so, what's a "conservadem" cost these days?

Why is a Democratic Senator with a huge foreclosure problem in his state writing a bill to compete with House legislation designed to cram down mortgages and keep people in their homes? Might it have something to do with, um, money?

Just sayin’. . . .

Jane Hamsher went on The Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday night to explore why our Democratic president and a large Democratic majority in Congress has to worry more about a few Democratic Senators and their new coalition, led by the aforementioned Senator, one Even Bayh of Indiana.

Why is Bayh bucking his party—and, more importantly, his own state’s population—to go to the mat for the banks? Maybe this chart has something to do with it:

That’s a list of Bayh’s top campaign contributors from 2003 to 2008.

Just sayin’. . . .

(cross-posted on Firedoglake)

don’t make him angry. . .

. . . because you won’t. . . oh, never mind. . . .

goodbye—but why?

Pollster Stanley Greenberg writes in Tuesday’s NYT that he is finally ready to say goodbye to his “Reagan Democrats.” Hallelujah. Democrats have paid the price for this ill-conceived frame for far too long.

Of course, I was singing “ding dong the frame is dead” last week. I’m glad Greenberg has joined in, but, to my ear, Stan is woefully off key. Here’s why. . . .

yes we brand

It’s been a long time coming.

The first time that I ever voted was the first time that I was eligible—the 1980 general election. And if that’s not enough of a humbling admission, I’ll go a step further: I voted for Barry Commoner. It was a protest vote in a non-competitive state, but the reasons for that protest formed the foundation of my complaints about Democrats—or, if not Democrats, Democratic strategy—for the rest of my political life.

At least until today (more on that in a minute).

I didn’t have a neat phrase in 1980, because the trend did not yet have a name, but I would eventually topline my criticism by saying, “Why vote for the ersatz Republican when you can vote for the real thing?”

The point of that flip and bitter but all too often prescient comment was that Democrats, by pursuing what came to be called “Reagan Democrats”—conservative or right-leaning voters who, by some freak of demographics or inertia, had failed to change their party affiliation even though their worldview had left the Democratic party with the creation of Medicare, the signing of the Voting Rights Act, or protests over the Vietnam War—had so muddied their brand that they turned off or failed to inspire their core audience while failing to convince the so-called center that a second-to-market mishmash was better than almost just-as-good as the original. And when Democrats did manage to tilt Reagan-ward enough to grab the odd brass ring, the result was even worse—for the party and the country—for, you see (and this quickly became the corollary to my first proclamation), in a contest between an old Republican and a new Republican, the victor is guaranteed to be a Republican.

By the 1990s, the Democratic elite had evolved enough to believe that they shouldn’t so much follow the voters as they should follow the money. The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton did manage to divert their way some of the rivers of cash that had been flooding GOP coffers, but, to my mind, they did so at the expense of the party’s natural reservoir of votes.

Flash forward another decade, and suddenly “values voters” were all the rage. Democrats, apparently, didn’t know how to talk about religion—apparently the font of all positive values—and so were losing white evangelicals. Until Democrats embraced the naturally conservative (some might say reactionary) beliefs of this highly organized voting bloc, they would never feel the electoral love. The dreadful results that befell Democrats for more than a decade, or, depending on how you evaluated, perhaps more than a generation, stood as some kind of unmistakable verification of this trope.

Chasing Reaganites, millionaires, or evangelicals all required the same tactic, however (and not surprisingly), and that was a full-throttle fudge to the right.

What the ever-shifting boundaries of this monotonous, mono-directional, and monumentally flawed brand strategy always failed to understand, though, was that the group of habitual voters that Democrats supposedly just had to win-over to win was so very much smaller than the group of natural constituents who had become disenchanted enough to disengage, or who had never been inspired enough to participate in electoral politics at all.

To again put it in a tidier package: Instead of chasing the money, Democrats should have been chasing the voters. There are so many of them naturally predisposed to love Democrats for who they are—or recently were—that if you could just get them excited and invested in the outcome, they would swamp any numbers you might be able to pick off from the Republican base.

Which brings us to the here-and-now.

Though I have some reservations about what type of president Barack Obama might be, I have never failed to praise him as a candidate. The genius of the Obama campaign, and what I have loved most about the last year, is the ability of Barack Obama to reach out to, excite, inspire, and organize a part of the Democratic base that had long been either taken for granted or left for dead. With the voter registration drives, the canvassing, the outreach, and the GOTV, Obama didn’t have to sweat the right—he had something bigger and better: a broader definition of the American electorate.

For, while Obama and his surrogates might talk of an America beyond partisanship, the values and, indeed, the proposals that drove the Obama campaign were solidly Democratic. The fairness he preached and the cool reason he seemed to embody contrast favorably with the selfishness and base emotion of the Bush years. Proposals like more equitable taxation, universal access to affordable, quality healthcare, and a belief in the importance of organized labor feel like the Democratic Party I remember from my pre-voting youth. And a pro-active, fact-based approach to combating global warming is a refreshing reproach to the reactive and reactionary anti-science stance that drives today’s GOP.

Embodied in all of that, too, is the inherently Democratic (and democratic) sentiment that we are all in this together, rather than the sad ethos of the right—that we are all in this for ourselves.

And, amazingly, in returning to Democrats’ core principles and best practices, and not pandering to the Reagan Democrats or values voters or whatever we will now decide to call them, Obama was able to win (win back?) some of their votes. Obama’s victory is a monument to good branding—and I mean that wholly as a statement of admiration (I am, after all, a brand strategist). Barack Obama and many other Democrats this cycle (and I would be remiss if I did not single out DNC Chair Howard Dean for special praise) have proven that crafting a strong brand, behaving as a distinct brand, and not being simply a “not” brand—and then selling the distinct benefits of that brand—is the best route to victory.

After a lifetime of railing and flailing, I feel, well, not vindicated, but, at least, validated. I hope that Obama and other Democrats see it the same way—even if not all will admit it in public. Candidate Obama preached hope while implementing a strong and identifiably Democratic brand strategy. My hope is that President Obama sees that this would be a solid strategy for governing, as well.


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

endorsement: vote row E for WFP

If you are a regular reader, then I expect that you can guess what I’m going to say when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States. If you call yourself a liberal, or a progressive, or a lover of individual liberty and reproductive choice; if you want quality, affordable healthcare to be accessible to all Americans, if you want to restore some modicum of equity to the tax code, and some degree of sanity to our foreign policy; if you want to approach energy independence and global warming with the seriousness and the urgency those matters deserve; if you want a government staffed with experts instead of ideologues that is led by a man who trusts his intellect enough to be intellectually curious—or even if you just want some portion of all this—then there is only one way to vote on Tuesday: Barack Obama for president.

BUT, if you live in New York, there are actually two ways you can vote for Obama—you can go the old, stodgy, predictable route, and pull the lever or mark your box for Barack Obama (D), Democrat, or, if you really, really believe in all that I laid out above, you can vote for Barack Obama (WFP), Working Families Party.

As I have discussed in elections past, New York has something called “fusion” voting; this allows a candidate to receive the endorsement of more than one party, and to be listed on the ballot under multiple party lines. All the votes for a single candidate, however, are combined to count for the final total. A vote for Obama on Row E—the Working Families Party line—counts just as much as a vote on the Democratic line. . .

. . . and more.

More, because the Working Families Party is more than a social club or the vestigial organ of some moribund New York political machine, the WFP is an active and organized party that has been fighting for progressive ideals for better than a decade. They stand for universal healthcare, tax equity, and equal representation under the law. They have lead fights for a living wage, for green jobs and green homes, and affordable housing. They advocate for better-funded public schools so that every child gets a quality education, no matter where he or she lives, and the public financing of elections to get the corrupting corporate money out of the system.

Earlier this month, WFP teamed with organized labor and local activists to protest New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Speaker Chris “Quisling” Quinn’s naked power grab vis-à-vis term limit “extensions.” The effort did not prevent Bloomberg from buying enough influence on the City Council to win his rule change, but working together, the WFP and the people of NYC made a lot of noise and called a lot of attention to the undemocratic way that the mayor and speaker went about overriding the existing law. Because of this effort, the fight to unseat these arrogant plutocrats next year has a big head start.

By voting for Obama—and for other cross-endorsed candidates—on the Working Families line, you are showing candidate and country that you stand for these kinds of progressive ideals. A vote for BHO (WFP) Row E shows that you want our next president to embrace the progressive potential that has brought you to his side.

By voting for state candidates on the WFP line, you will help shape the next generation of New York politics. Democrats are poised to gain the majority in the state senate for the first time in over 40 years, and thus will control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion. It will present a tremendous opportunity to reform a dysfunctional state government; a vote for the Working Families Party will give the left better leverage in the battles that lay ahead.

The Nation, The Albany Project, Daily Gotham, and Democrats.com have all endorsed a Row E WFP vote because they all know that strengthening the role of the Working Families Party is a solid step toward building a statewide progressive movement. Voting for Obama on the same line brings that voice to the national dialogue.

Barack Obama has promised change, and I truly believe that his election will noticeably transform the style and substance of our national leadership. What kind of change, how much change, and how directly that difference will affect the lives of hard working Americans, however, still hangs in the balance. The progressive direction advocated by the Working Families Party is the kind of change Democrats have been fighting for lo these many months and years—it is change we can believe in.

Vote Row E.


UPDATE: Thanks to the courts, we have a late-breaking exception to this rule in Western New York—NY-26, to be specific. Please vote for Democrat Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line.


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)



[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

show Joe how tired you are. . .

. . . of him.




Senator Lieberman (Party of One – CT) was asked his reaction to this video petition; his response: “I think most people in this country are really tired of this kind of partisan politicking.”

Tired of partisan politicking? You bet your soft, wrinkled ass we are, Joe—but not of the kind above. We’re tired of your kind of partisan politicking, Senator.

Joe Lieberman has been lashing out at real Democrats ever since we had the temerity/good sense not to give him anything resembling meaningful support during his pathetic, short-lived 2004 presidential bid. Since then, he has touted the Bush foreign policy agenda at every turn, even lobbying for a hot war with Iran.

Majority Leader Harry Reid failed to dissuade Lieberman from running against the duly elected Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, in the fall of 2006, and then, to his everlasting discredit, Reid gave the ex-Dem a committee chair. As head of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Lieberman has failed to investigate—no, make that actively opposed investigating—the Bush Administration’s catastrophic failures in the face of Hurricane Katrina.

Now he spends his days performing as John McBush’s shadow/handler/attack dog because it gets a bunch of hatemongering rightwing talk show hosts and unimaginative establishment journalists to show him their pale simulacrum of love.

And yet, strangely, he still has all of his seniority inside the Democratic Caucus.

Joe’s convinced that Democrats are out to get him, so, I think we should show him that just because he’s paranoid doesn’t mean he’s not legitimately the object of our derision.

Do something. Sign the petition.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

up the down ticket

There was much ado ‘round the ‘sphere yesterday about a pair of electoral maps published by SUSA, each of which show the potential Democratic nominee beating the prospective Republican one—though Senators Obama and Clinton would likely take different paths to electoral college victory over John W. McCain.

That both Democrats are now projected to win is great news, but the difference in the way that they win—the states that each would take to gain the requisite number of votes in the Electoral College—is not inconsequential. As one of Ezra Klein’s commenters points out:

The Democratic Party is more than the Presidential nominee. . . . The difference between Clinton's path and Obama's path is there are 10 Senate seates [sic] in the Obama states I gave versus 4 Senate seats in the Clinton states. Obama's path is a much better path for the party and to win Congressional seats you actually need to govern.

In other words, Clinton might currently appear to fare better in a few large “swing” states, but the number of smaller states that Obama seems able to win have more potential pickups in Senate contests, while still giving him an Electoral College victory. That doesn’t mean that Democratic candidates for Senate can’t win in states that might favor the AZ Asshole for president, but it is undeniably a much bigger lift without the Dem nominee’s coattails.

While I have argued in the past that a candidate’s “electability” shouldn’t be the primary motivation for choosing a presidential standard-bearer—it sets up a ridiculous equation where you try to game your vote by guessing how others would vote if they were thinking about the field the way you were—I have also argued in favor of looking at what a nominee for president would do for other races on the ballot. I have given this criterion extra emphasis because the mess we are in after two terms of Bush-Cheney is too big for just one man or woman to clean up. A Democratic president will need solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress if anything is to be accomplished—from passing universal health coverage to confirming judges that will favor the Constitution over rightwing Republican ideology.

Right now (and the maps are only a snapshot of right now), it appears a ballot headed by Barack Obama will have a positive affect on more important down ticket races than a ballot topped with Hillary Clinton. Or, as EK puts it:

[T]here's little doubt, at this point, that [Obama] provides a bigger boost to downticket Democrats running in moderate and even conservative states. And that matters. You want a real theory of change? Have the votes to pass your legislation.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, Daily Kos, Open Left, and The Seminal)

big W for the big D in NY (w/ an assist from WF)

A special election in New York’s 48th state senate district on Tuesday saw Democrat Darrell Aubertine take what had long been a seat held by Republicans. As the New York Times points out, this switch puts New York Democrats within one seat of taking control of the State Senate, something they haven’t done in over 40 years.

It’s a big win for the Democrats, and a big win for some of Elliot Spitzer's consultants, who lent muscle to the Aubertine campaign, but (and missing from the Times article) it is also a big win for New York’s Working Families Party, who cross-endorsed Aubertine and ran his GOTV operations.

Under the peculiarities of NYS election law, candidates are allowed multiple listings on the ballot under the banner of separate parties, with all the votes for the same candidate being tallied together. This allows a progressive third party such as Working Families to pick like-minded candidates within the system, and give them the extra help and visibility the party can provide. Candidates that want the WFP endorsement have to speak to the party’s progressive ideals. The candidate then gains their help; the Working Families Party gains the visibility for their issues and the greater media attention that naturally gravitates to a traditional party candidate, But, best of all, the citizens of the Empire State gain another progressive lawmaker to fight for the rights and wellbeing of the less privileged and hard working people of New York.

Congratulation to Senator-elect Aubertine, congratulations to the NYS Democrats, and congratulations to the Working Families Party.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

president Bush threatens not to leave if house doesn’t submit to his will

I’m sorry, but I am just so amused this morning as I hear over and over that George Bush is threatening not to leave for Africa unless the House of Representatives rolls over and whitewashes his wrongdoing by passing without amendment the Senate version of the FISA rewrite. Think about it—if you don’t vote, I won’t go.

Putting aside that his fear mongering is nothing but a shameless pack of lies. Putting aside that it’s the President that has set up this showdown. Putting aside that the apparent issue that he has with the House version is that it doesn’t grant telecom immunity, so, as Senator Kennedy says, Bush’s logic says that phone companies are more important than American lives. Putting aside that nothing will happen to any surveillance project if the egregious PAA is allowed to pass from law. Putting aside that Bush’s Africa visit is supposed to do things like promote peace in Kenya and AIDS prevention across the continent, but somehow, this FISA food-fight is more important. Putting aside all of that. . . .

The apparent biggest threat that Mr. 29% approval rating has left in his nasty, self-serving, partisan arsenal is threatening not to leave!

I think I speak for at least 71% of America when I say, “Go, George, Go.”


(OK, I can’t quite let it go yet. . . . Seriously, what is he going to do if he stays? Talk about it? Oh, no—an entire news cycle of George Bush talking! In case no one has noticed, this guy’s poll numbers go down pretty much every time he opens his mouth. Reminding America about Bush and his failed presidency, especially over the long President’s Day weekend, is like the gift that keeps on giving. Nothing could be better for Democrats this election cycle than to have Bush on TV every other freakin’ minute saying, “Hello, remember me, the Republican architect of your misfortune?” So, Georgie, you wanna stay home and blow hot air? I say, “Bring it on!”)


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

a tale of two constituencies

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Democratic Caucus in the Senate handed President Bush-Cheney a huge victory on Tuesday, passing the un-amended SSCI version of the FISA bill, 68 – 29.

Let me just remind everyone, because, frankly, it is sometimes hard to remember, that the Democrats are the majority party in the Senate.

This bill contains retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry, which, as previously explained, is really a “get out of jail free” card for the President and his henchmen. This bill also contains many other egregious planks that do more damage to our Constitution than any bill I could have ever imagined coming out of a supposedly democratic body. As Senator Chris Dodd put it, “We’ve just sanctioned the single largest invasion of privacy in American history."

That what passes for a Republican party voted in lock step to cover up this administration’s wrongdoings is not a surprise, but what can we say about the Democrats? Specifically, these Democrats:

Conrad, Rockefeller, Baucus, Webb, Kohl, Whitehouse, Bayh, Johnson, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, McCaskill, Lincoln, Casey, Salazar, Inouye, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Carper, and Landrieu.

I will also add Feinstein to this list. She voted against the final bill, but that was just a cover, since she voted for cloture—which was as good as signing off on it. Lieberman also voted with the coward caucus, but that’s no surprise.

Many of these same Dems voted for the Military Commissions Act back in 2006, and the last FISA “fix”—the Protect America Act—last year.

I would also like to nominate Majority Leader Harry Reid to this hall of shame, for if Reid had wanted to, he could have stopped this piece-of-crap bill (and the PAA, for that matter) cold. Reid made a big deal about his opposition to the SSCI version, but he ignored Chris Dodd’s hold on it, and allowed this bill to come to the floor ahead of the better Judiciary Committee draft. Shame!

It should also be noted that among the Presidential aspirants, Obama showed up to vote to strip telecom immunity from the bill, and voted against cloture—and I extend due thanks for those votes—but he left before the final roll call. Clinton missed all of the votes on Tuesday. And, John Asshole McCain—ever the maverick—didn’t show up, either.

Now that’s what I call leadership for the future!

I am surprised by the votes of Webb and Whitehouse. They are both over four years away from reelection and have been critics of the Bush Administration on other so-called “war on terror” issues—they should both know better.

As for most of the rest—oh, hell, ALL the rest—what were you thinking?

This is not a rhetorical question.

Polls show that voters are against telecom immunity and warrantless surveillance by solid margins. They despise and distrust George W. Bush even more. So, Senators, you clearly were not acting in the interests of the American people.

We also know that this bill does little (likely nothing) to enhance our nation’s ability to catch “potential terrorists” (whatever the fuck that is), but it gives the administration vast powers to do opposition research, limit a free press, and stifle dissent. So, Senators, you clearly were not acting to protect the nation or the Constitution.

And, as has been established, this version of the legislation lets the Bush bunch off the hook for what is now over six years of illegal behavior when it comes to domestic spying. So, you were clearly not acting to defend the rule of law.

So, what the fuck were you doing? Who the fuck are you working for?

Could it be that you really work for the telecommunications lobby?

Could it be that you harbor some vague future ambition?

Or, could it be that you are just acting out of stupidity or cowardice?

Really, I see no other options.

Of course, this exercise in incompetence/cowardice/greed is not quite over. There is still the superior House version of this bill to be dealt with in conference. There is a petition over at FDL asking House members to stand firm. If you have not yet seen it, please click on over and sign it. Then keep your ear to the ground—or whatever we do these days—and watch for another vote on something before the PAA expires on Friday. (And, I will continue to contend, simply letting the PAA expire would really be the very best option. I can dream, can’t I?)

As for all the Democrats that have failed us, I recommend that they pick up a paper and read about The Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, for it was there on Tuesday that progressive Donna Edwards beat eight-term Bush-dog Al Wynn in the Democratic primary.

Incumbents should now think long and hard about whom they really represent. Thanks to the increasingly sophisticated organizing skills of the grassroots and netroots, it not enough to simply label yourself a Democrat, grab a seat, and then hold on to it. Corporate money might have gotten you to where you are, but it will not always keep you there. Not any more.

Every one of the Democrats that help the Bush administration abrogate the Constitution, every one of you that votes for the rule of men over the rule of law, every one of you that chases the money instead of leading the way out of the last decade of darkness, you now have a time clock, and it is counting down to your next primary.

So, each of you, ladies and gentlemen of the United States Congress, the clock is ticking. It’s time to decide: which constituency do you represent?


(cross-posted on capitoilette, Daily Kos, and The Seminal)

tuesday takeaways—a super-ramble through my random observations

I’m jut going to throw these out—my apologies if this seems a little disjointed, but if I wait to edit and shape it, it’ll be not so super Thursday before you get to read it.

The Asshole from Arizona won big. Bigger, in fact, than most think right now. While much is being made about how California’s Republican delegates are not winner-take-all, since they are awarded on a district-by-district basis, it is important to note that each district is itself winner-take-all. As of this writing, McCain leads in almost every California district, so it could look very close to winner-take-all for the state when all the counting is finished. Barring a collapse—and I’m talking about a physical one, not an electoral one—McCain is all but assured the Republican nomination.

California, it should also be noted, was a closed primary for Republicans. Independents—or “decline to state” as they are called there—could only vote in the Democratic primary (where they split, by the way, between Clinton and Obama), so McCain had to win over confirmed Republicans.

McCain’s victory is, in one way, anyway, very good news for all of America. The old guy won over plenty of conservative voters in spite of a full court press from conservative talk radio stars like Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt. Those radio hosts have been excoriating McCain while supporting Romney. If conservative radio, with its nationwide reach, can’t scare Republicans off McCain, I don’t think we should be too afraid of their affect on the general election population.

Romney came out of Tuesday winning two primaries—in his “home states” of Massachusetts and Utah—and a handful of caucuses, but that’s it. It has cost Romney well over a million dollars per delegate won so far; in order to win the nomination, he’s going to need about a billion more dollars. Even Mitt’s not that rich.

But, with all of that in mind, it should still be noted that the Arizona Senator could not win 50% of the Republican vote in Arizona. No doubt McCain’s purportedly “moderate” position on immigration hurt him with the xenophobe wing. Will those voters swallow their irrational hate long enough to vote for McCain in November, or will they just sit on their hands? Will tacking Huckabee on the ticket as a sop to the haters of science and haters of Mexicans be enough to get them to the polls? Does such a cynical play alienate too many so-called independents to make it worth it for the Republicans?

On the Democratic side, the rush by most of the establishment press to call Tuesday a wash, a tie, a toss-up seems to spring on the one hand from some sort of disappointment that Wednesday’s headlines couldn’t announce a winner, and on the other from some need to prove the meme that we are a country divided.

How bloody stupid—on both counts.

There must be some part of the media’s collective lizard brain at work here: uncertainty equals anxiety (or so marketing consultants will tell you). And with the Democratic nomination still uncertain, the establishment must be anxious for us.

Take today’s editorial in the New York Times. It laments “stark intramural divisions” that threaten both parties. As noted, that might be true for Republicans, but for the Democrats, party enthusiasm is at an all-time high. The Times even grants that most Democrats agree on policy issues. But, instead, as has become infuriatingly predictable, the Times fixates on identity politics.

While Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have few policy disputes, voter polls showed gulfs between their core supporters: men for Mr. Obama and women for Mrs. Clinton, and so on with black voters and Hispanic voters, more educated voters and less educated voters, richer and poorer, those driven by the idea of change and those looking for a candidate who cares about their problems.

Well, hats off to the Times’ editorial board, they have finally learned that men and women are different.

I can’t believe I have to explain this, but here goes: to say that different demographic groupings voted to some greater or lesser extent for one candidate over another is not the same thing as a split in the party.

I understand how having Limbaugh or Anne Coulter attack McCain for not being a real conservative can cause an ideological rift to open up inside the Republican Party, but that is just not equivalent to what is happening on the Democratic side. I went over this in an earlier post, but I’ll say it in a slightly different way here: that a female voter expresses a preference for Clinton does not mean that she is a member of the pro-woman wing of the party. The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is not between those that think Democrats are most like African American men versus those that think the Democratic essence is embedded in the skin and pantsuit of a white woman.

Hell, I don’t even think there is a poll that shows a split between “the idea of change” and “those looking for a candidate who cares about their problems.” (It’s usually “change” versus “experience,” right?) If there are numbers on this, please show me—but I believe the Times has invented this dichotomy for the sake of their editorial.

Making it only slightly more fictional than their other “gulfs.”

If Senator Clinton gains the upper hand, should she reach out to many of the new, energized voters that Senator Obama has brought into the process? Of course she should—and I have no doubt that she will try. Should Obama try to understand the issues and undercurrents that ring true with Clinton’s core supporters? Absolutely—and I expect he will try to do that, too. But in either case, I expect that each will talk about issues—yes, issues—that interest those constituencies. You will not hear Barack say, “I think white women are real cool,” any more than you will hear Hillary claim, “There are lots of reasons for men to like me.” It’s not that it just sounds offensive to say those things, it’s that it is offensive because that is not how it works with real voters.

As I have noted before, Democrats—indeed, most of America—is quite united. Overwhelming majorities disapprove of Bush, his war, his economy, his love of torture, his assault on the Constitution. Likewise, majorities are solidly in favor of universal healthcare, a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, tax fairness, aggressive policies to end global warming. And on every major issue, Americans trust Democrats to have better solutions than Republicans.

It is bad enough that newspapers and news networks don’t understand that a continuation of the contest is good for their business, but it is especially unfortunate that their concern trolling overshadows the fact that this primary battle is good for the Democrats, too. As DNC Chair Howard Dean and others have noted, contested primaries keep voters interested. It gives the candidates lots of free press. Exposes more voters to their messages. Builds familiarity. Builds excitement.

Maybe the exposure is bad for Republicans, who generally hate their choices, but every indication so far is that Democrats are excited by their candidates and their chances. Voters are not turned off by the contest, they are turned on, and, so, turn out has been through the roof. This trend continued for Democrats in every Super Tuesday state for which I could find statistics.

So, taking the establishment media’s predilections into account, was it really a tie last night?

Dare I say, “Yes and no?”

You can find the exact numbers in various places, but, in short (or semi-short), Obama won more states; Clinton won bigger states. The sum total of all Democratic votes cast yesterday broke for Clinton by a very small margin (not that this matters for anything but bragging rights).

More interesting to me: Obama won all the caucus states. Caucuses should go to the candidate with the better organization. That was supposed to be Clinton, but, toss in Iowa, and I’m not sure we can say that anymore.

Obama did better in Illinois than Clinton did in New York. Though, delegate-wise, Clinton looks like she’ll get 60% of New York’s.

Obama won Yvette Clarke’s district (NY-11) which includes parts of Park Slope, Brownsville, Kensington, Flatbush, and Midwood. He also won Edolphus Town’s district (NY-10), which includes parts of Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Bedford Stuyvesant, Canarsie, and East New York. But Clinton won Charlie Rangel’s district (NY-15), which is predominantly in Harlem, Inwood, and Washington Heights, but also includes parts of Astoria and the Upper West Side.

Obama didn’t win New Jersey, and he didn’t win Massachusetts, but he wasn’t supposed to. He wasn’t supposed to win Connecticut, either, but he did. He got close in NJ, too. Look at this how you want, but to me either you say “Clinton hung on” or “Obama almost caught up”—now which candidate would want that as a talking point?

Obama narrowly won Missouri—after several news organizations had called it for Clinton. While the delegate count will be close to evenly divided, the big O’s victory just might give him some big MO. As Al Giordano—who correctly predicted every one of last night’s Democratic races—puts it ever so cutely:

Game over. This is the big psychological win that Obama needed tonight. Nobody (present company excepted) expected this upset.

. . . .

And somewhere in a country called Tennessee, a grey eminence is watching, pulling hidden weapons out of the trophy case, eyeing them, remembering the thrill of the fight, gearing up for battle.

I have no idea where Giordano gets his grey eminence intel, but, if true, it would be a fine feather in Obama’s cap. No, Al Gore is not a white woman, Mr. New York Times guy, but he is as much a household name as the Clintons, and with lower negatives.

Another interesting development from Tuesday: The Clinton camp has called for more debates—roughly one a week through early March—and has moved to break with the party and agree to appear on FOX News for at least one of those debates. You have to wonder why the so-called frontrunner would call for more debates (that breaks with traditional strategy), and why Clinton would risk alienating part of the Democratic base before she wraps up the nomination.

Well, here’s a possible reason why: Hillary Clinton is out of money. I know, I can’t quite believe it, either, but both Al Giordano and Bob Cesca are more or less reporting this. Take into account that, through Tuesday, 90% of all money raised by all campaigns has already been spent, and it seems more plausible. Also, note that Obama out-raised Clinton in January by better than three to one.

Suddenly, a weekly burst of free media—risks and all—looks very attractive to the Clinton camp.

The rest of February also looks good for Obama. Louisiana this weekend, then the Chesapeake primaries, all have the chance of breaking for Barack. With proportional allotment of delegates, it won’t move him that much closer to the nomination, but, again, some big momentum could be in the offing.

And it is in that race for the delegates required to garner the nomination that I see the only problems with an extended and contested Democratic race.

Should Clinton fall short of the nomination by a margin smaller than what she would get from Michigan and Florida, then I expect her camp will fight to seat those delegates. Such a fight would be divisive, I fear. It lends to the perception that the Clintons play by their own rules, and lends a degree of credence to those in the Obama camp that have already accused the Clinton camp of electoral shenanigans.

Should, instead, the 20% of delegates known as “super delegates” be the deciding factor, and should there be no obvious side for the bulk of them to take going into the convention, the Democrats again risk alienating voters (especially new voters, I think). Forget the presidential race, it won’t be good for the party or any of its other candidates if a group of primary voters feel like their earlier exercise in democratic expression was a relatively meaningless work out.

And that is possibly my only really negative takeaway from SuperFat Tuesday—and it’s not even really a result of yesterday’s news, instead, it is a fear of tomorrow’s. What has been so exciting, so unequivocally wonderful this primary season, no matter which candidate you started out supporting, is the incredible rise in Democratic democratic participation. People feel like their votes really matter, and so they have gone out of their way to vote in record numbers. Wouldn’t it just disappoint those voters, and reward the cynics and the cynical Republicans, to demonstrate through machinations only a party hack or a beltway bloviator could love that the votes didn’t matter so very much after all. . . .

And wouldn’t it reward the gulf-loving media to have Democrats begin that internecine fight before the standard primary battles had run their course?

I think it would. And so, on this super Wednesday, when there is so much to cheer, I will sound this note of caution to the Democrats. Focus on the issues, not the process. Make George Bush your target, not your Democratic opponent. Contrast your proposals with John McCain’s—such as they are. Reference all the ways that we are alike—and like so many Americans—not those few ways that lazy pundits use to tell us apart.


(cross-posted on capitoilette and The Seminal)

and now for questions from our audience:

OK, I’m watching the last Democratic debate before Super-duper Tuesday, and whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………..

Huh, what? Sorry—I fell asleep there. Man, it almost makes you miss the—naw, I ain’t gonna go there.

Well, here’s a question I can pretty much promise you wasn’t asked tonight (OK, I’ll admit it, I really caught the whole debate, and this wasn’t asked), so I will ask it here:

With Howard Dean heading the DNC, Democrats retook control of both houses of Congress in 2006. If you are elected president, you will have great influence in whether Dean remains in his current position. Will you pledge, right now, to keep Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee? If not, why not, and who do you plan on recommending as Dean’s replacement, and why?

Think about your answer. . . I’ll wait. . .

. . .

. . .

. . . still here. . .

. . . zzzzzzzzzzzz. . . .


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

fighting for the fighters

Kay Steiger, over at Tapped, alerts me to a pledge by two wealthy alums to my alma mater, Wesleyan University. Frank Sica (’73) and Jonathan Soros (’92) have created a fund to provide scholarships for up to ten military veterans to attend the Middletown, CT, school.

Steiger, however, questions the approach:

While it's admirable that the donors want to see that vets can afford to go to a school which costs roughly $47,000 a year, they might have better spent their resources lobbying for an expansion of the GI Bill. Many veterans benefits are having trouble keeping up with the demand -- an influx of new veterans puts a strain on a system that was intended to pay the way for a vet to go to pretty much any school he wanted. Instead, even with GI benefits, vets have to work jobs or take out loans to make up the difference. Additionally, most vets don't dream of going to schools like Wesleyan. They want to attend a nearby state school or community college.

I can certainly agree with Steiger’s ultimate goal, but I don’t see it to be at odds with the grant by Sica and Soros. While the gift to Wesleyan is substantial, it should not preclude these two wealthy gentlemen, and/or people like them, from also supporting a lobbying effort on behalf of the Bush-era vets.

Further, while I can’t directly contradict Steiger’s assertions, I also can’t blindly embrace them. While our all-volunteer force might draw disproportionately from social strata and locales not prominently represented in the Wesleyan student body, that is not to say that none from this group are without such aspirations. In fact, admissions structures such as they are at America’s elite universities—with alumni networks, feeder schools, and legacy benefits—actively discriminate against many that Steiger assumes would prefer the less competitive educational options.

I expect there are several now serving or recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan that would thrill to and benefit from the type of education I was fortunate enough to receive at Wesleyan. I know that Wesleyan would benefit from admitting the veterans.

However, to Kay Steiger’s important point—it is beyond obvious that we need a new GI Bill. Be it for higher education or vocational training, those that volunteered for service with thoughts of improving their lives have more than earned this level of assistance. But they also deserve more. They deserve access to competent psychiatric care, free of charge. They deserve medical care, funded through the government, for as long as they need—not just care for wounds sustained in battle, but full medical coverage, for themselves and their immediate families, whether or not they continue as active duty or reservists. And they deserve a VA health system that has fully repaired its Bush administered breakdowns.

Additionally, building on the old GI Bill model, current vets should have access to low interest home loans, and government protection from predatory lending practices.

Finally, it is not really up to any one or two rich college grads to promote this program—it is up to our elected representatives. In fact, even without a high-priced lobbying effort, this one should be a no-brainer for the Democrats in Congress. While Republicans wring their hands and rant about supporting the troops while they are doing the president’s bidding in Iraq, what could be a more palpable demonstration of support than passing a package that includes the programs and the money necessary for our veterans and their families to thrive here at home?

With the obvious benefits, the ready constituency, and the successful history of the WWII-era GI Bill, I challenge any Republican to oppose a contemporary version. And if they do, I would welcome the fight.

(cross-posted to The Seminal and Daily Kos)

too pissed to blog

I really thought that with the elevation of Democrats to the leadership of both houses of Congress that the worst of my politicocentric rages were behind me—but today, my cardiovascular system and I discovered that I was wrong.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

Say what??? Are you fuckin’ kidding me? Have we learned nothing. . . again? Did the Democratic leadership fail to read the editorials back in August that shot their cavalier strategizing square through the strangely missing moral core? Did they fail to read my blog???

Sadly, everything—absolutely everything—that I, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said back in August still applies (please take a moment to click back to that post—I can’t bear to write it out again). And that leaves me seething to point of crimson face and bulging eyes.

Today, even the previously resolute and admirable Rep. Nadler seems to be showing his jelly-leg.

Mr. Nadler said that he was worried the Senate would give too much ground to the administration in its proposal, but that he was satisfied with the bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House.

“It is not perfect, but it is a good bill,” he said. “It makes huge improvements in the current law. In some respects it is better than the old FISA law,” a reference to the foreign intelligence court.

Not perfect, in this case, is not good enough. . . and not at all good. Calling the proposal an improvement on the current law is like calling a stake through the heart an improvement on water-boarding followed by a stake through the heart. I will remind everyone, including Mr. Nadler, that all the Democrats have to do (like all they had to do in August) is NOTHING. This colossal capitulation mistake is set to expire around Valentine’s Day—this no time to pen another love letter to the Bush Administration and its cowardly pals in Congress.

Jerrold Nadler is my Representative, and I plan to give him a piece of my mind. I urge all of you to do the same with the men and women that claim to represent you. . . especially if he or she is a Democrat. (I can’t believe I just wrote that. . . I can’t believe I just had to write that.)

Remind them that you support moral representatives that uphold their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic—including the Bush/Cheney Administration.

Remind them that our most basic liberties hang in the balance. Tell them that you will stand by them if they stand strong themselves. Teach them what you and civil liberties experts already know about this purported FISA compromise:

‘This still authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without a warrant in far too many instances, and without adequate civil liberties protections,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, who was in the group that met House officials.

Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was troubled by the Democrats’ acceptance of broad, blanket warrants for the security agency rather than the individualized warrants traditionally required by the intelligence court.

“The Democratic leadership, philosophically, is with us,” Ms. Frederickson said. “But we need to help them realize the political case, which is that Democrats will not be in danger if they don’t reauthorize this Protect America Act. They’re nervous.

“There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality, which is understandable,” she said, “But we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle.”

Indeed, they are putting us all in danger. Let we the people try not to let that happen.

(Gosh, I guess that you just can’t really be too pissed to blog—who knew?)


Update: Apparently things are at least a little grayer than the Gray Lady would have us believe. According to Glenn Greenwald and Christy Hardin Smith, there is much to feel good about in the House version of this legislation. Christy is urging folks to call their Reps in support of the work of the House Progressive Caucus in restoring some safeguards and adding some new requirements to the FISA process.

Serves me right to go on record after only reading the paper of record.

Of course, the proof is in the endgame, which will involve the Senate and some serious backroom bullying and front room grandstanding by the likes of GW, Dick, and Mike McConnell. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of “umbrella warrants,” and, frankly, the whole idea of a secret FISA court strikes me a singularly anti-American, but, from a lobbying and calling your Representatives standpoint, perhaps it is best we keep our powder dry for the moment, and call to support what we like about this Conyers-Reyes proposal.


(cross-posted on capitoilette and Daily Kos)

i’ll take that as a “no”

I learned a long time ago, while studying the decisions leading up to the Bay of Pigs debacle, that if a military leader expresses anything less than 100% confidence that he (they were pretty much all “he” back then) can accomplish an objective, then he is virtually certain that he can’t. Even if he says something like, “I’m ninety percent certain,” you can be pretty sure that he’s thinking, “it’s gonna take a miracle.” These are can-do guys, and they don’t very much like to go before their president or their people and say “I can’t.”

What, then, to make of this?



President Kennedy learned from his disastrous experience with the Bay of Pigs invasion to read between the lines, if you will, and evaluated military advice differently two years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It shouldn’t take a degree in political science to know that when a supreme field commander answers a question like “Does [your strategy] make America safer?” with “Sir, I don’t know actually,” that he is really saying “not even a little.”

Which, of course, begs the question: If we have already been told that political success in Iraq is not imminent, if we already know that the current strategy has accelerated ethno-sectarian violence, and we now find out that the high and continued loss of blood and treasure does not make our own country safer, then what the hell are we doing over there???

I am somewhat heartened by a rundown of Tuesday’s testimony posted on the Democratic Caucus’s Senate Journal—at least on their website, it seems that the majority “gets it.”

When you click over and read that page, pay special attention to the number of times Gen. Petraeus says something like “I don’t know” or “I have not asked” whenever the true answer would be unpleasant or politically disadvantageous to the Bush Administration. Now that’s the kind of can-do leadership that inspires confidence, huh?


(h/t Think Progress)

Democrats again willing to compromise on Iraq

That, of course, would have been a more accurate headline for today’s lead story in the New York Times:

Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 — With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”

Or, another possibility would be: Democrats willing to compromise values over Iraq.

Or, maybe: Democrats willing to provide political cover for sinking Republicans.

Some poker face, gentlemen.

Seriously, somebody needs to slap Sens. Carl Levin and Harry Reid silly. Even if compromise was a laudable goal here—and it certainly is not—who announces in advance of a negotiation that they are prepared to give away the store?

Here’s an example: How much you want for that turkey? I’m going to offer you a dollar, but I’m really willing to go as high as you want.

Does that sound like a good strategy to you?

Let’s get this straight, guys: There is no “mixed picture” on “progress” in Iraq. The GAO report and the latest NIE both confirm that the Bush escalation has failed. There is no way to “win” this war. The Iraq debacle is hugely unpopular with American voters. Coalition troops are dying daily for no other reason than to save face for the Bush Administration and its Republican enablers. Democrats took both houses of Congress in 2006 because voters expected them to end the occupation. Americans are not looking for some face-saving measure, and no one is interested in compromise except the president who is content to run out the clock on Iraq, and Republican members of Congress who are looking for anything that sounds vaguely pro-drawdown to hang their hat on come November 2008.

This Democratic strategy doesn’t “peel off” Republicans—it props them up.

And meanwhile, people die.

How’s that gonna look come ’08?

The Democrats control Congress—they control the budgets for this war. Keep sending bills to the president that include specific deadlines for withdrawal over the next year. De-fund anything that doesn’t meet those goals. Let the president veto it. Let the extremely unpopular Bush go on TV and explain that he needs to extend this extremely unpopular war for another 2, 4, 6, 8 months. Let him. Every time the president opens his mouth, another Republican loses his seat in Congress.

Pretty much that’s how it works. The polls say so. Bush is at a place now where he actually goes down in popularity every time he makes a media push.

So let him blab about how Democrats want to bring the troops home but he wants them to stay. Let Bush talk Iraq, Iraq, Iraq all the way through to next fall.

I dare you.

You can thank me in November.

note to congressional dems: start those spine-strengthening exercises before you return

Everybody remember the last fight over an Iraq supplemental. Of course you do—it was only, like, four months ago! Or, maybe you don’t remember. . . because, when all was said and done, it really wasn’t much of a fight—Democratic leadership tapped out after one veto and one additional veto threat.

Well, if I were a member of the leadership, currently wrapping up my summer holiday, I would start practicing how to stand up. . . or, at least, how not to bend over. . . again.

As Thomas Ricks warns us in Wednesday’s WaPo:

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.

The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.

The request is being prepared now in the belief that Congress will be unlikely to balk so soon after hearing the two officials argue that there are promising developments in Iraq but that they need more time to solidify the progress they have made, a congressional aide said.

If I were a Democratic member of Congress, I would also bone up on the facts; like the fact that by any metric you choose—troop deaths, Iraqi deaths, Iraqi government unity—the surge escalation is not working. Not even a little.

So, I would start working out and reading up for a stronger body and a sharper mind. That’s what I would do.

But, of course, I want the occupation to end and the troops to come home. . . .


(Oh, and, note to Ricks, or the unnamed White House official, or whoever is responsible for the term “rapid drawdown”: By using that term, it perpetuates the myth that somehow Democrats are advocating a reckless and precipitous withdrawal. I can’t think of a single member of the majority that has argued for that. Rather, the plan, for those that have a plan in mind, would look like this orderly redeployment—at its most “rapid.”)

Dem agog

As today’s papers trumpet the president’s signing of his asked for and granted blank check to spy without warrant in any way he wants on practically anybody, foreign or domestic, I am still somewhat amazed, aroused, and most certainly horrified by what happened this weekend.

(Oh, yes, there's more. . . so much more. . . .)

next mechanism please

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called again for the resignation of Attorney General (and “loyal Bushie”) Alberto Gonzales. Speaking during the debate to end the debate on the so-called “vote of no confidence,” Reid began as follows:

I rise in support of S.J. Res. 14, a resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate that Attorney General Gonzales has lost the confidence of Congress and the American people. The Senate has a responsibility to express its displeasure with a Cabinet officer who has grossly mismanaged his responsibilities and failed the American people. That is the one and only mechanism we have – short of impeachment – to address malfeasance by a high-ranking federal official.

Well, while a majority of the Senate clearly expressed their lack of confidence, the move for cloture failed to gain needed 60 votes. The final “yes” vote of 53 included seven Republicans; the 38 “no” votes included Republican toy balloon Joe Lieberman (Schmuck-CT).

I probably don’t need to remind you of the litany of Gonzo’s misdeeds (if you need reminders, New York Senator Chuck Schumer has a few here), but perhaps we all need reminding that, success or failure of S.J. Res. 14 notwithstanding, today, as yesterday, Alberto Gonzales is still the Attorney General, he is still in charge of the Department of Justice, he is still our nation’s “top law enforcement official.”

Senator Reid said the resolution was the only mechanism available short of impeachment—well, the cloture vote fell short, so what does that leave Reid, the US Senate, and the American people?

Senator Reid, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, Democrats—it’s time. Enough Pussyfootin’. If you want to keep the pressure on this miscreant and his lords and masters in the White House, if you want to start fighting back against the partisan political attacks on our Constitution and our electoral process, if you want to maintain your own credibility as the Party that stands in opposition to the criminal ways of the Bush Administration, then you need to start the wheels turning on that other mechanism. You need to begin hearings on the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.

Now.

adding a little color this summer?

Yesterday’s LA Times featured a story about how Democrats (and the activists that love them) are planning on making this summer the Summer of Iraq (cue music).

WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders, whose efforts to force a withdrawal from Iraq were stymied last month, plan a summer of repeated Iraq-related votes designed to force Republican lawmakers to abandon the White House before the fall.

. . . .

"The debate on Iraq will continue," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said last week. Pelosi, who in March helped push Democrats to embrace a withdrawal of American combat forces, has pledged that the House will vote on numerous measures aimed at ending the war.

My first thought was, “Wouldn’t it have just been better to continue full-bore with the spring offensive to shut down this war?” My second thought was, “Gosh, for Iraqis, and the troops over there, and for all of us here that have been paying attention, every day of every season has been ‘of Iraq’ for the past four years.” But then I settled on another thought. . . .

If the Democrats goal is to split Republicans away from the Bush Administration on the Iraq issue, well, I admire the effort, but, as recent votes show us, it’s a heavy lift. However, the issue where congressional Republicans seem to have no problem standing up to and against the White House is immigration. I mean, honestly, nothing dries up a rubberstamper’s inkpad like the threat of adding a little color to the American envelope.

So, what if Democrats made one of their front-and-center “all Iraq, all the time” bills a piece of legislation designed to, on an emergency basis, quickly allow for, and even facilitate, a massive up tick in the numbers of Iraqi refuges allowed into the United States? What if the Democrats say the mayhem necessitates that a humane nation take care of the people whose lives we’ve disrupted? What if they propose a resettlement to the US of, say, 20,000, or 50,000, or even 100,000 Iraqis?

Granted, even 100,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the million Iraqis that will be displaced this year because of this conflict, but even 20,000 is a massive improvement over the 68—yes, sixty-eight—that have been relocated to the US this year. It is possible that 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes since the start of Bush’s war, surely Bush’s country can make room for a small fraction of those poor people.

That would be the argument, anyway (one I actually believe).

Now, I understand that both President Bush and his rubberstamp Republicans are both opposed to the idea of increased Iraqi resettlement for their own selfish reasons, so you won’t necessarily get a divided vote out of the GOP caucus—but imagine the floor speeches! Who wouldn’t like to hear a variety of Republicans try to gracefully meld immigration reform with Iraq war policy? Whose heart doesn’t quicken at the prospect of seeing the odd elephant chase its own tail in an attempt to find just the right way to stand on being helpful to our Iraqi brethren while safeguarding our white race, oh, I mean, our nation’s borders?

And how about the pickle in which this would put Senator and presidential wannabe John (asshole) McCain? He’s pro immigration reform and pro-escalation. . . and now, pro-fifty-years-war.

I know that the Democratic leadership has a lot to do to get back on offense this summer, but I can think of few better ways than to take two issues that have the backing of two-thirds (or more) of Americans (ending the Iraqi occupation and liberalizing our immigration policy), and hold them up to show whose on the side of the voters. . . and who is on the other—the Republican—side.