HOW BUSH LOST AFGHANISTAN... AND WHY

Bush's failure at Tora Bora set the tone for the rest of his disastrous presidency

After college I went abroad and lived overseas for over 6 years. Since then I've spent at least a month outside of the U.S. every year. In my spare time, I do a Travel Blog about my travels. And when people ask me to name my all-time favorite places I've been, I always include Afghanistan, which I visited twice-- in the 60s and 70s. It isn't a place I would recommend anyone visit these days.

Last month I was waiting on line at the New Delhi Airport when I heard an announcement about the arrival of a plane from Kabul. A few days later I found out that the pomegranate seeds I was having as part of my breakfast everyday were being flown in daily from Afghanistan, a new cash crop to replace opium. But while I was away Afghanistan wasn't in the news because of pomegranate seeds, but because of the disastrous turn of events there this year.

A bipartisan group of senators didn't have tourism or pomegranate seeds in mind this morning when they voiced "concern" about Afghanistan. Republican foreign affairs maven Richard Lugar summed up nicely: "The overall situation in Afghanistan remains grave."

Saul Landau would probably call Lugar a Pollyanna. His essay in today's Counterpunch doesn't pull any punches on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan-- The Next Disaster.

In mid January, Bush dispatched 3,200 additional marines to Afghanistan. Curiously, the uncurious media didn't ask why US and NATO forces continue to fight there. Nation Building? With little or no budget for reconstructing the country?

Junior partners, the British leaders, haven't learned lessons any better than their Yankee counterparts. Defense Minister Des Browne predicted British troops could stay there for "decades." Did he not learn that from 1839 to 1842 British troops fought in Afghanistan so they could take that sphere away from Russia? Now, NATO makes war there, says Browne, to insure that it would not again "become a training ground for terrorists threatening Great Britain."

In the 19th Century, the British Empire suffered disastrous losses when it invaded Afghanistan and erected a puppet regime in Kabul-- just as the United States did (Hamid Karzai) after Bush's 2001 invasion. The puppet fell quickly when the British could not quell resistance. By 1842, Afghan mobs attacked Englishmen who remained in Kabul. The British army retreated toward India, its officers believing they had negotiated safe passage. Afghan "insurgents" slaughtered some 16,000 English soldiers.

Actually the Afghans slaughtered every member of the retreating British Army but one person they allowed to escape so he could tell the story. The Afghans are like that-- and the U.S. and modern Britain aren't the only ones who didn't learn anything. There isn't a Soviet Union today, in large part, because they didn't learn the lessons either.

I've just started reading an advance copy of Russ Hoyle's powerful new book, Going To War: How Misinformation, Disinformation and Arrogance Led America Into Iraq. Hoyle lays the groundwork for his exhaustive investigation by pointing out that after 9/11 the entire weight of world public opinion-- nor to mention support-- was with the United States. Bush went after the 9/11 culprits, bin-Laden, al-Qaeda, and their Taliban hosts and protectors. It's pretty much the only thing Bush has done right in his entire presidency. But as we were closing in on bin-Laden and his beaten, remnant band in Tora Bora, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld out-sourced what should have been the last act to warlords who sell their services to the highest bidder. Bin-Laden bid highest while the Bush Regime was preoccupied with their Regime's fondest dream, the attack on Iraq and the seizure of that nation's oil reserves on behalf of the multinational energy companies they represent.

The Washington Post wasn't watching when Bush screwed up Afghanistan. In fact if the American media had been doing a decent job, perhaps Bush would never have gotten away with leading our country into a catastrophic situation. Today, however, the Post-- albeit buried on page 18-- bemoaned the state of affairs in that most unfortunate of countries.

NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a "strategic stalemate," as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, according to an independent assessment released yesterday by NATO's former commander.

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the supreme allied commander of NATO.

"Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could become a failed state," warned the report, which called for "urgent action" to overhaul NATO strategy in coming weeks before an anticipated new offensive by Taliban insurgents in the spring.

UPDATE: MISUSED AND ABUSED BY BUSH, MARINES SAY THEY CAN'T HELP IN AFGHANISTAN

According to the latest CongressDaily "Marine Corps Commandant James Conway warned today he would not have the manpower to boost the number of Marines in Afghanistan beyond the level announced recently by Defense Secretary Gates while continuing to maintain a significant presence in Iraq." He talked about stress on marines who have been shuttling back and forth between wars and who haven't spent time at home in years. "Our Corps is not big enough to do both. We cannot have one foot in Afghanistan and one foot in Iraq," Conway said. "If there is a determination to send more Marines into Afghanistan, I certainly would respectfully request that we reduce our presence in Iraq."

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ UN-ENDORSES LIPINSKI IN CHICAGOLAND SHOCKER

Gutierrez, moved by his better angels

Many progressives were bitterly disappointed when Congressman Luis Gutierrez went along with the powerful Daley Machine to endorse reactionary incumbent Dan Lipinski in his hotly contested bid for re-election. But, like so many politicians from Chicago, regardless of how they are on national issues-- and Gutierrez is good-- when it comes to local issues, the Machine rules. He's almost a mini version of Dick Durbin, an excellent progressive in Washington, but a pathetic hack and tool at home. So it came as quite the shock in Chicagoland politics today when Gutierrez officially withdrew his endorsement of Lipinski. But bitter disappointment from progressives didn't figure into the unprecedented action Gutierrez took today.

Gutierrez, of Puerto Rican heritage, represents Chicago's 4th CD, one of the strangest-looking gerrymanders in the country. It connects the Mexican-American communities on the Southside with the Puerto Rican communities on the Northside, while avoiding the huge Westside African-American community that seperates them (see map), resulting in an over 75% Latino congressional district-- though far more Mexican than Puerto Rican. Gutierrez had very friendly-- and beneficial-- ties with Lipinski's father and it is generally believed that his endorsement of the worthless son was a payback to the helpful father. But pressure from Mexican-Americans, in light of Lipinski Jr's aggressively anti-immigrant votes and positions, was too intense for Gutierrez to ignore.

Although the Machine has dredged up endorsements from every political hack they own, most members of Congress had managed to steer clear of this race pitting a not well-liked incumbent with a marked propensity to vote with the GOP on crucial issues against a straight-arrow progressive who many see as part of a reformed future for Chicagoland. Only Gutierrez had endorsed Lipinski and that endorsement has now gone up in smoke because Gutierrez' fierce committment to legalization for the undocumented was more important to him than the go-along-get-along political culture that comes first for lesser leaders than he is.

Like I said yesterday, the immigrant communities of Lipinski's district-- not just Latino, but Asian and Muslim as well-- have been key elements in the broad coalition backing Pera, a coalition featuring women's right's activists, pro-peace activists, environmentalists, and clean government reformers. The primary in the solidly Democratic district is this Tuesday.

THE WILLARD CAMPAIGN: RIP

Don't feel too sorry for him-- he still has hundreds of millions of ill-gotten dollars

If you watched the debating pygmies last night, it would have been hard to not notice that Willard has all but given up. He seemed afraid to take on McCain or to go for an exposed jugular offered up several times by the doddering and clearly senile and delusional crackpot. According to Commentary's Daniel Casse, last night "was Mitt Romney’s last stand. He blew it. The conservative antipathy towards McCain involves real issues: his indefensible support of campaign finance reform, his opposition to Bush tax cuts, his throwaway lines attacking corporations, and so on. Romney should have been on attack mode from the first moment, stirring up every conservative trepidation about McCain, stressing his unreliability as a consistent voice for the cause. “We don’t need a maverick, Senator, we need a steadfast, principled and predictable conservative leader,” was the line I was waiting for." It never came. Willard just looked more pathetic, hapless, frustrated and defeated than ever. Conservatives who thought he would be their champion must be climbing the walls and rending their clothes!

Romney was handed one fine opportunity: A question about whether John McCain lied in Florida this week when he charged Romney with supporting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq early last year. But Romney's response was a stammering, largely incoherent mess. His resulting back-and-forth with McCain seemed petty, and offered little clarity on what he'd actually said. Nor did it effectively spotlight McCain's cynical opportunism-- and, say people who followed the details more closely than I did, dishonesty-- in raising the charge. Romney clearly feels that McCain is lying, and that his candidacy is on the line. So why he couldn't muster a powerful, indignant, jut-jawed, "Senator, you are lying to win votes," is beyond me. (Or better yet, why not say that McCain "twists the truth like Clinton"?)

His campaign strategy has now come down to one thing: prayer. Yesterday Time reported that he's cutting his financial losses and pulling all expensive TV ad buys in the Super-Tuesday states. Today, flying in the face of Schwarzenegger's endorsement of McCain, the Romney campaign says it will do some TV ads in California after all.

Republican voters, notorious top-down conformists to begin with, are convinced that McCain-- love him or hate him-- is inevitable. And conservative leaders are still making lame noises as though there was still some chance to stop McCain from getting the nomination of the party they once thought they controlled. Far right propagandist Hugh Hewitt was raving and fuming after the debate last night.

John McCain won over few if any conservatives tonight, and his display of bad temper and his rambling filibuster of his wrongful "timetables" attack on Romney from last weekend may even have lost him some moderates. In the spin room heads were shaking. McCain was at his worst in the second half of the debate, and those who watched had to ask themselves how this sort of performance would play against a youthful, upbeat Obama with a MSM ready not to protect McCain but tear into him as aging and confused-- even obviously deceptive-- about his facts.

...If they are Republicans, they also will almost certainly walk away disquieted by the prospect of a McCain nomination, both because of his ideas and even more so because he just didn't look electable tonight.  Romney did.  In fact McCain's best part of the day was when Rudy was talking about him, and it went down hill from there.  McCain will get another assist from Arnold tomorrow or Friday, but it is hard to hide the fact that this would be a second Bob Dole campaign, with less energy and fewer conservative principles.  Many, many Republicans have to be worried not just about losing the White House, but about a dispirited party and a down-ticket wipe-out.

And Hewitt isn't the only far right extremist unable to accept that it's all over. Today Bob Novak is not just a genuine movement-conservative but also dishonest and suffering from severe memory problems. And Limbaugh is still trying to score points among extremists by attacking McCain.

"Here is the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh said. "I think this is it. There was a lot of anxiety among a lot of conservatives about Senator McCain. It's simply indisputable. But there was no figure in our roster of candidates who rose up to challenge him or galvanize conservative support. All the candidates on our side, for various reasons, are uninspiring or worse."

GRASSLEY BLAMES GIULIANI DISASTER NOT ON GIULIANI BUT ON NEW YORK

You can put lipstick on a pig...

The News doesn't need any striking comedy writers to come up with the best headlines. Today: Hick Iowa Senator Says N.Y. Attitude Cost Rudy Giuliani; Apple Strikes Back. It features a photo of Rudy in drag I had never seen before (above)-- along with this caption: A possible example of Rudy Giuliani's 'New York lifestyle': Hizzoner's alter ego, Rudia, channeling Marilyn Monroe-- as well as one of Chuck Grassley, with a reminder that one of America's most brilliant journalists, Jimmy Breslin, dubbed him "a moron" and "another one of those low-IQ loudmouths."

Grassley blamed Giuliani's "lifestyle" and "personality" for his inability to connect with Middle America. Most New Yorkers were even more turned off to Giuliani's campaign than Iowans; they know him better. And those who have heard about Grassley blaming NY for Giuliani are offended. The founder of the Guardian Angels, Curtis Sliwa, put it like this: "I've seen Grassley before. He wears polyester, waffle-weave, flame-retardant pants that look like they survived the high waters... What does he know? There are more pigs than people [in Iowa]. Iowa is not a reflection of America."

Giuliani-hater Ed Koch, another former Mayor, agrees. "Rudy did not project New York. He projected his own personality, which was more than insensitive, it was ruthless. New Yorkers are pussycats. We're not ruthless. Most of the children from [Iowa] come here to live because of the freedom and anonymity."

Iowa's Chuck Grassley, a dour, 74-year-old Corn Belt Republican, said Wednesday that Giuliani's spectacular flameout stemmed from "that New York personality."

"The New York lifestyle hasn't gone over [in] some places. It seemed like the more people got acquainted with him, the less they liked him," he said.

Not content to leave it there, the Big Apple-baiting butthead from Butler County said that unlike Las Vegas, "Things you do in New York don't stay in New York."

Perhaps Grassley was referring to Giuliani's operatic personal life, complete with three wives, estranged children and appearances prancing around in drag. Maybe he meant Giuliani's refusal to declare holy war on immigrants and gays.

Giuliani's endorsement of McCain is unlikely to derail the sick and elderly Arizona senator's relentless quest for the Republican nomination.

POSSIBLE BREAKTHROUGH IN ANTI-HALLIBURTON WAR PROFITEER CASE

Hopefully you had a chance to catch the exciting discussion we had last Saturday over at FDL with one of the most provocative and best qualified Democratic congressional candidates of the year, Alan Grayson (FL-08). He hopes to bring his tremendous expertise in prosecuting war profiteers to Washington next year. I can't think of much Washington needs more.

So when I saw an A.P. story about an appeals court reconsidering a quashed case against Halliburton, the first person I turned to was Alan.

A federal judge in Houston had thrown out lawsuits filed by truckers and their families against Halliburton and its former subsidiary, KBR Inc., over a deadly ambush on April 9, 2004, that killed six KBR drivers, wounded others and left one missing and presumed dead.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the truckers and their families asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to overturn the judge's ruling and reinstate their cases. The plaintiffs accuse KBR of knowingly sending its workers into harm's way while delivering fuel to U.S. troops at a Baghdad airport.

"We're cautiously optimistic that the 5th Circuit is going to get it right," said Roger Hawkins, lawyer for former KBR trucker Reginald Lane, who was wounded in the convoy attack.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit heard arguments from lawyers for both sides during a rare closed-door session. It could take several months for the court to issue a ruling.

Truckers' relatives were allowed into the courtroom, but the hearing was closed to the public and media.

Halliburton and Houston-based KBR asked for the closed hearing because they said "confidential information," including an Army investigative report on the ambush by Iraqi insurgents, would be discussed.

Tobias Cole, a lawyer for wounded trucker Kevin Smith-Idol, said he didn't hear any references to "top secret" information during the hearing. He questioned the companies' motives for seeking a closed hearing.

"They're just trying to hide their own negligence," Cole said.

Alan can relate. "The most interesting thing about this report on the appeals court argument," he told me yesterday, "is that Halliburton was able to get the court to conduct the argument in secret. Halliburton's central strategy, from beginning to end, is to keep the American public in the dark about what it's been doing in Iraq. That's why they insist on these closed-door sessions. That's why they require their employees to arbitrate their claims in secret. That's why they get draconian 'protective' orders (really, gag orders) in all their federal cases. That's why they block every FOIA request for their records. What they seem to forget is that they're bathing in OUR MONEY, taxpayer money, and we have a right to know how they've been spending it, wasting it, and stealing it."

Alan is challenging the ultimate rubber stamp nonentity in central Florida, a do-nothing lump named Ric Keller. Keller's biggest claim to fame was some kind of hysterical grandstanding to prevent customers from suing fast food chains like McDonald's-- just before he collected some hefty campaign contributions from OSI Restaurant Partners and the National Restaurant Association, helping bring his total of legalized bribes from the Food & Beverages industry to $64,450 in 2006 alone (not counting the further $34,600 he scooped up from the booze industry). Last year Keller outspent his Democratic opponent $1,691,408 to $984,771. Let's narrow that gap a little this year with a little Blue America action


UPDATE: AND BUSH LETS THEM GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING TAXES

This from the March 6 Boston Globe: "Kellogg Brown & Root, the nation's top Iraq war contractor and until last year a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp., has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven."

HAS THE NY TIMES GIVEN OVER HEADLINE WRITING TO STRIKING COMEDY CENTRAL WRITERS?

This little map spells big trouble for the GOP

G.O.P. Faces Challenge in Efforts to Reclaim House I can't imagine Carl Hulse or David Herszenhorn, the writers of the piece, even saw the absurd headline before they opened the early edition tonight. Just as appropriate, maybe more so, would have been "How Drastically Will the G.O.P. House Caucus Shrink After November?" Hulse and Herszerhorn start with the "swelling exodus of senior Republican incumbents from the House, worsened by a persistent disadvantage in campaign money, threatens to cripple Republican efforts to topple the Democratic majority in November." And then how Tom Davis' much anticipated retirement announcement this morning makes it 5 this week and 28 Republicans in total-- and 5 Democrats, 3 of whom, Tom Allen, Mark Udall and Tom Udall, are looking to move to the U.S. Senate.

...[T]he disparity in open seats-- typically the most competitive House fights, as voters oust relatively few incumbents-- makes it highly unlikely that Republicans could seize the seats necessary to regain the House. The current House has 199 Republicans and 232 Democrats, with four vacancies to be filled by special elections.

“The open-seat situation is so lopsided as to deny Republicans any chance of taking back the House in 2008,” said David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan publication.

Compounding their problems, Republicans face a worrisome financial gap in comparison to House Democrats. New fund-raising figures to be made public on Thursday will show that the national campaign committee of the House Democrats ended 2007 with $35 million in the bank and $1.3 million in debt. The Republicans’ committee had $5 million in the bank and $2 million in debt.

...“It is a challenge,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “What this does is make it more difficult to have offensive opportunities when you have to defend what you have.”

Good point... and very true. A great example is in Update New York, where Republicans had once hoped to make serious challenges to freshmen Kirsten Gillibrand and John Hall. Like in many districts around the country, the Republicans are putting out the word that they'll accept any old piece of garbage as their candidate as long as he can self-fund. They found some clueless multimillionaire to be a sacrificial lamb in Gillibrand's district but can't find anyone to take up their offer against Hall. Instead of going after 2 of the upstate seats they lost in 2006, they are desperately trying to defend the 3 upstate seats they'll probably lose in 2008, James Walsh's (he's one of the new retirees), Randy Kuhl's and Tom Reynolds', a real trio of clowns who will be facing a powerful team in Dan Maffei, Eric Massa and Jon Powers, who we've invited back to Blue America this Saturday (2pm NY time) for a discussion about how their races are going so far.

WHICH IDIOTS IN CONGRESS ENDORSED GIULIANI?

3 U.S. Senators-- Kit Bond of Missouri, David "Diapers" Vitter of Louisiana, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota-- plus 21 congressmembers (22 if you want to count Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuno) endorsed Giuliani. Three of the congressmen have the great excuse of being homestaters, Vito Fossella of Staten Island, Peter King of Long Island, and the retiring Jim Walsh of Syracuse. The rest look as clueless as the non-candidate, who busily and pointlessly spun his wheels for the last half year, wasting millions and millions of dollars on a campaign that was so overly consulted that it never got off the ground.

Maybe because they appreciated his choice of dresses and wigs, but, interestingly, two of the House Republican caucus' most notorious closet queens-- David Dreier (R-CA) and Phil English (R-PA)-- plus the biggest "fag hag" wanna-be, Mary Bono of Palm Springs, were big Rudy boosters. Now they look like big fools, along with those who are retiring (Jim Walsh, Jerry Weller), those who will need presidential pardons to keep from spending much of the rest of their lives in prison (Jerry Weller, Jerry Lewis), and those who are almost sure to need a job after being defeated in November (Dave Reichert, and Norm Coleman).

Ideologically, the group went from whacked out and unstable extremist loons like Pete Sessions (R-TX), who has never voted right on a single bill under the ProgressivePunch Chips Are Down analysis), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Charles Boustany (R-LA), Jerry Weller (R-IL), and George Radanovich (R-CA) to a hapless gaggle of on-again-off-again, always fake, self-professed "moderates" like Reichert (R-WA), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), and Jon Porter (R-NV).

Presumably they'll all wind up in McCain's camp, along with Rudy himself. "'This is a man who is prepared to be president,' Giuliani said of his 'old friend.' Giuliani said McCain gives the Republican Party the best chance to hold onto the presidency. 'I am very proud to endorse my friend and fellow Republican-- a hero-- John McCain.'"

Interestingly Giuliani was still attacking this "hero" as recently as 2 days ago. ALthough Giuliani's casmpaign website will be edited to reflect the new reality, Democrats.org was kind enough to capture 15 of the most effective slams Rudy made against his good friend McCain, everything from his being a liberal on the economy and not supporting tax cuts to his stand on immigration reform and his lack of executive experience.

UPDATE: HOW DO PROGRESSIVES TALK ABOUT FISA?

It's easy-- and it isn't the way defeatist reactionaries like Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Mark Pryor (AR) do it. There is a difference between right and wrong and a way to communicate it to the public.

Watch Martin Heinrich, who is likely to replace Republican criminal Heather Wilson as the Representative from the Albuquerque area. He's the right kind of Democrat and he knows how to make a case to his constituents. I'd like to see more of our candidates sending out this kind of material instead of bragging about how much money they are scooping up.

GIULIANI DID THE COUNTRY A SERVICE BY GOING AWAY. EDWARDS' DEPARTURE IS A TERRIBLE BLOW-- BUT I'LL PROBABLY VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY

Around this time in the election cycle in 2004, the grassroot's first choice for president, Howard Dean, was driven from the race by a vast MSM conspiracy led by Bush allies Clear Channel and Fox. Dean was still on the California ballot when we had our primary but I decided to vote for John Edwards and not send some kind of amorphous "message" by voting for Dean. Right now I'm actually leaning towards sending a very clear message to Obama, Hillary and other Insider Democrats that I expect candidates of our party to stand up for progressive values.

Ironically there was no lack of vast MSM conspiracy over Edwards' candidacy either, although one based on ignoring him and what he stood for. Most Democrats are clueless about what John Edwards has been saying for the last year. They just know about The Haircut. A populist leader scares the hell out of corporate interests. Neither Hillary nor Obama is offering anything any corporate powers need to fear. They're both infinitely better than any of the pygmies but both are basically Insider candidates and neither ever held a candle to Edwards. My gut tells me the Clinton Machine is the worst eventuality the Democrats could offer but I don't feel that Obama, on balance, is so much better than Hillary for me to bother voting for him. We'll see.

I just got a phone call from one of Ken's and my oldest high school friend's, Stephan. He's a retired public school administrator in New York City who's going back and forth between Obama and Hillary. He likes them both and his main concern is electability. He didn't seem all that aware of what Edwards was all about except that he "seemed gay." I wonder how many Democrats are aware-- even vaguely-- that Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa and that focus groups showed him winning almost every single televised debate. Whatever modicum of coverage he was getting before Iowa, completely disappeared after the caucuses.

Edwards' biggest problem may have been that he was too compelling-- so compelling that his rivals effectively adopted his agenda. From the beginning, Edwards was positioning himself as the champion of Americans struggling to get ahead financially. And rather than simply offer populist rhetoric, he backed it with a serious, comprehensive set of policies.

By the time Clinton and Obama had fleshed out their respective agendas, however, there simply wasn't that much difference among them. Pundits frequently criticized Edwards for his unabashed populism and, it's true, his rhetoric was the most openly confrontational of the three leading Democrats.But in terms of what the three were actually proposing to do, the agendas were virtually identical-- not to mention widely popular, if the polls are to be believed. We're all populists now.

...Critics frequently accuse Edwards of being a phony and I claim no special insights into whether that's true. Maybe all of the talk about fighting for struggling Americans is heartfelt. Or maybe it's all just an act, the kind a good trial lawyer like Edwards could surely pull off. But whether genuine, artificial, or (as is usually the case with politicians) some combination thereof, Edwards' advocacy has served his party-- and his country-- well.

One of my friends working for Obama's campaign just sent me a statement from his candidate about Edwards. "John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters-- the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this-- that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America."

I recall Hillary said something equally touching, if slightly less eloquent. It would be great if whichever of them become president incorporates Edwards' perspective into the system of running the country. I can't imagine Hillary ever would, although she may actually believe she will. Obama? Probably not... but at least a chance, I guess.

MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS, NOT WORSE DEMOCRATS-- LIKE KENTUCKY REACTIONARY INSIDER BRUCE LUNSFORD

Yesterday corrupt multimillionaire Bruce Lunsford entered the Democratic primary which will pick a candidate to run against Mitch McConnell. Lunsford's candidacy comes as a big disappointment to Kentucky progressives and moderates. Many Democrats had hoped they would never heard from Lunsford again after the very expensive thrashing he took when he tried injecting himself into the governor's race last year. Unless the kind of Democrat you like is Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, Lunsford ain't your kind of guy.

Count on DWT to follow this race closely. How ironic it would be to finally get rid of Mitch McConnell only to see him replaced with some just as bad-- and a former supporter to boot! It should come as no surprise that anti-grassroots Insiders Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer both encouraged DLC hack Lunsford to run. There is also a moderate in the race, Andrew Horne. I expect Daily Kos will become a hotbed of activity promoting his campaign.

BIG NIGHT FOR McCAIN-- BUT HE STILL LOST REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES

If Willard wasn't such a worthless and detestable slithering creature, I'd almost feel sorry for the way the whole Republican Establishment is telling him they're sorry about his $60 million but that he can't buy the GOP nomination just now. The powers behind the Republican Party think their one shot-- no matter how slim-- to hold on to the White House is through fake-independent/fake maverick John McCain.

Interestingly, though, McCain won among all ideological groups except the party's dominant one: conservatives. In Florida 28% of Republicans call themselves "moderates" and a confused 11% call themselves "liberals." McCain beat Romney 40-22% among moderate Republicans and 46-25% among liberal Republicans. But among self-described conservative Republicans (62% of the Florida GOP), Willard beat McCain 37-27%. Imagine if the conservatives actually had a candidate they truly admired and felt comfortable with!

As we reported last night, Rudy Giuliani is giving up his sort of tentative race for the worthless Republican nomination. He'll be endorsing McCain and actively campaigning for him. Apparently Giuliani's not going to show up at the California debate tomorrow.

Regardless of extremist loons like Rick Santorum, conservatives would rather have McCain win than Hillary or Obama and they will rally round even someone they dislike as much as McCain. Two disgruntled elderly right-wingers were grousing on MSNBC tonight that a McCain candidacy can be summed up as less jobs and more wars. A few of the hard core and most extremist of the GOP nuts will make a last stand against McCain, but in the end, they'll all hold their noses and cast their votes for McCain in November-- not that it will make much difference. Keep in mind, in this 50/50 state-- where the Democratic primary wasn't even official-- that Hillary got 856,944 votes, compared to McCain's 693,425 votes (in a primary that was official).


UPDATE: REPUBLICAN HISPANICS WON THE FLORIDA PRIMARY FOR McCAIN

McCain's leadership role on trying to grant undocumented immigrants amnesty has paid off for him big time, making him the undisputed frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination. Ironically, he lost self identified conservative voters to Willard but Spanish language robo calls to Latino households from Senator Mel Martinez saved the day-- narrowly-- for McCain. (Willard only got 14% of the Hispanic vote.)

Immigration was the issue that many on the Right-- especially panderers like Romney-- thought would define the 2008 elections. And it was the issue that was supposed to help doom McCain among GOP voters. Instead, it was the issue that in the end probably killed Romney's last hope of getting the nomination. And the GOP will likely nominate one of the key authors of the supposedly hated comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

There is some justice that it was GOP Hispanics who delivered the death blow to Romney. McCain led Romney is a number of demographic groups, but it was Hispanics-- more than veterans or elderly voters-- who gave McCain a disproportionate number of their votes. McCain received 54% of Hispanic voters to the 14% of Hispanics who supported Romney. With Hispanics making up 12% of the GOP primary voters and that difference, doing the math, adds up almost exactly to the overall 5% McCain margin of victory in Florida.

Ole!

PISSING OFF THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY IN CHICAGO HAS BEEN A VERY BAD IDEA FOR DAN LIPINSKI

click the picture to enlarge

After Democratic Party Boss Rahm Emanuel ordered Democratic House candidates to "move to the right" on immigration issues and then got one of his most subservient shills, pathetic North Carolina freshman Heath Shuler, to work with Tom Tancredo on an anti-immigrant bill, Blue America teamed up with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights to try to hold Emanuel accountable.

But Emanuel isn't the only anti-immigrant reactionary in Chicago. Next week one of Emanuel's puppets, Dan Lipinski, is facing the most difficult election of his life. Netroots activists and the ICIRR have also been working to make Lipinski and his Inside the Beltway backers understand that you can't expect to ride to an easy re-election by targeting immigrant communities. Like Emanueel's district, Lipinski's has a huge-- and motivated-- immigrant population. IL-03 contains some 125,000 immigrants and is home to 139,000 Latinos and 39,000 Asians. Instead of working with these communities to help integrate them into American society, Lipinski has consistently voted against the interests of these constituents. He voted for the Patriot Act, the Sensenbrenner legislation, to build the fence between the U.S. and Mexico, and for a Tancredo amendment that would cost Chicago federal funding as a "sanctuary city."

Lipinski is anti-choice, pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-stem cell... and an all-around Bush supporter, enough to attract a great deal of support from progressives around the country. The immigrant community is a big part of the Pera coalition on the ground, mostly because of his steadfast support of a humane approach to immigration reform. Several years ago, after Sensenbrenner's viciously anti-immigrant legislation, the ICIRR started a citizenship drive in Chicago and every year since then the number of citizenship applications has climbed dramatically-- from 28,000 in 2004 - 2005, to 35,000 from 2005 - 2006, to 56,000 in the past year. The ICIRR has helped over 53,000 immigrants register to vote.

The efforts immigrants rights activists is making in Asian, Mexican and Muslim communities on behalf of Mark Pera is sending a message to anti-immigrant Democrats and Republicans who have sizable immigrant populations that they can expect career difficulties for pushing hatred and bigotry instead of viable solutions.

During the current race the Mexican and Muslim immigrant leadership have formed a strong political alliance. ICIRR sponsored a voter’s forum with over 400 Mexican and Muslim immigrant leaders that was attended by Pera and another challenger, but not by their own congressman. The absence of Lipinski was heavily noted in the Spanish and ethnic language media.

And immigrant activism has gone much further. The Mexican and Muslim communities have collaborated on fundraising for the Pera Campaign, bringing in thousands of dollars locally and using the money to open a second campaign office and to hire two experienced immigrant organizers to mobilize Mexican and Muslim voters.

In addition the immigrants in the campaign have recruited Immigrants List to make this campaign a national target. An e-mail fundraising request went to over 18,000 people nationally and raised an additional $14,000 for the immigrant organizing in the Pera campaign. Finally, the national Campaign for Community Change (the 501c4 sister organization to the Center for Community Change) decided to send a first in the nation series of bi-lingual educational mail pieces, informing Latino voters in the district of Lipinski’s vote for the Sensenbrenner legislation.
Over the course of the campaign this volunteer driven immigrant field operation expects to have:

•          lit dropped 2,300 Arab households and sent an additional 2,300 a "dear neighbor" letter
•          lit dropped 7,300 latino households
•          mailed 23,000 Latinos with an immigration specific piece
•          mailed 23,000 Latino households 5 times with regular Pera literature
•          called 3,000 immigrant voters through a phone bank
•          doorknocked 5,000 immigrant voters through a canvas
• Involved over 300 Mexican and Muslim volunteers in the Pera campaign

There has never before been this type of alliance between the progressive community, the national netroots community, and the immigrant’s rights movement to punish an anti-immigrant incumbent Congressman. Lipinski is faced with a vigorous and well financed primary. The immigrant’s rights movement has organized candidate forums; educational mailings that informed the immigrant electorate of the incumbent’s anti-immigrant record; local and national fundraising; a staffed field operation with Mexican and Muslim voter i.d. and GOTV efforts; and targeted partisan mail that held the incumbent accountable for his anti-immigrant record.

For Democrats and Republicans who vote to criminalize their immigrant constituents this is a foreshadowing of what they face in the future. Lipinski would have done himself a big favor by paying attention to how his state's junior senator relates to latinos.

Pera's isn't the only crucial primary coming up in Illinois. Please consider donating to his campaign, as well as to the campaigns of Illinois progressives John Laesch and Randi Scheurer.

Dear Chicago...

HULSHOF LEAVING CONGRESS TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI-- PLUS BONUS: TOM DAVIS & RON LEWIS

Kenny Hulshof-- finally a job that will get him out of Congress

Over the last 6 years extreme right wing Representative Ken Hulshof has seen his margin of victory steadily shrink from 68% in 2002 to 65% in 2004 and to 61% in 2006. Today Hulshof becomes the 26th Republican to abandon the dismal House Republican caucus for a risky run for Missouri governor. Hulsdorf, a dependable rubber stamp for all things Cheney and Bush, has constructed a voting record that is even beyond extreme by GOP standards. Among Missouri's congressional delegation, and using ProgressivePunch's Chips Are Down analysis, you find only bizarre wingnuts Roy Blunt and Todd Atkin voting more consistently for the radical right agenda in the current Congress. Hulshof has been trying to get out of Congress for some time and applied to become president of the University of Missouri. After the interview he was laughed off the campus and has remained in Congress looking for another opportunity. So far two Democrats, Marion County Commissioner Lyndon Bode and State Rep. Judy Baker, D-Columbia, have filed to run and others may jump in now that Hulshof is out.

Hulshof will have to defeat state treasurer Sarah Steelman and Lt Gov. Peter Kinder in what promises to be a contentious and bloody primary.

And number 27 looks to be northern Virginia rubber stamp Tom Davis, who can't take the heat any longer in an increasingly moderate district.

And I put together a little video clip in honor of Representatives Hulshof and Davis-- and all their cuttin' and runnin' colleagues who will make the U.S. Congress a better place by their departures




UPDATE: TOO LATE FOR THE VIDEO BUT...

Number 28-- Kentucky wingnut Ron Lewis, who "abruptly withdrew his name to run for re-election Tuesday, only minutes before the filing deadline, setting off a late scramble for a replacement... [I]t was Lewis' sudden decision not to run again that was the most surprising, and filled with last-minute intrigue. Lewis chief of staff Daniel London went to the secretary of state's office to withdraw his boss' name - and file his own papers to run for the seat, according to state Board of Elections executive director Sarah Ball Johnson.

About the same time, state Sen. Brett Guthrie also filed papers to run. So, Guthrie [favored by the NRCC] and London will face off in the Republican primary on May 20... Two Democrats, state Sen. David Boswell and Davies County Judge Executive Reid Haire also filed, and will face off in the Democratic primary.

The West Kentucky congressional district is solidly Republican, though Democrats contested the seat last cycle. President Bush won 65 percent there in 2004. But Lewis won only 55 percent in his re-election bid against Democrat Mike Weaver in 2006."


UPDATE: TOM DAVIS MAKES IT OFFICIAL-- 5 IN 5 (BUSINESS) DAYS... EXCELLENT RATE

No 8th term for Republican Tom Davis (VA-11). He made what everyone already knew, official today, announcing he would be retiring from Congress at the end of this session. Of course there were a few obligatory words about spending more time with the family, but the often and increasingly frustrated Davis "said it is simply time to do something new." Let's hope he convinces a few dozen of his colleagues to follow his example. Davis is trying to engineer a coup by wealthy self-funder Keith Simian and has donated $300,000 of his campaign fund to him.

Davis believes the best Republican candidate to succeed him is Oakton resident Keith Simian, a former football player and business owner who has "quietly raised $670,000, more than any of the Democrats who have formed exploratory committees," he said.

Several prominent Democrats have already announced their intentions to run for Davis' seat, including former U.S. Rep. Leslie Byrne and Iraq War veteran Doug Denneny. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connolly (At large) has formed an exploratory committee for the seat.

McCAIN'S BIG LIE IS BUSH'S BIG LIE-- THAT THE WAR IN IRAQ IS BEING WON

McCain: "War is over." Lindsey: "Where are those adorable little rugs?"

McCain is basing his electoral strategy on a bold-faced lie that the Bush Regime, his entire campaign and a compliant media are all happy to perpetrate, quite mindlessly-- the we're winning the war in Iraq. We're not, despite Bush's clueless assertion to the contrary in his SotU speech last night. Willard of course, knows McCain's assertions are patently false-- but they're the only thing the Republican base wants to hear and it would be suicide for Romney to go beyond his general claims that McCain is a liar and explain how.

Respected historian Andrew Bacevich, however, has no such constraints. Surge To Nowhere would have been a far better answer to Bush last night than Kathleen Sebelius' very lame and tepid response. He urges his readers not to buy into McCain's hype; Iraq is a disaster.

In President Bush's pithy formulation, the United States is now "kicking ass" in Iraq. The gallant Gen. David Petraeus, having been given the right tools, has performed miracles, redeeming a situation that once appeared hopeless. Sen. John McCain has gone so far as to declare that "we are winning in Iraq." While few others express themselves quite so categorically, McCain's remark captures the essence of the emerging story line: Events have (yet again) reached a turning point. There, at the far end of the tunnel, light flickers. Despite the hand-wringing of the defeatists and naysayers, victory beckons.

From the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute waft facile assurances that all will come out well. AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht assures us that the moment to acknowledge "democracy's success in Iraq" has arrived. To his colleague Michael Ledeen, the explanation for the turnaround couldn't be clearer: "We were the stronger horse, and the Iraqis recognized it." In an essay entitled "Mission Accomplished" that is being touted by the AEI crowd, Bartle Bull, the foreign editor of the British magazine Prospect, instructs us that "Iraq's biggest questions have been resolved." Violence there "has ceased being political." As a result, whatever mayhem still lingers is "no longer nearly as important as it was." Meanwhile, Frederick W. Kagan, an AEI resident scholar and the arch-advocate of the surge, announces that the "credibility of the prophets of doom" has reached "a low ebb."

Presumably Kagan and his comrades would have us believe that recent events vindicate the prophets who in 2002-03 were promoting preventive war as a key instrument of U.S. policy. By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much.

...The United States has acquired a ramshackle, ungovernable and unresponsive dependency that is incapable of securing its own borders or managing its own affairs. More than three years after then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice handed President Bush a note announcing that "Iraq is sovereign," that sovereignty remains a fiction.

It awes me that so many of our fellow citizens-- albeit only Republicans-- are still so desperate to hear what they want to hear instead of what is reality, that they are about to nominate a clueless and out-of-touch old man to carry their party's banner-- and that the mainstream media is cheering them along every step of the way. Did I just say "only Republicans?" This morning's Hill corrects me.

Clinton and Obama’s divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president’s line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.

No one threw tomatoes.

BYE BYE GIULIANI

GOP won't be having a nominee in drag, not in 2008 anyway

Giuliani is dropping out after his expected landslide loss in Florida tomorrow. He'll finally be able to go back to doing drag shows and trading on 9/11 to make himself richer.

In a meeting in the back of his chartered plane en route to St. Petersburg, Fla., a short while ago, the onetime, longtime GOP front-runner told a small group of reporters, including the [L.A.] Times' Louise Roug: "The winner of Florida will win the nomination."

...So far, he's yet to finish first anywhere and ended up behind Rep. Ron Paul in Iowa and Nevada.

Every poll bears out the conventional wisdom that although he may well beat Ron Paul in Florida, he's not coming in first or even second and it will be a tough battle to even win third place. Earlier today his campaign chairman said it's pretty much all over for Giuliani, a victim of his own elitist strategy, which failed dismally.

...[I]n an unusually candid assessment, [Pat Oxford] the Giuliani strategist did not rule out the possibility that a distant third or fourth-place finish could force the former New York mayor to reassess whether to abandon his presidential bid before Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.

..."The question is whether he has any momentum coming out of Florida," Mr. Oxford said in an interview. "If he is second or first, he certainly has momentum. But if he finishes third, it's going to be hard to get momentum out of it."

Just as well for ole Rudy; this race is getting really vicious and McCain will do anything to win what he is certain he is entitled to. His last few days of relentlessly attacking Willard are beyond what any Republicans are used to inside their own party. They usually save this kind of stuff for Democrats:

Mr. Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, began attacking at dawn, accusing Mr. McCain of allying himself with liberal Democrats in the Senate and betraying conservative principles on legislation involving immigration, the environment and campaign finance.

“If you want that kind of a liberal Democratic course as president, then you can vote for him,” Mr. Romney said at a Texaco gas station in West Palm Beach at 6:30 a.m. “But those three pieces of legislation, those aren’t conservative. Those aren’t Republican.”

Mr. McCain volleyed back by describing Mr. Romney as a serial flip-flopper who had taken multiple positions on a variety of issues, including gay rights, global warming and immigration. “People, just look at his record as governor,” Mr. McCain said at a shipyard in Jacksonville. “He has been entirely consistent. He has consistently taken two sides of every major issue, sometimes more than two.”

UPDATE: CNN IS PREDICTING RUDY WILL DROP OUT

... and endorse McCain.

JERRY LEWIS BACK IN THE NEWS: MORE CORRUPTION

It would be hard to make a cogent argument that there is anyone in Congress, of either party, more steeped in corruption than Inland Empire Republican Jerry Lewis. It isn't likely that when Bush gets up tonight to rail against earmarks he will talk about Jerry Lewis or Don Young or any of the worst abusers of the system. Last week Bob Novak pointed out that "Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Appropriations Committee's ranking Republican, is leading fellow appropriators against the moratorium [on pork barrel spending]. They are joined by the most seriously challenged Republican incumbents, who see political salvation in bringing funds home to their districts, principles be damned."

But arguing with Bush and with conservatives about earmarks and pork is hardly the worst of Lewis' troubles. Today's Roll Call has some very unwelcome news for Lewis. The criminal cases pending against him are far from going away.

Scandal-tinged Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) both paid substantial legal bills late last year, hinting that allegations of ethical lapses against them may not be winding down anytime soon.

Lewis, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, paid the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher roughly $105,000 during the last quarter of 2007. The recent payments bring Lewis' total legal bills during the past three years to roughly $1.27 million, according to campaign finance records.

Lewis is part of a grand jury investigation in Los Angeles involving former Rep. turned lobbyist Bill Lowery (R-Calif.). Investigators are looking into whether Lewis gave government handouts to clients of Lowery, a former partner at the lobbying shop Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White.

This is the influential Republican law firm that was able to get two U.S. Attorneys fired after they opened bribery cases against Lewis. Money well-spent.

A FISA VICTORY IN THE SENATE... FOR NOW

McConnell blockage fails

Bush and Cheney aren't getting their retroactive immunity. McConnell needed 60 votes-- he wound up with 48-- to do his obstructionist song and dance and Arlen Specter voted with the Democrats. The only Democrats crossing over to the Dark Side were Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Mark Pryor (AR), 4 of the most most consistently reactionary Democrats in Congress. Glenn Greenwald doesn't think this little victory today will amount to much more than a hill of beans.

In one sense, this is an extremely mild victory, to put that generously. All this really means is that they will now proceed to debate and vote on the pending amendments to the bill, almost certainly defeat all of the meaningfully good ones, approve a couple of amendments which improve the bill in the most marginal ways, and then end up ultimately voting for a bill that contains both telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping. Moreover, it seems clear that Senate Republicans deliberately provoked this outcome and were hoping for it, by sabotaging what looked to be imminent Democratic capitulation so that Bush could accuse Democrats tonight of failing to pass a new FISA bill, thus helping their friend Osama.

Still, in another sense, this is significant. Preventing a vote today means that there is more time to work on opposing immunity, including by working on ensuring that the House stays firm behind its relatively decent bill. It also means that the Senate -- for once -- has refused to capitulate to brazen White House pressure tactics, whereby the President demanded that the Senate give the administration everything it wants before the Friday expiration of the PAA. Also, the presidential candidates responded to public pressure by joining in the filibuster, which is encouraging.

And, perhaps most significantly, this slight stirring of resolve might carry over into the next vote, to extend the PAA by 30 days and thus force Bush's hand either to veto the extension or back down (they will need 60 votes just to vote on that proposal). Again, anything that prevents quick and quiet resolution of telecom immunity and new FISA powers is a real benefit.

They will now vote on the 30-day extension. Reid just said the House was sure to vote in favor of it. That means the Republicans can either allow this "Critical Intelligence Tool" to continue (by voting for a 30-day extension) or deprive our intelligence professionals of the ability to Keep Us Safe.

Let the absurd and inherently dishonest Bush regime fearmongering begin! No one believes anything he says anymore anyway.

The two heroes of the whole FISA bill were Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, who consistently stood up to the Bush machine and to their own weak, confused leaders. Dodd's remarks on the floor of the Senate are worth reading. Here are some highlights:

So much hinges on the bill before us; so many of my colleagues have come to this floor to tell us just how vitally important it is. It will set America's terrorist surveillance policy well into the next presidential term, and beyond. Depending on the outcome, it has the power to bring that surveillance under the rule of law-- or to confirm the president's urge to be a law of his own. It has the power to bring the facts of warrantless spying to light and to public scrutiny-- or to lock down those facts as the property of the powerful. It has the power to declare that the same law applies to all of us, rich or poor, well-connected or not-- or to set the precedent that some corporations are too rich to be sued, that immunity can effectively be bought.


And yet-- the Senate is frozen today. I've objected passionately to retroactive immunity—but I did not shut out debate. Republicans have frozen the Senate since debate began last week.  And they unwittingly created a perfect microcosm of retroactive immunity right here in this body. Because both flow from the same impulse: shutting down the organs of government-- the courts, or the Senate-- when you are afraid you won't get your way. That's why President Bush wants his favored corporations saved from lawsuits. And that is why the Republican Party wants this bill saved from any and all amendments-- saved from serious and thoughtful discussion.

...Tonight, President Bush will come to Congress to speak to us, and to the American people, about the state of the Union. I hope he will use that opportunity to realize that the Senate needs more time to do its constitutional duty to debate and consider this important legislation. 
 
However, I am concerned he will instead continue to threaten to veto this legislation unless it includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies.
 
The President has said that this bill is essential to 'protecting the American people from enemies who attacked our country.' So why is he trying to stop it? Why did he promise to veto it? Why would he throw it all away to protect a few corporations from lawsuits?

Seantor Feingold's statement is also the kind of thing all Americans should look at so they can hold their representative to a higher standard than the the overly partisan and clueless Insiders have come to think they can get away with.

“Today’s vote against jamming a deeply flawed FISA bill through the Senate is a win for the American people and a rejection of the bullying tactics of the administration. We all agree that FISA needs to be updated so our government can go after the foreign communications of suspected terrorists. But we must not provide overly broad and unnecessary powers that infringe on the rights and privacy of law-abiding Americans, especially to an administration that has proven it cannot be trusted. I hope that Republicans will now allow the Senate to consider and vote on amendments to improve the FISA bill, such as adding privacy protections for Americans and stripping immunity for telecom companies that allegedly participated in the president’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program.”

FOURTH AMENDMENT GONE WILD: PART I

-by Jon Dodson, DWT Constitutional Law expert

The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 
 
The Fourth Amendment is simultaneously procedurally specific and substantively open-ended. In terms of checks and balances, the Founders were very particular about searches and seizures, due to their immediate experience with the overzealous policies of King George in pursuit of potential tax-evaders. With the warrant procedure, they placed the regulation of searches in the hands of judges or magistrates, creating a fundamental check and a most important separation of powers. 
 
The substance of the Fourth Amendment vindicates the "living tree" metaphor, invoked by non-strict-constructionists as a rationale for giving contemporary meaning and relevance to vague provisions ("due process" being the most inevitable question-begger). With the probable cause requirement, the Founders intentionally began a never-ending conversation about the appropriate balance between the interests in law enforcement and those of privacy. 
 
I'd like to delve into the Fourth Amendment in a series of posts. This body of law is so interesting, relevant to our current "constitutional crisis," and applicable to us all, that every progressive should be familiar with it. The goal is to inspire a good discussion of technology, privacy, and the proper balance between regulating crime and regulating cops (the balance between regulation of individuals and regulation of the state, no less). 
 
Despite its subtleties, interpretation of the Fourth Amendment should be fairly simple: abide by the warrant procedure, and measure probable cause by explicitly balancing law enforcement against privacy, giving due weight to prior practice and modern exigencies. As for "searches" and "seizures," those terms should be pretty self-explanatory. 
 
However, thanks mostly to the Berger and Rehnquist courts, the Fourth Amendment has become a most tortured, nuanced and Orwellian body of constitutional law-- a paradoxical universe where a search is not a "search," a seizure is not a "seizure," "probable cause" is riddled with new-found exceptions, and "warrants," (no longer important enough to be capitalized), are all but optional. (Notwithstanding our justifiable anger over warrantless wiretapping, "warrantless" is really an exception that has swallowed the rule). 
 
Exhibit A:  Searches that are not "searches"
 
With expanding technologies, the judicial system needed a way to deal with new, nontraditional investigative techniques, such as phone taps and wires.  Enter the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard, first adopted in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), where the Court held that FBI agents, who had attached electronic listening devices to the outside of a phone booth, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of their suspect.  Hence, the phrase is used by courts to delineate when a … umm… an investigative technique … is a "search" regulated by the Constitution.  Initially, this standard seemed a promising way to ensure that technology didn't outpace our constitutional framework. Unfortunately, the standard was hijacked by judicial conservatives (along with the rest of the Constitution), and has become the principal vehicle by which the Court has brought the Fourth Amendment down to size. Even Justice Stevens, an otherwise reliable vote for liberty, has often jumped at the opportunity to narrow the textually-mandated judicial oversight of invasive police practices. (Perhaps this is the rare example of why he still considers himself technically a Republican). 
 
Among others, the Court has found the following expectations of privacy unreasonable: the contents of our trash (just about everything we do is manifest in our trash-- its not as if any of that is personal); our privately owned "open fields" (even when we post no-trespassing signs); the scents emanating from our vehicles only detectable by canines (because we should reasonably expect to be subjected to canine sniffs anywhere we go); and anything that could be seen by someone in a plane or helicopter that happens to be flying over our backyards... as long as they're at the minimum elevation required by the F.A.A. or other regulations.  (?!?)
 
The only recent opinion where the Court has foregone the urge to shrink the Fourth Amendment was Kyllo v. United States, an opinion shockingly written by Justice Scalia. There, the Court held that the use of heat detecting devices on a person's home amounted to a search. Apparently, there is at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in when "the lady of the house draws her sauna." (Yes Justice Scalia really said that.) 
 
Now, mind you, including a search within the purview of the Fourth Amendment means only that the police are required to have probable cause and, (theoretically), a warrant signed by a magistrate. And probable cause is a very low standard. Here's an example: I call the cops, and leave an anonymous tip that my neighbor has drugs in his red car, and will be driving home in his red car at 5:30pm. I know my neighbor has a red car, and I know he gets home from work at 5:30. I'm otherwise full of it. But the cops don't know that because I'm anonymous. They see my neighbor drive home in his red car at 5:30pm, and they have probable cause to search his car, and the resultant right to handcuff him and place him in the cruiser while they do it. (Don't get any ideas, people!) 
 
So, with probable cause being the obvious textual basis for evolving the Fourth Amendment, and being traditionally easy to establish, what did the Court do? It defined some police activities right out of the Constitution.  Remind you of anything the executive branch has done recently? 

Tactically, modern judicial conservatives and modern political conservatives are the same: rather than honestly, explicitly justifying its actions, both political and judicial conservatives take the slicker, more duplicitous approach of turning the operative terms on their heads, so that anyone not paying close attention hardly notices the change until its way too late.  Meanwhile, the same conservatives have the gall to demonize the "activist judges" of the Warren Court, who reasonably concluded that "due process" needed some clarification. Ah well. I suppose there's some comfort in knowing that one thing (probably) hasn't changed: if the redcoats ever break down my door looking for black market tea or gunpowder, they may still require a warrant.

I HATE TO THINK WHAT McCAIN'S "ANOTHER 100 YEARS IN IRAQ" WOULD COST

Not to mention whatever other wars he's envisioning leading the country into.

HILLARY TO FIGHT BUSH'S RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY-- WHAT ABOUT OBAMA?

Neither Clinton nor Obama has a stellar voting record. Both records are OK; neither is the record of a leader; both seem over-cautious and defensive-- like someone who knows they'll have to defend it when they runner for higher office one day. Compare their voting records to other senators by looking at the analysis from ProgressivePunch based on their lifetime votes. Hillary's is tied with Patrick Leahy at #17 and Obama comes in at #24.

Firedoglake has been doing yeoman's work in trying to get Hillary and Obama to take leadership positions on the FISA legislation that would prevent Bush and Cheney from giving retroactive immunity to themselves and to their criminal cronies in the telecommunications industry. Neither Obama nor Clinton (nor McCain) bothered showing up last week to participate in the preliminary votes. FDL just got word that Hillary will make it her business to be in the Senate so she can vote against Miss McConnell's cloture bill to shut down debate.

It will be interesting to see if Obama feels he needs to be campaigning for the Democratic nomination more than doing his job in the U.S. Senate. I doubt McCain will bother showing up. He has missed almost every important vote since he declared he was running for the worthless GOP nomination.


UPDATE; OBAMA'S KEEPIN' UP WITH THE JONESES CLINTONS

Within an hour of Jane posting that Hillary had promised to be there to vote against McConnell's obstructionist ploy, Obama's campaign confirmed that he will be there too. Right on! As I suggested the other day, Hillary and Obama should convince their more reactionary backers to get on board as well. Hillary could prove she's a leader by bringing in Evan Bayh, Daniel Inouye, Bill Nelson, Barbara Mikulski, and Mark Pryor, and Obama could do likewise with Tim Johnson, Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT FAINTING GOATS INSIDE THE BELTWAY

An old pal from MusicForAmerica sent me this adaptation of the Plain White T's "Hey There, Delilah." It makes the point that the timid, compromised Democratic leadership Inside the Beltway is not a force for change and that if we want change we cannot depend on them. They suggest that replacing corrupt and reactionary Establishment Insiders with younger, fresher, tougher fighters with ideas and who share our values is the way to go. We couldn't agree more. Earlier this year I gave up on the "More and Better Democrats" refrain. At this point, it's exclusively the BETTER DEMOCRATS that I care about.

You are already familiar with Donna Edwards and Mark Pera if you've spent any time at DWT. Ed Fallon is running against overly conservative Democrat Leonard Boswell and like Donna Edwards and Mark Pera, Ed Fallon is taking on the whole Establishment to say WE WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE. It's worth checking Ed out and supporting him.

One Democratic challenger who is not included in the video-- since he isn't running against an entrenched incumbent, but rather for the right to represent progressive values in IL-14 now that Denny Hastert has cut and run-- is John Laesch, in my mind as important as any electoral contest this year. On February 5 Illinois goes to the polls to help pick a Democrat for president. In the 14th CD they will also pick between John Laesch and a millionaire Insider being backed by the Establishment and a union carpenter armed with great ideas and solid principles.

This evening John will be the featured guest on Air America with Sam Seder. You'll be able to watch here and find out why Air America feels a race in IL-14 is of national interest. You'll also get an idea about why Laesch has been endorsed by progressives like Noam Chomsky, Lt. Governor Pat Quinn, Studs Terkel and virtually all the district's Democratic precinct committee people (as well as both the local and the national Progressive Democrats of America, the UAW, VET-PAC, the AFL-CIO and most of the local unions. (John's Blue Dog opponent has endorsements too-- from the Republican newspapers in the area and from the Insider Establishment types-- like war enabler Steny Hoyer-- this video is about and the Insider interest groups like NARL whose treachery was responsible for saddling us with Lieberman again.) John has also been endorsed by Blue America and I want to urge you to please consider making a contribution to his campaign today, here. Thanks. Enjoy the clip:




UPDATE FROM MELODY

Voting ends tomorrow in the first round of the search for a DFA All Star congressional candidate. Right now Nancy Skinner (MI-09) is in first place; great candidate. Right behind her is Roy Carter (NC-05) whose is opposing the deranged Virginia Foxx. Rounding out the top 3 is two-time Blue America endorsee Larry Kissell (NC-08). Also in the top 10 are Victoria Wulsin and John Laesch. One person who doesn't deserve to be in the top 10-- but is hanging on at #10-- is the Insider shill Christine Jennings (FL-13). Many progressives were upset that the Republicans stole her victory last year but the fact is, Jennings is the worst kind of fake-Democrat who would get into office and vote with the GOP on substantive matters the same way Melissa Bean, Jim Marshall, John Barrow, Heath Shuler, Dan Boren, Jason Altmire and Chris Carney do. These people are part of the problem, not the solution. That said, please consider voting in the DFA contest right now.

POOR LITTLE RICH WILLARD SENSES McCAIN IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR... BUT HE CAN'T QUITE PUT HIS FINGER ON IT

This morning's Washington Post has a front page story about the vicious fighting between the pygmies in Florida. Before Gov. Crist endorsed McCain yesterday, polls showed a neck and neck race between Willard and McCain-- with Huckabee, Ron Paul and poor, pathetic Giuliani-- no longer a factor and likely to try to cut a deal with someone and drop out-- struggling for third place. Desperation has set in and the candidates are lashing out at each other so blatantly that one has to wonder what happened to the let's-play-nice dullards from last week's Boca Raton debate. After McCain deceitfully claimed that Willard favored withdrawing from Iraq, Romney pointed out that he was being "dishonest." He missed an opportunity to explain just how fundamentally dishonest John McCain actually is.

Both Republicans abandoned all pretense of civility as they campaigned across central Florida in advance of the state's primary Tuesday. Recent polls show a dead heat between McCain and Romney, and the winner here will gain a huge advantage as the nomination fight moves to 21 states a week later.

Stumping in Fort Myers on Saturday, McCain went on the attack first, linking Romney with Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.): "If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."

He added to reporters that "one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."

Romney, who said in April that the military should consider a "private timetable" but not public deadlines, shot back: "That's dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That's simply wrong. . . . I know he's trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq, but to say something that's not accurate is simply wrong, and he knows better."

Later, Romney added that McCain's comment on Iraq is "simply wrong and it's dishonest, and he should apologize."

I almost feel sorry for the dismal Willard as he watches his gold chip campaign circle the bowl. He can't very well call McCain out on the pile of Neocon claptrap he spews out at every opportunity-- since it's what he believes adheres to as well. (One has no idea what-- if anything-- Willard believes, since it changes with every focus group.) Instead of attacking McCain's basic premises-- the only thing that almost holds the fast-dissolving Bush coalition together-- all he can do is whine that McCain lied about him, which he clearly did. In fact, the National Review challenges anyone to come up with anything that supports McCain's smear. They themselves offer tons of proof that Willard is a clueless Neocon, just the way Republicans want their candidates.

McCain's entire political career-- despite the success of his Orwellian p.r. machine  (his daughter is a public relations executive in the music business)-- is built on bold-faced lies and deception. Now he smells the presidency he's lusted after for so many decades and he certainly isn't going to let human decency or any semblance of honesty stand in the way-- not at this point in his life.

McCain not only refused to apologize to Romney yesterday, but at his next campaign appearance McCain lashed out at his rival, saying: "The apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform, that we will not let them down in hard times or good. That is who the apology is owed to."

His campaign then issued a statement in which McCain said that Romney may have changed his mind on the idea of a buildup of troops in Iraq but that "the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked and reversed himself."

...McCain and his aides, angry that Romney has made a point in recent days of questioning the senator's lack of private-sector experience, publicly took the former governor to task for his comments.

During a town hall meeting in North Fort Myers on Saturday, McCain questioned "people who say you haven't had a real job" if you served in the military. "Those of us who have served in the military, we think it's a real job," he said.

McCain added that if elected president, he would appoint managers to work beneath him, rather than seek that role for himself-- a dig at Romney's repeated assertion that his experience as a manager in the business world should qualify him for the presidency.

Or maybe the problem is that Willard is just as big a liar as McCain and he doesn't want to get into a cat fight about who lies more? I used to work at AOLTimeWarner. I was president of one of their divisions. When Romney's vulture capital firm, Bain, bought it, they stripped it of it's value and left it to rot. Today's Boston Globe tells a little of the Bain Capital-Mitt Romney story. This guy is using his experience in the business world as the reason why Republicans should vote for him. His experience in the business world-- beyond anything else-- is exactly why no one in their right mind should consider voting for him for anything. When "his political interests... conflicted with his business responsibilities" he didn't care what happened to peoples' jobs, careers, or even what happened to the shares of the companies, their investors, their future viability. Romney was always about how to get ahead-- for Romney.

Throughout his 15-year career at Bain Capital, which bought, sold, and merged dozens of companies, Romney had other chances to fight to save jobs, but didn't. His ultimate responsibility was to make money for Bain's investors, former partners said.

Much as he did when running for Massachusetts governor, Romney is now touting his business credentials as he campaigns for president, asserting that he helped create thousands of jobs as CEO of Bain. But a review of Bain's investments during Romney's tenure indicates that job growth was not a particular priority.

...Bain Capital is a private equity firm that invests in start-ups and established firms. It provides venture capital for emerging companies, such as Staples in the 1980s, but specializes in leveraged buyouts. Leveraged buyouts combine small amounts of investors' money with large amounts of borrowed money to buy established companies, increase their value, and resell them at a profit.

Increasing value means boosting profits. That can require a range of approaches including cost-cutting, modernizing plants, adding products, expanding into new markets, and acquiring similar companies.

Bain employed all these strategies under Romney. It's impossible to say precisely if more jobs were created than cut by Bain since the firm does not track employment in its investments.

Warner Bros Records isn't precisely flat on it's back because of Bain, but every bad management decision that could have been made was made and the company has shrunk down to a shadow of its former self and is on the verge of bankruptcy. It employs less than half the people in once employed. On top of that, the future for the company looks extremely bleak. Obviously Romney isn't involved with Warner Bros. His company, Bain, still operates exactly the way it did when he ran it. What a horrible set of choices the Republicans are left with! That's why so few of them are bothering to participate in the selection process.

How ironic that two of the very issues that should disqualify these two politicial pygmies-- national security for McCain and the economy for Willard-- are exactly what they tout as their strong point! As yesterday's Time points out, "McCain wants the Florida primary to be an election about national security, his best issue [another myth perpetrated by the media with zero basis in fact]. But until Saturday, the contest was humming along as an election more about the economy, Mitt Romney's best issue." Romney may achieve his dream of getting into the White House-- as unlikely as that sounds-- but those who vote him in will yearn for a nice old Bush Recession once the Willard Depression starts. And McCain? Well... if you want Americans fighting and dying in Iraq for 100 years, he's your man. They sure make Hillary and Obama look good!


THE HUCKSTER COMES OUT SWINGIN'... FOR McCAIN

Huckabee says he's unimpressed with Willard's business credentials. How could anyone not be? And he is clearly trying to boost McCain over Willard. As as an impressive array of Democrats jumps in against Hillary-- Ted Kennedy and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius the latest-- Republicans are making their last stands to derail the candidates they hate most. As we pointed out yesterday, the hard core and most extreme elements of the Right would do anything to stop McCain. Today a surrogate for Darth Cheney, his radical right, somewhat deranged daughter Liz, showed her family's disdain for McCain by endorsing Willard-- and going to work for his campaign. Meanwhile Hillary was endorsed by the ex-Governor of New Mexico, Bruce King, who unlike ex-Gov. Gary Johnson-- also of New Mexico and who endorsed Ron Paul-- does not support legalizing marijuana.

RICK SANTORUM EXPLAINS WHY THE FAR RIGHT LOVES SUSAN COLLINS AND DETESTS MCCAIN

Perhaps Alfred Hitchcock could have done a more dramatic version. But Mike Lux... he sure had me on the edge of my seat. I'm not going to capture Mike's great sense of timing and thrilling prose in this report so I urge you to read the original at Open Left. The short version is that Mike was returning on Amtrak from NYC and couldn't help overhearing Republican jihadi-- and recently defeated senator-- Rick Santorum working his cell phone to bludgeon the very concept of Mac is Back.

...we've gotta find a way to beat McCain, just would be just awful, and going on and on about how much McCain sucks and that even having Hillary or Obama would be better than having McCain because he would just be horrible for the conservative movement because he just doesn't get the movement and he's always using liberal language to talk about things and how that's a terrible thing. And in one conversation with one person he was talking to, he was trying to talk him into coming out with a terrible story about McCain from five or six years ago, and he's like yeah, what he did to you was just incredible, and you should go public with that story, etc.

This isn't really big news; anyone following the ins and outs of the Republican nomination race knows they all hate each other and the radical right of which Santorum is a leader-- especially loathes McCain with a passion. Last week Mother Jones took a stab at explaining the phenomenon by going to one of Santorum's partners in crime, Tom DeLay as well as to the craziest and most extremist blogger from GOP-universe.

What I did find interesting in Mike's account, however, was in the next paragraph (bold is my own contribution):

So pretty much the whole trip this guy is working his cell phone, talking to people about how anyone is better than McCain and Giuliani would be better than McCain because then at least he wouldn't betray the conservative movement… yeah, Giuliani is bad on some issues like abortion, but at least he would stand with the conservative movement. He was saying that there are people like Susan Collins who vote moderate sometimes, but at least she is a team player who always plays with the team and never plays against the conservative side even if she has to give the liberals a vote because she's from Maine.

I wish Mike would have reminded Santorum, when he introduced himself, that Collins is part of the Lieberman-McCain axis and that she's very much supporting McCain-- just the way she's always supported Bush. And if Mike had his laptop with him, maybe he could have gotten ole Dog-on-Man to take a look at this 35 second video clip of Susie:

GLIMMER OF HOPE FOR GIULIANI? WELL, HE WILL PROBABLY-- FINALLY-- BEAT RON PAUL

Not a ray, not a glimmer

Adam Nagourney detects a ray of hope for the surely doomed Giuliani campaign (and bungled strategy) when he looks at the tidal wave of early voting in Florida. "Three days before the polls are to open here, the number of Democrats who have voted here has already exceeded the turnout in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada... There has also been a flood of early ballots from Republican voters which has, again, already exceeded the turnout in the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. As of Friday night, nearly 400,000 party Republicans had cast early votes, either in person or by mail, party officials reported. By contrast, just under 200,000 Republicans had voted in person or by mail at this point in 2006, when there was a heavily contested Republican primary for governor."

He thinks that could save Giuliani. He's incorrect; virtually nothing can save Giuliani, especially after Governor Charlie Crist went back on his word to Giuliani and endorsed McCain. He's a fatally flawed candidate and no one likes him-- especially not for the presidency. Nagourney says that Giuliani's strategy of getting his supporters to vote early-- before he was beaten to a bloody pulp in pre-Florida primaries and caucuses (scoring considerably less than Ron Paul)-- would be the answer to questions about his viability. His viability is bad enough so that he's polling a distant 4th or 5th among the nearly 4 million registered Republicans in the state. He has a shot to beat Huckabee; that's it. But he has a lot more to contend with than just his perceived lack of viability.

Perhaps Nagourney missed today's Newsday: Not good for Giuliani: 25 Ex-NY prosecutors bash him. So it's not just the New York firefighters he claims to have led into the defining moment of his miserable career, but also the prosecutors-- the other group he claims to have led. Come on; even Republibots have to scratch their heads and wonder what's wrong.

Rudy Giuliani is struggling to get some momentum going in Florida, and now he has another headache-- a letter issued by 25 former New York prosecutors bashing his record as U.S. Attorney in the southern district of New York.

The statement is sent out by Michael Armstrong, a well-known former SD [Southern District] prosecutor and counsel to the Knapp Commission-- and, it should be noted, defense lawyer for Lowell Milken, brother of Drexel Burnham titan Michael, who was pursued by Rudy to the tune of much enmity. The list of signers includes some other ex-prosecutor defense lawyers who faced off against Rudy.

The letter begins:

"Rudolph Giuliani has claimed that he was the best of those who have held the prestigious office of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.... We are former prosecutors from the New York area, most of whom served in the United States Attorney’s Office. We are familiar with what goes on in New York law enforcement. We challenge Giuliani’s assessment of himself."

It accuses Rudy of using a variety of questionable tactics, including grand jury leaks, and of exagerrating his accomplishments:

"In the current presidential campaign, Giuliani presents an inflated and sometimes seriously inaccurate picture of his achievements as a federal prosecutor.... Under Giuliani, an unusual number of high profile cases began with skillfully manipulated fanfare, but ended in dismissals, acquittals or reversals."

And: "Giuliani’s performance as United States Attorney simply does not match his claims. In fact, we believe that the pattern of improper leaks to the media, excessive use of publicity, and other inappropriate conduct that he engaged in while serving as United States Attorney, together with the disingenuous way in which he now describes his service, casts doubt, generally, on Giuliani’s credibility and judgment."

Even Republican need to look closely-- because if this is the best they can do, they're in even worse shape than Peggy Noonan thinks Bush has put them in.

BLUE AMERICA IS BACK IN ACTION-- WITH ALAN GRAYSON (FL-08)

Meet Alan live at FDL today at 2 PM (EST)

It's been over two months since Blue America has endorsed a new candidate (Gretchen Clearwater in Indiana's 9th CD against reactionary Blue Dog Baron Hill). In the interim we've been urging progressives to donate to the progressives in early primary battles, particularly Donna Edwards (MD-04), John Laesch (IL-14), Mark Pera (IL-03), and Vic Wulsin (OH-02). Today we've invited a truly exceptional candidate on for a chat, someone who has already accomplished a great deal outside of government and who wants to run against corrupt Republican rubber stamp Ric Keller in central Florida. Before we get into just how Alan Grayson has been working on our behalf as a private citizen, let's take a look at the district and the race as it's shaping up.

Keller has been a rubber stamp backbencher from FL-08 (Orlando area) since 2000 and has accrued an unremarkable, albeit abysmal, voting record across the board, supporting the far right line on everything-- from choice (anti) to gay rights (anti) to Bush's ill-advised war and occupation of Iraq (pro). The district, which has seen a huge influx of new residents-- something like 150,000-- many of whom are from Puerto Rico, has been trending blue. Since 2002, Keller's majorities have shrunk down from 65% to 61% to 53%. The more people get to know him, the less they like him.

Last year he ran against a reactionary old-line Democrat, Charlie Stuart, part of the Central Florida establishment-- at least by marriage-- with no personal accomplishments whatsoever (a kind of mini-Bush in that respect) and with policy positions that should ring alarm bells... loudly: anti-choice, pro-corporation, unwilling to speak out against the Iraq fiasco. He wants to run again this year. Fortunately, Alan Grayson can prevent Florida voters being stuck with a choice between a horrible Republican and a nearly as bad Democrat.

Last Sunday DWT carried a story, The Crime of the Century: A Scandal of Epic Proportions That Will Haunt the Legacy of the Bush Regime. In many ways that-- and the Vanity Fair expose it's based on-- is the perfect introduction to Alan Grayson and what makes him the perfect progressive candidate, and someone Beltway Insiders, and especially everyone inside the Bush Regime, needs to be very, very afraid of. Alan knows exactly where all the bodies are buried-- and he can't wait to get to Congress so the judicial gag order he's under won't apply. And it goes beyond "just" Halliburton, KBR and the usual war profiteer suspects. You know all the crime always being alluded to in regard to members of Congress and defense contractors? They better pray with all their might that Grayson doesn't wind up with "Representative" in front of his name. When I asked him, for example, about Duncan Hunter, Duke Cunningham and Jerry Lewis he replied "I wish I could tell you about that actually, but the rule about sealed cases is such that I'd get locked up if I did." But not on the floor of the House. Instead he was able to speak in generalities:

I think what the Republicans, particularly the ones in California and the Southwest in general have recognized is that you can make an awful lot of money from government contracting. In regard to Iraq, I've described those people as 'war-whores.' But it's not limited to Iraq, and in Southern California-- particularly in the area around San Diego [this is Duncan Hunter/Duke Cunningham-Brian Bilbray/Jerry Lewis/Darrell Issa/Dana Rohrabacher/Ken Calvert territory; sound familiar?]-- there's an awful lot of companies that exist, basically, to rip off the government. And I think that's one reason why the U.S. Attorney in San Diego was replaced [by the Alberto Gonzales Justice Dept.]... concerns that there would be legitimate investigations into that whole scene. Government contracting generates a huge amount of profit-- some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate-- that is doled out to people in accordance with a very subjective process that's subject to all sorts of favoritism and manipulation. Sometimes the people who are in a position to dole out this money are influenced by the people who end up receiving it. And that's what we call in general terms 'corruption.' ... The only part of the Defense Department that's actually been cut since Bush took over has been the auditing staff.

Alan Grayson has been investigating and prosecuting corruption and, particularly war profiteering cases, for quite some time. Few people-- other than someone like Dick Cheney, of course-- know as much about it as he does. We need this man in Congress... now.

For those who haven't had a chance to read it yet, let me quote from the end of the Vanity Fair article:

In the more distant future, a Democratic administration might open up the vaults and expose the American public to the scale of what has been looted. "What we have seen up to now is the worst of the worst in terms of a deliberate cover-up," Grayson says. But if and when it comes to an end, he thinks it's entirely possible that Congress will appoint a special prosecutor-- one whose targets might one day reach "an extremely high level."

After Jane sent me this I called Alan and read it to him on the phone and asked him if he'd be advocating impeachment for Bush and Cheney now if he were in Congress. He didn't hesitate or hum or haw. He just said, "Absolutely. The right wing's worst nightmare would be Alan Grayson with subpoena power. Gag order and the threat of criminal contempt have kept me and my clients quiet up until this point but if I get elected to the House of Representatives that's all gone. The speech and debate clause protects me entirely. At that point I can tell everybody everything that I know and, on top of that I'll have the ability to actually hold hearings, launch investigations, assign staff and subpoena people... Just on the basis of what I know of government contracting alone I think that there are strong arguments in favor of impeachment."

I'm eager for Congressman Grayson's first tete a tete with Madam Speaker. If you want to see that too-- and to see a progressive leader and fighter from central Florida, someone who believes with his whole being that "you don't beat Republicans by imitating Republicans," please consider 2008's first Blue America plea. Let's help this guy get the Democratic nomination and then beat the Republican rubber stamp.

Yesterday Alan put together a special little video clip for Crooks and Liars and I suggest you take a look.

DO ENDORSEMENTS FROM POLITICIANS MEAN ANYTHING IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE?

Some endorsements do more harm than good

Florida's two uber-establishmentarian U.S. senators, conservative Democrat Bill Nelson and reactionary Republican Mel Martinez have decided to endorse-- surprise, surprise-- their parties' establishmentarian candidates, Hillary and McCain. Do you think anyone cares? Do you think anyone says, "Oh, look, Bill Nelson has endorsed Hillary. I was going to vote for John Edwards because he's the most progressive and the one who would stand up to Insider interests but I better switch to Hillary?" Or perhaps, "Ugghhh... I was a huge Hillary booster with a sign on my lawn and I was going to do phone banking for her Monday but now that I see that that awful Republican-supporting creep Nelson, who wants to give Bush, Cheney and the telecom criminals retroactive immunity, has endorsed her, I'm switching to Obama?" Or--even a somewhat more plausible scenario: "Martinez is for McCain; isn't McCain the one who wanted to give amnesty to millions of undocumented workers, just like Martinez does? I better switch to that friendly Huckleberry character who wants to round them all up and ship them back to Ireland or wherever they come from?" Uh... no; none of that's too likely.

Perhaps a few undecided Republican Cubans will get the signal that McCain is "good for" the Cuban community and swing in that direction after being impressed with Martinez' "This is a man que habla claro. He talks straight... He's going to be Castro's worst nightmare." And maybe that will help offset the ranting and raving from the most vicious and extremist faction of the GOP screaming about how McCain wants open borders.

Perhaps a slightly more significant endorsement comes from a governor. Florida's very popular governor, Charlie Crist, was widely expected to endorse his buddy McCain but has demurred after McCain came out against his catastrophic hurricane insurance proposal. [UPDATE: Crist just endorsed McCain after all; I guess he meditated about Willard for a couple minutes and figured he'd have to do something to put a stop to that horror.] But two dozen governors-- not counting the ex-governor of New Mexico who endorsed Ron Paul and legalized marijuana-- have endorsed in the presidential primary. Governors, like senators, tend to be pretty establishment characters, And most of the Democrats (10) have gone to Hillary, including the governors of home state New York, neighboring states Pennsylvania and New Jersey and election-key Ohio. Among Republicans McCain and Romney are both super establishmentarian and McCain has attracted 4 endorsements to Willard's 3. Everyone hates Giuliani but Texas' clueless governor Rick Perry has endorsed him-- with ideology far from the fore-- and it has made zero difference in Giuliani's bottom of the barrel poll rankings.

A governor's endorsement can be campaign gold since governors have a built-in bully pulpit they can use to promote a candidate and their own grass-roots organizing and fundraising networks to share.

Come the general election, it's natural for governors to support their party's nominee, and voters take it for granted. That makes governors' backing particularly important now, in the primary and caucus stage of the campaign.

"Voters in the primaries and caucuses are trying to make decisions among candidates that they generally prefer, so those choices tend to be harder," said Paul Beck, an Ohio State University political scientist. "There, a governor's endorsement can be useful."

Here's which governors have endorsed so far:

For Hillary: Ruth Ann Miner (DE), Jon Corzine (NJ), Eliot Spitzer (NY), Martin O'Malley (MD), John Baldacci (ME), Mike Beebe (AR), Jennifer Granholm (MI), Ted Stickland (OH), Ted Kulongoski (OR), and Ed Rendell (PA).

For Obama: Deval Patrick (MA), Rod Blagojevich (IL), Tim Kaine (VA), Jim Doyle (WI), and Janet Napolitano (AZ).

For McCain: Mitch Daniels (IN), Jon Huntsman (UT), Tim Pawlenty (MN), and Jim Douglas(VT).

For Willard: retiring Matt Blunt (MO), Don Carcieri (RI), and Dave Heineman (NE).

For Huckabee: Mike Rounds (SD)

For Giuliani: Mike Perry (TX)

It is expected to all be over after Super Tuesday (February 5). That day there are primaries in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (Democrats only), Illinois, Kansas (Democrats), Missouri, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah, and caucuses in Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana (Republicans only), New Mexico (Democrats), North Dakota, West Virginia (Republicans). Later in February there are also primaries or caucuses in Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Virginia, DC, Hawaii, and Wisconsin. The last voting before the national conventions (August 25-28 for the Democrats and September 1-4 for the hapless Republicans in Minneapolis-St. Paul where one of their prominent senators was recently caught soliciting sex from a male undercover policeman) will be on June 3 when Montana Democrats and all South Dakotans have their primaries and New Mexico Republicans caucus.

It's likely that Lou Dobbs' endorsement-- if he makes one-- will have a greater impact on more Republican voters than any of the governors or senators. But in terms of members of Congress, Hillary's got 82 (if you count Bill Nelson), Obama's got 46, Willard has 39, McCain has 35, Giuliani has 25, Edwards has 15, and Huckabee has 5. A note: it would be nice if Hillary and Obama, both of whom swear up and down that they oppose retroactive immunity being included in the FISA bill, used some leadership to convince the senators who support them, to vote with the Democrats on this. Hillary could prove she's a leader by bringing in Evan Bayh, Daniel Inouye, Bill Nelson, Barbara Mikulski, and Mark Pryor, and Obama could do likewise with Tim Johnson, Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson.

TOMORROW'S BLUE AMERICA CANDIDATE: ALAN GRAYSON

We've written a bit about Alan Grayson here, here, and here and tomorrow (Saturday) he'll be our guest at Firedoglake at 11am, PT (2pm in Florida). We'll be talking with him about his experiences prosecuting war profiteers and about his campaign for Congress in the Orlando area. But there's a lot more to Alan Grayson, of course. You can see something about him, his wife and five children at his website bio. But I wanted to find a way to give people a better feel for who Alan Grayson really is.

While we talked on the phone, he wound up talking about Joni Mitchell... a lot. I asked him why she is so important to him. I thought if I shared that with you, you might get a feel for where this guy is coming from beside the fact that he is a strong and committed progressive.

Can one person be the soul of a whole generation? If so, then Joni Mitchell is that person, for every child of the '60s and the '70s. "I am a woman of heart and mind," she sang, and she has been sharing with us what is in her heart, and on her mind, for almost all our lives. In song after song, she introduced us to characters of surreal depth and texture: "Edith and the Kingpin," "A Strange Boy," "The Last Time I Saw Richard," "Nathan La Franeer," and so on. And she introduced and then re-introduced us to her ever-evolving self, as in "Refuge of the Roads," "The Silky Veils of Ardor" and "Chinese Cafe." Wise enough to create "The Circle Game" and "Both Sides, Now," funny enough to create "Twisted," and soulful enough to create "Big Yellow Taxi" and, of course, "Woodstock." Chronicler of love for the first liberated generation. Creator of songs I want to share with my children. Voice of an angel, beauty of a goddess, wisdom of a maharishi, conscience of a saint. 
 
Everything we need to know, we learned-- or can learn-- from Joni Mitchell.

By the way, you don't have to wait 'til tomorrow. We've already opened our Blue America page for Alan. Ric Keller likes boy bands. If you want to elect a progressive who understands the difference between the Backstreet Boys and Joni Mitchell... well, you know.

MONDAY'S THE BIG DAY FOR FISA-- BUSH WANTS RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR HIMSELF, CHENEY AND THEIR CRIMINAL CRONIES

photo by Thurman Hart

Last night, over at Firedoglake, Marcy laid out where things stand now in regard to Bush's demand that the Senate rubber stamp his retroactive immunity for telecom executives (as well as for himself and Cheney) who illegally spied on Americans. The Republicans need 60 votes on Monday. There are currently a dozen shameful Democratic traitors who have been voting with them, although telecom bribe-taker Jay Rockefeller says he will switch back to the Democratic side on Monday. The others are:

Indiana's Evan Bayh (202) 224-5623
Delaware's Tom Carper (202) 224-2441
Hawaii's Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
South Dakota's Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Louisiana's Landrieu (202)224-5824
Missouri's Mary McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Maryland's Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Florida's Bill Nelson (202) 224-5274
Nebraska's Bill Nelson (202) 224-6551
Arkansas' Mark Pryor (202) 224-2353
Colorado's Ken Salazar (202) 224-5852

If one of these critters works for you, please call him or her and urge them to remember they're Americans, not fascists or communists and that they're supposed to be working for us, not for the GOP and not for high-spending criminal corporate executives. My guess is that the senators who are most persuadable are McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson (FL), Inouye, and Salazar. You might also try one Republican if you live in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter at (202) 224-4254.

A summary of Marcy's main points, which explains where we are and why it's important and where we're likely to be going next:

• Despite the Republicans' screams today about bipartisanship, it was their filibuster yesterday and their continuous obstructionism that have been preventing their colleagues' carefully considered amendments from getting a fair hearing.
• The Bush-backed Intelligence Committee bill gives Bush and Cheney immunity for breaking the law. No Democrat and no honest Republican should even consider backing this odious proposal.
• Clearly, the amendments will improve on the Intelligence Committee bill, produce a bill that the House will pass or that the Senate-House conference will be able to make work, and still ensure that America (if not Bush) gets what the regime says it needs: no limitations on wiretapping of foreigners in other countries.
• Jay Rockefeller has been putting his donors' interests over the Constitution and the privacy of American citizens; his agreement to come back to his senses Monday should be followed by the other Insider Democrats who have been collaborating with the far right.
• The Republicans are trying to prevent any real oversight over minimization-- the process by which the the Administration ensures that it does not collect or keep information on Americans incidentally.
• The Republicans are trying to prevent Congress from specifying that FISA as the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance--which is the only way to ensure the President-- even one less venal and more trustworthy than Bush-- follows this law.
• The Republicans are trying to make it easy for the government to wiretap American citizens while we're overseas.
• The Republicans are trying to make it easy for the government to use data mining and bulk wiretap techniques that don't require the government to select real suspects for their wiretapping.
• The Republicans want to give the telecoms immunity for breaking the law in 2004, when they continued to wiretap Americans for a period with only the authorization of the crooked, politicized White House Counsel, and not the crooked, politicized Attorney General.
• The Republicans' obstruction risks leaving us with limited surveillance when the Protect America Act expires in February.

Russ Feingold (D-WI) addressed Republican obstructionism this morning:

"The conduct of Senate Republicans yesterday was shameless. After weeks of insisting that it is absolutely critical to finish the FISA legislation by February 1, even going so far as to object to a one-month extension of the Protect America Act, they obstructed all efforts to actually work on the bill. Now they want to simply ram the deeply flawed Intelligence Committee bill through the Senate. They refused to allow amendments to be offered or voted on, including my straight-forward amendment to require that the government provide copies of FISA Court orders and pleadings for review in a classified setting, so that Members of Congress can understand how FISA has been interpreted and is being applied. If the Republicans succeed in cutting off debate on Monday, the Senate won't even get to vote on the amendment Senator Dodd and I want to offer to deny retroactive immunity to telecom companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration's illegal wiretapping program. 

“Democrats should not allow the Republicans to ram this bill through the Senate without amendments. Monday's cloture vote will be a test of whether the majority is willing to stand up to the administration and stand up for our rights."

Perhaps Reid is getting his spine back; although I'll believe it after I see it on Monday. He spoke at the National Press Club this afternoon and seemed to indicate that maybe, just maybe, he will finally stand up to the Regime on this and that wither Bush agrees to a temporary extension or there will be no FISA bill. Reid has the power to make this happen-- or not happen. Let's see him lead.

The president has to make a decision. He's either going to extend the law, or he will… which is temporary in nature, or there will be no wiretapping.   

We have worked very hard to try to come up with a way to proceed on this but it's up to the President. 

The amendments that were offered in the Senate … they would have passed. The majority of the Senate favored these amendments.  

They refused to allow us to vote on what we call 'Title 1' which is a procedural aspect of this, and then they never even dreamed of our going to the second part, which is the retroactive immunity.  Which is… there is real controversy over that and there should be a vote in the United States Senate as to whether or not there should be retroactive immunity. They won't give us one.   

So again, it's up to the president. He can either continue the present law for an extended period of time, we would agree to two weeks, we would agree to a month, and we would agree to a longer period of time than that.  

But it is up to the president. Does he want the law? It's up to him. 

If it fails, he can give all the speeches he wants, including the State of the Union, about how we've stopped things, if he does that, it's disingenuous, and it's not true.

 
As citizens it's up to us to support Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold and to hold Reid's feet to the fire and make sure our representatives know this is serious and they'd better do the right thing for voters, not for rich corporate criminals; the pressure needs to be kept up all weekend. Watch Dodd on the Senate floor this morning; he should be the Majority Leader:

LAST NIGHT'S FLORIDA DEBATE ON THE ECONOMY WAS A LOSER BUT THE CAMPAIGN ADS...

Utterly clueless

Willard's attack on McCain is under this morning's post on the Florida debate. McCain's response ad (below) plays up the Flip-Flip Mitt theme not many voters find too admirable.

While these two clowns-- not to mention the fast-fading Giuliani-- argue about which one loves the Bush tax cuts (neither of them supported) more, economists who are looking at the data and results of Bush's economic policies are reaching a consensus that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and other pro-corporate/anti-worker/anti-consumer policies have been disastrous for America, including for the American economy.

...[T]he underlying problems that ail the markets and the economy cannot be waved away by the Fed's magic wand. In truth, we're at the beginning of a long, arduous process of figuring out how much of the post-tech bubble prosperity was real and how much was the result of a credit-induced frenzy. The answer will determine what we can expect.

The housing markets, of course, overshot as too many buyers took out subprime mortgages they couldn't afford. The outcome will be a decline in home values, with prices in some areas already down.

But the economic writedown is likely to go far beyond housing. Household spending, consumer debt, financial sector profits: All may need a retrenchment, sudden or gradual, to get back to sustainable levels. That's bad news for investors and the global economy, which still depends heavily on U.S. consumption for growth.

There may even be a reassessment of whether recent productivity gains were fueled by excess credit. If growth in productivity slows, the economy will stagnate, real wages will weaken, corporate earnings targets will be harder to meet, and inflationary risks will increase.

A few days ago The Agonist demonstrated how banks which acted like pigs at Bush's trough, going for quickie profits rather than reasonable, long-term, sustainable growth have damaged the economy. It's a very Republican mindset, certainly the Willard mindset and one that Giuliani and McCain, though not really understanding it, both buy into. On top of that, widespread international boycotts of American brands by people the world over pissed off about Bush's foreign policy, have been extremely damaging.

It's not just many of the 1.5 billion Muslim consumers, either, that have quit buying Made in America. It's people from France to Brazil to Canada to India, and it is a trend that began even before Bush invaded Iraq -- remember those angry millions the world over that took to the streets urging him not to start it?

When foreigners, who once valued American craftsmanship, stop buying U.S. products, it's got to worsen the balance of trade. And that can translate into layoffs, into closed factories, into reduced consumer spending. The Census Bureau is reporting the trade deficit in goods and services was a whopping $63 billion in October-- and that's a factor in the current meltdown.

And this, of course, is separate from the warning we had from economists that a prolonged occupation of Iraq would lead directly to a U.S. recession.

Today David Sirota points out how the "Stimulus" package Insider Democrats have conspired with Bush and the GOP to foist on us, is a sham and a swindle, designed to help out big political donors-- of both parties-- in the financial industry, not the people who are hurting.

Specifically, most GOP presidential candidates are demanding corporate tax cuts as the "stimulus" to improve American competitiveness, ignoring a recent Treasury Department report noting that the United States already has among the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the developed world. Republicans like John McCain, fresh off a Merrill Lynch fundraiser, say we need not expand unemployment benefits and food stamps to help workers and give the economy a reliable Keynesian boost. No, they say we must hand over more cash to the same financial industry that just gave its executives $39 billion worth of year-end bonuses.

Leading figures of both parties seem eager to help limit the debate over "stimulus" and make the final package a corporate goodie bag. According to the Washington Post, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.) asked economists affiliated with The Hamilton Project -- a Citigroup-backed think tank -- to testify to Congress at its initial hearings on a stimulus package. Labor economists, by contrast, were not invited.

You might think Citigroup's central role in creating the current financial crisis would disqualify it from influencing legislation addressing that crisis. But remember, Citigroup gives lavishly to Democratic politicians and pays Democratic financier Bob Rubin roughly $10 million a year as a top executive.

Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats appear poised to support a package stripped of increases in safety-net programs and comprised largely of business tax cuts. This, even though experts agree the former would have an immediate economic impact and the latter will take at least six months to hit. As usual, We the People are told to wait patiently as moneyed interests claim their latest gift from Washington.

President Bush is undoubtedly pleased. He said he wanted "stimulus" built primarily on tax cuts and no new public investment -- more proof of his desire to win the Most Out of Touch President title from Herbert Hoover (at least Hoover proposed new infrastructure with the tax cuts he claimed would prevent the Great Depression).

Let's be clear: There's nothing inherently bad about Washington interacting with Big Business, and nothing wrong with "stimulus" as a concept. But as this recession intensifies, there's a big problem with politicians catering exclusively to Big Business and an even bigger problem with converting "stimulus" into yet another code word for "swindle."

So while you digest all that, enjoy Willard blowing in the wind:




UPDATE: McCAIN SLAMS WILLARD WITH A SPOT ON RADIO AD

A few weeks ago Huckabee pointed out the American workers and their families might prefer someone in a position of leadership who is like them rather than like the guy who's laying them and their friends off. That summed up Willard pretty well but for those who missed the point, McCain made drove it home in his new anti-Willard radio spot today, which points out that Romney is just some kind of manager, not a visionary or a leader. But the extreme right still hates McCain and will never support him-- even if it means getting behind a pathetic empty-suit nonentity like Willard. The really radical, deranged kooks are especially virulent in their psychotic hatred for McCain.

UPDATE: WHO YOU GONNA TRUST?

Although he denies it now-- pants on fire-- McCain once famously declared that he knows next to nothing about economics. Maybe that why he keeps Lieberman around. In any case, his run of the mill right wing talking points about how to fix the economy almost make Willard look like he knows something. Well, to be fair, Willard does know something-- how to suck an entity dry for short term profits while killing the long term prospects. That's his specialty and he could conceivably be worse for the economy then even Bush, as hard as that is to believe. In any case, none of these idiots are worthy of trusting. And the Democrats? I'm not sure. Read a real economist's analysis of the bogus stimulus package the Democrats and Republicans put together. Paul Krugman shows why it stinks.

I’d guess that the top two quintiles are unlikely to be liquidity-constrained, so the rebate will have little effect on their spending. But they get 58% of the money. The bottom two quintiles, which are the place you’d most expect to have an impact, get only 21% of the money. Split the difference on the middle quintile, and you’ve got a plan where around 2/3 of the outlay is likely to be ineffective."

That's what we need Democrats for? What about food stamps or an unemployment insurance extension for the people who are actually in need?

GOP CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS BREAKS THRU THE TWO DOZEN MARK AS FLORIDA'S REACTIONARY DAVE WELDON ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT

Florida wingnut, Dave Weldon, plays bass on "Another one Bites the Dust"

A few days ago as the GOP hit the 2 dozen mark with congressional retirements and resignations after an announcement from New York's James Walsh, we were speculating who the next Republican would be to cut and run. This morning we got the answer: Florida rubber stamp kook, Dave Weldon is blasting off into the sunset. Weldon, from Amityville moved to Florida after college. Like myself he went to SUNY, Stony Brook. He was elected from the 15th CD (Cape Canaveral south through Melbourne and Cocoa Beach) in 1994 and has been a dependable rubber stamp back bencher ever since. He has a typically repulsive reactionary voting record, supporting, for example, every single Bush-Cheney initiative in Iraq. He voted on Iraq legislation 62 times and all 62 votes were the Cheney position. He announced his retirement immediately after his daughter was arrested in a local bar brawl. He said he needs to spend more time with his family. Republicans usually say that when they get caught stealing or in public toilets making that special kind of GOP-love, but in Weldon's case, it appears to be true.

No 8th term for Weldon in this Republican-leaning district that has had a solid influx of non-Republican voters from Puerto Rico of late. His departure will open up another seat on the Appropriations Committee for Republican crooks to fight over. There is a terrific and progressive Democrat in the race already, Steve Blythe and, with Weldon's announcement, the more conservative, corporate-friendly Insider Democrats are sure to rush some shill into the race and get their media allies to call him or her the front-runner.

Rumors are circulating in upstate New York that Randy Kuhl has about had it, senses defeat at the hands of Eric Massa, and is probably going to retire as well. He nearly did in 2006 and came very close to being beaten. After voting against the extremely popular S-CHIP legislation again, he was put into a corner and agreed to debate Massa on that topic. He doesn't want to and may well announce his retirement before the debate takes place. When questioned by the press, he refused to say whether he would run or not. This is certainly shaping up to be a good year for Democrats. Here's the full list of the Republicans who will no longer be troubling the House of Representatives with their reactionary politics and obstructionist tactics (the ones in bold are facing, or are likely to be facing, criminal charges in the future):

(CA-52) Duncan Hunter      
(IL-18) Ray LaHood            
(MS-03) Chip Pickering                 
(OH-15) Deborah Pryce                 
(IL-14) Dennis Hastert                   
(AZ-01) Rick Renzi                         
(MN-03) Jim Ramstad                   
(IL-11) Jerry Weller                         
(AL-02) Terry Everett                     
(NM-01) Heather Wilson                  
(OH-16) Ralph Regula                   
(OH-07) David Hobson                   
(NM-02) Steve Pearce                   
(LA-01) Bobby Jindal                   
(CO-06) Tom Tancredo                  
(NJ-03) Jim Saxton                        
(WY-AL) Barbara Cubin                 
(NJ-07) Michael Ferguson              
(LA-04) Jim McCrery                     
(MS-01) Roger Wicker                 
(PA-05) John Peterson                  
(CA-04) John Doolittle                     
(LA-06) Richard Baker
(NY-25) Jim Walsh                       
(FL-15) Dave Weldon                    

Steve Blythe, the progressive candidate running for Congress in what was Weldon's district, talking about his common sense and inspiring vision for America:

THE. MOST. BORING. AND. SENSELESS. DEBATE. EVER. PARTY OF IDEAS? I DON'T THINK SO

If Florida Republicans needed another reason to stay away from the polls next week, they found it on MSNBC tonight: the political snooze-fest of the year. Big loser: Giuliani. He had the most to lose if nothing happened. Nothing happened. NOTHING. This was like one of those early Andy Warhol movies like Kiss or Sleep, or, more appropriately, Empire.

So what did we learn-- those of us who stayed awake through this march of the pathetic pygmies? Well, first and foremost, they are willing to tell the American public that they want to abolish taxes. Are even Republicans still that gullible? Everyone was on good behavior, although Willard can't help himself and had to try to stick a shiv in McCain's back when he thought no one was paying attention-- "he voted against the Bush tax cuts." [Though maybe you can't directly blame Willard for being a dick. Maybe it was that little voice in his ear.] I loved that all the candidates agreed that Ted Stevens and Don Young were the personification of much of what is wrong with the Republican Party and with the Inside the Beltway Establishment. How many times did we hear "Bridge to Nowhere?"

I had to laugh when the pygmies were asked what they thought of a just released poll that asks a broad and representative segment of the American public which party they trust to handle the economy and people overwhelmingly chose the Democrats-- by 18%. The only answer seemed to be that they would lower taxes, hate China, do everything different from Bush and veto the Bridge to Nowhere.

Oh and they hate Hillary and her evil twin Rumsfeld-- and taxes. And-- who knew-- there were weapons of mass destruction and that's why we must stay in Iraq. The NY Times editorial endorsing McCain and slamming Giuliani was much more interesting. The editors start by voicing what the vast majority of Americans feel about the pygmies: "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice." That said, they held their noses and picked McCain who they seem to feel is less venal that Bush. Doesn't take much. Then they explained why they didn't endorse the candidate they know best.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign
.
The other candidates offer no better choices.

Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.

So much more exciting and informative than that dull, dull debate in Boca Raton. Even the wingnuts thought the debate was pathetic. One Republican wag asked "Where can I go to get my 90 minutes back? " Another low level GOP propagandist rated it a D and then said a D is too generous. "Conservative voters in Florida are the big losers. This debate gave them nothing."

Meanwhile conservative voters next door in Georgia want to broaden the horse-race out a bit and are ready to hand The Huckster a big victory. According to the latest Rasmussen poll Huck's gonna win the GOP primary there by a wide margin (thanks to Frederick of Hollywood's departure. And Ron Paul beats Giuliani. Brokered convention.


UPDATE: VICIOUS, SLIMY WILLARD

Behind Willard's fake smile and shiny teeth, he's always planning how to stab his opponent in the back-- not that McCain doesn't deserve to be attacked. Willard ought to do it mano a mano. Instead he does it with expensive TV ads, like this one:

TRUE BLUE NEW MEXICO

We're very lucky to be able to welcome a guest blogger to DWT this evening, Barbara Wold, one of the most effective and sensible voices in New Mexico progressive politics. Like so many of us, she came to be reinvolved with politics via the Howard Dean campaign. Now she blogs at Democracy for New Mexico and helps coordinate a monthly progressive Meetup in Albuquerque that's been active for about four years. She's also participates in local Dem Party politics, having been part of a successful "take our party back" effort that's resulted in dozens of progressives winning party offices including ward and precinct slots and seats on the County and State governing bodies.

It's an amazing situation this year in New Mexico politics. We have a chance to gain a U.S. Senate seat and two U.S. House seats, which would make our entire Congressional delegation blue. It's been a case of musical chairs ever since Sen. Pete Domenici announced his retirement late last year due to a brain disease, putting all three of our House seats and one of our Senate seats up for grabs in open contests.

With all of our state offices except Land Commissioner held by Dems, both houses of our legislature dominated by Dems and Bill Richardson as our Governor, we think a true blue New Mexico is a real possibility, which is why the local netroots has started an Act Blue fundraising page called just that:
True Blue New Mexico.


We've got excellent candidates in former Albuquerque City Councilor Martin Heinrich in NM-01, former Dona Ana Commissioner Bill McCamley down south in NM-03, and current NM-03 Rep. Tom Udall running for Senate. In NM-03 in Northern New Mexico, traditionally a Dem stronghold, we've got a bunch of progressive contenders including green builder Don Wiviott, NM Public Regulation Commission member Ben Ray Lujan and Jemez Pueblo member Benny Shendo -- so many we haven't been able to come to a consensus on who to support.

In NM-01, a Dem winner would replace faux-moderate Repub Heather Wilson. Heather edged out Dem Patricia Madrid last time out by fewer than 700 votes. The Repub contender this round is expected to be current Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, who chaired the Bush campaign in the county in 2004. He's never had to run a competitive race, and New Mexico's voters have definitely soured on everything Bush. Dem Martin Heinrich was instrumental in passing a minimum wage raise for Albuquerque, and is a conservation and environmental champion. He's known as a top-notch negotiator who uses common sense and honesty to bring people together to solve problems. He's a progressive through and through.

In NM-02, where the Las Cruces City Council was recently repopulated with progressive Dems after a long stretch of Repub rule, McCamley's running a truly grassroots campaign. With a master's in public policy from Harvard, McCamley is smart, informed and infectiously passionate. While on the County Commission, he led the fight to replace down and dirty sprawl development with a common sense planning process -- an issue that's recently turned many a voter Dem in the district. Meanwhile, the Repub Party in those parts is in disarray, with many less than stellar Congressional candidates emerging to fight it out for a chance at the Repub slot. If we have a Dem winner in the district, they'd replace the truly awful hard-right ideologue Steve Pearce, who's abandoned his seat to battle Heather Wilson for the Repub Senate nomination.

In NM-03, we expect to hold onto Udall's seat given the high percentage of progressive Dems in the district that includes Santa Fe, Taos and rural Hispanic Dem strongholds. The only question is which Dem among many candidates will get the nod. That's why we set up True Blue New Mexico to reward whoever wins the Dem nomination there.

As for the Senate seat, Tom Udall's popular all over the state and very well respected by New Mexicans of all political stripes. A true gentleman and a member of the illustrious, conservation-championing Udall family of the West, he was encouraged to get into the Senate race by the grassroots and power Dems alike. In Congress, Udall voted against both the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act, and he's been instrumental in helping us preserve many of New Mexico's beautiful and pristine landscapes. Nonetheless, a tough race against either Heather Wilson or Steve Pearce is expected this fall.

Why is the New Mexico netroots reaching out now for support?
First of all, we want top-notch, progressive candidates to get a head start on fundraising and garnering support. We want more Dems but we want good Dems, as the saying goes. And the GOP is already active in fundraising for their New Mexico cronies. Just yesterday, Karl Rove was in Artesia, NM raising money for the state Repub Party, the same day Dick Cheney was hosting a fundraiser for Senate candidate Steve Pearce in DC. Cheney previous held a similar event in Washington for Senate candidate Heather Wilson. It's evident that wingnut money machine will be heavily involved in trying to protect their seats here-- despite a big fall in support for all things Repub even in more moderate areas of the state.

Secondly, we wanted to reach out early both locally and within the national netroots community. New Mexico is economically challenged and sparsely populated in many areas of the state. Grassroots donations can be hard to come by given our rising cost of living and low salaries. In other words, we can use all the help we can get.

We hope you'll visit the True Blue New Mexico page at Act Blue and toss a few bucks into the collection basket. Even if you're not so inclined right now, we hope you'll keep the True Blue candidates in mind as election season moves forward, knowing that Blue America already has Martin, Bill and Tom on their radar. Our ActBlue page is an effort by local blogs including New Mexico FBIHOP and Democracy for New Mexico. Please visit our sites, poke around a bit and check out posts yesterday and the day before about this effort, as well as guest blogs by Martin Heinrich and Bill McCamley. We've just begun to fight.

-Barbara Wold

BLEAK FUTURE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS SHOWING UP IN THE LACK OF INTEREST IN THE ELECTIONS BY GOP VOTERS

We've mentioned a few times-- as evidence that even Republican voters find the pathetic pygmies a totally implausible lot as prospects for the presidency (of the United States)-- that Democrats are flocking to the polls and caucuses in record numbers while Republicans are just staying away and praying None of the Above manages to win their party's nomination. GOP propagandists are popping up all over the net with fake stats trying to prove that Republicans are motivated and voting in droves. I've dug up all the final official voter turn-out numbers in the states where both parties competed.

In Iowa 239,000 Democrats took part in the caucuses. Slightly less than half that number took part in the GOP caucuses, 118,691. Iowa is supposed to be a 50/50 state. It was a little closer in the next contest, also a 50/50 state, New Hampshire. 284,104 Democrats showed up. Only 233,381 Republicans bothered with their motley assortment of crooks and thieves running to be the next George Bush. And in Nevada-- the state Willard claims legitimizes him as a front runner-- 117,599 Democrats came to vote and only 44,324 Republicans, almost a third of whom were Mormons intent on getting one of their own into the White House, caucused. Pretty sad.

If you add the totals, that's 640,703 motivated Democrats and 396,396 Republicans-- and none of those are the big Democratic states. But there's another way to look at these numbers. Despite Willard's silly pretensions (and open wallet), McCain is the front runner. But compare his vote totals this year with how he did last time he ran. In 2000 McCain pulled 115,490 votes in New Hampshire and 237,888 in South Carolina. This year he won both states-- by default since very few Republicans even voted. This year McCain took 88,466 votes in New Hampshire and 147,283 votes in South Carolina. Jesus, are these guys in trouble!

Of course, if Romney or the Huckster manages to beat back McCain in Florida-- a very real prospect-- a brokered convention could still be how the GOP picks its nominee. Imagine what they could come up with in a smoke-filled backroom: Cheney and Jeb or Frist and Santorum. How about George Allen and Katherine Harris? Charlie Crist, popular Republican governor of Florida is very worried about the future of his party's future? Why?

What's the difference between 2008 and four years ago, he was asked. "The past four years," Crist replied.

[JANUARY 26 UPDATE: SOUTH CAROLINA SAME AS THE OTHER STATES-- MASSIVE DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT... MEDIOCRE GOP TURNOUT

529,789 Democrats voted and only 442,918 Republicans bothered to chose between the pygmies. Obama alone got more votes that McCain and Huckleberry, the #1 and 2 pygmies. And the future looks even bleaker for the Party of Hatred and Greed. Over 71,000 young Democrats voted and only 44,000 young wingnuts. Just think, it won't be long before the GOP is extinct, just like endangered species they are killing off.]


UPDATE: GOP HACKS NOW CLAIM IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT

True, Bush is the worst ever occupant of the White House, but Peggy Noonan's attempt to shift all the blame onto his shoulders is bogus-- even beyond the fact that the entire GOP wholeheartedly cheered on every disastrous initiative his regime took. It is the philosophic underpinings of modern Republican Party ideology that is to blame, far more than just a lazy, incompetent, corrupt moron in the White House or his clueless followers and the avaricious cronies surrounding him.

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

LIEBERMAN'S CLOSET DOOR COMES CRASHING OPEN-- YES, HE IS A TOTAL REACTIONARY

To the Democrats and progressive independents who scoffed when Ken and I warned you about Lieberman... suck on this. I especially rejoice at the discomfort Lieberman is causing his pals Hill and Bill, Obama, Reid, and Schumer. Indigestion doesn't begin to describe what they deserve for coddling this vicious miscreant and Bush/Cheney enabler.

One of the questions Newsweek asked him, rather cluelessly, was "as a lifelong Democrat, do you ever worry about the kind of judges a Republican--any Republican--might nominate during the next four to eight years, when liberal justices are likely to retire? " Apparently Newsweek is unaware that Lieberman has supported the worst of the Bush judicial nominations and has played a key role in confirming the most extremist and fanatical judges in contemporary history. Maybe Newsweek needs to hire professional journalists. In any case, Lieberman said he is concerned, but not really very much. He knows McCain and he knows he'll make the right decisons. (FYI, McCain has supported every single far right extremist fanatic ever nominate for a judgeship without one exception. Even if Newsweek is unaware of that, Lieberman isn't.) He doesn't care about choice either. I wonder if that will be big news to the enablers at NARL who teamed up with Rove and Cheney to make sure he was re-elected in 2006.

Lieberman also stated unequivocably that he will campaign against Hillary or Obama and for McCain and that he will act as a Judas goat in trying to lead Jews away from the Democratic Party-- but that he has no intention of giving up his place inside the Democratic caucus. I wonder if Harry Reid reads Newsweek.


UPDATE: AND IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING...

Lieberman continues to vote with the radical right on all their key issues, including on granting retroactive immunity to Bush's criminal telecom cronies.

DENNIS KUCINICH IS OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE-- AND NOW HE'LL HAVE TO FIGHT TO RETAIN HIS OHIO CONGRESSIONAL SEAT

Dennis Kucinich announced that he will announce that his campaign for the presidency-- or whatever it was he was doing-- is over. Lately I've been getting worried about his highly ineffectual campaign (for the presidency). I was worried because he was making the anti-war forces look small and insignificant and because it has been looking like he might actually have trouble keeping his House seat. It seems like one or another Democrat running against him gets endorsed every few days. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson endorsed City Councilman Joe Cimperman and Paul Hackett endorsed Rosemary Palmer. Maybe I shouldn't care; I kind of blame the impotence of the House Progressive Caucus on Kucinich's lameness as a leader. And his voting record... not so great. I mean, he is hardly the progressive icon his supporters think he is-- not even on the war in Iraq.

A day before he finally let it be known that he would withdraw from his quixotic presidential run, the Washington Post ran an ominous piece on the possibility of him not being re-elected.

As if presidential dark horse Dennis Kucinich didn't have enough problems with his White House run, now he appears to be panicking over the spirited primary challengers seeking his seat in the House. Cleveland City Councilman Joe Cimperman and North Olmstead Mayor Thomas O'Grady kicked off primary challenges last month, amid rising complaints that Kucinich's quest for higher office and his crusades to impeach Vice President Cheney have left the people of his district neglected. But in Kucinich land, the political landscape is never so simple.

In an "urgent personal appeal" Wednesday to his campaign supporters sent out by e-mail and released on YouTube, Kucinich laid the blame for his political travails a the feet "corporate interests"-- particularly local Cleveland ones-- and described an urgent need for funds so he could run television ads.

"I want to thank you for your support of our efforts to end the war, to create a not-for-profit healthcare system and take America in a new direction, so that we can have a government we can truly call our own. In connection with that, as you know, I'm running for re-election to the United States Congress and I need your help to make sure that I stay in Congress," he wrote. "Right now I'm under attack by corporate interests, most of them from the city of Cleveland, who have an agenda that has nothing to do with the people of my community, nor with most people in this country. And so what I'm asking you to do is to help me stay in Congress, so that I can continue to represent the people of my community, the state of Ohio and the United States of America."

“I want to continue to serve in Congress,” Kucinich told his hometown paper. I wonder if it's too late. Probably not-- but he'd better get busy.

REPUBLICAN ELECTION PROSPECTS CRUMBLING ALL OVER AMERICA

Republican Party poster girl, Mean Jean Schmidt

You know, we spend so much time trying to keep up with Republican incumbents retiring and resigning (upstate New York rubber stamp James Walsh was the latest, just today), that we often forget to remind everyone that the GOP is having an even worse time finding plausible candidates to run. Everyone with half a brain knows 2006, in retrospect, will look like Paradise compared to what's in store for Republicans in November. So the smartish ones are passing on expensive and time-consuming campaigns, leaving bottom trawlers and born losers as all the Republicans can put up for countless congressional races around the country.

On top of that, a number of Republican incumbents burdened with the taint of corruption, extremism, rubber stamp incompetence, and other well-known GOP characteristics, are looking at primary challenges, a very rare occurrence in the top-down Republican Party. Mean Jean Schmidt would like to defend her indefensible record against an onslaught from well-respected Democrat Vic Wulsin. Instead she is battling other Republicans talking about her many shortcomings.

The withdrawal of one of Mean Jean's Republican opponents, nasty far right kook Phil Heimlich, will actually make life even more difficult for Schmidt since her many detractors will all be able to unite behind a far stronger candidate than the hugely disliked Heimlich, former state Rep. Tom Brinkman.

Brinkman's campaign put out a statement after Heimlich's withdrawal saying the race is now "radically altered," giving Brinkman-- who entered the race only six weeks ago-- a chance for "more volunteers, more money and more attention - in short, all of the things a campaign needs to win."

In 2006 Schmidt was also challenged in a bloody primary barely winning renomination against former Rep. Bob McEwen, 48-43%.

Meanwhile, wonderers are wondering who will be the next Republican member of Congress to resign or announce retirement. Bill Young (R-FL) is always a possibility but now that John Shadegg (R-AZ) has tacitly admitted his guilt to money laundering charges by giving back the money, he may start thinking about honoring his pledge to not seek re-election after 6 terms.


UPDATE: REPUBLICAN PROSPECTS HAVE BEEN FALLING EVEN MORE DRASTICALLY THAN THE STOCK MARKET-- ACCORDING TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

What a pessimistic perspective about GOP chances in 2008 from their very own paper of record!

Amid a weakened economy and market turmoil, President Bush's stock has fallen again as he prepares to deliver his final State of the Union address next week, underscoring the burden he could pose for his party's presidential nominee in the race to November's election.

As for his would-be successors, the remaining Republicans candidates have dropped further behind in hypothetical match-ups against potential Democratic standard-bearers Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The exception is Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has revived his still-fragile candidacy and takes the lead in Republicans' contest for the first time in the poll.

And even McCain-- who has stopped mentioning global warming in order to please the right wing fanatics who control his party-- loses to Hillary, although more narrowly than the other pygmies.

READY FOR BUSH'S 2008 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS?

Instead of allowing Democrats to start an impeachment investigation into Bush, Pelosi will be applauding his lies and deception from the Speaker's podium, making believe he's a normal president doing his best to help our country's citizens. Watch the video:



According to today's Hill Bush's final SOTU speech next week was written for him as a way to point to some kind of manufactured-- and fake-- bipartisanship: fixing the economy (i.e.- more unfair and economically devastating tax breaks for corporations and his wealthy supporters), the FISA bill (i.e.- retroactive immunity for his law breaking cronies and contributors), "recent successes in Iraq" (though not its funding), and ratification of trade agreements (which have devastated the American middle class). Should be a real hoot. Let's count the number of lies/minute or-- better yet-- lies/applause interruption from the rubber stamp swine whose utter dereliction of duty permitted these outrages to begin with.

WILL RUSH LIMBAUGH ENDORSE A DEMOCRAT?

The far right extremists who run the Republican Newsmax site reported that Rush Limbaugh not only detests all the pathetic pygmies running to replace Bush this year, but that he may even vote for a Democrat. Short of a reactionary like Jim Marshall or a turncoat like Lieberman or Zell Miller, I can't see that happen, but it's fine with me if he shares his misgivings with all the little dittoheads who listen to his propaganda broadcasts. On Monday Limbaugh-- who may have been on Oxy again-- said, "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."

He points out that none of them are far enough to the right for his bizarre tastes. “You don’t have a genuine down-the-list conservative... Wherever you go here in this roster of candidates, you're going to be able to point out ‘not conservative, what he did there is not conservative’” whined the bloviating, self-important clown. "I'm telling ya, it's gonna come down to which guy do we dislike the least. And that's not necessarily good... I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [McCain or Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.” We will, we will.

It can hardly come as a surprise to anyone who saw Newt Gingrich dub the whole pack of them the "Pathetic pygmies," watched as None of The Above won every Republican poll, and then saw dismally low turn-outs in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina-- while every caucus and primary the Democrats have had drew record breaking numbers-- that Republicans are aghast at the low quality candidates they're stuck with this year. Limbaugh is often wrong but this is something he's gotten right.

Today's NY Times reports that it isn't only the rank and file but that all the other Republican candidates really loathe Willard.

“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig,” Senator John McCain said in New Hampshire this month after reporters asked him about Mr. Romney. “You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

Mike Huckabee’s pugilistic campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, appeared to stop just short of threatening Mr. Romney with physical violence at one point.

“What I have to do is make sure that my anger with a guy like Romney, whose teeth I want to knock out, doesn’t get in the way of my thought process,” Mr. Rollins said.

Campaign insiders and outside strategists point to several factors driving the ill will, most notably, Mr. Romney’s attacks on opponents in television commercials, the perception of him as an ideological panderer and resentment about his seemingly unlimited resources as others have struggled to raise cash.

...“The glee the other candidates go after Romney with is really unique,” said Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who worked on Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign bid in 2000 but is not affiliated with any campaign now.

...Mr. Schnur used a schoolyard analogy to compare Mr. Romney, the ever-proper Harvard Law School and Business School graduate, to Mr. McCain, the gregarious rebel who racked up demerits and friends at the Naval Academy.

“John McCain and his friends used to beat up Mitt Romney at recess,” Mr. Schnur said.

Romney is the least likely to be picked by anyone to be a vice president or even a cabinet member. And no one who drops out considers endorsing him. (Yesterday, in fact, Duncan Hunter gave his worthless endorsement to The Huckster.) Romney has spent the most money of any other candidate but in race after race, the more voters see of him, the less they like him.

Meanwhile, Florida has turned into a two-man race. The Huckster is broke and can't afford to campaign in a state with expensive media markets and Giuliani has proven himself to be the absolute worst strategist in the history of presidential politics. The latest Florida polls show that he's barely even a blip on the radar-- and a fading one at that-- even after putting all his chips on Florida.

Rudy Giuliani has hit the skids in a Florida freefall that could shatter his presidential campaign and leave a two-man Republican contest in the state between John McCain and Mitt Romney, a Miami Herald poll shows.

Despite hovering over Florida voters for weeks, Giuliani is tied for third place with the scarcely visible Mike Huckabee in a statewide poll of 800 likely voters.

With his poll numbers slipping back home in the Northeast, Giuliani's campaign will implode if he can't turn it around in the six days left before Florida's Jan. 29 vote, the final gateway before a blitz of primaries around the nation that could sew up the race.

A St Petersburg Times poll shows the race shaping up like this today:

McCain- 25%
Willard- 23%
Huckabee- 15%
Giuliani- 15%

"Giuliani's decision to pull out of the early states is going to go down in history if he finishes out of the money in Florida as one of the worst political decisions,'' said pollster Tom Eldon. Giuliani will be lucky if he doesn't lose to Ron Paul... again.

Meanwhile, loony right-wing bloggers are chattering about how the big-name Republican Party propagandists, who provide them with all their "thoughts," are all bailing on the pygmies. Hannity, Beck and Coulter have joined Limbaugh on the war-path, especially against McCain. Coulter went on an hysterical anti-McCain rampage yesterday:

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

TOMORROW WE GET TO SEE WHAT HILLARY'S AND OBAMA'S WORD IS WORTH IN THE REAL WORLD-- THE MATTER OF RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR BUSH CRONIES

Will Harry Reid and Telecom bribe-taker Jay Rockefeller be able to help Republicans push through the Bush/Cheney plan to grant retroactive immunity to their cronies in the telecom industry who violated basic constitutional laws by spying on Americans without a warrant? We'll probably find out tomorrow when Chris Dodd filibusters. As Glenn Greenwald explained today, "Harry Reid-- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster-- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster."

The leading Democratic candidates for president all oppose the Bush-Cheney retroactive immunity plan-- but are they will to tell Reid to back off and let Dodd and his allies-- which they also claim to be-- keep this from passing? I doubt it. Edwards, who, obviously has no vote in the Senate, had the strongest statement on the matter:

In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power-- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation-- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

Sounds good. Obama and Hillary both seemed to have gone along when questioned by Markos at DKos. Obama: "I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people-- not the president of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program [… T]hat is why I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd and a grassroots movement of Americans who are standing up for our civil liberties and the rule of law." Let's see if he actually does stand with Dodd, not theoretically, but in person and in the well of the Senate when push comes to shove.

Hillary also claims she will "support" Dodd's filibuster. I guess tomorrow we see if these candidates' words have any meaning in the real world.


UPDATE: RUSS FEINGOLD ON THE SENATE FLOOR THIS MORNING

“…the Senate should support the Judiciary Committee’s product. Let me repeat what I said at the outset: The differences between these two bills have nothing to do with our ability to combat terrorism. They have everything to do with ensuring that the executive branch adheres to the rule of law and doesn’t unnecessarily listen in on the private communications of Americans. The fact that the administration is so strongly resisting these commonsense protections says a lot. And it ought to give pause to those who are considering opposing it. It is time for Congress to stop being an enabler when it comes to this administration’s indifference to the rule of law, and instead start being a protector of the rights and freedoms of citizens.”


UPDATE: PERHAPS SOMEONE SHOULD ASK OBAMA AND HILLARY WHAT "STAND WITH MEANS TO EACH OF THEM. AND WHAT "LEADERSHIP" MEANS

Obama and Clinton both ducked the Senate vote on FISA today. That's just disgusting. I mean, this is about our Constitution and they should both know better. I'm ashamed for them both. The other Democrats who joined up with the GOP today to sabotage Democratic efforts to defeat retroactive immunity were Telecom tool Jay Rockefeller, of course, plus a motley assortment of the reactionary and the bribed: Bayh, Mikulski, Pryor, Salazar, McCaskill, Nelson (FL), Carper, Nelson (NE), Landrieu, Inouye and Johnson. Landrieu is up for re-election Her reactionary and corporatist voting record make her the only endangered Democratic incumbent. It will be hard for most Democrats to root for her to be defeated-- but not for me. Ditto for Pyror.

From the ACLU, which has been leading the fight to prevent warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity:

The Senate took its first step towards legitimizing the president’s warrantless wiretapping program today by voting against a substitute amendment to the FISA Amendments Act of 2007.  By a vote of 60 to 34, senators rejected replacing the base bill with an alternate version authored by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
The base bill will now continue to be the legislation passed out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which strongly resembles the disastrous Protect America Act and authorizes year-long programs of warrantless wiretapping. The bill also allows for surveillance dragnets that can sweep up Americans’ communications and includes immunity for telecom companies who aided in domestic spying.  The Judiciary Committee’s bill would have provided stronger protections for Americans’ privacy and sought greater judicial oversight of warrantless wiretapping. The American Civil Liberties Union emphatically condemned the vote.
 
“It appears the Senate is buckling under pressure from the White House. The Judiciary Committee’s alternative included vastly improved privacy protections for Americans over both the Intelligence Committee bill and the Protect America Act.  By rejecting the Senate Judiciary Committee’s language, the Senate has rejected the constitutionally superior bill. 
 
“Under Democratic leadership, the Senate will now continue its debate on surveillance with a bill that resembles something from the administration’s playbook. Six months after being hoodwinked into passing the Protect America Act, Americans are still waiting for Congress to grow a spine.
 
“Instead of capitulating to the administration, senators should listen to their constituents who overwhelmingly oppose warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity. As the FISA debate moves forward, we urge the Senate to wake up and realize it is a co-equal branch of government.”

JIM WALSH (R-NY) RETIRING FROM CONGRESS-- THAT'S ABOUT TWO DOZEN SO FAR

Hey Jimmy, don't let the door hit you in the ass

Jim Walsh is one of those fake moderates the Republicans try passing off in moderate districts, like NY-25. His voting record is not moderate; it's very right-wing. And that's why he nearly lost his seat (51-49%) to Dan Maffei last year and why it was apparent that Dan was going to bury him in November and it's why he has decided not to even try again in 2008.

The Syracuse-based district voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004, voted for Hillary and will likely never give its votes to a Republican again-- at least not for a long, long time. Walsh may be a wingnut but he knew which was the wind was blowing. One look at his voting record-- violently anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-labor-- in the light of what his constituents say they want, made it clear that he'd never win again. In this district which solidly opposes Bush's Iraq policies, Walsh has voted on Iraq-related legislation 60 times since cheering on the authorization to use force against Iraq on October 10, 2002. Despite the wishes of his constituents, he has been a complete rubber stamp for Bush and Cheney for the past 6 years. Last February he finally voted against the so-called surge-- after being barraged by furious constituents-- but immediately reverted to voting with the radical right on every single Iraq vote after that. Out of 60 votes, he managed to oppose Bush and Cheney once-- and then crawled back to them with his tail between his legs. Good riddance!

Last August Blue America endorsed Dan Maffei and we've been helping him raise money. 141 of our members have given so far. NY-25 is one of three seats Blue America plans on helping Democrats capturing in November. (The two others are Eric Massa in NY-29 and Jon Powers in NY-26.)


UPDATE: I GUESS WALSH WASN'T ONE OF THE MODERATES CQ WAS SPINNING ABOUT

I'm guessin' they wrote this silly, absurd Congressional Quarterly piece before Walsh's retirement story hit the wires last night.

For the first time in a while, some moderate House Republicans see a reason to be optimistic.

The centrists who survived the Democratic surge of 2006 see signs of hope when they look at their party’s presidential contest. To varying degrees, House GOP moderates feel kinship with Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Give me a break. Even if they insist on referring to lock step right-wing congressional ideologues-- who have rubber stamped the entire Bush agenda-- as "moderates," how can anyone in their right mind listen to what's been spewing out from McCain's, Giuliani's and Willard's mouths and relate that to any kind of "moderation?"

By backing President Bush’s policy in Iraq, GOP leaders have made political survival difficult for Republican lawmakers representing swing districts. It didn’t help when the leadership took a hard line last year against Democratic efforts to provide more money than Bush wanted for domestic programs, including health insurance for poor children.

Well, guess what McCain, Giuliani and Willard are saying about those very issues. And if the fake moderates are all so optimistic, why are they all quitting and retiring at the fastest rate in congressional history?

REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS HAVE A RESPONSE TO TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES: PENALIZE POOR CHILDREN BY WITHHOLDING HEALTHCARE

If he gets sick, you can throw him away and get a new one

There is an argument in economists' circles whether we are already in a recession or whether there is one around the corner. Bush Regime apologists claim everything is fabulous and pessimists say "forget recession," we're looking at the Bush Depression. No matter who's correct, other than the small handful of Bush Regime apologists, hard times ahead. With that backdrop, the Democratic leadership in the House decided to see if they could work with a few electorally-vulnerable Republican moderates to override Bush's veto of heath insurance for poor children. Their attempt failed today. Every single Democrat except arch-reactionary Jim Marshall in Macon, Georgia, voted in favor of children's health care. 42 Republicans joined the Democrats in trying to help needy children.

Among the Republicans who fought hard to prevent the override were this lot who are in danger of being defeated in November. They should be defeated; every single one of them (along with fake-Democrat Jim Marshall):

Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Roscoe Barlett (R-MD)
Judy Biggert (R-IL)
Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Dave Camp (R-MI)
John Campbell (R-CA)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Thelma Drake (R-VA)
David Dreier (R-CA)- Blue America has endorsed Russ Warner
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Elton Gallegly (R-CA)
Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- Blue America has endorsed Dennis Shulman
Virgil Goode (R-VA)- Blue America is likely to endorse Tom Perriello soon
Robin Hayes (R-NC)- Blue America has endorsed Larry Kissell
Tim Johnson (R-IL)
John Kline (R-MN)
Randy Kuhl (R-NY)- Blue America has endorsed Eric Massa
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Dan Lungren (R-CA)
Mike McCaul (R-TX)
Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Buck McKeon (R-CA)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Tom Reynolds (R-NY)- Blue America has endorsed Jon Powers
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)- Blue America asks you to stay tuned
Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH)- Blue America has endorsed Dr. Vic Wulsin
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Tim Walberg (R-MI)- Blue America has endorsed Mark Schauer

The most far right extremists and raving lunatics from the disintegrating Republican coalition are screaming for jihad against the Republicans who joined the Democrats to try to save the S-CHIP bill.

One of the heroes of the child-hating extremists, Tim Walberg, has an opponent this year who isn't letting him get away with this kind of bullshit. Mark Schauer sent out a statement after Walberg voted against S-CHIP (again):

"Ensuring access to health care for children should be an economic priority, not the victim of a misguided ideological tug-of-war. Continuing to embrace the status quo will only lead to further financial troubles for Michigan families who are already struggling to get by. Losing your house or going bankrupt to pay for an unexpectedly sick child is not a choice we should force anyone to make."

Mark hit the nail right on the head. We need representatives in Congress who are part of the solution. Tim Walberg and the radical right extremists have caused the problems with their narrow and pinched ideological fanaticism. Although Pelosi is still protecting Bush and Cheney from impeachment, at least she has enough of a shred of decency around her to remember when she was a decent progressive who fought for the American people. Today she made a genuine effort to reach out to Republicans (as well as reactionary Democrats) to override Bush's vicious and selfish veto. "The issue comes down to what is happening in America's households today. Unemployment is up, housing starts are down. The price of gasoline and food and health care is up, stock market is down. So the indicators, some that are felt very closely and intimately by America's families, some that are felt by our economy, all point to the need for taking a new direction."


UPDATE: 15 VOTES SHY OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR NEEDY CHILDREN

Or... get rid of reactionary Jom Marshall plus any 14 right wing Republicans and we can move forward like the rest of the civilized world. Which 14 right wing Republicans? Well, start with the list above; any of these goons your congresscritter?

All these years of quietly, patiently supporting the Bush regime are finally rewarded. Now we patriots can do something to help: Lie for freedom!

This is one of those deals where you'd think a couple of grown-up men would have something better to do with their time, but once they've actually done it, you're glad somebody did.

Can you imagine, counting lies told publicly by Bush regime capos?

Howie reported earlier about how these guys, Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith, somehow affiliated with some suspiciously leftish-sounding outfit called the Center for Public Integrity, had done a study of official Bush-regime lies in the two years after 9/11, with the intent of tricking the country into war.

The way I figure it, the guys had more important stuff they were supposed to be doing, like vacuuming the living room or paying a stack of bills or feeding the fish, and by way of procrastinating they just sort of started counting regime lies, and the thing spun out of control to where the poor fish were probably floating belly-up and the guys still couldn't stop.

By the time they came up for air, you'll recall, counting only fibs told by high-ranking regimistas advancing the erroneous claims (1) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and (2) that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, they came up with a whopping 935 whoppers:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

Now I know just what you're thinking. Only 935 Bushwhoppers? Here these people gave all their their blood, sweat, tears to lying us into their phony-baloney war, and even with a full two years to do it, they couldn't crack the magic 1,000 mark.

I say the least a patriotic American can do is to help push them over the top, retroactively, by calling to the Mssrs Lewis and Reading-Smith's attention some Bush-regime truth-benders they may have overlooked. I will personally pinky-swear to the authenticity of all of the following, within the normal survey margin of error of 19 percent:

* On Oct. 3, 2002, Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Saddam Hussein's kid--not the just-plain-thuggish one, the really creepy-wacko one--had once said on the Iraqi TV version of Big Brother: "George W. Bush is such a sissy, we can blow him away with just a few drops from our vast stockpiles of biological weapons."

* Irving "Lewis" Libby told an audience of Federalist Society law-crushers on Feb. 14, 2003, that Vice President Cheney's complete list of all Iraqi nuclear-weapons facilities (indicating those that are open late and those that are open 24 hours a day), having been sprayed with nerve gas by an Iraqi suicide bomber, had been turned over to the FBI, which felt it necessary to explode it.

* Condi Rice said on March 15, 2003, that she was once in a shoe store--her recollection was that it was in May of 2002--where one of the other customers swore under oath (Condi's chief shopping aide provided a Bible) that she had personally seen Iraqi high school students serving detention pasting labels that said "CAUTION: NUCULAR WEAPONS" on the kind of aluminum tubes that the Iraqi shop teacher who was supervising detention that day acknowledged could only be used for nucular weapons.

* At a press briefing on July 10, 2003, Scott McClellan announced that he had a statement from Karl Rove detailing his involvement in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak but that it turned out to have been written in invisible ink that Al Qaeda agents had substituted for the India ink he normally used for his calligraphy.

* On several occasions, dates unspecified, Donald Rumsfeld told New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Saddam Hussein's and Osama bin Laden's mothers frequently played together in an online canasta league, often as a team, and that on more than one occasion they paid off their losses with chemical weapons labeled "Iraqi surplus."

By my reckoning, that brings us up to 940--and counting. Together, we can do it! Lie for freedom!

#

LIKE PIGS TO THE TROUGH-- REPUBLICANS TEARING EACH OTHER APART OVER PLUM POSITION-- MUSGRAVE JUMPS IN

So many Appropriations Committee members! No coincidence there

What makes Republicans tick? Is it the hatred and bigotry? The fear? The loathing of free will-- ala Ms. Coulter and the rest of the authoritarians in the film adaptation of Philip Pullman's brilliant Dark Materials book, Golden Compass-- or is it something more prosaic, just plain old greed and selfishness. I vote for the last door there (although I heartily recommend the movie) because, at heart, what makes a right-winger a right-winger usually boils down to the uncontrolled avarice and unquenchable lust. And no one practices that better than a professional 24/7 Republican: their political leaders.

Today's Hill carries an hilarious story about the piggy squabbling over the coveted open seat on the Appropriations Committee-- the source of most congressional bribes. (Roger Wicker gave up the seat when he was appointed to fill in in the U.S. Senate for a spell after Trent Lott's official move from Capitol Hill to K Street.)

The funniest part about the bitter and vicious battle is that it pits NRCC Chair Tom Cole, whose job is to try to save the necks of as many endangered Republican rubber stamps as he can, against some of the most endangered rubber stamps who think the only way to save their worthless necks is to get on the Appropriations Committee and start gobbling up bribes. The undercurrent is that the few Republicans who are desperate for their corrupt party to shed the DeLay-Abramoff "Pay to play" Culture of Corruption reputation, are now on the warpath against Cole, Blunt and the rest of the DeLay hold-overs.

The most desperate of the endangered Repugs is Dave Reichert of Washington, who is clearly going to lose his seat to Darcy Burner in November. Goldy at Horsesass.org explains Reichert's dilemma, which has transformed a pitiful cry-- "I need that seat"-- into a call for transparency and accountability. Far right reformer are backing ideologue Jeff Flake (R-AZ) for the seat, who is denouncing his own colleagues as the greedy earmarking swine they are.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s (R-CO) entrance into the contentious battle for the open Appropriations Committee seat pits the House campaign committee chairman against two of his most vulnerable members.

...Musgrave and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), who is also seeking the seat, are members of the Regaining Our Majority Program (ROMP), a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) fundraising effort that is geared toward retaining members who sit in targeted districts.

...NRCC Chairman Tom Cole’s (Okla.) decision to run for the open seat has ruffled feathers inside and outside the Capitol. Some Republicans believe that the coveted seat should go to a vulnerable member of the conference, while other GOP officials and groups are pushing for earmark foe Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Cole’s office declined to comment specifically on the race Tuesday.

...During an interview with The Hill last week, Cole declined to answer questions about his bid for the spending panel.

“I don’t have anything to say about it,” Cole said.

The NRCC spent $1.8 million to defend Musgrave and $2.3 million defending Reichert last cycle. Both members narrowly won reelection and are once again targets for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). [Blue America is strongly backing Darcy Burner for the seat Reichert now holds. Please donate if you can.]

“Tom Cole is challenging his own vulnerable members using the same‘pay to play’ tactics that were a hallmark of the old corrupt GOP majority,” said DCCC spokesman Doug Thornell. “If he gets the appropriations seat, it is further evidence that the legacies of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay still rule congressional Republicans. Just goes to show you that Republicans can change their leaders but can’t change their culture.”

...In addition to Reichert, Cole, Flake and Musgrave, GOP Reps. Henry Brown Jr. (S.C.), Jo Bonner (Ala.) and Michael Turner (Ohio) declared their intentions to run earlier this month.

Brown, Bonner and Turner just want access to the bribes and don't want to get involved in any philosophical disputes.


UPDATE: GOP TO GIVE REICHERT THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE JOB BECAUSE HE'S THE LEAST QUALIFIED?

In today's Washington Post GOP mouthpiece Bob Novak slams his own part as the The Pork-as-Usual GOP, whining how the Republicans won't give Jeff Flake the open seat on the Appropriations Committee and how they won't put a moratorium on earmarks and pork barrel spending that has become a key to continued GOP dominance in scores of congressional districts.

Republicans are staring into a 2008 election abyss, having lost credibility as upholders of lean government by sponsoring profligate pork-barrel spending during 12 years in the congressional majority. And they have not reformed since the 2006 Democratic takeover. The message out of West Virginia this week predictably will be business as usual.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Appropriations Committee's ranking Republican, is leading fellow appropriators against the moratorium. They are joined by the most seriously challenged Republican incumbents, who see political salvation in bringing funds home to their districts, principles be damned.

...The most likely winner of the Appropriations derby will be Rep. Dave Reichert, a former sheriff of King County, Wash., who has not distinguished himself during three years in Congress and gets only a 60 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. His sole qualification appears to be that he is the most endangered Republican House member in 2008 and needs to bring home the bacon to Seattle.

Same old GOP; some things never change!

IS JOHN SHADEGG A CROOK? WELL... WITH RENZI RESIGNING, SHADEGG GETS THE HONOR OF BEING ARIZONA'S LEAST ETHICAL CONGRESSMAN

click image to get an idea of how corrupt John Shadegg really is

A few days ago DWT helped break the story about how far right extremist John Shadegg, hard up for political donations in the face of a popular Democratic challenger, was getting around FEC rules to fatten his campaign coffers illegally. This morning Shadegg can't hold his head up around Washington or Arizona, where both Roll Call and the Arizona Republican have exposed his slimy tactics. It isn't likely he's in either place though. Rather than work on the desperate water problems plaguing his Paradise Valley constituents, Shadegg is sipping all over America to hold hands with John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman as the 3 Horsemen of the Apocalypse try for a White House take-over. Shadegg is a junior member of that little circle. Let's hope he's enjoying Orlando while the folks back home fight over bottled water.

Since Roll Call is by subscription only:

Arizona Democrats are asking federal regulators to look into campaign contributions made to a political action committee run by Rep. John Shadegg (R).

Shadegg is named in a complaint brought by the Arizona Democratic Party that is expected to be filed with the Federal Election Commission today. In it, Democrats allege that Shaddeg's campaign
committee and his PAC "may have colluded together to avoid the individual contribution limits to a federal candidate and in violation of several FEC regulations."

Last summer, the complaint alleges, Shadegg's re-election committee received two $4,600 payments — the maximum combined amount an individual may give per cycle for both the primary and general elections — from John Dawson and David Van Denburgh. Not soon after, the complaint continues, Dawson and Van Denburgh also each gave Shadegg's leadership PAC an additional $5,000 apiece, the maximum amount an individual may give to a federal PAC during a calendar year.

[If this sounds a little like what got Tom DeLay in trouble with the law, it should; it was the same kind of money-laundering scam]

The problem? Within weeks, Shadegg's leadership PAC had transferred $10,000 to Shadegg's primary campaign account, a transaction Democrats claim was "really designed to circumvent the individual contribution limits."

Democrats also allege that Dawson and Van Denburgh violated campaign finance laws by knowingly taking part in the scheme and claim Ian MacPherson, the treasurer for both committees, also violated federal law for glossing over the transaction.

"The questionable propriety of these contributions should have been obvious to the campaign's treasurer," the complaint alleges. "He is also the PAC's treasurer, so he would be familiar with the campaign finance reports of both political committees."

Shadegg's office declined to comment on the complaint.

When DeLay was first caught, his office initially refused comment. Then they went to denial. Eventually he resigned in disgrace. The citizens of AZ-03 would be well-served if Shadegg would skip the intermediate steps and just retire now. Bob Lord will be a far better representative for the district anyway.


UPDATE: CAUGHT LIKE A RAT

Shady Shadegg, facing possible prison time for his money laundering activities has returned the money. Will he resign? When?

OBAMA WAS NEVER A MUSLIM BUT WHEN HAS TRUTH EVER STOPPED A REPUBLICAN SMEAR?

Which Insiders are smearing Obama-- the GOP or the Clintons?

Obama, who appears to be on the verge of winning the South Carolina primary (do or die for his campaign insists the Broder Oracle)-- latest Reuters/Zogby poll shows him up over Hillary 43-24%-- isn't my candidate... not yet at least. I don't feel he's got what it takes to be a great president. I prefer John Edwards (who is flawed enough). But compared to any of the pathetic pygmies... Obama would be an amazing president. If he were running against a lying sack of crap like McCain or Giuliani or Willard, I would crawl to a polling place on my knees through broken glass to vote for Obama. And you know how much difference it would make to me if he were a Muslim? None, zero, zip. I don't care about someone's religious affiliation when it comes to politics-- unless it's someone like The Huckster or Bush who's trying to mix-- or exploit-- their religionist beliefs (or pretensions) with politics.

Yesterday CNN reported that Obama decided to take on the Muslim smear head-on.

"I think it 's very important for people not to buy into the kinds of dirty tricks that we've become so accustomed to in our politics, and people need to understand I'm not and never have been of the Muslim faith," he told CBN's David Brody.

In e-mail messages that have been circulating as long as Obama has been a presidential candidate, the Illinois senator is said be a Muslim who refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance, and one who "joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background." In fact, Obama has never been a Muslim.

"I think that those who are of the Muslim faith are deserving of respect and dignity, but to try and feed into this fear-mongering and try to question my faith commitments and my belief in Jesus Christ, I think is offensive," Obama also said. "And I want to make sure that people are absolutely clear about what's going on with this, and if they get another one of these e-mails that they're deleting it and letting their friends know that it's nonsense."

Obama did not hypothesize who was behind the e-mails, but noted, "somehow they appear magically wherever the next primary or caucus is."

His comments are the latest in a heightened effort to beat back the Internet rumors ahead of South Carolina's Democratic primary Saturday.

I was disappointed that Obama felt the need to send out a mailer in South Carolina kowtowing to the ignorant and superstitious primitives there by telling them that he "felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life" while posing with a cross. Pathetic!

On the other hand, while I was in Asia, CNN International kept playing this sly news report that make sit clear that-- at the very least-- his family back in Kenya (his father's side of the family) are Muslims? I wonder how many bigots and idiots will let that sway them and wind up voting for either a worse candidate in the primary (Hillary) or a worse candidate in the general (any of the pygmies).

STUDY FINDS THAT BUSH... LIED... ABOUT IRAQ! CAN YOU IMAGINE!

Do you suppose that there is someone in these United States-- or, for that matter, anywhere in the entire world-- who doesn't already know that Bush, Cheney and the foul creatures that populated their regime lied our country into a disastrous war-- disastrous, that is, for everyone except themselves and their business associates? Well, there are some people who have willed themselves into ignorance-- the 20-odd percent of Americans who report that they still think Bush is doing a satisfactory job as president.

Tonight both the A.P. and the NY Times reported on a study by 2 nonprofit journalism organizations that found that "Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

...The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

..."The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table. She should be a defendant in the same treason trial that Bush and Cheney and their cronies face. A little Tim Hardin music to get you through the night:

MATT BLUNT-- ONE OF AMERICA'S LEAST POPULAR AND MOST CORRUPT GOVERNORS-- CUTS AND RUNS

The Blunts: one down, one to go

All recent polls pointed to a disastrous re-election campaign for Missouri's failed governor Matt Blunt, the son of extreme right wing loon and GOP congressional leader Roy Blunt, a Tom DeLay holdover. The two of them have exercised considerable power in Missouri politics, although that bellwether state has started moving very decisively away from the GOP of late. The younger Blunt withdrew from the race today, pretty much guaranteeing a victory for Democrat Jay Nixon.

n a statement that shocked political leaders, in both parties, Blunt released a TV address "announcing that having achieved virtually everything he set out to accomplish when he ran for governor, he will not seek a second term.

...His decision leaves his party without a presumed candidate in the gubernatorial election on Nov. 4. Blunt and the leading Democratic candidate, Attorney General Jay Nixon, had clashed frequently over issues ranging from immigration to the collapse of AmerenUE's Taum Sauk reservoir.

Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a Republican from Cape Girardeau and a former state senator, told a Post-Dispatch reporter who saw him in a Capitol hallway shortly after Blunt's announcement that there was a "decent chance" he will run.

State Republican legislative leaders expressed shock at the news, which Blunt revealed to them at 3:50 p.m. in a conference call.

"I'm sort of dumbfounded," said Senate Pro Tem Mike Gibbons, R-Kirkwood.

House Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, said GOP legislators "were shocked. Nobody expected it. I don't think anybody knew this. It's hard to keep a secret in Jefferson City, but I hadn't heard anything."

"...We were just speechless," Jetton said. "You don't expect that on Jan. 22 of an election year."

Jetton said among the likely GOP candidates would be former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent of St. Louis County, U.S. Rep. Ken Hulshof of Columbia, State Treasurer Sarah Steelman of Rolla and Kinder, the lieutenant governor. "We need to sit down among ourselves and see who would best be able to carry out our mission," Jetton said of Republicans.

Of Blunt's decision, Jetton said the governor indicated "he didn't have the sense of mission, that he had accomplished what he had committed to do, that he just didn't have the oomph to carry on."

Let's see... what did Gov. Blunt accomplish? I seem to recall that the very first thing he did when he took office in 2004 was to join with 3 other far right newly elected governors-- the since-defeated Bob Ehrlich (MD) and Ernie Fletcher (KY) and the soon to be defeated Mitch Daniels (IN) to rescind collective-bargaining rights for state employees. Then he proceeded to kick more than 100,000 low income Missourians off of the state's health care program at the same time he dramatically slashed health care benefits for another 300,000 Missourians. And that doesn't even get into why his administration is being investigated for corruption. Fired UP Missouri thinks he may be bowing out of politics because of an impending trial and a possible prison sentence. Wouldn't it be ironic if the son went to prison before the father, one of the most corrupt men in the history of Congress?

This is also bad news for Willard, whose campaign in Missouri Blunt has been supporting. Then again, some Willard advocates saw the unpopular Blunt's support as a kiss of death.

This video was meant for another father/son team, but... what the heck... the song works fine for Roy and Matt too.




UPDATE: MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHICH RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUE THE REPUBLICANS COME UP WITH

Attorney General Jay Nixon, speaking to Missourians today:

"We will be successful not because of whom the Republicans may nominate, but because Missourians know that change will only happen if we elect a Governor with fundamentally different priorities. That's the message I hear at every stop we make around the state. It's everywhere. Missourians are united for change. And together, we can bring about real change for Missouri families-- by expanding access to health care, creating new jobs and making sure that every Missouri child receives the quality education they deserve."

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT JOHN EDWARDS REALLY IS A FIGHTER? LET HIM PROVE IT-- NOW, BEFORE WE HAVE TO VOTE

John Edwards has a chance to show he's for real and not just another Clinton or Obama

Why do Senate Democrats keep electing fatally conflicted colleagues as their leaders? They didn't learn their lesson from red state compromiser Tom Daschle, who the Republicans could twist into a babbling pretzel anytime they wanted to by pitting the progressive national party against his... more conservative South Dakota constituents. So when the Republicans humiliated them by defeating their leader with a third rate hack, they promptly selected another vulnerable centrist would could be easily pulled in a dozen different directions by a dozen conflicting needs. To most Democrats-- the real ones in America, not the compromised careerists and bribe-besotted swine Inside the Beltway-- granting law breaking corporate executives (who helped Bush and Cheney shred the Constitution by spying on Americans) retroactive immunity is just plain wrong. (You can see how we got here here and here.) I think there are even a considerable number of Republican voters who would agree. I mean this crap is just plain unpatriotic and criminal-coddling.

This afternoon Jane put up a plea at FDL to the more progressive of the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination, John Edwards, to do what the compromised Insiders, Hillary and Obama, have refused to do: LEAD.

John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

The Republicans are not going to let Reid punt and extend the Protect America Act for another 18 months so it looks like the FISA bill is going to come back up again on Monday. Chris Dodd's objection to Unanimous Consent still stands, so they will pick up in the middle of the Motion to Proceed debate.

Glenn Greenwald is also on the case. Corporate Media, of course, is demanding the Democrats-- who are always prone to do so without much pushing anyway-- to capitulate to Bush and the Far Right.

As always, conventional media wisdom is that Democrats will be harmed politically if they don't capitulate to the Big, Strong, Tough Republicans on all matters relating to national security (even though the efficacy of that fear-mongering tactic was empirically disproved in 2006). But isn't it painfully evident that a far greater liability for Democrats at this point than being "soft on terrorism" is their refusal and failure to demonstrate that they will take a stand -- any stand -- against this extremely weakened President and his discredited political party, and therefore prove they stand for something?
The only way for there to be any prospect of impeding Bush's most extreme demands for vast warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunity for lawbreaking telecoms is for the presidential candidates -- Obama, Edwards and Clinton -- to demonstrate (rather than speak about) real "leadership" and take a stand in support of Chris Dodd and his imminent filibuster. There will be campaigns beginning this week to persuade and pressure them to do so -- I will be posting extensively about them here. Any efforts to stop warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity is almost certain to fail without the active support of the presidential candidates, who these days have a virtual monopoly on the ability to set agendas and shape media attention.
The three leading recipients of telecom money for this election cycle are, unsurprisingly, [starting with "Mr. Clean Filthy"] the three sitting Senators running for President (with two Democratic members who are key to amnesty -- Jay Rockefeller and [surprise, surprise] Rahm Emanuel -- close behind). That's how "Washington works" -- the process they are all pledging to battle and change. Needless to say, all of the viable GOP presidential candidates will be blindly supportive of whatever surveillance powers and lawbreaking immunity the President demands, but thus far, Obama and (less emphatically) Clinton have both claimed that they oppose such measures and thus pledged to support a Dodd-led filibuster.

But that will have meaning only if there is an active effort on their part. It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes and their commitment to "changing the way Washington works" if they choose to sit by, more or less mute, and allow such a blatant and corrupt evisceration of the rule of law -- and such a vast and permanent expansion of the limitless surveillance state -- to occur without a fight. Any one of them, or all three, has a unique opportunity to actually demonstrate with actions, rather than pretty speeches, their commitment to the principles they claim to espouse.

Is Edwards just another Insider faker or will he stop talking about being a leader and BE a leader? We already know that neither Clinton nor Obama is even capable of such a thing, not in any real sense.


UPDATE: BUSH DEMANDS RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY BY FEBRUARY 1-- OR ELSE

"Putting off the vote for a second time riled White House officials and Republicans on Tuesday, because they insist that national security will be put at risk if Congress does not meet a Feb. 1 deadline to amend the eavesdropping law." So? Who gives a damn if these clowns are riled. The most hated man to ever occupy the White House is going to call Democrats names? Who cares what George Bush or his despised surrogates say about anything? If he doesn't get retroactive immunity for his cronies and campaign contributors does that mean he won't be able to find Osama bin-Laden? Does it mean Rudy Giuliani will put on an evening gown and go on all the late night shows and talk about how he save America after 9/11? Or does it mean Jay Rockefeller will switch parties so he can feel good about all the bribes he takes from the telecom companies he's supposed to be watching?

Advocates for civil liberties fault the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, for what they see as a weak effort to block the White House immunity plan. Mr. Reid opposes immunity, but his decision to allow an initial vote on the Intelligence Committee plan, with immunity, has angered opponents.

“If Senator Reid wanted to win, he would have put the judiciary vote on the floor first,” Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “It seems as if he wants to lose.”

...Even if the Senate does approve a bill that includes immunity, it seems unlikely that such a plan could be signed into law before the Feb. 1 deadline, Congressional officials said.

Because the House has passed a measure that did not include immunity, the issue would first have to go before a conference committee to work out an agreement between the two versions. That could take weeks.

And who in the House has taken the most bribes from the telecoms? Not an actual Republican, but Rahm Emanuel. You want to count on him to defend our civil liberties?


UPDATE: THE PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR THESE CROOKED BUSH CRONIES

I don't understand why Democrat senators-- other than the ones like Jay Rockefeller who are being massively bribed-- would support Bush on this travesty of Justice. Usually when the spineless wonders on Capitol Hill buckle under this way, it's because they fear The People will back the Republican Insiders. Well, every poll shows that the American people do not want retroactive immunity granted. No senator who votes for it, is fit to call himself a Democrat. Needless to say, Bush shill and fake moderate Susan Collins came out in favor of retroactive immunity today (the Lieberman position that she always buys into); Tom Allen, the progressive congressman opposing her re-election effort is strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for all criminals, not matter who they tried to bribe. A statement from Congressman Allen's office:

“Congressman Allen opposes providing retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for their involvement in warrantless domestic surveillance. Immunity would effectively end the case the Maine PUC filed on behalf of Maine consumers. The pending cases can be resolved in a way that protects national security. The Administration’s attempts to derail litigation with the claim of ‘state secrets’ is merely an attempt to avoid giving substantive answers about their possible violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable.”

May I suggest that any DWT readers who care about the Constitution, consider making a donation to Tom Allen's campaign today.

FREDERICK OF HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLES BACK DOWN THE ROAD... TO NOWHERE

Rich Lowry: "I'm still mystified at why he got into the race in the first place."

Well... somewhere. He's just in time for the impending settlement of the Writers Guild strike. He didn't have many endorsements, just from a handful of Tennessee colleagues-- like Lamar Alexander who could only muster "He has a presidential bearing" to explain the rise and fall of Ole Fred-- and a couple of nut cases like DeMint (R-SC) who hates all the other pathetic pygmies so much that he dreamt of Ole Fred rescuing the Party of Hatred and Bigotry from their half-hearted hatred and half-hearted bigotry of the rest of them. Not even waiting for the official word, influenceless defeated pol/crime boss Alfonse D'Amato already told the NY Post he'll be throwing his (very light) weight behind McCain-- anything to stop the despises Giuliani.

Sir Frederick decided he had enough ammo to convince his wife to let him drop out after he did miserably in South Carolina, which came after he did miserably in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Nevada, confounding clueless Beltway pundits who had predicted he would be knight-on-white-horse and the consensus candidate, replacing None of the Above on the tongues of a majority of Republican voters. By the end he was just protecting his pal McCain's right flank from the feared and hated Huckabee, the two of them both appealing to the same Know Nothing wing of the Republican Party's most backward constituencies. In South Carolina, his third place showing kept The Huckster from routing McCain, giving McCain the momentum he needed to make like a frontrunner in impressionable Florida-- and, in effect, derailing Huckabee's nickel and dime campaign. His advisers claim he won't be endorsing anyone.

Before his wife allowed him to end the humiliation of his absurd campaign-- his 1% draw in New Hampshire was smaller than write-ins people cast for their father-in-laws and as jokes-- he had cast himself in the role of "a country boy who would bring truth to Washington (in fact, he resides across the Potomac River from the capital, in McLean, Va). And in South Carolina, he talked more and more of his Christian faith, attacking gay marriage and abortion. But there, too, he found himself boxed in, as Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, had laid a deeper claim to [bigoted and hate-driven] evangelical Christian voters."

One of Thompson's advisers-- great job, Galen; why would anyone hire you for anything ever again?-- is threatening we may not have heard the last of Ole Fred, claiming he "could end up as vice president because he could mitigate the conservative shortcomings of potential nominees such as Rudy Giuliani. 'Having somebody like Thompson on the ticket, it seems to me, could go a long way toward unifying and energizing the base. I don't even know if he'd take it, although I'm not sure I've ever heard of anybody turning it down. He has said flat out he's not interested in becoming vice president, but that's what they all say.'" Maybe he should ask Jeri. Besides, according to Fox News, he was out-and-out lying his Republican ass off.

This one's for Ole Fred and his little Jeri-- and for all the DWT readers who love a good tune:

35th ANNIVERSARY OF ROE v WADE... AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE STILL TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOICE

Brought to you by "pro-choice" senators like Collins and Lieberman-- thanks NARL

I know, I know... there are some Republicans who are pro-choice and some Democrats who are anti-choice. Generally speaking, here at DWT, we treat anti-choice Democrats as Republicans and do our best to defeat them. And Republican pro-choice congressmen and senators... well if you vote to confirm extreme right wing operatives like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, who are dedicated to denying women's right to choice, are you really pro-choice? If you vote for congressional leadership that is psychotically dedicated to over-turning Roe v Wade-- think DeLay, Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Frist, Lott, Miss McConnell-- what difference does it make if you claim to stand with your constituents' wishes on the matter of choice? You're destroying it. Susan Collins is the best example of all and People for the American Way, as I mentioned last week, are making an example of her this week.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports on something new from Planned Parenthood-- a major effort to elect pro-choice candidates.

The nation's largest reproductive-health-care provider plans to spend $10 million in hopes of persuading one million people to vote for abortion-rights candidates in the 2008 election. Planned Parenthood will roll out its election plans today to mark the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal.

With its "One Million Strong" campaign, Planned Parenthood becomes the latest Washington interest group to launch an independent effort to elect candidates who back its priorities. Since Congress enacted a campaign-finance-reform law banning large financial contributions to the Republican and Democratic parties, a growing number of individuals, labor unions, corporations and other interest groups have started or boosted their own campaigns to elect like-minded candidates.

Let's see if Planned Parenthood is more savvy than the clueless NARL which more often than not endorses reactionary insiders who may be technically pro-choice but who routinely vote to destroy choice by voting with the Bush Regime and with extremist Republicans on judicial confirmations, etc.

The efforts come at a time when many abortion-rights advocates feel they are under attack. Since President Bush took office, he has nominated federal judges who have chipped away at abortion rights and installed two antiabortion justices to the Supreme Court. Two of the oldest justices on the current Supreme Court are liberal. If a Republican wins the 2008 presidential election, two more conservative judges could be added to the court.

Until recently, Planned Parenthood hadn't played a role in elections. In 2004, the organization endorsed Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president, marking the first time it had endorsed a presidential candidate in its 90-year history. In 2006, Planned Parenthood lent its backing to a handful of Democratic candidates for governor.

Officials at Planned Parenthood say they decided to move into the campaign arena because they say reproductive rights are under assault by Republicans. The political effort will be led by Cecile Richards, the organization's president, who has a long history of working in Democratic politics. "To keep our doors open," Ms. Richards said, "it's clear that we need to step into the electoral arena."

Today's L.A. Times makes the point that the GOP attempt to overturn Roe v Wade is very serious-- and must be addressed strenuously. I trust PFAW to counterbalance the tremendous damage done by unwitting-- even witless-- collaborators like NARL. We'll see how Planned Parenthood handles the task.

The precedent set by Roe is more threatened now than ever. The appointments of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have reduced the presumed support for Roe to a small majority on the court. Meanwhile, the four justices in the court's liberal wing are growing old and could conceivably be replaced by the next president (John Paul Stevens will turn 88 in April). Even without a majority on the court, abortion foes have been chipping away at Roe one law at a time, and they have made alarming headway, culminating in a high court decision last April that for the first time since 1973 upheld a ban on a procedure -- controversial "partial-birth" abortions.

A return to the days when states were free to ban abortion would be disastrous and deadly. A recent review of U.S. abortion statistics backs up what pro-choice activists have long asserted: Those most likely to get an abortion tend to be those least able to afford to travel to another state to get one. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty line is almost four times higher than that among more affluent women. Statewide bans would lead to back-alley procedures by desperate women, who would die needlessly because politicians shut down clean and safe clinics.

That appalling possibility should trouble all the justices, but particularly Roberts. For him to overturn Roe would be to contradict his stated devotion to precedent and to turn his back on his mentor, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In Dickerson vs. the United States, which challenged whether suspects must be read their Miranda rights for their statements to be admissible in court, Rehnquist wrote for the majority in 2000 that regardless of whether justices supported the original Miranda decision, it had become "part of our national culture" and therefore deserving of protection. Roe, in the same way, created a now well-established right that would cause severe upheaval if it were overturned.

Kathleen Turner:

HAS McCAIN GOT THE WORTHLESS GOP NOMINATION LOCKED UP?

McCain's like a grumpy, grouchy old man, a characteristic that has more allure for Lieberman and Lindsey Graham than it does for normal people, even Republicans. It's like he has Tourette Syndrome and can't help blurting out all kinds of crap that gets him in trouble. He lost Michigan to a pathetic nonentity because he told people-- perhaps honestly-- that the jobs they've lost (because of trade policies he's always supported), are never coming back. Willard, always ready and willing to say whatever anyone wants to hear, told them everything would be ok if they voted for him and-- being Republicans-- they did. Looks like McCain just stepped in it again, this time in Florida.

A few days ago I interviewed Alan Grayson, a progressive Democrat running for Congress in Orlando. When I asked him what issues were important to the people he meets on the hustings he talked about issues that are important to all Americans, like the unending war in Iraq, the health care crisis, the $2 million/minute trade deficit, etc. And then he said that there's a problem of great importance to Floridians that is specific to Florida.

One of the concerns here in Florida is the very high cost of home insurance. Since the hurricanes 3 years ago the cost of insurance for housing has really jumped tremendously; it's become a very significant part of peoples' budgets-- and it's completely unavoidable. It's a local issue very much on people's minds. I don't think people have the same sort of concerns about this in Montana.

Grayson also started talking to be about unrestrained growth and it's impact on the quality of life, in particular on the overcrowded highways in his district. I could have pointed out the impact of that kind of growth-- so assiduously pushed by McCain and the Arizona Republican delegation for decades in their own state-- on drinking water (or lack thereof). But let's stick to the high cost of housing insurance for now, which is exactly what Florida's ultra-popular Republican governor, Charlie Crist, would like to focus on.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain campaigned for Gov. Charlie Crist in the 2006 Republican primary and would welcome him returning the favor. But unlike rival Rudy Giuliani, he's not taking up Crist's call for a national catastrophic insurance fund.

McCain seemed to suggest that the government needs to improve the Federal Emergency Management Agency instead.

"I do not support a national catastrophic insurance policy,'' McCain said in Coral Gables. "That insurance policy is there and it's called FEMA and it's called national disaster preparedness...I still do not have confidence that FEMA is capable of handling those responsibilities.''

Brace yourself for Giuliani picking up on this disagreement over a national insurance pool.

Crist, like Grayson, would like to find some solutions to the prohibitively high cost of home insurance. Giuliani is buying in-- and Romney will say whatever it takes to whatever audience he's in front of. Huckabee is broke and isn't a factor except in some Panhandle snake-handling churches and Frederick of Hollywood is tired and over the whole thing, just waiting for his ambitious, driven wife to allow him to crawl home and sit on his recliner. McCain, at heart-- despite his p.r. machine-- is a right wing ideologue who is more interested in crowing about his rightist cred than about working together to solve real problems in real people's lives.

FEMA might have been the right thing to bring up when Bill Clinton was president but everyone in hurricane country is painfully aware of what FEMA has meant under the control of Republicans. It won't fly and it looks like Charlie Crist will be sitting this one out.

In this morning's Washington Post E.J. Dionne says Florida is "crunch time" for McCain and that he is certainly not inevitable.

McCain exorcised the ghosts of South Carolina on Saturday, winning a critical primary in a state where he was savaged eight years ago by George W. Bush. McCain's loss ended his chances in 2000, but the ferocity of the campaign against him only burnished his legend as the brave independent willing to confront a Republican political machine that punishes free thinking.

McCain's politics-be-damned image has proved remarkably durable, even though he more recently cozied up to his right-wing critics in the anti-tax movement and the older parts of the religious right. Where he once bravely opposed Bush's tax cuts, McCain now spouts orthodoxy in declaring they should be made permanent. He speaks of himself as the true Reaganite because of his opposition to federal spending.

In South Carolina it was enough-- but only because moderates, liberals and independents identified McCain as the best available alternative.

McCain won overwhelmingly among voters who described themselves as moderate or liberal, but he lost to Mike Huckabee among conservatives. He ran more than 2 to 1 behind Huckabee among those who identified themselves as very conservative. Even though McCain has long opposed abortion, he ran strongly among voters who favor keeping it legal. He lost among those who would outlaw it.

And McCain did not actually carry self-identified Republicans who voted in South Carolina. Independents saved his candidacy.

...In many of the states that vote next -- notably Florida, which casts ballots next Tuesday-- independents will not be able to come to McCain's aid. In such closed primaries, he will have to emphasize his fealty to traditional conservatism and use his strong support for the Iraq war as a Republican credential. Yet the more McCain tries to look like a typical Republican, the more he threatens his standing with middle-of-the-road voters.

Florida will be especially complicated because Rudy Giuliani, who has hung back from the competition so far, is fiercely contesting McCain for moderate voters, particularly Republicans who favor abortion rights. They are a more significant constituency in the party than is usually recognized.

Giuliani, unlike McCain, is an outright proponent of keeping abortion legal. In an effort to hold down Huckabee's support among evangelicals-- and to challenge Mitt Romney for flip-flopping on the issue-- McCain no doubt will point, legitimately, to his long and consistent pro-life stand. McCain was able to do this in South Carolina without losing pro-choice votes because Giuliani did not compete there. In Florida, Giuliani is a viable alternative and could cost McCain critical votes.

McCain thus confronts the most difficult challenge he has faced so far. He made his name as a straight-talker who does not shade his positions to satisfy potential critics. But to win the rest of the way, McCain may have to offer himself as a split personality.

BAD NEWS FOR THE REPUBLICANS: MORE PEOPLE TURNING TO THE INTERNET FOR POLITICAL NEWS

A new study for the Pew Research Center shows that the Internet is having a bigger role in the electoral campaign than ever before. That should come as a surprise to far fewer people than it did to the role of the Internet on retail business or how troglodyte corporate executives in the music industry reacted when faced with impending doom.

The Internet is living up to its potential as a major source for news about the presidential campaign. Nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they regularly learn something about the campaign from the Internet, almost double the percentage from a comparable point in the 2004 campaign (13%).

Moreover, the Internet has now become a leading source of campaign news for young people and the role of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook is a notable part of the story. Fully 42% of those ages 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the Internet, the highest percentage for any news source. In January 2004, just 20% of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the Internet.

So the number of people getting election news online has more than doubled since Bush first stole his way into the White House-- from 9% in 2000 to 24% today. There's been virtually no growth in the Cable news shows and negative growth for local TV, network TV and daily newspapers. Writing on the wall? The has surged into second place as the primary source of campaign news-- after TV's shrinking position-- and more than daily newspaper's shrinking position.

However, even as the variety of campaign web information resources has expanded, there are indications that most Internet users do not go online for the sole purpose of learning about the campaign. Rather, a majority of web users (52%) say they "come across" campaign news and information when they are going online to do something else. This practice is particularly prevalent among younger web users: 59% of web users under age 30 come across campaign news online compared with 43% of those ages 50 and older.

...When asked where they get their campaign information online, three websites dominate the Internet news landscape: MSNBC, CNN and Yahoo News. Each is cited by roughly a quarter of those who get campaign news online at least sometimes, and collectively, 54% cite at least one of these three websites.

Other widely used websites include Google News (named by 9% of those who get campaign news online), Fox News (9%), AOL News (7%) and the New York Times website (6%). Other commercial websites mentioned by at least 1% are the Drudge Report (3%), BBC (2%) and the USA Today and Washington Post websites (1% each). MySpace is mentioned as a source of campaign information by 3% of those who get news online, and 2% name YouTube.

While the volume of users who get campaign news from MSNBC, CNN and Yahoo is noteworthy, there is also a remarkably "long tail" when it comes to online sources of campaign news. While only 13 individual websites were named by 1% or more of the people who get campaign news online, hundreds of individual websites were named by fewer than 1%.

All in all, more than a quarter (29%) of those who get news online name one of these smaller websites as a source of campaign information, meaning that for every person getting campaign news from a site like MSNBC or CNN, there is a person getting campaign news from a website that targets a far smaller audience (though they may often be the same individual.) Many of these "long tail" websites represent the web presences of local newspapers, TV stations and radio stations. But the vast majority are Internet news websites-- politically oriented or otherwise-- that people count as sources of news and information.

THE RON PAUL BAND WAGON IS ROLLING NOW! GOVERNOR JOHNSON JUST ENDORSED HIM!

Gov. Gary Johnson supports pot and Paul

"I am endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President because of his commitment to less government, greater liberty, and lasting prosperity for America. We are at a point in this country where we need to reduce our dependency on government and regain control of our future. To this end, Ron Paul will bring back troops, end the War in Iraq, and will strengthen the U.S. dollar and the economy. For these reasons and more, Ron Paul has my support, respect, and vote."

-Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. More a Libertarian than an actual Greed-and-Bigotry Republican, he's best known for having advocated the legalization of drugs and for meeting with far right New Mexico militia members after the Oklahoma City bombing. Is this Ron Paul's biggest name endorser? Is he bigger than Chuck Norris or that wrestler who came out for The Huckster? The Hill claims that not a single member of Congress has endorsed Paul. Although now that Duncan Hunter, hauled up the white flag, Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bill Young (R-FL), Gary Miller (R-CA), and two of Paul's Texas colleagues, John Culberson and Ralph Hall, are available. These are all Paul allies and Ron Paul supporters should contact them and ask them to endorse him. In fact, some say Duncan Hunter should endorse Paul himself. Minutemen in Iowa and South Carolina have endorsed him. No word from Fife Symington yet... but we'll keep you posted.

JOHN SHADEGG CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN IN AZ-03-- ANOTHER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT COMES ON THE BOARD

John Shadegg, Arizona's most tone-deaf congressman

Paradise Valley and Scottsdale have a major water problem-- the water that comes out of the tap isn't fit for human consumption. Freshman Democrat Harry Mitchell is working frantically on a solution with the EPA; he represents Scottsdale. The 6-term congressman with all the seniority and clout though, Republican John Shadegg, who represents Paradise Valley, is AWOL on this.

Apparently Shadegg, a doctrinaire wingnut with an eye-poppingly extremist voting record, and a great deal of ambition, got enough of a scare in 2006 from Herb Paine's $93,000 campaign to be preoccupied with building a war-chest to fight off much better-financed Democrat Bob Lord. Shadegg isn't used to being seriously challenged and until last year his margin of victory has never been below 60%. The red-leaning suburbs north of Phoenix (Barry Goldwater's home district) are turning away from the kind of extreme radical right politics that are in Shadegg's DNA and towards normal moderate solution-oriented politics. Janet Napolitano took AZ-03 with a bigger percentage than her statewide win-- and the district voted down the anti-gay amendment in 2006 by a much wider margin than the whole state did. Shadegg's response to the changing dynamics? Stack the deck, cheat like a mutha, and try to steal the election!

Today's Arizona Republic reports what could turn into a very serious problem in a Rick Renzi political/ethics world.

The Arizona Democratic Party is accusing Republican U.S. Rep. John Shadegg of using his political-action committee to skirt laws that limit the amount of money donors can give a candidate.

Democrats say they have drafted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, but Shadegg maintains nothing was done improperly and doubts whether the FEC will take action.

At issue is money that elections records show was transferred from Shadegg's political-action committee into his election campaign.

Two Valley businessmen who made the maximum allowable individual donations to Shadegg's campaign in 2007 also wrote additional $5,000 checks to Shadegg's PAC, Leadership for America's Future. Eleven days later, on June 26, the PAC wrote two identical $5,000 checks to Shadegg.

Normally, such a transfer would not be noticed among thousands of dollars in contributions. But in the same reporting period, Shadegg's PAC received no other contributions and paid out only the $10,000.

Democrats accused Shadegg of using the PAC to avoid laws that prohibit donors from giving more than $2,300 to a candidate's re-election campaign in an election cycle.

Keep in mind that in 2006 Shadegg spent over a million dollars-- more than 10 times what Paine spent-- to wind up with his smallest victory ever. Bob Lord, the current candidate, seems like a DLC type insider and if his website doesn't mention any issues-- in good old Rahm Emanuel DCCC tradition-- it is certainly all about his fund-raising prowess. Lord is actually out-raising Shadegg, which probably explains why Shadegg is going to shady criminal elements to finance his endangered re-election bid.

While Bob Lord had his biggest quarter so far, John Shadegg's momentum has apparently slipped. Congressman Shadegg's recent filing was $120,000 less than his second quarter filing, representing nearly a 40% drop. More telling, small dollar donations only represented 5% of Shadegg's total contributions while PACs represented almost 20%. John Shadegg's average contribution was over $1,500 compared with Lord's average contribution of $330. John Shadegg also still appears to be dependent on out-state-dollars with at least 40% of his money coming from outside of Arizona.

Surprisingly, John Shadegg took another $5,000 from the Services Group of America, Inc PAC. This PAC represents Thomas Stewart a convicted campaign money launderer. In 1998, Stewart was convicted of 25 counts of illegally funneling corporate funds totaling $100,000 into a Congressional campaign in Washington state. As part of his sentence for illegally financing a Congressional campaign, Stewart was forced to pay a $5 million fine, wear an electronic monitoring device during his home confinement and perform 160 hours of community service.

UPDATE: SHADEGG HAS BEEN LOCATED

Instead of tending to the water problems of his constituents in Paradise Valley, Shadegg was carrying water for John McCain in New Hampshire and South Carolina. That's right, Shadegg is ignoring his constituents' direst of needs-- safe drinking water-- so he can campaign for John McCain in other states. McCain might want to look into fixing the water problem too. After all, the willy-nilly, over-development that caused it was pretty much created by him and his pals over the past 2 decades. But he's too busy campaigning for the Bob Dole role of 2008-- and Shadegg is praying for a back-up plan after Lord kicks his ass out of Washington.

RON PAUL-- THE FLORIDA WILD CARD?

Mainstream Media leaves out Ron Paul-- but will Florida voters?

Tonight the Democrats debate in Myrtle Beach and next Saturday Hillary, Obama and Edwards face off in that state's primary. It's serious stuff; the next president of the United States is coming closer to being chosen. But I find myself distracted-- like watching a mongoose fight a cobra (horrifying and repulsive)-- by the battle of the pygmies sideshow. The contest to see who will play the role of Bob Dole in November is just entertaining with virtually no meaning. The pygmies are all making their last stand in Florida.

For the hapless and untested ex-front-runner, America's Mayor/crooked lobbyist, Florida is the beginning and, in all likelihood, the end of his over-strategized non-campaign. Was that ever much ado about nothing at all! Polls that once showed him as the prohibitive front-running (not counting None of the Above) now show him as an also-ran... even losing his supposed bastions of strength in New Jersey and New York! A NY Post writer puts it succinctly:

"His issue has evaporated. His issue was fighting crime, fighting terrorism. Now he's trying to fight a terrible economy and trying to make the case that he's really Mr. tax cutter. I mean, he is re-branding himself in Florida with Steve Forbes running around trying to say he was really about tax cutting before, but he wasn't. He was about crime fighting and leadership. And now of course with the sub-prime mortgage problems and the economy tanking, it's just not his issue, and to the extent that his issue is out there, I think McCain has it."

McCain is polling 36% in New York to Rudy's 24%, where people know exactly who Bernie Kerik is and how disastrous a Giuliani Regime would be for America. McCain's got momentum coming out of South Carolina and the Republican rank and file and settling for the inevitability that Grandpa John will be the sacrificial lamb of the GOP this year. Religionist fanatics may think a god will come rescue The Huckster and Mormons may think... well whatever they think, probably that Willard will buy enough votes to put him over; he won't. And If McCain wins in Florida, it's pretty much a wrap in pygmyville. Damn!

But wait! McCain's big problem is that no independent voters are allowed to participate in the primary. Will that derail him? Well... if None of the Above were on the ballot, it might but-- look at the choice Republicans have to consider. Giuliani, who's making his primary debut here, was supposed to shake things up. And after humiliating defeats from Ron Paul in Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina, people are wondering why he's even bothering. Because a lot of New Yorkers who like hot, steamy weather moved down there?

The Anybody But McCain contingent will kick into high gear for a last stand but may be neutralized by the Anybody But Willard contingent, the Anybody But Huckabee contingent, the Anybody But Giuliani contingent and the Nobody But Ron Paul/Frederick of Hollywood contingent. I think McCain will win and establish himself as the Republibot candidate-- and the contest will be all over except for the griping and the cable TV networks trying to sell Asian imports.

MAYBE WHAT WE NEED IS MARTIN LUTHER KING WEEK INSTEAD OF JUST A DAY

I found a speech from Martin Luther King Day, 2000. It was delivered at the Lincoln Memorial by Ralph Neas, the newly elected president of People For the American Way for the Sixth Annual Visions for Peace and Justice Program. Recall there was another newly elected president that year as well, one with a very different vision and agenda than either Ralph Neas or Dr. King.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you today.  It is an honor and a privilege.  I want to commend the Washington Institute for Jewish Leadership and Values, Operation Understanding, and all of you who are giving your time and energy to the sixth annual "Visions of Understanding and Peace," a program for African American and Jewish teenagers to commemorate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

There is nothing more important than involving the next generation in the struggle to make this country what it can and should be. We do not know what America will look like at the end of the 21st century. But we do know it will look a lot different than it does today. It’s going to be your job to make sure that when this century comes to a close, all Americans are sharing in the blessings of freedom.

Fortunately, there are many women and men whose lives give you examples of courageous leadership.  I want to dedicate my remarks this afternoon to the Jewish and African American role models and mentors who awakened my own passion for justice when I was a teenager, those who provided me with the opportunities to serve, and those who trained me in the skills to make a difference.

One of those mentors, Marvin Caplan, died suddenly last week. He was director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights throughout the 1960s and 1970s. He worked for justice in other ways, too. He was a leader of the labor movement, and founded a community organization here in Washington DC, devoted to combating housing discrimination and creating integrated neighborhoods. 

He never became a household name. He never sought to become famous. But he lived a life that had a profound impact on the people around him. His work helped protect the civil rights of millions of Americans who have never heard of Marvin Caplan. He and his family are especially on my mind today.

There are many others: Edward W. Brooke, the first African American elected to the United States Senate, my first boss, and my close friend; Dr. Dorothy Height, who led the National Council of Negro Women for almost four decades, and who is now chair of the Leadership Conference; and my dear departed friends, civil rights leaders Joseph Rauh, Clarence Mitchell, and Arnie Aronson. I am the beneficiary of a quality education provided by these African American and Jewish mentors.
Of course we are here, on this day, to honor specifically the life and memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 

It is moving and humbling to speak here in the shadow of Abraham Lincoln, surrounded by the spirit of Dr. King, which will be a part of this place forever. One hundred years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King helped draw 250,000 Americans to this very spot. 

His "I Have a Dream" speech was this country’s second emancipation proclamation. It inspired millions of Americans to see the civil rights struggle as their struggle. It launched a new generation of Americans into the effort to bring about the "beloved community." And it inspired people like me, a white Catholic seventeen-year-old growing up in St. Charles, Illinois, a small town of 10,000 people, with only one black family and one Jewish family.

I have vivid memories of the way television brought major moments of the civil rights movement into my home and helped raise my consciousness-- the 1963 March on Washington, the images of police dogs and police brutality turned against civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, and the brutal murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.

In our conference room at People For the American Way, we have a large photograph of Martin Luther King Jr. holding up pictures of those three young men-- two Jewish, one Black. It is a daily visual reminder of the risks we take by working together-- and of the even greater risks we take if we do not stand together to defeat the racism and anti-Semitism and other hatreds that are a constant threat to the American Way.

I know that, even after studying the history, it can be hard to imagine what the country was like just two generations ago. Many of your grandparents, maybe some of your parents, grew up in the United States when legalized racial discrimination and segregation was taken for granted by most Americans. It was enforced by the power of the government and defended by elected officials at every level.
 
It targeted every aspect of life. In fact, it wasn’t until a few years after Dr. King’s speech that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state laws that made it a crime for a black person and white person to get married.

We have come an amazing distance since then. You are growing up in an America where most of those legal barriers have been dismantled. And maybe just as importantly, where the cultural barriers are slowly coming down. In politics, in science and sports, in music and movies, there are role models of all races who appeal to Americans across racial and ethnic lines. 

There is no question we have a long way to go. Regrettably, serious, persistent, systemic discrimination still exists in America. But that is the subject of another speech at another time. Yet the fact that we’ve come this far should energize us to the real possibilities of progress, and of the power of committed individuals to shape the world around them.

I am sure you all have studied the history of Black and Jewish partnership in the civil rights movement. Long before the 1960s, Black and Jewish intellectuals and activists were working in coalition. Together, they planned a strategy for ending legal segregation in the nation’s public schools and pursued that strategy in the federal courts. Together they convinced elected officials to pass a series of landmark civil rights laws. And together they risked violence and death to make sure that no American would be denied the right to vote.

Of course, every partnership has its ups and downs, and this one is no exception. Having served for fourteen years as the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 180 very different and very independent organizations, I know that forging a consensus can be a daunting challenge.

But when it works-- when African American and Latino and Asian-Pacific American civil rights groups come together; when Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic organizations reach consensus with labor, Native American, women, disability and gay rights groups, there is nothing more rewarding and nothing more powerful.

We don’t talk about power very often. Indeed, some people are uncomfortable to admit seeking power because power has the potential to be misused. But power itself isn’t a bad thing or a good thing. What counts is how we build power and what kind of moral vision we have for its use. Dr. King once said "I’m not interested in power for power’s sake, but I’m interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good. This is what we are trying to do in America."

This moral vision is critical. Dr. King was not powerful for any of the reasons that we normally think make people powerful. He didn’t have tremendous wealth. He didn’t have weapons or an Army. He became a powerful force for change because he had a powerful vision. He urged his followers to meet political power with the power of their souls.

The success of the Black-Jewish alliance over the years has been grounded in visions of humanity and justice that are far larger than any particular legislation. They are visions of justice drawn from Jewish spiritual teachings and from the Black Church. 

African American religious leaders have long turned to the Hebrew scriptures and prophets. Those teachings about an enslaved people led to freedom by their faith have had particular resonance for people whose history of enslavement in America is still much longer than their history of freedom.  Many of the Jewish leaders and activists I know find a spiritual touchstone in the concept of tikkun olam, the duty to heal and repair the world. That is what we are all here to do.

Our world is changing. America’s racial landscape is becoming far more complex than black and white. Our ethnic backgrounds are European and African and Latin American and Middle Eastern and East Asian and South Asian. We have always been more diverse than Christians and Jews, and are becoming more so. In addition to an immense variety of Christians and Jews, America is home to growing communities of Muslims-- Black and Arab-- of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and more. Our schools reflect these changes in our communities.

That is happening. It is a reality. And it’s not just in New York and Los Angeles. We have Hindu temples and cultural centers in Nashville, Tennessee; Atlanta, Georgia, and Greenville, South Carolina.

The Census Bureau recently predicted that by the end of the 21st century, America will look radically different than it does today. There will be no racial or ethnic majority. We will all be minorities. Some people fear that, the way they fear our growing religious pluralism. They cling to the idea that America is a Christian nation. They are frantically trying to post the Ten Commandments in every public school and every public building. But this is not a country that was founded for Christians, with others to be tolerated. The founders were careful to make it clear that the rights and duties of citizenship had nothing to do with your religious beliefs or your lack of them. What was important to know about a public official was not his religious convictions, but his commitment to the principles of the Constitution.

After a violent year in which synagogues and churches were firebombed and worshippers killed, it is especially important to reaffirm the principle that America is not only for people of one color or one religion. Last year followers of white supremacist groups attacked and killed Jews and Americans of color and gays. As a nation, we have made progress but we have not yet overcome the purveyors of hatred.

I’m sure many of you have read the words attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller, speaking about the Nazis in Germany:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me-- and by that time no one was left to speak up.

You are here to speak up. It has taken generations of struggle to call the nation to be true to the ideals it has held forth. That was part of the genius of Martin Luther King. He said to Americans, look, we’re not preaching some idea that’s radically different, we’re just taking this country at its word-- that we’re all created equal, that all of us have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The core philosophy espoused by Martin Luther King-- "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"-- is the inspiration for today’s broader civil rights movement, one that embraces the rights of all persons of color, of women, of disabled Americans, of gay and lesbian Americans, and indeed of all Americans.

Every generation must take up this work. Some of you may become leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. Others may make a quiet difference like Marvin Caplan. But we need you all in the struggle.

Before I conclude, I would like to share with you a very personal story. When I was a young adult, I had an experience that was entirely unexpected, an experience that changed my life forever. I was struck with Guillian-Barré Syndrome– also known as "French polio"-- a syndrome that left me totally paralyzed for 75 days, unable even to breathe without a respirator. I spent months in the hospital and many more months recovering. It is not an experience I would wish on anyone. 

But that terrible and terrifying ordeal taught me some invaluable lessons. It reminded me how dependent we are on our family, our friends, and our faith. It reminded me how precious life is-- every moment that we have. And most importantly, it prompted me to renew my vows to use my professional talents to make a difference for my family, for my community, and for my country.

That is why I became director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. That is why I ran for Congress. And that is why I am now serving as President of People For the American Way.

Every day is an opportunity to make a difference. Every life can be used to change the world. Your being here is a sign that you, too, are eager to make a difference. And don’t think you have to be a Martin Luther King to make that difference.

Up on the hill behind us is the grave site of another great American, one who had a special impact on my generation. In 1966, Robert F. Kennedy spoke to a group of young people in South Africa. Here’s part of what he said:

Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation... It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

You here today are those centers of energy and daring.
 
I will leave you with a Martin Luther King quote that Dorothy Height shared with those of us at Marvin Caplan’s memorial service last Friday. She rediscovered it in Shared Dreams, a new book by Rabbi Mark Schneier, on Martin Luther King and the Jewish Community.

To avoid involvement in behalf of a just cause… is to live a sterile life. It is the quality of life that one leads that gives it meaning and value, not its length. From the saying of Jesus, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it," I draw the fullest meaning and implication for my life… The exhortation of the prophet, "Justice, Justice shalt thou pursue," rings constantly in my ears.
In the words of Dr. King, let us go forth today and become "Drum Majors for Justice."

Thank you very much.

How is it possible that we-- a democracy-- have chosen to adhere to the tragic vision of a man like George Bush rather than to the selfless and principled visions of men like Martin Luther King, Marvin Caplan and Ralph Neas. Think about that when people try talking you into giving McCain or Willard or The Huckster a second thought. We owe it to ourselves and to this country that has given us so much to be better.

I'm in the middle of reading the powerful new book by Mort Rosenblum, veteran A.P. international correspondant, Escaping Plato's Cave-- How Ameirca's Blindness to the Rest of the World Threatens Our Survival. It's a brilliant and compelling critique of contemporary American society and media but something in it caught my attention today. Rosenblum contends that "by seeing the world with narrow vision, by not understanding others and assuming vastly disparate societies will react to sticks and carrots as it would, America as a nation has lost its ability to inspire." I know what Rosenblum means by "inspire," of course but I immediately thought about how George Bush's 7 years at the helm has indeed been used as inspiration around the world-- inspiration, for example, to steal elections and undermine the very nature of democracy. After we allowed him to get away with the theft of the 2000 election, how many times were identical tactics used around the world? I'm not even talking about Bush Regime efforts to overthrow legitimate governments in Venezuela and Bolivia-- but about corrupted, stolen fraudulent elections in occupied Iraq, in Kenya, in Zimbabwe, in Thailand, Russia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan... possibly even Britain. The good news: just one year from today.

THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY: A SCANDAL OF EPIC PROPORTIONS THAT WILL HAUNT THE LEGACY OF THE BUSH REGIME

A recent issue of Vanity Fair features a story by David Rose on war profiteers in Iraq. The editors introduced it with a compelling question-- though not the most compelling question.

Americans working in Iraq for Halliburton spin-off KBR have been outraged by the massive fraud they saw there. Dozens are suing the giant military contractor, on the taxpayers' behalf. Whose side is the Justice Department on?

The article is fascinating and very much recommended... but I doubt there are many DWT readers who need to read it in order to answer that question. Unfortunately, the question Vanity Fair could have, should have, asked is "Whose side is the Republican Party on?" And not just whose side are the Inside the Beltway greedballs and their propagandists on-- we know that as intuitively as we know whose side the Justice Department is on-- but whose side the hard core Republican voters are on!

There's probably no one who knows more about war profiteers in Iraq-- outside of Cheney and the folks at Halliburton and KBR-- than Alan Grayson, an attorney prosecuting numerous war profiteering cases. We came across him because he is running for Congress against corrupt Republican rubber stamp Ric Keller in central Florida's 8th CD (Orlando area). Next weekend Alan will be our guest at Blue America sessions at Firedoglake and Crooks and Liars. But I called him today and asked him this tough question-- the one about Republican voters. Do these Americans actually support this kind of behavior?

Before we take a look at what Alan told me take a look at this CBS News clip I found on his website:



"I think that the Republicans, from top to bottom, are genuinely trying to change America into Amerika with a 'k.' They want America to be a place where ordinary workers cannot organize, where everybody tries to undercut everybody else in the labor market, and where the people in charge are the people who can best tap into war profiteering profits... These people want to change America and change it to make it something that Eisenhower warned us about half a century ago. They want everything in America to be under the control-- and in the teeth-- of the military-industrial complex.

"When I talk to Republicans in general these days, they're very unhappy about the war. The problem is, they're unhappy about the war because they don't like to lose-- and that's just the wrong way of looking at it. They have become willing participants in a war that at this point is approaching imperialism. If they read in newspapers everyday that we were winning the war, they would be just as happy with the war as the characters in Orwell's 1984 are happy with their endless war against some unnamed enemy that they can never clearly understand the purpose of. Republican voters have, in effect, collaborated in this effort despite their misgivings about the war and the primary reason why they're not happy right now isn't because the war is wrong or unjustifiable but because we're not not winning."

Next week-- Saturday, 11am, PT, 2pm in Florida-- promises to be a very interesting Blue America session with a candidate for Congress who has already been playing an important role, one that Congress should have been vigorously involved in for the last half dozen years. Please be sure to come by and meet him.

NO ONE CAN PREDICT EXACTLY HOW MASSIVE THE REPUBLICAN DEFEAT WILL BE NEXT NOVEMBER

Sane people already know it doesn't matter which of the pathetic pygmies plays the Bob Dole role in the 2008 presidential election. The only thing left unclear is the magnitude of the rejection of Bush and the Republican Party that allowed him-- encouraged him-- to devastate American ideals and values-- not to forget the American economy. Electorally speaking, 2008 will be an Armageddon for the GOP-- though not the kind of Armageddon their religionist nut segment has been having wet dreams about.

Republican activists aren't preparing themselves for it. They're missing the obvious-- like the lack of participation in Republican primaries and caucuses, while Democratic primaries and caucuses draw record numbers of participants. Instead the extremists on the ideological fringes of the GOP-- the ones who have been driving the show in the last decade or so-- are inventing substitute realities to explain the world of hurt headed their way. It's the mainstream media's fault, they screech, denying that the GOP owns the mainstream media.

Clearly, much of the mainstream media is pumping for McCain, irrationally a bete noir of the extremist apparatchiks. Like the mainstream of the Insider Republican Establishment, they fear and loathe The Huckster and his pseudo-populist appeal, tinged with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and every kind of divisive bigotry he can come up with to appeal to the Republican masses in the backward precincts of the Old Confederacy. The Huckster's strategy was derailed in South Carolina by McCain's right flank man (Sir Frederick of Hollywood). A Republican propagandist at today's National Review mentions how McCain's victory rally in South Carolina yesterday erupted in cheers-- "Go Fred Go! Go Fred Go! Go Fred Go!"-- when a picture of ole Fred showed up on the Fox big screen. He thinks it was because they hate Willard so much and find Fred so likable. Well, as hateful as Willard is, I think he's leaving something out. It was Fred's appeal to so many of the Know Nothing voters in backward parts of the state that allowed McCain to beat the surging Huckster. Associated Press reports that "With returns from 93 precincts counted, McCain won about 33 percent of the vote and Huckabee had about 30 percent. Fred Thompson was in third place with 16 percent." So will Giuliani be able to stop McCain's momentum in Florida? No one believes in Giuliani any longer; he's a spent force that never even got tried out.

But it doesn't matter. It's like a bad reality show on TV. The Bush's economic policies are coming home to roost. His 29% approval rating will soon look like Republican glory days. And, as Frank Rich pointed out today, Ronald Reagan is still dead.

Never mind that the G.O.P. is running on empty, with no ideas beyond the incessant repetition of Reagan’s name. A battle over race-and-gender identity politics among the Democrats, with its acrid scent from the 1960s, might be just the spark for a Republican comeback. (As long as the G.O.P.’s own identity politics, over religion, don’t flare up.)

Alas, these hopes faded on Tuesday night. First, the debating Democrats declared a truce, however fragile, in their racial brawl. Then Republicans in Michigan reconstituted their party’s election-year chaos by temporarily revivifying yet another candidate, Mitt Romney, who had been left for dead.

...It’s not just that the old Reagan coalition of social, economic and foreign-policy conservatives has fractured. A more indelible problem for the Republicans in 2008 is that their candidates are utterly segregated from reality as it is lived by the overwhelming majority of their fellow Americans. The G.O.P. presidential field’s lack of demographic diversity by age, gender, ethnicity or even wardrobe, let alone race, is simply the leading indicator of how out of touch its brand has become.

The election is more than nine months away, and already this obsession is blowing up in the G.O.P.’s face with non-Hispanic voters, too. Far from proving the killer app of 2008 [as predicted by Republican strategists and the always wrong Democratic Party boss Rahm Emanuel], illegal immigration is evaporating as a national cause. In the nearly identical findings of The New York Times/CBS News and ABC News/Washington Post polls this month, it ranks near the bottom, the top issue for a mere 4 to 5 percent of voters. The economy (at 20 to 29 percent) leads in both surveys, closely followed by the total of those picking some variant of “war” and “Iraq.”

As if it weren’t crazy enough for Republicans to lash themselves to the listing mast of immigration, they are nonplayers on the issues that do matter most to voters. The more the economy tanks and steals Americans’ attention from a relatively less violent Iraq, the more voters learn that the Republicans have little to offer beyond their one-size-fits-all panacea of extending the Bush tax cuts.

To voters who do remember Iraq, the supposed military success of the “surge” does not accrue to the Republicans’ favor either. Quite the contrary. As every poll shows, most Americans still want the troops home ASAP. Republican declarations that we are “winning” merely lead many voters to a logical conclusion: Why not let the Iraqis take over the remaining triage so we can retrieve the $10 billion a month in taxpayers’ money that might benefit us at home? This is why even the poll-driven Mrs. Clinton, who has been the most cautious and ambiguous of the Democratic candidates about a withdrawal timetable, dramatically changed course to expedite her Iraq exit strategy in Tuesday night’s debate.

TONIGHT'S SMALLISH LOSER: DUNCAN HUNTER (YES, HE WAS ONE OF THE PATHETIC PYGMIES)

The Dukester won't be getting a pardon from his best bud Duncan

Thers has the funniest post of the day week over at FDL about Thompson's imminent departure from the national scene-- Enjoy the SchadenFred.

Over at Red State one of the inmates has written a rather mawkish obituary for the Fred Thompson campaign, which is a bit like shutting the barn door after the horse fell asleep in the hay watching Matlock.

The Thompson campaign has been fascinating to watch, as would be any desperate attempt to slap a saddle on Grandpa. Fascinating, but disturbing, like one of those sadistic Japanese game shows. The constant equestrian metaphors alone were enough to make the sane queasy, and they still haven't stopped with them.

And the craziest segment of far right extremists-- you know, the off the chart ones-- are already dancing on The Huckster's grave. Meanwhile The Huckster partisans are blaming Grandpa Fred for his inability to beat back McCain in South Carolina. Is Frederick of Hollywood in? Out? That tired speech to nowhere seemed to indicate he'd stay in. I guess he's supposed to protect McCain's right flank until the Huckabee shibboleth is slain.

So the only one who has definitively dropped out is the one who never had any chance and never even had any legitimate reason to run: corrupt California wingnut, Duncan Hunter.

Zero percent is pretty tough to swallow and keep swallowing for an ego-mad politician. Duncan Hunter, the most overtly corrupt of the pygmies is dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination after back to back drubbings today in Nevada and South Carolina, where virtually no one took him seriously, just like in Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming.

After neo-Nazi Tom Tancredo abandoned his Know Nothing jihad, his viciously anti-immigrant agenda failing to gain him any traction, Hunter grabbed the anti-immigrant mantle. It worked as well for him as it did for Tancredo. He said the failed campaign, which was run by Bay Buchanan, was, he said, "a lot of fun." I bet it wasn't fun for him to have his ass kicked by Ron Paul.

I always felt that the only reason Hunter even got into the race was to avoid being indicted as part of the same scandal that sent one of his closest friends and allies, Duke Cunningham, to prison. Cunningham, Jerry Lewis and Hunter worked together to milk defense contractors. Lewis is under intense federal investigation; Cunningham is in prison, waiting for Bush to pardon him; and Hunter... has been shielding himself from criminal system scrutiny by making believe he was a serious candidate for President of the United States. Hopefully the investigations can get under way now.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO HELL-- OR SO SAY THE BASTARD FAIRIES

The song, "We're All Going to Hell" has been out a while but the video is brand new. As you know, the Mormons gave their Willard the win in Nevada today. The Fairies seem to give him precedence too.

Evangelicals in South Carolina, who are obsessed with Hell, are pretty much ignoring Romney there tonight, despite the fact that he spent more money in the backward state and spent more time there than any of the other candidates. He's fighting it out with ole Frederick of Hollywood for fourth place.

HILLARY SINGIN' "VIVA LAS VEGAS" TONIGHT-- ALTHOUGH OBAMA WON IN RENO AND AT LEAST AS MANY DELEGATES AS SHE DID

It doesn't much matter that Willard turned out the Mormon machine in Nevada and won the Republican caucuses there. Willard will be a footnote to the history of the 2008 election, something like a less accomplished version of Bob Dole. This will be a HUGE Democratic year-- a response to the 8 previous almost universally reviled years of the Bush Regime. So Democratic primaries and caucuses are important. Edwards didn't win. CBS is calling Nevada a Clinton victory 51% to Obama's 45%. Obama got the young voters; Clinton got the old folks. More old folks vote. The NY Times gives the credit for his victory to women voters. African-Americans turned out big for Obama (83%). Latinos went 64-26% for Clinton.

In contrast to the lack of interest today in South Carolina's pygmy primary-- where turn out was minuscule, CNN is reporting that Democratic turnout in Nevada was record-breaking. 40,000 were expected and 107,000 114,000 showed up (in contrast to 41,000 Repugs in this 50/50 state), following the same patterns that were set in Iowa and New Hampshire: Democrats coming to the polls in droves; Republicans, hating their miserable choices, staying away. This is expected to get much, much worse for Republicans by next November. The only Republicans motivated to vote-- at least early on-- were the evangelicals, good news for the Huckster. "Preliminary exit poll results indicate that nearly seven in 10 Republican voters in the state are identifying themselves as conservatives, which is more than in the 2000 primary there, as well as more than in either Michigan or New Hampshire this year. And nearly six in 10 in South Carolina are evangelical Christians." Independents aren't showing up at the polls, bad news for grumpy old McCain.

If you want the demographic breakdown of the Democratic caucus voters, CNN has a good one. Obama won among men by a little. Hillary won among women by a landslide. Those who said the most important issue was either the economy or health care went for Hillary. Iraq voters favored Obama (slightly), buying into his preposterous tale that he would have voted against the war if he had been in the Senate. Independent voters went for Obama 47% to 33% (with Edwards at 11%) but Democrats gave Hillary 51%, Obama 39% and Edwards 8%. Hillary won across the ideological spectrum and the more liberal the voter, the more likely they were to vote for her instead of Obama. Union households went for Clinton, although it was fairly even between them. And in terms of delegates... it appears to be either even or Obama ahead!

RON PAUL ON HIS WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Well, not really. He is battling it out for a distant second-place finish with grumpy old John McCain. However, if you look at the in-depth entrance poll CNN has up, you'll notice that Romney won in every single demographic except among independent (where Paul drew 63%; fake-independent John McCain drew 11% and Romney drew 10%). It is also worth noting that when caucus goers who voted for the candidate who they thought "Says What He Believes," Ron Paul came in first (35%) with Romney (who believes nothing in particular) at 28%, Frederick of Hollywood at 14% and Straight-Talk McCain at a mere 7%.

I also found it interesting that 10% of GOP caucus goers were Latino. They liked Willard, although at a smaller percentage than white folks (48%). Among the Latino Republicans 11% voted for Huckabee. Presumably they haven't heard that he now favors rounding up between ten and fifteen million immigrants and deporting them. Or maybe they support that. Latino Republicans were an important part of McCain's voting bloc (25%), although Romney took the prize (35%).

Ron Paul beat McCain among veterans (18%-14%), white evangelicals (18%-6%), among rural voters (18%-14%), suburban voters (16%-12%), among urban voters (20%-11%), among white Protestants (14%-9%), among conservatives (16%-8%) and among those who thought Iraq was the key issue (29%-12%). McCain beat Paul among the elderly-- people over 60 (16%-10%) but Paul beat McCain in every other age demographic, especially among the youngest voters-- 18-29 years (32%-5%). Looks like people who will be on the planet for a long time recognize the threat of electing someone like John McCain, even over someone like Ron Paul! (Romney won 44% of those young voters, apparently Republican fans of Max Headroom).


UPDATE: RON PAUL UBER McCAIN

WILLARD! WILLARD! WILLARD! THE WINNER IN NEVADA

Nevada's large Mormon population won the GOP caucus in that state for Willard today. No one was seriously contesting the state except him; the rest of the pygmies are putting all their energy into South Carolina's primary.

While Romney's Mormon faith hurts him strong evangelical Christian states like South Carolina-- he finished second in Iowa to Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher-- his religion could give him an edge in Nevada, which Mormons settled in the early 1850s.

About 170,000 people in Nevada, or 6.8 percent of its population, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the formal name of the religion headquartered in neighboring Utah.

"That voting bloc has turned out strong traditionally for Mormon candidates," said Zachary Moyle, executive director of Nevada's Republican Party.

Boyd Peterson, director of the Mormon studies program at Utah State University, said many Mormons see Nevada's contest as a historic opportunity. "There's a sense of 'he's our boy.' There's a chance to finally be accepted and part of the mainstream, part of the national debate," he said.

It turned out that 25% of the Republican caucus-goers were Mormons-- 94% of whom voted for their co-religionist-- which is what put Willard over the top. And in South Carolina, where all the other pygmies are scrambling desperately to stay alive, CNN reports pitifully low turn-out. Polls opened at 7am for the GOP primary and the state's Election Commission says not many people are showing up to vote for their favorite pygmy-- not anywhere. They say it's because it's a Saturday and people prefer voting on a work day-- except Thompson's campaign which seems to claim people prefer voting in snow storms. A low turn out will favor Huckabee. A victory for him in one of the 2 or 3 most backward and reactionary states in the Union will keep his campaign alive-- and would devastate McCain, the pygmy frontrunner (for now; Romney could be headed for the cat-bird's seat, which is exactly what Democrats are praying for; the GOP cyborg would be the easiest Republican to slaughter come November).


UPDATE: IS RON PAUL COMING IN SECOND IN NEVADA?

GOP-TV and CBS, as well as Chris Cillizza confirm that Willard won and the Post is showing Ron Paul in second place, edging McCain from neighboring Arizona. "Just when he looked like his high priced campaign was about to implode," writes the always superficial Cillizza, "Rom