An Odd Way of Phrasing It

People outside of San Diego are not much aware of the lawsuit demanding a recount of the special election to fill Duke Cunningham's seat back in June. Polls had shown the race neck and neck, with Busby having a slight advantage. Bilbray won with less than 50% of the vote, not quite 4 points ahead of Busby. 2,000 votes separated them.

There have been allegations of voting irregularities, the most explosive of which is the fact that a portion of the electronic voting machines were in the hands of individual poll workers one or more days before the election and were not monitored, opening up the possibility of electronic vote tampering. There is now coming out information that absentee voting was higher than the registered voters in some precincts, which is good old fashioned vote stuffing.

There is a pattern of close elections that favor Republicans having a cloud of voting fraud hovering over them. There were millions of dolalrs thrown into this particular election, and the place was lousy with outside Republican operatives. San Diego is a city owned by a criminal Republican cadre who have long viewed the city as their personal cash machine, which is one of the reasons the City is in dire financial shape. The county registrar of voters is a Republican.

What is peculiar is this statement from Bilbray's attorney: "David King, Bilbray's attorney, conceded that the judge could order a recall but argued that the state court lacked the jurisdiction to unseat a member of Congress."

Hmm, does that mean that Bilbray knows that the vote was fraudulent? It seems awfully peculiar that the lawyer is already arguing that the judge cannot recall the politician. Kind of like there is something there that might show there is a need for a recall.

Busby's camp is keeping its lip zipped on this matter, as they should. They defer to the courts and emphasize there is an upcoming election.

Vote fraud is going to happen in counties and regions where Republicans are in charge of the voting machines, but are behind in the polls. Absentee ballots are the easiest way to manipulate the vote, either by stuffing with fraudulent ballots or else neglecting to count legitimate ones. Electronic fraud is harder to perpetuate than you think at a local level, and most issues there have to do with computer failure, not computer tampering. Allowing machines to go home with poll workers, however, is a perfect condition for setting up unobserved professional access for hacking. Electronic vote tallying, not the votes themselves, is where nefarious intervention should really occur, as you can look at an overall numeric spread, then apply a change that results in a small, evenly distributed advantage for a particular candidate. Then there is simply messing with the ballot count manually, the time-honored practice found around the world.

And I haven't even brought up all of the pre-vote shenanigans to suppress turn-out.

Establishing secure voting is not insurmountable, but it does take some ingenuity, as I discuss here. Right now, the fascists in the nation are crudely trying to manipulate the vote, but it is a temptation for whomever is in power. Trustworthy voting systems are the foundation of a modern democracy.

Anglachel

Show Faith in the Party: Support Lamont

As I said a few posts ago, the stakes in the CT race are very high - Lieberman is determined to win this race in the worst way possible, creating a freaking disaster for Dems, particularly if they squeak out parity or a slim majority. This guy has turned on our party as badly as Zell Miller did in 2004.

Lamont has won the only endorsement that really matters - I mean that of the Rude Pundit, of course. A "He doesn't suck too much" opinion from the Rude One is high praise indeed for any politician.

Alas, the chattering class does not pay attention to the Rude One's judgments as they should. So it is satisfying to see that Senator Hillary Clinton has come down squarely behind Lamont, with money, a campaign appearance (I suspect additional ones and something from the Big Dog himself the more unhinged Holy Joe becomes) and staff. From The Carpetbagger Report:

There's been some lingering concern of late about whether, and to what extent, the Dem establishment and party leaders would back Ned Lamont in Connecticut. The major players will go through the motions, the theory goes, and formally endorse the Democratic nominee, but below the surface, Dems in DC aren't terribly concerned about the race. If Joe Lieberman wins, he'll caucus with the Dems; if Lamont wins, it's another Dem. Either way, a "blue" seat stays "blue" — so why sweat it?

It's this attitude that makes it all the more noteworthy when Dem senators step up and show they take the race seriously — and are willing to make a real commitment to the Lamont campaign.

I learned this morning that Sen. Hillary Clinton met with Lamont today and agreed to a) do an event together; b) help him raise money; and c) direct long-time aide Howard Wolfson to help Lamont with rapid-response work and coordinating the national Dems' response to the Connecticut race.

Good for Clinton; may others follow her example. This is going to be a very close race and the more Dem leaders who dedicate themselves to helping the Democrat win this race, the better.

Lamont gets by with a little help from his friends
(My emphasis)

This goes with the money she already gave him the morning after his primary win, of course.

I don't want to hear any bullshit from weak-kneed Senate Dems trying to blame their lack of party loyalty on "the blogs". Atrios, Kos and Jane Hamsher are bottom feeding demagogues as far as I'm concerned, but what Lieberman is doing to the party is so far and away more damaging that any Democratic Congress Critter who doesn't stand up and unequivocally endorse Lamont deserves to be bitch-slapped on the spot. Hillary supported Lieberman (tepidly) and threw her considerable power behind Lamont within 12 hours of his primary win. There's no excuse for any Congressional Dem not doing the same. Holy Joe only has power if he wins, so make sure he loses.

Lieberman is selling the party down the river, kissing Republican ass and taking Republican money. He is standing on the podium next to a Republican governor and a Republican House candidate, and may deny Democrats a House majority. He's not just running to keep his seat. He is actively doing harm to the party he claims to belong to.

Let's make this really, really clear:

Joe Lieberman's opponent in the general election is not Ned Lamont.

Joe Lieberman's opponent is the Democratic Party and everything the party stands for.

Joe Lieberman is running against Democrats out of spite and selfishness, and is happy to keep the Republicans in power if it helps him get "revenge".

Vote Democrat.

Anglachel

Why I Hold the South in Contempt

Southerners and southern apologists whine incessantly about being looked down on by the rest of the nation. Well, you freaks, this is why. From Carpetbagger Report:

Simply stunning.

Nine black children attending Red River Elementary School [in Coushatta, La.] were directed last week to the back of the school bus by a white driver who designated the front seats for white children.

After [two families] filed complaints with the School Board, Transportation Supervisor Jerry Carlisle asked Davis to make seat assignments for her passengers, Sessoms said. "But she still assigned the black children to the back of the bus," she added.

And the nine children had to share only two seats, meaning the older children had to hold the younger ones in their laps.

In 2006. In the United States.

The driver was forcing black children to sit in the back of the bus, and when asked to correct the problem, the same driver assigned seats — forcing more black children to sit in the back of the bus.

As of this morning, the school district has suspended the bus driver while it investigates the situation. The NAACP is considering filing a formal charge with the Justice Department.

Noted NAACP District Vice President James Panell, "We fought that battle 50 years ago, and we won. Why is this happening again?" It's a question that deserves an answer.

Back of the Bus

When given the opportunity to rectify her behavior, the bus driver tried, in the grand Jim Crow tradition of the South, to institutionalize it by assigning the balck children to not only sit in the back, but to share only two seats among all of them, forcing them into an unsafe seating situation.

See, it's really easy - YOU are treated with contempt because you demand, as your fundamental right and defining chracteristic, to treat an entire section of your population with contempt.

The newspaper article does not actually say the white driver is supended, only that the school distict confirms she wasn't driving the bus that day. Steve left off the worst part of the write up. After the white bus driver thumbed her nose at people by assigning more children to the back and to fewer seats, the school district "fixed" the situaton by providing a black bus driver to just drive the black children. Yup, apartheid in the good old US of A.

A bunch of racist freaks and their closeted racist enablers. THIS is "southern hospitality". Screw over little black kids and then whine about people calling you what you are.

Anglachel

The Shortchanged Middle Class

Robert Reich has two excellent blog posts up today, one on the erosion of the economic middle and another on the gutting of the social safety net. Both of them hinge on the condition of the economy for ordinary working people.

But maybe Hank Paulson had something more subtle in mind when he spoke of a $64,000 question. Maybe, just maybe, he was taking note of the fact that median annual household incomes have dropped, in real terms, from about $46,000 in the year 2000 to $45,000 today. Yet if American households had been sharing in the growing economy the Administration is so eager to tout, median household income today would be well on the way to $64,000.

This is something that is only going to grow - the shrinking wallets of the bulk of Americans in the middle.

There is not a lot of sympathy for those at the very margins at a cultural or policy level. Those are the "losers," imagined to be young, black, urban, female, fecund and feckless. That the majority of them are white Christian southern females who are likely to vote Republican (see Ezra Klein's fascinating The Rise of the Republicrats in the most recent American Prospect for a look at this interesting demographic) only shows how far welfare reform is from reality. Regardless, those who have to beg are regarded as failures and deserving of their fate. If that means being thrown from support after five years in a wretched labor market, tough shit. On a personal level, the recipients tend to think of themselves, or of their family members/friends, as eminently deserving, people a little down on their luck, or who have put in so they should now get back.

As I pointed out in an earlier blog post, the pivot point in both understanding and modifying wide-spread views on whether this or that social program should be supported is the concept of being deserving of the benefit. Social Security works because the culture as a whole agrees that it is given to those who deserve it. Putting it into a frame of class conflict just won't work in the US because we as a society see ourselves as "on the way to wealth," i.e., we always imagine ourselves to be among the comfortably rich at some point. Hence the success of the anti-estate tax rhetoric.

What is scaring the middle class more than anything is the knowledge that they are becoming poor, and risk becoming undeserving, part of the losers. They know it isn't their fault on some level (though, actually, it is as they have consistently voted in governments whose economic policies are diametrically opposed to equitable wealth distribution - see the above Klien article), and that they are losing economic clout and social standing even as they deserve to do better.

So, for a Democratic politics to seize the popular imagination, Democrats have to craft a rhetoric of just desserts, that the bulk of the public is entitled not to "hand outs" but to a reasonable return on their investment - universal health insurance, clean environment, earnings in keeping with productivity, sustainable economic growth, access to quality education and services to make it easier to raise kids when both are parents employed outside the home.

Anglachel

Now There's a Thought...

Ed Kilgore has some good news today:

The big news out of Washington today is that the FDA, after years of politically motivated foot-dragging, suddenly approved over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive Plan B, a so-called "morning-after" pill. According to the Washington Post, this decision was part of a deal that will allow Bush FDA appointee Andrew von Eschenbach obtain a permanent position (the nomination had been held up by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray precisely to obtain this result).

Conscience

Now, this isn't great news as the drug is still behind the counter, the purchaser in question still has to ask for it, and no one under 18 is going to be allowed to purchase it at all, eliminating the group who is probably most in need of instant birth control, but it's a damn sight better than allowing the home-grown Taliban to refuse to dispense it (or return the prescription) whenever their little self-righteous and all-to-prurient noses get out of joint. I can also add, on a purely practical note, that I've been a retail manager and can predict this would be a high-theft item if left on an open rack. Kind of like cigarettes and other OTC medications.

Thank you Senators Clinton and Murray for keeping the administration's feet to the fire.

(Of course we all "know" that Hillary only did this out of cold-blooded political calculation, not because she wants to ensure women have access to safe, affordable birth control. Oh no, uh-uh, we all "know" she's a ruthless pol whose every liberal vote is just a sham.)

Ahem....

Kilgore then delivers a delightful smack up side the head to the other participant in the moral pas de deux:

One thing is clear. Over on the demand side of the equation, the decision should encourage Men of Conscience to exercise a little responsibility for their own contributions to potential unwanted pregnancies by trotting their own butts down to the pharmacy and buying Plan B for their worried partners. Let them deal with the disapproving glares at the drug store counter for a change.

Well, shuckie darns and slop the chickens, imagine that. If you don't need a prescription, then anyone (over the age of 18) can go pick up a pack. Which brings us back to the issue that pregnancy takes two. Women have been bearing the burden of birth control for far too long. If unprotected sex happens or a regular prevention method fails, it is women who have had to deal with the medical, financial and moral situation.

Men need to stop being such moral cowards and do some very public things to indicate that birth control is a mutual effort and nothing to be ashamed of. Like going and buying some Plan B to go with the pack of condoms. You should care enough about your partner to wear a condom in the first place (hint - large doses of hormones are really nasty to take) , and be man enough to look some cashier in the eye and pay for the pills.

If you can't do that - taking care of your partner now and your children down the line - keep your pants zipped. You're no kind of man.

Anglachel

The Big Lie

The greatest foreign policy disaster in our nation's history, and Bush thinks he can just lie his way out of it. From Carpet Bagger:

After the president had just gone through a litany of the inevitable tragedies that would occur if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, Cox News' Ken Herman noted that "a lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in." Bush responded, "You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of 'we're going to stir up the hornet's nest' theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East."

Herman interrupted, asking, "What did Iraq have to do with that?" prompting Bush to ask, "What did Iraq have to do with what?" (Laurel & Hardy, of course, came to mind.) When Herman clarified, asking what Iraq had to do with 9/11, the president said:

"Nothing, except for it's part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."

Bush,Iraq, and 9/11 - Redux

Incompetant and dishonarable. A petulant child waiting for Daddy (or Daddy's fixer, Jim Baker) to come in and bail his ass out of another mess. This is Lie and Die politics - he lies, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians die.

Trouble is, it wasn't just Bush or even the Bush Administration or, for that matter, the neocon political machine. It was also an American public that wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and kill people. Yes, the media helped immensely, and had kept up the lie longer than it otherwise would have, but the fundamental truth is that the majority of the American public fully approved of the lie, knowing it to be a lie.

Bush will be gone in a little over two years. The dishonor of the republic will linger a lot longer than that.

Anglachel

Go Francine Busby!

Francine Busby, fiesty Democratic challenger in what was once an unassailable Republican stronghold here in San Diego, CA, is beginning her campaign for November election:

Formerly the sacrificial lamb offered up by Democrats to the politically untouchable Cunningham, Busby, Cardiff school board member and political novice, managed to capture nearly 45 percent of the vote in July. It wasn't enough for a win, but she argues that it still wasn't insignificant in a district forever written off as red.

Despite the registration disadvantage, Busby managed to raise her final vote tally by nearly 10 points from her 2004 race against Cunningham, something she thinks has helped transform the 50th from a ruby red "safe Republican" seat to one that's bubble gum pink and only "likely Republican" according to The New York Times' analysis of the November elections.

Add to that a survey conducted by National Public Radio that ranks the 50th among the top 50 most competitive districts in the nation and you have the reason for Busby's optimism. For her, it's all evidence that the past two years that she's spent campaigning are paying off....

In the wake of Cunningham's demise, Busby ran on a government reform platform but, like many Democrats across the nation, is changing her message. The "culture of corruption" message has morphed into one of a "culture of destruction," which focuses on the record of President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress.

"We have got to reform Congress, we have to restore ethics, we have to break the cycle -- the bond between lobbyists and the members of Congress," Busby said. "But rather than talking about that, I'll be talking about the failed policies that are the result of that."

As examples, Busby points to increasing energy costs, global warming, the need for renewable energy, the rising costs of healthcare and the Bush administration's education policy, No Child Left Behind.

"These are all issues that nobody sees anybody addressing on a level that really makes sense to them," she said. "They're not seeing government in Washington working in their best interests and they are feeling the effects of that now."

From Fever to Fizzle to Forgotten in the 50th

Unlike the kabuki theatre of CT, this is a real challenge for Democrats. Yes, Republicans enjoy a registration advantage in the 50th, but not as much as before, and they have not had a majority of voters turn out for an election in years. This is a question of Democratic mobilization.

Francine is a real progressive, involved in her district (hell, unlike Bilbray, she actually lives there!) , and is a loyal party campaigner. She understands that thinking green is about sustainable growth and a healthy environment for citizens. She rejects knee-jerk xenophobia rampant in the region while her opponent, Brian Bilbray (R - Lobbyist) is organizing his entire campaign around "Kick the dirty wetbacks out! (But make sure they finish mowing the lawn first...)" She supports real science education that is vital for developing local talent for San Diego's high tech and bio tech industries. Instead of scare-tactics and ducking responsibility, Francine stands for being an adult and meeting real-world issues head on, with compassion and realism.

All that has to happen is a bigger turnout of pro-Busby voters than last time. She has increased turn out both times she has campaigned (bigger than the previous Democrat when she ran against Cunningham, then a big ten point gain in June in the special election). She can spend the time going door to door in her district this time around, and she will.

This is the kind of race that deserves more attention and money. This is the kind of race that used to get attention from "liberal" blogs. This is the kind of candidate the "netroots" claims it wants to see - but the leading lights spend their time throwing money and time at the Lamont campaign (a losing proposition of their own creation) and ignore the small quixotic runs that could actually change the balance of power.

I'm not in Francine Busby's district, but I sent her $100 and I'll be promoting her from now through November. She's a solid progressive Democrat whose election can help secure a Democratic majority.

Anglachel

When a Win is a Loss - Failed Strategies

This sounds about like the kind of backroom, insider operations you'll see in DC come January:

1. Lieberman is calling for Rumsfeld's resignation
2. Lamont runs mediocre campaign, narrowly loses the fall election to Holy Joe.
   
3. The senate is 49 Dem, 49 Repub, 2 Ind. Jeffords caucuses w/Dems for 50.
   
4. Bush taps Holy Joe to replace Rummy as SecDef, and Jodi Rell appoints a Republican for CT senator. 50/50 and Cheney provides the final vote.
5. Rummy stays, Holy Joe gets pissed off at lack of support from Dems, caucuses w/Repubs, same outcome as above.
6. Holy Joe bargains, keeps his seniority, caucuses with Dems, 51/49, but is always thumbing his nose at the party.
   

The deep irony here is that if only Lieberman had run with as much determination in the primary as he is going to for the general, this scenario wouldn't be on the table. Of course, if Republicans in CT had a decent candidate, that would pretty much deep-six Lieberman's run. It is hysterical that, as of the last Q poll, more Republicans would vote for *Lamont* than for Schlesinger.

Which brings up the question of strategy. Was this the right electoral round for trying to be rid of Lieberman? Reed Hunt's recent series of posts on TPM Cafe can be read as asking that question by making clear the cost of a Lamont loss in the general election. If Lieberman can be defeated in the general - a much harder proposition than a primary defeat because of having to overcome the Republican & Independent majorities for him - then it was because it will have succeeded. If Lamont loses, then it is worse (not arguably, demonstrably) to have done so because of the disruptive force an unaligned (and unhinged) Lieberman will bring to the Senate. It will be a suppurating wound of a PR disaster for the next seven years as the MSM focuses on "maverick" Lieberman and his battles with Democrats.

In a race where the Repubs are in serious danger of losing their congressional majority, they are going to pull out all the stops to claim that seat by proxy, and they will do thir best to alienate Lieberman without actually bringing him into the party. Their arguments are as full of shit as ever, of course, and my contempt for Lieberman grows by the day as he wallows in it. A Lieberman Independent win is a severe blow to all Democrats, particularly progressive ones, as he cannot be shut down.

Ned Lamont's campaign was a strategic mistake and may become a strategic defeat. He has no compelling message to offer except "I'm not Lieberman". In an electoral cycle when Dems could have cleanly won congressional control (and have been positioned for long-term house cleaning), he has inadvertantly given Rove a brilliant way to fuck over the Senate and keep other Democratic candidates out of the news. The desire of the Jacobin wing of the Democratic party to punish "DLC" incumbents before the power base had been sufficiently secured has propelled an unprepared and uninspiring candidate into an unnecessary contest.

So, Dem leadership is squarely facing the lady or tiger moment, and they have run out of options. They have to choose based on what they can hope for in the 2008 electoral cycle. They need to strongly support Lamont and emphasize party unity at every turn. They had also better hope they can pull out a win in every Democratic Senatorial race they are in. It looks like VA may finally be in play. Unless the Dems can get at least 50, then they are well and truly screwed when Joe comes riding in to town, owing them nothing and out for revenge.

Wrong candidate. Wrong state. Wrong election cycle.

Anglachel

Short Break

I'm recovering from a launch of a great deal of new code to my site, followed by the inevitable bugs and accompanied by a nasty round of spam attacks, so I won't be posting for a few days.

Anglachel

Dying in Vain

Click the image to read the full cartoon.

Robert Reich on Using Political Power

Robert Reich has a post on his blog that offers some insightful advice on what the Dems need to do with legislative power should they win back the House in November, as seems likely, and particularly if they get the Senate, too, as seems increasingly possible.

His first word of advice is not to turn the House into a non-stop investigation machine, and offers excellent reasons - It will be portrayed as merely partisan (the weakest argument, but one recognizing the role of the media in smearing Democrats); the Bushies will simply stall and refuse, and there is already enough info in the public realm to use to discredit the administration; Bush is already so unpopular that he's losing his utility as a focus for the Dems - they need to watch out for the McCains and Hegels; enough with the whining, which is Republican focused and keeping ourselves on Republican turf.

I think Reich over-states his case somewhat. There is room for some nice, on-going investigations if only to feed the scandal machine, but he is right that it can't be the only thing. As for what he thinks is a good thing to do, I'm with him:

...House Dems should use the two years instead to lay the groundwork for a new Democratic agenda. Bring in expert witnesses. Put new ideas on table. Frame the central issues boldly. Don't get caught up in arid policy-wonkdom.

For example, instead of framing basic economic question as whether to roll back Bush's tax cuts, make it how to recreate good jobs at good wages and rebuild the middle class. Consider ideas for doing this through trade policy, industrial policy, antitrust, publicly-financed research and development, and stronger trade unions.

Instead of framing central foreign-policy question as whether we should have invaded Iraq, make it how to partition Iraq into Shiite, Suni, and Kurdish zones while America gets out. Focus the national security debate on how to control loose nukes and fissile material, and secure American ports. Open direct negotiations with North Korea and Iran.

On energy and the environment, they should offer ideas for developing new non-fossil based energy industries in America, and how to ratify a realistic Kyoto accord.

Help the public understand how these are all related. Show why, for example, we'll never have a sane foreign policy unless we reduce our dependence on oil, how the creation of new alternative-energy industries can help create good jobs in America, why good jobs are essential to a reviving the middle class and saving the environment.

Most important, be positive. Avoid the blame game. Bush's shameful record is plain enough. Start the new record. Help America dream again.

Planning Now for a Democratic House

Dems have to contrast the paucity and venality of Republican governance (more money for the rich, screw the poor, use war & terror as electoral instruments) against a (dare I say it?) Clintonian vision of the nation as a whole doing better and thriving. Tying security, economy and environment together is not just an obvious way to distance ourselves from Republican banditry, it is simply the right way to approach the challenges of this century. It also contains something that has not been much in evidence since Boy George took office - US international leadership, which, at its best, has meant leading by example.

The way to reverse the wounds inflicted on the nation by the neocon right since Gingrich's cynical Contract With America was launched is to recast America's dream of itself.

Anglachel

The Dangerous Unanimity of Bush and Feingold

I'm not going to get into the Lieberman fiasco in CT. It's getting plenty of airtime from the usual suspects, and there will be more interesting developments as time passes. I think Josh Marshall says all that is necessary right here.

Riffing off my last few posts, I want to draw attention to the profound agreement between George Bush and Russ Feingold - that the Iraqi people are toys for us to play with as we see fit, and when we want to drop that nation like a hot potato and walk off, we should. That George wanted the war and Russ didn't shouldn't camouflage an incredibly arrogant and short-sighted "America First" relationship to the rest of the world, and a stubborn lack of realism about what "It's so fucked up we can't do anything with it, so we'd better just leave" is going to do to the region. I point not to suppositions, but to an excellent case study - Afghanistan. If the US repeats the Soviet's mistakes with regard to abandoning a nation to its own implosion, what can we look forward to? Another analogy - Iraq will be to Iran as Afghanistan currently is to Pakistan, an anarchy zone abutting a nuclear power.

There are other choices besides the neocon "gotcha" game of "If you do things different than Duhbya, you're attacking America" and the inversion of (not the opposition to) that position, "Get out now." Given that Bush has made clear that he *is* all for walking away, just as soon as he can make it someone else's problem, the default position is "bug out". Bush is just waiting for another person to say the actual words.

Wes Clark, in his pithy and scathing WSJ editorial, makes what's at stake uncomfortably clear:

The public doesn’t have to live with the reminders of old sentiments, jingoistic pronouncements, or votes in the House or Senate. Instead, the public is free to observe, listen and judge. And that judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasn’t quite sorted it out—but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure.

Iraq isn’t Vietnam. America can’t just walk away without horrendous consequences. But “stay the course” isn’t a strategy. And the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answers—and the tougher they’ll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them.

The mistakes the Bush administration have led the country into must be resolved, and not by walking off. The first step to dealing with the mind-boggling mendacity of the Cheneyites is refusing to allow them to continue to claim that what they have done and continue to do is right. The second thing is not to allow them to paint the nation into a corner of "Our way or bail" as the only routes for addressing the cesspool they have left in their wake, consuming more resources, money, and lives by the minute.

Have they made such a nightmare out of the situation that it is irredeemable? The only way to answer that question is to walk off. Leaving a small and demoralized force of Americans in their current positions is not tenable either, so how do we orchestrate a certain kind of leaving that does not mean abandonment either of the people we have wronged or the real security needs of the US?

No, I don't have the answer of how to make it better, but I can see what marching off is going to do - I don't think we have a clue as to how bad it can get. Until we get there.

Al Gore got it right - and now it is contingent on us to do the right thing.

Anglachel

Nope, Not Vietnam

Vietnam analogies are dead wrong when it comes to Iraq, particularly when made by right-wing talking heads and their media whore enablers. There is not some kind of peacenik neo-hippie movement out there being an internal enemy and underminging the nation from within with all their uncouth, unwashed behavior. That didn't even happen in the 60s. We did have Gov. Reagan ordering the teargassing of residential neighborhoods in Berkely to keep people off the streets, and hordes of armed thugs in uniform wandering around beating the crap out of paecefully protesting citizens and brandishing fists and weapons at families in a public park (I was there). The 60s were marked by unreasonable violence by the state against Vietnamese and Americans.

The real analogy is of more recent vintage. Iraq stands in relation to the US as Afghanistan stands in relation to the former USSR. Superpower stomps on regional pipsqueak and gets its ass handed back to it on a silver platter by a home-grown insurgency. The nation, devastated by war, devolves into perpetual anarchy, while the world turns its back and pretends not to notice. The war bankrupts the superpower and demoralizes the nation, causing a centrist, moderate backlash against the arrogance of the state. The house of cards crumbles.

The big difference, of course, is that Iraq sits on top of a huge crude oil reserve, and the USSR has more internal oil and gas reserves than the US.

Wonder where that's going to lead us...

Anglachel

Bush's Timetable

I think it is pretty easy to see that Bush, all protests to the contrary notwithstanding, has set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

It's the day after his presidency ends.

At that point, he doesn't give a damn what happens to Iraq, the soldiers or the US. He'll be free and clear, having manipulated things to try to keep himself and his fellow war crimes planners - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, et. al. - from being held accountable for the willful murder of innocents. He doesn't actually give a damn about the people whose lives he has destroyed right now, either, but once the term of office is done, he can stop even pretending to pretend that he takes it seriously.

Anglachel

Unity and Civility - Wes is a Class Act

Wes Clark was one of the first Democratic leaders to directly and unequivocally request that Joe Lieberman abandon his contrarian pursuit of a senate seat as an Independent.

Walking his talk, Gen. Clark is engaging in some no-nonsense diplomacy within the party. Without bluster, trashy language, or threats, Wes lays out the facts and asks for the rejected senator to act for the good of the Democrats and of the country.

On Tuesday, the message sent by Connecticut voters was loud and clear. They want change, and they want Ned Lamont to represent them in the U.S. Senate, voting for Ned by a 52% - 48% margin over Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November.

As a Democrat, I respect the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters and their decision to make Ned Lamont their nominee. Even before the election results came in on Tuesday, Ned Lamont showed his respect for the voters by committing to abide by the Democratic primary result and support whoever won.

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, began collecting petition signatures to run as an Independent several weeks ago while concurrently running in the Democratic primary. In short, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

Despite his efforts to appear on the November ballot as an Independent, I held out hope that Joe would withdraw from the Connecticut Senate race after the primary votes were counted. Unfortunately, Joe has announced his candidacy as an Independent candidate, running against Ned, the Democratic nominee.

In 2000, the presence of a third party candidate, Ralph Nader, no doubt played a role in the defeat of Vice President Gore and Joe Lieberman. Now Joe Lieberman is risking our party's claim on his Senate seat by running as a third party candidate himself. Recent news reports detail the GOP's interest in supporting such an effort. It's time to draw a line.

I committed myself to supporting the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Connecticut, and I ask you to do likewise. Because too much is at stake with our troubles abroad and at home, we cannot play games this Election Day. That's why I call on all loyal Democrats to join me in urging Senator Lieberman to drop his bid for the Senate as an Independent and endorse the duly nominated Democrat.

We should thank him for his service and invite him to stay active, or even run again someday, but as a party we cannot let Joe Lieberman be this year's Ralph Nader.

The 2006 elections represent a real crossroads for America. We must unify our efforts to stop George Bush's radical agenda and end this one-party government. I hope Senator Lieberman will join us in this critical fight for our nation's future.

http://ga4.org/campaign/joelieberman/

I admire Wes Clark's ability to be both unequivocal and completely civil in this demand. There's more than a few bloggers who could stand to learn that petulant trash talk does not advance a cause and just hands weapons to the anti-liberal punditocracy.

Moreover, I approve of his message of unity. It not only says what needs to be said, but also how it needs to be said. He does not go off into conspiracy land, imagining some wicked cabal by party insiders to cheat the good, pure and true out of their victory. Instead, he talks practical politics, keeping the focus on the real opponent - the Bush White House and the De Lay Congress - and fights substantive attempts to divide the party. He does not stoop to demonization and holds out a hand to let Lieberman redeem himself.

Honesty, integrity, decency and no-nonsense politics. More of this, please.

Anglachel