative way


THE RE-ENACTMENT OF WHAT WILL UNFORTUNATELY BE SENATOR CRAIG'S BEST KNOWN MOMENT

Does this look like someone pleading guilty by mistake?

Larry Craig wasn't much of a congressman or senator-- just a kind of hackish, right-wing backbencher spewing some far right talking points and always voting for the most extreme positions. He never offered any solutions to any problems. Until he was arrested in the toilet by an undercover cop-- an unfair hunky decoy trying to lure gay men into a trap-- all anyone really knew about him is that he sang in a barbershop quartet with some other right wing senators. Well, now they have stuff like this re-enactment by a local television news team. It's like our politics is just another chapter of the tawdry, embarrassing stories of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, or Mike Vick. As for all these repulsive Republicans, all they care about is that they can hold the seat. Revolting!

Flip Flop Mitt is disappointed. Craig is obviously insane. His statement to the press just now was the most bizarre political obituary I ever saw.

LARRY CRAIG: SERIAL HYPOCRITE UNDER ATTACK BY THE FAR RIGHT OF THE GOP, HIS OWN WING OF THE PARTY OF HATRED AND BIGOTRY

Larry Craig, right, Idaho Senator and cottage fixture

One of the Republican Party propaganda sites, written by a far right extremist Hugh Hewitt, is baying for Larry Craig's blood-- and he is hardly the only one. The far right of the GOP is fuming that another of their heroes was caught with the meat in his mouth, metaphorically speaking (I think... It appears the police officer arrested Senator Craig before anything got inserted anywhere.) It's amazing how angry these Republicans get about the homosexuality part and how they don't notice the irony of the gross hypocrisy that had taken over their party. Hewitt doesn't connect his demand for Craig's resignation with the fact that his radio show yesterday featured another notorious Republican closet queen, David Dreier (CA). "I realize," writes Hewitt, "that I did not say this about Senator Vitter, but Craig's behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required." And Hewitt went on to call Craig a liar, referring to his disingenuous attempt to claim he plead guilty by accident.

I don't believe him. Read the statement by the arresting officer. He must think the people of Idaho are idiots.

But even if I did believe him, this would make his judgment too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war. He has to go.

Something tells me Republican Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, another hypocritical closet case, will be less than sympathetic to the right wing bloggers' demands that Craig resign. Many progressive and gay bloggers are more sympathetic to how difficult it is for homosexuals to find themselves stuck in a homophobic political party and how that twists them and destroys their very souls. "Larry Craig should stand up and be honest with the citizens of Idaho about who he is," said Mike Rogers, the country's top gay activist blogger. "Tonight is a historic opportunity for Senator Craig to run for re-election as a proud gay American. What a great turning point for one of the most conservative states in the country to be represented by an openly gay Senator."

The rest of the right-wing blogosphere has come down on Hewitt's side, not Mike's. I know no one takes him seriously but crazy wingnut Mark Steyn wrote at the National Review that Craig's got to go, as did Patrick Ruffini, Robert Bluey and tons of knuckle-dragging Freepers. Thank goodness my pal Pam did all the research and I didn't have to wade through that swamp.

I'm getting to the point where I just don't care about that-my rage at the betrayals overshadows all. Haggard, Foley, this kook. It seems that NO one speaks for us and acts for us.

It will be interesting being that he is a Repub if he will get millions for a book deal, a one hour show on Oprah, and multiple favorable reviews in the New York Times like Gov. Jim McSleezy who put the security of the entire state of New Jersey at risk.

OK, here is my latest conspiracy theory... enjoy! Homosexuals are deliberately infiltrating the GOP so they can say either (1) See, we're gay and we're Republicans, too! or (2) They can claim to be anti-homosexual agenda politicians, and then when they are caught, it makes the GOP look like the party of hypocrites. Either way it advances the homosexual agenda.

Scumbags like this absolutely disgust me. I have no particular problem with him being a degenerate (as long as he does so on his own time) but he has no business serving in a public office, and especially not as a Republican. Thanks for the 'gift that keeps on giving' Larry!

Yes, another case of Conservative Hypocrisy for the lefties to crow about. What's the equivalent on their side? Al Gore wanting to force everybody else to ride a bike while he flies private jets, etc. John Edwards bemoaning poverty while padding his expense accounts. The difference is that Craig is finished in public life, and Gore will continue to get Oscars and big speaking fees and Edwards will continue to run for President and rate respectful ass-kissing from the MSM. It's the double standard.

Foley left congress and Craig won't be far behind. His support for amnesty was enough for me to want him gone. This gay bathroom crap will end his career. Good riddance to an amnesty supporter

Larry Craig is toast. I certainly would not want to represented by a Senator who drops his pants in public. There is something seriously wrong with him - he needs help. But not on the taxpayer's dime.

I thought Republicans were Anti-Gay? Am I missing something here? The GOP apparently has Gays in High Places. And the Main Stream media rather than saying, The Republicans are not the narrow minded Cretins we make them out to be. Instead say another "Fag Republican" was caught. What gives? The Demorats love Gays until they are members of the GOP. Then they are dirty scoundrels? Two faced liars and hypocrits. That's what the Demorats are today. They hurl the Gay Insult when a GOP member is outed. If they out themselves as Demorats they are courageous. Otherwise they are Sexual Deviants.

The GOP needs to clean it's house of perverts and sodomites.

I agree. This looks very bad, indeed. He can use all the excuses that he wants, but I doubt that he will convince many that he was "innocent." I hope that he does the right thing for the GOP and decides not to run again for the senate. He is political toast. Unlike the Dems, Republicans care about sexual ethics.

Craig is not stupid. Expeditious? Expeditious?? The only thing he expedited was his eminent exit from the senate. And the self destruction of the republican reelection effort. These are the long knives. The Republicans need to pull out the long knives and do some exposes' on some of the democrats' sordid misbehavior.

I think this is another Democrat setup. Anyone who says anything against gays nowadays is persecuted.

That there are the authentic voices of the right. No wonder Romney scrubbed his website clean of any mention of Craig, fired him as his U.S. Senate coordinator and forced YouTube to take down the video love letter he had posted from Craig to himself (which you can see, much to Flip Flop Mitt's chagrin, at MyDD).

Being a Republican, Bush and Gonzales think Abu Gonzo didn't do anything wrong and was treated unfairly. Republicans believe in personal reponsibility and accountability-- for everyone but themselves. And, of course, Larry Craig is no exception. Soon he'll find Jesus, blame alcoholism and drugs and a nasty priest and Bill Clinton, but right now he's still denying everything (and claims he shoudn't have plead guilty). Today's NY Times reports on Craig's sordid story so clinically that it sounds even more perverted than the salacious stories that came out yesterday.

Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, was arrested in June by an undercover police officer in a men’s bathroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in the case three weeks ago.

Mr. Craig, 62, was fined more than $500 and placed on unsupervised probation for a year. A 10-day jail sentence was suspended, according to a copy of a court document in the case. A second charge, interference with privacy, was dismissed.

According to a police report obtained by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, which disclosed the episode and the guilty plea Monday, a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of sexual activity in the bathroom arrested the senator on June 11 after what the officer described as sexual advances made by Mr. Craig from an adjoining stall.

By Roll Call’s account, the officer said Mr. Craig had tapped his foot, in what the officer called a known signal to engage in lewd conduct, and had also brushed his foot against the investigator’s and waved his hand under the stall divider several times before the officer showed him his badge. After the arrest the senator denied any sexual intent, and in a statement issued Monday afternoon he attributed the matter to a misunderstanding.

“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” Mr. Craig said in the statement. “I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.

Local coverage bodes ill for Craig's continued participation in public. Everyone in Idaho now knows their senior senator was arrested in a men's room, charged with disorderly conduct, pleaded guilty and was fined and got a suspended jail term. They are also aware that Flip Flop Mitt isn't exactly a stand by your man man. Forget the fact that he kicked Craig off his campaign; he also cancelled his son Josh's visit to Boise! Most damaging, however, is that the big local paper, the Statesman is reporting this as one incident in a series that has come to light and always been denied by Craig. He's always getting caught in public restrooms with men and he always denies it's what it looks like.

In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.

The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable.

"Unclear or unverifiable" are very different from untrue. This story in the Statesman is the death knell of Larry Craig's long right-wing political career, far more than what a gaggle of extremist bloggers like Hugh Hewitt are saying.

DARCY SAYS THANKS

Darcy Burner's campaign raised even more than the original goal. And her teach-in style virtual Town Hall on Iraq was a smash (unlike the one Brian Baird had in the southern part of the state). No one knows how the Bush-Reichert fandango was because it was closed to the public (perhaps because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that Karl Rove, who had deployed millions of dollars in dirty tricks money to defend Reichert last time and has publicly targeted Darcy for 2008, was along for the ride?) and the ticket prices started at a grand and went all the way up to $10,000. But Darcy sent the Blue America activists at Crooks & Liars, Firedoglake and DownWithTyranny a big thank you just now. With donations still trickling in, it is clear that Bush's visit to suburban Seattle helped raise over $114,000.

This weekend, you all changed the ground rules in politics. I am incredibly impressed and deeply touched, and I have this odd desire to bring you all home with me.
 
But you changed politics.
 
There is no PAC in the country that can do what you just did, raising more than $100k from more than 3000 contributors for a House candidate over an August weekend fourteen months from the election. Not EMILY's List, not anybody. You've just blunted the only advantage Reichert got from bringing Bush into the district, and over the next several weeks I'll work to eliminate it entirely-- which is probably possible because of the work you've done and the support your communities have given me.
 
This was an amazing show of people-powered politics, and I'm deeply honored you did it to help me.  I promise to do my utmost to live up to the trust you've placed in me.
 
Now I've got to spend a bit figuring out who's going to help General Eaton draft the Iraq exit plan I asked him to chair this morning...
 
Darcy

One thing I can tell you for sure. Congresswoman Burner will never turn into a Chris Carney. Let the DCCC try to keep reactionaries and Bush Dogs like Carney and John Barrow and Jim Marshall and Melissa Bean in office. We'll keep helping real Democrats with real progressive values, like Darcy, Donna Edwards, Steve Cohen, John Laesch, Victoria Wulsin, Angie Paccione and Carol Shea-Porter.

THE ART OF POLITICAL DONATING

Duncan has an interesting perspective on raising money for progressive candidates online over at Atrios today. "One problem that the 'netroots,' whatever that is, has is that there's tendency by Democrats to see it as just another player in the interest group checklist politics game. So, sometimes 'this will piss off the blogs' is a consideration, and a similar one to 'this might piss of NARAL' or 'this might piss off the Sierra Club.' We're a noisy somewhat influential group to be placated somehow. Now that's not how I see things as I think blogs should be seen more as an opportunity to influence media coverage and narratives, as well as helping to stitch together a broader-based political movement."

The DCCC had a less interesting perspective this morning. They sent out a fundraising e-mail-- big picture of Abu Gonzo and Bush embedded-- claiming House Democrats hold Republicans accountable.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today because of the relentless pressure that our people-powered Democratic Majority brought to bear. We could not have done it without you. But there is no time to rest - we need to ratchet up the same kind of pressure on those Republicans who continue to obstruct our efforts to change the direction on the war in Iraq.

And then they ask for money so they can fight "more than a dozen Republicans for voting in lockstep" with Bush.

If you donate to the DCCC, how do they divvy up the money? Well, it makes sense that they give a good deal of it to endangered incumbents. I mean take a guy like John Hall in New York. He represents a pretty Republican district and he's got a very wealthy Republican opponent and Hall has voted his conscience every step of the way since being elected last year. His voting record is one of the best in the entire House and he never sells out Democratic values or principles to curry favor with right-wingers. If the DCCC was giving their donations to true blue Democrats like John Hall, Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Yvette Clark (NY), Mazie Hirono (HI), Peter Welch (VT), John Sarbanes (MD), Keith Ellison (MN), Hank Johnson (GA), Paul Hodes (NH), Dave Loebsack (IA), Steve Cohen (TN), and Betty Sutton (OH), I'd be urging you to donate. But if you look at the DCCC's Front Line Page what do you find? Well, not a dozen Republicans voting in lockstep with Bush, of course-- but more than a dozen Democrats who do!

The DCCC says they want money to elect candidates who will help end the war and who will fight against the abuses of Bush Regime hacks like Alberto Gonzales. But the donations are going to Democrats who vote with the Republicans to prolong the war and to pass execrable legislation like the FISA law. The Frontline List, which is far too embarrassing for the DCCC to include in their e-mail (in case anyone is paying attention) includes these treacherous Democrats who vote with Republicans over and over and over on the most crucial issues and against basic Democratic principles and values (the guys 'n' gals with stars next to their names voted with the GOP on giving Alberto Gonzales wiretapping powers):

Jason Altmire (PA)*
John Barrow (GA)*
Melissa Bean (IL)*
Leonard Boswell (IA)*
Chris Carney (PA)*
Joe Donnelly (IN)*
Brad Ellsworth (IN)*
Baron Hill (IN)*
Nick Lampson (TX)*
Tim Mahoney (FL)
Jim Marshall (GA)*
Heath Shuler (NC)*
Zack Space (OH)*

If you're sick and tired of the DCCC taking your donations and giving it to incumbents like Jim Marshall and John Barrow in George and like Jason Altmire and Chris Carney in Pennsylvania, all four of whom vote to enshrine the Republican agenda, donate to real progressives at Blue America. Especially crucial right now are progressives facing reactionaries in Democratic primaries. Good bets are Darcy Burner (WA), Steve Cohen (TN), Donna Edwards (MD), John Laesch (IL), Rick Noriega (TX), Angie Paccione (CO), and Victoria Wulsin (OH).

Now for an update on the Darcy Burner fundraising effort. She barreled through her $100,000 goal right on schedule. Over at Blue America, aside from shooting past $6,000 for Darcy today, almost half of the folks who came in to contribute to her also contributed to the Blue America PAC or to another one or more of the Blue America candidates. Every single Blue America candidate, in fact, gained from this funder, some significantly. Darcy donors gave the most to Victoria Wulsin, Rick Noriega, Donna Edwards, Angie Paccione, Tom Allen, and Steve Cohen.

LARRY CRAIG CAUGHT IN THE ACT-- IN A PUBLIC TOILET-- ARRESTED-- PLEADS GUILTY

Apparently Bob Allen (R-FL) isn't the only homophobic right-wing loon addicted to furtive sex in public men's rooms. Idaho reactionary and well-known closet queen, Larry Craig, was arrested in a public toilet for misbehaving in a way closeted Republicans often do. So apparently it isn't just train stations' rest rooms that turn Senator Craig on. In June he was preying on unsuspecting men in the restroom of the Minneapolis Airport. It was hushed up-- until today.

According to a report in today's Roll Call the ultra conservative Idaho senator was arrested and plead guilty. He was taken into custody by a plainclothes policeman investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men's public restroom.

Craig's arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.
A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a "he said/he said misunderstanding," and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, "What do you think about that?" the report states.

Craig was detained for approximately 45 minutes, interviewed, photographed, fingerprinted and released, and police prepared a formal complaint for interference with privacy and disorderly conduct.

According to the incident report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men's public restroom in which Craig was arrested.

Airport police previously had made numerous arrests in the men's restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal in connection with sexual activity.

Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see "an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall."

The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.

"I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes," the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia's and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," Karsnia stated in his report. "From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me."

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area," the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that "I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider."

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

"With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, 'No!' I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn't want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom."

In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig "either disagreed with me or 'didn't recall' the events as they happened," the report states.

Craig stated "that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine," the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

"It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper," the arresting officer said in the report.

On Aug. 8, the day he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in the Minnesota court, Craig appeared via satellite at a ceremony that took place in Idaho in which former Idaho federal Judge Randy Smith was invested into his new position as a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In October 2006, Craig's office publicly denied allegations that he was a homosexual made on a gay activist Web site--BlogActive. Craig's office told the Spokane Spokesman-Review that the charge was "completely ridiculous," saying that the allegations had "no basis in fact."

Craig, who has the third most reactionary voting record in the entire United States Senate-- only John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) are (slightly) more extremist in their voting-- is likely to announce that he is not running for re-election in 2008, although it will be to spend more time with his "wife" and her (though not his) children in Chicago-- which isn't in Washington, DC or Idaho-- or anywhere near him and his boyfriends.

My friend Larry reminded me that when Tim Russert asked Senator Craig in 1999 if President should be acquitted he kept talking about what a "naughty boy" the president was.

Well, I don't know where the Senate's going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that's where we're trying to go now in this truth-seeking process.

Pam's got Larry Craig's homophobic voting record. This is how he was casting his ballots while prowling around looking for anonymous sex in public restrooms:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
  * Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
  * Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
  * Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
  * Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Maybe the Republican Party should start a fund to help their incumbent closet cases with psychological care. Larry Craig is obviously screaming for help. The other hypocritical Republican senators denying they are gay while voting against equality for gay men and women and their families are Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). There are even more in the House but we're saving the names of most of them-- not the ones everyone knows about like David Dreier and Jim McCrery-- until a little closer to the election.


UPDATE: LOOKS LIKE THIS ONE IS GETTING OUT TO THE FOLKS BACK HOME

Everyone inside the Beltway knows about Senator's Craig's little eccentricities. Back in Idaho... not so much. But that seems to be changing. Here's coverage in the local paper and on the local TV station-- oops, two local TV stations.


UPDATE: LOOKS LIKE LARRY CRAIG WAS MESSIN' WITH THE PAGES TOO

But he was just a congressman then (early 80's) and, of course, he denied everything. Now he's a senator-- and, like many closeted congressional Republicans, a Mitt Romney backer. I guess he likes the chin. INSTANT UPDATE: CNN just reported that Senator Craig-- who still claims he wasn't cruising in the boy's room when he was arrested-- resigned from Flip Flop Mitt's campaign. (Romney already scrubbed the Larry Craig endorsement from his website and removed it from YouTube. I guess Romney doesn't believe Craig's lies.) This was the Larry Craig endorsement of Flip Flop Mitt. Romney's gonna be pissed but MyDD rescued the political love letter Craig recorded for his Mitt.

If "The Judge" becomes our next attorney general, who's going to be his deputy? (Well, yes, naturally we do have a couple of suggestions to offer)

Wouldn't it be great to have the Chertoff-Brown team reunited?

Say, if Homeland Security Sec'y Mikey "Here Come da Judge" Chertoff gets to replace Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales as U.S. attorney general (as if anyone could replace Idiot Al), does that mean we can look forward to him bringing his old sidekick "Heckuva Job" Brownie back into gov't service as his No. 2, the deputy attorney general? Of course there are apparently several hundred other "top" jobs open at the Justice Dept. in case The Judge has someone else in mind to be his deputy. (Barney Fife would seem about right.)

But man, wouldn't that be something, having The Judge and our Brownie teamed up again and back in action? Doing for the DoJ, well, what they did for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

Oh wait, didn't Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" already do that?

I BET BUSH GETS SOME SLIMEBAG INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAIR BEFORE HE DOES ANYTHING TO HELP NEW ORLEANS

On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush Regime may have no real plan to rebuild New Orleans, but they probably do have a plan to insert the incompetent knave who was in charge of homeland security at the time, into the Attorney General's job. Even before the news had leaked out that Gonzales was finally resigning, there were rumors that Chertoff would be the next Attorney General. Right-wing propaganda sites like Drudge and the Politico started the day claiming that Bush was going to make a recess appointment to avoid having the Regime's overwhelming criminality broadcast all over TV during confirmation hearings. Both the GOP-connected sites removed the recess appointment posts within minutes, apparently having gotten word from their superiors at the propaganda ministry that that wasn't today's message. (If you're wondering why Gonzales resigned today, instead of last week or last month or two months ago, Sidney Blumenthal makes a great case in Why Did Gonzales Resign? that "without Karl Rove around to give him his orders, and with the investigations closing in, 'Fredo' had nowhere to turn.")

If Bush doesn't do the recess appointment thing-- and he crossed his heart and hoped to die in front of Harry Reid that he wouldn't do that this time-- he could just try to get Chertoff through the way normal presidents do. (Best of luck with that, Bushie.) Or he could appoint a quasi-respected Republican senator. Senators always confirm other senators. Bush may have trouble finding one as corrupt and malleable as he would want, although John Cornyn would fit the bill. Or he could just leave Paul Clement in as Interim or Acting A.G. until the clock runs out. I guess for the next few days the traditional media will be able to talk about who'll be the next in line instead of Michael Vick finding Jesus or Owen Wilson's attempted suicide.

Almost all of the remainder of this most hated of all lame ducks' term will be about letting clocks run out-- including the disgrace of the inaction on New Orleans.

BUSH REGIME IS FALLING APART BUT THEY WILL FIGHT LIKE CORNERED RATTLE SNAKES 'TIL THE BITTER END-- JOIN DARCY BURNER IN FIGHTING THEM IN WASHINGTON

Clearest choice you'll find anywhere

Having reluctantly accepted the long overdue resignation of his hapless, incompetent and corrupt Attorney General, Bush flies off to Albuquerque to headline a fundraiser for Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici, the doddering New Mexico rubber stamp Republican senator who inadvertently brought so much of the inner workings of the Bush Justice Department to light by demanding that Rove and Gonzales fire David Iglesias for not being a willing tool to the politicization of his office. If Bush were anything more than a pitiful and grotesque hack himself he would tell Domenici to retire now. Instead he hopes to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for his re-election campaign.

From Albuquerque, Bush wings his way to Seattle where he will perform a similar service for one of his most rubbery of rubber stamps, WA-08's pathetic and robotic congressman, Dave Reichert, a handwringing Republican who represents a moderate suburban district but votes like his constituents are a bunch of Neo-confederates in Alabama or Texas.

While Bush and Reichert party down with wealthy donors, Darcy Burner, the progressive Democrat running for Congress against him is having a virtual Town Hall meeting to discuss the tragic occupation of Iraq. When Darcy and a distinguished panel-- including Ambassador Joe Wilson, General Paul Eaton, VoteVet.org founder Jon Soltz, and Daily Kos writer Joan McCarter-- discuss the Iraq catastrophe and talk about solutions, two of the authors of that disaster, George Bush and his local enabler, Reichert, will be catering to GOP fat cats willing to cough up $2,300 for an opportunity to have a picture taken with the world's most hated man. The Reichert-Bush shindig at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue will not, of course, be open to the general public. The VIP reception costs $10,000 each and less wealthy Republicans can pay $1,000 to watch from the sidelines.

Blogs like this one have banded together to try to raise $100,000 for Darcy's campaign while Bush is in the district. When I went to sleep last night over 2,100 people had donated just over $75,000. Here at Blue America we crossed the $4,000 mark for Darcy yesterday afternoon. This morning Darcy's campaign is closing in on $80,000.

Darcy's Town Hall starts at 3pm, Pacific Time (6pm back East). You can submit an advance question at this link. And if you're feeling good about Gonzales finally stepping down, celebrate by taking a look at what a real progressive Democrat sounds like on this clip and then think about donating a few dollars to her campaign here.




NEW MEXICO IS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST BUSH TOO

Although Darcy's campaign is pushing back hard and effectively in Washington State, grassroots and netroots activists in New Mexico-- where there isn't a clear consensus yet about who will oppose the contemptible Heather Wilson and Sneaky Pete-- are hardly letting Bush's visit pass unnoticed. Democracy for New Mexico and NM FBIHOP, the two largest and most influential progressive blogs in New Mexico, have launched the "Beat Back Bush New Mexico" campaign.


3PM UPDATE

BUSH AND CHENEY DID NOT RESIGN

A one word description of the Bush Regime might be "lawless." It sort of sums the whole mess up nicely. I never thought Alberto Gonzales was one of the masterminds of evil, not the way Rove and Cheney, for example were. He was more the useful idiot, a low grade pal of the low grade presidunce who feels comfy around people who aren't terribly brilliant. It seemed unbelievable that Gonzales, caught in one lie after another, after another, after another hung in there so long. But he became a living mantra for "He serves at the pleasure of the president." And the presidunce insists he is the president and the decision maker and he takes himself very seriously.

Yesterday I did a little research into the U.S. backed (run) coup in Vietnam that ended in the brutal murder of the U.S. puppet president, Ngo Dinh Diem, and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. Why the brother? Nhu didn't have an official role in the government but he carried out many of the functions of the Attorney General, at least in terms of being a regime strongman. He ran a private militia whose job was to buck up the authoritarian rule of his corrupt family. He was a big proponent of torture of "enemies of the regime." In the U.S., presidents have chosen someone they could trust to walk off a cliff for them and break any law for them. John Kennedy had his brother. Nixon's first Attorney General, John Mitchell, went to prison rather than spill the beans. Bush started with a political hack, religionist nutcase and far right extremist, defeated Missouri Senator John Ashcroft, but he wasn't enough of an insider and he was eventually replaced with cipher Alberto Gonzales, a man with no independent base outside of BushWorld and a man of no accomplishments whatsoever outside of his relationship with Bush.

So, as the foul, foul regime unwinds, who is enough of a tool to make Bush comfortable with. I imagine a prerequisite will be an agreement not to investigate-- and to prevent the investigation of-- lots and lots and lots of lawlessness... and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. So far this morning the name on everyone's lips is Chertoff, the man who is best known for avoiding any responsibility-- as head of the Department of Homeland Security-- for the catastrophe of New Orleans.

The Senate will have to confirm whichever partisan hack Bush decides on. They should take this responsibility seriously and not rubber stamp Bush's whim. What is called for now is not a Ngo Dinh Nhu, a John Mitchell, a Bobby Kennedy, an Ed Meese or an Alberto Gonzales, but someone who is truly independent who will serve the interests of the American people, not the defensive needs of a crumbling lawless regime. The Senate should refuse to even consider anyone with close ties to the Bush regime. It isn't what America needs now. Being an insider should be a disqualifier.

Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will get the first crack at whatever crook Bush tries to get into the job, issued a statement just now, a statement that gets to the heart of the problem: Bush. Leahy has it completely right; let's see if he's got what it takes to convince his Senate colleagues to follow through with his premises. How about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.  It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.  
 
The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House.  The Attorney General's resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know-- that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. 
 
The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again.  I hope the Attorney General's decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.

CONYERS IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS LEAHY

John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has a similar perspective to the one expressed by Senator Leahy. "It is a sad day when the Attorney General of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes. More than accountability, we need answers. Unfortunately, the continued stonewalling of the White House in the U.S. Attorney scandal has deprived the American people of the truth. If the power of the prosecutor has been misused in the name of partisanship, we deserve a full airing of the facts. The responsibility to uncover these facts is still on the Congress, and the Judiciary Committee in particular."

Reid gets it too (but will he act on it?):"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House."

And every line of Russ Feingold's short statement is exactly right, the last one, of course, being the most crucial-- and the one most likely to be compromised on by Russ' pathetic colleagues in the Senate. “Attorney General Gonzales’ tenure was marked by unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice, deception of Congress and the American people, and disrespect for the rule of law.  He should never have been confirmed and should have resigned long ago.  The first loyalty of the next attorney general must be to the law, not the president.”

WHEN WILL REPUBLICANS REALLY START ABANDONING BUSH ON IRAQ? I HOPE IT'S BEFORE MANY MORE DEMOCRATS HOOK UP WITH HIM

Not every Republican is interested in playing Russian Roulette with his or her political career. Polling is significantly against the occupation of Iraq everywhere, not just in cities, but in small towns and rural area, not just in blue states like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois and California but in red states like Texas, Arizona, Georgia and even Utah. The pathetic pygmies™ are getting very uncomfortable standing behind Bush. It's the reason why "None of the Above" beats Giuliani, Flip Flop Mitt, Thompson and the remnants of McCain in every single poll. GOP members of Congress are panic-stricken. This week we saw a lot of Republicans saying they would be retiring next year. Expect quite a few more voluntary retirements and then dozens of involuntary ones after November '08.

One who is likely to announce his retirement soon is Virginia's senior senator, John Warner. I'm betting his decision has been made and the decision is making him feel free to speak his mind. A former Navy Secretary and a loyal, if grumpy, Bush-Cheney rubber stamp 'til now he's threatening to vote with the Democrats on bringing the troops home if Bush doesn't stop screwing around. I doubt Bush or Cheney were happy when Warner appeared on Meet the Press today.

The Virginia Republican said Sunday it would be best for the president, not Congress, to make a decision on withdrawals and that overriding a presidential veto would be difficult. But Warner made clear his view that people are losing patience with the administration's strategy in Iraq, a significant change is needed in September and troop withdrawals were the best way to accomplish that.

"That's precisely what I said to the president. I said, 'Here is an option. You can initiate a first withdrawal. You pick the number, Mr. President. And it would send a signal to the Iraqi government that matches your words,'" Warner said. "His words being, `We're not going to be there forever.'"

"The president has got to put teeth in these comments that we're not there forever," he added.

Warner is a long way from recognizing and admitting to himself the overall venality of the regime he has served so slavishly. The only place Bush is putting any teeth into is the jugular of American democracy. Republicans may soon be taking a bite out of one their rambunctious puppets, Nori al-Maliki. Just the way the U.S. installed Ngo Dinh Diem as the leader of a faux-democratic Vietnam-- and then backed the coup that murdered him and his right-wing brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu-- things aren't lookin' up for Maliki, despite Bush's assurances that "he's a good guy" on Friday. (U.S. advisors had recommended that the rigged Vietnamese elections only give Diem 60-70% of the vote but he insisted on 98.2%. It went to his head-- so we murdered him.)

Many of us watched former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi-- who couldn't even win the elections with massive U.S. backing-- on CNN this morning launching his, and the Republicans', campaign for replacing Maliki-- with himself. “I am not doubting whether he's a good guy or not a good guy,'' said Allawi who has been sitting out the recent troubles in Jordan. "But I am doubting the system of militias, of sectarianism, of trying to avoid the benchmarks which President Bush and the Congress have laid down for the government in Iraq." He's also admitted that "his party," which has moved aggressively to destabilize the Maliki government, paid-off a well-connected bunch of Republican lobbyists and p.r. flacks, Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, to make his case inside the Beltway. Sounds good, doesn't it? But don't believe a word of his well-crafted drivel. The right-wing Republicans and NeoCons want Allawi in and Maliki out because Maliki is trying to maintain reasonably friendly relations with Iraqi's giant neighbor, Iran. Allawi, meanwhile, sings from the NeoCon Book of Psalms on Iran.

American troops? Not so much. They just want this ended.

A call by Puerto Rico's governor for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq earned a standing ovation from a conference of more than 4,000 National Guardsmen.

Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila said Saturday that the U.S. administration has "no new strategy and no signs of success" and that prolonging the war would needlessly put guardsmen in harm's way.

"The war in Iraq has fractured the political will of the United States and the world," he said at the opening of the 129th National Guard Association general conference. "Clearly, a new war strategy is required and urgently."

Annals of technology: 22 CDs' worth of Stravinsky by Stravinsky for under $2 a disk if you shop right; plus a hybrid (1961+1967+2005) "Soldier's Tale"

"It is all changed," Stravinsky was told, and "indeed it was."

It's the story I always think of when I think of Igor Stravinsky. As the composer told it, it displayed not just his prickly "don't mess with me" side, but also his waspish sense of humor.

He was recalling, 20 years after the fact, his "participation" in Walt Disney's Fantasia, a segment of which was bult around his revolutionary score for Le Sacre du printemps (The Rite of Spring). It's well-known that the 1913 Paris premiere of Le Sacre, by Sergei Diaghilev's Ballets Russes, precipitated a full-fledged riot. It's also well-established that Stravinsky's shockingly brutal yet rivetingly beautiful score changed the course of 20th-century Western music.

Most observers thought it was pretty radical of Disney and his musical advisers to fix on Stravinsky's score (even today it remains startling, or should), which after all dramatized the sacrifice of a virgin to pagan gods. Disney and his people somehow got the idea that the music provided a fitting sonic image for the birth of the universe, and the formation of the earth, and eventually the dawn of tyrannosaurus rex. (Here you can see some of the dinosaurs romping.)

Now, Fantasia had some legitimate classical bona fides, starting with the enthusiastic participation of conductor Leopold Stokowski, who recorded the musical selections with his Philadelphia Orchestra in a revolutionary new (for 1939!) multichannel format.

Stravinsky told the story of his involvement with Fantasia in the course of his recorded "Apropos of Le Sacre," included as a single-sided bonus LP in Columbia Masterworks' lavish Stravinsky Conducts 1960 box, which contained brand-new recordings of Le Sacre and the ballet he wrote just before it, Petrushka (1911).

[No, I didn't transcribe Stravinsky's talk myself. I just typed it from the printed version that was included among the tiny-type but nevertheless extensive liner notes that accompanied one of the great record releases of all time: Columbia Masterworks' reissue, in a bargain-priced box (three LPs for the price of two), of the 1960 Petrushka and Sacre along with Stravinsky's 1961 recording of the complete Firebird (1910)--the three great ballets written in collaboration with Diaghilev which defined and propelled Stravinsky's international career. (Generous Columbia followed this up with another indispensable box, also three LPs for the price of two, containing the ballets Apollo and Orpheus and the complete Fairy's Kiss and Pulcinella.)

[Here is Stravinsky at 82 conducting London's New Philharmonia Orchestra in the "Lullaby"--with the famous bassoon solo--and rousing "Final Hymn" that conclude the Firebird Suite.]

Anyway, here is Stravinsky telling the story:

In 1937 or 1938 I received a request from the Disney office in America for permission to use Le Sacre in a cartoon film. The request was accompanied by a gentle warning that if permission were withheld the music would be used anyway. (Le Sacre, being "Russian," was not copyrighted in the United States), but as the owners of the film wished to show it abroad (i.e., in Berne Copyright countries) they offered me $5,000, a sum I was obliged to accept (though, in fact, the "percentages" of a dozen crapulous intermediaries reduced it to $1,200).

I saw the film with George Balanchine in a Hollywood studio at Christmastime 1939. I remember someone offering me a score, and, when I said I had my own, the someone saying "But it is all changed."

It was indeed. The order of the pieces had been shuffled and the most difficult of them eliminated--though this didn't help the musical performance, which was execrable. I will say nothing about the visual complement (for I do not wish to criticize an unresisting imbecility), but the musical point of view of the film involved a dangerous misunderstanding.

So tell us, Igor, and don't pull any punches, how'd you like Fantasia?

I really want to talk about Stravinsky one of these days, and I plan to get to it really soon. Awhile back I startled Howie by saying that we've already had the last three great composers we're ever going to have--Stravinsky (1882-1971), Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975), and Benjamin Britten (1913-1976), all now long since safely dead and buried. This seems so obvious to me now that I forget how stark it may sound to others. But these are the last composers who seem to me, through the sheer force of their imagination, to have transcended the exhaustion of the musical language they inherited, or could scrounge up or invent.

I didn't really mean to get into this just now, but in this connection I can't resist throwing in the concluding paragraph of Stravinsky's "Apropos of Le Sacre" talk:

I was guided by no system whatever in Le Sacre du printemps. When I think of the music of the other composers of that time who interest me--Berg's music, which is synthetic (in the best sense), and Webern's, which is analytic--how much more theoretical it seems than Le Sacre. And these composers belonged to and were supported by a great tradition. Very little immediate tradition lies behind Le Sacre du printemps, and no theory. I had only my ear to help me; I heard and I wrote what I heard. I am the vessel through which Le Sacre passed.

At the time of this "Apropos," Le Sacre was nearly 50 years old. Stravinsky was still composing actively, and continued to do so more or less up to his death. Over those six decades of composing, he wound up working in an astonishing range of styles and musical languages, but mostly he used the sheer force of his imagination to squeeze every drop he could out of those musical languages available to him.

One of the remarkable aspects of Stravinsky's career is the extensive recorded documentation we have of it. The composer was from fairly early times an active performer of his own music, and began making recordings early on. But the intensive, near-encyclopedic recorded documentation of his works eventually undertaken by Columbia Masterworks was without precedent. It was almost entirely the initiative of the remarkably urbane, deeply cultured man who once upon a time actually ran Columbia Records, Goddard Lieberson [pictured above]. Lieberson also committed the company to extensive recorded documentation of the fine American composer Aaron Copland. (How times have changed!)

In the notes for the Stravinsky Conducts 1960 box, Lieberson himself explained the gap that Stravinsky's recorded "Apropos of Le Sacre" was designed to plug. He paid tribute to the published conversations the composer was then producing with his "valued associate," Robert Craft, which "give us a glimpse of his brilliant, urbane, cultured mind." "Unfortunately," he added,

they do not provide our ears with the wonderful Stravinsky-geneticized language which he has put together out of French, German, English, and Russian-with-immediate-translations. (With French and German, Stravinsky hurtles forward and is imperturbably and aloofly unconcerned with his auditors' linguistic accomplishments, while for a Russian phrase he will provide an English translation as quickly as a U.N. translator.) That, too, we have tried to remedy with the enclosed record of Stravinsky speaking about Le Sacre du printemps.

Columbia/CBS Masterworks and its corporate heir, Sony Classical, have done commendable work gathering the Stravinsky recorded legacy, first on LP and then on CD. Not much incentive was offered to the nonspecialist music lover, though. Now, the current heir to the whole of the catalogs of both Columbia/CBS Masterworks and RCA Victor Red Seal, Sony BMG Masterworks, is importing a 22-CD set produced by German Sony, at a staggeringly low price--the list is $45.98! (I paid $37 for mine, including shipping, but I've noticed the price inching upward.)

At this price, of course, it's unreasonable to expect much in the way of liner notes, a real limitation in the case of the many vocal works included, hard to appreciate fully without printed texts--and also for the many less-known works that become easy to explore in this incredibly handy collection. Well, I would think that anyone who's found his/her way to DWT has the "search" skills to dig up the necessary material online.

Even in the most famous Stravinsky works, which naturally have received vast numbers of recordings, including a fair number of extremely good ones, the composer's own recordings remain, in almost all cases, not only fully competitive, but in some ways the best place for the newcomer to the music to start. Even though I already had a lot of this stuff on LP, I made a point of buying CD editions of the ageless 1960 Stravinsky Petrushka and Le Sacre (conveniently coupled on a CD, which I endorse without reservation to anyone who isn't thinking of buying the set) and Stravinsky's 1964 stereo remake of his only full-length opera, the satirically biting yet also heart-hurting Rake's Progress.

If I could point to one thing about Stravinsky's own performances, it would be rhythm, his unmatched from-the-inside feel for the way the music moves. And if I could offer you a sound clip [maybe someone out there can suggest how I might do that?--K.], I might start with the orchestral fanfare that doesn't so much open as launch The Rake, which has a propulsive, infectious vitality I've never heard anyone else duplicate.

Or I might offer the opening "Soldier's March" from one of my very favorite Stravinsky recordings, the Suite from L'Histoire du soldat (The Soldier's Tale). L'Histoire, written in Switzerland during World War I (1918), is a work of no definable genre. It's a play-with-music in which, as Robert Craft once put it, the music "is the play." It's the shaggiest of shaggy-dog tales, which begins with a violin-playing soldier, en route home to his village on leave, unknowingly selling his soul to the Devil. The amazingly pungent and biting yet often haunting music is scored for the odd, what-he-had-on-hand septet of violin, clarinet, bassoon, trumpet, trombone, double bass, and percussion.

In February 1961 Columbia assembled seven top-notch players drawn from the unique assortment of musical backgrounds you find in the Los Angeles area, to be the "Columbia Chamber Ensemble" for a composer-conducted recording of the Suite from L'Histoire. With most of the finished product apparently drawn from the final day of recording (it was, it seems, an amazing session), they produced magic. The vivid instrumental textures are so gloriously reproduced that for a long time I made this 1961 L'Histoire Suite a part of my standard "test kit" when I wanted to get an impression of unfamiliar audio equipment.

What hardly anybody seems to have known until a couple of years ago was that in 1967 a new "Columbia Chamber Ensemble," featuring four of the 1961 players including the outstanding violinist Israel Baker, was assembled to record the tiny bits of connective music, adding up to a mere four minutes, needed to produce a complete recording of L'Histoire. (A certain amount of the spoken portion of the play takes place over the musical movements familiar from the suite.)

Nothing more was done with this material, though. It's suggested that the composer himself didn't have any burning desire to produce a complete recording of L'Histoire, perhaps because of a falling out at some point with the librettist, Charles-Ferdinand Ramuz.

But, as we learn from William Wernick--executive producer of Sony's "new" complete L'Histoire conducted by the composer [pictured above], 36 years after his death!--once he discovered that the 1967 session took place, since he had a job number to apply to a search, the session tapes were soon found, intact! "All the takes were there," he writes, "and not only that, they were superb both in quality and performance."

The 1961 and 1967 tapes were edited and assembled, leaving just the question of the spoken portion of the play.

By coincidence, we discovered that Academy Award-winnning actor Jeremy Irons had performed The Soldier's Tale at the Old Vic in 2004 in a new English adaptation by the noted writer Jeremy Sams.

Irons agreed to undertake this improbable "collaboration" with the long-departed composer (the now-veteran actor was 22 when Stravinsky died) and the two-headed Columbia Chamber Ensemble. His part, recorded in London in 2005, was duly edited into the hybrid 1961/1967 music tape. You might think the result would be a hopeless hodge-podge. In fact, it sounds to me like the recording of L'Histoire we've been waiting for all these years.

There's no question that Irons is a splendid actor, but a lot of brilliant actors have fallen into the trap of turning L'Histoire into cloying sing-song silliness, and Irons himself is prone to a number of actorish mannerisms that might have been fatal here. Nothing of the sort happened, I'm delighted to report. Performing the entire play as narration--rather than sharing the action with separate actors for the Soldier and the Devil, as is more commonly done--Irons does a simply glorious job, thanks in no small part to the wonder of Sams's English version, which plays better than I've ever heard even the original French text, let alone any other English version.

So, a humble "well done" to everyone involved in this unusual production, which includes exemplary background notes, not least regarding the 1961 recording sessions that are still the heart of this project. A "not so well done" to whoever thought that tacking on the 1966 Robert Craft-conducted Symphonies of Wind Instruments added something to the disk. It's worth having, no doubt, and the piece was written within several years of L'Histoire, but surely some more meaningful filler could have been found?

And a "pathetically badly done" to the Sony BMG Masterworks people who are the embarrassing current guardians of the immense Masterworks and Red Seal legacies. When I went looking online for a photo of the new L'Histoire package, I easily enough found a Sony BMG Masterworks home page with a row of "FEATURE RELEASES" including this one, with a thumbnail photo that gave every evidence of being a link. So I clicked on it, expecting to be taken to a page where the recording was presented/promoted with justified pride.

Instead I landed on a "Sony Music Store" page proclaiming, "Search (no products found)," with the additional information: "Sorry no match available. This is not a Sony Music product. Please select another product."

I can think of several things to say, but for once I'm not going to say any of them.

IS DAVID BRODER THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CONNECTICUT FOR LIEBERMAN PARTY?

You may recall that last week treacherous and disloyal Bush Democrat Chris Carney (PA-10) denegrated Hillary Clinton in his district newspaper and endorsed a Chuck Hagel-Mike Bloomberg ticket. Since deceiving his way into office last year, Carney has worked hard to amass a voting record that should make this endorsement a surprise no one (except maybe those at the DCCC who think no further than bigger offices and better parking spaces for themselves).

This morning the worst of the old time and hackish Beltway pundits, David Broder, echoed, predictably, Carney's call for mediocrity. Broder has been around long enough to know that, despite his kind's most heartfelt wishes for more and endless Bushism, the American people's capacity for being tricked is coming to an end. The Broders of the Beltway are now probing the possibilities of inserting anything to stop Hillary, even if that means 2 Republicans, Hagel and Bloomberg, who haven't signed on to the pledge the pathetic pygmies™ have taken to give America the third George W. Bush term people like Broder think we need (and deserve).

Broder, of course, never mentions that his "independent" hero, Chuck Hagel has an entirely rubber stamp voting record that is mind-bogglingly extreme and even more out of step with mainstream Americans than doddering Inside the Beltway political pundits. You would never guess it by reading Broder but Hagel's shameful voting record is even more reactionary than Thad Cochran's, Lindsey Graham's, Kit Bond's, Chuck Grassley's, or Judd Gregg's. His votes of virtually everything are far more in line with bigots and neo-fascists like David Vitter, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback and Jeff Sessions than they are with mainstream conservatives like George Voinovich, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, Richard Lugar.

Broder is guessing Hagel doesn't want to run for his third Senate term and he puts forth the anti-Democrat Beltway meme whose mantra is that "Washington is gridlocked in partisan battle between two equally spent parties," rather than being capable of looking in the mirror and at Bush and his cronies and seeing why Washington is a mess. Also, predictably, Broder seeks to paint Hagel as someone who "was perhaps the first prominent Republican to break with the president" on Iraq. Of course that is a typical Broder distortion. Yes, Hagel shot off his mouth a few times about how catastrophic Bush's policies are but when it came to actual voting in the Senate, Hagel is still a dependable Bush-Cheney rubber stamp. Take for example S.J. Res 9, one of the bills Hagel was running his yap about. It was voted on on March 15 and it called for a revision of U.S. policy in Iraq. It failed and Hagel joined all the Republicans but Gordon Smith to vote against it. (Lieberman and 2 reactionary Democrats, Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor joined Hagel and the Republicans in perpetuating the occupation of Iraq Hagel has been whining about in a way that has so impressed David Broder.)

Hagel said that he and Bloomberg have "had some talks" but that neither of them is ready at this moment to form a partnership or stake out a strategy. Like everyone else, Hagel understands that the mayor's personal wealth would permit him to organize a campaign, starting in the winter or spring, and still have time to gain ballot access in enough states to make him a credible national candidate. But wealth alone will not bring him within reach of 270 electoral votes, and Hagel shares the view that Bloomberg is not interested in being "a spoiler" whose only effect would be to hurt one of the major-party candidates.

Broder has proven what a useless tool he's become. Perhaps he should push a Chris Carney/Art Carney ticket instead. Or maybe he should interview Mayor Bloomberg and ask him how he'd feel about running with someone of years and years of unrelenting service in the interest of far right extremism, who has been consistent in denying women the right to choice, consistent in treating minorities as 12th class citizens, consistent in anti-labor policies, consistent in devastatingly anti-environment policies, consistent in homophobia, consistent in legislating massive tax breaks for the wealthy and shoving a bigger and bigger burden on working people, consistent in supporting trade policies that are wrecking our country's economy and rending its social fabric... you know, stuff like that.

THERE IS AN ANTIDOTE TO THE TREACHERY OF THE BRIAN BAIRD TYPE BUSH ENABLERS-- MEET JAN SCHAKOWSKY... JUST BACK FROM IRAQ

Jan Schakowsky, not a Bush-Cheney-Baird Democrat

Right-wing pundits and propaganda hacks like Tony Blankley have been having a field day laughing at congressional Democrats as useful idiots like Brian Baird coming marching back from their little trips to the Greed Zone singing the praises of future Republican politician David Petraeus and convinced that endless war in the answer to any fears they harbor about re-election. Although southwest Washington Congressman Brian Baird showed what he was made of a few weeks ago when he was one of only 4 Democrats to vote with the Republicans against mandating rest time for U.S. troops before redeployment to the front, undiscerning observers have characterized his predictable "Stay the Course" rhetoric following a quickie in the Greed Zone like this:

Baird opposed the war against Iraq from the get-go but believes that since the US went ahead and attacked anyway, it should persist and be successful. He believes that the surge might be paying off, at least to a degree, and that-- therefore-- the troops should not be withdrawn soon.

Let's forget for a moment that Baird certainly did not oppose the war from the get-go and that he was one of many Democrats who refused to take a strong stand against Bush's Iraq agenda right from the very first roll call regarding Iraq. And let's not even question the motives of people who try passing these lies off as fact and instead let's just chalk that up to laziness, ignorance or even misinterpretation of the voting record.

Instead, let's keep in mind that it isn't only reflexive reactionaries like Brian Baird reporting from a bit of Iraq, nor even only confused and conflicted Democratic novices like Jerry McNerney, even though the rightist pundits will only highlight them. Today's Washington Post features what real Democrats who can keep a clear head in Iraq say when they get back. Chicago Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who unlike Baird, actually has a voting record that shows she really did oppose Bush's war "from the get-go," just came back from a fact-finding mission with unshaken resolve to extricate America from this Bush-Cheney-NeoCon mess.

Jan was a little shaken when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, "There's not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there's not going to be political reconciliation by next September" and she was a little shaken when General BetrayUs concluded his slick GOP PowerPoint presentation with an announcement that "it could take another decade before real stability is at hand." (In case there are any Republicans who have accidentally wandered over to DWT today, a decade is 10 years.)

The trip gave Schakowsky a good look at the challenge that Democrats face next month, when Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker travel to Washington to testify before Congress, presumably with similar charts and arguments that the U.S. military is making strides in Iraq, and that withdrawal dates would be reckless and wrong.

The lack of political progress among Iraq's rival factions and Petraeus's estimate of the time needed to stabilize the nation left Schakowsky all the more convinced that Democrats must force Bush to begin bringing troops home.

"This is not the structure that's going to say, 'Why? Why are we here? What are we really accomplishing here?' The mission is to take down the bad guys, to establish order," she said of her sessions with Petraeus and other military leaders. The meetings "made me feel more determined that the policy is going to have to be set in Washington, that the Congress is going to have to exert its will here to end this war."

While the Republican Noise Machine builds up BetrayUs as the strong man to eventually challenge President Hillary and drooling idiots like Baird fall into line like they always do, a few hearty souls like Schakowsky recognize exactly what Petraeus really is and what he's trying to do. "I felt that was a stretch and really part of a PR strategy-- just like the PR strategy that initially led up to the war in the first place," Schakowsky told the Post once she was back in Chicago. Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years."

Darcy Burner's call to arms-- to elect more and better Democrats-- is at the heart of how progressives must respond to the latest Bush-BetrayUs propaganda surge. Brian Baird isn't the only moron suckered into this, but that is where the "better Democrats" part comes in. Enough of the weak and ineffective enablers in the Democratic Party, your John Barrows, Melissa Beans, Chris Carneys, Jim Costas, Henry Cuellars, Dan Lipinskis, Jim Coopers, Mike Rosses, John Tanners and Al Wynns. It's time progressives started to understand that primaries are every bit as important as the general election-- at least they are if you're serious about ending Bush's heinous policies at home and abroad.

Jan knows that there are some who will fall for or become confused by the slick Republican presentations. "If you took the briefings at their face value, without context, without bringing anything to it-- clearly they were trying to present that positive spin, and that's what [other lawmakers] took away from it." We need more lawmakers like Jan and less like Brian Baird.

Among the crucial primaries coming up for House seats:
- Progressive stalwart incumbent Steve Cohen is being viciously challenged by the reactionary DLC/Harold Ford machine in Memphis. We should support Cohen to the hilt; he's earned it.
- Progressive challengers Donna Edwards (MD-04), Randi Scheuer (IL-08) and Mark Pera (IL-03) are seeking to replace disloyal Bush-Democrats Al Wynn, Melissa Bean and Dan Lipinski.
-Progressive front runners Darcy Burner (WA-08), John Laesch (IL-14), Angie Paccione (CO-04), and Victoria Wulsin (OH-02) are being opposed by opportunists and Bush-Democrats. You'll find most of these progressives on the Blue America page-- and the ones that aren't there yet, will be soon. Please help-- for all of our sakes. And remember Darcy's words: "MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS."


UPDATE: GENERAL PAUL EATON EXPLAINS WHY ELECTING DARCY BURNER IS PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ PROBLEM

REPUBLICANS STILL FAILING AMERICA ON NEW ORLEANS... AND EVERYTHING ELSE

Bush's failed Iraq policies cost the Republicans the House and Senate in 2006 and will devastate the party in 2008. But the seminal event where it finally clicked with most Americans that having George Bush in the White House-- whether one thought he was there legitimately or not-- happened two years ago. Rationally, no one can blame the hurricane part of Hurricane Katrina on Bush. But the catastrophe associated with it, for most Americans is what the Bush Regime is all about, at least domestically: incompetence plus an ineffectual philosophy of governance that works for the very rich and leaves everyone else out to dry-- or, in this case, drown.

Those who weren't sharp enough to understand that the mantra of Grover Norquist, the Bush Regime's Ideologue-in-Chief-- that line about shrinking government down so it was small enough to drown in a bath tub-- was actually playing out in New Orleans, might have still understood the nature of Bushism as it was expressed by the #1 Republican in the Congress, Planet Denny Hastert: "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed." People, American citizens, were still dying in the streets when Hastert said there would be no federal help for New Orleans. The Bush Regime itself tried to present a kinder, gentler face and made all kinds of promises, but for them, of course, the tragedy of New Orleans was another way to enrich themselves, their cronies and campaign contributors.

Bush is the first American president to have lost an American city. His regime's efforts to rescue New Orleans have been as ineffectual as everything else they say they are trying to accomplish-- although the Insider self-enrichment they never talk about has proceeded at a healthy enough clip.  This morning's NY Times features Barack Obama's plan for the actual recovery in New Orleans. Bush's greatest domestic failure and broken symbol of whatever bond he had with the American people can only be highlighted by Obama's and other Democrats' plans to bring back one of the great American cities. It isn't something you have heard Romney, Giuliani, or any of the other pathetic pygmies™ discussing.

The Gulf Coast restoration, Mr. Obama said, has been weighed down by red tape that has kept billions of dollars from reaching Louisiana communities. As president, he said, he would streamline the bureaucracy, strengthen law enforcement to curb a rise in crime and immediately close the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet in order to restore wetlands to protect against storms.

Mr. Obama also said that he would seek to lessen the influence of politics in the Federal Emergency Management Agency by giving its director a fixed term, similar to the structure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FEMA director would serve a six-year term, under Mr. Obama’s plan, and report directly to the president.

...“Let New Orleans be the place where we strengthen those bonds of trust, where a city rises up on a new foundation that can be broken by no storm,” Mr. Obama is planning to say Sunday, according to remarks provided by his aides. “Let New Orleans become the example of what America can do when we come together, not a symbol for what we couldn’t do.”

Tomorrow John Edwards and Hillary Clinton will both attend a summit conference dealing with the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Bush's Gulf Coast coordinator is in New Orleans, busy playing politics and insulting the state and city leadership. Of course all 9 of the pygmies™ are otherwise engaged, each somewhere rasing money from fat cat donors. Bush himself will be in Seattle desperately trying to resuscitate the wrecked career of one of his rubber stamp congressmen, Dave Reichert, a lackluster backbencher about to be swept from office by a brilliant and outspoken Darcy Burner, whose campaign is raising as much money this week from online donors as Reichert is from the wealthy contributors eager to get their pictures taken with Bush for $2,300 each. (You can help Darcy make a monkey of Bush here.)

WHO WILL SAVE AMERICA FROM THE DIVISIVENESS AND NARROW BIGOTRY UNLEASHED BY THE BUSH REGIME?

I don't know what Bush's first lie to America was or even his biggest lie. But one that was very big came very early. "I'm a uniter not a divider" was something he spouted on the David Letterman Show in early 2000. But not only has he proven to be a divider, he has proven to be the most divisive North American president since the last illegitimate right-wing southerner, Jefferson Davis. I recently finished reading Kenneth Ackerman's excellent book, Young J. Edgar: Hoover, The Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties, which, thankfully, was not another Hoover biography. Hoover is very much one of the leading characters in this historical drama of the early 20th century pitting terrorist-obsessed and xenophobic authoritarians against American values. The young Hoover, was in the thick of his first big battle on the side of authoritarianism and bigoted obsession and against American values, developing a world view and traits that painted his entire hideous career as head of the FBI, a career that didn't end until he finally died in 1972. "By then, Hoover had evolved into an untouchable autocrat, a man who kept secret files on millions of Americans over the years and used them to blackmail presidents, senators and movie stars. He ordered burglaries, secret wiretaps or sabotage against anyone he personally considered subversive. His target list included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, even Eleanor Roosevelt."

One of the best reviews I found was in last month's L.A. Times and it looked at similarities between the Bush Regime's agenda and those of the Palmer Red Scare by asking the excellent and pertinent question, Another J. Edgar Hoover?

The question is my title, begging for an antidote, is the other side of the same coin. When Palmer's Reign of Terror-- almost entirely perpetrated by the young, unseasoned and unsupervised Hoover-- came to an end, with much disgrace heaped on Palmer (while Hoover escaped unscathed), many Americans had a feeling of revulsion that our Constitution had been so shamelessly ignored by those we hired to protect and enforce it.

Palmer and his allies [including scores of reactionaries in Congress, of course] came very close to deporting thousands of innocent bystanders, all the immigrants they rounded up between November 1919 and January 1920. What stopped them? Historians like to point to the rapid cooling of the American temper after late 1919, but this, too, misses the point. Unlike the Seventh Cavalry showing up in the final reel of an old western movie, impersonal forces of history rarely reveal themselves on time to save the day for real people in danger. Instead, some individual person usually has to come forward first and be willing to stick his or her neck out. In 1920, this role fell to a small circle of lawyers. Louis F. Post dared to cancel the thousands of deportation warrants, and then talk back to Congress when it tried to impeach him over it. Felix Frankfurter succeeded in exposing Justice Department lawbreaking in a Boston courtroom and through the Twelve Lawyer report.

Reading Ackerman's book one finds living, breathing proof of the old adage, traced back to a quote by Edmund Burke in the 1700's that “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” (Burke is responsible for several other equally relevant quotations: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” as well as “In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.” (Later George Santayana was quoted as having said "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.")

Greater ignorance-- unfortunately coupled with overwhelming arrogance-- has probably never been more dominant in the uppermost reaches of a presidential administration than that of George Bush's. I have no illusions of lots of would-be mini-Hoovers being suckled at the breast of Bush's neo-fascist regime. What I am interested in knowing is if there are also people with strength and resolution willing to stand up to them in the face of opprobrium and worse. Bush has packed the federal judiciary with activist partisan hacks and apathetic voters have allowed equally unworthy legislators take over the Congress. The long-term solution to the judiciary is to elect a Democratic president and to elect more and better Democrats to the Senate and House. Better? Better than what? Just about any Democrat is better than a Republican, but in some cases, not enough to be meaningful. I'm sure Hillary will be a much better president than either Bush has been, and hopefully better than her husband was. But the person to protect us from the excesses of authoritarian strains in society? We'll have to see. I do feel confident, however, that she'll be appointing a better breed of judges.

As for Congress, that's where the game will be fought out. It isn't enough to use the rule of thumb that all Democrats are an improvement over any Republican, even though that's true, as far as it goes. There are too many-- far too many-- screwed up Democrats to just remember that nostrum and not look any deeper into the electoral process. There are a few dozen Democrats usually willing to combine with the Republicans to insure an effective conservative congressional majority. That needs to end. Unfortunately most of the Democrats who consistently vote with Republicans also live in Republican leaning districts. Of the 12 Democratic congressmen who most consistently vote with the GOP, all but 2 are in Republican districts.
Gene Taylor (MS)- R+16
Bud Cramer (AL)- R+6
Collin Peterson (MN)- R+6
Dan Boren (OK)- R+5
Ike Skelton (MO)- R+11
Allen Boyd (FL)- R+2
Mike McIntyre (NC)- R+3
John Tanner (TN)- D+0
Jim Marshall (GA)- R+3
Jim Matheson (UT)- R+17
Tim Holden (PA)- R+7
John Barrow (GA)- D+5 (although redistricting has brought it down to D+2)

No reason to bother with Matheson and Taylor until after Barrow and Tanner have been dealt with. Georgia also boasts another reactionary-leaning Democrat, prone to vote with Republicans, who represents not just Democratic constituents but very Democratic constituents: suburban Atlanta's David Scott- D+12.

Aside from Barrow, Scott and Tanner, the Democrats in Democratic districts most likely to vote with the Republicans are:

Jack Murtha (PA)- D+5
Henry Cuellar (TX)- D+1
Leonard Boswell (IA)- D+1
Marion Berry (AR)- D+1
Jim Cooper (TN)- D+6
Mike Ross (AR)- D+0
Jerry Costello (IL)- D+5
Mike Doyle (PA)- D+22
Silvsetre Reyes (TX)- D+9
Adam Smith (WA)- D+6
Jane Harman (CA)- D+11
Gene Green (TX)- D+8
Nick Rahall (WV)- D+0
Dennis Cardoza (CA)- D+3
Jim Costa (CA)- D+5

I don't know of a single one facing a serious primary challenge, although there are primary challenges to Republican-leaning Democrats in Democratic districts that I urge DWT readers to get involved with, particularly in Maryland and Illinois, where Donna Edwards and Mark Pera are looking like they can oust reactionary Democrats Al Wynn and Dan Lipinski.

YOU CAN HELP CHANGE AMERICA-- AND DARCY BURNER IS AN OUTSTANDING AGENT OF CHANGE

Wave bye-bye, boys. Your time is up

You may have come to the conclusion that DWT and our Blue America partners at Firedoglake and Crooks & Liars are very enthusiastic about Darcy Burner's candidacy for the suburban congressional seat currently being held by rubber stamp Republican Dave Reichert. Your conclusion would be very correct.

Our strong feelings about this race go beyond the issues, on which Darcy is always correct and Reichert is always wrong. (Even when Reichert, fearful of his moderate constituents, mouths mainstream nostrums about the environment or Iraq in the district, he then goes back to DC and always votes with the hard right and against the feeble attempts he makes from time to time to claim that he is either an "independent voice" or a "moderate." He is neither.) But Darcy is worth our enthusiasm because she is a real leader, not just a dependable vote.

One of the most intelligent and thoughtful of all the candidates we have talked to at Blue America, she is also one of the most plainspoken and clear. Darcy Burner doesn't hide behind rhetorical nuances. When someone asked her how she felt about the passage of the FISA bill-- which saw over 40 reactionary and cowardly Democrats joining the Republicans-- she didn't beat around the bush. The Fisa bill... completely sucks... We have got to elect more and better Democrats."

More and better Democrats is like a motto for Blue America and "better" is something we will never, never, never sacrifice in pursuit of "more."

Monday Bush will be in Seattle trying to help Reichert raise more money from right-wing fat cats to stave off his nearly inevitable defeat. Jane, John and I are joining other progressive bloggers in urging people who don't agree with the Bush-Cheney-Reichert agenda to participate in Darcy's virtual Town Hall Meeting at the same time. Our goal, articulated by Atrios: a headline in the Seattle Times something to the effect of "Burner Raises $100K On Bush Visit to Rival Reichert."

And so far it's going really well. We're over halfway to our $100,000 goal and it's only Saturday. Over 1,600 people have contributed online. Here's part of a press release her campaign sent out today:

Democrat Darcy Burner’s campaign announced today that it has raised more than $57,000 over the web since Friday morning, pushing the campaign well past the halfway point in its quest to raise $100,000 from netroots contributors by early next week.
 
The astounding fundraising burst comes as President Bush prepares to visit the hotly contested 8th Congressional District, covering Seattle’s eastern suburbs, on Monday for a $10,000 a head fundraiser for his friend and close political ally, Republican incumbent Congressman Dave Reichert.
 
“I am overwhelmed at the levels of support we are seeing from thousands of engaged citizens from across the district and the nation who are responding to this campaign’s message of positive change,” Burner said. “We still have a long way to go to counter the mistaken Bush-Reichert agenda, but a growing number of ordinary Americans are determined to send a direct message to Congressman Reichert, President Bush and our go-along Congress that the time has come to bring this war to a responsible close.”

Just as Lieberman's fundraising for Maine's rubber stamp Republican Susan Collins resulted in even bigger contributions for her opponent, Tom Allen, it looks like a certain albatross from Inside the Beltway is about to do the exact same thing in Washington state for Reichert and Darcy. "The visit is Bush’s first fundraising trip since the 2006 election on behalf of a member of the House. That the White House chose Reichert for this trip is an indication of how close the Bush-Reichert relationship really is-- and how vulnerable Reichert has become because of his poor judgment in supporting Bush’s misguided policies, particularly his enthusiastic backing of the president’s never-ending Iraq War."
 
You can join us in donating directly to Darcy's campaign here. There aren't enough Democrats, let alone Republicans, who are willing to stand up at a public forum and speak like this:

SEPTEMBER DAWN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN

DWT readers probably have figured out that I'm no fan of organized religion. Friends of mine have read some of the terrible things I've said about Mormons-- usually in the context of tearing down Mitt Romney-- and told me I'm a bigot. I tell them I'm an equal-opportunity bigot and that I don't see the absurdity of Mormonism any differently from the absurdity of any other religionism. They all do far more evil than good.

Tonight I went to see September Dawn, thinking it might give me some insight into Mormonism and into the Romney campaign. I hope to God this terrible film has nothing to do with contemporary Mormons or with Mitt Romney. Not only do I hope it; I feel sure that that is the case.

The movie is so filled with hate and vileness that I would strongly suggest no one bother seeing it. I just came back from Mann's Chinese Theater. Aside from myself, there were 3 people in the theater. I'm certain that Mitt Romney would make a perfectly horrendous president, but that has nothing to do with Brigham Young or Joseph Smith; it has to do with his lack of character and his twisted vision of an America built on greed, selfishness, narrow bigotry and a pinched sense of divisiveness. Forget September Dawn and forget Mitt Romney; they both stink.

BLUE AMERICA WELCOMES DAN MAFFEI-- WE WANT TO TAKE BACK THREE SEATS IN NEW YORK NEXT YEAR-- AND THIS IS ONE OF 'EM

Upstate New York has three districts that have been devastated by Bush's anti-union "Free Trade" extremism that all border on each other, that are all currently represented by a rubber stamp Republican in trouble and that each has an exceptional progressive Democrat running in-- NY-25, NY-26 and NY-29. We've discussed Jon Powers and Eric Massa before, and today we'll be meeting the third in their trio, Dan Maffei. The discussion starts at 2pm, EDT, at Firedoglake.

Dan came closer to anyone else in New York to dislodging a Republican incumbent other than the three who actually did (Mike Arcuri, John Hall and Kirstin Gillibrand). Less than 2% points seperated Dan and 10-term incumbent James Walsh (3,400 votes). 2008 will be Dan's turn. As you'll see when you meet him today, he sounds really good. But is he? I started our interview by asking him if he's going to take our donations and turn into another treacherous Bush Dog like Chris Carney, whose district isn't that far away. "No, I sure hope not," Dan told me. "I have a very different approach than he did. Political leadership is, in part, taking a position and bringing your constituents along with you. I'll be a good representative for this district because on all the key issues we see eye to eye. The stands I take-- for public financing of elections, for ending the occupation of Iraq, for Medicare for all-- aren't exactly profiles in courage positions. The people in the district support these things."

When Dan goes out and meets his neighbors and tells them he's running for Congress, he has a message he's trying to deliver. But so do they. I asked him what they tell him. "The Iraq War is #1, especially when you factor in other needs, like infrastructure costs, not being met because of all the resources being poured into Iraq." The voters want to talk with him about things we hear from candidates all over America, like education and jobs. But there is something else, something that inspired Dan to pick the Tom Petty song "I Won't Back Down," as his campaign theme song. "It goes beyond lost jobs in the manufacturing sector," Dan told me. "You can sense the regional lack of self-esteem. Children and other family members move away because of limited opportunities-- move away from this beautiful, liveable place with a quality of life second to none. Putting this area back on the map again has got to be a major priority. People need hope and a thriving economy with real jobs are a key to that."

Last year the Democratic Party establishment didn't much care about Dan's race against Walsh. In 2004 no Democrat had even bothered running against him and in 2002, when a Democrat did, Walsh picked up 72% of the vote. Yet the district is far from a right wing bastion. Kerry and Gore both took it as did Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate. But the DCCC was too busy chasing Rahm Emanuel's dream of electing pro-war Bush Dogs to bother with NY-25. Dan managed to raise over $900,000 to get out his message (half of what Walsh spent) with no help from Washington until the very last minute when polls showed him within the margin of error of winning.

This year Dan has several advantages. Any of the Democratic frontrunners-- and especially NY Senator Hillary Clinton-- being at the top of the Democratic ticket will bring out thousands of extra voters, overwhelmingly voters who want a change. Last year no one had heard of Dan Maffei. Now everyone in the district has. This year he's already had more media coverage than in the entire 2006 campaign. The traditional media has so accustomed the electorate into believing the absurd hype that Walsh, a pure Bush rubber stamp, is somehow a "moderate," that's it's taken Dan all this time to help educate the electorate to understand his far right voting record, especially on Iraq. Of the 55 roll calls since the October 10, 2002 resolutions to authorize the use of force in Iraq Walsh has voted against the Bush agenda exactly one time, this year when he realized his re-election was in grave jeopardy.

Dan has a placard in his office with a quote from General Omar Bradley: "Now is the time when we've got to steer by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship." A Congressman Maffei will be neither a Congressman Walsh nor a Congressman Carney. He's a man with a firm moral compass and who believes in the progressive values that are very much all-American values. Please feel free to ask him any questions you'd like. And if you like what you hear, also feel free to join me in giving his campaign a boost today at our Blue America page.

BLUE AMERICA HAS ANOTHER JERRY McNERNEY MOMENT

Jerry McNerney's election to Congress was an outstanding success for local grassroots activists and for the national and local netroots. He was one of the top recipients of donations from Blue America in 2006. 1,099 from our community contributed over $25,000 to his campaign (average donation $22.83). He won convincingly against a powerful and entrenched 7-term incumbent, Richard Pombo (who spent $4.6 million, not including several more millions spent by right-wing committees on his behalf), in CA-11, a Republican district that gave Kerry and Gore 45% each-- but awarded McNerney 53% of the vote. And even before that, Jerry had to overcome the forces of conservative Establishment, virulently anti-grassroots Democrats (Ellen Tauscher and Rahm Emanuel) who fielded their own candidate in the primary. The netroots bubbled over with enthusiasm for Jerry.

Since then, the mood has darkened considerably. Jerry's overall voting record is decent... but by no means heroic. Most of the other freshmen who have been endorsed by Blue America again-- in fact all of them with the exception of Patrick Murphy-- have more progressive voting records, including freshmen in similarly red-leaning districts, like John Hall and Carol Shea-Porter. But it wasn't Jerry's iffy voting record that has caused an explosion of-- at the minimum-- confusion from his supporters. Jerry won the seat for a lot of reasons but if you had to pick the one reason that earned him the dedicated support of the grassroots it was, hands down, his principled stand on Iraq. He wasn't equivocating and contradicting himself in 2005-6. Pombo was the Bush rubber stamp; Jerry was the one who wanted to end the occupation of Iraq. I don't really have any doubt that he still does. But he's given lots of other people plenty of reasons to wonder, including many of his earliest and most devoted backers like, for example, Babaloo. And even a big pushover like myself has become exasperated. This outstanding Calitics thread started by Julia Rosen contains some of the best writing you'll find anywhere on the controversy. Every point of view is covered.

A couple months ago, we had a... situation that came up with another freshman we backed in '06, Chris Carney. There were several differences, the most glaring of which is that Jerry asked to come over and speak with us, and when we took him up on it, he started proposing dates immediately and worked with us to find time while the topic is sizzling hot. Carney refused to even come out from under his desk for a phone chat and instead has been trying to use us, his former supporters, as a kind of Sister Souljah, labeling us as irrational and bragging to reactionaries that he's standing up against our demands (our only demand, by the way, is honesty and an explanation). So Congressman McNerney joins us this evening at Firedoglake (6pm, PT) for a frank discussion of the issues that will hopefully lead to a better understanding on all sides. Aside from reading the linked Calitics thread above, I want to suggest you do three other things to prepare for Jerry. Remember that we are all on the same team and that no one here tonight is Bush or Cheney or Pombo. Let's all conduct ourselves with self respect and with respect for everyone else's points of view. And let me also suggest two videos, a general one that the San Francisco Chronicle posted yesterday about Jerry's race and one from Darcy Burner, another Democratic leader that, to my mind, sets a high standard for Democrats, one each and every one of them should take to heart. Here she is talking about Bush's disgraceful FISA bill, one Jerry voted against (whew).



You can find both Darcy Burner and Jerry McNerney on our Blue America page. We'll be watching how everyone who reads this post "votes."


UPDATE: JERRY'S INITIAL STATEMENT AT FDL

Jerry arrived promptly and started with a statement. Please read it and then check out the entire archive of the discussion at FDL

I sat down ahead of time and thought through what I wanted to say to the FireDogLake community tonight. I’ve talked with many people about this. What’s written below may read a little cleaner than other statements I may make tonight but that’s because tonight I’ll be typing on the fly. Please read what I’ve written below and then let’s start the discussion.

This is an important discussion, and I’m glad that there’s so much interest. I’m sure some of you may strongly disagree with me, but I hope that we can all respect each other and our motives. I’ve been absolutely opposed to the war from the beginning and will do everything I can to end it as soon as possible.

I hope that this live blog enlightens everyone, including me. Dissent and frank discussion are the essence of democracy. That’s not something I am afraid of and that’s why I’m here with you today to talk and share ideas.

To start this discussion, let me be clear about where I stand.

I want to end this war as soon as possible. In practical terms, that means beginning a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq now and end with a fixed date.

It’s important that we begin the withdrawal soon because it will take time to remove all of our troops and equipment from the country. Like Gary, a staffer and friend who’s in the Navy Reserves said to me: the last guy doesn’t head home until after the first guy does.

But in order to force that withdrawal we need to have a veto-proof majority so that we can overrule President Bush. That’s why sympathetic Republicans are key to beginning a withdrawal from Iraq and bringing our troops home. We don’t yet have that veto-proof majority – but we need to get there.

If the Democrats pass a resolution to bring the troops home and end the war, President Bush will veto it and it will be little more than a hollow victory. That veto will be portrayed as partisan grandstanding. Just look at the coverage of past attempts.

I truly believe that the best and soonest way to end this tragic war is to work with open-minded Republicans to find an acceptable end date. That’s what I believe, and that’s what I will fight for.

WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATS FIX THE PROBLEMS?

Poor Nancy!

Any chance of the Democrats actually leading, at least in a meaningful way, on extricating the country from Bush's failed and catastrophic Iraq policies and agenda ended when the House Democratic caucus picked a corrupt and manipulative war supporter as Majority Leader. The choice between one of the most reactionary members of the Democratic caucus, Jack Murtha, a born-again, anti-occupation zealot, and the middle of the road hack who has supported Bush's overall Iraq policies, Hoyer, was a Hobson's choice from the moment it was presented. It was also a signal of what to expect from the Democrats: they'd be better than the Republicans, but not by all that much.

And we've had the type of Congress one could expect from one burdened with unimaginative, triangulating, Insider leaders like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. So not much has gotten accomplished. In fact, just the facts on the ground-- the Republicans' ability to kill all initiatives in the Senate through rampant obstructionism and the back up of Bush's veto power-- guarantee that not much would get accomplished. The capper was dictated by Nancy Pelosi-- who feels she didn't have the power to do otherwise-- when she took impeachment, or even the threat of impeachment, off the table.

Instead of bold leadership we get the drip, drip, drip of a crippled society's half measures as it gropes for consensus-- a consensus among those who were responsible for the crippling policies to begin with. So the big news today? Rubber stamp Republican Senator John Warner has some kind of a cockamamie plan for some troop withdrawals to prod the make-believe Bush puppet regime of the Greed Zone-- a plan that will probably prod most of them into moving up their time of abandoning Iraq for whatever post-quisling country they plan to live in. And, at the same time, you have one of Bush's pet generals, Peter Pace, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advising Bush that the party's over. In an assessment that will be at odds with the one the Regime is preparing for General BetrayUs to read to Congress next month, Pace wants Bush to withdraw at least half the U.S. forces.

Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.

According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. Still, the position of Pace and the Joint Chiefs could add weight to that of Bush administration critics, including Democratic presidential candidates, that the U.S. force should be reduced.

Is there a long range solution to these kinds of problems? Yes, and they involve more and better Democrats. Matt, Chris and Mike over at OpenLeft have launched an initiative to educate readers about Bush Dogs, Democrats who vote the Republican agenda. It's time for progressives to realize that the Democratic Party is a sometimes somewhat useful ally; that's all. And it's time for us to stop wasting our time and resources and energy on electing and re-electing "Democrats" who vote against Democratic values and with Bush and the Republicans. There are Democratic primary races coming up that pit progressives against reactionaries. You want to help make Congress better? Think about Darcy Burner (WA), Steve Cohen (TN), Donna Edwards (MD), John Laesch (IL), Rick Noriega (TX), Angie Paccione (CO), and Victoria Wulsin (OH).

This will never end, until we fix the Democratic Party:

RENZI THROWIN' IN THE TOWEL. ANYONE SURPRISED?

You shouldn't be. Speculation has been raging for months and very few incumbents relish the idea of running a campaign from a prison cell. And Rick Renzi (R-AZ) is most likely headed for one before the '08 election. He would have resigned already-- after the FBI and IRS raided his place and seized his papers-- but the Republicans begged him to stick it out because they're too broke to fight for his-- or Doolittle's-- seats in special elections now.

Yesterday's Washington Post carried a statement from Renzi calling it quits:

"I will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008," Renzi said in a brief statement released by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The Arizona Daily Star has the local angle and Roll Call fleshed it out a bit: "I will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008. I am honored and thankful to serve Arizona's first district and appreciate all that we have accomplished together over the past 6 years."

The Republicans, of course, are better off without him, and in that hot sun down there, plenty of easily brainwashed Republican voters will forget in a year and a half that Republicans are the party of organized crime. There are a few Democrats who have already jumped into the race. The Insider Establishment is rallying around State Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who I've heard nothing but crap about from my Arizona friends. The woman who ran last time (and held Renzi to a 51% share of the vote), Ellen Simon, told me on the phone she wasn't going to run again-- a real shame. The progressive who is taking up the challenge, however, Howard Shanker, sounds like a great guy.

I found an interview with Shanker in a local paper. The last question and his answer revealed a lot:

Democrats took hold of Congress in 2006 with the winds of change at their backs. How do you think they have performed, so far, and how difficult to you think it will be to actually change the entrenched business of politics once you're a House member?

Democrats took control of Congress but they still cannot override a Presidential veto. The Democrats have done some good (and some not so good) already. The impression I have is that some Democrats feel like they have to somehow pander to the right on various issues in order to stay in office. There is validity to the proposition that an elected official has to represent all of his or her constituents. There should, however, also be a number of issues that are important to any elected official (why else would they run) on which they take a specific and well enunciated stand that doesn't change unless presented with compelling facts that justify a change in position. I think that many of our Representatives may be missing, or sacrificing, some of this passion or commitment on issues like the war, the environment, alternative energy, fiscal responsibility, in exchange for political expediency. Compromise in Congress is essential, but like anything else, there has to be a good reason warranting any particular compromise or decision. It will likely be difficult to change the entrenched "politics as usual" once I am in office -- but not impossible and we need to start somewhere. As I discussed in response to one of your earlier questions, I represent environmental, Native American, civil rights, and community groups in litigation against the federal and state government on a regular basis. In other words, my chosen career path can be compared to banging your head against a wall for a living. I strongly believe that if you bang your head against a wall long enough, eventually the wall is going to break. Realistically, as a junior Congressman I could likely begin to chip away at "politics as usual" from the outside. Given enough grass roots support and a little time, however, I have no doubt that the wall will break.

The Republicans are likely to nominate someone even further to the right than Renzi, perhaps even an out and out maniac like Ken Bennett, a Mormon fanatic with a very bizarre history of family problems. Bennett's son Clifton "confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents, court documents show." Rumors have been rampant that his father the would-be congressman got him off the hook.

A YOU TUBE SEPPUKU MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE FITTING BUT THE WRETCHED DINESH D'SOUZA APOLOGIZED FOR HIS LATEST HOMPHOBIC OUTBURST TODAY

A male Ann Coulter forced to apologize

You probably know that there isn't a single member of Congress-- not in either house-- who is both an African American and a Republican. The Party, which can-- but won't-- boast having once elected the first African American senator in modern times, Ed Brooke (R-MA), is now completely captive of racist NeoConfederates. By January, 2009 it will be clearly recognized as a regional southern party with racist, xenophobic, Know Nothing sympathizers here and there outside the states that started the Civil War. But between now and then there will be a Republican convention and they don't usually parade their closeted KKK dragons in front of the national media. Instead they try to dig up some moderates... and some people of color, for their little minstrel show. They try to present themselves-- especially after the Buchanan fiasco-- to independents and the general public as a legitimate, all-American political party that can appeal to everyone.

There aren't all that many people of color they can turn to to shuck and jive for them. One sure shot though is a two-for-one, a person of color and an immigrant (a legal, very rich one). If you know who Dinesh D'Souza is at all, you probably remember that he's an extremely partisan far right author and commentator. He was born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1961. One of his first brushes with fame was when he was a 20 year old student at Dartmouth, already a vicious little homophobe, and he published the names of the officers of the Gay Student Alliance, many of whom were in the closet. He's widely dismissed as just a male Ann Coulter (an ex-girlfriend, as was Igraham), only he's uglier and takes himself more seriously. Most mainstream conservatives view him as a lightweight and a kook and he hasn't been taken seriously in quite a few years. He writes for AOL now.

I nearly blogged about an incendiary piece he wrote last month, Gays in the Military? Ask Cardinal Mahony. But then I realized he has no following and no one cares what drivel he's babbling so why bother giving him any publicity. I was wrong. AOL was flooded with complaints, as was Stanford's Hoover Institution, a radical right "think tank" that harbors hate mongers like D'Souza.

AOL pressured him and he was forced to send out an apology to their staff today. The note wasn't published but a DWT insider was happy to send it along.

August 23, 2007
 
To: AOL
 
From: Dinesh D'Souza
 
On July 16, 2007 I posted on my AOL blog an item titled "Gays in the Military? Ask Cardinal Mahony."  This item attributed to a friend in the military the view that "if the American military gets soundly whipped in a future engagement, we could always laugh off the defeat and say: well, yeah, but you only beat a bunch of gays."
 
This was an attempt on my part at humor, but clearly it misfired.  Upon reflection the item could easily be taken as showing a cavalier disregard for gays being harmed, and this was certainly not my intention.  Some readers also thought I equated pedophiles in the church with gays in the military. The mention of the two topics in the same post may unfortunately have given the false impression that I see no difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. This is not the case.
 
I can see why some readers were offended by the tone and content of this post.  Given the sensitivity of this subject, it was careless and insensitive on my part to have adopted such a derisive attitude at the expense of others' feelings.
 
I strongly believe that all people in this country are entitled to equal dignity and equal rights.  I will be more careful in the future.

I wonder if this guy has ever considered seeing a psychiatrist.

MEET STATE SENATOR JOHN UNGER, THE MAN WHO CAN FINALLY TAKE BACK WEST VIRGINA'S 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT FROM THE REPUBLICANS

My friend Clem Guttata writes for the respected blog West Virginia Blue. I was intrigued when he and several other West Virginia progressive activists tried to draft my pal Christy from FDL to run for the congressional seat being held by ineffective rubber stamp Republican Shelley Moore Capito. Christy doesn't live in the district and she passed-- but progressives have found another really excellent candidate, one who does live in the district, and represents much of it in the state senate. I asked Clem if he'd write up a report on this important race. He just sent this along:

West Virginia State Senator John Unger is a progressive Democrat who needs our support to successfully challenge vulnerable Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02). Early Netroots support can make a major difference in this race.

In early 2006, I moved to WV-02 and became an active volunteer for the Democratic challenger. Through our mutual efforts on that campaign I met Carnacki, a long-time district activist and well-known member of dailyKos. One major contribution WV-02 Dems made in '06 was forcing Rep. Capito to buy an easy win (57% of vote). She panicked, stopped funding other candidates and even held two fund-raisers in DC the last week of the election.

Still, it was a disappointing outcome here in the district. The challenger never had money to get his message out, the voters were once again duped and we're stuck with two more years of mis-leadership for WV-02.

The curse of Capito fell over our district in 2000 with the ill winds of Pres. George Bush's installation to office. Vulnerable Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito is the daughter of the former Rep., W.Va. Gov., and ex-con Arch A. Moore. Her path from college career counselor to W.Va. legislator to U.S. House was paved with her middle name. Like George Bush, it's long past time her public dis-service ended.

As a four-term incumbent, Capito has accumulated remarkable little power or prestige. Her greatest legislative accomplishments are founding the Civility Caucus and, just last month, passing a law making something already illegal, well, still illegal. Scratch behind the ear of any Republican Rep. under indictment, investigation, or incarceration and you'll find she's gladly received money from them (she was the single largest recipient of Tom Delay PAC funds) and her good friend Bob Ney is now sitting in a W.Va. prison.

A moderate-in-name-only, Capito has shown her true colors by supporting Bush in his greatest time of need. She has a nasty penchant to talk out of both sides of her mouth. She said she was against the surge, but refused to vote against it. She said she supports worker's rights, but refused to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act. She said she believes in oversight and accountability in Iraq, but votes against it.

The day after Election '06, Carnacki and I started actively laying the groundwork to knock her off this cycle. One thing missing in W.Va. was an online progressive voice--we started West Virginia Blue to help fill that void and sustain progressive candidates at all levels in W.Va.

We strongly endorse John Unger as a progressive voice for WV-02.

Unger is a rare combination of someone who was both the Netroots activists' and the DCCC's first choice. After West Virginia native Christy Hardin Smith spurned our efforts to draft her for the WV-02 race, we turned to recruiting W.Va. State Sen. John Unger. Carnacki lives in his district and has known him for several years.

Unger is newly introduced to the Netroots. He just recently read "Crashing the Gate" and has welcomed our support for his campaign. Since he announced, Carnacki and I have met with for extended dinner conversations lasting late into the night. He's comfortable meeting on our turf--the same Waffle House Carnacki and I meet at every few weeks to plot Capito's downfall!

Unger has already been a fast learner of one key Netroots lesson: fight back hard at baseless right-wing attacks. In an optimistic sign for 2008, when John Unger fired back at a smear attempt by the W.Va. GOP last month, the largest paper in the district called out the Republicans for their "hateful tactic".

Unger has a compelling personal biography. He was the first in his family to attend college yet he took time off from school to work with Mother Teresa in the slums of Calcutta. He's a Rhodes Scholar. In his 9 years as a State Senator he has passed hundreds of pieces of legislation. He's provided aid to refugees in Hong Kong and Turkey. In 2003, he spent 3 months in Iraq working with Save the Children. He's a person of compassion and competence. He has strong moral and intellectual integrity.

These experiences shape his political beliefs. Unger help deliver aid to the Kurds after the Gulf War in 1995 and aid to the Iraqis during our occupation in 2003. He advocates we turn Iraq over to the Iraqis and bring our troops home from Iraq immediately. Unger would be one of the few Reps. with on-the-ground experience in Iraq. [Perhaps the only one with NGO experience?] He knows there needs to be a political solution in Iraq, instead of a military solution.

He is a progressive Democrat--he embraces that label. John Unger's life experiences demonstrate his commitment to social and economic justice. He is strongly against any form of discrimination against anyone, including discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. In a recent meeting, he spoke with passionate about hate crimes being not just crimes, but crimes against humanity.

Unger is an accomplished legislator. Elected to the W.Va. Senate at age 28, he's been an independent, effective, results-oriented state senator. He's passed over 230 bills including the West Virginia Water Resources Protection Act, the Voluntary Farmland Protection Program and legislation that created the West Virginia Division of Energy. Unger is running on a platform of getting out of Iraq, energy independence, and universal healthcare. He's a bit of an economic populist. One of the best lines in his stump speech goes like: "if we can import food from communist China, and import cooking oil from a dictatorship in Venezuela why can't we import prescription medication from a democracy in Canada?"

These qualifications are in sharp contrast with vulnerable Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. The path to her mis-leadership was paved by her middle name. The path to John Unger's leadership was been paved with hard work, a strong moral core and exemplary competence.

Capito consistently prioritizes the needs of Pres. George Bush and the GOP "team" first. John Unger lives a life of public service, prioritizing the needs of constituents first. Crapito demagogues. Unger gets results.

In summary, John Unger is the kind of progressive Democrat that can win WV-02 this cycle. The field is clear for him in the Democratic primary. He needs financial support to get his progressive message out past the conservative-dominated state media. We're working hard every day to turn WV-02 from Red to Blue.

As strong as our candidate is, we face an uphill battle. The power of incumbency and a conservative-dominated state media is strong. Entrenched interests in West Virginia cross party lines. Still, we've got a real chance this cycle. We've got a smart hard-working candidate-- he just needs the resources to get the job done. This is our best shot. Unfortunately, if we don't unseat her now, Capito could maintain the seat for life.

Please help end the Bush-Capito reign in WV-02. Help send progressive Democrat John Unger to Washington in 2008. Your contribution of any size will make a difference.

Clem Guttata

WV-02 Volunteer Netroots Activist

West Virginia Blue

http://www.wvablue.com

WHO KNEW BUSH WAS A HISTORY PROFESSOR? IF HE WERE IT WOULD BE AT A BUY BULL COLLEGE IN THE CONFEDERACY

more a Vietnamese history scholar than a drag queen? You decide

Bush was allegedly in a coke hole for much of the Vietnam War, a war he "supported" but assiduously avoided, like most of the cronies and scumbags who make up his vile regime. Bush thinks other people should fight wars. Personally, he's a physical coward. Yesterday Crooks & Liars featured David Shuster's MSNBC analysis of Bush's infantile babbling comparing Vietnam and Iraq. But it wasn't just Shuster and the C&L crew laughing and sputtering over Bush's nonsense. Today's NY Times offers a look at how actual historians are looking at Bush's highly dubious claims.

Republican warmongers have never been happy that the American people demanded an end to the war of aggression against Vietnam, but, as the Times reminds us "The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war-- but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies." The far right's distorted interpretation of what happened infuses Bush's thinking reactions.

In reminding Americans that the pullout in 1975 was followed by years of bloody upheaval in Southeast Asia, Mr. Bush argued in a speech on Wednesday that Vietnam’s lessons provide a reason for persevering in Iraq, rather than for leaving any time soon. Mr. Bush in essence accused his war critics of amnesia over the exodus of Vietnamese “boat people” refugees and the mass killings in Cambodia that upended the lives of millions of people.

Bush neglects to mention that it was the America aggression in Southeast Asia that led to the creation of the murderous Khymer Rouge to begin with. But one historian points out that "The same thing has happened in the Middle East today. Foreign occupation of Iraq has created far more terrorists than it has deterred.”

Bush stepped even further off the cliff when he tried comparing his occupation of Iraq with American efforts in Germany and Japan after WWII. "But historians note that Germany and Japan were homogenous nation-states with clear national identities and no internal feuding among factions or sects, in stark contrast to Iraq today."

The comparison of Iraq to Germany and Japan “is fanciful,” said Steven Simon, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He noted that the American and allied militaries had eliminated the governments of Japan and Germany, and any lingering opposition, and assembled occupation forces that were, proportionally, more than three times as large as the current American presence of more than 160,000 troops in Iraq.

“That’s the kind of troop level you need to control the situation,” Mr. Simon said. “The occupation of Germany and Japan lasted for years-- and not a single American solider was killed by insurgents.”
Senior American military officers speaking privately also say that the essential elements that brought victory in World War II-- a total commitment by the American people and the government, and a staggering economic commitment to rebuild defeated adversaries-- do not exist for the Iraq war. The wars in Korea and Vietnam also involved considerable national sacrifice, including tax increases and conscription.

This morning's Washington Post points out that Bush's disingenuousness in drawing "an explicit link between Iraq and Vietnam comes as he seeks to marshal support for his war policy among Republicans and to blunt calls from Democratic members of Congress for a drawdown of U.S. forces in the coming months." I'm guessing most Americans would agree with Ted Kennedy when he pointed out that the ignorant and badly educated Bush "is drawing the wrong lesson from history." While Bush was doing everything he could to avoid going to Vietnam in the 60's, John Kerry was fighting in the jungles of Vietnam. Like his Massachusetts colleague, he pointed out that, as usual, Bush has gotten it wrong. “Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible," said Kerry, "as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars."

Even a relatively reactionary Democrat like Steny Hoyer, who has been a Bush enabler all along this disgusting episode, said that "If anything, an examination of history and the situation on the ground shows us the importance of creating a new direction in Iraq. We must initiate a strategic redeployment from Iraq so that we may focus our resources on the greatest danger-- the war on terror-- rather than keep our military mired in Iraq's sectarian war.”

Barak Obama, who, unlike most of the Democrats running for president, opposed the unprovoked attack on Iraq from the beginning, said that the “disastrous consequences described by President Bush are already in motion and are a direct result of a war that should never have been authorized.”

Obama added that Iraq’s problems cannot be solved through military means and that “the only way to reverse these consequences is to change course through a surge in our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Iraq and the region, and a phased withdrawal of our forces that puts real pressure on the Iraqi government to act.”

Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that Bush, “instead of providing the country with a history lesson... should be reevaluating his flawed strategies that have led to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history.”


BUSH GETS AN F IN HISTORY... AGAIN

No one ever increased George Bush of being a good student. His embarrassing school records are sealed, of course, but enough of his former teachers and fellow students have come forward to paint a picture of someone who was incurious, ignorant, and unconcerned. And yesterday the professor he quoted to shore up his idiotic statements comparing post-war Japan to Iraq said Bush's statement's were... idiotic.

A historian quoted by President Bush to help argue that critics of the administration’s Iraq policy echo those who questioned the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Japan after World War II angrily distanced himself from the president’s remarks Thursday.

“They [war supporters] keep on doing this,” said MIT professor John Dower. “They keep on hitting it and hitting it and hitting it and it’s always more and more implausible, strange and in a fantasy world. They’re desperately groping for a historical analogy, and their uses of history are really perverse.”

WHY DO SOME DEMOCRATS STILL BUY INTO REPUBLICAN IRAQ FRAMING?

Driving to the airport earlier I listened to Randi Rhodes and Democratic strategist Brent Budowsky. He was making a great deal of sense right up until I had to park my car and jump on the shuttle for the terminal. And when I got to my hotel, I found, essentially, much of what he told Randi in a story he penned this morning's Hill, Many Democrats Are Wrong On Iraq. That may sound like a no-brainer for normal grassroots Democrats and progressives but for the species of Dems who live Inside the Beltway and, more importantly, earn their livings by catering to Democratic conventional wisdom created by the likes of Harold Ford, Al From and other DLC corporatists, Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, the NeoCon think tanks, and the Clinton Machine, it is... heavy.

Beltway Democrats reflexively respond and react to Republican/DLC framing. That's what's making the Mahoneys and Bairds and McNerneys roadkill right now and it's what Randi wanted to address on her show with Budowsky, today. He knows better. The tragedy is that these foolish Democrats-- from an "ex"-Republican imbecile like Mahoney to a solid, if confused, progressive like McNerney-- are reacting based on the lie that violence in down in Iraq and Bush's escalation is something other than a disaster and catastrophe. Are wonder if someone is drugging them. They certainly don't seem to be paying much heed to the NY Times Op-Ed McNerney recommended yesterday by the 7 front line troops in Iraq, The War As We Saw It or by the incredible blog by Army of Dude. Why bother with the vagaries of sloppy reality when you can get a version all neatly packaged from the Regime, even if that Regime, its allies, enablers, and apologists have been wrong and continue to be wrong and are inherently incapable of not being wrong?

Confronted with an obsessed and intransigent president, Republicans in Congress who are endlessly submissive to presidential power and disastrous policies, and a Democratic national security establishment that is incoherent and careerist, the most likely outcome in September is this:

The president will win full support for the full escalation without any effective limitation in what would be the third disastrous Democratic failure in the new Congress, the first being its surrender on Iraq before the May recess, the second being its surrender on the Constitution before the August recess.

Budowsky reminds us that Bush's failed escalation should be opposed by Democrats. "Any success in Anbar is not because of the surge, but because of the deals made with Sunni insurgents who shortly before the deals were killing Americans, and who are now receiving American aid. This would have happened with or without the surge." And what makes it worse is that these are the kinds of short-sighted deals the U.S. military made with bin-Laden in Afghanistan. You know what that led too. It's hard to imagine that the Bush Regime doesn't.

Setting aside the moral and strategic issue of giving money and (directly or indirectly) weapons to those who were recently killing Americans, the end game of these deals depends on the end game of Iraqi politics.

If one believes, as I do, that the government of Iraq (no matter who is prime minister) is unable ever to reach a reconciliation that includes Sunnis and Shi’ites, the aid America is now giving to Sunni insurgents will ultimately be used to kill Shi’ites, and possibly Americans, in escalated sectarian war.

Bush's moronic statements today comparing the Iraq quagmire with the failure of America's war of aggression in Vietnam, basically calls for endless war based on a premise that if we don't stay there, our Iraqi quislings and collaborationists will be killed or be forced to flee and the country will degenerate into an even worse civil war than Bush has already caused.

You may not remember how the U.S. used to replace Vietnamese rulers, some of whom we had murdered. Watch the same pattern develop in Iraq.

Centuries of history prove the tendency, very deep in Iraqi society, not only to break apart, but to fight wars within itself, sectarian faction against sectarian faction.

This was known long before the war began, ignored by an ignorant president with the arrogance to believe that an aggressive preemptive war followed by a corrupt Roman-like occupation could prove history and demographics wrong. It was known by a fossilized, careerist, and incoherent Democratic national security establishment with too many who want to be secretary of state, and too few who combine clarity with political courage.

This was known yesterday; it is known today; it will be known tomorrow. The great issue is how many Americans must die before our policy matches the history, culture, politics and realities of the country we invaded so casually and are trapped in so catastrophically.

The situation today is identical to the various interludes of delusion throughout this war when progress was claimed to be right around the corner. The statue of Saddam fell; Saddam was captured; the Iraqi election was held; Zarqawi was killed. These were all short-term successes
that changed nothing, each met with crowing victory claims by the president, by incoherence from the Democratic security establishment, and by submission from the Congress. Each meant nothing in the end, except to provide rationale for the body count to rise while the carnage continued.

At every step, truth was falsified, false hopes were raised, and failure continued. At every step propaganda was used to create heroes, from Pat Tillman to Jessica Lynch-- legitimate heroes in real life, used as public-relations pawns with tissues of lies, deceptions and frauds.

You may recall me mentioning a few days ago, after my chat with Peter Beinart on a plane back from L.A., that the Democratic national security "experts" (remember, I favor Jane's 3 poodles over the whole lot of them) worship-- for no discernible reason I can figure out-- at the alter of General Petraeus. As Budowsky correctly put it "Our current commander, Gen. Petraeus, is a great military thinker from a great military organization, the 101st Airborne, with a near-perfect record of failure in Iraq. His original efforts early in the war led to ultimate sectarian conflict within his regional command. His next mission for training Iraqis to 'step up so we step down' was terribly failed, obviously. He allowed American weapons to fall into the hands of our enemies through mismanagement during his tenure... a record in Iraq that was so failed and flawed that only in the George Bush era would such a record be deified, and only with such incoherence from the Democratic national security establishment and such insiderism and laziness from the major media could such a deification of past failures be accepted."

I don't expect Republicans and the worst and most reactionary of the Democrats, the ones who have enabled Bush from Day One, to declare all this to be a "success." Real Democrats should stand with the people of this country who grow more furious by the day over this disconnect with Insider's and their pigheadedness and ignorance and obstinance. It's time to end the occupation of Iraq. In fact, it's long passed time. If the Democrats don't do it, they will have earned the opprobrium headed their way.

JAMIE ELDRIDGE-- A REAL PROGRESSIVE: THE ELECTION IS SEPTEMBER 4

The newest member of Congress is Laura Richardson, who won a landlside victory yesterday in a special election to replace deceased progressive Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA). The Republican opponent won nearly 25% of the vote. The next special election (September 4) will be for the seat being vacated by Massachusetts congressman Marty Meehan. Blue America endorsed the most effective progressive in the race, Jamie Eldridge. Jamie will be spending much of tomorrow taking questions at Daily Kos (9am- 6pm, EDT).

From the start of this campaign, Jamie has proven himself to stand head and shoulders-- literally and figuratively-- above the other candidates looking to replace Meehan, most notably through the heavy lifting he has done in support of universal, single-payer healthcare. The solution to our national health care crisis lies not in moderation and compromise, but in bold leadership that will stand up for our Democratic values. That describes Jamie-- bold leadership. Jamie also will fight to end the war in Iraq now, reform how the federal government pays for public education and work to ensure fair trade over free trade which all too often leaves the American worker behind.

Jamie's grassroots campaign has gained the support of Democracy for America and the Progressive Democrats of America, along with 18 labor unions and 33 of his colleagues in the Massachusetts House and Senate. When Jamie ran for State Representative in 2002, he was the only Clean Elections candidate elected in Massachusetts history. For more details on Jamie's plans, check out his website or ask him about it tomorrow on Daily Kos!

And if you'd like to assist his efforts in a more direct way, the Jamie Eldridge Blue America page is open (24/7).

WHO WILL OFFER TANCREDO THE VP SLOT FIRST-- ROMNEY OR GIULIANI?

Giuliani's and Romney's little hissy fits about who is more xenophobic and anti-immigrant and  a better mirror image of the Republican Party's Know Nothing base is threatening to blow up into a major brawl. A story on it in today's Wall Street Journal, begins by asking "Are Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani competing for the Republican Presidential nomination, or for the job of vacation replacement for Lou Dobbs?" And the answer, regarding these two who felt the CNN/YouTube debate wasn't dignified enough for them is that "It's hard to tell these days as the candidates attempt to one-up each other's anti-immigration rhetoric."

Uncharacteristically, the Journal damns both Republicans, although clearly tilts away from Flip Flop Mitt as the worse of two evils.

Mr. Romney has faulted the former New York City mayor for not directing the local police to harass illegal-alien janitors, cooks and bus boys, thus making the Big Apple a so-called "sanctuary city" for the undocumented. Mr. Romney apparently doesn't think the NYPD has anything better to do with its time, though given the record drop in violent crime during the Giuliani years, which coincided with an increase in immigrants to the city, he might reconsider that notion.

Mr. Giuliani has responded by slouching toward Tom Tancredo, unveiling plans to tackle the immigration problem with ID cards, physical barriers and patrols along the Mexican border. But Mr. Giuliani's previous support for these newcomers, who've helped to revitalize New York over the past two decades, makes his more recent rhetoric seem like a gambit to neutralize Mr. Romney's appeals to the restrictionist right. At least Mr. Giuliani still stresses his interest in giving foreigners more opportunities to enter the U.S. lawfully.

Both candidates, however, ignore the reality that more security measures will have limited effect if not paired with a guest worker program that gives foreign nationals more legal ways to access job offers in the U.S. The same goes for the Bush Administration's recently announced plans to step-up "interior" enforcement. Taking U.S. employers to the woodshed won't fix the illegal immigration problem, and it could do real economic harm.

Remember, despite the neo-fascist editorial page, the Wall Street Journal, in the end, is a mouthpiece for the Greed and Selfishness wing of the GOP. They represent the interests of the moneyed class and Big Business. Immigration for these folks is always cheap labor. Slavery would be preferable but too crude to speak of openly in polite society.

Yesterday's NY Times featured Romney on the rampage against Rudy over their immigration mud wrestling match. Flip Flop has a new attack ad out accusing Giuliani of "flouting immigration laws" while he was mayor. Giuliani claims Romney did the exact same thing in Massachusetts.

Lost amid the back and forth on this issue between the two camps is that both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney have moved significantly rightward in their tone on the immigration issue over the years to the point that they are now trying to out-tough each other.

Back in 2005, Mr. Romney spoke positively in a Boston Globe interview about comprehensive immigration reform proposals being floated by Senator John McCain and President Bush that were quite similar to the Senate measure that failed so spectacularly this year and that he had harshly criticized.

And from his vantage point at City Hall, Mr. Giuliani often defended illegal immigrants and advocated measures to ease their path to citizenship.

But the politics of the debate has shifted dramatically, becoming one of the dominant issues among Republicans seeking their party’s nomination, and the two candidates have adjusted accordingly.

If Giuliani and Romney sound-- even unconvincingly-- more and more like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, it's because they've watched McCain's front-runner status turn to dust, not because of his extremist position on the occupation of Iraq-- the GOP base (though no one else) likes that-- but because of his somewhat moderate position on immigration reform. In fact, the Arizona media reported yesterday that this race is likely to be his last hurrah. "A new statewide survey shows that if the Senate election were held today, the Republican incumbent would be defeated by Gov. Janet Napolitano-- that is, if Napolitano would choose to run for the seat. The Democrat governor cannot seek a third term... If they went head to head, Napolitano would get 47 percent of the vote, compared to 36 percent for McCain, according to the poll."

PSYCHOPATHIC REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE THREATENS GOVERNOR SPITZER'S ELDERLY FATHER

The Roger & Nydia Stone Family

Earlier today a blogger friend from upstate New York was telling me about someone he said was the sickest, meanest Republican north of the Beltway. It was about some Rove-inspired dirty trick he had played on a congressional candidate last year. A few hours later I got an e-mail entitled "Speaking of the Devil." It was a link to a NY Times story about Eliot Spitzer's 83-year old father, Bernard, being threatened by an obviously deranged Republican consultant-- the same vicious GOP operative he had been telling me about, Roger Stone.

The Times includes an mp3 so you can hear the actual call from Stone to the governor's dad. The Times also includes a warning: "Includes Strong Language." But don't worry, if you're a regular DWT reader, you've heard worse. Give it a listen. Stone, being a Republican, denies it all. The Times describes him, generously, as "a seasoned practitioner of hard-edged politics who has worked for Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan and for George W. Bush in the 2000 recount battle, adamantly denied the allegation in an interview, calling it “the ultimate dirty trick.” He asserted that allies of Governor Spitzer may have gained access to his home phone to make the threatening call."

Stone, perhaps projecting standard GOP operating procedures onto Spitzer, says his apartment may have been busted into so the call could be made from there. "He said his apartment building on Central Park South is owned by H. Dale Hemmerdinger, a fund-raiser for Mr. Spitzer who is the governor’s nominee to be chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and suggested that allies of the governor might have given access to his apartment to someone who made the threatening call."

Mr. Stone said: “They have unfettered access to my apartment. I am on television constantly. As Gore Vidal said, never pass up the chance to have sex or be on television. Putting together a voice tape that sounds like me wouldn’t be hard to do.”

Mr. Stone said he could not remember where he was on the date of the purported call and had no specific evidence that his apartment had been entered without authorization. But he said he believed that things have been missing from his apartment recently.

UPDATE: THE STONES ARE ALLEGEDLY DIRTY, DIRTY PEOPLE

As soon as I saw that repulsive picture of Stone and Nydia I grabbed it off google. It just looked so gross and so much like the kind of people who would make anonymous threats to an 83 year old. Well, a friend of mine put the picture in context by sending me an old clipping from the Associated Press. The picture is from a far earlier, but no less icky scandal.

According to the New York tabloids, the Stone family thinks a family that goes to sex clubs together stays together. As with the latest accusations, Stone denied everything... of course. "The tabloids claim that Mr. Stone and his wife, Nydia, placed messages on an X-rated Internet site and ads in sex magazines seeking male and female partners. They said photographs of a shirtless Stone and his wife in a sexy black lingerie also appeared in one magazine... The Post quoted Mr. Stone as conceding that the bills for the postings on the Internet site were paid for with his credit card. He told the newspaper the post office box number listed on the Internet site belonged to him, but had been improperly obtained." Now doesn't that sound familiar!


NEW YORK STATE'S WORST REPUBLICROOK FINALLY RESIGNS; STILL NOT IN PRISON

Actually the NY State Senate Leader, Joseph Bruno, fired Stone, as "a distraction." He was distracting people away from Bruno's idiotic and slanderous agenda of attacking Gov. Spitzer and making them focus of what the Republican Party is.

ARMY OF DUDE WILL TELL YOU ALL THE STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAQ THAT THE BUSH REGIME DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

I was very impressed with Sunday's NY Times Op-Ed by the 7 guys from 82 Airborne, The War As We Saw It. It is so utterly devastating to the Bush Regime tissue of lies regarding the Iraq "surge," that the collaborationist traditional media has studiously avoided a discussion of this important document. I recommended it on Sunday and Congressman Jerry McNerney re-iterated that same point today.

But these 7 are hardly the only military men coming back from Iraq telling the truth about Bush's and BeTrayus' lies. They may be able to fool dummy congressmen like Boehner, Baird or Mahoney, but the guys on the ground ain't buyin' it. A DWT regular turned me on to a blog called Army of Dude, written by a guy stationed over in Iraq. He's not regurgitating Rovian talking points and he's not even just tip-toeing around the Greed Zone; he's reporting on how it is on the ground, a place George Bush's expensively clad footsies have never touched. Try this on for size:

Next month we’ll be the first unit home that completed a three month extension. We were one of few to see Iraq before and after the surge. If the media got anything right, it was that the surge failed. The idea, as birthed in a bloody, mucous-y blob of counter production by General Petreaus, is quite simple on paper, impossible to execute in a meddling reality. The concept is that combat troops would move from their huge bases that housed obscene luxuries like beds, flushing toilets and running water, and into outposts within the most dangerous parts of the city. The key to it all would be 24/7 interaction with Iraqi Army and a constant presence among the Iraqi citizens, giving them confidence in the mission of coalition forces. The building we picked used to be a whiskey distillery, and we’ve been busy putting up concrete barriers and wire around it. A house was too close to where the wall was supposed to be, so engineers blew it to smithereens and sent the family packing. The father owned the plot for forty years and comes by every so often to collect the useful bricks left scattered a hundred yards in every direction. Before he entered once, I patted his seventy year old frame down like a common criminal.

You want to know what's going on in Iraq? Forget the Petraeus Report the White House is writing. Read Army of Dude.

MODERATE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL WAY WAY BETTER THAN REPUBLICANS-- MEET KYLE FOUST

Sunday Blue America stirred up quite a controversy by endorsing our old friend, Steve Porter, for Congress in Pennsylvania's 3rd CD. Like last year he's running against rubber stamp Republican Phil English. But he's also running against whomever wins the Democratic primary, a primary Dr. Porter has twice won in the past. He won't be competing in the primary this year; he's disgusted with the Inside the Beltway Establishment and has decided to run as an independent. Many Blue America members cheered him on and others were certain that was a bad move that would guarantee another victory for the odious English. I highly recommend Sunday's very lively discussion with Steve Porter at FDL.

In the course of this, I was unkind to one of the Democrats running, Kyle Foust. He wrote and asked for an opportunity to give me his side of the story. "I take great offense to being called a 'hack politician, a Democratic rubber stamp wanna-be,'" he wrote. "I am a life long Democrat and the son of a former County Chairman and former County Councilman. I take my Democratic roots seriously and I hold the issues of the Democratic Party close to my heart." Here's the letter I wrote back to him:

We spoke on the phone a couple months ago when you called and told me about your plans to run for Congress. I speak to candidates on behalf of our PAC all the time, several a week, every week. Let me be frank: as highly as Steve Porter recommended you and as eager as I was to get behind your campaign I was, to put it mildly, severely underwhelmed by your grasp of the issues and your attitude towards the problems and opportunities facing the country and the Democratic Party. That is no excuse for name-calling and I feel badly that I referred to you as a hack and a rubber stamp wanna-be. I apologize for the name calling. I won't do it again.

This morning Kyle followed up with another letter and I asked him if it would be OK with him if I posted it here at DWT and he said sure:

Howie,

Thank you the your reply and your apology. The apology wasn't needed. I'll be honest, though. When Republicans call me names, it rolls off my back, but when Democrats and/or progressives do it, it hurts a little. Being in the public eye, however, exposes you to such things and I've grown somewhat accustomed.

I just wanted an opportunity to set the record straight a bit about how "real" of a Democrat I was. I saw your blog about Chris Carney and any comparison to him (to me) is way off base. I've built a solid reputation here in Erie County as someone who can work with Republicans while remaining true to my Democratic roots. As an old social science education graduate, I have a great appreciation for this Country and what the Republicans are, unfortunately, doing to it. I plan on going to Washington to help fix that.

However, I am no ideologue. I first got elected, and I continue to enjoy widespread support because I vote for things that are in the best interests of all my constituents; liberals, conservatives, Dems, and R's combined. I don't believe I can force my own ideology on the public anymore than I want some right wing nut forcing his or her ideology on me. Somewhere in the middle is where reasonable people meet to solve disputes and find solutions to problems. That is where I tend to me.

Having said that, I am a proud Democrat and I don't apologize for that to any one or any group. My Republican friends know this and respect this. They support me (along with many Democrats) because they know I have the public's interest in mind, not my party's.

When we spoke on the phone, it doesn't surprise me that I "underwhelmed" you with my responses. There are two reasons for that. One, I was just beginning the process of having to identify, more clearly, what my policy positions were. My responses to you, I'm sure, reflected that.I am no policy expert but I think I have a pretty solid inner compass to help me find my way. The second reason our phone call may not have been as positive as it could have been is that I am a very guarded person about my feelings to strangers. I really didn't know much about you or Firedog at the time. The last thing I wanted was to say something inarticulate and then have it posted on the web so that Phil English could use it later on in a commercial or whatever. This guy is a pathologically vicious campaigner and I don't want to hand him any material. The Republicans have already come at me to bloody me up so I know they'll use whatever they can get.

You were correct about one thing in your blog about me-- I do oppose public financing for elections. We have great social problems in this country that need to be solved; health care, drug addiction, domestic abuse, public education, just to name an important few. We need to marshal our resources toward those problems and the solutions for them. I don't want to subsidize the slander that goes into elections. I argued with Steve Porter over this issue and reminded him that public financing will not eliminate a persons incentive to influence policymakers, it will only change the means by which it is done. We need to elect people who have the will and the backbone to resist such pressure and do what is right. As I've said earlier, I've developed a pretty solid reputation as someone who has done that locally and, if I'm fortunate enough, I plan on conducting myself in a similar fashion in DC.

Thanks again for your reply and your apology. Take care.

Kyle

LESLIE SOUTHWICK-- BUSH'S LATEST CORPORATE TOOL HEADED FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY WHILE DEMOCRATS MUTTER IN THE BACKGROUND... OR CHEER

Bush's latest racist, gay-bashing corporatist nominee

Dianne Feinstein disgraced herself a couple of weeks ago by abandoning Democrats attempting to derail Bush latest hideous judicial appointment. Today's Washington Post carries a clear explanation of what Feinstein actually did and how wrong she was, in an Op-Ed by Alliance for Justice's Nan Aron, An Unjust Judge.

To understand the furor over President Bush's nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, one should start with the Goode family of Mississippi.

A propane heater exploded in their house, killing their granddaughter. The Goodes sued the manufacturer. After the trial, new evidence emerged demonstrating that the company had provided inaccurate information about servicing the heater. Yet, in a dissenting opinion, Southwick argued that the Goodes didn't deserve a new trial.

And that really is just the start. Toxic chemicals at the workplace causing workers' illness. Southwick says "Tough luck, commie bastard. Go die quietly." That Southwick is a vicious racist is something the Bush Regime expects the Senate to overlook because it's part of the "culture" of Mississippi. The only Democrat who seems to have bought into this was Feinstein.

Why are so many unions opposed to Southwick? Because Southwick voted against the interests of injured workers and consumers in divided decisions 89 percent of the time. Why are civil rights groups opposed? Because he also voted overwhelmingly -- 54 of 59 times -- against defendants alleging juror discrimination. That prompted his own colleagues on the Mississippi Court of Appeals
to accuse him of "establishing one level of obligation for the State, and a higher one for defendants on an identical issue." Southwick, they charged in a dissent, placed his "stamp of approval on the arbitrary and capricious selection of jurors."

...A nominee's record is the best predictor of what he or she will do on the bench. Southwick's record predicts that those in the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction have much to fear regarding their legal rights and protections. Moreover-- and overlooked by the Post-- the patterns in Southwick's record fit this administration's pattern of behavior. For with the assistance of conservative activists, allies in the Senate and in well-funded interest groups, and the amen chorus of commentators such as Will, George W. Bush has appointed a succession of appellate judges who will serve his administration's ideological agenda long after he has left office.

Will the new Democratic majority in the Senate continue the policy of the past several years of rubber stamping all of Bush's worst judicial nominations, packing the courts with virulent right-wing activists? With Democrats like Feinstein, Baucus, the 2 Nelsons and Landrieu, probably yes. That is why it is so crucial to defeat the fake moderate next year in Senate races from Maine to Oregon. Senate races in 2008 will highlight candidates' judicial nominations records. Rubber stamp Republicans like Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, John Cornyn, Gordon Smith, John Warner, Mitch McConnell, Larry Craig, James Inhofe, John Sununu, Lamar Alexander and Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domineci are exactly what we don't need in the U.S. Senate. Blue America has already endorsed two solutions to that problem-- Tim Allen (D-ME) and Rick Noriega (D-TX)-- two Democrats who will be nothing like Susan Collins, John Cornyn... or Dianne Feinstein.

JERRY McNERNEY CLARIFIES HIS IRAQ POSITION

Last night we talked about Democrats who who have gone over to the Greed Zone and been razzled and dazzled by the Bush Regime's siren song of military success. Republican-in-Democrat's clothing Tim Mahoney (FL) and Brian Baird (WA) seem lost to the cause of reason and a few days ago, highly respected blogger Babaloo wondered aloud whether Netroots hero Jerry McNerney (D-CA) hadn't also drank the Kool Aid. Returning from a trip to Baghdad he issued a confusing statement.

After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he’ll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home. “I’m more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,” McNerney said.

Reading it made me wonder if McNerney was jetlagged or ddrugged when he said it. Today he issued a clarification.

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date ("date certain") and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an "open-ended" timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

Jerry urged Americans to carefully read The War As We Saw It, an Op-Ed that appeared in Sunday's NY Times, written by 7 military men stationed in Iraq which puts all the Bush Regime propaganda efforts to the lie.

Jerry's blog has his full explanation and he sent the following note to the Blue America community:

Thank you to everyone at FDL, Crooks & Liars and DWT for always taking the time to let me know your concerns about Iraq and many of the other difficult issues facing us as Americans. You stood behind me when I ran for Congress against Richard Pombo and I hope you'll stand behind me now as the debate on the war heats up again in Congress.

As soon as I get a chance, I would enjoy live-blogging again with all of you and Howie on Blue America. In the meantime, if you have thoughts you would like to share with me and our community, please post a comment on my blog or privately to the "Contact Us" section of our campaign web site.

UPDATE: BABALOO SAYS SHE'S RELIEVED. IF SHE IS, WE ALL ARE

Babaloo, who was instrumental in helping Jerry gather netroots support for his race originally, called on him to clarify his stand. She's looked it over and says she's relieved.


IS McNERNEY SCHIZOPHRENIC? DID THEY GIVE HIM SOME KIND OF DRUG IN THE GREED ZONE?

This from today's Washington Post:

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."

"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

He doesn't accept that the Bush Regime is the enemy.

BUSH ECONOMY HAS BEEN GREAT... FOR 11,433 AMERICANS (OUT OF 134 MILLION TAXPAYERS)-- AND FOR CHINA

One of the many media lies repeated ad infinitum as though someone were trying to make it part of conventional wisdom, usually comes framed as a question or complaint. I heard it a day or two ago on a talk show. Some numbingly stupid right wing propagandist (a creep like Larry Kudlow) was whining about how Bush doesn't get credit for the "great economy." What great economy? The one in China? OK, Bush and Mitch McConnell certainly deserve lots of credit for the great growth of the Chinese economy; no one has done more to enrich China, a country his father has billions of dollars in business in, than Bush (and very much at our expense, and with the help of another person grown fabulously wealthy of the China trade, McConnell). But that isn't what they ever mean. They mean the economy here, the one in the U.S.

Now, to be fair, to the Bush family, their retainers and campaign contributors, and to multimillionaires, the economy is indeed a godsend. But what about for the rest of us? According to today's NY Times... not so much.

Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.
While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income in 2005 was $55,238, still nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new tax statistics show.

What a coincidence! 2000? Wasn't that the year the Supreme Court elected Bush president and his rogue regime grabbed power and let corporations start writing laws? Cause as badly as regular folks have faired under Bush, those corporations have just been raking in the dough, which has been very nice for corporate upper management (AKA, the Bush aristocracy).

And Bush has managed to achieve what no other contemporary president has, not even his feeble father. While income for, ordinary Americans has dropped every single year that Bush has been in power, "total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945."

So who has been benefiting from this "roaring economy" Bush apologists and propaganda agents are always whining about. Well, out of the 134 million American taxpayers, 11,433 got a whopping 28% of all the tax savings from Bush's tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy program. That's nearly $2 million each. I bet they're happy he was elected appointed, even if he's leaving the country in ruin.

The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.

These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.
People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003, according to a separate analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a group that points out policies that it says favor the rich.

... The nearly 90 percent of Americans who make less than $100,000 a year saved on average $318 each on their investments. They collected 5.3 percent of the total savings from reduced tax rates on investment income.

About half of all Americans make less than $30,000 a year and about 2/3 of all Americans make under $50,000 annually. That's tough, especially with government services withering away (think Grover Norquist and his bath tub) and with corporations running roughshod over consumers and workers with no government protection. Most Americans know that regardless of what they say inside the Beltway, inflation is very real and a huge factor in everyone's lives for which small price increases matter a great deal.

And that's where the disconnect is between the whiners who say Bush doesn't get enough credit for the great economy and... reality, at least the reality for the vast, vast majority of ordinary Americans. "The fact that average incomes remained lower in 2005 than five years earlier helps explain why so many Americans report feeling economic stress despite overall growth in the economy. Many Americans are also paying a larger share of their health care costs and have had their retirement benefits reduced, adding to their out-of-pocket costs."

Bush's economic and social policies, like all of his other policies, are utter failures and a catastrophe for the hopes and dreams of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. Trickle down economics has never worked before and it has worked worse under Bush than under any previous dishonest  purveyors of what his father, in one of his last moments of good sense, called "Voodoo Economics."

And while Bush's Regime has been busy with an upward redistribution of wealth-- a reverse Robin Hood Regime-- they are constantly fighting to do all they can to make the lives of ordinary Americans less and less livable. I hope you saw yesterday's story in the Times about how they are working overtime to scuttle the plan Congress passed to expand health care for children. "The Bush administration," writes Robert Pear, "continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families... After learning of the new policy, some state officials said today that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children by imposing standards that could not be met." And that, of course, is the idea. And anyone voting for any Republican for any office anywhere at any time-- or for a Bush Democrat like Chris Carney (PA), John Barrow (GA), Jim Costa (CA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Melissa Bean (IL), Leonard Boswell (IA), Al Wynn (MD), Jim Cooper (TN), or Mike Ross (AR), to name a few-- is voting for exactly this. As my old school teacher used to say, to be forewarned or to be forearmed. If you're feeling armed today, take a look at our Blue America page. You can absolutely close your eyes and point and you'll hit someone who wants to restore a proper balance between the unbridled power of Big Business and ordinary people, who have, in the past, been protected by their government. If you want my suggestions, though-- there are tough primaries in the offing for proven progressives like Darcy Burner (WA), Steve Cohen (TN), Donna Edwards (MD), John Laesch (IL), Rick Noriega (TX), Angie Paccione (CO), and Victoria Wulsin (OH). If you were to donate $20 and hit the button that says share equally between those candidates, each of them would get $2.86. It's on contributions like that that Blue America raised $545,000 last year and helped win seats for 13 new members of Congress. It's a good investment, Forego Starbucks for a day.

SOME DEMOCRATS TRAVEL TO THE GREED ZONE AND LOSE SIGHT OF THE BALL

If you believe Bush was fairly elected in 2000, you may also believe his puppet government in Iraq is also a democracy. But you'd be wrong. Today two haughty Inside-the-Beltway establishmentarians, one from each of the Insider political parties-- the terrible one and the less terrible one-- returned from Iraq demanding we exchange Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for a better model. The Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking Republican on the committee, John Warner spent a few minutes in the Greed Zone, and came back warning that "in the view of politicians in Washington, and of the American people, 'time has run out' on attempts to forge a political consensus in Baghdad."

Does this mean that Levin and Warner have finally come to their senses and are demanding the impeachments of Cheney and Bush? Not on your life! "Mr. Levin said that in his view, the political stalemate in Iraq could be attributed to Mr. Maliki and other senior Iraqi officials who were unable to operate independently of religious and sectarian leaders. 'I’ve concluded that this is a government which cannot, is unable to, achieve a political settlement,' Mr. Levin said. 'It is too bound to its own sectarian roots, and it is too tied to forces in Iraq which do not yield themselves to compromise.'”
Levin, from Tel Aviv no less, called on the Iraqi Parliament to oust Maliki. His choice of venues alone was sure to shore up support for Maliki from the ridiculous government of the Greed Zone.

Warner stopped short of calling for Maliki's ouster but he agreed with Levin the Rove's talking points about Iraq make sense.

“While we believe that the ‘surge’ is having measurable results, and has provided a degree of ‘breathing space’ for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises which are essential for a political solution in Iraq, we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises,” the joint statement said.

Tomorrow's Washington Post calls Levin's statement "the most forceful call for leadership change in Iraq from a U.S. elected official."

These congressional fact finding missions to the Greed Zone are colossal wastes of money and energy and of no value whatsoever. Yesterday's report by 7 military men stationed in Iraq in the NY Times is worth more than what every damn senator has had to say since the start of this catastrophe. "The tours, carefully conducted by the Defense Department, generally include visits to the Green Zone for consultations with U.S. and Iraqi officials, trips to forward operating bases and joint security stations involved in Petraeus's new counterinsurgency program, and heavily guarded tours of open markets, often in Anbar province, where a U.S. alliance with Sunni sheiks has calmed the region."

A few easily fooled imbeciles like Washington Congressman Brian Baird have been impressed and have switched to the Cheney Coalition. He now says he will not vote for any future withdrawal timelines. "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one," Baird said, "and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region." He seems to have forgotten that Bush's unprovoked war of aggression and occupation of the country has already had not a potentially catastrophic effect, but an actual one-- on the region and beyond. The citizens of southern Washington should through him the hell out of office. "Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability."

Similar reactions have come from a Republican in Democratic clothes, Tim Mahoney (FL), which was totally predictable even as Rahm Emanuel was strong-arming a real Democratic candidate, Dave Lutrin, out of the way so he could out Republican closet case Mark Foley and insert newly minted "Democrat" Mahoney in his place, where he would help Emanuel and Hoyer get better parking spots and bigger offices-- while voting his heart for the GOP agenda. Less predictable was the response from Jerry McNerney (CA), an actual Democrat who seems to have drunk the Kool Aid in Baghdad. We're waiting for a clarification from him.

Will the Iraq Campaign have to start running ads like this one against Democrats? I think so.

MITCH McCONNELL IN TROUBLE BACK HOME-- AND THERE ISN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT OPPONENT YET!

All these Inside the Beltway prognosticators are always putting up their predictions about which Senate and House are vulnerable and which are "safe." These folks are so conservative and out of touch that they are virtually always wrong. Normally they trail reality by several months. It drives me nuts when big DC organizations quote them when allocating funds to candidates. A few days ago I was reading one of the lists of safe Senate seats complied by one of these Einsteins. Mitch McConnell was rated as a sure hold for the Republicans. And McConnell may win his seat again in 2008-- but I wouldn't bet on it; and "safe" is far from what that race should be rated by anyone whose been awake in the last year.

Even today's Moonie Times recognizes that McConnell's base of support has all but eroded away as he played the role of Bush's chief obstructionist in the Senate. McConnell has managed to lead filibusters against every piece of progressive legislation passed in the House-- and then call the Congress a "Do Nothing Congress." The man has no shame. But the reasons he has less and less backing in Kentucky are for other things.

He and his wife, Bush's anti-labor Labor Secretary are practically lobbyists for China and are huge boosters for shipping American jobs-- even Kentucky jobs, like in the case of the Fruit of the Loom factory in Campbellsville-- and for the free importation of poisonous and deadly Chinese products into America. McConnell and his wife-of-convenience have become extremely wealthy since entering government service. Like so many Republican members of Congress, public service has been an absolute gold mine. Some, like Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney are already in prison. It is likely that they will be followed by the entire Alaska congressional delegation, the former Republican House Majority Leader (Tom DeLay), John Doolittle (R-CA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), and as many as a dozen other egregiously crooks GOP lawmakers.

But McConnell has plenty to worry about before his corruption comes to the fore. Everyone is always asking for proof he was thrown out of the military for fondling a private's privates. Looks like that will be available soon, something that is bound to be uncomfortable for a homophobic hypocrite like McConnell. You can rest assured the Washington Times doesn't bring that up. Instead they talk about the growing unpopularity of Bush's Iraq occupation, which is largely associated, as it should be, with McConnell (see video below). In fact, many Kentucky Republicans are urging Larry Forgy to challenge McConnell in the primary.
Forgy knows that McConnell's weakest point isn't so much that he's in bed with other men or with Bush, but that he's in bed with China.

"The average Kentuckian feels we are giving away this country with both hands-- jobs are going, essentially the primacy of the people who made this country great is going, and Mitch McConnell is lumped with the Washington types on this," Mr. Forgy said.

"And the war in Iraq is less troublesome in Kentucky than in many other places, but it is not popular here, and Republican voters see Mitch's views as too close to the president's on the war," said Mr. Forgy, a Lexington lawyer.

... McConnell registered a 48 percent approval rating last month in a SurveyUSA poll.

Not a single Republican Senator was re-elected last year with a SUSA approval below 50% a year before the election. Jim Talent (R-MO), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Macacawitz Allen (R-VA) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) were all defeated, some with approval rating higher than McConnell's. And McConnell has been the ultimate Bush Regime rubber stamp, not just on Iraq and Bush's devastating trade policies, but also on immigration, a very unpopular stand among Republicans in Kentucky.

A county party chairman who supports Mr. McConnell but asked not to be identified said Mr. McConnell's re-election next year is uncertain -- despite the Capitol Hill clout he brings Kentucky -- unless he shows the folks back home he understands their distrust of Washington on enforcing immigration laws.

The chairman said he has tried to tell Mr. McConnell that he needs to assure the party's base that he opposes Mr. Bush's immigration bill.

The Kentucky Republican Party, torn by the immigration issue, was further fractured when critics claimed Mr. McConnell had acted behind the scenes to back an ultimately unsuccessful primary challenge by former Rep. Anne Northup against Gov. Ernie Fletcher earlier this year. The Fletcher faction of the state Republican Party is backing the "draft Forgy" campaign.

CHRIS CARNEY-- A DEMOCRAT GONE BAD, REALLY BAD

Chris Carney-- worse than Joe Lieberman?

This weekend Pennsylvania Congressman Chris Carney said his personal choice for the next president of the United States would be Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (NE). On substantive matters Hagel and Carney have very similar voting records: extreme right. Let me come back to that in a moment though. Carney's endorsement of the right wing Republican-- someone who has supported abolishing Roe v Wade, who has voted for every single Bush judicial nomination, regardless of how extreme, who opposes equality for minorities, who has never met a corporate subsidy he didn't embrace, who is always wrong on the environment, fair taxation, education, medical care, etc-- comes just as the DCCC is urging grassroots Democrats to contribute money to Carney's re-election campaign.

While Carney was cutting down a potential Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton ("Certainly we are not Hillary Clinton. We don't govern like she does."), DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen had prioritized Carney's re-election. Interviewed by Brett Lieberman for the local Patriot News Carney and Van Hollen tried to make a case for his re-election. (The full and unedited version of the story appears on the Pennsyltucky Politics Blog.) Carney is a master triangulator, demonizing the Democratic Party and Democratic values at every turn.

"I'm not beholden to (Republican leader) John Boehner. I'm not beholden to Nancy Pelosi. I'm beholden to the people of the 10th district," he said.

But that independence has also angered some of the liberal groups that helped raise money and work to elect Carney.

"There's a lot of people in the blogosphere who would like him to lose his seat as a lesson for candidates who come in and lie to us and try to get our money.....he lied to us," said Howie Klein, a blogger on the progressive Firedoglake Web site.

"I think that would be shooting ourselves in the foot," said U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "It would be self-defeating for people who helped Chris Carney to turn their backs on him now because the fact of the matter is he's been a very effective member of Congress."
"These are independent members of Congress...does that mean sometimes they are not going to vote exactly the way the democratic leadership wants to go on an issue, yes, but that's why their constituents elected them," Van Hollen, D-Md., said.

Klein's group planned to stay quiet despite Carney's having what they viewed as one of the worst records in Congress until he allied himself with what Klein calls "a bunch of horrid homophobes" and voted against the hate crime bill that he said the congressman promised during the campaign to support.
"It makes many of our contributors says what difference is it if we had Sherwood in there," he said.
The group's Blue America PAC that raised $545,000 for progressive candidates wants Carney to refund $8,210 raised for him.

Carney denied misleading the group and said it was naïve on their part to think he would vote 100 percent in sync with their views.

You may have read about Blue America's dispute with Carney. When he was running for office he lied to us about his stance on key issues and 722 of our members contributed to his successful campaign against Republican incumbent Don "The Choker" Sherwood. As soon as Carney was elected he started voting just the way Sherwood would have. We were astounded that we helped elect an out-and-out, across-the-board reactionary. But we know better than to think just because you donate some money to a candidate they'll vote your way. We just watched with dismay as Carney's voting record got worse and worse and worse with each passing week. It was soon clear he was headed right for Joe Lieberman country. On contested substantive matters he was almost always with the Republicans. But it wasn't until the Hate Crimes bill came up for a vote-- a bill he had specifically promised to support-- that we decided to go public. Because then it was a matter of character as well as values. Carney had lied to us. While 2 dozen mainstream conservative Republicans crossed over and voted for equality with the Democrats, just Carney and 13 of the most reactionary and homophobic Democrats voted against the bill.

Now anyone who decides how to vote based on getting fancier offices and better parking spots for big-time Democrats like Pelosi, Emanuel, Hoyer and Van Hollen, might want to consider supporting Carney despite his atrocious voting record and his constant tearing down of the Democratic Party. But if you're the kind of Democrat for whom issues matter, a vote for Chris Carney is like a vote for Don Sherwood... only without the choking.

There is no progressive running against Carney. There are progressives running against other reactionary Democrats in primaries. We're always adding to our Blue America list of progressives and we invited you to support the men and women listed there. A progressive challenging a Democratic reactionary incumbent right now is Donna Edwards (who is opposing the corrupt corportae tool Al Wynn in Maryland). Other progressives locked in primary races against reactionaires and opportunists include Victoria Wulsin (OH-02), Angie Paccione (CO-04), John Laesch (IL-14), and Darcy Burner (WA-08). And crusading progressive Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09) is being challenged by the odious and right-wing/DLC Harold Ford Machine in Memphis. Can you think of splitting $10 between these worthy progressives who won't just be run-of-the-mill Democrats who are a little better than rubber stamp Republicans?