"Who Killed the Electric Car?"

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

Uncaged Cabaret, a benefit for Jim McDermott

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

I also hear that Congressman Jim is scheduled to attend.

Upcoming Washington Voter Registration Deadline is August 19

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

Two Days, Two Events

Wednesday, August 16

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

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

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



Thursday, August 17

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

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

Ned Lamont: "The Democrats Mean Business"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Lieberman Is Not Going Away"

Matt Taibbi:

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

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

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

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

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

"Yes?" I said.

"Have some respect!" she snapped.

"What?" I shouted.

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

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

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

If you start me up

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

Slide it up!

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

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

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

If you rough it up

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

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

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

She froze.

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

Now The Weakly Really Sucks

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

"Salon: Voter suppression efforts seen in six states"

RAW STORY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Democrats See Security as Key Issue for Fall"

NY Times:

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

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

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

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

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

"The David Goldstein Show"--Podcasts

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

"No retreat on war crimes"

Seattle Times Editorial:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Nichols:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dean Defends Lamont, Slams Lieberman"

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

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

More Democratic Talking Points on Terror

Russ Feingold:

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

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

"Bolton's Pull versus Lamont's Push"

Matt Stoller:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Rebutting the Lie that Dems are Soft on Terrorism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howard Dean on "Meet Tim Russert" Show, Sunday

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

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

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

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

David Swanson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Joe Lieberman Will Drop Out"

Lawrence O'Donnell:

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

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

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

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

"Be Prepared For Republicans To Close Gap"

Chris Bowers:

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

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

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

This election will tighten up, and here is why:

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


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


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


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


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