"After November"

Geov Parrish:

The jury's out on whether Democrats offer an alternative in real (as opposed to rhetorical) terms, a chance to at least block two final years of unsavory pillaging, or simply a redistribution of some of the legalized bribery that greases all D.C. dealings.

Two things hold at least the potential to influence this equation in the coming weeks. First is that Democratic candidates for Congress -- incumbents and challengers alike -- need to be challenged on these issues. They need pressure, at the time when we the public have the most leverage, to stake out real positions and commitments, not just skate by on Republican misdeeds and I'm-not-themism.

Secondly, Internet fundraising is beginning, but only beginning, to change Democratic Party politics. The more that a candidate's money comes from ordinary donors, as opposed to the big corporate type, the more likely (at least in theory) that candidate will be to look out for the interests of the broader public, rather than those of the best-heeled contributors, when interests collide.

OK, three things. The third is to work hard on the campaigns and to turn out voters and votes on November 7. It'd be good to win, but even better to win by more. The greater the turnaround by Democrats, the more that Democrats can claim a mandate for their policies far clearer than anything George Bush ever received.

And with some luck, they'll actually use it.

"Feeling morally, intellectually confused?"

MSNBC TV:

Aug 30: On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said administration critics suffered from "moral or intellectual confusion.” “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann responds. Also, Howard Dean responds. • WATCH VIDEO •

"Pull the ad, Mike"

Seattle Times editorial:

Mike McGavick's latest radio ad is a politician's version of highway robbery.

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate is appropriating the issue of sales tax deductibility as his own and using it to attack incumbent Maria Cantwell. Problem is, Democrat Cantwell might as well be known as Sen. Sales Tax Deductibility. Both she and Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, have been leaders, in their respective houses of Congress, on the issue of first restoring, then keeping, the right of residents in Washington and seven other states to deduct their state sales tax from the federal tax bill. For the 18 years previous, only state income tax could be deducted.

In 2004, Congress restored the sales tax deduction, which means an average of $550 for a family — but only for two years. Cantwell was co-author of the bill.

In February, Cantwell sponsored a bill to make the deduction permanent. It passed the Senate 75-25, and is before the House.

McGavick's radio ad attacks Cantwell for voting against the sales tax deduction — and Washington families. The deduction was embedded in a politically charged bill that also would have hurt some Washington families, especially tip workers.

It's an age-old political trick that reliably rears its head during election season: Roll popular elements into a controversial bill to get it passed. If it doesn't pass, challengers like McGavick can use it to attack the incumbent.

The sales tax deduction issue isn't over. When Congress reconvenes in September, the leadership should keep its previous promise to run this popular bill, unfettered by controversial issues.

Microtargeting 101--- "Why the Republicans Can Win Elections -- Despite Their Poll Numbers, Scandals, and Awful Record"

BuzzFlash (excerpt):

You have a new book, One Party Country: The Republican Plan For Dominance in the 21st Century, which you wrote with your fellow journalist from the Los Angeles Times, Peter Wallsten. It looks at an array of Republican strategies towards achieving a one-party America. We want to focus in this BuzzFlash interview on the technology that the Republican Party has mastered. In particular, can you explain what microtargeting is?

Tom Hamburger: Microtargeting is a technique used in commercial marketing as well as political campaigns to identify very narrow niches of interest. It’s also known as niche marketing. It refers to the careful, very specific targeting of individuals -- in this case, voters -- by special interests, buying habits, and demographics. The Republican Party has made exceptionally good use of this technique, employing it very aggressively in 2004 in battleground states like Ohio and New Mexico. We make the case that microtargeting and the use of very sophisticated databases explains the Republican edge in those states, and thus even explains the results of the 2004 election.

BuzzFlash: You give some very interesting examples in One Party Country. You actually introduce us to some people who have been microtargeted. Maybe you could talk a little about them -- and the fact that, for the GOP, this is seen as an investment in the future. There’s an African-American woman from suburban Ohio.

Tom Hamburger: Felicia Hill lives outside of Dayton, and she’s married to a UAW union auto worker. She's a registered Democrat who has traditionally voted for Democratic presidential candidates. In the rule book by which politics is traditionally played, she would not be a target for Republican Party mobilization. She simply wouldn’t be on the list of people who were likely to vote Republican. But, thanks to this database, which the Republicans call Voter Vault, the Republican party activists in Ohio had some detailed information about Felicia Hill. Though she was in a Democratic precinct, had voted in Democratic primaries in the past, and was an African-American woman married to an auto worker, they knew she also sends her children to private schools. She’s a member of a conservative Evangelical church. She is a member of a golf club and subscribes to golfing magazines.

These accumulated interests were known to Republicans who were actively engaged in an African-American outreach effort in Ohio in 2004. And so Felicia Hill, for the first time during this campaign, found herself the recipient of a multitude of Republican Party entreaties, many of them personal telephone calls inviting her to specific events. Some were mailers that appealed to her special interests. Because she sends her kids to private schools, for example, she is interested in school vouchers -- and that’s an issue the Republicans are talking a lot about, the Democrats not so much. She told us she found herself subtly feeling for the first time that the Republican Party was a place where she could feel at home.

Now, ultimately, she went to the ballot box in 2004 and cast her vote for John Kerry. But Republicans viewed this outreach to Felicia Hill and others like her in Ohio and other states as a victory nonetheless, because she is now open to the Republican Party and to Republican Party ideas.

There are a couple of lessons in this for Democrats and for those who are interested in how things are evolving politically. One of them is to look at how this Republican Party investment over the preceding decade might reap success in the long term. They’re in this for the long haul. If you didn’t get Felicia Hill in 2004 -- well, maybe in 2006 or maybe in 2008. And they now have a way to reach her.

At the end of the interview, there's a link to "HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN," an article by the authors of this book in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Tidbit:

Both parties can identify voters by precinct, address, party affiliation and, often, their views on hot-button issues. Democrats also use marketing data, but Voter Vault includes far more information culled from marketing sources -- including retailers, magazine subscription services, even auto dealers -- giving Republicans a high-tech edge in the kind of grass-roots politics that has long been the touchstone of Democratic activists.

Darcy on the Radio

"Darcy burner on the john carlson show" --courtesy of Michael Hood (blatherWatch).

"Darcy Burner Challenges Congressman Dave Reichert" --courtesy of KUOW Weekday (54 minutes).

"Polling Data on Burner versus Reichert"

Matt Stoller:

There's new polling data out on Darcy Burner's race that shows Reichert with a 13 point lead. I buy HorsesAss's spin.

So if Reichert is leading by an apparently comfortable 13 point margin, why did one longtime Democratic politico ecstatically email me that these numbers are "freakin' fantastic"...?

I'm guessing the biggest reason for Democrats to get excited is that Burner's 41 percent is damn impressive considering she entered this race with zero name recognition, and has only just begun to make her first tentative forays into paid media. The poll was conducted 8/22 - 8/23, only a week after Burner made her first, small TV buy; her first direct mail piece is only just now reaching voters.

Much of Reichert's lead can surely be attributed to a huge advantage in name ID - which must register a stratospheric ninety-something percent for the former sheriff and self-proclaimed Green River Killer catcher. It is also an advantage that is surely exaggerated by the fact that the poll did not screen for "likely voters"; this screen won't come until after the primary.

Burner supporters can also be buoyed by the crosstabs, which show only 35% support for President Bush, significantly lower than SurveyUSA's national average. Those who approve of President Bush's job performance choose Reichert by an overwelming 93% to 4% margin. Those who disapprove choose Burner 66% to 27%.

The task for Burner seems clear. She needs to improve her name ID while persuading voters to identify Reichert with President Bush's failed policies.

Darcy is a superstar candidate running a good local campaign. Her first ad was poorly done, but I imagine that they now know that they have to tie Reichert to Bush. We'll see how that goes.

Howie opinion: I'm sure the voters of the 8th CD don't care what Matt thinks, but I'm glad Goldy had a little chat with him about this race.

The Coolness of Ned

The Rude Pundit:

So when Ned Lamont came out to speak last night at Moveon.org's book launch soiree and Katrina benefit at Crobar in New York, the Rude Pundit finally realized why the dude is actually kind of appealing. Up until he saw Lamont live, he just thought the Lieberspoiler was an awkward geeky-lookin' guy who happened to be a millionaire, Bill Gates without the charm. But, plied with an open bar and forced to stand for two hours before the show started (what the fuck? Was Axl Rose gonna play?), when Lamont took the stage in the middle of a set by Moby, all of a sudden the Rude Pundit realized that Lamont is the perfect father figure for the net generation.

Yeah, he is awkward and geeky-lookin', but he's also passionate without being overbearing about it, smart, and authoritative without being punitive, just like Gens Y and X would like their fathers to be. No wonder he kicked Lieberman's ass. Lieberman comes across as a scolding, creepy uncle to Lamont's daddy charms. Sure, Lamont probably can't dance, and you wouldn't wanna see him try, but at least he was hip enough to show up.

"Will the Democrats Be Ready for Rove's 2006 October Fright Fest?"

BuzzFlash:

Everyone knows it's coming.

Rove doesn't deviate from his playbook; and it's his third time around with this one.

So what's going to be the terrorist fright just before the election? Will Osama be taken out of deep freeze? Will a videotape suddenly be "found" in which Osama declares that he wants a Democratic Congress? Will a terrorist cell be broken up the week before the election, allegedly plotting to fly planes into 12 American cities and bomb the Super Bowl with Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam gave them from his cell in Iraq?

Who knows exactly what it will be, but we know it will be some extraordinary fright fest.

The only fuel the GOP has left to run on is fear, otherwise their car will sputter to a stop on a country road with no gasoline station in sight.

So the Dems know they are going to get another round of terrorist scares -- and this one is going to be quite imaginative, you can be sure.

The question is: Who, if anyone, in the Democratic Party is thinking how to pre-empt the upcoming Rovian plan to terrorize America into voting Republican (for the third campaign cycle of voting by fear)?

Because if we go through another election where the Dems act all shocked when Rove pulls the same bogeyman stunt all over again, the Dems will lose.

Have they learned by now that the Busheviks will do anything, even if it jeopardizes national security, to play the terror card?

If not, America will be left with a one-party government once again -- and Bush will be emboldened, in the absence of any checks and balances, to nuke Iran and cause further chaos in Iraq. Not to mention that the White House will further shred the Constitution and move quickly to consolidate more dictatorial powers.

The Dems better get on the stick and prepare for the October surprise now, because it's coming down the pike.

And there are no excuses this time for claiming that they didn't see it coming.

"House Outlook For 2006"

Rothenberg Political Report:

Our latest race-by-race review of Congressional districts around the country convinces us that a Democratic wave is building and that the party is poised to take control of the House of Representatives in the fall. The only question now is the size of the November wave.

The national mood remains bleak for Republicans. President George W. Bush’s job performance ratings are terrible, and the public still gives Congress low marks. A majority of Americans continue to tell pollsters that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

That’s a recipe for a GOP disaster, and there is no reason to believe that things will change dramatically between now and Election Day to improve Republican prospects.

At the district level, voters are more critical of Republican incumbents – and supportive of even unknown Democratic candidates – than they usually are at this point in the election cycle. GOP candidates are running behind where they would be in anything approaching a “neutral” year. While some firming of the Republican base is likely over the next ten weeks, that alone may not be enough for the party to retain the House.

Strong fund raising by the DCCC should mean that some Democratic candidates won’t face the huge financial discrepancy that they have in the past, though RNC money should boost the Republican ground game nationally.

To hold the House, Republicans must retain at least a handful of districts that now appear likely to go Democratic, probably by discrediting Democratic challengers and open seat hopefuls. Unlike previous cycles, when the burden was on Democrats to create upsets, the onus is now on the GOP to save at least a handful of seats before Election Day.

Therefore, we are raising our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 8-12 seats to 15-20 seats, which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats – and a majority – in the next House.

"Democrats Adopting Republicans' Voter-Turnout Techniques"

Cybercast News Service:

As the "right-wing slime machine" gears up -- and presidential adviser Karl Rove works to turn out the GOP vote -- the DCCC said it is launching its Voter Turnout Fund to "match the Republicans blow for blow and voter for voter."

Carville and Begala describe the voter-turnout push as the "most robust, sophisticated get-out-the-vote program ever executed for a midterm election," and guess what - it requires money -- $250,000 by August 31, the DCCC said.

The DCCC said contributions will fund legal teams in every congressional district - teams that are "ready to fly to protect the rights of each and every American as the Republicans work to keep voters away from the ballot box."

In addition, the DCCC said it will "micro-target" swing voters and strong Democrats with email urging them to get to the polls on Election Day.

It says 40,000 volunteers and field operatives will make 2 million phone calls to voters "who can make a difference and put our candidates over the top." In at least 50 congressional districts, local volunteers plan to knock on an average of 25,000 doors per district, the DCCC said.

"This grassroots mobilization is unprecedented in a midterm election -- but that's what it's going to take to win."

In a "P.S." at the end of the message, Carville and Begala admit that Republicans have "a heck of an organization" when it comes to getting their voters to the polls. But it promises that this time around, Democrats will "out-maneuver" Republicans.

Likewise, the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org also is telling its supporters that "[w]hen it comes to elections, Republicans have out-organized progressives for the last few years, and it's time to change that."

MoveOn.org gives Karl Rove credit for a "cutting edge voter turnout operation," adding that "Republicans have perfected new techniques to find additional Republican voters -- and then 'bank' their votes as absentee ballots weeks before Election Day.

"The result," says MoveOn.org: is that "in too many elections, Democrats have already lost before Election Day even rolls around."

The group says it plans to beat Republicans at their own voter turnout game by adopting Republican techniques.

"Since 2002," the group said, "Republicans have used superior technology and techniques to get their supporters to vote at higher rates. Those techniques include "microtargeting," the use of early voting, and "absentee ballots to 'bank' votes before Election Day.

"Republicans have figured out how to get a big chunk of their supporters to vote early," MoveOn.org explained -- so on Election Day, "they can focus all their energy on the small group of people who haven't voted yet."

MoveOn.org PAC says it needs $416,000 to add microtargeting and vote-banking to its get-out-the-vote drive -- "so we can talk to more people and lock in the votes to help Democrats win Congress."

In a third fund-raising appeal sent Tuesday, Sen. Robert Byrd -- writing on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee -- said the DSCC has set a fund-raising goal of $1 million by Labor Day.

"Howard Dean plays Hardball"

Video here, transcript here. I don't like the show or the host.

Matt Taibbi: "Off With Their Heads"

From The Low Post:

Q: Are bloggers too powerful?
A: Do I think they're important? Yes. Do I think the [bloggers] and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic Party? No! Welcome in, contribute, but it's about winning in November and moving the country forward, not about a firing squad in a circle.
-- Q&A with U.S. representative Rahm Emanuel, Aug. 28th issue of New York magazine.

I badly want to move on to another topic in this column space -- there is very little in the world that is less interesting than the Democratic Leadership Council and their ilk -- but this stuff is fast becoming just too unbelievable to ignore.

What exactly does self-appointed congressional mega-celebrity and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel mean (says a friend of mine in Congress of him: "He's an amoral, showboating cock") when he says, "Do I think [bloggers] and Al Sharpton are the future of the Democratic Party?"

That's actually not hard to figure out; it's political hack-ese for the human sentence bloggers = Al Sharpton. As for what he means by that: Just think about the thought process that had to go into Emanuel's adding of the phrase "and Al Sharpton," when Al Sharpton wasn't even part of the question. Ask yourself if you really believe Emanuel isn't aware that he's addressing the mostly white, Upper West Side readers of New York magazine when he "offhandedly" ties bloggers to the legendary gold-medallion-wearing icon from forty blocks north in Harlem.

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public. So instead of telling big, bold whoppers right out in the open, they're forever coming out with backhanded little asides like this one, apparently in the hope that only your subconscious will notice. I won't be surprised if they respond to the next electoral loss by a DLC candidate by having Bruce Reed argue in the Wall Street Journal that "bloggers, Queer Eye, and Arabs with syphilis are not the future of the Democratic Party."

Then there is the phrase, "Welcome in, contribute, but . . . "

Welcome in? What is this, a political party, or a house in the fucking Hamptons? Who died and made these people gatekeepers to anything?

What Emanuel appears to be saying here is that "bloggers" -- by which he really means "people who voted against Lieberman" -- are welcome to "contribute," but not welcome to actually decide elections. In other words, we'll take your votes, but we'll decide who you vote for. An admirable sentiment for an elected official. How is it that these people have avoided being pitchforked to death for this long?

Finally, the "firing squad in a circle" line has been a DLC favorite for years. DLC chief Al From has been pimping it at least since the last presidential race. It's time we officially retired this line, which is really just a sorry take on the lame old high-school guidance-counselor saw: "Now, Jimmy. When you shoot spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson, you're really shooting spitballs at yourself." And little Jimmy thinks: No, actually, I was shooting spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson . . .

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

The unspoken subtext of this increasingly bitter debate between the Democratic Party establishment and the supporters of people like Ned Lamont and Hillary Clinton's antiwar challenger, Jonathan Tasini, is a referendum ordinary people have unexpectedly decided to hold on the kingmaker's role of the holy trinity of the American political establishment -- big business, the major political parties and the commercial media. The irony is that it's the political establishment itself that has involuntarily raised the consciousness of its disenfranchised voters.

The surge in support for Lamont initially came from people motivated by two simple things -- a desire to protest the war in Iraq, and physical revulsion before the wrinkled, vengeful persona of Joe Lieberman. But the party, in fighting back, attacked not on the issues but on the means of protest -- blogs, grassroots activism, Lamont's independent wealth. In doing so, it threw into relief the essential parameters of the problem, which is this: The Democratic Party has been operating for two decades without the active participation of its voters.

It raised money by appealing directly to companies in private fundraisers, and it used the commercial media to enforce its policy positions, in particular its desire to "clearly reject our antiwar wing," as Al From put it a few years back. It's a simple formula for running one-half of American politics; you decide on John Kerry two years before the presidential vote, raise him $200 million bucks, and let CNN and The New York Times take care of any Howard Deans who might happen to pop up in the meantime. The same greased track is being prepared for Hillary Clinton right now, and we can be quite sure that guns are already being aimed at Russell Feingold.

It's been an essentially oligarchic system of government, where all the important decision-makers have been institutions, with any attempts by ordinary people to circumvent the system coldly repressed. Remember 2000, when Ralph Nader was not only not allowed to debate with Al Gore and George Bush, but wasn't allowed in the building -- not even allowed in a second, adjoining hall in the building, not even when he had a ticket? Well, we have a replay of that proud moment in our history going on now, with Hillary's Senate primary opponent Tasini being shut out of debates by New York's NY1 TV channel (owned by TimeWarner) which is insisting that qualified candidates not only reach 5 percent support in the polls (Tasini is at 13 percent and rising) but raise or spend $500,000. Said NY1 Vice President Steve Paulus: "All Tasini would need is for each [New York state registered voter] to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent."

So a war chest is now the standard for representation? In order to get on television, you need a dollar from every voter? (Are we electing a Senator or holding a Girl Scout raffle? What the fuck?) And this is decided by . . . an executive for a corporate television station? One that recently sent a reporter [Adam Balkin] to Japan to do features on high-tech toilets? In other words, NY1 will pay to put an exotic Japanese toilet on a few million or so New York television screens -- but insists on seeing a half-million dollar deposit before it will put a Democratic candidate with 13 percent support in a televised debate? Am I missing something?

This schism within the Democratic Party is the most interesting thing to happen in American politics in decades, because due to a system error, people have temporarily been allowed back into what had been a totally closed process. They're working round the clock to fix the loophole, though, because the Emanuels of the world know what's coming if they don't. The firing squad. And this time it won't be in a circle.

"Katrina media push"

US News&World Report:

The battle over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina has been joined--again.
(snip)
With the first anniversary of Katrina next week, President Bush is planning a big push to make it clear that he is committed to rebuilding New Orleans and the devastated Gulf Coast and that the federal government will better handle hurricanes this season. Bush will visit the region in the next week, and he met this morning with Katrina survivor Rockey Vaccarella at the White House to show his concern.
(snip)
For his part, Vaccarella called Bush a "people person" and said he wished "the president could have another term in Washington." Yesterday, the White House held a press briefing in which recovery efforts were highlighted by FEMA Director David Paulison, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Don Powell, federal coordinator for the Office of Gulf Coast Rebuilding.

On the other hand, Democrats have been very aggressive in criticizing Bush and reminding voters of the weak federal response to Katrina a year ago--which damaged Bush's reputation as a strong, effective leader. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, for example, issued a four-page, single-spaced critique of "promises made and promises broken after Katrina."

The Democratic National Committee statement said, "One year later, FEMA's housing program is fraught with problems, the New Orleans infrastructure is in disarray, the antipoverty programs have been dropped, and many in the region are still waiting for help.

"A year after losing almost everything during the hurricane itself, Katrina survivors are continuing to lose hope in their belief that President Bush will fulfill the promises made to them." Dean tried to connect the Katrina issue to other concerns.

"The tragic reality is that President Bush has had no plan for the Gulf Coast, just as he has had no plan to address the problems of hard-working Americans, and no plan for Iraq," Dean said. "... Worse still, America is still vulnerable, as the Bush administration has not taken the steps necessary to ensure that we are prepared to address the next great disaster, whether it is a hurricane or a terrorist attack."

"Reaching Low-Information Voters"

"How true it is that the Democrats and liberals fail to talk in simple language. The republicans are masters at this. The liberals never call the repubs out on it either. Example: Death tax. This is a wealth tax. It does not affect anyone unless rich. Liberals never discuss this."-from a comment on this post by Dave Johnson.

The other day I wrote that many people probably don't understand that "GOP" means Republicans. And I often say that those of us who read blogs should keep reminding ourselves that we are hyper-informed, and most people are not. And, of course, we're reminded of this every time we hear that a huge percent of the public thinks WMD were found in Iraq, or that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis...

Along these lines I recently came across an interesting article, The Uninformed Bloc, at Democratic Strategist:

"So, to put it in provocative terms, how ignorant is the electorate? Bennett found that nearly one-third of adults were unaware that the Republican Party is more conservative than the Democratic Party. And lest the reader think that this is an expression of cynicism rather than a lack of knowledge, Bennett found that whether or not respondents knew there were major differences between the two parties was associated with the amount of knowledge they had of major politicians and the parties but not with their levels of governmental trust.

Only one in ten adults knew who Denny Hastert is. Out of eight similar questions about politicians and the two parties, the average adult got just 4.5 right. One-third of adults said they follow politics "hardly at all" or "only now and then". "

It's so important to understand that we are not the audience we need to reach. We think that others know what we know. And we get so far ahead of regular people in our online discussions that people tuning in for the first time can barely understand what we're talking about -- or can't understand at all. Once, when pondering this I wrote,
We think facts are important. But in fact most of the public knows very little about politics and the news and the issues and understands even less. Many of the people who bother to vote at all base their decisions on things that would make informed people like us just pass out if we heard them.

The key to winning elections is learning how various groups of voters make their decisions, and being there with the information they need in the form they need it and in the channels where they receive it.

Chris Bowers at MyDD discovered that when a certain percentage of people can identify one party as controlling Congress, that party loses seats in the next Congressional election. It doesn't even matter if they identify the correct party.

On this subject I wrote previously,

Regular people are in a different world than the one we are in, get their information in different ways, and retain information for different reasons. The better we understand and utilize this, the better off we will be at getting regular people to see things our way.

So before we work to pump "facts" out there, we need to cover the basics. Let's start by making sure that the public identifies their troubles with Republicans.

Rethugs Counting on Micro-Targeting

Evans-Novak Political Report:

The Democrats' chances at the House are very real right now. Republicans are hobbled by the fact that they have so many shaky seats to defend and so few that they can legitimately target. If they are to tighten the gap -- and a USA Today poll released Tuesday indicates that they may now be doing so on the generic ballot -- they must give voters a reason to come to the polls for them. They will probably lose any election that merely pits them as the status quo against Democrats who could be even worse -- who could, for example, impeach President Bush. Republicans must also offer something positive to voters, but their lack of legislative accomplishments in this Congress makes it difficult.

The big X-factor is the Republicans' vaunted micro-targeting turnout program, which is light-years ahead of anything the almost non-existent Democratic National Committee will be able to put together this year. The GOP turnout program produced a minor miracle in 2004, as new Republican voters showed up in droves. How many of those new voters will show up again this year? Republicans are honing the 2004 model and will experiment with new methods, as they typically do in off-year elections. Given the historically low turnout in mid-terms, how much this could soften the blow of 2006 is unknown.

I received this email today from MoveOn.org and they are now embracing micro-targeting as well:

The techniques we're hoping to use to boost our impact—"microtargeting" and "banking" votes—aren't something we can do half way. So we're only going to accept these donations if people pledge the remaining $72,060. Think of it this way—every dollar contributed today to put us over the top will unleash almost $5 in money that's already been pledged.

We don't have the high-dollar corporate donors Republicans rely on to afford these voter turnout techniques. But we are 3 million people strong, and we're ready for a change.
(snip)
Microtargeting:
Republicans use "microtargeting" to find and communicate with all their supporters.
Without microtargeting, most campaigns simply target voters in supportive neighborhoods, and those who live elsewhere get skipped.
Microtargeting uses sophisticated statistics to find supporters wherever they live.
Microtargeting can more than double the number of voters you talk to!

"Immigration Law: 'A true victory'

Seattle P-I Editorial Board:

Safouh Hamoui was right when he told his lawyer that it is "a true victory for the community." Granting the Syrian-born Hamoui permanent residence was also a victory for America.

Hamoui, his wife and some of their children came to the edge of deportation after U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft launched a post-Sept. 11 initiative to remove some illegal immigrants. As was eventually shown in court, Hamoui faced the possibility of torture in authoritarian Syria. Indeed, as a visiting Justice Department official once acknowledged, the whole family's case was compelling.

But it took a community cast of heroes, fine legal services and the judges of the splendid 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to create justice in the face of stubborn Justice Department pursuit of their removal. Just a few of the local stars are the Hamouis themselves; attorney Bernice Funk; activist Rita Zawaideh; the Arab American Community Coalition; experts who made the case about Syrian human rights violations; and the Lane, Powell law firm.

We may never fully understand just why it took so long for justice to triumph over the workings of the Justice Department. It's clear the orders were being called in D.C. offices, not here. But it was the American spirit, mustered at a local level, that won.

You can read the story of this local family, "In Their Words: Family in detention points to religion," here.

Video from the Bellevue Netroots

"Citizens Against Rubber Stamp Reichert" from Eastside DFA via Dan Kirkdorffer.

Molly Ivins: "Let the Truth-Telling Begin"

Truthdig:

It’s pretty embarrassing when the British intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, accuse the FBI of leaking like a sieve. British intelligence has a lengthy history in the leaking-like-a-sieve department—so that’s some pot calling our kettle black. Nevertheless, they are making the point that our leaks about the “liquid terror” plot have pretty well bollixed up the case. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was so annoyed he referred to the entire Bush performance in the Middle East as “crap.” This truth-telling has gone too far.

Or, come to think of it, maybe it’s just begun—and it’s high damn time we got on with it. I’d suggest starting with the reality on the ground. Iraq is a disaster. The most credible estimate of how long it would take to fix it—if it is fixable—is 10 to 25 more years and a commensurate amount of dollars. Is it doable? Is it worth it? What are the consequences if we do or do not continue the effort? What are the consequences if the most likely result of our withdrawal—partition into three parts—takes place? (That’s also a likely consequence of our staying.)

It seems to me that those who advocate withdrawal ASAP have just as much of a duty to make the arguments for doing so—and to admit how much they don’t know—as those who got us into this mess five years ago with that titanic combination of misinformation and ignorance.

"A Democratic Win in November Does Not Spell V-I-C-T-O-R-Y"

Steven D:

Many of those who are in positions of power in the Democratic Party, the Senators and Representatives, candidates and consultants, and lobbyists and "liberal" pundits of the DC Beltway crowd will not immediately put an end to the status quo and adopt the agenda of the netroots. On the contrary, many of them would just as soon keep our current system of corporately funded beneficence to the political classes in place, only this time with themselves as the principle recipients of that amoral largesse.

They will be quick to proclaim (even if they do not believe it themselves) that any electoral victory for Democrats validates their brand of politics, one in which old line Clintonistas and DLC members are entitled to assume the mantle stripped away from Tom DeLay, the Heritage Foundation and David Brooks. They will line their pockets with corporate cash, fund their own circle jerk think tanks and glory in getting asked the first question by Tim Russert on Meet the Press rather than being an after thought in a sea of republican faces Sunday morning.

Those, like Hillary, Biden, and Warner, who are already running for the Presidency will go into full campaign mode, carefully measuring each word they say, and being careful not to make the least little noise that might get them labeled soft on terrorism, or too socialistic or too dismissive of the wonders of an untrammeled free enterprise system of capitalism. They may even seek to put themselves to the right of George Bush on the issue of the war on terror, and I wouldn't be surprised to see any number of them come out in support of a "surgical strike" against Iran. In short, they will remain focused on what politicians are always focused upon: keeping their campaign chests full to the brim, and fostering their own personal ambitions.

"YouTube is making waves in politics"

Seattle Times:

That old political mantra, stay on message, may now mean posting more video clips on YouTube than the other guy.

Or, perhaps, hoping futilely that your own gaffes will be overlooked.

The post-it-yourself video site, which has only been around for a year and a half, now supports tens of millions of video downloads a day, many of them political.
(snip)
Many partisans see YouTube and its siblings as vessels for spreading their message "virally." Those of like mind download it and share it with people they know, who do the same and so forth. The frequently cheesy production values seem to be part of the charm, though there also are plenty of slick, professional productions as well.

Expect to hear more about all this as the campaign season proceeds.

I prefer this story in the local daily to Ryan Lizza's Beltway snark in the NY Times, which shouldn't surprise me.

"Solid Potato Salad" (video)

Summer fun from the Ross Sisters, courtesy of Michael Hood, via YouTube.

"How Americans View Hillary: Popular but Polarizing"

Wonkette in TIME:

Most Americans agree that Hillary Clinton is intelligent (81%) and that she's politically moderate (67%). She's the Democratic nominee they'd support the most if she runs for President (leading the field with 46%, just ahead of Al Gore's 41). And a majority (53%) agree that she makes a generally favorable impression. They don't agree on much else.

"Another Terrorist Plot Revealed!"

BREAKING NEWS...! (from Goldy on The Huffington Post)

REUTERS, London -- British police foiled yet another terrorist plot today, announcing the arrest of a 340-pound Egyptian man planning to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic using homemade explosives derived from his own body.
British authorities say the unidentified man planned to use the on-board lavatory as a mobile chemical lab, where he would render his own fat and refine it into bio-diesel while extracting urea nitrate from his own urine.

According to an NSA terrorism expert who spoke on condition of anonymity, a typical "fat arab" could easily extract sufficient material from his own fluids to mix enough ANFO explosive to bring down a Boeing 747. "This is the nightmare scenario we've all been predicting," the NSA official told Reuters.

In response, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) immediately instructed airport screeners to prevent fat people from boarding planes, and ordered all bathrooms to be locked and sealed on flights of six hours or more. A spokesman for the International Airline Passengers Association called the TSA's new regulations a "mixed blessing" in terms of its total impact on passenger comfort.

"Keith Olbermann: Terror and Politics in America"

From Truthout Video Podcasting:

Keith Olbermann does a stunning job of laying out a five year history of Bush administration Terror Alerts that came at moments when the administration may have wanted to change the subject (12 minutes and 48 seconds).

"American Pie"

From Ben and Jerry:

America stands first in nuclear defense capabilities and first in nuclear defense expenditures among industrialized countries. And it's not even close!

But America ranks only...
14th in efforts to lift children out of poverty;
18th in the percentage of children in poverty;
And last (yes, last!) in providing health insurance for all children.

"Easy Online Techniques: U.S. Senate Races"

MyDD:

As I surveyed the sites of Democratic Senate campaigns while researching this post, I was encouraged to find that many of our Senate campaigns have implemented the same sort of basic online toolbox. In 2006, fundraising capabilities, "Get Local" tools, host-an-event functionality, audio and video content, volunteer organizing features, and even a campaign blog now come almost standard. (See the sites of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell or Ohio's Rep. Sherrod Brown for two great takes on how to implement this toolbox on a Senate campaign site.)

"Top vote counter becomes prize job"

USA Today:

The political battle for control of the federal government has opened up a new front: the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.

The state post of secretary of State was a backwater until 2000, when Florida's Katherine Harris became a central figure in the presidential recount controversy. Now national Democratic groups and White House prospects, unhappy about Harris' decisions and those of Republican Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio two years ago, are pouring resources into contests for the job.

At least three Democratic political action committees are spotlighting secretary of State candidates, most of them in states where they expect the presidential vote to be close. Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and Ohio top their lists.

Secretaries of State control most voting regulations and influence state purchases of voting machines. Looking ahead to 2008, Democrats say they want people they trust in those offices.

“There's a growing concern about whether votes are cast and, if so, whether they're properly counted. We have to restore people's confidence in the system,” says Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a 2008 presidential prospect whose Heartland PAC is helping several secretary of State candidates.

Heartland and the new San Francisco-based Secretary of State (SOS) Project are focused on swing states, where close races pose “the greatest likelihood of abuse and the greatest consequences,” SOS strategist James Rucker says. His project aims to raise several hundred thousand dollars from liberals online for candidates in six states.

The 21st Century Democrats PAC, which raised nearly $7 million for the 2004 election, has endorsed four secretary of State candidates, including a California Democrat and one of two Democrats in a Massachusetts primary. Early last year, the liberal group set a goal of 98% voter participation by 2024 and targeted secretary of State races for the first time since its founding in 1985.

While serving as secretaries of State, Harris and Blackwell were also top officials in George W. Bush's campaigns. Democrats alleged that their rulings on matters from recounts to the weight of registration forms thwarted voters and helped put Bush in the White House.

Harris and Blackwell say they were following state laws and regulations and did not suppress votes.

Vilsack and other Democrats say their goal is to increase voter participation, not gain an advantage. But some acknowledge that when it's easier to vote, more minorities and low-income people turn out — and often vote Democratic. “The cause of opening up elections has partisan consequences,” Rucker says.

At least four Democrats with presidential aspirations — Vilsack, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and former Virginia governor Mark Warner — have donated to secretary of State candidates. Among Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has helped candidates in Michigan, South Carolina and New Mexico; national party Chairman Ken Mehlman also helped out in New Mexico.

Overall, however, the Republican Party is not highlighting these contests. “Our strategic imperative of 2006 is to maintain control of the (U.S.) House and Senate,” national party spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt says. “We've got a massive turnout operation designed to help Republicans up and down the ballot.”

"'NYT' Sunday Preview: Do Lieberman Foes Know What They Want?"

Editor&Publisher:

In the upcoming New York Times Magazine on Sunday, regular writer Matt Bai declares that, contrary to popular wisdom, the main backers of Ned Lamont in his upset win over Sen. Joseph Lieberman in last week’s Connecticut Democratic primary were not young online activists but “exasperated and ideologically disappointed baby boomers” who felt “duped” by their party’s move to the center during the Clinton years, and later found their “icon” in Howard Dean.

These “older lapsed liberals,” he opines, grew up marching against the Vietnam war and now, beyond the Iraq issue, are “yearning for a more confrontational brand of opposition on all fronts, for something resembling the black-and-white moral choices of the 1960s, that more broadly animated Lamont’s insurgency.”

The Times itself was one of the few papers to endorse Lamont in the primary.

In the article, titled “What Are the Lieberman Foes FOR?,” Bai raises comparisons to the Republican revolution of 1980, when the moderate center was unseated by its right wing with a clear agenda -- roll back the federal government and détente with the Soviets. But he sees a big difference for the liberal Democrats (who will surely dispute this).

“By contrast,” he charges, “Lamont’s signature proposal as a primary candidate -- and the only one anyone cared to hear, really -- seemed to be the hard-to-dispute notion that he is not, in fact, Joe Lieberman. He offered platitudes about universal health care and good jobs and about bringing the troops home but nothing that might define him as anything other than what he is: an acceptable alternative.”

Bai also interviews one of those behind the "Reagan revolution," Jeffrey Bell, who says that while "it's easy to say these guys are nuts" -- referring to the DailyKos and Moveon.org campaign activists -- "the truth is, they're on the rise, and I think they're very impressive."

"Dems Unhappy With Sen. Cantwell Have an Option in Tran"

Congressional Quarterly:

Self-described progressive Chad Lupkes, a Democratic organizer in one of the most liberal districts in Seattle, said he is not supporting Tran because he considers himself a realist. He said Tran should have announced her candidacy a year earlier than she did this past May in order to receive any real financial backing.

Lupkes said activists such as Tran, who take on high-level elected officials because they are “frustrated now,” are not particularly effective. He advocates the strategy laid out by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor and aspirant for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, of working to elect progressives to local office, with the conviction that they will “trickle up” the Democratic Party ladder.

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Take a wild guess. The trailer, from SonyPicturesClassics via YouTube.

Uncaged Cabaret, a benefit for Jim McDermott

"Flippant Musicians, Belly Dancers for Democracy, Eye Candy with Attitude, Tuttabella Buffet and Auction. Sunday August 20th 7pm. $50 General Admission (with Italian Buffet) or $80 per couple." Groovy poster and more info here.

I also hear that Congressman Jim is scheduled to attend.

Upcoming Washington Voter Registration Deadline is August 19

"The deadline to vote in the Washington primary election is 30 days before the primary. Because that falls on a Sunday, your form must be postmarked by Saturday, August 19. Click here to register. Already Registered? Your friends may not be. Pass this message on to some friends!"-from ActForChange.

Two Days, Two Events

Wednesday, August 16

"Join Congressman Jay Inslee as he kicks off his campaign
for reelection and meet Joe Wilson, the former ambassador
who exposed the truth about the Bush Administration's
pre-war intelligence. Wednesday, August 16, 2006
7 PM to 8:30 PM

Meridian Park Elementary School
17077 Meridian Ave N
Shoreline, WA 98133

Suggested Contribution: $25
Seniors, Students, and Activists: $10
For more information, contact the campaign at
(206) 533-0575 or jayinslee.com



Thursday, August 17

Murder, Spies & Voting Lies, The Clint Curtis Story
Seattle Labor Temple - 2800 1st Ave - Seattle
Thursday, August 17th, 7pm

Sponsored by the Citizens to Stop Computerized Voting
Call 206-228-9490 or go to Clint Curtis for Congress for more info.

Ned Lamont: "The Democrats Mean Business"

From the op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:

In the past week, my victory in the Connecticut Senate primary has been labeled everything from the death knell of the Democratic Party to the signal of our party's rebirth. Beneath all of this punditry is a question that I want to face directly: how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country.

I ran at a time when people said "you can't beat a three-term incumbent," because I believed that President Bush, enabled by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, had weakened our country at home and abroad. We're weaker economically, because we're more dependent on foreign energy and foreign capital. Our national security has also been weakened, because we stopped fighting a real war on terror when we made the costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq.

My confidence that Connecticut was ready for a real debate and a real choice this year was founded not only on current events but also past experience. It was my career in business that shaped my outlook, and helped prepare me to run the race I did.
(SNIP)
• First, entrepreneurs are frugal beasts, because the bottom line means everything. In Connecticut, voters are convinced that Washington has utterly lost touch with fiscal reality. We talked about irresponsible budget policies that have driven the annual federal deficit above $300 billion and the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Meanwhile, the government is spending $250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq while starving needed social investment at home. I am a fiscal conservative and our people want their government to be sparing and sensible with their tax dollars.

• Second, entrepreneurs invest in human resources. Our business strives to pay good wages and provide good health benefits so that we can attract employees that give us an edge in a competitive marketplace. Well-trained and well-cared-for people are essential for every business these days, particularly in a global economy. It's getting harder and harder for American businesses to compete on price, but we innovate and change better than any economy on the planet. The quality of our work force is one of America's competitive advantages--if our education system fails our children and our employers, we'll lose the future.

That's why I talked about my work as a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools, which can't afford to be open later than 2:30 p.m., schools that send children home to an empty house. That's why my campaign offered a strong alternative to standardized tests and No Child Left Behind. That's why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.

• Third, in a market-driven economy, entrepreneurs can never lose touch with what customers, suppliers and workers are saying. A great strength of our campaign is that we embraced the grassroots and netroots, suburbs and inner cities, and used the most advanced technology to empower our door-knockers and activists. We listened hard and respectfully to what voters told us, and gave them the confidence to trust someone new.

• Finally, entrepreneurs are pragmatic. Unlike some politicians, we don't draw a false strength from closed minds, and we don't step on the accelerator when the car is headed off the cliff.

"Lieberman Is Not Going Away"

Matt Taibbi:

"Dead Man Coming---Don't hold your breath waiting for Joe Lieberman to go away." Appetizer:

Late at night in Hartford's Goodwin Hotel last Tuesday -- I'm not even sure what time it was -- Joe Lieberman made his way to the podium for his much-anticipated "concession" speech.

I'd been joking with another reporter that en route to his capitulation Joe would leave fingernail tracks in the carpet leading all the way back to his private room upstairs, but surprisingly he did not have to be dragged onstage at all, and his little elfin nails looked unbloodied and intact as he spoke. I was looking over a crowd of reporters and Joe staffers, off to the right and to the rear of the hall, as he announced his determination to press on:

"If the people of Connecticut are good enough to send me back to Washington . . . " he began, "I promise them I will keep fighting for the same progressive new ideas and for stronger national security . . . "

At the words progressive new ideas I couldn't help myself and let out a little laugh, recalling Lieberman's determination to yank funding from public schools that counseled suicidal teens that it was OK to be gay. Was that the kind of progressive idea he was talking about? I really did try to muffle it, but it was too late -- a middle-aged woman with big dangly earrings in a Lieberman T-shirt whipped around and glared at me.

"Yes?" I said.

"Have some respect!" she snapped.

"What?" I shouted.

"You should be ashamed of yourself!" she hissed.

I shrugged. A few minutes later, Lieberman ended his speech with an impassioned promise to fight on: "I believe tonight, more than ever, in America's greatness in its values . . . Will you join me? "

Roars, cheers from the crowd; the sneering lady in front of me jumped up and down; and then, weirdly, Joe descended from the stage to the strains of the Tattoo You-era Rolling Stones anthem "Start Me Up." As the defeated Democrat (now officially an insurgent candidate) hugged his family and shook hands with his supporters, the familiar but suddenly unpleasant lyrics shot out through the ballroom:

If you start me up

If you start me up I'll never stop . . .

Slide it up!

As I listened to this, another Joe supporter -- a somewhat older woman in horn-rimmed glasses -- came over and cornered me.

"You know what?" she said. "You reporters are all alike. You won't admit it, but you're all anti-Semites . . . "

I scratched my head. Anti-Semites? The song rattled on creepily:

If you rough it up

If you like it you can slide it up, slide it up

I shuddered at this, trying to keep my wits, but Horn-Rimmed Glasses was still whaling away at me. "You people really do have no respect," she went on. "Joe is such a wonderful man . . . "

"Listen," I exploded, interrupting her. "Do you know what this song is about?"

She froze.

"It's about a guy who gets an erection that doesn't go away," I said. "Can you explain to me why this song is playing now? What the hell is wrong with you people?"

Now The Weakly Really Sucks

Geov Parrish joins the line out the door. Michael Hood (blatherWatch) and Goldy offer their eulogies.

"Salon: Voter suppression efforts seen in six states"

RAW STORY:

After votes were suppressed in Florida and Ohio during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, Salon warns that four additional states could see voters prevented from casting ballots, with the greatest impact felt by Democratic candidates.

The report shows business as usual in Ohio where gubernatorial candidate and current Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has pushed regulations working to hinder voter registration efforts in the state. Similar efforts are afoot in Florida, as well as new authority for partisan pollwatchers to challenge the registration of individual voters.

But it is in four new states where Salon emphasizes new troubles might break out:

In Arizona, legislation that requires proof of citizenship to vote is taking a toll beyond the illegal immigrants it seeks to keep out of polling places.

In Indiana, difficulties in securing state identification have complicated the ability of many to register to vote.

In California, problems have been identified with electronic voting machines, and the consolidation of statewide voter registration lists is being used to bar voters from the rolls.

In Missouri, rigid ID laws for voters are seen to be targeting minority voters likely to vote against Republicans.

An excerpt of the article, which is available to subscribers or after watching Salon advertisting, is presented below.

#
But Steele's plight has gotten relatively little notice from pundits and progressive activists confidently predicting a sweeping Democratic victory in November. Opinion polls show that a majority of the public wants a Democratic Congress, but whether potential voters -- black and Latino voters in particular -- will be able to make their voices heard on Election Day is not assured. Across the country, they will have to contend with Republican-sponsored schemes to limit voting. In a series of laws passed since the 2004 elections, Republican legislators and officials have come up with measures to suppress the turnout of traditional Democratic voting blocs. This fall the favored GOP techniques are new photo I.D. laws, the criminalizing of voter registration drives, and database purges that have disqualified up to 40 percent of newly registered voters from voting in such jurisdictions as Los Angeles County.

"States that are hostile to voting rights have -- intentionally or unintentionally -- created laws or regulations that prevent people from registering, staying on the rolls, or casting a ballot that counts," observes Michael Slater, the election administration specialist for Project Vote, a leading voter registration and voting rights group. And with roughly a quarter of the country's election districts having adopted new voting equipment in the past two years alone, there's a growing prospect that ill-informed election officials, balky machines and restrictive new voting rules could produce a "perfect storm" of fiascos in states such as Ohio, Florida, Arizona and others that have a legacy of voting rights restrictions or chaotic elections. "People with malicious intent can gum up the works and cause an Election Day meltdown," Steele says.

There is rarely hard proof of the Republicans' real agenda. One of the few public declarations of their intent came in 2004, when then state Rep. John Pappageorge of Michigan, who's now running for a state Senate seat, was quoted by the Detroit Free Press: "If we do not suppress the Detroit [read: black ] vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle."

For the 2006 elections, with the control of the House and the Senate in the balance, Salon has selected six states with the most serious potential for vote suppression and the greatest potential for affecting the outcome of key races. In nearly every case, the voter-suppression techniques have been implemented since 2004 by Republican legislators or officials; only one state has a Democratic secretary of state, and only one has a Democratic-controlled legislature.

"Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Fall"

NY Times:

After being outmaneuvered in the politics of national security in the last two elections, Democrats say they are determined not to cede the issue this year and are working to cast President Bush as having diminished the nation’s safety.

“They are not Swift boating us on security,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House.

Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up security at home. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks.

But they are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terror attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.

“Feel safer?” it concludes. “Vote for change.”

"The David Goldstein Show"--Podcasts

Unfortunately, Dan Kirkdoffer doesn't have the bandwidth to support a lot of traffic to his links of the show, so he asked me to take them down. We will try and find a host to post these and future show podcasts. Sorry to Dan and to anyone who would like to hear Sunday's show.

"No retreat on war crimes"

Seattle Times Editorial:

Bush administration officials are counting on Congress' preoccupation with fall elections and the latest terrorism scare to slip through shameful revisions to the War Crimes Act. They want retroactive protection from any prosecution for harsh treatment or interrogation techniques they might have authorized.

The Republican-led Congress has done a miserable job holding the White House and the civilian and military leadership at the Pentagon accountable for their handling of the Iraq war. The possibility of a change of majority rule, and the likelihood of Democrats holding hearings on a wide range of war-related topics, including the treatment of prisoners, has the administration anxious about what comes next.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court did away with the military commission process President Bush had put in place to deal with suspected terrorists at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay. Now the administration is groping for alternatives, and many are an affront to the rule of law.

The military's own lawyers are among the staunchest opponents of efforts to use evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and eliminate rules against the use of hearsay evidence.

These issues, and the administration's understandable anxiety, go back to the abuses in Iraq at Abu Ghraib prison and the scandalous treatment of prisoners by civilian and military authorities. Despite various attempts to blame the incidents on the behavior of the lowest level of guards, the responsibility has repeatedly snaked back toward the upper echelons of the Pentagon and a muddle of directives.

The most withering look inside the prison and at the influence of intelligence officers eager to soften up prisoners for interrogation has come from unflinching military reports.

Congress is tampering with the fragile image and credibility of the United States as it considers the Bush administration's self-serving requests to rewrite the rules. That reputation was in tatters after Abu Ghraib.

The emphasis now has to be on inquiry and rebuilding, not further erosion of the law.

"As Conn. Goes in '06, So Goes The Nation in '08?"

John Nichols:

On August 8, months before the point in November when all the 2006 results will be known, Feingold has gotten a strong and positive signal about how the ideas he's been presenting are resonating.

Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont's Connecticut Democratic primary win over pro-war incumbent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman Tuesday was a clear victory for the activist wing of the Democratic Party that -- if liberal Internet blogs are to be believed -- sees Feingold as perhaps its most attractive contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

On the morning after the Connecticut results came in, Feingold notes, a former staffer told him, "Hey, if you were looking for an excuse to not run for president, Russ, you didn't get it last night."

Feingold, whose Progressive Patriots Fund political action committee dispatched a check for $5000 to the Lamont campaign on Wednesday, describes the primary win by the anti-war challenger as "an affirmation of something much larger than Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont."

The message to Democratic leaders who are still uncertain about whether to aggressively oppose the war, said Feingold, was beyond debate: "You are simply not listening if you don't know that the American people have had it with this mistake and want it to end."
(SNIP)
Now that Lamont has defeated Lieberman, Feingold has an indication that his ideas are resonating with Democratic voters -- and candidates.

In fact, Lamont cites Feingold as an inspiration and says he would side with the senator on many matters, including a controversial move to censure President Bush for authorizing the controversial warrantless wiretapping program from which most Democratic senators have distanced themselves.

For his part, Feingold says that Lieberman's "extreme support of this ... obviously mistaken (Iraq war) policy that has hurt so many Americans has put him in political jeopardy."

The Wisconsinite also argues that the Lamont victory sends a signal that Democrats can oppose the war and still be seen as friends and supporters of the troops, a theme Lamont echoed in his victory speech Tuesday night when he said: "We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in a bloody civil war in Iraq and I say its time to bring them home to a hero's welcome."

It is not difficult to imagine Feingold borrowing that line from Lamont as he heads out on the presidential campaign trail, just as the Connecticut candidate borrowed themes from the Wisconsin senator. The Connecticut results are only a piece of the puzzle for Feingold, who has taken steps to build the organization needed to mount a presidential run and has traveled frequently to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early caucus and primary states in recent months.

But it's a significant piece. Lamont's win appears to indicate that the Wisconsin senator's unapologetic progressive positions -- a "Bring the Troops Home" stance on the war, strong support for civil liberties at home, opposition to Bush administration trade and economic policies -- have far more appeal among grass-roots Democrats than they do with the party's Washington elites.

"Dean Defends Lamont, Slams Lieberman"

Video from today's appearance on "Meet the Press."

Ned speaks up for himself and the The Danbury News-Times (CT) has "Lamont may have big impact."

More Democratic Talking Points on Terror

Russ Feingold:

The fact is that we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda and its affiliates and its sympathizers, not by Saddam Hussein. And unfortunately Senator Lieberman has supported the Bush Administration’s disastrous strategic approach of getting us stuck in Iraq instead of focusing on those who attacked us. I mean, look at the places that have been attacked: India, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Spain, Great Britain. What does this have to do with Iraq? And Senator Lieberman is stuck on that point. Ned Lamont and I believe that we should refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11 and not simply try to cover our tracks because this was such a very poor decision in terms of the overall battle against the terrorists who attacked us.

And "Democrats Go on Offensive in Latest Terrorism Case" tells us how others are joining in. From the DNC: "Dusting Off The GOP Playbook: Fear-Mongering And Desperate Tactics."

"Bolton's Pull versus Lamont's Push"

Matt Stoller:

The reverberations from the Lieberman-Lamont primary are now rattling around the world, as foreign policy elites digest its implications. Next month, it's going to be clear just how much certain Democrats are pinned between their donor base and the new progressive voting mood that beat down Lieberman. While one would think that the Democratic Party will become more progressive on foreign policy in response to the loss, there are counterbalancing forces that suggest that leading Democrats will actually move to a more right-wing posture, while making a few limp symbolic gestures to the progressives. Calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is one such gesture, since Kerry did it in 2004 and it is another version of the 'incompetence dodge'. The political calculation is that Lieberman didn't lose because he was right-wing, he lost because he was a singularly awful politician. As such, there's no need to move leftward since it's fairly easy to avoid a Lieberman-esque political backlash.

Now, the flip side is that the right-wing neocon leader of the party lost even though he carried the advantage of incumbency and outspent his opponent by an almost 2:1 margin, and it's pretty hard to argue with that. So there's a debate over the meaning of Lamont victory, and nothing accelerates a debate like a political fight. And while there are many possible places to have this fight, by far the most likely arenda in which to watch the different forces at play will be John Bolton's confirmation vote in the Senate in September. We'll learn just how committed the Democratic Party insiders are to opposing Bush's foreign policy objectives in the wake of Ned Lamont's stunning victory.

Here's a bit of a recap of who Bolton is, and why this fight matters. John Bolton, an heir to Jesse Helms' pugnaciously nationalistic ideology, was successfully filibustered in 2005 by the Senate when Bush tried to appoint him as UN ambassador. It was the first sign that the Democratic Party was willing to fight to change the disastrously unilateral foreign policy of the Bush administration. Still, while Bolton wasn't confirmed, Bush did select him to the position as a recess appointee. As a result, Bolton must be renominated and confirmed by the Senate. The loss was a crushing blow to Bush's political momentum, and 2005 was a horrible political year for Bush.

Now, during the first filibuster, Lieberman didn't take a position for or against Bolton, and since Bolton didn't come up for a vote, he didn't have to. But indications suggest that he would have voted for him. [update: As John Mills pointed out in the comments, the Thinkprogress post is wrong. Lieberman voted against cloture twice (roll call vote here and here), though he was heavily targeted by the White House as a potential supporter.] With Lieberman's defeat by Lamont and his consequent move towards a campaign based on fear-mongering and capturing Republican votes, I imagine that he'll become a reliable pro-Bolton vote. But there's a bit more to it than that.

You see, both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are considering switching their vote on Bolton, and there's probably a bunch of Senators who will follow them. Schumer in particular has been awful, publicly saying that there will probably be no filibuster of Bolton. So here we have a clear progressive electoral victory over the most right-wing Democrat, combined with a horrible year for Bush and a clearly disastrous foreign policy, and yet his nominee to the UN has an easier path to nomination. Why would Democrats even consider ratifying Bush's foreign policy through Bolton?

Many of you will not like this answer, just as I didn't like discovering it, but the reality is that right-wing wealthy neoconservatives whose pet project is Israel are the ones who are forcing the Democrats to the right. After 9/11, a special breed of incredibly wealthy coastal elites that I call 'Bloomberg Democrats' after their desire to have Michael Bloomberg run on a third party Presidential unity ticket went sharply to the right in their foreign policy thinking. Lieberman is part of this group, always supportive of Israeli hawkishness, but whose fearful instincts were unleashed by 9/11. Torture, lies, dead soldiers, a collapse of American moral authority - all of these pale in comparison to Islamofascism, but it's cool, because they are pro-choice and made a lot of money. That's the type.

While originally distinct from the main branch of neoconservatives whose focus was Iraq, the Bloomberg Democrats have gradually conflated their sympathies towards Israel with a bloody desire to get rid of the American 'honest broker' status in the Middle East, and have become fully integrated into the neoconservative mainstream. While once they were just pro-Israel as I am, like many progressive Jews I moved left, while Bloomberg Democrats have graduated to become full-fledged neoconservative sociopaths. Even as the Israeli public itself is no longer particularly enthusiastic about its Lebanese incursion, AIPAC's hold on Congress prevents any real discussion of American Israeli interests in any context but that of Israel getting 100% blind support for anything it wants to do, even if what it wants to do is spy on America. It's the 'with us or against us' mindset.

This neocon PAC money is incredibly pervasive among both parties, and that it's now being used to push Bolton significantly changes the battle lines of his renomination. Israel wasn't a factor in Bolton's first nomination; now Bolton and Israel are seen as the same thing, and the AIPAC neocons have moved in their artillery behind his nomination. Schumer's amazingly successful DSCC fundraising has come at least in some part from this neoconservative money, and Senator Clinton is making the rounds. Her latest fundraiser was with Norpac, a neoconservative Israel-focused PAC that has lent support to Bush/Cheney '04, Rick Santorum, Jon Kyl, Mike Ferguson, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Steny Hoyer, Conrad Burns, Bob Menendez, and Nancy Pelosi. Even though you might think that the Lieberman defeat would embolden the Democrats, the Bolton fight and the Lieberman loss have been linked together explicitly by neo-conservative PACs, and prominent orthodox right-wing Jewish leaders are calling on Jews to abandon the Democratic Party for being insufficiently supportive of Israel's failed war in Lebanon.

The sad hijacking of Jewish political activism by right-wing neoconservative crazies is complete. If you're not with Lieberman, if you're not with Bolton, if you're not with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, you're not pro-Israel. I have to say, it's pretty frustrating. Every time I find a political obstacle to a more progressive American posture abroad, it seems like there's another more hidden and intractable one behind it. It's shocking to me that there are no effective progressive Jewish groups focusing on foreign policy. The only ones I've seen are pathetic, wonkified, and largely unwilling to deal with the reality of a crazy domestic right-wing leadership structure.

Here's a bit of a recap of who Bolton is, and why this fight matters. John Bolton, an heir to Jesse Helms' pugnaciously nationalistic ideology, was successfully filibustered in 2005 by the Senate when Bush tried to appoint him as UN ambassador. It was the first sign that the Democratic Party was willing to fight to change the disastrously unilateral foreign policy of the Bush administration. Still, while Bolton wasn't confirmed, Bush did select him to the position as a recess appointee. As a result, Bolton must be renominated and confirmed by the Senate. The loss was a crushing blow to Bush's political momentum, and 2005 was a horrible political year for Bush.

Now, during the first filibuster, Lieberman didn't take a position for or against Bolton, and since Bolton didn't come up for a vote, he didn't have to. But indications suggest that he would have voted for him. [update: As John Mills pointed out in the comments, the Thinkprogress post is wrong. Lieberman voted against cloture twice (roll call vote here and here), though he was heavily targeted by the White House as a potential supporter.] With Lieberman's defeat by Lamont and his consequent move towards a campaign based on fear-mongering and capturing Republican votes, I imagine that he'll become a reliable pro-Bolton vote. But there's a bit more to it than that.

You see, both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are considering switching their vote on Bolton, and there's probably a bunch of Senators who will follow them. Schumer in particular has been awful, publicly saying that there will probably be no filibuster of Bolton. So here we have a clear progressive electoral victory over the most right-wing Democrat, combined with a horrible year for Bush and a clearly disastrous foreign policy, and yet his nominee to the UN has an easier path to nomination. Why would Democrats even consider ratifying Bush's foreign policy through Bolton?

Many of you will not like this answer, just as I didn't like discovering it, but the reality is that right-wing wealthy neoconservatives whose pet project is Israel are the ones who are forcing the Democrats to the right. After 9/11, a special breed of incredibly wealthy coastal elites that I call 'Bloomberg Democrats' after their desire to have Michael Bloomberg run on a third party Presidential unity ticket went sharply to the right in their foreign policy thinking. Lieberman is part of this group, always supportive of Israeli hawkishness, but whose fearful instincts were unleashed by 9/11. Torture, lies, dead soldiers, a collapse of American moral authority - all of these pale in comparison to Islamofascism, but it's cool, because they are pro-choice and made a lot of money. That's the type.

While originally distinct from the main branch of neoconservatives whose focus was Iraq, the Bloomberg Democrats have gradually conflated their sympathies towards Israel with a bloody desire to get rid of the American 'honest broker' status in the Middle East, and have become fully integrated into the neoconservative mainstream. While once they were just pro-Israel as I am, like many progressive Jews I moved left, while Bloomberg Democrats have graduated to become full-fledged neoconservative sociopaths. Even as the Israeli public itself is no longer particularly enthusiastic about its Lebanese incursion, AIPAC's hold on Congress prevents any real discussion of American Israeli interests in any context but that of Israel getting 100% blind support for anything it wants to do, even if what it wants to do is spy on America. It's the 'with us or against us' mindset.

This neocon PAC money is incredibly pervasive among both parties, and that it's now being used to push Bolton significantly changes the battle lines of his renomination. Israel wasn't a factor in Bolton's first nomination; now Bolton and Israel are seen as the same thing, and the AIPAC neocons have moved in their artillery behind his nomination. Schumer's amazingly successful DSCC fundraising has come at least in some part from this neoconservative money, and Senator Clinton is making the rounds. Her latest fundraiser was with Norpac, a neoconservative Israel-focused PAC that has lent support to Bush/Cheney '04, Rick Santorum, Jon Kyl, Mike Ferguson, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Steny Hoyer, Conrad Burns, Bob Menendez, and Nancy Pelosi. Even though you might think that the Lieberman defeat would embolden the Democrats, the Bolton fight and the Lieberman loss have been linked together explicitly by neo-conservative PACs, and prominent orthodox right-wing Jewish leaders are calling on Jews to abandon the Democratic Party for being insufficiently supportive of Israel's failed war in Lebanon.

The sad hijacking of Jewish political activism by right-wing neoconservative crazies is complete. If you're not with Lieberman, if you're not with Bolton, if you're not with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, you're not pro-Israel. I have to say, it's pretty frustrating. Every time I find a political obstacle to a more progressive American posture abroad, it seems like there's another more hidden and intractable one behind it. It's shocking to me that there are no effective progressive Jewish groups focusing on foreign policy. The only ones I've seen are pathetic, wonkified, and largely unwilling to deal with the reality of a crazy domestic right-wing leadership structure.

Anyway, with the war in Lebanon ending and Lieberman's defeat showing that there's a political constituency for a sane multi-lateral approach to foreign policy, the Democratic Party has a real opportunity on its hands to stake out a progressive foreign policy path. That starts with Bolton. Or rather, Bolton will show which Democrats really understand what Connecticut Democrats were trying to say, and which ones are only listening, despite all the populist outrage in the hinterland, to the Beltway elite.

"Rebutting the Lie that Dems are Soft on Terrorism"

Steven D takes on the task of providing some possible talking points:

9/11 Happened on the Bush and the Republicans' Watch.

Bush and the Republicans' strategy of "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" isn't working.

Bush and Republican Party's War on Terror policies have made us less secure, not more.

Bush and his Republican Congress has cut funding for, or ignored, known risks to our Homeland Security.

Democrats have been the party working to improve our National Security, not the Republicans.

Steve's post on Booman Tribune gives loads of examples and facts to support his messages.

Howard Dean on "Meet Tim Russert" Show, Sunday

Here's the "guest list" from MSNBC.
The show airs in Seattle:

KING-TV, 6:00 AM
KONG-TV, 10:00 AM
KXRO-AM-Radio, 9:00 AM

or find out when it airs in your town here. Or watch/listen online here, after 1pm Eastern on Sunday.

"AWOL Sergeant to Turn Himself in Today (Friday) Resisting Illegal Iraq War"

David Swanson:

SEATTLE --Ricky Clousing, a Sergeant in the U.S. Army, and a veteran of the Iraq War who has been AWOL for a year announced today at the Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle that he will turn himself in later today at the gates of Fort Lewis and face whatever punishment the military chooses to impose.

Clousing said he did not apply for conscientious objector status because he is not certain he would oppose every possible war, such as one fought in self-defense. He said he has spent the past year trying to figure out how to turn himself in, that the military has refused to comment on his status and that he is now choosing to force them to deal with it.

Clousing spoke at a press conference on the campus of the University of Washington. Many supporters of his stand made brief remarks before he spoke. Clousing said he served in Baghdad and Mosul as an interrogator, and that this meant he spoke to Iraqi civilians every day and learned what they thought about the war. Clousing said he witnessed the routine incarceration of civilians with no basis and no ability to contact their families. He spoke in particular of four brothers, the youngest aged 12, locked up for three to four weeks. Physical abuse of civilians and the killing of one Iraqi civilian were among the crimes Clousing said he witnessed.

Clousing described U.S. vehicles smashing into Iraqi cars, bashing windows, and opening fire on livestock for fun. He described these acts as not isolated incidents, but "the daily devastation of occupation… daily incidents where innocent Iraqis are being killed, and it's not reported in the media." He said that he was part of a convoy from which a humvee opened fire without warning on a civilian in a car who was no threat, and killed him. Clousing reported the incident to his superiors, he said, but they openly dismissed it as anything of importance.

Clousing's mother, Sharon Pankalla, joined him at the podium in support of his decision to refuse to fight. She said that her son had joined the Army, excited and proud to fight for American liberties, but that after he returned from Iraq he was depressed and confused. When he sought help he was told, in that common military phrase, to "suck it up."

"Most of our men and women over there," Pankalla said, "are young and naïve and believe what our government tells them. And some of them die. And I am so sad for their families, and so thankful that mine survived and that he has the strength of heart to follow his convictions." Pankalla said she hoped others could do the same.

Speaking immediately before Clousing was a conscientious objector to the Iraq War named Joshua Casteel who had met Clousing in interrogator school, where, he said, "they don't tell you that you'll have to strip men naked, wet them, and stand them in front of an air conditioner because you're trying to induce hypothermia. They don't tell you you'll be instructed to use the blunt edge of an axe to soften someone up for questioning. They don't tell you that Rumsfeld will deny using dogs just four days after you've been instructed to use them."
(snip)
Clousing concluded his own remarks by saying "I stand before you today about to surrender myself to military custody….We as Americans find ourselves in a critical era where we have traded humanity for patriotism, we have traded our civil liberties for a sense of security. Henry David Thoreau said we must not become that same evil which we condemn."

"Joe Lieberman Will Drop Out"

Lawrence O'Donnell:

Joe Lieberman will drop out. He probably knows right now that the day will come in late September when he will announce his withdrawal from the race. No one is going to have to talk him into it. By that time, the Democratic Party power structure will be doing its thing for Ned Lamont and Lieberman will be trailing by double digits.

It won't be a hard decision for Lieberman. He will drop out to avoid career-ending humiliation.

Lieberman came within four points of Lamont by climbing up on the shoulders of the biggest names in the party including Clinton--Bill and Hillary. Lieberman's TV commercial starring Bill Clinton was his best. Now, both Clintons and everyone else in the Party are carrying Lamont on their shoulders. By late September, Bill Clinton will be onstage hugging his new best friend and starring in Lamont commercials. Connecticut's much better liked senator, Chris Dodd, will be campaigning for Lamont this time. The Clinton and Dodd defections will cost Lieberman ten points in Connecticut. If Dick Cheney continues to say nice things about Lieberman, it'll cost him another ten points. And Lieberman campaigning alone, all alone, will look bitter, very bitter. His smile will look faker than ever. Voters aren't drawn to bitter.

Lieberman is going to have one very big news day in late September and he'll milk it for all its worth. That's all his independent candidacy is going to be about--stage-managing his own exit. He didn't want an eighteen year Senate career to disappear under 'Lamont Wins' headlines. He wanted his own news day, his own headline. He knows how and when to get it.

"Be Prepared For Republicans To Close Gap"

Chris Bowers:

Right now, both Democrats and the progressive movement are flying high. Our fifty-state strategy has yielded record candidate recruitment. With a 43% Democratic turnout in Connecticut, evidence continues to mount that Democrats are turning out at higher rates than Republicans (possibly significantly higher rates). We hold commanding, historic, eighteen-points in the two most recent generic ballot polls (AP-Ipsos and Fox-Opinion Dynamics) and an NPR shows that lead making an impact where it counts. Our Senate polls aren't bad either. Ned Lamont's victory has given the activist base a huge boost of confidence and energy, among many other things. The Democratic leadership has lined up behind Lamont, unifying the party and improving our message. Bush's approval rating still sucks, and our candidates are more competitive financially than at any time in recent memory (see more here). Committee fundraising looks good too. Our creativity and new infrastructure seem to be growing in leaps and bounds, and now election forecaster after election forecaster after election forecaster after election forecaster says great things are coming our way.

If you have time, read the above paragraph again, and even follow all of the links. (go to the orignal post)Reading all of this, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that we are on the cusp of a tremendous wave election in 2006. Eight-eight days before the election, the situation could hardly look better.

However, as good as things look right now, I think it is important to write a post explaining why we should not expect the situation to remain this good for the remainder of the eighty-eight days in the election season. A loss of confidence has often led to both activist and voter retrenchment for Democrats and progressives. In order to prevent that from happening this time around, we need to be aware of why the situation will tighten before it actually does. Hopefully, this will vaccinate us from disappointment and disillusionment this fall, allowing us to stay active and aware of the great potential this election holds for our cause.

This election will tighten up, and here is why:

1. Money. Markos often notes that Republicans close election strong. One of the main reasons for this is that their candidates have a lot more money than our candidates. This translates into a lot more paid media, a lot more direct mailings, a lot more yard sings--a lot more everything. That advantage in the final few weeks of a campaign will almost always cause a candidate to move up in local polls, or a party to move up in national polls. Even this year, where we are much better off financially that we have been in the past, Republicans still hold a sizable edge. Once again, this will give them the ability to close the gap as the election approaches.


2. Noise Machine. As many improvements as we have made in building progressive media, the conservative media empire still towers over us. The same can be said for their think tank apparatus, their ability to get right-wing pundits on news panels, their ability to get quoted in the media, etc. It also still translates into a superior ability to dominate the conventional wisdom narratives of our national political discourse. Our infrastructure work over the past few years has allowed us to make up ground in all of these areas, but the Republican Noise will still give Republicans an edge in driving their message through both local and national media (not to mention that they still have an edge on packaging messages anyway).


3. Conservatives coming home. A not insignificant number of people currently in the "undecided" or "other" columns in polls are conservatives who will never vote for Democrats. Right now, these people are wavering between Republicans, third-parties, and not voting. No matter what decision they end up making (and we need to help them not vote for Republicans), they are not going to vote for Democrats, and a not insignificant amount of them will come home. Once again, this will cause the race to tighten.


4. Gas Prices. Regular poll watchers all know that presidential approval is tied to gas prices. Everyone also knows that the Bush administration is marinated in the oil industry. It does not at all seem inconceivable to me that some combination of the Bush administration and its friends in the oil industry can work to lower gas prices this fall, thus helping Republican and incumbent chances in November. Watch it happen.


5. October Surprise. As we have also seen, terror alerts and other surprise news stories frequently happen when Bush's approval ratings are low, and Republicans do not hesitate to use such alerts for political gain. With Republicans facing their worst poll situation in recent memory, is it any wonder that we are at code red for the first time ever, instead of code orange, after yesterday's major British arrest? Expect more of the same as the election nears.
With these Republican advantages, it is inevitable that Republicans will close the gap between now and November. While right now we are heading toward an election along the lines of 1974, 1994 or whatever, we cannot allow our spirit to waver when these advantages cause our current, almost unbelievable advantages to narrow. Keep your head high and remember everything from the first paragraph in this post. This is a rare opportunity--the sort of opportunity that comes around once every couple of decades. No matter what happens between now and November, we have to throw everything we can muster into making as much of that opportunity manifest into reality as possible.