Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror'

Geov Parrish talks to The Man:

"For over 40 years, MIT professor Noam Chomsky has been one of the world's leading intellectual critics of U.S. foreign policy. Today, with America's latest imperial adventure in trouble both politically and militarily, Chomsky -- who turned 77 last month -- vows not to slow down "as long as I'm ambulatory." I spoke with him by phone, on Dec. 9 and again on Dec. 20, from his office in Cambridge.

Geov Parrish: Is George Bush in political trouble? And if so, why?

Noam Chomsky: George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, "How can you criticize it? You all voted for it." And, yeah, they're basically correct.

How could the Democrats distinguish themselves at this point, given that they've already played into that trap?

Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Take, for example, take your pick, say for example health care. Probably the major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population is in favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been true for a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned in the press -- it's called politically impossible, or "lacking political support," which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it, the pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them? Well, Democrats are the same. Clinton came up with some cockamamie scheme which was so complicated you couldn't figure it out, and it collapsed.

Kerry in the last election, the last debate in the election, October 28 I think it was, the debate was supposed to be on domestic issues. And the New York Times had a good report of it the next day. They pointed out, correctly, that Kerry never brought up any possible government involvement in the health system because it "lacks political support." It's their way of saying, and Kerry's way of understanding, that political support means support from the wealthy and the powerful. Well, that doesn't have to be what the Democrats are. You can imagine an opposition party that's based on popular interests and concerns.

Given the lack of substantive differences in the foreign policies of the two parties --

Or domestic.

Yeah, or domestic. But I'm setting this up for a foreign policy question. Are we being set up for a permanent state of war?

I don't think so. Nobody really wants war. What you want is victory. Take, say, Central America. In the 1980s, Central America was out of control. The U.S. had to fight a vicious terrorist war in Nicaragua, had to support murderous terrorist states in El Salvador and Guatemala, and Honduras, but that was a state of war. All right, the terrorists succeeded. Now, it's more or less peaceful. So you don't even read about Central America any more because it's peaceful. I mean, suffering and miserable, and so on, but peaceful. So it's not a state of war. And the same elsewhere. If you can keep people under control, it's not a state of war.

Take, say, Russia and Eastern Europe. Russia ran Eastern Europe for half a century, almost, with very little military intervention. Occasionally they'd have to invade East Berlin, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, but most of the time it was peaceful. And they thought everything was fine -- run by local security forces, local political figures, no big problem. That's not a permanent state of war.

In the War on Terror, however, how does one define victory against a tactic? You can't ever get there.

There are metrics. For example, you can measure the number of terrorist attacks. Well, that's gone up sharply under the Bush administration, very sharply after the Iraq war. As expected -- it was anticipated by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war would increase the likelihood of terror. And the post-invasion estimates by the CIA, National Intelligence Council, and other intelligence agencies are exactly that. Yes, it increased terror. In fact, it even created something which never existed -- new training ground for terrorists, much more sophisticated than Afghanistan, where they were training professional terrorists to go out to their own countries. So, yeah, that's a way to deal with the War on Terror, namely, increase terror. And the obvious metric, the number of terrorist attacks, yeah, they've succeeded in increasing terror.

The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. It's a minor consideration. So invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror. And the same with other things. Take, say, nuclear terror. The American intelligence systems estimate that the likelihood of a "dirty bomb," a dirty nuclear bomb attack in the United States in the next ten years, is about 50 percent. Well, that's pretty high. Are they doing anything about it? Yeah. They're increasing the threat, by increasing nuclear proliferation, by compelling potential adversaries to take very dangerous measures to try to counter rising American threats.

This is even sometimes discussed. You can find it in the strategic analysis literature. Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We're told that they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that's not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.

By people who knew what they were doing.

Yeah, people who knew what they were doing. It meant that they were taking the high-precision equipment that you can use for nuclear weapons and missiles, dangerous biotoxins, all sorts of stuff. Nobody knows where it went, but, you know, you hate to think about it. Well, that's increasing the threat of terror, substantially. Russia has sharply increased its offensive military capacity in reaction to Bush's programs, which is dangerous enough, but also to try to counter overwhelming U.S. dominance in offensive capacity. They are compelled to ship nuclear missiles all over their vast territory. And mostly unguarded. And the CIA is perfectly well aware that Chechen rebels have been casing Russian railway installations, probably with a plan to try to steal nuclear missiles. Well, yeah, that could be an apocalypse. But they're increasing that threat. Because they don't care that much.

Same with global warming. They're not stupid. They know that they're increasing the threat of a serious catastrophe. But that's a generation or two away. Who cares? There's basically two principles that define the Bush administration policies: stuff the pockets of your rich friends with dollars, and increase your control over the world. Almost everything follows from that. If you happen to blow up the world, well, you know, it's somebody else's business. Stuff happens, as Rumsfeld said.

You've been tracking U.S. wars of foreign aggression since Vietnam, and now we're in Iraq. Do you think there's any chance in the aftermath, given the fiasco that it's been, that there will be any fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy? And if so, how would it come about?

Well, there are significant changes. Compare, for example, the war in Iraq with 40 years ago, the war in Vietnam. There's quite significant change. Opposition to the war in Iraq is far greater than the much worse war in Vietnam. Iraq is the first war I think in the history of European imperialism, including the U.S., where there was massive protest before the war was officially launched. In Vietnam it took four or five years before there was any visible protest. Protest was so slight that nobody even remembers or knows that Kennedy attacked South Vietnam in 1962. It was a serious attack. It was years later before protest finally developed.

What do you think should be done in Iraq?

Well, the first thing that should be done in Iraq is for us to be serious about what's going on. There is almost no serious discussion, I'm sorry to say, across the spectrum, of the question of withdrawal. The reason for that is that we are under a rigid doctrine in the West, a religious fanaticism, that says we must believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq even if its main product was lettuce and pickles, and the oil resources of the world were in Central Africa. Anyone who doesn't believe that is condemned as a conspiracy theorist, a Marxist, a madman, or something. Well, you know, if you have three gray cells functioning, you know that that's perfect nonsense. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it has enormous oil resources, mostly untapped, and it's right in the heart of the world's energy system. Which means that if the U.S. manages to control Iraq, it extends enormously its strategic power, what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls its critical leverage over Europe and Asia. Yeah, that's a major reason for controlling the oil resources -- it gives you strategic power. Even if you're on renewable energy you want to do that. So that's the reason for invading Iraq, the fundamental reason.

Now let's talk about withdrawal. Take any day's newspapers or journals and so on. They start by saying the United States aims to bring about a sovereign democratic independent Iraq. I mean, is that even a remote possibility? Just consider what the policies would be likely to be of an independent sovereign Iraq. If it's more or less democratic, it'll have a Shiite majority. They will naturally want to improve their linkages with Iran, Shiite Iran. Most of the clerics come from Iran. The Badr Brigade, which basically runs the South, is trained in Iran. They have close and sensible economic relationships which are going to increase. So you get an Iraqi/Iran loose alliance. Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a Shiite population which has been bitterly oppressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. And any moves toward independence in Iraq are surely going to stimulate them, it's already happening. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. Okay, so you can just imagine the ultimate nightmare in Washington: a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of Washington and probably turning toward the East, where China and others are eager to make relationships with them, and are already doing it. Is that even conceivable? The U.S. would go to nuclear war before allowing that, as things now stand.

Now, any discussion of withdrawal from Iraq has to at least enter the real world, meaning, at least consider these issues. Just take a look at the commentary in the United States, across the spectrum. How much discussion do you see of these issues? Well, you know, approximately zero, which means that the discussion is just on Mars. And there's a reason for it. We're not allowed to concede that our leaders have rational imperial interests. We have to assume that they're good-hearted and bumbling. But they're not. They're perfectly sensible. They can understand what anybody else can understand. So the first step in talk about withdrawal is: consider the actual situation, not some dream situation, where Bush is pursuing a vision of democracy or something. If we can enter the real world we can begin to talk about it. And yes, I think there should be withdrawal, but we have to talk about it in the real world and know what the White House is thinking. They're not willing to live in a dream world.

How will the U.S. deal with China as a superpower?

What's the problem with China?

Well, competing for resources, for example.

NC: Well, if you believe in markets, the way we're supposed to, compete for resources through the market. So what's the problem? The problem is that the United States doesn't like the way it's coming out. Well, too bad. Who has ever liked the way it's coming out when you're not winning? China isn't any kind of threat. We can make it a threat. If you increase the military threats against China, then they will respond. And they're already doing it. They'll respond by building up their military forces, their offensive military capacity, and that's a threat. So, yeah, we can force them to become a threat.

What's your biggest regret over 40 years of political activism? What would you have done differently?

I would have done more. Because the problems are so serious and overwhelming that it's disgraceful not to do more about it.

What gives you hope?

What gives me hope actually is public opinion. Public opinion in the United States is very well studied, we know a lot about it. It's rarely reported, but we know about it. And it turns out that, you know, I'm pretty much in the mainstream of public opinion on most issues. I'm not on some, not on gun control or creationism or something like that, but on most crucial issues, the ones we've been talking about, I find myself pretty much at the critical end, but within the spectrum of public opinion. I think that's a very hopeful sign. I think the United States ought to be an organizer's paradise.

What sort of organizing should be done to try and change some of these policies?

Well, there's a basis for democratic change. Take what happened in Bolivia a couple of days ago. How did a leftist indigenous leader get elected? Was it showing up at the polls once every four years and saying, "Vote for me!"? No. It's because there are mass popular organizations which are working all the time on everything from blocking privatization of water to resources to local issues and so on, and they're actually participatory organizations. Well, that's democracy. We're a long way from it. And that's one task of organizing."-from AlterNet.

Tell Our Senators to ''Just Say No'' to Alito (UPDATED)

They "VOTED FOR JUSTICE ROBERTS LAST TIME so they need more encouragement this time to vote against Judge Alito."-thanks to Mary Robinson for passing this along.

Sen. Maria Cantwell - WA
Website: Maria_Cantwell@cantwell.senate.gov
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Web Form

Senator Patty Murray - WA
Website: senator_murray@murray.senate.gov
Phone:(202) 224-2621
Web Form

Mary also suggests that you write the following letter (or something like it).

"Dear Senator:

I would like you to filibuster the vote for a Judge Alito confirmation. As a fallback, I would like you to help Sen. Harry Reid organize a unified NO vote of 100% of Democrats against the confirmation.

Advantages of a filibuster:

Energize the base – we will support a fight, follow it and thrill to it
Show card-carrying members of the Democratic Party that you trust us to get your back
Build trust with local members and activists, and build the party
Hold a debate that announces our values to the country, and build the party
Call the Republican bluff on the nuclear option and hope the moderates will blink. If they blink, we win but even if they don't, we could win. When we take back the Senate in '06 or '08, Democrats will then be able to take total control of the judicial nomination process and act as if the GOP doesn't even exist.
The Republican senators have to be considering that risk. You could say that the threat of nuclear option is a big bluff by bullies, and we all know what to do with bullies.

Fall back: Advantages of demanding a unified NO vote

Build trust with local members and activists, and build the party
Avoid demoralizing local activist members further by showing unity, leadership, and backbone
Help the activist members to better organize by pointing with pride to your speeches on the senate floor that explained the rejection of Judge Alito (See Sen. Maria Cantwell’s speech on her rejection of Judge Roberts that have been printed as handouts)

Sincerely,

Name & address"

If you require some inspiration, check out Paul Loeb's "FILIBUSTER BUSH, IMPEACH ALITO," from AfterDowningStreet.org.

Update: Thanks to Bev Marcus for reminding me that Maria Cantwell voted NO on Roberts.

''Impeachment Calls Grow Louder''

"Last Saturday, I went to a town hall meeting on the Iraq War and impeachment in Madison, Wisconsin. This one was sponsored by Veterans for Peace. More than 150 other events around the country on January 7 were co-sponsored by Progressive Democrats of America and afterdowningstreet.org.

In Madison, about 350 people crammed into the Labor Temple to show their enthusiastic support for bringing the troops home. But what really got the crowd going was the drive for impeachment.

The event opened with longtime peace activist Robert Kimbrough asking people to speak up so we all could hear them. But not for the sake of the NSA or the CIA or the FBI or the Pentagon, he said, adding that they all have recording devices that will pick everything up anyway.

Someone shouted behind me, “Bring it on!”

Ed Garvey, a great Wisconsin progressive, addressed the dismissive attitude that prevails in Washington and among the cynics: that impeachment is impossible, and that we’re just wasting our time talking about.

The same was said about the women’s suffrage movement and about the civil rights movement, he observed, adding that when he’s done he’d like to echo Rosa Parks, who said, after the bus boycott, “My feet may be tired but my soul’s at rest.”

I’m telling you, my friends, there’s something going on at the grassroots that the mainstream media isn’t getting.

And that’s this urgent desire by millions of Americans to defenestrate Bush from power and reclaim our democracy.

There were other overflow crowds in Sacramento, Chicago, and Livonia, Michigan, according to an inspiring report on afterdowningstreet.org.

The move in Congress, headed by John Conyers, is also picking up co-sponsors here and there.

“A total of eight U.S. House members have co-sponsored Resolution 635 to create a select committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush,” according to Atlanta Progressive News. “The co-sponsors are Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).”

Senator Russ Feingold said on January 8 that he, too, would consider impeachment. “I think there is an orderly and dignified way to find out what happened,” he said. “And if there was a legal violation there needs to be accountability,” he said, according to a report in the Vermont Guardian. “You can’t put the cart before the horse, but I would not rule out any form of accountability.”

The Vermont Guardian said Feingold added that this would include impeachment. Feingold said that Bush “probably broke the law” when he authorized the NSA to spy in the United States without warrants.

Former Representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who was on the House Judiciary Committee that impeached Richard Nixon, has come out for impeachment of Bush in The Nation. “A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law—and repeatedly violates the law—thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal of office.”

The fuel for impeachment lies at the grassroots. That is where the organizing must happen. The city council of Arcata, California, is leading the way, adopting on January 4 a resolution demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Other towns and cities will surely follow, and not just in progressive strongholds like Arcata.

Americans of almost every stripe don’t want a President wiretapping their phones or snooping on their e-mails without warrants.

Americans of almost every stripe don’t want a President who puts a crown on his head.

Time for us to tire out our feet, and save the soul of this country."-from Matthew Rothschild's report in The Progressive. Tipped by The Smirking Chimp.

''Why Don't Democrats Play to Their Base''

If you need something to help you go over this issue again, here it is.-from Booman Tribune.

''THE (Broken) TRIANGLE: Progressive Bloggers in the Wilderness'' (UPDATED)

"This, then, is the reality: progressive bloggers and online activists -- positioned on the front lines of a cold civil war -- face a thankless and daunting task: battle the Bush administration and its legions of online and offline apologists, battle the so-called "liberal" media and its tireless weaving of pro-GOP narratives, battle the ineffectual Democratic leadership, and battle the demoralization and frustration that comes with a long, steep uphill struggle.---

NSA and Alito

Last September, I published an essay laying out what I saw as the scope of blog influence, with 'influence' defined as the capacity to alter or create conventional wisdom. I used a triangle construct to set out the relationship between the netroots, the media, and the political establishment: "Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step ... Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom."

I concluded that "if the netroots alone can’t change the political landscape without the participation of the media and Democratic establishment, then there’s no point wasting precious online space blasting away at Republicans while the other sides of the triangle stand idly by."

The NSA scandal and the Alito confirmation hearings are just two more examples of the left’s broken triangle and of the isolation of the progressive netroots. A flurry of activity among bloggers, online activists, and advocacy groups is met with ponderously inept strategizing by the Democratic leadership and relentless -- and insidious -- repetition by the media of pro-GOP narratives and soundbites. It's slow-motion-car-wreck painful, and most certainly NOT where the left's triangle should be a half decade into the new millennium, as the Bush-propping machine hums and whirrs, poll numbers rise and fall, Iraq bleeds, scandal dissolves into scandal, terror speech blends into terror speech. The landscape is there for everyone to see, to analyze. Enough time has elapsed to make the system transparent. It is dismaying for netroots activists to see the same mistakes repeated despite the benefit of hindsight.

Within days of the warrantless domestic spying story breaking, I wrote a cynical piece titled The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade). It seemed clear that the lack of coordination between the netroots and the Democratic leadership, coupled with the media’s equivocation and obfuscation, would lead to another potentially impeachable offense fading and "blending into a long string of administration scandals."

Looking at the contours of previous scandals, I ventured this prediction: "Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on."

And like clockwork, we get this from CNN: Poll finds U.S. split over eavesdropping, not to mention this from Rasmussen. (One of the rare benefits of a second Bush term is that the patterns of media and political behavior that have led us to this point are more easily discerned.) I ended the NSA piece by referring to Bush's "skillful use" of scandal fatigue: "Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness.... It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future."

Which brings me to the Alito hearings, a perfect instance for the left's triangle to change conventional wisdom, to shape public opinion. But rather than a Democratic triumph, the Alito hearings have thrown the dichotomy between the netroots and the Democratic leadership into even starker relief, illustrating the profound dysfunction of the left’s triangle. As well, the depth and breadth of media complicity and the obliviousness of so many Democrats to it, is alarming. From the choreography of Specter and Alito creating the "open mind on abortion" soundbite that media outlets dutifully ran with, to the Sen. Graham/Mrs. Alito tear-fest that should have prompted Dems to slam the Republicans for bringing the Judge's wife to tears but instead turned into another Dem-bashing occasion, to the complete failure of the Democratic leadership to create the appropriate tone of outrage (in soundbite form), the chronic breakdown of the establishment and media sides of the left's triangle is apparent.

This, then, is the reality: progressive bloggers and online activists -- positioned on the front lines of a cold civil war -- face a thankless and daunting task: battle the Bush administration and its legions of online and offline apologists, battle the so-called “liberal” media and its tireless weaving of pro-GOP narratives, battle the ineffectual Democratic leadership, and battle the demoralization and frustration that comes with a long, steep uphill struggle.

How would a functioning triangle have worked?

1. Weeks before the hearings, Dem leaders would have encouraged the netroots to build a buzz about one or two pivotal Alito issues. These issues would then have been hammered repeatedly during the hearings, reiterated by Dem surrogates, by outside groups, and blasted across blogs as the hearings progressed. (Presidential power and the nexus between the NSA scandal and Alito would have been one of those issues.)

2. Weeks before the hearings, Dem leaders would have set a trap for Alito by using his obvious and easily anticipated strong point against him, namely his demeanor. The Bush tactic, as evidenced by John Roberts, is to suck the life out of the proceedings by making everything as boring and pedantic as possible. The media then obediently claims the hearings are proof of the nominee's thoughtfulness and composure. In a functioning triangle, Dems, with the help of the netroots and honest media figures, would have prepared the public by making Alito's demeanor an issue using 'question of the day' framing, as in: "Are you troubled by the gap between Alito's radical views and his matter-of-fact attitude?" or something along those lines.

3. A list of mainstream reporters, GOP shills like Norah O'Donnell and Wolf Blitzer, would have been targeted by a Dem war room: their various Bush-propping tricks (like using polls to 'prove' that Americans are "divided" and don't share liberal activists' alarm over Alito, that the hearings are boring and Alito is a shoe-in, that Democrats are pre-judging Alito but Republicans aren't, etc.) would have been laid out in a detailed memo before the hearings.

4. An army of bloggers and online activists would have been recruited to flood these reporters with complaints whenever those tricks were employed. Screen shots, video clips, caricatures, chain emails, Flash pieces, podcasts, any and all available technology would have been used to individually target reporters who peddled GOP storylines on Alito.

5. Dem leaders and surrogates would have expressed outrage at rightwing media bias and demanded fair coverage. Every media appearance would have included a direct slam at the press for misleading the American public about Alito and Bush's hidden agenda. Again, Alito's "composure" would have been an issue: why is he so low key when his beliefs are so radical?

That's just a small example of how the left's triangle might have worked. Unfortunately for the progressive netroots, the intricate interplay of Republican persuasion tactics, media story-telling, and 21st century information flow seems beyond the ken of most Democratic strategists and leaders. The hellish reality progressive bloggers have acknowledged and internalized is still alien to the party establishment. Dem strategy is still two parts hackneyed sloganeering and one part befuddlement over the stifling of their message.

Maybe the Democratic establishment wants it so, maybe they don't know better, but progressive bloggers and activists are starting to see the bitter reality of their isolation: the triangle is broken and they're on their own until further notice."-Peter Daou on The Huffington Post. Daou is a blogger and directed online rapid response and blog outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Tipped by BuzzFlash.

Update: The Rude Pundit comes to a similar conclusion but takes a shorter, less delicate route to get there. Tipped by Daily Dissent.

Update II: Susan Hu offers tea and sympathy on Booman Tribune.

Update III:
Jon Stahl suggests another Daou piece for our consideration, in the comments on Evergreen Politics: "The Netroots and Our Role."

"Darcy Rules"

Goldy is first out of the gate with this post on Darcy Burner:

"While Rep. Dave Reichert and the GOP House collapse under the weight of an expanding ethical crisis, 8th District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has adopted some “House Rules” of her own. Attacking Congress for putting the needs of high-powered DC lobbyists above those of taxpayers, she has enunciated a clear set of guidelines by which she and her staff will interact with lobbyists:

NO SECRET LOBBYIST MEETINGS: My office will report all meetings that any member of my staff or I have with a registered lobbyist, to be updated on my website once a week.

NO HELPING MEMBERS CASH IN: No member of Congress with whom I have served who becomes a federal registered lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after that member has left Congress.

NO HELPING LOBBYISTS CASH IN: No former member of my staff who becomes a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after they have left my employment.

NO FAMILY LOBBYISTS: No direct relation of any member of my staff or of mine who is a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my office or me.

NO LOBBYIST SPONSORED TRAVEL: All trips by my staff or me will either be official trips and thus paid by Congress or they will be paid by each person taking the trip or, if either partisan or campaign related, by my campaign funds.

NO LOBBYIST GIFTS: No gifts will be accepted by my staff or by me from any registered federal lobbyist.

COMPLIANCE: Any member of my staff who willfully violates any of these rules will be terminated.

What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means working for Burner won’t be a get-rich-quick scheme like some congressional gigs. It also means Burner’s staffers will have to work a helluva lot harder than most of their colleagues, as staffers often rely on their lobbyist buddies for position papers, talking points… even (gasp) drafting legislation.

It also means that a Congresswoman Burner would run as transparent and influence free an office as you’re likely to find in the Capitol.

Burner has challenged Reichert to adopt similar rules for the remainder of his term, and beyond. Fat chance. Reichert has proven to be a bit of an overwhelmed lightweight, captive to his professional staff and advisors, and there’s no way they’re going to let him throw them off the gravy train.

And you know what else his staff won’t ever let him do? Debate Burner. You know why? They’re afraid. (And so is he.)"

''Sen. Harry Reid's Statement on Alito Hearings''

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has issued this statement following the confirmation hearing of Judge Sam Alito: (received by e-mail)

“I have followed the Alito hearings closely. Democrats on the Committee did their jobs by asking tough questions about important issues: civil rights, privacy, environmental protections, the danger of unchecked presidential power and others. Unfortunately, Judge Alito’s responses did little to address my serious concerns about his 15-year judicial record.

“I have not forgotten that Judge Alito was only nominated after the radical right wing of the President's party forced Harriet Miers to withdraw. The right wing insisted that Justice O'Connor be replaced with a sure vote for their extreme agenda. Four days of hearings have shown that Judge Alito is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

“Senate Democrats will meet next week to discuss the nomination.”-from TalkLeft.

Alito: Coach Him, Swift Boat US (UPDATED)

"During this morning’s hearing, Sen. Russ Feingold noted that the same lawyers who created the legal justifications for Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program coached Alito about how to answer questions during the confirmation hearings:

"I’m going to say that I am still somewhat troubled by the idea that you were prepared for this hearing by some lawyers who were very much involved in promoting the purported legal justification for the NSA wiretapping program."-from the post on Think Progress. Only a United States Senator could be just "somewhat" troubled by this.

"Why are Swift Boaters -- the folks who smeared John Kerry's war record in the 2004 election -- now trying to promote Alito's nomination by capitalizing on yesterday's bizarre incident?

We're referring to this release sent out yesterday by Creative Response Concepts, an Alexandria, Va., based PR firm with deep blood lines on the far right:

The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."-from the post on ATTYTOOD.

Update: Chris Bowers on MyDD picks ups the pieces and puts them together in his post "Cry Me a Murder Board." His opening statement: "The story about Borkemada's wife crying during the hearings is getting a lot of ink today, which is yet another sign of just how well the established news media is doing its job. One thing the stories on the tears seem to miss is that she started crying during Lindsay Graham's questioning, and Lindsay Graham helped prepare Alito for the hearings. Hmmm... that seems a little fishy, doesn't it?" Tipped by News Dissector.

"Quick Review of Crashing the Gate"

"I received an early copy of Crashing the Gate by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and Jerome Armstrong and spent about an hour looking through it last night. While the entire book is interesting, the most powerful chapter by far is called "The Gravy Train" which describes how institutional forces in Washington, D.C. -- political consultants, lobbyists, fundraisers -- have prevented the Democrats from innovating and, as a result, kept them from winning elections.

You may not always agree with what Markos and Jerome blog about, but if you're a Democrat and want to regain political power in this country, you would be foolish not to read this book. It's very well done and quite convincing."-from Political Wire.

''Gore to deliver scathing speech Monday on 'constitutional crisis' in Washington''

"Former Vice President Al Gore will deliver a scathing speech Monday at Constitution Hall in Washington -- just blocks from the White House -- at which he will declare America is faced with a constitutional crisis, RAW STORY has learned.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day speech is set to take place at noon at the Daughters of the American Revolution's Constitution Hall. Gore will be introduced by onetime Georgia Republican congressman Bob Barr.

A source close to the erstwhile vice president related details of Gore's expected speech to RAW STORY Thursday. The source noted that Gore prepares the final editions of his speeches just before he delivers them, but that the tenor of the speech would focus on what the Tennessee Democrat has described as a President acting above the law.

The aide related how Gore was framing his address.

“We are at a point of constitutional crisis," the aide said, relating how Gore has articulated his speech. "The president who has violated the law is acting above the law. It’s a wakeup call for Congress, the American people and the courts. If we continue down this road we will have a different constitution.

"Nixon’s quote about if the president does it it is legal, it’s kind of like Bush saying, if it’s about national security, it’s legal. This is going to be called transpartisan; it’s not about who your party is, it’s about what America stands for."

Gore, the source said, will talk about the framers of the constitution.

"You can’t defend freedom while abandoning it at home," the source said, speaking of Gore's planned remarks. "The founders thought about this. They didn’t want a king, that’s why they didn’t set up a system to anoint a king. We have checks and balances in this country and we cannot abandon them."-from RAW STORY.

Murray and Gregoire endorse Pelz for Dem Chair

"Dear Central Committee member-

Our party faces a very important election that will help determine our
future and our effectiveness. After many successful years, our party chair
Paul Berendt, is stepping down. Later this month you will be asked to pick a
replacement for Paul. Few other choices you make in the next year will hold
greater consequence for Washington State Democrats and whether or not we
continue our record of success.

As you know, during Paul's tenure our party has regained majorities in both
houses of the state legislature, recaptured a majority of our federal
congressional delegation, and retained critical statewide constitutional
offices, including Governor. Working with party leaders and concerned
citizens all over our great state, we have built an effective voice for
Washington state's working families. The stakes of the coming debates with
the Republicans could not higher - that's why we need continued effective
leadership in our party.

As a member of our party's Central Committee, you will chart the course of
our party's future. You will be asked to choose between many individuals
with a variety of backgrounds, all of whom have shown commitment to our
party's ideals and aspirations.

But one candidate among them stands out - Dwight Pelz.

Dwight will come to this job with a wealth of experience in precisely the
areas that will make him an effective Chair, and he has been a passionate
advocate for the values we all share.

Whether it's grassroots organizing or articulating our party's message,
ensuring that our campaigns will have the resources they need to succeed or
being responsive to the people who make up the heart of our party - Dwight's
experience and commitment are unparalleled. He is a life-long Democrat who
we are confident possesses the skills and know-how to help lead our party to
victory.

You will help determine our state's future direction through your vote.

We do not enter this debate lightly, but because the stakes are so high we
feel compelled to act. Together we can build on our past successes and
create a brighter future for all of Washington. We hope you'll join us in
supporting Dwight Pelz for our State Party Chair.

Sincerely,


U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Governor Chris Gregoire"
-from their letter today. Thanks to Nigel Herbig for passing this along.

''Jack is Back: Murtha Takes the Fight to Bush -- and Across America''

"During a campaign-style town hall meeting in Louisville on Wednesday, President Bush continued his PR offensive on Iraq, offering up his familiar "strategy for victory" talking points (Saddam: bad; democracy: good) and an upbeat assessment of the situation there.

According to the president, "Things are good."

He also continued to make the case that Iraq is an essential part of the war on terror: "Al Qaeda has made it very clear their intentions in Iraq, which is to drive the United States out so they will have a base from which to operate to spread their ideology... In other words, al Qaeda has made Iraq a front in the war on terror.

And that's why we've developed a strategy for victory."

Luckily, Rep. Jack Murtha is still on the case, traveling around the country, speaking out, cutting through the fog of the administration's rosy rhetoric, and making it clear -- again and again -- that the ongoing bloodshed isn't, as the president put it, "an ideological struggle" in which "you defeat an ideology of darkness with an ideology of light and hope". It's the result of internal Iraqi politics.

In other words, as Murtha says, "Iraq is not about terrorism; it's about civil war". And our presence there is only fueling the fire.

"Iraq is not enhancing the war against terror," Murtha said at a lunch in New York on Wednesday (at roughly the same time Bush was making his claims in Kentucky). "In fact, just the opposite is true: Iraq is hurting our prospects for winning the fight against terror. We've become the issue over there. Abu Ghraib and Fallujah have hurt us badly. That's why we need to take ourselves out of the equation."

Reports from around the country are that wherever Murtha goes -- be it a Home Depot or a Starbucks -- applause breaks out. The well-spring of sentiment against the war that he tapped into when he first spoke out in November is still very much alive. He hit a nerve, one that strikes at the heart of the administration's signature policy initiative: the invasion of Iraq.

If Democrats are smart, they will keep Murtha front and center -- making him the face of the party for the 2006 race in the way the GOP utilized Gingrich to nationalize the 1994 elections.

As he proceeds on his barnstorming offensive, Murtha does what the Democrats should have been doing for years (are you listening, Hillary?): show how the war on Iraq has actually undermined our national security.

Expect more of this impassioned and spot-on reasoning when Murtha is profiled on "60 Minutes" this Sunday."-from Arianna Huffington, on her blog.

Alito Round-Up

Let's start with the "traditional media":

"Democrats walk newly aggressive line while questioning Alito's views, values."-from the Chicago Tribune, reprinted in the Seattle Times. There is also photo here of a tearful Martha Alito in the background, gazing at her husband as he appears before the committee. Tidbit:

"Democrats went on the attack Wednesday, questioning Judge Samuel Alito's commitment to the common man, demanding documents about his membership in a controversial Princeton group and accusing him of backing away from past statements and writings.

The newly aggressive tone on the second day of questioning of the Supreme Court nominee resulted in a clash between Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Alito's wife, Martha, broke into tears and rushed out of the hearing room as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., apologized on behalf of his colleagues."

From the blogosphere, we have "Schumer: No Decision Has Been Made Regarding Filibuster," from The Democratic Daily. Tidbit:

"Senator Chuck Schumer shot down Wolf Blitzer tonight on CNN when right out of the gate, Blitzer started off the interview by saying ” it looks like this is pretty much a done deal.”

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Well, I wouldn’t say that. I would say this, the Republicans march in lock step. And that was true before the hearings. Do you know of the votes we have had on over 40 Court of Appeals judges — and there are 50 Republican or so, so it was over 2,000 votes — only three have ever voted no on any of them? So they march in lockstep.

And that means that it’s impossible to block a nominee, whether it’s Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, no matter how right wing. The real question remains with the Democrats, and that is, do we try to block a nominee by filibuster? We’ve done it in a rare number, a small number, of people who are extreme, and that’s a question we’ll have to ask after Judge Alito’s hearings.

Now, as for Judge Alito himself, it’s amazing how everyone in the media just sort of goes along with all this. He says, I will keep an open mind on Roe. Well, has anyone ever said they won’t?

He said, no president is above the law. Those were the two headlines in all the papers this morning.

Has anyone said, oh, yes, the president’s above the law? So I think the — it’s — we each have to make a determination, particularly on the Democratic side, about how extreme he was. As you know I questioned him pretty hard on Roe v. Wade. I came to a conclusion that in all likelihood he would vote to overturn. That was increased this morning by Senator Durbin’s questioning, made it — you know, it seemed even more so. And that’s something that’ll have to be weighed along with other issues." (Full coverage of Schumer's comments on CNN here.)

firedoglake focuses on the tearful drama in hearing room as stage-managed political theatre:

"Mrs. Strip Search Sammy sure had herself a Kodak moment today, didn't she? Goober Graham left off his corn-pone homilies and played the hick card just long enough to set her up by using the B word --– the word they're all terrified of, the word they wanted to use before the Democrats did -- BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT -- that sent the low-rent Sarah Bernhardt shrieking for the cheap seats.

I've worked in the biz long enough to know a poorly executed little melodrama when I see it and that was the worst, the most shameless, most obvious. It's the role you give a really bad actress, one that can't even be counted upon to cry with conviction. The mad dash will obscure the crocodile tears and ensure that all the cameras follow, and any attempt at intelligent discussion of quite serious and weighty matters will undoubtedly get trumped by a moment of quick burlesque ripe for the evening news. A slavish press will need no coaching to play along.

Pure setup 101."

Booman Tribune tells us "Why We are Not Winning on Alito":

"If you're wondering why we aren't seeing more rabid opposition to Alito from our Democratic senators, the polls will help explain it. To be fair, the numbers looked similar prior to the Bork hearings. But Joe Biden was the chair of that committee, not the ranking member. As chairman, he was able to highlight Bork's extremism much more effectively than Leahy is able to hightlight Alito's.

Making matters worse is the high level of apathy of the general public, and the fact that the pro-life crowd appears more motivated and attuned to the hearings than the pro-choice group.

We've been doing our part, writing letters, signing petitions, etc. But, the other side is active too.

And Lindsay Graham made Mrs. Alito cry by asking her husband ""Are you a closet bigot?" The crying gambit appears to have worked, as most media outlets are blaming the Democrats for upsetting Mrs. Alito. I have mixed feelings about it. Obviously, Graham's comment was rhetorical, and he was only pointing out the subtext of the Dems questioning about the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. On the other hand, Alito's explanation for his membership in that group is disingenuous.

In the end, we lose when the wife storms out in tears."

Against my better judgement, the last word goes to the Washington Post, excerpted from their story today, "Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing 'Roe'":

"The once-sluggish confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned confrontational yesterday, as the nominee signaled he might be willing to revisit the ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and Democrats pummeled him over his membership in an alumni group that wanted to restrict enrollment of women and minorities.

Tempers flared openly between the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman and eldest Democrat, and the nominee's wife fled the marbled hearing room in tears before the day ended with Republicans predicting that Alito will win confirmation, although by a slim margin."

National Public Radio is providing live coverage and audio highlights of each day's testimony.

Update: News Dissector has posted "Tears And Jeers As Sam says I Am"

''Senator Murray responds to Seattle Times!''

"I'm writing in response to "Murray should return tainted money," [editorial, Jan. 8],

Jack Abramoff never darkened my door, and, as you wrote, he never donated to me. In fact, he sought my defeat by contributing to my opponent in 2003.

Apparently, The Times has decided that certain contributions are tainted no matter that they were legally given, legally reported and legally spent. The Times' message is: Return tribal money.

I will not join the rush to scapegoat those tribes who have already been victimized by Abramoff. Your easy answer would be fine if all I wanted was to score cheap points on being "clean."

But as someone who has stood as a partner with Native Americans and championed tribal sovereignty, I'm proud of their support. Your editorial asks, "How would she like to repeat that riff 25 times a day for the next five years ... ?"

I would rather repeat my support for tribes 25 times a day than to even once say "tribal money is tainted" just to make myself look better.

The people of Washington state know that blaming someone for the sins of another just for appearances' sake doesn't make anyone clean.

-- Patty Murray, United States senator, D-Wash., Washington, D.C."-from Senator Murray's letter in the Seattle Times today, tipped by Ray Minchew's post on the new WashBlog site. As long as you are there, check out Bev Marcus' letter, "Seeing his believing," regarding Alito, as you are scrolling down to the Senator's letter. Bev is a loyal reader of this site and suggests stories on a regular basis.

''Seattle City Council muzzles Goldy''

"So I go to the list of applicants for the open seat on the Seattle City Council to try to figure out what time I might get my three minutes to speak tomorrow, and what do I find? I’m not on the fucking list!

Are they arrogant, incompetent, or just plain stupid?

I’m sure the Council received my letter – it was quoted in The Seattle Times. Did they reject me on some unwritten technicality? Did the downtown-centric members mistakenly believe that my South Seattle neighborhood was outside city limits? Did they simply choose not to take my candidacy seriously? Did they have that right?

We all know there are only a handful of serious contenders, and us other ninety-some applicants are mostly a bunch of crackpots. Yet the one crackpot to whom they choose to summarily deny consideration, is the one crackpot with the loudest voice. I mean, what do they possibly have to gain by dissing one of the most widely read and influential bloggers in the state? (Um… that would be me.)

“Oh sure,” they might say, “he wasn’t a serious candidate. He used the words ‘fuck’, ’shit’, ‘prick’, and ‘asshole’ in his application.”

Well… fuck that.

Not a serious candidate? I see they’re giving Al Runte his three minutes, and yet when I personally suggested his name to Jean Godden a couple weeks ago, she actually laughed! I mean sure, Al’s got a funny last name and all, but Jean literally waved me off laughing at the thought of appointing him to the open seat. Really.

So Al they’ll humor, but me… not so much.

Which, from a media outreach perspective, is just plain dumb, because that private exchange between me and Jean is exactly the type of incident I wouldn’t have blogged on… if the Council hadn’t just given me the finger. (Fair warning to Peter Steinbrueck: next time you’re at the Intiman, you better start of all your sentences with “off the record"… you never know who might be seated near you.)

Yeah, I know I wrote an irreverent, foul-mouthed application letter, but that still didn’t give them the right reject it. And if the Council really didn’t want me to speak due to concerns about time, decorum, or anything else… all they had to do was politely ask.

For the irony is, I wasn’t even planning to speak tomorrow anyway. When I saw how many crackpot 3-minute speeches they’d have to sit through, I decided not to burden them with my own. Why? Because I had too much respect for the council members.

“Had” being the operative word.

UPDATE:
I just received a reply from the Council in response to my inquiry:

The application process, described on the Council’s web page and in press releases, required that applicants send both a Letter of Interest and a resume. There is no record of receiving a resume from you; therefore, you were not considered an eligible candidate.

Well, really, that’s a load of shit… an excuse to keep me out of the process. When I first sent my application, they emailed back that they couldn’t print it out properly. If they technically needed a separate piece of paper with the word “Resume” on it, they could have told me, and I could have given them that too. Not that I would have put anything else on it.

As far as I’m concerned, this is just like the time the Attorney General sued me because my initiative was “outside the scope” of the initiative process, when they let some filings stand that weren’t even complete sentences.

As far as I’m concerned, the Council, like much of government, is filled with a bunch of fearful, self-serious, humorless drones. They need to lighten up."-from HorsesAss.

WH Press Briefing: McClellan Calls Dean's War Critique ''Irresponsible''

"In his latest statement on Iraq, President George W. Buch again charged that some of the critics of the war in Iraq were acting responsibly--and others, not. At his White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Scott McClellan fielded a number of questions trying to determine the difference, and possibly produce a few names on the irresponsible team.

After some prodding, McClellan finally identified the Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean, as one of those on the president's bad side. "The Chairman of the party has made numerous irresponsible comments," McClellan said.

Here is one of the exchanges that transpired, in full.

Q Scott, I just want to come back to this point about irresponsibility, because there seems to be --
MR. McCLELLAN: We're not talking about you.

Q Not today, anyway. (Laughter.) But this goes back to your predecessor, Ari, saying at one point that people need to watch what they say. And this seems to be kind of a continuing theme from this White House. A lot of people might say that it's bad for troop morale and irresponsible to say that American troops would be greeted with candies and flowers, when that didn't happen, or that there were weapons of mass destruction when there weren't any. In other words, the President seems to want to define the terms of the debate about a war that he knows is controversial, in no small part because of representations he made to the country --

MR. McCLELLAN: I reject that completely, and that's just complete distortion of what he said.
"In his latest statement on Iraq, President George W. Buch again charged that some of the critics of the war in Iraq were acting responsibly--and others, not. At his White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Scott McClellan fielded a number of questions trying to determine the difference, and possibly produce a few names on the irresponsible team.

After some prodding, McClellan finally identified the Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean, as one of those on the president's bad side. "The Chairman of the party has made numerous irresponsible comments," McClellan said.

Here is one of the exchanges that transpired, in full.


Q Scott, I just want to come back to this point about irresponsibility, because there seems to be --
MR. McCLELLAN: We're not talking about you.

Q Not today, anyway. (Laughter.) But this goes back to your predecessor, Ari, saying at one point that people need to watch what they say. And this seems to be kind of a continuing theme from this White House. A lot of people might say that it's bad for troop morale and irresponsible to say that American troops would be greeted with candies and flowers, when that didn't happen, or that there were weapons of mass destruction when there weren't any. In other words, the President seems to want to define the terms of the debate about a war that he knows is controversial, in no small part because of representations he made to the country --

MR. McCLELLAN: I reject that completely, and that's just complete distortion of what he said.

Q What's a distortion?
MR. McCLELLAN: You're ignoring exactly what he said. The President said that the American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it, and they know the difference between --

Q Then why does he have to prescribe what it is?

MR. McCLELLAN: So you're not letting me have an honest, open debate here. I welcome the opportunity to do this -- but they know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted -- we welcome that. In fact, the President has met with some of those honest critics. He met with a number of them just last week. And partisan critics who claim we acted in Iraq because of oil, or that we acted because of Israel, or that we acted based on misleading the American people --

Q Who has made that charge? Which Democrat in Congress has said he did it for oil or for Israel?

MR. McCLELLAN: He didn't single out members of Congress. He singled out people that --

Q -- elected officials responsible --

MR. McCLELLAN: We can point to --

Q Who are you talking about? Are you talking about Harry Belafonte and Sheryl Crow? Is he really worried about those people?

MR. McCLELLAN: We can point to a number of people. I think the Chairman of the Democratic Party has made numerous statements that are --

Q Who else is part of --

Q Why did he go in then?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Chairman of the party has made numerous irresponsible comments. We have confronted these issues head on, and we will continue to take them on. You might want to back us down from challenging people, but when they make irresponsible comments, we're going to challenge them.

Q You just said one of the irresponsible comments was that he doesn't have a strategy for victory, that people have made that comment and that they've been briefed on it. They might just not agree with the strategy for victory, or whether it is a strategy for victory.

MR. McCLELLAN: But they're implying to the American people that we don't have a strategy in place. And this is after they were -- just after they were briefed by our commanders on the ground who put that strategy in place.

Q So that's irresponsible to imply that they just don't like the strategy?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. I said that "we don't have a strategy" -- there's a difference.

Q -- semantics --

MR. McCLELLAN: No. People have made that point, said that we don't have a strategy in place for winning in Iraq. That is irresponsible.
Q That's exactly my point, that they think it's not a strategy for winning."-from Editor&Publisher.

''AT THE ALITO HEARINGS, BORING IS IN''

"Yesterday I reported on a GOP briefing for bloggers. It was a part of a comprehensive media strategy that believes in Rovian “message discipline” by getting all supporters and spokespeople and rubber stampers and operatives in the echo chamber as well as friendly publiations all on the same page. Many voices, one message is the way it works.

What about the other side?

Last night, I joined a conference call for bloggers critical of the Alito nomination. This one was sponsored by People for the American Way, an organization first founded by Norman Lear in l980 to promote civil liberties and fight the right. It is not part of the Democratic Party.

People For has been mounting a major campaign against the nomination of Sam Alito to the Court. They have funded reports, websites and TV spots. Last night’s call was a response to Alito’s first day before the Committee. You can read their take on Alito and yesterday’s hearings at: www.pfaw.org

The discussion was generally upbeat with the sense that Alito can still be defeated if only the public is given more information about his hard right ideology and track record. Many on the call—and I am not sure who everyone was because I joined late—felt that Alito’s calm demeanor and references to having an “open mind” are ploys and ways to conceal his real attitudes and likely votes.

(Partipants were said to include Ralph G. Neas, president of PFAW, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, Armando from DailyKos and Chris Bowers from MyDD.)

Some felt Alito is a “Freeper” in disguise—that is, an extreme conservative posing as a moderate with help from Republican members of the Judiciary Committee and that bloggers who think he is dangerous should identify him that way. I am not sure how many people know who the Freepers are or if they should be taken so seriously.

At the same time, not everyone was pleased with the performance of the Democrats with the exception of New York’s Chuck Schumer. It was felt that unlike the Republicans, they were all over the place raising as many as seven issues when they should have focused on two. There was too much deference. They were not coordinated and did not choreograph their testimony.

I asked about whether the Democrats are aware of the key role of the media in all this. That a triggered a long discussion about how better prepared the right is than the liberals and the left in this regard. There seemed to be no real strategy or awareness, and it is left to groups like People For The American Way to try to influence journalists and editorial writers which they did with briefings and waves of “rapid response” memos.

Yet even that, it was acknowledged, is not always effective because media, especially TV looks for heat, not light and sound bites like “open mind”.

Nothing new here. But what was new was the sense that the opponents of Alito and his supporters were fighting a war with two very different strategies.

The Dems were on the offensive hurling facts at Alito, disputing his decisions, and trying to in a sense to provoke or “Bork” him into fighting back on the ideological front.

Sam did not bite. He was well trained to brush off the attacks and try to present himself as a reasonable judge who will fulfill his Constitutional duty with no agenda. He was Mr. Cool, the very picture of learned judicial restraint.

Republicans usually like political food fights—these overheated arguments are all over Fox News every night. But this time they took a very different tack. Instead of engaging, they disengaged and fell back. Instead of passion, they spoke quietly and enfused the debate with references to legal precedents and decisions that no one could keep track of.

Rather than battle politically, they decided to depoliticize the hearings as much as possible. It was an adroit move, one expert conceded.

It was like a political version of Muhammad Ali’s rope a dope strategy. Alito got quiet, passive, and yes, nice and accommodating. This approach neutralized the more aggressive attack. He just sat there and was, or so it seemed to the people on the all, deliberately BORING.

Yes, it was terribly boring, but by design said some of the political analysts on the call. They want to turn the audience off and get them to tune the hearings out.

“Boring,” “Boring,” “Boring” soon became the refrain of the pundits. Tom Burns of Newsweek called it boring. Suddenly, there were suggestions that the coverage might have to be cut back. The reason: Too Boring.

The Democrats played right into this strategy to make the hearings feel like a law school graduate seminar only of interest to legal specialists. Senator Leahy said he was almost snoring, not realizing how he had been snookered. Senator Biden asked a question that went on for ELEVEN MINUTES. One Question. 11 minutes! Fox’s legal expert said that it was so long that he forgot what the question was.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Later Biden said the hearings were a waste of time. Yea, he wasted it.

The People for American Way's Ralph Neas then reflected on how the Republicans manage to make radical and extreme ideas sound moderate and pedestrian by mumbling and low keying it.
“That is what Cheney does all the time,” he suddenly realized.

And so, suddenly, it was clear that we are up against something more frightening that the tactics of the right. We are up against an approah aimed at the short attention span of the Americans who have been conditioned by years of TV watching to avoid complicated arguments and all complexity. The networks all this approah KISS--keep it simple and stupid.

In the TV environment, the worse crime is being BORING.

The GOP understands that, and in this case, has designed a strategy that is perfect to neutralize the Democrats and get over on the public.

Boring is the strategy—and its working."-from News Dissector.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

"The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.

The ACLU vote came after a special meeting of its 83-member national board this weekend, which has voted to oppose only two nominees in its 86-year history: Justice William Rehnquist (in his initial nomination to the Court) and former Solicitor General and law professor Robert Bork."-from the statement by the ACLU. Thanks to Mary Robinson for passing this along. Senator Ted Kennedy has a question for you: "What Would You Ask Samuel Alito?"

''Given this chance, Democrats have got to deliver''

Let's hear from Joel Connelly, our local political columnist from the "traditional media," as he gives the Dems some advice in his column today:

"Guys named Buddy: Centrist, rural Democrats used to be a numerous, constructive presence in the House. Guys named Buddy, from Georgia and Florida, did deals with Seattle's liberal Rep. Mike Lowry in the House Budget Committee. He got money for kids' programs. They got dollars for veterans' services.

The "Buddys" have become an endangered species. Having starved them in past election cycles, the Democrats' House committee should give -- generously.

Effective liberals: You don't have to posture to be progressive. Rep. Jim McDermott and Texas' windy Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee can give all the speeches they want to an empty House chamber. Who's listening?

What are needed are liberal players the likes of the late San Francisco Rep. Phil Burton, who crafted national-park bills that right-wingers had to support. Lowry was a local example. Jay Inslee shows promise. She holds Burton's old seat, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has accomplished little as a strategist or public voice.

Geezers in power: A bevy of Democrats, waiting to assume committee chairs, are veterans of the pre-1994 Congress. The corruption back then can't compare to today's, but Capitol Hill was still a pretty fetid place.

Newt Gingrich did some reforming. He slapped a tenure limit on committee chairs. Sure, the Democrats will find 79-year-old Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., ready to investigate no-bid contracts and Dick Cheney's connection to them. Elsewhere, however, the Dems can't afford to offer a blast from the past.

A program: Democrats have to coherently stand FOR something. The absence of a positive election program helped cost John Kerry the White House. It's not enough just to be against Bush or the religious right.

Appealing candidates: The Dems have already lost a fine potential challenger with Peter Goldmark's withdrawal from a 5th District run at GOP freshman Rep. Cathy McMorris. And attorney Randy Gordon quit the 8th District race against GOP Rep. Dave Reichert.

The Dems have a promising 8th District candidate in ex-Microsoft executive Darcy Burner.

Sadly, nobody of front rank has emerged to take on McMorris or Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.

Hastings was the GOP leadership's pick to be the chairman of-- and make a shambles out of -- the hithertoindependent House Ethics Committee. This supine hack needs a run for his money. But ... nobody doesn't beat somebody."

"Supine hack." I like that.

Darcy Burner Shows Up at Drinking Liberally Seattle (UPDATED)

Darcy is the only Democratic candidate for the 8th Congressional District seat in Washington, currently occupied by Dave Reichert. She came by tonight's gathering to remind us of the importance of this race and ask for our help in getting that message out to our various audiences and friends. As I have said before, the Dems only need 15 seats to take back the House of Representatives and Washington's 8th District (the Eastside and some parts of South King County) is a prime opportunity, having previously given John Kerry and other Democrats more votes than their opponents. I don't know Darcy well, but she seems to be running a strong campaign and made a good impression tonight.

Update: "Two More Candidates in 8th Congressional Race" from Washblog brings us the latest news on the race to win this seat for the Dems. Previously, "Randy Gordon: Personal Ambition Took a Back Seat to Democratic Unity" on the same site, discussed the reasons for his decision to withdraw and some reactions to it.

''Senators Sould Press Alito on Bush v. Gore''

"When the Senate Judiciary Committee begins questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, Americans will again be reminded of the limitations of the confirmation process for presidential picks to serve on the federal bench.

Alito will lie to the committee, intentionally and repeatedly.

In keeping with the standard set by all recent high court nominees, he will treat the hearings, and by extension the American people, who the confirmation process is intended to serve, with utter and complete contempt.

Alito will be asked direct questions and he will claim that he cannot answer them for two reasons.

First, in order to avoid broad questions about his legal philosophy, he will claim that he is not able to comment on cases that might come before the court. This is a deliberate dodge, designed not to protect Alito's ability to judge impartially but to avoid revealing whether his ideas are within the mainstream of constitutional interpretation and judicial responsibility.

Second, despite the fact that his proponents would have the Senate and the American people believe that he is a brilliant man with broad executive branch and judicial experience, Alito will claim that he has not seriously considered fundamental questions of law, politics and public policy. This, too, is a deliberate dodge, designed to prevent an examination of how he approaches issues.

If the recent past offers any indication, Alito's refusal to cooperate with the committee will be extensive. When Chief Justice John Roberts faced the committee during his confirmation hearings last fall, he refused to answer more than 60 questions in a single day.

As members of the Judiciary Committee approach what should be their most solemn duty--since they are being called upon to accept or reject a nominee who could serve on the high court long after they have left politics--senators of both parties should be looking for a way to crack the facade of deceit and disrespect that Alito will erect.

Here's one suggestion for how to do that:

Ask the nominee how he would have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore. Does he agree that the court was right to intervene, for the first time in history, to stop the counting of the ballots that could have determined the result of a presidential contest? Or does he believe, as University of Virginia professor and Supreme Court scholar A.E. Howard has suggested, "Prudence would call for letting the political process run its course"?

Does Alito believe it is possible to reconcile the high court's intervention in an electotal battle with a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution that says Congress, not the court, is charged with settling disputed contests at the federal level?

Does he believe that Justices Antonin Scalia, whose sons were associated with firms that represented George W. Bush's campaign, and Clarence Thomas, whose wife was working with Bush's transition team, should have recused themselves from the deliberations? Does he worry that the decision to intervene in the case might have damaged the court's reputation as an independent body that stands apart from the partisan politics associated with the executive branch?

Of course, Alito will try to avoid such questions, just as Roberts did when Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, made a tepid attempt to raise the issue last year. But Alito has no excuse for refusing to answer.

The case of Bush v. Gore will never come before the court again. And the court itself has ruled that the decision should not be interpreted as setting a precedent. Thus, it is one of the few court decisions that is entirely, and appropriately, open to discussion by a nominee.

And what if Alito claims he hasn't taken the time to consider the case or its issues?

Considering the fact that the case involved the question of who would be the most powerful person on the planet, if Alito claims he wasn't paying attention, there really would not be any question that he is too disengaged to be confirmed to so substantial a position."-John Nichols in The Nation, tipped by The Smirking Chimp.

''Chris Gregoire is Hella Rad!''

Maybe, maybe not. This interview today with our Governor wouldn't be all that exciting except our local dailies don't seem to have the desire to offer us one of their own. -from The Olympian, tipped by Washington State Political Report.

You can also listen/watch online to the first 2006 "Olympia On-Call" from TVW, featuring Gov. Gregoire speaking with reporters from around Washington. David Postman of the Seattle Times hosts.

''On the Ground with Republicans and Democrats''

Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics makes an observation that I agree with, using a post by Matt Stoller of MyDD as a reference point. Keep in mind he is talking about the DNC of 2004, so let's see what we can learn and then use to improve in the year ahead.
Tidbit:

"I have never seen a more closed bureaucratic organization than the Democratic National Convention Committee. When I went to the Republican National Convention, by contrast, the level of transparency was remarkable."

''Senator John Edwards Visiting Tuesday, Gets The Love From Joel Connelly''

Belltowner expresses his love, too.

I posted a comment there that hasn't turned up online yet. I said I assumed his remarks about a certain local blogger referered to me. I said I was not "embittered" by any implosion, just the way some Democrats, rovians and the "traditional media" had a common interest in taking Dean down, using some of his own "mistakes." I compared this to the way an employer will start "making a case" on you, when they have decided to fire you. I also said I don't refer to Edwards by a reference to his hair, as some others do. I congratulated Edwards for his comments on his war vote, and for his focus on the poor. Finally, I requested that Mr. B. not kick me off the Edwards train just yet.

''Fundraising clicks over Internet''

"Politicians pick up on ease of getting campaign dollars---WASHINGTON -- Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago congressman spearheading the Democratic effort to win control of Congress, now schedules regular conference calls with influential liberal bloggers, and the top political professional working for him maintains a presence on their sites, often posting campaign-related messages.

Among Republicans, former Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver and ABC sportscaster Lynn Swann, who last week announced his candidacy for Pennsylvania governor, started gathering e-mail addresses of supporters months in advance through a campaign Web site. He has a video blog in which he narrates his travels around the state, from football tailgate parties to the state Republican Convention.

With midterm elections coming up, it has become clear that no serious campaign can afford to shun an online presence. The Internet is not only a tool for communication and organization. It is emerging as an important means of raising campaign money that already shows signs of altering the funding base for candidates and heightening the chances of upsets in November.

"With each year, it's going to become more and more important, and 2006 is going to be a watershed year at the congressional and gubernatorial level," said Joe Trippi, who managed Howard Dean's Internet-savvy 2004 presidential campaign. "You're going to see races decided by a flood of online money."

Political strategists and academic analysts said that, in turn, online money offers the potential to nudge the balance of political power away from the interests of big-dollar donors and toward causes or personalities that can excite passionate commitment from significant numbers of people of more modest means.

That kind of passion is often generated by political insurgents--be it Dean or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose 2000 presidential primary campaign was the first to stand out nationally for success in raising money over the Internet.

Opponents of the Iraq war have gained political attention as a source of online campaign contributions. But the Web offers a means to more effectively channel the passions of adherents to any cause, on the right or the left. Political campaigns are grappling with the impact of the Internet.

Possible polarizing effect

But some analysts believe the growth of online activism may become another polarizing force in American politics, pulling candidates closer to the ideological bases of their parties.

"I do think that's going to affect the governing agenda," said Michael Malbin, executive director of George Washington University's Campaign Finance Institute. "Both parties will try to keep the issues alive. Why should the minority party compromise when you can use the issue to get to the majority and change the terms of debate?"

The 2006 elections arguably will be the first time control of Congress has been at stake since the Internet became a major force in American life. By September, 12 percent of Americans had made at least one contribution to a cause or charity online, versus 8 percent last January, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. More than one-third of Americans now have high-speed broadband access in their homes, the survey found.

Some political operatives believe an online fundraising campaign already has played a crucial role in a Senate race still a year away, helping Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd stave off a Republican challenge this year in conservative-leaning West Virginia. An e-mail fundraising plea sent out by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to supporters of MoveOn.org provided Byrd a powerful boost, collecting nearly $1 million for him within 72 hours and discouraging a potentially formidable challenger.

In August, Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran running as an anti-war Democrat, raised more than $550,000 over the Internet after liberal bloggers took up his cause. He came within 4,000 votes of winning a special election in a southern Ohio district that had been considered safely Republican.

Democrats surpass GOP

During the last presidential campaign, Democrats matched Republicans in small-dollar donations for the first time in decades, largely because of efforts to raise money via the Web. Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign raised $79.6 million in contributions of $200 or less, compared with $78.6 million raised for the Bush campaign, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. On the final day of the Democratic Convention, Kerry raised $6 million online.

At its most fundamental level, the Internet is changing the relationship between political campaigns and small-dollar donors--people who might be persuaded to part with $20 or $50 to make a political point but who would never put on a tuxedo and shell out $1,000 to attend a banquet with a senator.

E-mail cheaper than direct

For decades, the main way campaigns and political groups reached small-dollar donors was through direct mail. But e-mail is less expensive than direct mail or telemarketing, and responses are faster.

David Keating, executive director of The Club for Growth, which raises money for economically conservative candidates, said a typical e-mail plea to his members generates more than half of its dollars within four hours. An appeal by mail ordinarily takes weeks, he added.

Candidates for the House, the Senate or for governor now have readier access to a national following of supporters who can contribute or even do remote campaign work by telephone. And it is far easier for a politically enthusiastic voter in New York or Atlanta to connect with a candidate in Ohio or Indiana. It takes only an instant to click on a banner ad or a link on a blog to be connected to a campaign site and a few more moments to type in a credit card number to complete a contribution.

"Effective online fundraising is that which pushes emotional buttons," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the Daily Kos, a liberal blog that attracts up to a million visitors in a day. "The key is to really feed into the yearning for change . . . not mincing words, not trying to be all Kerry-like or Hillary [Clinton]-like, crafting words so as not to offend anyone."

At the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emanuel has included numerous Iraq war veterans who are critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the war among his recruits to run against Republicans for House seats. Another recruit is a former CIA case officer who trained with Valerie Plame, the operative whose identity was allegedly first disclosed by an as-yet-unidentified Bush administration official.

The choice of candidates clearly fits into a conventional political strategy to bolster congressional Democrats' national security credentials during a period of public anxiety over terrorism and to underscore the party's criticisms of the Bush administration. But the campaign committee also was mindful that personal stories open fundraising opportunities through the Web that could compensate for shortcomings in obtaining money from more traditional sources, such as personal wealth or a network of donors from previous elections.

Democracy gets a boost

"A thick Rolodex is no longer the be-all and end-all in politics," said John Lapp, executive director of the campaign committee. "If you have a good profile and an interesting story and a passionate connection with the district, you can attract both a local and national following."

The Bush campaign last year chose to concentrate its online efforts on organizing a volunteer network that has received credit for successful voter turn-out campaigns in swing states. Republican Party officials said they plan to continue cultivating online support for fundraising and grass-roots organizing.

"On the Republican side, it's not as public and it's not as well-known. But there are certainly many well-organized, disciplined and effective programs that Republican candidates and organizations are running online," said Jeff Mascott, managing director of RightClick Strategies, a consulting firm that caters to Republican candidates and conservative causes."-from the story in Sunday's Chicago Tribune.

''Seattle Wants Out of Iraq''--More Coverage Plus Photos

Dina Johnson passes along photos from the event on Saturday as well as this report on the some political theatre there by the "Backbone Players":

"To give the audience a break from the serious stuff, the Backbone Players (Josh, Aaron, Dina) presented a brief satire. Every year the Al-Qaeda Academy presents awards to the most creative, most destructive, most sinister, most dangerous and most prolific creators of martyrs in all the Umma."

As a Vanna White-type stage girl, only silent, Dina wore a glam burqa ensemble.

The "Golden Scimitar" award was "a tie between Irani leader Ayatollah Khameini and The Kansas State School Board for their success in eliminating the artificial barrier between Church and State."

Al Qaeda Recruiter of the Year is "the individual who has done the most to attract new members to the ranks of our international network of murder, mayhem, and anti-American violence." George Bush won the award for the third straight year, competing with Alberto Gonzales, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Rumsfeld, whose pictures were displayed."

"Dean issues Smack-down on Wolfie"

"They are trying so hard to link Democrats to Abramoff's scandal that on today's Late Edition, Howard Dean almost set Wolfie's beard on fire.

Blitzer has been doing much better as an interviewer lately on the Situation Room using Russert's style somewhat, but not today.

Commenter: 8 seconds of dead air time as Wolf lets out a heavy sigh and ends the interview...

Update: Atrios has the transcript posted."-from Crooks and Liars with video.

''Feingold won't rule out Bush impeachment''

"BURLINGTON — If Pres. George Bush broke laws when ordering wiretaps and secret spying on U.S. citizens, a key Senate Democrat said he would not rule out calling for his impeachment.

"I think there is an orderly and dignified way to find out what happened," said Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. "And, if there was a legal violation there needs to be accountability ... you can't put the cart before the horse, but I would not rule out any form of accountability."

That would include impeachment, Feingold told reporters.

Feingold, who is eyeing a run for president in 2008, was in Vermont Saturday to stump for Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent, who is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Jim Jeffords.

The pair held a morning press conference before making stops throughout Vermont, including Brattleboro, where enthusiastic supporters packed the high school auditorium for what Sanders said was the first formal event of his official Senate campaign. The mid-day meeting drew supporters from New Hampshire and Massachusetts as well as throughout southern Vermont.

The senator, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in Brattleboro that committee chairman Arlen Specter has already scheduled hearings on the administration's surveillance activities, which will follow this week's confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Asked by a supporter whether there was a way citizens could impeach Bush "here and now," Feingold said he first wants to hear the administration's justification for conducting domestic surveillance before determining what, if any, punishment should occur.

Once that is known he said, there should be accountability. "I'm not going to prejudge what that accountability should be."

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, released an analysis Friday that said Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants rests on questionable legal ground.

"Terrorism is a serious issue in my view, and in the United States we've got to do everything we can to protect the American people," Sanders told supporters to applause. "We can do that without undermining the constitutional rights which have made us a free country. We're not going to let George Bush mistake the fact that he is president with being king; we got rid of a king 200 years ago."

Feingold, who was slated to head to New Hampshire after his Vermont visits, told supporters in Brattleboro that he was considering a presidential bid.

In Burlington, Feingold, who is about to become a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was skeptical of Bush's defense of the secret spying and wiretapping. Bush has claimed that the president has the power, during a time of war, to enact such secret programs.

The activities came to light last month in press reports, which also revealed that the Pentagon has been monitoring anti-war, and other peaceful, assemblies around the country, including two in Vermont. Bush has admitted that the National Security Administration has been secretly wiretapping domestic phone calls of thousands of U.S. citizens as administration's efforts to thwart terrorist attacks.

"I think [Bush] probably broke the law here, but we need to know why they did it this way and what the legal justifications were, and then we need to determine what kind of accountability will occur if laws were broken," said Feingold.

The judiciary and intelligence committees are likely to play key roles investigating these programs, Feingold said.

Sanders, who sits on the House Government Reform Committee, said his panel has been very inactive during the Bush administration. In contrast, Sanders said, during the Clinton administration there were dozens of hearings.

Sanders said that is because Republicans in Congress have largely ignored their responsibility to oversee the actions of the administration.

"If you think about everything that has happened under the current administration — the NSA spying program, the war in Iraq, and the fact that the actuaries were not allowed by the White House to tell us the real cost of the prescription drug bill; guess how many hearings our committee has had? Zero," Sanders said.

"What the current administration is scared of," said Sanders, is losing GOP control of either the House, the Senate or both. Because, if that happens, he predicted, "there will be hearings to ask some of the fundamental questions about the Bush administration's actions that have not been asked in five years."

In Brattleboro, Sanders, who appeared with several members of Windham County's legislative delegation, was also campaigning with state Sen. Peter Welch, the Democratic candidate for Sanders congressional seat.

Welch's presence was a passing cloud at an otherwise enthusiastic gathering that had all the spirit of a religious tent revival meeting. Brattleboro Democrats and Progressives have charged the Windsor Democrat with selling out their interests by helping forge an agreement that allows Vermont Yankee to store nuclear waste in Vernont.

"I'm glad to have the opportunity to have you here, Bernie Sanders, but Peter Welch, I feel you sold us down the river in regard to Vermont Yankee,"said Brattleboro Progressive Party member Peter Cooper. "You did not take the opportunity you had to see an orderly close to Vermont Yankee at the end of 2012. We did not have to have dry cask storage. We did not have to have a deal that you were part of working out behind closed doors that does not represent well the safety, environmental and health concerns of the people of Vermont."

Welch asked the crowd to defer their questions, and promised to meet separately with them to address to their concerns. Later, in response to another question, he said he would take no campaign contributions from Entergy, the Louisiana corporation that owns the nuclear plant.

Welch told a reporter after the meeting that he will review his existing contributions and return any he may have received from Entergy. He drew the line at refusing contributions from utilities, saying Vermont Yankee was a separate issue.

Both Sanders and Feingold called for increased investment in renewable energy sources and said the country must wean itself from dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil."-from the story today in the Vermont Guardian, tipped by RAW STORY.

"Yes Folks, the Election Can Be Stolen"

Short version: "The GAO report concluded that national initiatives to improve voting systems lack plans for implementation or are not expected to be completed until after the 2006 election, stating: "Until these efforts are completed, there is a risk that many state and local jurisdictions will rely on voting systems that were not developed, operated, or managed in accordance with rigorous security and reliability standards."

Long version: "Voting 2.0"-from Chronogram. The tip came from The Smirking Chimp.