KENTUCKY AND OREGON RESULTS-- PLUS CLAY COUNTY

When I woke up this morning CNN had a little feature of Clay County, Kentucky. I was only half-awake so I don't recall exactly how many people they interviewed but I'd guess that-- apart from the normal-looking mayor or Manchester, there wasn't a full set of teeth between at least half a dozen people. I'm usually sympathetic when I see a place mired in poverty and misfortune-- and, although Clay County is mired in both, sympathy isn't what the CNN report drew out of me. I'll explain in a minute but let me give you some of the facts first. Clay County is the poorest county in Kentucky and the 18th poorest in America, most of the poorer ones being desolate Indian reservations. The per capita income is $9,716.00. As of the last census the population was 24,556, of whom around 15,000 are registered to vote-- 13,092 Republicans and 2,013 Democrats. That's right. Clay County, dirt poor, rampant unemployment and it's overwhelming Republican.

The county is also 94% white and 40% are living below the poverty line. Early this morning CNN was making the point that there was scant interest in today's election in Clay County. Today 649 Democrats voted (32%) and 2,569 Republicans voted (19.6%). Hillary took 85% of the Democratic vote and McCain took 74% of the Republican vote. On the Senate side Lunsford got 48.5% of the Democratic vote and Greg Fischer got 26.2%.

The first and the last person they interviewed was a kind of elderly obese woman sitting in a cheap restaurant sharing her tales of woe. At the end the reporter asked her what she thought about Hillary Clinton. She started shouting about the Bible and how a woman's place is in the home.

That said, Kentucky Democrats gave a corrupt Zell Miller type quasi-Democrat, Bruce Lunsford, their nomination for the U.S. Senate, virtually guaranteeing another term for an even more reactionary and more corrupt Mitch McConnell. Statewide 459,093 (65.5%) voted for Hillary and 209,869 voted for Obama (30%). On the GOP side, McCain took 142,836 (72.5%) and the runner-up was Huckabee with 16,367 (8.3%). Obama, in losing to Hillary, took more votes than all the Republicans combined.

In Oregon we were following several races but let's get the presidential race out of the way. As expected, Obama won. With 50% of the returns counted, Hillary took a few remote counties but Obama won all the big ones for a 58%-42% win. He took 9 delegates to her 2. Tomorrow's NY Times: "Under the rules used by Democrats, Mr. Obama’s showing in Kentucky and his victory in Oregon appear to be enough to allow him to secure a majority of the delegates up for grabs in primaries and caucuses." And it looks like Senator Chuck Hagel will be the Republican foil for the treacherous Joe Lieberman expected to transform himself into Zell Miller at the GOP Hate Fest this summer. "The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level."

It looks like Jeff Merkley beat Steve Novick 45-41%. Blue America will have Jeff on at FED Thursday evening. But my favorite race of the night was for the useless right to represent the GOP in the congressional race in OR-05 (to fill the seat of retiring Democrat Darlene Hooley). Mike Erickson, after being exposed as a coke freak and pervert, beat the favorite, Kevin Mannix. Erickson is expected to lose to Kurt Schrader in November.

Watch Obama's speech tonight in Des Moines:




UPDATE: OREGON GOP CIVIL WAR

Loser Kevin Mannix has refused to endorse the coke sniffing abortion practioner Mike Erickson (backed by the Oregon anti-choice loons). "I cannot support a dishonest man," he said. No word on how he plans to handle McCain's candidacy.

WILL KENTUCKY DEMOCRATS TAKE THE FIRST STEP TO DEFEAT MITCH McCONNELL ON TUESDAY?

Only one of these three represents change

Greg Fischer has come a long way in his race to catch up with the well-known-- albeit well-known in the most negative of ways-- Bruce Lunsford. One of these two, the former a progressive Democrat, the latter some kind of reactionary freak who's a Democrat the way Zell Miller and Holy Joe Lieberman are Democrats, will go up against one of the most corrupt and deceitful men in the U.S. Senate, Bush's chief obstructionist, Mitch McConnell. We'll see on Tuesday whether Greg has come far enough fast enough. In yesterday's Congressional Daily Patrick Crowley handicapped the race:

Lunsford built his name ID among Democrats and seemed to curry allies among party leaders despite some un-Democratic tendencies. So that leaves Fischer the daunting challenge of not only getting to know Kentucky's voters but also overcoming a battle-savvy foe.

...Both Fischer and Lunsford have put their own money in the race. Fischer has loaned his campaign $530,000 and raised nearly $550,000 in the first quarter. Lunsford has loaned his campaign $500,000 and raised about $300,000.

By contrast, McConnell has raised more than $12 million. And therein lies the reason top Kentucky Democrats [not to mention the DSCC's Alien Lizard] are backing, either overtly or behind the scenes, Lunsford. Lunsford has shown a willingness-- some say recklessness-- to spend his own money running for office. He spent $14 million of it in the '03 and '07 Democratic primaries for governor.

Lunsford briefly abandoned the party-- infuriating many-- by backing Republican Ernie Fletcher after losing the 2003 primary to now-Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Ky. Chandler lost, but has since been elected to Congress.

Lunsford forced his way back to the fold in last year's primary. He lost to Steve Beshear, who went on to defeat Fletcher in November. But this time Lunsford stayed away from intraparty nastiness and has even picked up support from some of the same labor unions that spurned him in earlier races.

... With McConnell raising buckets of cash, the national party made it clear it did not have a lot of money to throw at the race. So [a lizard and] Democrats in Washington and Frankfort looked to the self-funding Lunsford to make the run against McConnell.

Beshear has admitted to "encouraging" Lunsford to run, even after Fischer had committed to the race. And four top Democrats last week called on Fischer in a letter to drop a campaign ad critical of Lunsford's failed nursing home company, Vencor.

"We urge you to remove your personal attack ad from the air immediately, take the high road and spend the final weeks of the primary running a campaign focused on why you are right for the job," wrote Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo, Attorney General Jack Conway and Auditor Crit Luallen.

Fischer not only refused, but he stood up to the pressure.

"To make an informed decision, voters have to be able to compare the past performance and the record of each of the candidates," Fischer said at a news conference he called to address the ad and its fallout.
Fischer's defiant rhetoric might not help him with party leaders-- they are already with Lunsford-- but he might help to fire up the rank and file.

Fischer has been knocked for his quiet demeanor and a perceived lack of passion, despite working hard and putting up a chunk of his own money. Back-talking the party hierarchy might help to draw attention from an electorate that has shown willingness to embrace change this election cycle.

"I'll continue to talk about bringing change to Washington," Fischer said. "I'll continue to talk about... my desire to go to Washington to represent the working men and women of this state."

There's a great clip emphasizing Lunsford's record made by the county campaign director in super-red Pulaski County, a 15 year old boy named Halyn. I don't think that's the one the party hacks are all pissed off about. I think they're pissed off about this one:

LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER ENDORSES GREG FISCHER, THE RIGHT DEMOCRAT TO TAKE ON MITCH McCONNELL

Although his lead literally shrinks by the day, reactionary Insider Dem, Bruce Lunsford, has the name recognition to have kept him out front in Kentucky senate polls. Even if his Republican-lite perspective and reputation as a corrupt and slimy hack gives him virtually no chance of beating Mitch McConnell in November, there is a very real danger to Kentucky that Lunsford will walk away with the Democratic nomination-- based solely on name recognition and massive self-funded media buys-- a week from tomorrow. That danger was ameliorated yesterday when Lexington's respected Herald-Leader endorsed Greg Fischer. It's the second biggest newspaper in the state and, by far, the most credible.

Blue America endorsed Fischer, with great enthusiasm, on April 5 and you can read our live session with him at Firedoglake. The Herald-Leader says anything would be better than another six years of McConnell but points out that "baggage accompanies Lunsford into any race he runs, baggage that has been thoroughly vetted in previous campaigns and will not be rehashed here." Instead they are urging Democrats to vote for Greg Fischer.

Fischer has a couple of things that speak in his favor.

One is the fact that, as a novice, he delivers the message of change with a fresher voice.

He makes that message resonate with more hope, more idealism, more commitment.

And if "change" is the message the Democrats think can inspire Kentucky voters in November, who better to deliver it than a fresh face with a fresh voice?

The second thing is the simple fact that Fischer lacks Lunsford's baggage.

Whomever the Democrats nominate, McConnell will loose the attack dogs on him, just as he has loosed them on all comers for 24 years. But as Fischer asks, why give McConnell "a target-rich environment"?

Last week Greg was also been endorsed by Larry Clark, Speaker Pro-Tem of the Kentucky House of Representatives, former Louisville Mayor David Armstrong and former Congressman Ron Mazzoli. He was also endorsed by former Kentucky Democratic U.S. Senator Dee Huddleston. Local bloggers make the case that as Kentucky Democrats get to know Fischer, they like him-- and like him much better than the detestable Lunsford.

This morning the Kentucky Standard, the newspaper in Democratic-leaning Bardstown south of Louisville, gave Greg's campaign another powerful endorsement.

U.S. Senatorial candidate Greg Fischer is the decided underdog-- a long shot, then-- in the upcoming Democratic Party primary. For the most part, that’s because he lacks the name recognition of front-runner Bruce Lunsford. Running for political office for the first time, he nonetheless is creating a ground-swirl of support statewide.

While new to the state spotlight, Kentuckians are learning fast that Fischer, 50, is not just a capable and astute business leader who earns his way and creates new jobs through innovation and know-how, not on the backs of others; is so much more than just a party ideologue; and is a man of integrity and sincerity who has tirelessly given of himself for civic improvement and public good.

This is the right office. This is the right time.

Lunsford is the ultimate DLC shill and, of course, he is 110% in the anti-Obama camp. At one point he was touted to be Hillary's finance chair for the border states region. Many progressives in Kentucky feel that Hillary's Rovian-style campaign and dog whistle appeal to old fashioned racism has her way ahead of Obama in the primary. The last SUSA polls in Kentucky show Clinton ahead with 62% and Lunsford ahead with 41%. As Kentucky voters get serious and start focusing on the primary can the desire for real change bite into this immense margins for the two status quo DLC candidates? If you'd like to help Greg Fischer make sure the Mitch McConnell does not continue as the venal, obstructionist Minority Leader next year, please consider a donation through our Blue America ActBlue page today.
Fischer and Obama stand for real change. Lunsford and to an unfortunate extent, Hillary have come to symbolize... the opposite.

MITCH McCONNELL MUST BE REPLACED-- FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA

Mitch McConnell, more than any other Republican senator, has been responsible for the prolongation of the war and for obstructing every attempt the Senate has made to move forward a progressive platform. He has consistently filibustered every move-- including bipartisan initiatives, like the Webb-Hagel GI bill-- to enact solutions to the problems that Americans are most concerned about. Most Americans have no say in who represents Kentucky in the U.S. Senate. It is up to voters in Kentucky to decide if they want America to move forward with health care reform, with fairness for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with solutions to the mortgage crisis that helps American families instead of just huge corporate contributors and predatory lenders. When Hillary Clinton proposed making McCain's phony gas tax summer holiday nearly tenable by making up for revenues with an excess profits tax on the oil and gas industry, it is to McConnell, whose ass they own (to the tune of $142,100 in legalized bribes) they turned to guarantee the proposal would never even be voted on. It is McConnell who is preventing a bipartisan quorum of the FEC so it can function to guarantee fair elections in 2008. From the occupation of Iraq to Americans losing their occupations to ill-conceived trade policies that ship American jobs overseas, it is Mitch McConnell who serves as a last bastion of reactionary politics in Congress.

In 2006 American voters dealt the GOP and their hard right agenda a devastating blow when they failed to re-elect half a dozen Republican senators (while defeating nearly 3 dozen wingnuts in the House). Not a single Democrat was defeated in either house and not a single blue seat went red. More interesting-- in light of McConnell's 46% job approval rating-- might be this statistic: all the Republicans up for re-election who job approval ratings were under 55% in April, 2006 lost their bids and were replaced by Democrats. Take a look at last April's approval ratings of the Republican senators defeated the following November:

Conrad Burns (MT): 39
Rick Santorum (PA): 39
Mike DeWine (OH): 48
Lincoln Chafee (RI): 52
Jim Talent (MO): 48
George Allen (VA): 49

McConnell has been spending his massive bribery-stuffed corporate warchest buying up every minute of airtime he can get, bragging to Kentucky voters about all the earmarked pork he brings home (like the repulsive $14.2 million shrine to his "wife," Elaine Chao and her partisan cronies in Louisville. But his poll numbers have taken a dive again. Kentucky blogger Joe Sonka thinks his numbers creep up when the Senate isn't in session but once he's in the public eye again-- lisping his lies and swishing his obstructionism-- his approval ratings go right down [Larry Craig's] toilet.

McConnell has one hope now-- the Democratic primary. One of the candidates in that primary is Bruce Lunsford, perhaps the only political figure in the state of Kentucky (other than his good friend Ernie Fletcher) who is more disliked than McConnell, could save his old pal McConnell by winning that primary. Lunsford has proven without doubt that he cannot win an election in Kentucky. Progressives recognize he's one of them, not one of us. And many Democrats won't vote for him any more than they'd vote for McConnell. Lunsford has big name recognition-- much of it negative-- and he's ahead in the polls for the primary. But based on Lunsford's polling numbers from '07 at this point in time he should have been Kentucky's governor-- or at least the defeated Democratic nominee. The floor fell out from under him and there was a 26 point swing with Beshear winning by 20 points on election day. Democratic voters think about Lunsford's record and they just can't pull the lever for him.

Chuck Schumer, the power-mad Brooklyn senator from NY who heads the DSCC, saw Lunsford's fat wallet and-- not caring how much corruption went into accruing all that loot-- insisted that he get the Democratic nomination. Schumer has put tremendous pressure on Democratic-leaning organizations, particularly labor unions which have fought Lunsford in the past, to give him a free ride this year. It is not likely that even if Lunsford puts the $15 million of his own fortune into the race-- which is doubtful-- that he will be able to beat McConnell. Instead he will depress Democratic turnout, hurting the rest of the ticket and further tarnishing the Democratic "brand."

There is an alternative: Greg Fischer, a real Democrat, who respects the grassroots and who embraces the progressive values that McConnell and Lunsford have always disdained. If you've been following DWT over the years, you already know why Bruce Lunsford is bad for Kentucky and bad for America. If you are new here-- or want to look at all the baggage that weighs Lunsford down all in one place, here's the best one. And if you'd like to consider Greg Fischer, please take a look at his live blog session over at Firedoglake April 5. Yesterday the Hillbilly Report asked Greg and Lunsford if they'll stand up and fight for regular Americans.

And yesterday the Washington Post caught McConnell trying to blame the increase in gas prices on... Democrats. The words just oozed out of the mouth of Washington's master of Insider deception: "It's clear that, on the production side of the equation, this new majority is not interested in doing anything." The NY Times covered a cynical GOP propaganda session presided over by McConnell.

At another news conference, Senate Republicans blamed Congressional Democrats for blocking efforts to increase oil production in the United States, both off the shores of states like Virginia and in Alaska. The minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, noted that gasoline prices were $1.20 a gallon higher than when Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.

Yes, largely due to McConnell's serial obstructionism (see art by Adam up top), Congress has been unable to move legislation forward. He has led filibusters against everything productive. But let's examine the price of gas at the pump on some important dates:

On December 11, 2000, the day 5 right-wing radical judges decided Bush would be president without counting Florida's votes, the price of gas was $1.43/gallon.

On January 20, 2001, the day Bush was inaugurated, the price had barely crept up at all-- $1.46/gallon. Those were the days!

That spring Cheney got busy meeting with Republican campaign contributors from the energy sector. In March and April, 2001 he met with representatives from Cabot Energy, Exxon, Berry Petroleum Company, California Independent Petroleum Association, American Petroleum Institute, BP, Nucor Oil & Gas, Tidelands Oil Production Company, Vintage Petroleum Inc., CONOCO, Sinclair Oil, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Marathon Oil, Amerada, Small Refiners Group, Shell Oil, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and National Propane Gas Association. The price of gas started climbing. It is now nearly triple the price it was when Bush became president. The Republican campaign donors are happy campers; no one else in America is.

CAN KENTUCKY'S REACTIONARY OBSTRUCTIONIST MITCH McCONNELL BE BEATEN IN NOVEMBER?

In Kentucky Bush's approval ratings have followed the economy into the tank. And with Mitch McConnell being such a high profile sycophant and the ultimate rubber stamp, his powerful position in the Senate has brought him plenty of misery back home. McConnell's current approval rating-- as of April 14 (so before his latest obstructionist jihad of blocking equal pay for equal work and aid for veterans)-- is 46%, coupled with a 46% disapproval. In 2006, no Republican Senate incumbent survived who had such a low approval rating. The only thing that could possibly save McConnell at this point is if an even worse "Democrat," Bruce Lunsford, gets foisted onto the Democratic ticket by New York party boss Chuck Schumer.

The way Kentucky voters can keep that from happening is by supporting Greg Fischer, the progressive alternative to the execrable Lunsford. Greg has been traveling back and forth all over Kentucky introducing himself to voters. Many Democrats already know what a lowlife Lunsford is and wouldn't vote for him even if he was running against Beelzebub. But there are also plenty of voters who care barely find the time to make ends meet, let alone pay attention to politicians who never seem to do them any good anyway. Last January Yellow Dog at Blue in the Bluegrass laid out the case against Lunsford.

Bruce Lunsford is by all accounts a personable guy. I met him once, and the Mark of the Beast is barely visible.

But here's why all true Democrats curse his name.

Lunsford made his millions with a Louisville health care company called Vencor. He touted it as the next Humana, and drew thousands of small investors from all over Kentucky eager to invest in a local boy done well. But Vencor was less Humana than Enron.

When expectations outgrew revenues, Lunsford starting throwing old, sick, poor people out of his nursing homes to make room for rich old people who could pay more. When that didn't work, he pulled out the remaining cash and left the empty shell for creditors to fight over. Thousands of middle-class Kentucky investors lost millions.

Lunsford skated away from the disaster he'd created, and turned his attention to politics.

As I wrote back in April, when Lunsford was running in the Democratic gubernatorial primary: (Just substitute "McConnell" for "Fletcher.")

It's a close call as to which is more important: defeating Fletcher, or defeating Lunsford.

Lunsford’s a multi-millionaire (he sank $8 million into his 2003 primary run before quitting), supposedly willing to put his personal fortune into the general election. That’s why some seriously deluded/desperate Democrats are claiming he has the best chance to beat Fletcher.

Bruce Lunsford made his millions off the backs of two groups: the poor, sick old people he threw out of his nursing homes to make room for richer patients, and the poor, trusting Kentucky families who lost their life savings investing in Lunsford’s company before he bankrupted it.

His vicious ads attacking State Attorney General Ben Chandler in the 2003 gubernatorial primary fatally wounded Chandler in the general election, especially after Lunsford dropped out of the primary and endorsed Ernie Fletcher.

Read that again, slowly: A Democratic primary candidate endorsed the Republican primary winner. After promising to support the Democratic primary winner.

Ernie won, and gave Lunsford a nice job. Since 1995, Lunsford has given more than $40,000 to Republican candidates, and less than $12,000 to Democratic candidates.

Now he wants to be the Democratic nominee.

Ernie Fletcher has been one of the worst governors in Kentucky history. Cleaning up the mess he’s created will take years if not decades and billions of dollars Kentucky doesn’t have. We can’t afford another four months, never mind another four years of Ernie Fletcher.

But a lot of Democrats will be voting for Fletcher – if Bruce Lunsford gets the nomination.

Not all Kentucky voters read blogs and Lunsford and Schumer are doing their worst to make it seem like the only "choice" Kentucky voters will have in November will be between two sides of the same rotten coin. Plenty of grassroots Kentucky groups are trying to help combat the Lunsford menace. Below is an answer to his latest misleading ad. Greg's got to run ads like this on television; so far he hasn't. If you'd like to see Mitch McConnell defeated in November, please help Greg Fischer now. You can do it at the Blue America ActBlue site.



This one says it even better and here's an oldie but goodie from Ben Chandler that will probably get a reprise from Lunsford's dear friend Miss McConnell .

WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE WOMAN, PART II

Miss McConnell never liked women but this is going way too far

Beltway newspaper, The Hill has already pronounced the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 dead on arrival. It passed in the House 225-199 but the closet queen from Kentucky who will always be the champion of male domination, Miss McConnell, plans to use every weapon of obstructionism in his arsenal to stop it-- and if he fails, Bush has vowed to veto it.

The Hill reports that there aren't enough Republicans to join the Democrats in overcoming Miss McConnell's anti-women filibuster. The only GOP cosponsors are Olympia Snowe (ME) and Arlen Specter (PA). "Most Republicans oppose it and the White House has threatened a veto, so prospects for passage are dim. Yet it is expected to resurface as an advertising campaign against politically vulnerable GOP senators who are up for reelection, such as Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine."

Collins and Coleman are too scared of voters back home to do their normal rubber stamp routine and each is expected to swallow hard, whimper about how unfair their miserable lives are, and abandon Miss McConnell and the right-wing, voting for cloture. Greed and selfishness advocates inside the Republican coalition are screaming that it's another unfair regulation. Yes, imagine the injustice of having to pay people equal amounts for equal work, regardless of gender. Don't you feel terrible for these rotten bastards? No, well then remember to vote against every Republican in November, because the bribes they take from these businessmen and corporations is what compels them to vote against basic fairness issues like this. Arch-coward John McCain, of course, will avoid voting today.

Another reactionary, self-loathing closet queen in the Senate, South Carolina's light in the loafers McCain Mini-Me, Lindsey Graham tried twisting the popularity of equal pay in a limp attack on the bill's sponsors. “Most Americans get this. Most people understand that the government shouldn’t mandate wages like this. It’s not going to be an issue that we can’t defend against.”

And what is Miss McConnell's (and the Senate Republicans') rationale for blocking the equal pay bill for half the country's population? After all, they can hardly admit they have to do what their corporate paymasters insist on. According to this morning's NY Times Miss McConnell tried obfuscation: "We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country.” Unbelievable!

This is exactly why the Democrats need to have 60 seats in the next Senate. 60 seats; that means victory for Tom Allen (ME), Al Franken (MN), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Tom Udall (NM), Mark Udall (CO), Andrew Rice (OK), Mark Warner (VA), Rick Noriega (TX), Mark Begich (AK), Jim Neal (NC), and Greg Fischer (KY). (That means 60 without GOP puppet Holy Joe Lieberman.)

Ted Kennedy, the chief sponsor of the bill, and who blogged on it this morning at HuffPo, has a different way of looking at it than McConnell: "I can’t think of anything more in keeping with American ideals of fairness than equal pay for equal work."

Drum Major Institute has a well researched analysis on the impact of the bill on the American middle class. This week the Kentucky Women’s Political Caucus endorsed Greg Fischer in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate. Greg told the nonpartisan organization that "Women voters deserve someone they can trust to represent their values in the Senate and I am honored to have their endorsement.” When DWT contacted him today to ask him why the senior senator from Kentucky is thwarting equality for working women in Kentucky he certainly wasn't surprised. "In typical Washington fashion, Senator McConnell is blocking legislation that allows women to fight for their rights to equal pay. His obstructionism lets employers escape responsibility by hiding their decision to discriminate so they can run out the clock."

CHUCK SCHUMER POWER PLAY IN NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY?

Not unlike last cycle, I've been hearing from quite a few grassroots candidates that the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic committees are surreptitiously working against them in primaries or, where there are no primaries, ignoring or even being hostile to their campaigns. Earlier today we talked about the progressive Democrat, Roger Waun, running against rubber stamp loon Mac Thornberry in northern Texas and why he is so angry at the DCCC. The DSCC likes to brag to candidates that they're not like the DCCC and that they don't play favorites. This has never been true and it certainly isn't true this year.

Jim Neal is a Blue America-endorsed candidate who wants to take on Senator Dole in North Carolina. Although DSCC head Chuck Schumer claims, rather ingenuously, that he stays neutral in hotly contested primaries, there are at least two big ones this year where he is backing Insider Establishment candidates who give every indication that they will not support core Democratic initiatives. Kentucky's Bruce Lunsford has been a consistent supporter of Republican candidates and has been judged by Kentucky Democrats in the past to have proven himself unworthy of their votes. Still, Schumer has muscled aside other candidates and brow-beaten Democratic support groups and some unions into backing the same Lunsford they have loathed and campaigned against in the past. Ironically, Kentucky has a real progressive, grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, in this race-- running on a platform that clearly and authentically contrasts with incumbent Mitch McConnell's.

There is a similar situation in North Carolina, where Schumer seems to feel that voters aren't sophisticated enough to elect a progressive candidate, Jim Neal, who, among other things, is openly gay. Schumer twisted the arm of a mediocre insider, Kay Hagan, to get into the race after she had bowed out. And now, he has the DSCC, which is officially "neutral," signaling Democratic donors to support her and not Jim. This is standard operating procedure for the DSCC and DCCC. Schumer got slapped down when he tried the same tactic against populist Jon Tester in the 2006 Montana primary that pitted Jon Tester against an establishment shill Schumer was backing. Schumer's shill was slaughtered in the primary and Tester, of course, went on to defeat the Republican incumbent. Rahm Emanuel tried the same tricks in the House where he attempted to ax John Hall and Jerry McNerney with establishment insiders who would never have been able to inspire the kind of grassroots support to beat the incumbents the way Hall and McNerney did.

But insiders like Schumer never learn. You can't beat a Republican with a Democrat who acts like a Republican. On issue after issue Jim Neal's positions clearly contrast to those of Elizabeth Dole's, while Kay Hagan's are pretty much... more of the same, just not as terrible. Schumer has promised to stay neutral in this race, which would be an excellent idea because polls show the two candidates in a dead heat. But this morning I got a copy of a letter from James Spencer, president of the Campaign Network which works for the Jim Neal campaign, to the executive director the DSCC. Spencer, who told me he's run up against some rough campaigns in the past 35 years of electoral work, but never as bad as this, gave me permission to reprint it.

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director,
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

April 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Poersch:

I am writing to follow up on a phone call I placed to you regarding the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Jim Neal, Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in the North Carolina primary.

Mr. Neal is running a strong grassroots campaign and is tied in the polls with State Senator Kay Hagan.

However, you wouldn’t know it by reading the DSCC web site.

The DSCC site includes numerous newspaper articles about Senator Hagan, but none about Mr. Neal. The Race Profile for North Carolina features a positive summary of Senator Hagan’s campaign, but Mr. Neal is mentioned only in passing, lumped together with three minor candidates who have not mounted serious campaigns.

This is not an insignificant oversight and will have a serious impact on the Jim Neal campaign. As you know, would-be donors to Mr. Neal are likely to check the DSCC web site for an evaluation of the race. The inaccurate description and the fact that Mr. Neal is all but missing from the official DSCC synopsis of the Senate race serves to discourage donors from writing a check.

My staff has provided the DSCC staff with press coverage of the Neal campaign and other material to facilitate updating the DSCC site. Betsy Lin on the Regional Desk, responding to repeated phone calls by my staff member Curtis Ellis, told him that web site issues were "an internal matter" and that she had no say over what was posted. Consequently, Mr. Ellis then spoke with DSCC Political Director Martha McKenna, who told him the Neal campaign had "more important things to worry about" than what appears on the DSCC web site.

My understanding and concern is that Ms. McKenna was dismissive of the request, and repeatedly and pointedly refused to say that the DSCC site would be updated to give Mr. Neal fair and equal treatment.

This is particularly troubling in light of assurances the DSCC made to both myself and Mr. Neal.

As you recall, in our November 1, 2007 meeting at DSCC headquarters in Washington D.C., attended by Mr. Neal, myself, Ms. McKenna, and Chuck Wolfe of the Victory Fund, you assured us that Mr. Neal would receive equal access to services from the DSCC. And on February 13, Senator Schumer reassured Daily Kos readers the DSCC hasn’t endorsed in the primary.

These assurances notwithstanding, I understand the DSCC has the prerogative to endorse any candidate it chooses, at any time and for any reason. If that is the case, please say so openly.

Millions of voters across the country are looking to our Democratic Party and its leaders to set an example and encourage participatory, grassroots democracy in our nation.

I would hope that the DSCC would allow the people of North Carolina to choose their Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate without interference and favoritism from Washington.

With fewer than 30 days remaining before North Carolina’s primary, I look forward to your timely response. I am posting a copy of this letter which you should receive tomorrow.

There are many ways to donate to candidates these days without going through the DSCC or the DCCC. ActBlue has collected over $43,000,000 from grassroots donors for Democratic candidates. It's a much better way to donate and it cuts out the sleazy would be king makers like Schumer and Emanuel and puts the money directly into the hands of the candidates' campaigns. On the Blue America ActBlue page, for example, you can donate to Jim Neal or to Greg Fischer or, better yet, to both of them. If you do it today, add one cent as a message to Chuck Schumer to allow Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky to pick their own nominees. They know better than he does how to defeat Elizabeth Dole and Mitch McConnell.

BLUE AMERICA WELCOMES GREG FISCHER, THE DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR THE KENTUCKY SENATE SEAT

It would be hard to imagine anything more politically satisfying than seeing Bush's #1 Senate obstructionist, Mitch McConnell defeated in his re-election bid this November. Back in February we had a little Blue America session with a man claiming he wanted to run against McConnell, Andrew Horne. It was the only candidate chat we've ever had where we didn't endorse the candidate or put him on our Blue America page. Horne seemed ok but... there was something that wasn't quite right. And, sure enough, a few days after our session, he pulled out of the race under odd circumstances and 2 days ago he endorsed the man he had denigrated and castigated right here. I hope he was rewarded handsomely enough to sleep at night. Fortunately there is a progressive Democrat running against McConnell-- Greg Fischer, who I've been talking with on the phone and corresponding with for a couple of months. And Greg has won Blue America's endorsement and is on our Blue America page (which I hope you'll visit and make use of to help defeat LunsfordMcConnell).

Before Greg can get to McConnell, he has to take on one of McConnell's long-time allies, a fake Democrat many of us will remember from when he tried defeating first Ben Chandler and then, last year, Steve Beshear in gubernatorial primaries in which Kentucky voters, smelling a Republican in Democrat's clothing, firmly rebuffed him both times-- although not until he had spent $14 million. Don't cry for him; he's stinkin' rich. Which is why he has a powerful ally this time, a senator who has a nose for the smell of money as acute as McConnell's; yep, the Kentucky version of Zeller Miller/Joe Lieberman is being pushed by... Chuck Schumer.

It's hard to imagine that there's anyone who reads any of the Blue America blogs who doesn't understand why Mitch McConnell is one of the worst members of the U.S. Senate. But for anyone who's just accidentally wandered in here looking for Barack Obama's bowling score, here are some key points to remember from now until November:

On the Economy:
     • McConnell voted NO on repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move U.S. Jobs offshore.
     • Voted against the Temporary Relief Act of 2007 would have provided 23 million middle-class families with more than $50 billion in tax relief by protecting them from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax.
     • Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
     • Voted to block the Foreclosure Prevention Act in February and yesterday caved into pressure and voted to negotiate with the Senate Democrats on compromise legislation.
     • Has a lifetime 11% rating from the AFL-CIO

On Health Care:
     • McConnell voted NO on expanding SCHIP eligibility.
     • He voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices just as the Veterans Administration presently does.
     • Supports President Bush's health care policy of personal Health Saving Accounts.

On Iraq:
      • Last July he led an all-night filibuster in favor of an open-ended commitment in Iraq.
       • Last September he blocked the proposal, introduced by Senator Webb (D-VA), that would have added time between deployments, forced the withdrawal of troops on a substantially swifter timeline and protected troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.
       • Has continued to block legislation to withdrawal our troops from Iraq.

That's why Greg is running for office. I'm going to let Greg, who-- like Lunsford-- hasn't held elective office, speak for himself on the issues. He fits the Blue America requirements of advocating a safe and speedly withdrawal from Iraq, favoring privacy and choice, favoring equality for all Americans, and favoring real campaign finance reform. His positions on health care come out of his business experience. And it was his business experience that attracted me to his candidacy, since it was something I was able to assess in terms of my own experience. Like Greg, I founded a small company. Each of us also ran large companies. I learned early on that the most successful way to run a business is to run it for the long term, not just to squeeze out short term profits. A business run with employees, customers, share holders and the community in mind, is a business to be proud of and it is the kind of business that succeeds. It's the way I ran my company and it's the way Greg runs his. Lunsford's business history is a nightmare of lawsuits, Medicare fraud, government raids and bankruptcies. Lunsford has a record of ethics questions to rival McConnell's own. And as Lunsford's newest supporter, Andrew Horne, told us, "We can't beat McConnell with McConnell-lite."

Please take a look at this video of Greg talking about why he's running when you get a chance. And please consider even a small contribution to his campaign at the Blue America ActBlue page.

MAYBE I WAS TOO HARSH ON CHUCK SCHUMER ABOUT FORCING BRUCE LUNSFORD ON KENTUCKY DEMOCRATS

Long isn't it? These are Lunsford's donations to GOP politicians. Click for the details

I think I hurt his feelings by calling him a lizard; he said so when he spoke at Yale recently. But Schumer is a strategic thinker and maybe he's so adamant about getting Lunsford nominated to run against Mitch McConnell for a reason I never thought of. He may think that folks in the Blue Grass State want a bipartisan senator after McConnell's narrowly partisan approach to and outrageous obstructionism of every single thing that has come before the Senate in the last two years. And who better than someone who is neither really a Democrat or a Republican? Lunsford has always behaved like a Republican and GOP voters will be able to rest assured he will vote like one if he ever gets into the Senate as well.

In fact, he donates to Republican candidates too. I bet Schumer wasn't happy when Lunsford wrote out a nice fat $5,000 check to the NRSC, which, to quote the NRSC website is "the only political committee solely dedicated to electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate.”

And Saturday while Greg Fischer, the grassroots Democrat running against McConnell, spent the evening with 3,000 fellow Democrats (including Hillary Clinton, Governor Steve Beshear, and Democratic Party Chair Jennifer Moore) at the Ruby Laffoon Democratic Dinner in Madisonville, Lunsford was hobnobbing with his pals in Dubai at a $6 million horse race. Fischer's campaign manager, A.J. Carrillo, was surprised Lunsford didn't bother showing up.

Apparently Bruce prefers rubbing shoulders with Arab sheiks in Dubai than shaking hands with Democrats in Madisonville... With the economy in the tank and Kentucky’s working families and seniors struggling to make ends meet, it is disappointing Bruce doesn’t care enough to listen to their concerns. The economy doesn’t seem to be as troubling for him. That’s the difference between Greg and Bruce. Greg’s working hard every day to earn voters’ trust and win the support of Kentucky Democrats. Whether he’s in Dubai or at his new golf villa in Arizona, Bruce takes it for granted. Apparently, he feels he’s entitled to it after spending $14 million on two failed campaigns."

WHY NOT JUST TRUST DEMOCRACY IN KENTUCKY INSTEAD OF SHOVING A REACTIONARY DOWN DEMOCRATS' THROATS, CHUCKIE?

As we've mentioned before, DSCC chair Chuck Schumer is trying to shove the worst possible reactionary down the throats of Kentucky Democrats in the battle to win the Senate seat now being held by Mitch McConnell. Why? Schumer doesn't expect to win the seat and he doesn't want to put any resources into it but he knows a fat turkey ready to be plucked when he sees one. And there are few turkeys fatter or more pluckable than Bruce Lunsford who has committed to spending as much as $5 million of his own dollars to fight McConnell. Schumer just wants to see McConnell-- and his huge corporate warchest-- tied down and unavailable to help endangered Republican targets like Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Gordon Smith (R-OR), John Sununu (R-NH) and even red state reactionaries like James Inhofe (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX).

Yesterday the Lexington Herald-Leader's Ryan Alessi took a look at how traditional anti-Lunsford Democratic groups, like labor unions, have been coerced into selling out their members interests by Schumer.

In March 2007, amid the Democratic primary for governor, key unions in Kentucky not only wrote off the possibility of backing Lunsford, some openly campaigned against him. Many in organized labor remained steamed over Lunsford's 2003 run for governor, in which he dropped out of the Democratic primary and later backed Republican Ernie Fletcher in the general election.

But all appears to be forgotten, or at least disregarded, now that Lunsford is the best-known Democrat in the U.S. Senate race and has the blessing of the Washington Democratic establishment. After all, at stake in this primary is the chance to take on U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, which automatically makes it a nationally watched race.

...So why the about-face?

First, the message from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its chairman, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, was unmistakable: Lunsford is their guy. Schumer and the national AFL-CIO, therefore, had a keen interest in Kentucky's labor unions getting behind him, and they made sure to say so, said Bill Londrigan, president of the Kentucky AFL-CIO.

"There may have been a phone call or two," he said.

Second, the unions made the same political calculations that Schumer already has. Lunsford's vast personal wealth can help catch up to McConnell's $10 million fund-raising head start, and his millions of dollars' worth of TV ads run in two previous statewide races made his name familiar to voters.

Londrigan said those qualities became more important because Lunsford and his chief Democratic rival, Louisville businessman Greg Fischer, espoused similar views.

"Let's be honest, there's not a whole lot of difference in how they stood on our working-family issues," he said. "But on balance, we measured Bruce to be a candidate that had more capability to challenge Mitch-- money, name recognition, the support he's going to receive from the ... big players in D.C., the DSCC."

OK; let's be honest. Lunsford does have more money but it's disgusting to hear a labor union leader buckling under to that premise-- that only multimillionaires belong in the U.S. Senate. This song was written by someone in Harlan County, KY. Please give it a listen to understand why I'm dedicating it today to Mr. Londrigan. As for name recognition, yes, Lunsford has that-- but it is entirely negative name recognition. He is despises by Democrats throughout the state. As for positions on key issues, it’s impossible to be sure where Lunsford is. He is talking the talk but with no actual voting record to judge from; you have to take him at his word-- a word that has proven less than worthless in the past.

The one policy Lunsford has out there to compare with the grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, regards the Iraq war. Lunsford is playing it safe and vague while Greg has endorsed the Responsible Plan to End the War. Lunsford also claims to agree with Greg that universal health care is something that must be implemented, although here too, people who have watched Lunsford in the past are dubious that once in office he would be a forceful advocate for meaningful universal healthcare.

In terms of labor, Greg is an owner of a Steelworkers union-affiliated company and has an excellent record of working with organized labor in his entire business career. As for Lunsford, he too has a record of actions to look at in this regard. And they're very clear-- the very reasons why KY organized labor has always fought him.

When Lunsford lost his primary against Ben Chandler he became a modern-day Benedict Arnold, endorsing right-wing Republican Ernie Fletcher. He took it one step further by leading his transition team that abolished the Environmental Protection Cabinet position and the Kentucky Labor Cabinet position, downgrading both to department level status. If policy speaks, he has a lot of explaining to do.

So now in 2008 the new Lunsford is supposedly a strong Democrat working to change Washington, but he's been making hefty political contributions to Republicans (so they could defeat Democrats) for his entire miserable life. And as recently as last year he was still donating to his very good friend and ally, Mitch McConnell.

And while Greg Fischer has built award-winning companies and added several thousand good paying manufacturing jobs to the Kentucky economy, Lunsford has dumped employees, nursing home residents and his company causing what is locally known as a mini-Enron. Lunsford was sued by the shareholders of his company, Vencor, because he engaged in insider trading and made misleading statements about the company's status.

So Lunsford, a businessman has spent $14 million to find it's not enough to be governor now he wants to be a Senator? I would say his behavior is simply transparent; power for the sake of power and apparently now he'll say or do anything to achieve it. It's obvious why Chuck Shumer loves this guy-- they share a brain. They're two power-hungry, careerist Insiders with severe ego problems. Kentucky Democrats should tell Chuck Schumer to mind his own business, just like Montana Democrats did when he tried forcing DLC hack John Morrison down their throats in 2006. Instead, much to the Lizard's chagrin, they nominated Jon Tester who then went on to beat a powerful and entrenched Republican incumbent-- just like Greg Fischer will do if Schumer will just get out of the way.


UPDATE: HORNE SUPPORTERS SWITCHING TO FISCHER

Although Schumer and his allies were apparently able to make Andrew Horne an offer he couldn't refuse to get him to withdraw from the race and back Lunsford-- forever impugning his credibility-- grassroots Kentucky Democrats are flocking to Greg Fischer.

BROOKLYN LIZARD-- A DAY IN THE GLORIOUS LIFE OF CHUCK "MEAT AND POTATOES" SCHUMER

Today's Hill has a puff piece on the Senate's most shameless publicity hound, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with the kind of reptilian brain usually only found in Republicans. Reporter Aaron Blake is going to have to get the excrement sandblasted off his head. He makes Schumer sound almost as mythical as Rahm Emanuel or Tom DeLay!

Lizard Man is modestly claiming he might not be able to deliver a 60/40 Senate split-- and, by the way, he still defends his vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.

While Schumer has shone as DSCC chairman, he went through a rough patch as a legislator in recent months over the man he suggested the White House nominate as attorney general.

A former federal judge and a fellow New Yorker, Mukasey appeared to be sailing through his confirmation hearings in October until he struggled to explain whether he believed waterboarding constitutes illegal torture under domestic and international law.

Mukasey said he could not answer since the CIA had not briefed him on any U.S. program that employs the simulating drowning technique. His hedging infuriated Democrats.

Under enormous pressure, Schumer stood by Mukasey, and he continues to do so today.

“I had a difficult time,” Schumer said. “I don’t mind people having disagreeing views, but … a lot of the blogs said there was no courage.

“But believe me,” he added, “the easy decision for me would have been to go against Mukasey. I just thought it was wrong.”

Schumer, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), voted for Mukasey, saying he represented the best possible Bush administration successor to Alberto Gonzales to restore the integrity of the Justice Department. Their votes allowed the nomination to advance from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate.

“It became a symbolic issue, you know: ‘Vote against torture,’ ” Schumer said. “I tend not to be a symbolic politician. I’m a meat-and-potato politician.”

They didn't get into how he feels about having supported Joe Lieberman in 2006 and how that old chicken has come home to roost of late.

[P]ressure is nothing new for the man who oh-so-narrowly delivered the Senate to his party in 2006, and it’s clear Schumer is enjoying the ride and wearing each of his hats with pride.

...“Here’s what I think: We get 55, 56, 57, 58, you will pick up enough Republicans on any single issue,” Schumer said, adding: "Yeah, you’d have to make certain compromises, but not give away the store." [Compromises, of course, are Schumer's stock in trade... deal making, triangulation, that which allows him to be Senator Wall Street and still represent one of the deepest blue, progressive states in the nation.]

Nothing has served Schumer quite as well in his campaign role as his pragmatism and heavy hand.

Though irritating to certain parts of the party [the Democratic wing], Schumer has consistently picked his horses early, largely based on their electability, and rode them through to the finish line.

No mention of Montana DLC hack John Morrison here, who grassroots Montanans told Schumer to shove up his Insider butt, nominating their own populist candidate, Jon Tester, and then beating a very Schumer-like Republican in November, Conrad Burns. Instead he recounts the triumphs of Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill and, oddly, since I don't recall Schumer backing him, Jim Webb. [Update: a friendly DSCC employee reminded me that Schumer did indeed get behind Webb early on.] And then Blake writes about the corporate shills Schumer is trying to foist on Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky, Kay Hagan and Bruce Lunsford. He recruited Hagan because he insists a gay candidate-- Jim Neal-- can't win Jesse Helms' old seat and thinks the way to beat Elizabeth Dole is to confuse voters by presenting them with a candidate so similar that no one can tell them apart. That worked out real well in Tennessee in 2006, when Schumer's reactionary candidate, Harold Ford, was so much like a Republican that the voters just figured they might as well stick with an actual Republican. Schumer is trying to replay that same scenario in North Carolina and Kentucky.

In Kentucky he has been personally-- and quite unethically-- clearing the field for the state's most detested Democrat, Bruce Lunsford (a Zell Miller kind of reactionary) and strong-arming local unions-- who know better-- into endorsing the hated Lunsford over a genuine Democrat Greg Fischer. When asked if he takes heat for interfering in local primaries to pick reactionary candidates, Schumer went right to Kentucky. "Some people are very upset about [Iraq war veteran Andrew] Horne [dropping out] in Kentucky. … We obviously pick candidates who are in the Democratic mainstream, and we like candidates who will be good senators, but winning matters. And so, do I occasionally take some flak? Sure. But that’s part of the game and I don’t mind it. That’s my job." Actually, it isn't. He's supposed to be neutral.

Even one candidate Schumer didn’t initially like, comedian Al Franken, has won him over.

The Democratic race to face Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) is now all but clear with the exit of attorney Mike Ciresi-- a development Schumer said he was pleased with-- and Republicans were quick to go on the offensive this week, distributing a video of Franken faking an Asian accent.

“To be honest with you, I was really worried when [Franken] first announced,” Schumer said. “I was worried that his jokes would get him in trouble, but more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious. He is a very serious candidate, and he gets it and he knows how to talk to average people.”

Notice the reptilian brain at work: "more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious." I wonder if he meant that running from the left (i.e., representing regular people instead of business interests) is something he doesn't like AND that he doesn't like someone he judges not to be "not serious" (the same tact Coleman is taking on his attacks against Franken; Coleman and Schumer grew up within blocks of each other-- as did Ken, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and myself.) He also marvels that Coleman knows how to talk to "average people." Imagine that; maybe he can give lessons when he gets to the Senate.

My favorite part of the story was when we are reminded that "Schumer is up for reelection in 2010." Maybe someone who runs from the left and knows how to talk with regular people will decide to take him on in a primary. If you hear of anyone considering it, send them to Blue America.

NOT A HAPPY FIFTH ANNIVERSARY FOR BUSH'S DISASTROUS WAR IN IRAQ

As you surely know, today is the fifth anniversary of Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq. We let him get away with it and we are saddled with a three trillion dollar debt and incalculable heartache for our national complacency and willingness to accept the rule of a tyrant over us. Today he was dissembling on TV about what great victories his strategy has achieved. Yesterday he sent his three stooges out to talk about the greatness of his policies-- although the chief stooge managed to botch it up and remind us he still doesn't even know who we're fighting or why.

In contrast to Bush's series of embarrassing lies and distortions about Iraq, and in contrast to John McCain's "me too"/stay the course mindless bellicosity, Barack Obama spoke with sincerity and candor to the American people about where to go from here. Obama's full plan is on his website. His speech though, is less dry and wonkish and far more understandable to regular Americans.

Just before America's entry into World War I, President Woodrow Wilson addressed Congress: "It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," he said. "...But the right is more precious than peace." Wilson's words captured two awesome responsibilities that test any Commander-in-Chief – to never hesitate to defend America, but to never go to war unless you must. War is sometimes necessary, but it has grave consequences, and the judgment to go to war can never be undone.

Five years ago today, President George W. Bush addressed the nation. Bombs had started to rain down on Baghdad. War was necessary, the President said, because the United States could not, "live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." Recalling the pain of 9/11, he said the price of inaction in Iraq was to meet the threat with "armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

At the time the President uttered those words, there was no hard evidence that Iraq had those stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. There was not any evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, or that Iraq had operational ties to the al Qaeda terrorists who carried them out. By launching a war based on faulty premises and bad intelligence, President Bush failed Wilson's test. So did Congress when it voted to give him the authority to wage war.

Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.

...In the year since President Bush announced the surge-- the bloodiest year of the war for America-- the level of violence in Iraq has been reduced. Our troops-- including so many from Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base-- have done a brilliant job under difficult circumstances. Yet while we have a General who has used improved tactics to reduce violence, we still have the wrong strategy. As General Petraeus has himself acknowledged, the Iraqis are not achieving the political progress needed to end their civil war. Beyond Iraq, our military is badly overstretched, and we have neither the strategy nor resources to deal with nearly every other national security challenge we face.

This is why the judgment that matters most on Iraq-- and on any decision to deploy military force-- is the judgment made first. If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss-- tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue-- as he did last year-- that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not-- and never has been-- a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.

My plan to end this war will finally put pressure on Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. Because we've learned that when we tell Iraq's leaders that we'll stay as long as it takes, they take as long as they want. We need to send a different message. We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation. We will engage with every country in the region-- and the UN-- to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will launch a major humanitarian initiative to support Iraq's refugees and people. But Iraqis must take responsibility for their country. It is precisely this kind of approach-- an approach that puts the onus on the Iraqis, and that relies on more than just military power-- that is needed to stabilize Iraq.

Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure.

...The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran, which poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon.

The war in Iraq has emboldened North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy.

The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan.

Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan-- a thousand miles from Iraq.

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is the area where the 9/11 attacks were planned. This is where Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants still hide. This is where extremism poses its greatest threat. Yet in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have pursued flawed strategies that are too distant from the needs of the people, and too timid in pursuit of our common enemies.

Nor was Barack Obama the only Democrat speaking out about the war today. More and more Democratic challengers have adopted the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq that Darcy Burner and several other progressives put together with military and national security experts (people who understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni and between Iran and al-Qaeda). Today the progressive Democrat running against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Greg Fischer, endorsed the Plan. Chuck Schumer is trying to shove a reactionary Democrat, the much-hated Bruce Lunsford, down Kentucky's throat, someone who has supported Republicans and their policies for years and can be counted on to continue doing just that if he ever got into office. “George Bush and Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell have cost us our global position of moral authority. I want America to be respected in the world again,” said Fischer. “Traditional military might is important, but we need to lead the world with our diplomacy.”

So while Cheney and McCain wander around the heavily fortified Green Zone spouting nonsense about how successful the war in Iraq is, and dismissing the growing anger most Americans feel about the Bush Regime policies and failures, opponents to those policies have been speaking out. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, also emphasized how damaging the war and Bush's posture have been towards our national security.

As the war in Iraq enters its sixth year, official US casualty figures approach 4,000 dead and nearly 30,000 wounded. These figures exclude the many who have less visible but no less damaging injuries to mental health; those whose injuries resulted from accidents while they served in a war zone; and the scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi civilians who have died and been wounded since this misguided war was launched. These are the most meaningful-- and the saddest-- costs of this war.

We know, however, that these statistics, along with the hundreds of billions of dollars already spent to date, do not fully measure the costs of this war. There are other serious casualties - ones that have potentially severe consequences to our national security and our personal safety but are difficult to quantify. The most concerning of these is the damage the war has caused to our international standing and the partnerships that are vital to address the very real continuing risks to our safety posed by al Qaeda. By invading Iraq, we have, in effect "cried wolf" - we've used up our international chits and credibility attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and had virtually no connection to al Qaeda.

Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME) has also opposed the Iraq War from Day One. Right now he's running against rubber stamp Republican Susan Collins, who has consistently voted for the war and completely supports Bush, Cheney, McCain and Lieberman and their mindless and irresponsible Stay the Course approach. This was Congressman Allen's statement today: "We are not only marking the 5th anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, we are marking all that is wrong with it. Almost 4,000 American service members, including 30 from Maine, have died. Tens of thousands of American soldiers have been wounded. And we have spent half a trillion dollars, including more than $1.35 billion from Maine.
 
“If we continue in this direction we will spend at least another half a trillion dollars. Some experts think we will spend $2 trillion. But these monetary costs do not take into account the brave men and women who will lose life or limb in the coming years if we don’t bring them home. 
 
“I opposed this ill-conceived war from the beginning and have been working to bring our troops home ever since. It is time to end this war-- now. The only way to change direction in Iraq is for Congress to set a safe, responsible deadline to start bring our troops home."

Tom Allen, Greg Fischer, Russ Warner, Darcy Burner, Barack Obama offer a clear alternative to the Bush-Cheney failed policies-- and monstrous agenda-- in Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, embodies those policies and that agenda. The choice couldn't be clearer.

DSCC LIZARD MAN STRIKES AGAIN-- SCHUMER FEEDS LAZY NY TIMES REPORTER FAKE FACTS

I'm sure many NY Times readers were cheered by the story in this morning's edition about how Democrats have a shot at a 60-member majority, not quite the good old days of 1937 when there were only 16 Republicans in the Senate, but good enough to toss Lieberman out of the caucus on his ear and good enough to start cleaning up the massive damage 8 years of Bush and his allies have caused. Less conspicuous is the little clickable "multimedia" graphic on the left. If you do click it, you find Schumer's paw prints all over it. I don't know if David Herszenhorn, the writer of the article, put it together or some other Times functionary put the nicely laid-out but completely misleading information for the chart together. Maybe it was an intern. Maybe Herszenhorn or, more likely, one of his editors, shouted, "Hey, you, intern, call Schumer's office at the DSCC and ask them who their candidates are in these fahkaktah races."

And that's exactly what the Times readers are reading today-- the list of Inside the Beltway hacks and shills Schumer is backing in races with hot primaries, not the grassroots candidates. So a Democratic financial contributor-- all the Senator from Wall Street has ever cared about-- reading his morning Times will be falsely led to believe that Kentucky Democrats have endorsed someone they truly loathe and have always voted against, Republican-lite Bruce Lunsford (the man Schumer is trying to force on Bluegrass State Democrats, not because he thinks he can win-- Schumer is no dummy and he knows Lunsford has exactly zero chance-- but so that Lunsford will use his great fortune and spend millions of dollars tying down McConnell and making him spend his huge lobbyist-supplied warchest in Kentucky instead of Colorado or New Mexico or Virginia or Minnesota or Maine). The Times neglects to mention that there is an actual Democratic candidate, polling at least as well as Lunsford, Greg Fischer.

Similarly, Jim Neal, the grassroots candidate in North Carolina, doesn't exist for a Times reader. It's all about the Liddy Dole mirror image Big Money insider Schumer dragged into the race, Kay Hagan. My friends in Oregon tell me there's a hot primary battle between two excellent candidates going on there. If you're a New York Times reader today, you only know that Schumer's guy, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, is the "Democrat." At least Merkley is a Democrat, with genuine Democratic values and positions, like Steve Novick, the other candidate the Times didn't bother to mention.

Oddly, in Minnesota, the high profile race to find the candidate who will retire rubber stamp creep Norm Coleman-- who, by the way, grew up within blocks of where I grew up and where the Lizard Man grew up-- doesn't name a candidate but instead says, properly, "to be determined."

The Times might argue, disingenuously, that asterisks next to Hagan's name and Lunsford's name that indicate there are "other challengers in field," satisfies complaints of grassroots Democrats. It doesn't. Schumer thinks you can beat a rubber stamp Republican incumbent by putting forward a candidate with similarly reactionary views. He's wrong. He should have learned his lesson in 2006 in Montana when he tried shoving DLC shill, John Morrison, down voters throats, only to be laughed out of Dodge, see grassroots populist Jon Tester win the primary and go on-- by drawing sharp contrasts, not by playing "me too"-- beat the incumbent Republican. Schumer also backed DLC hack Harold Ford, the only high profile Democrat to lose last cycle. Why? Because Tennessee voters couldn't tell which candidate was more Republican, Corker or Ford. They figured they might as well go for the Truth-in-Advertising guy and picked Corker in an otherwise huge Democratic year. Schumer is authoring similar scenarios in North Carolina and Kentucky. The Lizard must be stopped. This media disinformation the Times bought into, is part of a strategy Insiders like Schumer and Emanuel always use to sell the inevitability of their hacks and shills. Shame on the New York Times for the laziness.

BRUCE LUNSFORD-- MORE BAGGAGE THAN SAMSONITE

There's someone Inside the Beltway, someone originally from Flatbush in Brooklyn, someone with a reptilian brain, who, for some inexplicable reason, feels he should be the arbiter of who the Democratic nominee against his fellow Insider Mitch McConnell should be. Lizard Man thinks he knows best... for Kentucky. I guess that's because Brooklyn is so much like Kentucky, or maybe because Inside the Beltway is so... so... bluegrass.

DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has decided that Bruce Lunsford, someone who has been repeatedly rejected by grassroots Kentucky Democrats as unfit-- for great reasons-- to represent them, is the only acceptable Democrat to run against Mitch McConnell. New polling data released today shows that Kentucky Democrats haven't come to the same conclusion as The Alien. In fact, there are enough Kentuckians (25% of likely Democratic voters) who have said that "under no circumstances" would they consider ever casting a vote for fake Dem Lunsford, guarateeing that he will never be elected. Lunsford has a high name recognition-- most of it very negative-- because he's run for governor a few times and because his name has constantly been in the media attached to corruption scandals that have plagued him his entire business life. Everyone I know in Kentucky thinks of Lunsford as a serial criminal and as a Republican-in-Democratic clothing (high-priced Democratic clothing).

In the 2 times he ran for governor he spent over $14 million for a total of 74,000 votes -- and all those votes were last year when he had the extremely popular Attorney General, Greg Stumbo, on his ticket as Lt. Governor. The first time he ran (2003) he smeared his Democratic opponent, Congressman Ben Chandler, and then dropped out when it became apparent that no one in the state planned on voting for him. He then called a now infamous press conference with his good buddies Mitch McConnell and Ernie Fletcher and urged Democrats to vote for Fletcher for governor, instead of Chandler, who went on to lose narrowly. Lunsford has lavished tens of thousands of dollars on his Republican buddies, dollars that smell very badly from the highly questionable business dealings he's been involved with.

Maybe the Brooklyn Lizard doesn't know this stuff. But he's already chased one candidate out of the race, Andrew Horne, and has strong-armed a number of labor unions in DC to force their Kentucky locals to endorse the much-hated, anti-labor Lunsford.

On March 1 the non-Lunsford candidate for Senate, Greg Fischer, spoke at the Kentucky Democratic Central Executive Committee in Frankfort and without mentioning Lunsford by name he spoke in a very straightforward manner to the committee, more straightforward than some of them were accustomed to or comfortable with. "I'm fighting back now, also. Because there's powers in Washington D.C.-- you know, led by Chuck Schumer, and you all are hearing this just as well as I am-- that he's trying to manipulate this election in Kentucky. He's trying to force on us someone that is not a contrast to Mitch McConnell. Because we need a contrast candidate to beat Mitch McConnell. We need somebody with a clean record, a clean background, somebody that will listen..."

Someone immediately snitched Greg out to the Lizard Man who doesn't appreciate being criticized by mere mortals and hates his diktats being questioned by anyone. Already furious that the Kentucky chapter of the American Federation of Teachers had disobeyed his command and endorsed Fischer over Lunsford, Schumer lashed out childishly, through one of his flacks: "This campaign needs be about defeating Mitch McConnell and bringing change to Washington. Democrats should be focused on that, and not on launching personal attacks against other Democrats." Change to Washington? The best change Washington could ever have would be cleaning out the Insider scum like Schumer and not bringing in more of that same ilk-- like Lunsford.

When asked for an explanation of Fischer's remarks, one of his campaign team, Kim Geveden, explained diplomatically, "I think he was taking a shot at the politics of Washington and the way they are. It's clear to anyone who follows politics in the state Kentucky that the Senator from New York and his folks are trying to force upon the voters of Kentucky a failed candidate who has more baggage than Samsonite. We need a fresh candidate with a clean record who offers bold ideas and new solutions. ... I'm sure people in the beltway will try to portray it as whining but it is not whining. It's fighting back. ... As Senator, [Greg Fischer is] going to fight everyday for the working-class voters of Kentucky. And if that means he has to take on the power brokers, then so be it."

Well he just took on a big mean, cold-blooded one, the sharp-clawed and very vindictive Senator from Wall Street. Fortunately Schumer doesn't vote in Kentucky and Kentucky voters who participated in the above-mentioned poll do not think Lunsford's the right choice. When interviewees were read positive statements about each candidate (provided by their own campaigns), Fischer polled 44% against Lunsford's 39%. This one stinks as bad as when Schumer tried shoving DLCer John Morrison down Montana Democrats' throats, only to tell him to take a hike, while they nominated and then elected Jon Tester to the U.S. Senate.