Senate 2008: Johnson is Back, but for how long?

South Dakota Senate Tim Johnson isn't a famous statesman like Ted Kennedy or Robert C. Byrd, but he, or rather his health, is every bit as important to the Democrats and the country as his more well-known peers. Johnson is one of 49 Democrats in the Senate, where the Democrats hold a 51-49 majority (two independents caucus with the Dems). That majority was almost lost earlier this year when Senator Johnson suffered a severe brain hemorrhage, leading to speculation that he might resign from office and allow South Dakota's Republican governor to nominate a replacement.

But Johnson stuck it out and now, after nearly 8 months of intensive therapy, he's back. He made his first public appearance since his illness last night in Sioux Falls last night, highlighting his dramatic recovery before a crowd of supporters. The democratic majority is safe through 2008.

Johnson's health concerns have fueled speculation that he might not run for reelection in 2008, but Senator told ABC's Bob Woodruff that he expects to "run and win." His aides later clarified that while he would like to run, he hasn't reached a final decision. If he does run I think the people of South Dakota will elect him by a wide margin, especially since Republicans will have a hard time running attack ads against the Lance Armstrong of the Senate.

Gonzo OUT!

Alberto Gonzales has finally done something for the American people, he resigned!

Gonzales is expected to have a press conference at 10:30 eastern time while Bush will speak at 11:50 am.

And yet, Bush will not let the American People celebrate yet. The White House has announced that Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff (Mr. Gut Check himself). He would be replaced by Bush's former chief of staff and appointment's secretary.

George Bush does not understand that the American people do not trust him, and maybe more to the point do not trust his cronies! We can only hope that the Senate will stand tall and demand proper candidates for these positions, candidates who will work for the Justice and Safety of the American people. We do not need candidates who will just follow from the Gonzo playbook.

Health Care is Broken and No One Will Fix It

The White House will proudly announce a modest reduction of the federal deficit for this fiscal year, but it probably won't mention our current budgetary policy is "totally unsustainable." According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budge Office, health care costs are inflating so rapidly that Medicare and Medicaid expenses will consume the ENTIRE Federal budget by 2050. The last three CBO directors have all highlighted the impending health care train wreck, but Washington remains deafeningly silent. Not one of the major Democratic Presidential candidates is willing to go after the root cause of the problem: the free market. You don't have to watch Michael Moore's latest documentary, Sicko, to know that the for-profit health care system is an absolute disaster.

Insurance companies are the biggest problem. They maximize their profit when they minimize the claims they pay out, which means they have a strong incentive to weasel out of paying those chemotherapy bills and an even stronger disincentive to cover sick people. That means lots of people just can't get coverage to begin with.

Of course, people with no health insurance still get sick, but when they do instead of going to a family physician they have to tough it out and hope they get better. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they end up in the emergency room and up to their eyeballs in medical bills they can't possibly pay. And how for-profit hospitals make up their losses from treating sick poor? By jacking up prices on people who can pay--people with insurance. The result is more costly insurance, which leads to more companies dropping coverage, and the spiral of doom continues.

Drug companies just add to the absurdity. While millions around the world die from infectious disease, our best and brightest drug researchers are focused on erectile dysfunction and restless leg syndrome because those drugs are more profitable. But the free market doesn't just distract drug companies from curing disease; it actually DISCOURAGES them. Why would you want to make a $200 vaccine for an illness when you could make a $200 pill that people will have to take for the rest of their lives?

Yet, despite these obvious and well-established arguments, not one major candidate for President wants to fix the problem. John Edwards wants one America, but he doesn't want single payer health care. Instead he wants to stick with the same broken, employer-based system. Barack Obama offers a similar plan with more focus on subsidizing insurance costs, fueling the problem by propping up the crumbling system. Hillary Clinton hasn't released a detailed plan yet, but she's been talking about putting restrictions on insurance companies so it's clear she's not even considering a wholesale change.

The ONLY candidate in the race with a rational health care plan that will actually CHANGE things is Dennis Kucinich. I don't support Mr. Kucinich because I disagree with him on half a dozen other issues, but it absolutely kills me that he's the only one with the guts to stand up on this critical issue.

College Students Might Pick the Next President

Barack Obama is going to blow away every candidate in the field this Spring--at least among college students. The Obama camp's student organization is second to none. On Facebook the Obama application has 21,000 subscribers and a group called One Million Strong For Barack boasts 320,000 members. Users have posted well over 7,000 comments on that page, suggesting a high level of enthusiasm.

Grassroots internet support is great, but the candidate's real strength among students shows in Iowa, the all-important lead hitter in the 2008 cycle. Over students from 80 high schools and colleges have founded "Students for Obama" groups, and the campaign has dedicated substantial energy to organizing them.

But a lot of that work might go to waste. The entire Presidential primary schedule is still up in the air, with Michigan trying to sneak up and grab Iowa and New Hampshire's thunder. Iowa is looking more and more like it's going to sneak it's caucus's into sometime in early January or even mid-December.

So what's this got to do with Students for Obama? They'll be on Winter break during the caucuses. If all the members of your well-managed organization are scattered around during the most crucial week of the campaign, they're not going to do you much good. A winter break caucus would hurt Obama's turnout directly by reducing the percentage of voting college students and indirectly by undermining his volunteer base.

Iowa sets a precedent for all the other nominating contests in the country. Remember when Howard Dean came in third in Iowa and then dropped off the map? Remember how John Kerry came out of nowhere? This year, it could all come down to Iowa again. And Iowa could come down to which date the caucus finally settles on.

Senate 2008: National Update

News just keeps getting better for the DSCC. They're crushing the NRSC in fundraising and each week brings more bad news for Republican incumbents.

Loaded Orygun reports embattled Oregon Senator Gordon Smith has posted a measly favorability rating of just 46%, his lowest in 28 months. Smith still leads in the likely Democratic nominee Jeff Merkley in head-to-head polling, but he's only picking up 38% of the vote and Merkley is only starting to build name recognition. Merkley, Speaker of the Oregon State House, made headlines this week by calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.

Things are looking highly competitive in Alaska. Ted Steven's legal problems have landed him in serious hot water. Even if he avoids prison he might still lose his seat. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza crunches the numbers:

Most worrisome for Stevens' electoral prospects was that 47 percent said the following statement was true: "Ted Stevens has done some good things for Alaska but after forty years in Washington it's time for a change"; just 45 percent said that statement was false. Did we mention these are Republican primary voters?

In New Hampshire, incumbent Republican John Sununu is also in serious trouble. The latest CPR Race Ratings moved him from "likely Republican" to "lean Republican," and a poll pitting him against former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen shows Sununu down by a whopping 22%.

Maine promises an extremely competitive race as well. Charismatic and popular Congressman Tom Allen has gem of a credential: he voted against the war in 2002. Incumbent Susan Collins is calling for withdrawal but the Allen campaign will tell voters to look at her record, not her rhetoric.

Races in Colorado and Minnesota are going to be barn-burners. CPR has Colorado listed as a toss-up already, while Minnesota's Norm Coleman continues to pose with President Bush. Virginia and Nebraska could be highly competitive, too, if Republicans John Warner and Chuck Hagel retire.

Meanwhile, Democratic incumbents are strengthening their positions. Right now Louisiana is the only race Republicans have a legitimate shot at winning, and that's just because Democrat Mary Landrieu's New Orleans base is still languishing in Katrina-induce exile. Plus, Republicans still don't have a candidate. If South Dakota's Tim Johnson retires that the GOP might flip that seat, but that depends entirely on the Senator's health.

So, to recap: Republican incumbents are looking very weak in at least six states, and several more are teetering on the edge of disaster. Democrats have way more money, and the GOP's chance of taking even one blue seat is slim. It's a good time to be a Democrat.

Tricky GOP Power Grab Threatens California

The electoral college is a messed up system, no doubt about it. The whole idea is a patently undemocratic ploy to limit popular influence on government. It's elitist, regressive, and wrong, and it got George W. Bush elected President. With all that in mind, you might think the shadowy Californians for Equal Representation group has a pretty nifty idea.

You'd be dead wrong.

California, along with every other state besides Nebraska and Maine, allots all its electoral college votes to the winner of the winner of the state's popular vote. Californians for Equal Representation wants to give each candidate one electoral college vote for each Congressional district they win. Since California is a strong blue state with 55 electoral college votes, that would likely be about 35 votes for the Democrat and 20 for the Republican.

Implemented on a national scale, this proposed system might be a modest* improvement on the status quo. Implemented solely in California, this system would virtually ensure that no Democrat would win a close Presidential election ever again. The margin of victory for George W. Bush in 2000 was four electoral college votes. If California had divided it's votes, the margin could have been 40 votes or more. The hanging chads in Florida wouldn't have mattered a bit.

So let's hope the all those millions of Californians responsible for the Governator either come to their senses or stay home. Democrats are starting to get the word out, but they need to concentrate more energy on stopping this power grab. This country can't afford another Republican administration, and our democracy can't afford another rigged election.

*Even if every state in the country implemented this system it would still be a lousy idea since congressional districts are so blatantly gerrymandered. The White House would belong to whichever party controlled the most state legislatures.

Mines, Unions, and Safety

For the past 15 days we have been hearing about the mining tragedy in Huntington, Utah. This mining tragedy has highlighted several issues, and has caused much discussion however what has not been emphasized (and ought to be) is the link with Unions, workplace safety and the Bush administration.

First, the Crandall Canyon Mine is a non-union mine. In fact, 2 of the 9 unions in central Utah are non-unionized. Apart from employer intimidation, economic problems in the mining industry, and legal obstacles that the United Mine Workers face; Utah is also one of 22 free-rider states (so called right to work) in which Unions are not allowed to ask that everyone who receives the benefits the Unions provides (safety, wages etc.) pay a due to the Union so that it can continue to fight for the workers. In the words of miner Wally Francin, Crandall Canyon mine co-owner Robert Murray doesn't like Unions because, "Union People tend to make him follow the rules and do things right."

Murray has tried to deflect blame from himself by blaming an earthquake for the collapse of the mine. However nearly everyone, from miners to seismologists agree that any seismological activity was caused by the mine caving in not by any natural earth movement. As the Daily Utah Chronicle reports,

While owners of the Crandall Canyon mine say an earthquake is responsible for the mine's initial collapse and subsequent seismic "bumps" that caused Thursday's cave-in, scientists disagree.

Kris Pankow, assistant director of the U's Seismograph Stations, said what was mistaken for a 3.9-magnitude quake appears to have been the mine caving in on itself -- not a natural shift in the earth.

"What probably happened is that you had coal pillars collapse," Pankow said. "The data is not consistent with an earthquake."

Why is Robert Murray so intent on deflecting blame from his company and himself by claiming this was an act of God? Probably because he knows that he could have saved all 9 lives that have been lost if he had invested a little more in safety. As this post lays out, Robert Murray ought to have been well aware of the dangers at Crandall Canyon. Murray was solely concerned about the bottom-line about making a profit and without a union to keep him in check he was able to push his workers around and forced them to sacrifice their safety for his his wallet. As CNN reports:

In recent weeks, the floors in that part of the mine had been "heaving," or buckling up, from intense pressure, said the source, who has intimate knowledge of the conditions in the mine.

Supervisors at the mine knew of the problem, he said.

Several miners -- reportedly including Manuel Sanchez, who is among the trapped men -- were becoming apprehensive, the source said.

"I've never heard that," Bob Murray, president and CEO of Murray Energy, told CNN's Ted Rowlands when asked why someone would have been worried about that section of the mine. "I have no idea. It's probably a rumor, and I'm not going to respond to rumors."

Asked why they did not complain about their safety concerns, several miners said complaining means the loss of a job.

Murray denied that. "If you're getting that from the community, then those miners must work for another mining company. I don't operate that way," he said.

Not so, said Paul Riddle, who used to work in one of Murray's mines. "Always profits before safety, that's my opinion, my feeling, my experience," he said.

Miners who work for Murray are sometimes forced to push the envelope when it comes to safety, he said, and are afraid to speak up for fear of being fired.

"I'm not the only one," he said. "There are many, many people that feel this way and are afraid to speak up."

Not only was the mine structure itself unsafe, but the mine was also engaged in a practice known as retreat mining, or "greeding" in which the support columns are removed in order to get more coal. As John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO points out:

Safety concerns about the Crandall Canyon mine surfaced months ago, and safety experts warned of particular dangers in the "retreat mining" technique used there after it was approved by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. In retreat mining, coalminers essentially pull out roof-supporting pillars of coal as they work their way out of the mine. The retreat mining plan at Crandall Canyon, says United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts, "appears to have been flawed, to say the least. In our opinion, that plan should never have been approved."

No one should be surprised it was approved, though. The Bush administration has been systematically dismantling and cutting funding for workplace safety rules and oversight since it came into office.

Every day in 2005 (the most recent data available), 16 workers died on the job and 12,000 were made sick--and that doesn't include the occupational diseases that kill 50,000 to 60,000 more workers each year. In many if not most of these cases, one of two things occurred: An employer disregarded the law, or the law wasn't strong enough to protect workers.

So much for workplace safety. The Bush administration has shown that it has little regard for the worker when workplace safety interferes with profit. Just take a look at Mine Safety Czar Richard Stickler, Stickler is the man who was in charge of approving the mine safety plan that so clearly failed in Utah. Stickler was twice rejected for his job by a Senate concerned about his own safety record and President Bush insisted on appointing him by using a recess appointment (much like he did for John Bolton). As Max Follmer wrote for the Huffington Post:

In addition to concerns about the safety record at his mines, Stickler also faced opposition from senators, union leaders and relatives of those killed in mine accidents who felt an industry insider should not oversee safety inspectors.

United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts said that miners "could not tolerate" another industry executive overseeing their health and safety.

"Too often these mining executives place priority on productivity, but fail to focus on miners' health and safety," Roberts told Mike Hall at the AFL-CIO's blog in June 2006.

The wife and daughter of a miner killed at Sago wrote a letter to lawmakers that same month urging them to reject Stickler's nomination.

Like most of the problems that have faced the United States in the past 6 years, this too leads back to problems in the White House.
###
This was cross-posted on CarlDems

Rove Dripping Slime on Meet the Press

Karl Rove hit the major Sunday morning talk circuit this week in a farewell tour. The guy is so smarmy I can barely stand it. You've got to recognize, though, the man has serious game. Asked to respond to Hillary Clinton's allegations of mistreatment of our troops, Rove artfully dodges the question and spends the next 90 seconds bashing Hillary on health care. He's nothing if not on message.

Instant Message Debates

Back in May, Nick posted a challenge to find a better idea for presidential debates better than the current format that provides for a contrived "discussion" about the issues that the campaigns and traditional media have chosen. Matt Bai, writer and tech enthusiast, has finally responded to the challenge in a New York times article.

He proposed (in full block quote because its just that good):

MAYBE someday soon the candidates will have laptop computers at their lecterns, and we’ll hang a giant screen behind the stage. Then, as one candidate is talking, the others will use instant messaging to create a kind of scrolling commentary and critique, and all the comments will appear overhead.

While John Edwards is decrying special interests, Bill Richardson might type: “Gee, John, what exactly would you call the trial lawyers?” Or Christopher Dodd might write: “Why is Kucinich still talking? LOL.”

The moderator could seize on the most provocative comments to drive the discussion: “Senator Clinton, while you were talking about reform, Barack Obama just listed 10 of your corporate contributors over your head. Care to respond?”

This is certainly the best idea I've seen thus far. Can anyone top it?

Hey Bill Richardson, Gay is not a Choice!

I used to have a lot of respect for New Mexico Governor and Presidential candidate Bill Richardson. Then he turned out to be dumb as a rock or bigoted, or both. If you haven't heard about his bungle at the Logo debate, here's a brief excerpt:

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition.

Bill, the 1950's called. It wants its arcane interpretations of human sexual behavior back. We can't blame Richardson exclusively, though. There seems to be a lot of confusion (or willful ignorance) on this point in the general public. Although I'm sure most Poli-Think readers are more enlightened, I want to make sure we're all on the same page. Gay is NOT a choice:

• The identical twin of a gay person is more than twice as likely to be gay as the fraternal twin of a gay person. Twin comparison is the hallmark test of nature versus nurture.
• Lesbians have more "masculine" finger lengths and blink reflexes than other women.
• Men with biological older brothers are more likely to be gay than those without, even if the brothers are raised completely separately.
• Honestly, why would anyone CHOOSE to subject themselves to hatred and discrimination?

Now, in fairness to Bill, he did back away from his statement. The Daily Show reports he said he was confuzzled because of jet lag. Even if he was, that just suggests he's really not Presidential material. If he gets elected is he going to jet lagged and chastise Sergei Ivanov? It was your choice to be Russian, sir.

Polling Update: Romney on a Roll

The latest goods from PollingReport show Democrats are in a holding pattern; Hillary's staying strong in the mid-30's, Obama is a strong second in the low 20's, and John Edwards still has the second tier to himself with around 10%. Obama, though, has been sharpening his axe. The Caucus points out that he's moving away from his former laid-back self in favor of a harder edge. He's got to do something to shake Hillary off her perch of inevitability. Meanwhile, the most interesting thing about John Edwards' campaign is his wife. Her cancer has given her a protective shield; she can attack whoever she wants to and she's immune from reciprocation.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is finally making a splash. Guiliani still holds the lead with just under 30%, but the Romneybot (is he human?) has bumped his numbers to around 15% nationally. That might seem like a poor showing, but NPR says he's actually leading in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's also got more cash than anyone else for the GOP, and he just won the Iowa Straw Poll. That vote should be totally irrelevant since McCain and Guiliani sat it out, but bored cable news guys turned the fundraiser into an earned media goldmine. As for Fred Thompson, I refuse to talk about him until he actually commits to running. I can't take the suspense!

Yeehaw!

Speaking of the shameless exploitation of poor people, the Oklahoma State Penitentiary Rodeo is tomorrow in McCalester, Oklahoma. The annual tradition, dating back to 1940, includes an event called "Money the Hard Way" in which prisoners try to win $100 by grabbing it from between the horns of rampaging bull. That's about four months worth of pay.

I'm actually more amused than outraged. I'm pretty sure the prisoners appreciate the opportunity to get out of the house. Besides, people play with angry bulls for free in Spain. The chance to win a hundred bucks is icing on the cake.

$20K "Quick Ship" Bonus--How Much is Your Life Worth?

In a move that's sure to suck in more desperate, poverty-stricken recruits, the Army is offering a big new incentive package. If you join up and ship out to basic training within 30 days, they'll pay you $20,000.

I'm disgusted. The message to kids my age from poor regions is, "Hey, you can either live your life in squalid, abject poverty, or you can risk life." In a lot of ways, this is worse than a draft. A draft, even with exceptions for college students, is still going to sweep up a few rich white kids who otherwise wouldn't have served. What we have today is an economic draft; you still have a choice, it's just that the options are terrible.

Now, lest this post be construed as antagonizing to our troops, let me say that I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to serve. If you happen to have a family tradition of service or if it's something you've always dreamed of doing, by all means. It's downright terrible, though, to leverage economic levers to force people who just want enough money to survive into the military.

And don't give me the old, "the military is a great option to help people pull themselves up by their bootstraps" speech. I get it. But there should opportunities for class advancement that DON'T involve nearly-molten metal hurtling at your head.

But the fact is, we're desperate for troops. Most experts agree that sustaining the surge through mid-2008 will be almost impossible without either stretching deployment lengths beyond the already absurd 15 months or renewing the draft. Extending deployments is clearly unacceptable. Soldiers are already committing suicide at the highest rate in 26 years, and we can't expect so few people to take on so much of the burden. But the draft is equally unacceptable, for obvious reasons...which leaves one option.

Why We Should Care About Padilla's Conviction

Jose Padilla, the American citizen held incommunicado for 3.5 years as a terrorism suspect, was found guilty on all counts today. Padilla was originally accused by the government of planning to detonate a radiological "dirty" bomb in Chicago, but he was never charged. He and two other co-defendants were convicted of supply Islamic extremist groups with supplies, money, and recruits.

I have no idea if Padilla was really provided material support for militant groups or if, as the defense claims, he was simply trying to assist persecuted Muslims with humanitarian aid.

What I do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that a country truly dedicated to human rights and the rule of law would never have allowed its government to prosecute Padilla the way it did. Padilla was never read his Miranda rights, which is grounds for throwing the case out in and of itself. But that's the least of his practically endless due process claims; he was held incommunicado for 3.5 YEARS. He was interrogated endlessly, without a lawyer, using techniques any rational society would immediately condemn as torture. Pinochet or Stalin would have been proud.

Keeping Jose Padilla locked up may well be for the greater good of society, but trampling the rights of an American citizen sets a precedent that is beyond dangerous. If we can do this to Mr. Padilla, we can do this to, literally, anyone.

Coleman Tied to Bush

Ever since Norm Coleman noticed that Minnesotans do not support President Bush (Fall '06) he has slowly been pushing away from his old friend and his crazy policies in Iraq. Except that apparently Norm is more than happy to accept the money that Bush can bring in for him.

According to the Star-Tribune:

President Bush will take a day away from his Texas ranch next week to attend a big-money fundraiser for Sen. Norm Coleman in Eden Prairie.

The Aug. 21 fundraiser, at the home of Twin Cities philanthropists Bill and Tani Austin, will cost at least $1,000 to attend. For $10,000 in combined contributions to Coleman and the Republican Party, a couple will be listed as a co-host. For $14,600, they can be a host.

Coleman believes that by having this fund raiser in August of 2007 he can pull a quick one on Minnesotans, he can embrace Bush in the privacy of the Austin home while publicly eschewing him in front of Minnesotan voters. Coleman, the man who claimed that he was a "99 percent improvement" over the late Senator Paul Wellstone is showing that he is 100 percent opposite of Senator Wellstone. Where Senator Wellstone was honest and consistent, Coleman is proving to be hypocritical and slimy.

In the words of Al Franken's communication director Andy Barr:
"I think it's a perfect illustration of what we've been talking about all along," Barr said. "Norm Coleman isn't standing with working families. He's standing with Bush, and now he's hanging out with Bush."

And

Ciresi spokeswoman Leslie Sandberg said the candidate would "like to see Norm next to George Bush every single day."

###
This is cross posted from http://carldems.blogspot.com

Hastert Press Lots of B.S.

For the past day, I have been reading about the end of "The Hastert Era" in the words of the Politico and about the significance of that "era."

The only reason that Hastert has any significance is that he served as Thomas Dale (at right) lieutenant during nearly his entire record breaking tenure as Speaker of the House.

As the Politico article does point out:

DeLay, who is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department over his ties to imprisoned former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, helped propel Hastert to the speaker’s chair in 1998 when Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) stepped down. At the time, Hastert was DeLay’s lieutenant, leading Democrats and Capitol Hill watchers to question Hastert’s independence.

Hastert went from being DeLay's second in command to being one of the least known Speakers of the House in the history of the House of Representatives. DeLay would probably have become Speaker of the House except that all he really cared about was building up his lobbying project and using divisive indimidating tactics to ram friendly legislation through the House. Dennis Hastert was the friend in whom DeLay could depend to run the House in a manner appealing to him. Hastert blindly followed DeLay into a land of corruption and bad governance. He was at the helm during every corruption investigation currently being conducted and was even a part of the leadership that ignored the warnings coming from Mark Foley's office.

The only significance in Hastert stepping down (as Nick explained earlier today) is that his is yet another seat Democrats could pick up. Dennis Hastert does not deserve any of the attention that he is being afforded today, he will rightfully be a blip in the history books and the collective memory of Americans.

Stop Calling People "Terrorists"

With the Bush Administration slapping the Iranian Revolutionary Guard with the "specially designated global terrorist" label, it's high time some one examined the rhetoric of "terrorism" from political elites and the mainstream media.

Some form of the word "terror" punctuates the headlines of major newspapers virtually every day. The 24-hour news networks constantly bombard us with news on the War on Terror and various terrorist attacks, and the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded terror alert system is a feature of daily life for many people. This rhetoric is dehumanizing and counterproductive.

We use the word terrorism as a means of justifying our own aggression and artificially distinguishing ourselves from our enemies. Bloodthirsty terrorists deliberately target civilians, so it's perceived as acceptable if Western powers, responding to terrorist violence, kill a few civilians. It's okay if one of our smart bombs happens to land on a school or a hospital or a media outlet because we didn't do it on purpose, and that makes us better than the terrorists. Of course, if your house explodes and your children are incinerated, it hardly makes a difference whether the perpetrator purposefully murdered your family or simply killed them through gross negligence. Calling one attack terrorism and another attack an air strike is a distinction without a difference. The ultimate purpose of this dichotomy is to absolve us of responsibility for the innumerable pile of innocent bodies we've stacked up over the last six years.

Further, a label of terrorism precludes negotiation. A terrorist is a savage monster, an irrational killer,hellbent on destroying our freedoms. We do not negotiate with terrorists because terrorists have no demands and no legitimacy. This is, of course, fallacious. Sometimes terrorists do want to negotiate. Sometimes they even offer reasonable demands, like "get your troops out of country." We slap groups that object to Western imperialism with a terrorist label and conveniently avoid dealing with demands that don't comply with Western interests. We pound our fists and insist that only legitimate governments have the authority to broker deals. That's reasonable in the West because, in the West, governments actually represent their people. In the Middle East, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas enjoy far more popular support than any internationally recognized force. When we refuse to come to the table with these groups, we refuse to acknowledge the agency of the people of their territories.

I'm not saying that it's okay for groups fly planes into skyscrapers or blow themselves up on crowded buses. It's absolutely not. I'm saying that it's morally unacceptable for ANY actor to kill civilians, whether that actor is a state or a non-state organization. I'm not saying that we should always negotiate with non-state organizations any more than I say we should always negotiate states. Sometimes diplomacy fails, and when that happens a nation-state and its people have the right to defend themselves. I'm saying that it's absurd to eliminate the possibility of negotiation by drawing a false dichotomy between our tactics and theirs.

There's an easy solution here: instead of saying terrorists attacked a market today, say Al Qaeda attacked a market today. Using the names of groups we now refer to simply as terrorists won't solve all of foreign policy problems, but it will go a long way towards humanizing our enemies. It will help to break down the regressive us-them dichotomy. It will bring us one small step closer to lasting peace.

Average Weight of Congress to Drop 47 Pounds

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert will not run for reelection in 2008. The portliest (read: most obese) politician since William Howard Taft has established quite a legacy for himself. Hastert wasn't solely responsible for GOP devastating defeat in 2006, but his bungling of Congressional Page Scandal couldn't have helped. Whether that fiasco was the result of astonishing incompetence or cynical politicking remains a mystery.

Hastert's retirement from politics isn't unexpected. Lots of Republican henchmen are finding the job a lot less rewarding now that Democrats keep showing up with pesky subpoenas and annoying investigations. Hastert has been considering retirement since before 2006, probably ever since his old chum Tom Delay finally got clapped for corruption. What's the point of being in Congress if you can't make a buck or two on the side?

The move is yet another tidbit of good news for Chris Van Hollen and the DCCC. Hastert's retirement will bring a second Illinois Congressional seat into play. Ray LaHood, a Republican from Periora is also retiring in 2008. Both districts are solidly Republican, but a second blue wave or a Barack Obama candidacy could change that.

What Will You Do With Your Draft Card?

The War Czar, a low-ranking general named Douglas Lute the White House begged to take the job, told a radio program this Sunday that the draft is on the table:

Norris- You know, given the stress on the military and the concern about these extended deployments for an all-volunteer military, can you foresee, in the future, a return to the draft?

Gen Lute- You know, that's a national policy decision point that we have not yet reached, Michele, because the...

Norris- But does it make sense militarily?

Gen. Lute- I think it makes sense to certainly consider it, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another.

Now, we've heard comments like this before, but never from some one who works at the White House and may actually have the ability to do something about it. In fact, this was such big news that papers as far away as New Zealand are writing on it.

The Pentagon immediately started backpedaling. Yesterday, a military spokesman emphatically denied that the draft was under consideration and General Lute backed off his previous statements. But it's impossible to deny that something has got to give. US troops are now serving 15-month tours of duty. Colin Powell has been saying for months that "the active army is about broken," and a recent article from the British press says soldiers are surviving on Red Bull:

A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

The bottom line is that a continued military occupation of Iraq is not sustainable without the draft. The Pentagon has already drastically reduced recruiting standards, allowing some ex-convicts and "former" skinheads to join, but the military is still struggling to achieve recruiting goals. People aren't signing up in droves to go be exhausted in Iraq for a year and a quarter.

So, the next time you hear a Republican Presidential candidate or a White House spokesman tell you the surge needs more time, keep in mind what that really means.

Gonzales to be given authority to cirumvent justice

The Los Angeles Times reports that:

The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.

In case you missed the point, Alberto Gonzales will be given the ability to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.

How is this happening? Apparently, this is yet another "side-effect" of the reauthorization of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (aka USA PATRIOT Act) which was passed in 2001 and reauthorized in 2005. Apparently one of the provisions in that law:

gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.

The Justice Department is somehow using this provision to craft a rule that would allow Gonzales (after a state requests it) to fast-track the cases of people on death row. The defendant's time period to file an appeal would be cut from a year to six months.

I am against this rule on principle. With something as capricious and uncertain as the death penalty we should not cut down on opportunities to reverse the errors of the legal system. Yet, even if you believe that we ought to have capitol punishment and speed up the process, you cannot possibly believe that Alberto Gonzales should be given this power.

This is the same Alberto Gonzales who had a 25% approval rate in April, the same Alberto Gonzales whose friends refer to him as incompetent. This is the man who Republican Senator Arlen Specter called, "misleading" and who the Senate wants bring perjury charges against.

This is also a man who wrote clemency memos for then Governor Bush which had "a clear prosecutorial bias" according to Alan Berlow of the Atlantic Monthly. Berlow continues to say:

A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.

This is a man with a poor understanding of the problems with the legal system and a view of the death penalty as panacea for crime.

The Washington Post reports:

Paul K. Charlton, one of nine U.S. attorneys fired last year, told members of Congress yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has been overzealous in ordering federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, including in an Arizona murder case in which no body had been recovered.

Charlton said that in prior cases, Ashcroft's aides had given him the chance to discuss his recommendations against the death penalty, but that Gonzales's staff did not offer that opportunity. He instead received a letter, dated May 31, 2006, from Gonzales, simply directing him to seek the death penalty.

Gonzales is clearly trigger happy and not a balanced advocate of Justice. This rule would be another blow to Justice that will hurt this country.

If you feel so inclined you can contact the Department of Justice with the following information:

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.

Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000

Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Clinton Invests in Iowa

After a poll released earlier this month showed that Hillary Clinton is virtually tied with John Edwards and Barack Obama in Iowa, she has released her first television ad to start airing tomorrow. The poll showed that:

As is the case nationally, Clinton gains from being seen as the strongest leader and the most electable contender. But in a state where retail politics can be crucial, she lags far behind her main rivals in voters' rankings of the most likable candidate.

The video, which was "presented" on the Clinton campaign blog by former presidential candidate and Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, presents candidate Clinton with farmers, single moms, the elderly, and happy young women. In the professionally edited 60 second video Clinton says:

"If you're a family that is struggling and you don't have health care, you are invisible to this president," she says. "If you're a single mom trying to find affordable child care so you can go to work, you're invisible too.

"Americans from all walks of life across our country may be invisible to this president but they're not invisible to me and they won't be invisible to the next president of the United States," she says to applause.

In the video, she outlines current problems with health care, women's issues, as well as veteran's affairs while establishing herself as the inevitable follow-up to this president and solution to today's problem.

Democratic leaders are worried about the side-effects of a Clinton candidacy. The AP has broken a story in which various Democratic leaders worry about Clinton's polarizing figure and the effect it would have on candidates down-ticket. Indiana Democratic State representative Dave Crooks said:

"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates.

The article goes on to say:

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination -- despite privately held fears.

It goes on to give a detailed account of many of the leaders' worries with candidate Clinton.

The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

Which brings us back to the question that has dogged Hillary's campaign since before she announced her candidacy: Is Hillary Clinton a net force for good or ill in Democratic Party?

Rove is Out!

Karl Rove, the Bush Administration's political mastermind, is leaving the White House at the end of the month. He broke the news in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, which was published this morning. I'd offer a link but the online edition is subscription only, and I'm not sending Rupert any money.

The move is a surprise in Washington. Rove was widely credited for the hard-won Republican victories in 2000 and 2004, but he lost influence after the 2006 elections swept Democrats back into the majority. Since then he's been at the center of virtually nonstop Congressional investigations.

According the New York Times, Rove doesn't plan to get involved with the 2008 Presidential race. Even if he is a political genius Rove would be a terrible liability to any Republican candidate, especially considering Patrick Leahy's vow to continue investigating him.

Ames Poll Results: GOP weak

The Ames, Iowa GOP straw poll results are in and as expected Mitt Romney reaped the rewards of his investment in the Hawkeye State.

Does this poll matter?

Yes, it matters to four campaigns.

The first two campaigns are former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson and Representative Duncan Hunter of California.

Tommy Thompson has gone on the record saying that if he would drop out of the race if he didn't at least get 2nd place in the straw poll. The Chicago Tribune reports

Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor, had repeatedly said that he would drop out of the race unless he finished in the top two. He left before his sixth-place finish with 7.3 percent of the vote was announced, and his spokesman was not available.

Duncan Hunter will also have to question whether this is his cue to exit the race. He got fewer votes than either Fred Thompson or Giuliani, neither of whom entered the poll. Hunter was most likely depending on doing well in the big states, especially in the super primary on February 5th but with his extremely poor results in this poll he may be forced to follow Jim Gilmore. (who?)

The third campaign that will find significance in these results is the Huckabee campaign, they came in second and have declared a rebirth to their campaign. Again from the Tribune:

The results were a major boost for Huckabee, who had been dueling with Brownback for support among Christian conservatives.

'We have the traction'

Huckabee had performed well in debates among the GOP contenders, but there had been questions about the strength of his ground game -- the organizational support needed to turn out voters. His No. 2 finish gave him new found credibility.

The former governor appeared surprised by the results.

"For all practical purposes, we won the Iowa straw poll," Huckabee said. "This for us is a great testing point that shows we have the traction."

The last campaign that this poll important to, the most obvious campaign, is the Romney campaign. Romney has touted this win as his ticket to the White House, however he would do well to take note of the toll that this win took on him. As Thomas B. Edsall points out:

Romney outspent his closest competitors, including former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, by roughly 10-1.

In addition to $2.5 million on television buys in Iowa, Romney has already sent out top-dollar glossy mass mailings, given stipends of $500 to $3,000 a month to some 60 Iowa "volunteer" supporters, paid the $35 charged by the Iowa Republican Party for each of his supporters casting a straw ballot, rented buses to import backers from all over the state, and supplied a barbeque for the entire mass of his attendees.

Mike Huckabee was not shy about his opponent's deep pockets, saying to Iowa voters:

"I can't buy you. I don't have the money. Another thing, I can't even rent you," Huckabee said. "But today, the straw poll is a day that can change all of that because the straw poll is not about electing a straw man."

Contrary to the message being pushed by Romney's campaign, these results do not show that any candidate is particularly strong. Rather it shows that McCain and Giuliani are not ready to face conservative voters and that Romney can lead Republicans in a low-turnout election (14,000) where he can buy the necessary number of votes.

This poll simply shows the weakness of the GOP and its candidates.

UPDATE: Tommy Thompson has dropped out saying that he simply needed to accept that he "lost."

GOP Steals from the Elderely

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, surely this is an exaggeration. Republicans cut Medicare funding, they'd push Social Security to the breaking point, but surely, SURELY they wouldn't actually try to steal from them.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The GOP's ominous-sounding "Office of Strategic Information" has been sending voters letters advising them that "a recent audit of [their] party affiliation turned up some irregularities." The letter urges the voter to fill out a "Voter Registration Verification and Audit Form." If you look at the document you'll notice it strongly resembles an IRS tax form. You'll also find a section on the form for "dues payment" with "no record of any dues payment" filled in beneath it. The clear implication is the recipient of the letter OWES the GOP money.

Now, this isn't going to fool anyone who's still remotely in the game, but if your the kind of person who accidentally votes for Pat Buchanan you'll be cutting a check to the Republican party before you know it. If you haven't already given your life savings to some Nigerian prince, that is.

TPMMuckraker broke the story.

Katrina Trailer Parks are Hell Holes

I strongly believe that National Public Radio has the strongest investigative unit in all of American Media.

This belief was further bolstered by a report on All Things Considered. The audio will be available here after 7pm eastern time on August 8th.

The report details the life of individuals who are in "temporary" trailer parks set up by FEMA. The story investigates why these trailer parks have a suicide rates 79 times higher than the national average.

It includes such quotes as:

The first morning of my visit to Scenic Trails, I was walking the path between some trailers when I bumped into a man named Tim Szepek. He was young, tall, and solidly good-looking. I asked if I could speak to him for a moment and he agreed. We found a spot of shade beneath a tree, and I started with what I considered a casual warm-up.

"What's it like to live around here?" I asked.

"Well," he replied, "I'll be honest."

"Ain't a day goes by when I don't think about killing myself.

The rest of the story goes on to discuss how the working poor who live in these trailer parks have been marooned in these islands of extreme poverty where a man who started a business making netting earning a little over 600 dollars a month is envied by his neighbors.

The park is located 30 minutes from any town, which means that those who have found jobs must walk to work or spend much of their income on the expenses associated with automobiles.

This report should remind us of the promises made to the residents of New Orleans and the need for the federal government to live up to those promises.
Listen to part I here
and part II here

Obama pushing unity + outsider cred

Barack Obama has been put in a prickly position. From the establishment (Clinton Part Deux) he is being pushed to show that he is tough, and experienced. From the left he is being pushed to cut ties to the establishment and run as an outsider.

It seems like Obama and Clinton have been in a foreign policy battle that led Obama to say that he would invade Pakistan if he had the necessary information and even if he didn't have permission from Pakistani president Musharraf. This obviously upset the Pakistanis, gave attack fodder for the Clinton campaign and other candidates, and eventually caused Obama to temper his remarks. Clinton seemed to relish the fight saying:

"You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences around the world"

After taking Clinton's bait and showing that he will not bow before Clinton's foreign policy experience, the Obama campaign seems to be re-grouping.

The Obama campaign has put out a new ad that refocuses his campaign back to his message of unity and change. The ad is biographical and touts his years as a state legislator and community organizer. Interestingly, the campaign allows you to email the ad to friends with the following message (seemingly walking the line between U.S. Senator and outsider):

I just watched Barack Obama's new TV ad that's running in Iowa. He hasn't been in Washington all that long, but he's been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change. And I think he's the candidate to do that.

The next step is to see if Obama sticks to this new message or if he wants to continue his foreign policy debate.

No. Seriously.

This is NOT a joke. Get yours here.

Rudy Report

A quick look at the Republican's leading candidate...


As the chart on shows, Rudolph Giuliani (the brown line above) has been the leading Republican contender for the past seven months and has maintained a significant lead on all of the other candidates for the republican presidential nomination.

While it certainly is early to crown anyone the nominee, the GOP has a history of nominating the early leader in the polls. While the Democrats have nominated 4 of their last 8 early
poll leaders, Republicans have nominated 7 of their last 8 candidates (see chart at right). It is worth noticing that this year could be different because the electorate is not particularly happy with their choices given that 32% of Republican voters are "dissatisfied" with the field.


Maybe even more importantly, only 19 percent of Iowa Republicans are "very satisfied" with their party's field of presidential candidates, compared with 53 percent of Iowa Democrats who said the same about their party's choices.

Either way, the fact remains that former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani is the leader of the pack, and yet does not have a record that reflects the leader of the GOP. As a Democrat, I am perfectly happy to have Giuliani end up as the nominee, because I have already found many potholes in Guiliani's record that will be much more than "bumps in the road" for the Guiliani campaign. Which potholes will end up hurting the campaign? Let's look at the quicksand that he is running on.

The first issue that Giuliani is running on is "9/11." This issue is familiar to GOP candidates who have found the fear of terrorism a rather successful banner to run under. As the mayor of New York City the msm created this image of Giuliani as "America's Mayor." Now that Giuliani is trying to ride this image to the White House, many of the hero's of 9/11 are now speaking out against Giuliani. This youtube video from the International Association of Fire Fighters clearly outlines and pushes the argument against Giuliani being lauded for his actions on 9/11 and shortly after words. The video, Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend, practically goes as far as blaming Giuliani for the death of 121 NYC firefighters. These firefighters have long disliked Giuliani and would presumably continue to speak out against him throughout the general election. If this were picked up by the media it could severely hurt the campaign.

The second issue that Giuliani is hoping will continue to propel his campaign forward is his record on crime. In the words of the campaign:

Under Mayor Giuliani's leadership, overall crime was cut by 56%, murder was cut by 66%, and New York City - once considered the crime capital of the country - became the safest large city in America according to the FBI. New York City's law enforcement strategy has become a model for other cities around the world, particularly the CompStat program, which won the 1996 Innovations in Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

During a debate last week, Giuliani actually said, that "before he became mayor of New York, people were afraid to go outside, or even buy groceries." Liveblogging during the debate, MSNBC's Domenico Montanaro offered a quick rebuff:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- Giuliani actually said before he became mayor of New York, people were afraid to go outside, or even buy groceries. What?? I am a native New Yorker and can tell you, I was never afraid to buy groceries. True, crime went down under Giuliani, the subways became safer, but afraid to buy groceries? That's a stretch -- one Giuliani, I suppose, hopes middle America will buy.

Harper's Magazine most recent edition has an article entitled, "A Fate Worse Than Bush" that rips apart Giuliani on all fronts. The article shows that he inherited an improved crime situation along with a vastly beefed up NYPD from his predecessor which helped continue to improve that situation. While the campaign often discusses the drop in crime, which it attributes to Giuliani's administration, the campaign does not discuss the confiscatory gun policy that his administration imposed on New York City.

The third issue of importance for the GOP candidate. This is an issue that I doubt the campaign will ever personally face. As can be fully read here (sourced wikipedia page) Giuliani has been married three times, the first time to his second cousin, the second time his wife found out about the divorce by seeing Rudy on television, and the third time to his former mistress. He is estranged from his two children, Andrew and Caroline. ABC News reported that:

In the [NY] Times article, Andrew attributed their strained relationship to Nathan, saying, "There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife."

According to the Times, Rudy Giuliani used to pride himself on attending all his children's events, but at some point after his marriage to Nathan in 2003 he stopped. He missed his son's graduation in 2005 and his 17-year old daughter's plays in the last 18 months.

Lastly, it was pointed out by Slate that Giuliani's daughter was a member of a Facebook group supporting Democrat Barack Obama. (Ouch).

Above you can see that Caroline left the group, Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack) shortly after 6 a.m. Monday when Slate sent her an inquiry about being in that group.

After writing all of this, I'm seriously considering deleting it because it seems quite clear that the candidate facing Giuliani could spend large parts of October planning out the furniture arrangement in the White House. This is going to be exciting.

Tragedy

It's easy for me to get wrapped up in my own world and lose perspective, sometimes. Then something happens that brings me back to the real world.

Rest in Peace, Michaela Farnum

Ledbetter v. Goodyear--Sex Discrimination Laws Only Help Psychics

The Supreme Court handed down so many bad decisions this term that the really terrible rulings obscured several decisions of the "bad, but not extraordinarily bad" variety. Among that neglected catagory was Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

Here's the story: the petitioner, Ledbetter, worked for Goodyear for 19 years. After all that time, she discovered that the company was paying her less than her male counterparts for the same work. She sued for sex discrimination and won.

But then Goodyear's attorneys filed a squirrelly appeal claiming that the Title VII statute of limitations (180 days) starts ticking with the initial act of discrimination, not the initial discovery of the discrimination by the victim. So, according to the lawyers, Ms. Ledbetter was actually only discriminated against one time--when she received her first paycheck 19 years ago. Every paycheck she received since then wasn't discriminatory even though it was less than what the men were getting.

This absurd argument would weed out the vast majority of sex discrimination cases, because most victims don't figure out that they're being paid less than their associates in their first six months on the job.

But the Roberts Court doesn't really mind absurdity. They jumped on the chance to poke a gaping hole in progressive civil rights law. They ruled 5-4 that if Ms. Ledbetter wanted equal pay she should have figured out that she wasn't getting it 18 and a half years ago. Effectively, the court limited sex discrimination laws to apply only to psychics and the lucky few who figure it out early on.

The Supreme Court: Chipping away at your quality of life, one tiny piece at the time.

A Second Blue Wave?

A huge survey just completed by Democracy Corp (James Carville's firm) suggests Democrats could win as many as 20 additional seats in the House in 2008. Despite low approval of Congressional Democrats, it looks like Americans still prefer them to Republicans.

Senate Bows to Bush on FISA

The Senate agreed to let the Bush Administration conduct even more warrantless surveillance yesterday. Although the provision is temporary, Senate approval lends an air of legitimacy to a program that blatantly flies in the face of the rule of law and the Constitution. Senate Democrats got pushed around, plain and simple.

Sheepish supporters of the provision will note that it applies primarily to foreign communications, and that American citizens won't be affected frequently. Of course, this argument takes a gigantic leap of faith in assuming that White House won't abuse the provision. Since the wire taps will be secret and no court will oversee them, there won't be any way to make the Bush Administration doesn't do whatever it wants. And even if the White House follows the law, we've still reduced the Constitutional prohibition on illegal search and seizure to a guideline saying "allowed, bu not very often."

The ACLU's Caroline Fredrickson got it spot on: "The Democrats caved in to the politics of fear we’re seeing from this administration. They didn’t want to be depicted as soft on terrorism. But this measure removes any court oversight from surveillance on Americans in a large number of cases."

Or maybe Senate Dems were just scared for their lives. Trent Lott all but threatened them with a terrorist attack during debate on the measure, saying that refusal to authorize the provision "the disaster could be on your doorstep." Then he told everyone to leave Washington until September 12. No, I'm not kidding.

Well, the Senate Democrats can stop cowering in terror. We're all safe now. As Missouri Republican Kit Bond put it, "I can sleep a little safer tonight."

The measure passed 60-28. It still requires House approval, but Democratic leaders say it's likely to pass.

House Energy Bill Not Worth a Bucket of Biofuel

The US House of Representatives must have missed An Inconvenient Truth. Otherwise, they wouldn't be debating an absolutely worthless energy bill. The only way this thing will save energy is if they post it on the net instead of printing paper copies.

Democratic leaders in the House declined to include meaningful increases in fuel efficiency standards in the bill, and an important and imminently meetable provision requiring utilities to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources is on the chopping block. The Sierra Club is calling the bill a joke. Dan Becker, the organization's director for global warming programs, told the New York Times "if you add everything else in this bill together, it doesn't equal what you'd get from a 35 m.p.g. CAFE standard."

Some Democrats are firing back, pointing to estimates that the plan will keep 8.6 billion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere by 2030. That's a guess, though, and even if it's right 8.6 billion tons is a jogging eight feet during a marathon. China and India are gobbling up more and more oil and coal and US CO2 production continues to accelerate. I understand Democrats' hesitance to face up to big oil and the Detroit automakers, but it's time to quit hitting the snooze button on the environmental alarm clock.

More on NPR.

Let the D.C. Madam Off the Hook

The case of Deborah Palfrey, the "D.C. Madam," illustrates the moral hypocrisy of Washington and prostitution law alike. Palfrey, who is charged with running a prostitution ring, claims her escort service didn't include sex for money. Whether or not her business provided sexual services, the prospect of sending her to prison is downright silly.

Prostitution laws exist to prevent sexual exploitation, but Palfrey wasn't exploiting anyone. The vast majority of her employees were college educated, many held graduate degrees, and several were in there 40's and 50's. According to Palfrey's lawyer, all of her employees were over 23 years old. In other words, these women were not forced to prostitute themselves to feed drug addictions or put food on the table.

What's more, these women weren't put in harms way. One major issue with prostitution is that it poses real dangers to women. A prostitute walking the street is at high risk for crime, but Palfrey's employees weren't. She screened her clients, sometimes explicitly, and her employees weren't sent into dangerous situations.

Palfrey's prosecution, far from protecting the women she employed, actually endangers them. According to her lawyer the escorts kept their work quiet, saying that "this was a private part of their lives and if they appear on "20/20" they won't be happy about it." Palfrey's trial won't free these women from sexual exploitation, it will put their private lives under embarrassing scrutiny and deprive them of a good source of easy income.

Meanwhile, naked women across the country grind on men's laps at strip clubs, and they get paid for it. The message of this prosecution is that if a woman wants to use her body to generate income, she darn well better do it in public.

White House '08: Turnout will be Key

A lot of Democrats have taken their ascendancy to White House for granted. Confidence is a nice quality to see among blue-staters, but a Democratic victory in the Presidential race is far from certain. While the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, continuing corruption scandals, and rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush give the Democrats a great shot, the jury is still out.

The latest polls show Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead their Republican counterparts in hypothetical fall match ups, but only narrowly. For example, Hillary has a narrow 47-41 lead over Giuliani, and Obama's lead is even slimmer at 45-41.

A lot can change between now and November '08, but barring dramatic improvement in Iraq or another terrorist attack on US soil, turnout will be the key for the Democratic nominee. Turnout is always crucial, but it's especially important in this cycle because of the growing opinion gap between registered voters and likely voters.

Polls of registered voters are show a huge lead for the Democratic nominee. The latest, a Diageo/Hotline poll, gives the unnamed Democrat a 24 point lead over the Republican. A similar poll from CBS/NYT in mid-July puts the Democrat on a 15 point lead.

But registered voters aren't likely voters, and likely voters count extra. A GWU Battleground poll gives the Democrat a modest 11 point lead--single digits when you factor in the margin of error.

To put this election in a lock box, Democrats need to convert registered voters to likely voters. That means running a positive, inspirational campaign that will make people feel like their candidate will mean real change. The more negative the race gets, the more the election will hinge on the already-likely voters.

Unfortunately, Congress isn't helping the Democrats set a positive tone. Congressional inquiries and subpoenas are great for making the President look bad, and are a necessary function of government, but they don't endear Democrats to apathetic registered voters. A majority, 54% of adults, say Congressional Democrats are doing a lousy job.

Floundering Fred Thompson

A couple weeks ago it looked like Fred Thompson might be the second coming of Ronald Regan. Today, after the all-but-declared candidate announced he raised just $3.4 million in June, Thompson's looking more and more like a flash in the pan. A few years ago $3.4 million was nothing to sneeze at, but consider that John McCain raised $11 million last quarter and is already considered dying (if not dead) in the water from lack of funds.

The latest polls have Thompson running in a strong second place to Rudy Giuliani with 17-21%, but the poor fundraising effort suggests that his support is more a reflection of dissatisfaction in the Republican base than the strength of the former actor's campaign. Republican primary voters are lining up behind Thompson because he's the only viable candidate with real conservative credentials, but they're clearly doing it half-heartedly. If they don't loosen up their purse strings soon, Fred will be back on Law and Order in no time.

Senate '08: Oklahoma in Play?

It's a sign of the times that perennial red state Oklahoma is no longer a safe home for one of America's most conservative Senators. James Inhofe, described by CounterPunch as "maybe the dumbest US Senator of all," has made waves for his stubborn insistence that global warming is a hoax and his proud proclamation that "in the recorded history of [his] family there's never been a divorce or a homosexual relationship." In short, the guy is a lunatic.

But now he's a lunatic in a tight race. State Senator Andrew Rice has all but declared, and his background suggests he'll be a serious contender. Rice is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, he's worked for NGO's across Asia, but more importantly he's handsome, charismatic, and able to pull in serious fundraising dollars.

Inhofe looks vulnerable. His approval-disapproval rating is 46-41, which could make the seat competitive. Cook Political Report has the race listed as solid Republican, but Rice is building name recognition and grassroots support quickly. Even if Rice can't win the race, he'll draw RSCC money away from needed Republican Senators in New Mexico, Maine, Oregon, and half a dozen other states.