Al Gore on SNL Tonight (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Somebody tipped me. Then Howard-Empowered People picked that up and now they are telling us all about the diary on Kos with video of the SNL opening monologue.

"Al Gore will be a special guest on Saturday Night Live tonight. Kristin Gore is a guest writer, so this will be a good one!!!"-from a Howie-spy at the DNC.

Political This and That (UPDATED)

UPDATE II: Booman says:

I'm hearing that Rove was served papers yesterday and the announcement will be made sometime this upcoming week. More when I know it...

UPDATE: I am told by two unimpeachable sources that Howard Dean was in Seattle yesterday for "two fundraising events, and a visit with some party leaders."


1. Rove didn't get busted yesterday.


2. I'm being told it was probably Jim Dean that was seen in Seattle yesterday.


3. Our nasty, lying President has requested prime time coverage this coming Monday evening to discuss "immigration." I have opined previously here and here that this issue is another version of CRAP (Coordinated Rovian Attack Plan). Current Version: smear the Dems as weak on the issue and play the hate and/or fear card, again. It also serves to reset the "message agenda" and distract everbody from keeping track of the innumerable scandals, outrages, and lies for a short period of time.


4. More horror stories are coming soon about our loss of civil liberties as John Conyers and others are predicting.


5. I've got the weekend and a couple extra days off from my "real job" so expect a few more posts than usual.

Howard Dean-Spotted in Seattle Today

Somebody I work with has lunch with her father every week at the Tower Club in downtown Seattle. Today, she told me she saw Howard Dean there with a "small group" of people, during the lunch hour. Did I miss the announcement, or was this an "unannounced" visit? Or was it someone other than Howard Dean?

"Here we go again"

"We Are Frogs in Slow-Boiling Water

Here we go again: a story that could bring down any administration, especially considering the fabrications we've heard about the scope of the NSA's activities and the legalities thereof. But part of me suspects we'll be seeing the same old thing, a scattershot effort from Dem leaders, no genuine crisis coverage from the press, lockstep Republican apologists, and an eventual yawn as this fades into the Bush memory hole.

Remember: this is not about fighting terrorism, this is about honoring those things that make America the great nation it is. This is about honesty in government, about liberty, about our rights as Americans. This is about standing up to those who will run roughshod over the values our framers held dear, the values they enshrined in our binding document."-Peter Daou.

Discussing this latest revelation, John Conyers just said the following on Air America:

"I wonder what will we learn about next week, and we will learn something, because this administration is out of control with no regard for established ways of doing things."

Or something close to that.

"If Not Now" When, and Is it Already Too Late?

How many times can we let these things just go by?

Democrats were wrong and not strong in not immediately challenging General Hayden's nomination to head the C.I.A. on the grounds that he was one of the main architects of the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Democrats were wrong and not strong to swallow whole the GOP talking point that most Americans supported illegal wiretapping when poll after poll showed the nation equally divided.

Today Senator Leahy bravely said, "Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents.'' He also said, "Where does it stop?"

It stops when the opposition opposes. It stops when Democrats defend American citizens against an administration so dangerously incompetent that it can find no other way to go after the terrorists who are trying to destroy our liberties than by destroying those same liberties themselves. am heartened by Senator Leahy joining Senator Feingold in urging his fellow Democrats to leap out of their foxholes and fight. Unfortunately, another hero of mine, Senator Obama, recently echoed the more prevailing Democratic conventional wisdom when he said that a rule of thumb in Washington is that when your opponent is failing you should do nothing, just simply get out of their way.

Senator Obama, this time, is wrong. If Democrats were coming from a position even approaching parity with the Republicans than yes, I would agree with him. And if the President were even moderately popular, than again yes it might be more prudent (though less noble) to watch the administration freefall without saying a word.

However this case is more important than politics. We are ruled by a dangerously incompetent regime willing to trample every right that hundreds of thousands of Americans have bled defending. A regime dangerously incompetent enough to concoct one war for their own ends when they were deliriously popular, and now dangerously incompetent and desperate enough to start another when their popularity has drained.

In describing the Bush administration "Orwellian" is a euphemism.-Trey Ellis on The Huffington Post.

Howard Dean Admits He Made a Mistake

"I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the Party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide. The Democratic Party remains committed to equal protection under the law for all Americans. How we achieve that goal continues to be the subject of a contentious debate, but our Party continues to oppose constitutional amendments that seek to short circuit the debate on how to achieve equality for all Americans."-from the original post on The Hotline via MyDD.

Rahm Needs a Kick in the Ass

Matt Stoller on MyDD:

Rahm Emanuel cursed out Dean yesterday for inadequate DNC spending on his priorities, and he's tracking the Presidential candidates to see how helpful they are for DCCC fundraising. The leaders are Kerry, Clark, and Gore (though Emanuel has come out publicly for Hillary Clinton). This is in addition to the point system Emanuel has implemented for House members. This is basically what Tom Delay did to cement control and discipline in the Republican caucus, liberally sprinkle candidates with money and punish those who can't or won't raise it. I think it's going to be harder to implement this system of control on the Democratic side, but I don't see many other attempts to build a political machine that can wield power.

My guess is that Emanuel's verbal attack on Dean is a mixture of anger and CYA in case the Democrats don't take the House. There's a lot of self-promotion going on with his tough image, and he's a bully. I know credible people who have been thrown out of his office for not hewing to his ideological brew. I've also heard that his DCCC doesn't listen particularly well to local leaders, claims credit for pretty much everything, and tends to throw its weight around. The big single issue groups operating out of DC often look to the DCCC endorsement to see whether they should come in on a race (see Duckworth, Tammy).

At the same time, if your perspective is simply that of a partisan, I kind of have to ask, so what? Emanuel is an effective fundraiser and competent at the mechanics of elections. He's a smart operator in the House, and it's clear that House Democrats desperately need a system for wielding power and a set of incentives/disincentives for cooperating with each other and acting as partisans.

Still, this anger is silly. Emanuel has to know that Dean was elected DNC Chair on a promise to not spend money on behalf of national committees like the DCCC. He also has to know that he could have intervened during the DNC Chair race, but he did not. He's probably kicking himself for allowing Dean in there.

I worked on that race against Dean, but it's very much a good thing Dean is following through on his promises to state parties. I'm not a fan of Dean's recent pandering (neither is Taylor Marshor John Aravosis) and his lie about the Democratic Party platform, but promises should be kept. And Dean won that race fair and square on a platform of spending money in the states and not on a cycle basis, so bitching now about how he spends the DNC's money is sour grapes.

Howie opinion: How come nobody in the "traditional media" kicks Rahm's ass when he does stuff like this, but are perfectly willing to attack Howard Dean or (locally) Dwight Pelz when they say something critical of another Democrat?

From Your Lips To God's Ears

"Celebrity pundits are on their way out":

"The brief reign of the celebrity pundit began with cable TV and appears to be ending with the Internet. Washington socialites are quickly being replaced in public esteem by politically oriented bloggers like Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, the inimitable Digby, Glenn Greenwald, Billmon, Atrios and many others. As Greg Sargent recently pointed out in The American Prospect, “Readers are choosing between the words on a screen offered by Klein and other commentators and the words on a screen offered by bloggers on the basis of one thing alone: The quality of the work.” Sure, there’s a danger of groupthink. That’s true of all mass media. But there’s also a fierce independence and an intellectual honesty among the best online commentators that are making Washington courtiers awfully nervous."-Gene Lyons.

Feingold: "Stand up to Bush"

"Sen. Russ Feingold, a potential antiwar candidate in the 2008 presidential field, urged fellow Democrats on Monday to show more backbone in challenging President Bush on Iraq.

"We must get out of our political foxholes and be willing to clearly and specifically point out what a strategic error the Iraq invasion has been," Feingold, D-Wis., told a National Press Club audience.

He said some Democrats in Congress gave in to "intimidation" by the Bush administration when they voted to authorize the war in 2002, and warned: "If we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in ’06 and we will lose in ’08, just like we did in ’02 and ’04."

In March, Feingold called for the censure of Bush over the administration’s warrantless surveillance program. So far, only two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have signed on as co-sponsors.

Feingold, who also has proposed that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year, rejected criticism that such a move could lead to chaos.

"I believe the situation would probably get better" if U.S. troops left, he said. "The lesson of insurgency is when the occupying power leaves, it tends to lessen, rather than increase, the level of violence."-AP.

Howard Dean and the Christian Broadcasting Network

"Howard Dean: Democrats Have Much in Common with Evangelicals" is the headline of the story on their interview.

CBN News asked Dean, how important is it to tap into this value voter/evangelical community to win in 2006?

"I think it's important, and I think it's a good idea for the Democratic Party anyway," Dean said. "Even if we didn't even need evangelicals to win, we ought to be communicating to the evangelical community for two reasons. First, you shouldn't [exclude them], and [if you do], you're not going to do a good job. You shouldn't govern if you're ignoring a whole section of the population."

He continued, "The second reason is that Democrats need to talk about their values. Values motivate lots of voters, not just evangelicals. Values motivate all kinds of voters. People want to know who you are." He added, “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important.”

Matt Stoller on MyDD accuses Dean of selling out the gay community in order to pander to the Christian conservatives.

I'm sure that there will be lots of people out there willing to tolerate this level of stupid pandering because they assume that this is both politically wise (it isn't) and that Howard Dean has his fingers crossed. I'm sorry but I don't play that game. I expect leaders to be strong and principled, not craven. Evangelicals may vote for Democrats this year, or they may stay home. But it will have nothing to do with outreach like this. They are simply embarrassed at what they voted for in George Bush. No one likes being on team failure, and that includes the Christian right. You beat failure by projecting strength, not by pandering.

I'm anticipating a lot of whining about this post from both Dean supporters and Democrats uncomfortable with gay rights. Listen, if you really want Democrats to be 'on message', or to 'stand for something', or to promote our 'real values', or any other cliche out there about what ails the party this is the moment when you call bullshit. It's easy to stand for lower gas prices. It's easy to stand against selling national security assets to Dubai. But that's not when your brand is created. Strong leadership happens when you do something hard, when you make choices, and when your values matter sufficiently that you are willing to stand up for them.

Howie opinion: It's going to be a long, painful journey to November.

The "Angry" People

Peter Daou nails it again

The 'angry' bloggers, the so-called Bush-haters, have played a pivotal and (dare I say) historic role during the Bush presidency. They've fought tooth and nail to protect the Constitution from an unprecedented power grab and they've stepped in and spoken the truth while so many in the media and the political establishment have abandoned any semblance of integrity and rolled over for this White House.

Let me explain. In recent months, several prominent media and political figures have had run-ins with left-leaning bloggers (examples here, here, here, here, and here). Their reactions have been eerily similar. Greg Sargent describes it accurately: "In recent weeks, one member after another of the D.C. media establishment has gone out of his way to depict bloggers as hysterical, angry and destructive. To hear them tell it, bloggers sitting at their computers are akin to squalling brats in high-chairs chucking baby food at their sober, serious elders -- i.e., major figures at the established news organizations."

Goldy has a different view. Roger Fulton asks: "We can all recognize a CRAP (Coordinated Rovian Attack Plan) by now, right?"

Swiftboating the Dems

Peter Daou asks

Why Are Journalists So Petrified by the Thought of a Democratic Congress? Jane Hamsher writes, "We'll leave aside for now the high hilarity of George Stephanopoulos inviting Tom DeLay on to talk about ethics, and letting him blather on about corrupt Democrats virtually without challenge (I can think of 20 things a good journalist would've started hammering DeLay about on the spot, but obviously DeLay took the gig because he had no fear of anything like that happening). Howard Dean appropriately scoffed at the absurdity of the situation, but then came Tim Russert recounting practically the same narrative DeLay had recited. So did Mara Liasson. The thing that seems to have them all wilting on the fainting couch and grabbing for the laudanum is the prospect of Democrats gaining a majority and starting impeachment proceedings, or even launching a few badly needed investigations."

I have to think that Peter is asking this question in the rhetorical mode, as we have seen Tim and Mara in action before. George can go either way, depending on the weather.

Other Views of Maria

Why Cantwell's Position On the War is a Non-Position

Atrios put his finger squarely on the reason I find Maria Cantwell's "year of transition" non-position position on the Iraq War to be completely and utterly unsatisfying:

The real issue isn't what Democrats are saying about Iraq now. The real issue is knowing what they're going to say in October, and laying the foundation now to do that. In the plan:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Early November is pretty near the end of 2006 and at that time, I imagine, Iraq will still be shit. If 2006 fails to be "a year of significant transition" what will Democrats be saying then? Forget the unified message now, what will be the unified message then?

Cantwell voted for the war. She, along with a lot of other Democrats (but not Patty Murray) was wrong. There were no WMDs. We didn't need to go to war.

Unlike many other Democrats, Cantwell doesn't seem able to admit that the war -- and her vote for it -- were both mistakes, and that leaves her unable to put forth any ideas about how to move forward out of this quagmire. Instead, we're stuck with her mouthing half-baked non-messages from Party HQ.

C'mon! Where's the kind of leadership you've shown on energy and the environment? You can do better.

And, yes, I'm still voting for you.-Evergreen Politics.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah

Arthur (Rueger)at Washblog met with Maria Cantwell and it went OK.

Maria has not "Crawforded" those who want her to explain. Whether or not I liked her answers is immaterial.

Furthermore, I did not see an imperial senator full of poise, polish and indifference whose focus was on "yeah yeah yeah-ing" her way through an endurance contest she could not avoid. At one point, Lietta literally expressed her sense of wanting to speak to Cantwell "woman to woman" and declared that if she (Maria) truly was not "impersonal", the impersonal manner in which she has been coming across has been destructive to her image. The reaction was visible.-Washington State Political Report.

Pelosi on Meet the Press

I don't watch MTP for the obvious reasons, including my desire to deprive Russert of one more viewer. But Nancy Pelosi handled him pretty well.

"MR. RUSSERT: ...the Democrats have ethical challenges, too, correct?

REP. PELOSI: No, no. This—you’re talking two completely different things.

You’re talking about some Democrats who have an ethical challenge. Mr.
Jefferson—I’ve asked for the Ethics Committee to investigate Mr. Jefferson. You have never seen a Republican ask for an ethics investigation of the Republicans. You’re talking about some individual challenges that those people will have to deal with.

On the Republican side, you have what The Washington Post called a “criminal enterprise” operating out of the Republican leader’s office. You have corruption, cronyism and incompetence which has cost—has a cost to the American people. Whether again, price at the pump, of, of price at the pharmacy, or of Katrina. This is—has an impact on the American people. It’s a part of a system. It is quite different from personal indiscretions which have—and violations of the law, if so, in Mr. Jefferson’s case. But that is something quite different than a system that is condoned, enabled and—by the Republican caucus in its entirety and they—because they benefit from it.-from MSNBC.

For another view on Pelosi's performance, Stephen Kaus says

As Jeffrey Skilling testified at his trial a couple of weeks ago, he somehow came to be asked about the jury consultant his team was using. Skilling acknowledged using the consultant, saying that "She is helpful in trying to help me describe to people what I am trying to say."

Does Nancy Pelosi have anyone like this?

She must, but either that person has a completely tin ear or Ms. Pelosi is incapable of taking direction. Time and time again, she launched wooly, nonresponsive answers to Tim Russert's questions on Meet the Press. And the questions were not that hard, as Howard Dean proved over at ABC on essentially the same topic of what would the Democrats do if they won.- MSNBC.

"Pictures from KC convention"

Dinazina has the pictures and some words in response to the Seattle Times account.

Maria Cantwell's grand entrance was accompanied by an 8-piece marching drum corps and plenty of cheerleaders. (I was about to write "trumpeted" but there were no non-percussive instruments.) That may have masked the fact that (my guess) at least a quarter of those described in the P-I (I believe it was The Times-Howie) article as the "party faithful" were not fans of hers. Those delegates & party members held Wilson signs, talked at length with Wilson, applauded Cantwell only politely or not at all, or remained seated when others rose in ovation. A few even called out critical remarks during the extended introduction by her "close friend" from NARAL.

She did give a rousing speech with a strong, confident voice. To her credit, she acknowledged upfront that the party is a big tent with differing points of view: "So I wish Mark Wilson luck, but not too much." Yes, the so-called "Year of Transition" for Iraq that bugs David so much was mentioned, but mostly she spoke about reproductive rights, education, and energy policy, if I recall.

I thought Mark's (that's Mark Wilson-Howie) presentation was the smoothest I've seen him. He had only 3 minutes to speak, and had timed it perfectly. He started out thanking the party for receiving "even an outsider like myself" graciously, and giving him the privilege of speaking to the delegates. A little about his own family and background as a Marine and Veteran for Peace, then on to issues. He said that if you want a bi-partisan politician, vote for Cantwell, because he intends to be an obstructionist to the Bush agenda.

The other candidate for WA Senator was Hong Tran. She made good points, but sounded a little nervous and went over the 3- minute time limit. She was about to be cut off abruptly, but many audience members called out "let her finish!"-from Washblog.

Help get Darcy Burner “Netroots Endorsed”

Like Andrew says, go to Cherisses' comment on MyDD and post a reply expressing your support!

You Wanna Plan?

Here's your stinkin' Plan:

"The Iraq war has provided a policy debacle at least on par with the health-care issue, Armey said. But Democrats cannot offer policy alternatives because, he said, Americans remain leery of their prescriptions for an activist government and higher taxes.

To counter that perception, House Democrats have formulated a plan of action for their first week in control. Their leaders said a Democratic House would vote quickly to raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. It would roll back a provision in the Republicans' Medicare prescription-drug benefit that prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating prices for drugs offered under the program.

It would vote to fully implement the recommendations of the bipartisan panel convened to shore up homeland security in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

And it would reinstate lapsed rules that say any tax cuts or spending increases have to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases to prevent the deficit from growing."-Washington Post via the Seattle Times.

"Cantwell speaks" and Critics Respond

"In Seattle for the weekend, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell got a rousing reception from 400-500 of the party faithful at the King County Democratic Party convention.

She didn't say much about Iraq there, but afterward, she talked about the war, an issue on which she differs with some of the city's liberal activists. She met privately downtown with a delegation representing military families opposed to the war and calling for an early troop withdrawal.

In a brief speech, Cantwell called for the protection of women's rights from conservative attack and a push for alternative energy sources. On Iraq, she stuck with a slogan — "In Iraq, 2006 must be a year of transition" — that her critics deride as too vague.

"What does it mean? Transition to what? ... There's no clear definition," said Lietta Ruger of Military Families Speak Out, one of those who met with Cantwell afterward and who wants a clear and short timeline for troop withdrawal.

Before she went onstage at the convention, Cantwell gave a smile and a handshake to her latest challenger, Hong Tran, 40, a public-interest lawyer, who declared her Senate candidacy as a Democrat Saturday. Tran was born in Vietnam and fled Saigon in 1975 as the U.S. military left the city. In an interview, she called Cantwell's position on the Iraq war indefensible.

"Maria Cantwell represents for me what the Democratic Party should not stand for," Tran said.

Tran joins Mark Wilson, another lesser-known anti-war candidate, on the Democratic side of the Senate race against Cantwell.

In an interview after her speech, Cantwell elaborated on her position. She said her priority is to push for international support in both building up and securing the economic infrastructure in Iraq — especially the oil fields — and with the training and deployment of Iraqi forces to replace U.S. troops.

She insisted that with a multinational effort, one that might draw in the United Nations, the European powers and the Arab League, those objectives could be achieved and substantial progress made this year.

Whether people agreed or not about going into Iraq, you have to agree you want to see that be a stable region of the world," she said. "Everybody should support getting the Iraqi people on their feet."

Rejecting demands that she make a clear call simply to withdraw, she said very few of her critics truly believe that the troops can be pulled out quickly.

Cantwell left the convention to meet with exactly such critics: members of Military Families Speak Out and Gold Star Families Speak Out, two activist groups that claim 3,000 members nationwide.

Interviewed before the meeting, delegation members said they would press Cantwell to support an explicit near-term withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want the troops out now," said Ruger, of Bay Center, Pacific County, in the southwest corner of the state. "We understand there's a withdrawal process. ... It can be a matter of weeks to months." Her son-in-law and nephew both served in Iraq.

Ruger's group flatly rejects the argument that U.S. troops are needed to prevent anarchy in Iraq.

"The problem in that nation is the ongoing U.S. occupation," said Stacy Bannerman, of Kent. The wife of a national guardsman, she is the author of an anti-war book, "When the War Came Home."

"We need to remove the cause of the pressure, which is American forces," she said.

Speaking partway through the meeting with the military families, Cantwell spokeswoman Charla Neuman said the meeting was going "pretty well, considering it's an emotional topic" for the families involved. But Neuman said the group was very skeptical of Cantwell's contention that real progress in promoting Iraqi self-reliance is possible in the near term.

After the meeting with Cantwell, Arthur Ruger, Lietta Ruger's husband and a Vietnam veteran, described it as powerful. "It was very frank. She spoke openly," he said, "She has made her position clear. She stuck to that."

"It was a very intense two hours," he added. "Even if she doesn't change her position, definitely she's got things to think about."

Asked if he would be voting for Cantwell, Ruger said yes, that had never been in doubt. He said he has not voted Republican since 2000 and the meeting Saturday reinforced his desire to vote for Cantwell."-Seattle Times.

Dems Fighting Back: Two Ways

House Minority Leader Pelosi "outlines Democratic strategy for 2006 elections" and "2 in Congress rip Bush on bypassing of laws."

Pelosi:

According to the Congresswoman, even liberal papers often refused space for Democrats out of fear of losing access to Republicans, who controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. "It was across the board," the Congresswoman said. "We couldn't get the established media to really tell the tale,."

Grassroots, Netroots become battlegrounds

"That's why we had to have over a thousand town meetings--we couldn't get anything in," she intimated. "We don't have the votes, people think we can't win, so why bother talking to us. That's the attitude around here."

Part of this plan to bypass mainstream media included using blogs.
Pelosi implied that giving a story to Internet outlets, who then trump the mainstream media, is not only a means of getting a story out, but also a way to spur mainstream news sites into action, via competition.

"We had to leave Washington," she concluded, "to innoculate the public to what George Bush was doing and expose them to the horrors he was proposing."

Taking the hits

A more controversial aspect of the strategy was staying silent on alternative policies while the public reacted to Republican legislation.

Movement toward any agenda, Pelosi told callers, required first, "Laying a foundation, tak[ing] the Bush numbers down before we could do anything. For us, it was about unifying the Democrats, about taking their numbers down, about getting our numbers up in the polls."

According to public opinion polsters, this strategy seems to have been met with success. "We're up fifteen, sixteen, seventeen points in the polls without people even knowing what the plan is. We've taken the mockery--'Oh, they don't have a plan'--in order to lay the groundwork.

"Our very constitution, our budget, our future, everything is at risk.
If we have to take the heat on certain issues, we're willing to do that."

"We got the results we wanted," Pelosi feels. "Now, we're ready to go positive. [We have] a full media plan so that the American people will know who we are, what we stand for."

Pelosi says that the Democrats' vision for America started to go public in January, with a focus on, "honest leadership and real government. We next went to real security... In June, we go to our plan for family security--jobs, [and] the environment."

In the coming days, Democrats plan to spolight the fight against a penalty seniors late to sign up for a prescription drug plan will have to pay. The penalty, Pelosi explained, is a 1% increase for each month late--and continues for the rest of the recipients' lives. The Congresswoman cited a GAO report that stated 60% of confused seniors who called in to inquire about which plan best suited them received the wrong information from Medicare operators. "Handmaidens of the pharmaceutical industry put together a corrupt plan," she blasted. "And [seniors] are expected to pay for it the rest of their lives."

The party, according to Pelosi, plans to push the case that increased costs on seniors also affect the generation in the middle: adults with children and elderly parents that both require financial support.

The Democrats' Rural caucus also intends to announce next week more detailed information about the party's energy independence plan, which aims for energy independence in 10 years' time. "We're going to send our energy dollars to the midwest instead of the middle east," she hinted.

A reason to win

But the most important issue of the coming election, according to Pelosi, is also one of the least discussed: oversight.

"The Republicans during the Clinton years had done nothing but oversight of the intelligence," Pelosi explained. "Now that Bush is president, they've done no oversight."

When a caller interjected a note of concern, Pelosi fumed back in agreement, "It is dangerous!"

"I voted against the war, and sixty percent of the Democrats did, too.
The intelligence was not there." The Democratic leader reiterated, "For people who say, 'If you saw what I saw'--it wasn't there."

"There have been no oversight hearings on Iraq, no oversight on Abu Ghraib," she marveled. "If there was one issue to win the election [for], it would be the power of subpoena--the American people should know."

Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA)and Edward J. Markey (D-MA:

Two Massachusetts congressmen announced yesterday that they will sponsor a resolution to protest President Bush's assertions that he is not bound to obey more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years, saying that Congress must push back against the White House's expansive interpretation of executive authority.
Representatives Barney Frank of Newton and Edward J. Markey of Malden, both Democrats, said in a joint statement that Bush's legal claims are part of an ''alarming pattern" in which the administration is ''blatantly and deliberately violating the fundamental constitutional principle of the right of Congress to make the laws of this country."

Reaction has been mounting in Congress to a report in Sunday's Boston Globe detailing the interpretations Bush has quietly entered into the federal record when signing bills into law. Since taking office, Bush has asserted the authority to ignore more than 750 new statutes because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

We believe that this resolution will give every member of the House the opportunity to make clear whether or not he or she stands behind the fundamental principles of government set forward in the US Constitution," they said. ''In the absence of such action, we fear that the president and his appointees will take silence as acquiescence and continue to flout constitutional principle."

"Cantwell's stance on Iraq keeps volunteers away, party chief says"

David Postman writes this in today's Seattle Times.

"Sen. Maria Cantwell's continued support for the occupation of Iraq — and her lack of regret for voting for the invasion in 2002 — is making it hard to recruit volunteers for her re-election campaign, the chairman of the state Democratic Party says.

The liberal activists who dominate the party's grass roots oppose the war and have been looking for Cantwell to distance herself from President Bush's position.

"Definitely right now there are a lot of activists who are not signing up to work on her campaign, and that's very clear," state party Chairman Dwight Pelz said Thursday.

Cantwell said she hasn't seen that problem. She says she has spoken out about the war and outlined her position, including a consistent drumbeat for better international financial and political support for the new Iraqi government. But she says that message gets lost in the increasing opposition to the war.

"You just communicate the things that you can and hope that people understand you have a level of concern for the direction [of the war] and you are paying attention," Cantwell said in an interview Thursday.

Cantwell is making some effort to reach out to those voters. On Saturday she will meet with a group of anti-war demonstrators who staged a sit-in at her Seattle office last week. She published a guest column in The Seattle Times Thursday on her stance on the war, though it added few details and does not appear to have assuaged the anti-war forces.

"That's the complaint people have had with Cantwell since the beginning — she seems to have planted herself, boxed herself in, and has not been willing to move," said Howard Gale, one of the protesters who staged the sit-in.

No public regret

Michael Meehan, a top aide to Cantwell, said the senator has made a series of comments and appearances in recent weeks related to her stance on the war, including releasing a statement last week after a White House visit to discuss Iraq.

He said critics are wrong to say she won't talk about the issue. But he made clear Cantwell is not going to offer the show of public regret some anti-war activists want.

"Some people have said they made the wrong vote. She is not a person that says that," Meehan said. "She is a person who says, 'That was three years ago. There are 9,100 troops from Washington state on the ground there now. We have 138,000 men and women in harm's way. We gave them a job and we better give them what they need to do that job.' "

Cantwell also will not call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as others have. "She thinks that's a symbolic gesture," Meehan said, because ultimately the president sets the policy and any replacement for Rumsfeld would carry out the same orders.

Pelz said anti-war Democrats will vote for Cantwell in November in her race against Republican Mike McGavick, but the campaign can't depend on them to knock on doors, make telephone calls or help with other chores usually done by volunteers.

That point was made recently on the popular local liberal blog washblog.com. Arthur Ruger, a state employees union leader, wrote about what he called Cantwell's "blind and proud unwillingness to recognize a foolish and cowardly political act" in voting for the war.

But he said tough questions about the war should not be seen as opposition to her re-election. "I'm going to vote for Maria but she gets no free pass from me," Ruger wrote.

Cantwell's position reflects what Pelz sees as a broader problem among Democrats in D.C.

"Their inability to have a sharper message on Iraq is hurting our recruitment of volunteers," he said. "Those people tend to be highly passionate Democrats and they feel strongly about the war."

Pelz said he recently delivered that message to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

"Year of transition"

Cantwell voted to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002. Of the three Democrats in the Washington congressional delegation to vote that way, Cantwell stands alone today as having expressed no regrets. Congressmen Norm Dicks of Bremerton and Adam Smith of Tacoma both have said their votes were a mistake.

Cantwell also has not joined other former war supporters such as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who last month said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq this year.

Cantwell said 2006 needs to be "a year of transition" in Iraq and she supports beginning to bring troops home this year. But she hasn't backed any firm deadline for withdrawal.

Still, after last week's White House visit, Cantwell said she was encouraged by news that as many as 30,000 U.S. troops could be home by the end of the year, but added, "It is a good start, but we need to see more."

She is critical of Bush's leadership in trying to build international support for the new Iraqi government. And she said once the government is in place, it should convene an international conference with the Arab League and the United Nations to "ensure regional peace."

Cantwell said that in a 2003 trip to Iraq she was the only one of a seven-member Senate delegation to meet with local United Nations officials and push for greater international involvement in rebuilding the country.

Praising Bush in 2002

At the time of the 2002 vote authorizing the war, Cantwell praised Bush's efforts to win international support to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The anti-war protesters, including an Iraq war veteran, the father of a soldier killed in the war and others, say they don't expect Cantwell to adopt their position of an immediate withdrawal. But they want her to explain publicly why she won't.

Protester Joe Colgan, whose 30-year-old son, Benjamin, was killed in Baghdad by a roadside bomb in 2003, said he saw Cantwell on TV this week talking about gas prices.

"She was very knowledgeable and came across far different than she does with us," he said. "She was a lot more confident. She stated her position, bam, bam, bam, bam."

But in discussions about the war, he said, "she won't make a clean statement and that really bothers us."

Colgan said he doesn't know if he'll vote for Cantwell this fall. But, he said, "We'll be a thorn in her side" until Election Day if necessary.

Colgan said he's unhappy with others in the congressional delegation, too. He wishes Democratic Sen. Patty Murray would be more outspoken, even though she did vote against the war in 2002.

But this being a political year, the focus is on Cantwell.

"We're just picking on Maria because she's running for re-election," Colgan said. "If you lost a kid in this war, and thought it was wrong from the start, the actions of our representatives are almost sinful. It's hard to take day after day."