The Sunday Muse, Memorial Day Edition

Random clippings from this week's news:

Business/The Economy

Wall Street: This is what happens when a political party devoted to small government and lax regulation is in charge:

The Securities and Exchange Commission abandons investigations for lack of resources, allows corporate wrongdoers to skip fines and drops cases because of a bureaucratic culture of risk aversion, according to a recent federal report...

The report raises questions about how well the SEC can do its job protecting investors with such glaring deficiencies.

The number of SEC enforcement attorneys declined 11.5 percent from 2004 to 2008 while cases were closed prematurely or not investigated at all, the report says.

Although a wide range of cases is pursued, "one attorney told us of closing several cases that were promising but which could not be pursued for lack of resources," according to the report.

With such lax oversight, how can investors and American taxpayers regain the confidence in the financial system necessary to revive the global economy?

Detroit: It was once unthinkable, but now seems inevitable.

Capitol Hill: The Roberts Court does corporate America's bidding.

Science/The Environment:

Has anyone checked the temperature in hell lately?

Republican talking heads, full of hot air and blinded to science.

Politics:

GOP 2012: In the race to crazy that is the GOP nomination fight, Sarah proves she's still in the game.

Education:

The Golden State's tarnished future: California's kids to pay the price for political failure. The draconian spending cuts now facing the state's school districts is an unconscionable abandonment of the state's children, it's most important resource.

Foreign Policy/Military Affairs:

South Central Asia: As President Obama goes "all in" in AfPak, I find myself wondering if anyone has clearly defined America's end goals in a region known as the graveyard of empires.

Capitol Hill: Disappointing the anti-war left that propelled them to power over the past two elections, a Democratic Congress passes another "no-strings attached" Iraq/AfPak war supplemental funding bill. But this year, it's a Democratic President who launched his national career as the anti-war candidate who receives the money. Was this the change we had in mind?

George Bush's Holy Crusade

GQ reveals the religious cloak Rumsfeld's Pentagon used to push the invasion of Iraq at Bush's White House.

Is it any wonder the Islamic world eyes American military policy as a 21st Century Crusade when Intelligence updates to the President use biblical verses like, "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go." ~ Joshua 1:9

I shudder when I see how Rumsfeld reinforced Dubya's belief he was Chosen as an instrument of God by quoting Peter, "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

How can we not tremble at America's role in this clash of civilizations when "Onward Christian soldiers!" is the White House's marching orders for the military?

Who is winning this war for oil?

Keith O and Rachel Maddow turned to the topic of Straight Talk Express' derailment over McCain's war for oil comments tonight. As we've come to expect, Rachel proves she is one of the sharpest Talking Heads in Punditland.

Rachel M: The press corps has not been enthusiastic about following up on John McCain gaps. This one seems to me to be such a big one on such a big important issue. And, it's on tape. There's video that it has to be followed up on. So, he's either going to need a new explanation or he's actually going to have to run with it and defend this idea. I think he might actually end up defending it.

Keith O: Well, I mean, this, this raises the point that Bush and Cheney have raised recently. Oil, the price of oil, the idea of Al-Qaeda getting hold of the control of oil as a justification for staying in Iraq. And that bring you this, to McCain. Five years ago anybody who suggested there was the slightest hint of a connection, a rumor, of a hint, of an innuendo of a connection between going into Iraq and the price of gas was considered a lunatic, unpatriotic, terrorist,lefty. How and why did this suddenly change into John McCain's campaign platform?!"

Rachel M: I, I honestly think that the most likely outcome here is that McCain end up defending this, at least at the end. But then, Karl Rove has recently – and I realize he's not in the White House anymore. But, he's still influential for these guys, especially for their talking points. He has recently raised the prospect of $200 a barrel oil if we leave Iraq. So, they are explicitly willing to tie oil and gas prices to what's going on with that conflict and what our troops are doing.

The problem is, though, if you actually make the case to the American people that we are there for oil, well, we've spent a trillion dollars, we've lost four thousand Americans, we've spent five years and now we're paying $4 a gallon? We are not the beneficiaries of the War for Oil. It does not redound to the American consumer.
I think the real Mission Accomplished moment right now, that we can see in Iraq, is when the oil companies getting precleared by the Iraqi government to bid on the Iraq oil fields service contracts ended up on the front page of the business section last month instead of the front page of the international section.

Straight Talking: War for Oil

McSame stumbles into a political minefield. At a forum in Denver, the Republican admitted what many opponents of the Iraq Quagmire have claimed all along:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Chris Matthews was atwitter about this new Straight Talking. He asks his panel, "How does McCain explain this one away? Just when have we gone to war over oil?"

Hey, Europe, Can You Spare a G.I.?

With renewed violence in Iraqi cities claiming more lives, it appears our military is scrambling to find 7,000 soldiers to combat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Is our military stretched that thin? For quite some time our military leaders have been warning the Bush/Cheney/McCain warhawks that they are simply asking too much from our men and women in uniform. Now, it looks like we're forced beg our allies for reinforcements but:

A majority of America's NATO allies continue to balk at U.S. requests to send thousands more of their troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, the renewed violence in Iraq and the White House decision to suspend further American troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer will make it harder for the Pentagon to send more American forces to Afghanistan next year as President Bush has promised.

"I'm deeply concerned," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday. "In this economy of force operation, we do what we can. Requirements exist that we simply cannot fill and won't likely be able to fill until conditions improve in Iraq."

If our country is facing an endless, multiple front war isn't it irresponsible to NOT have a draft? Shouldn't this question at least be asked of the candidates running for president (and Congress)?

What Would YOU Do With Three TRILLION Dollars?

Brave New Films has a new game to play. Just in time for tax day, Robert Greenwald observes, "George B in Washington started an illegal war that resulted in 151,000 dead Iraqi civilians...Donald R in Arlington, VA, destabilized an entire region and displaced four million innocent people. What will you do with three trillion dollars. Go to http://www.threetrillion.org/ and spend, spend, spend "

Is McCain a Sacrificial Lamb?

Polls show voters rank the economy and Iraq War as two of the top three issues - along with healthcare - in Election 2008. Despite a majority of Americans opposing the war and supporting a withdrawal timetable, Republicans are on the precipice of nominating John McCain, a candidate who envisions the possibility of another Hundred Years War and pleads ignorant to the machinations of the national economy. Yesterday, McCain himself admitted his November success is intricately linked to voters viewing the Bush/McCain troop surge as a success.


How does a "Know Nothing" economic warhawk candidate who happens to be despised by his own party's base convince enough Republican voters he is the most electable general election nominee? Is the answer as simple as GOPers adhering to their tradition of selecting the guy next in line? Or was he simply the strongest candidate in an extremely weak field?

I think it was a smart Machiavellian political calculation by conservative leaders. Facing a political climate dominated by a foreign policy fiasco and a domestic economy in shambles after nearly a decade of conservative governing, "movement conservatives" eventually realized the chances of Republican victory in November were remote. MSNBC talking head (and conservative former GOP Rep) Joe Scarborough has said on air, "Republicans won't admit it in public, but they are preparing for a landslide defeat to the Democrats this year." If this is truly the case, it raises the question: Is McCain a sacrificial lamb?

Think about what McCain at the top of the GOP ticket means:

1. The party is "All In" on Iraq: As they were in the 2006 midterms, Republican electoral chances are intrinsically tied to the public's perception of the Iraq quagmire. Perhaps moreso this time around. This is not limited to McCain's campaign, but to all Republican candidates.
2. The conservative base may stay on the sidelines: Despite the recent rallying of conservative talk radio hosts and pundits to McCain's side in the aftermath of the NY Times McCain lobbyist story, it remains unclear as to whether or not the grassroots conservatives will show up at the polls in November. These are the foot soldiers critical to fundraising, GOTV efforts and victory up and down the ballot.
3. The loss of immigration as a wedge issue: Over the past two election cycles, GOP strategists have attempted to gin up the base (as well as blue-collar Reagan Democrats) with the specter of illegal immigration as an economic and cultural wedge issue. Despite its failure to produce GOP electoral victories in states from Arizona to Virginia, all signs were for the nativist rhetoric to continue through the 2008 campaign. McCain's partnership with Ted Kennedy (of all people!) on the failed effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform compromise removes this issue as a central tenet of the Republican strategy.
4. The End of Campaign Finance Reform: The recent news McCain is trying to escape the limitations of the public financing system must be delicious vindication for the conservatives who have long vilified McCain for his leadership role on this issue. Watching the champion of CFR find the limits placed on his candidacy by the legislation he co-authored must be sweetly ironic from the conservative viewpoint.

When (as many political strategists now anticipate) McCain goes down in flames in November the conservatives, led by Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity and the rest, will self-righteously proclaim, "We told you so! Republicans lose when they nominate a moderate! They can't win without the conservative base. Campaign finance reform's limits on free speech do hurt Republicans more than Democrats who have their allies at the New York Times and CBS providing free media and positive stories! Republicans ignored the biggest domestic problem facing America today - illegal immigration - and they paid a price for inaction." The chorus will be well-choreographed and deafening.

The last time the Democrats won in a landslide - 1964 - it was the conservative Barry Goldwater who was blamed for the GOP loss. The wingnut opinionmakers are hoping to flip the historical precedent by offering up the McCain effectively banishing the moderates from the party.

You may think the conservatives are too power-hungry to concede this year's election and relinquish control of the White House. But conservatives are not unlike the four-year old who runs from the kitchen after breaking the cookie jar and responds "Not me!" to his mother's question, "who made this mess?" Don't be surprised when they point their finger at the Democratic administration and yell, "It was them!"

Hey, Stupid, It's Iraq (and the Economy)!

Arianna has a post up over at HuffPo about the diminished focus on Iraq in the presidential campaign. In recent weeks, the MSM has pushed the "surge is working" storyline and Arianna correctly warns the Democratic contenders about the perils of ignoring Iraq on the campaign trail. She argues ceding the foreign policy and global war on terror issues to Republicans is risky and a repeat of Kerry's 2004 strategic mistakes.

I agree. The Democrats need to buck the newly delivered conventional wisdom being spouted by the media who "have hit on a new way of diminishing the importance of the war: pretend like no one cares about it anymore, like it's old news." It is yet another "inside the beltway" consultant driven talking point that reveals the disconnect between the chattering classes and the American electorate.

Our Democratic nominee will have the best chance of winning in November if they expand beyond our "kitchen table" economic issues (where Dems are traditionally strong) into the realm of foreign policy and national defense.

The Sunday Muse

Three Items for the FUBAR File:

1. American influence in the world continues its freefall thanks to BushCo foreign policy.
2. Anyone else thinking it might be time to apply the "Three Strikes Law" to Democrats and their dismal failure to stand up to Bush/Cheney on an Iraq timeline?
3. Today's WaPo is reporting senior Congressional Dems (including Pelosi) were briefed on CIA interrogation techniques back in 2002 and no one raised any concerns about waterboarding, making this week's call for an investigation into the disappearance of the interrogation videotapes somewhat disengenuous.

The Nomination Horse Race Updates:

In Search of The 'New Girls' Network: The Wall Street Journal reports on Clinton's difficulty winning over successful, professional women.

No Longer a Dark Horse: I'll say it again: Huckabee's surge in Iowa (where evangelical voters are proving once again they will participate in politics as one cohesive voting bloc) is bad news for Democrats in the November general election.

A Primary Contest: If any additional evidence was necessary to show the Democratic nomination contest has morphed from a coronation march into a true battle, there's news of a dramatic shift in South Carolina (where Obama is now in a statistical tie with Clinton).

America's Credibility & The NeoCon Cowboys

Oh, Canada! A Canadian judge rules the United States should not be considered a safe haven for refugees. Now we can add our neighbor to the Great White North to the roster of nations (The Coalition of the No Longer Gullible?) who view America as troublemakers and a source of global instability.

The "shoot fast and furious, torture thoroughly and aggressively" Neocon mentality continues to diminish America's international stature.

Despite the growing international consensus, our Commander-in-Chief continues the sabre-rattling over Iranian nukular intentions despite the just-revealed NIE showing Tehran suspended its weapons program four years ago. From yesterday's press conference:

Q The clarification is, are you saying that this NIE will not lead to a change in U.S. policy toward Iran, or shift in focus?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm saying that I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous, and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous. And I believe now is the time for the world to do the hard work necessary to convince the Iranians there is a better way forward.

-- snip --

So our policy remains the same. I see a danger. And many in the world see the same danger. This report is not a "okay, everybody needs to relax and quit" report.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was on Hardball last night:

"If this weren't so deadly earnest. This isn't about curiosity. It's about credibility. This administration has damaged us to a degree that no other administration has in American history."

The Bush/Cheney NeoCon cabal loses credibility (if there was any remaining) and America's international influence is diminished. How will this play out in the presidential campaign? The two frontrunners, Hillary and Rudy, both already showing signs of weakness in recent polls are likely to be weakened further.

The news strikes the very foundation of Rudy's candidacy - terrorists are everywhere - or are they? Hillary's experience argument takes a hit as the electorate will once again question the wisdom of her Iran vote. How much experience does she need before she gets foreign policy correct?

TGIF Random Thoughts

The Manchester Union-Leader poses the question: Can Huckabee play in New Hampshire? Will his evangelical background be an obstacle as he tries to win over Granite State voters? They report an ARG poll due out today will show the former Arkansas governor breaking into double digits for the first time.

"Hey, Rudy, Don't Bring Your Love to Town" - get a room in the Hamptons.

Apparently, I wasn't the only one noticing the fact that the war in Iraq was almost an afterthought during the GOP YouTube debate the other night. Two big topics from the Democratic tussles - a looming crisis with Iran and healthcare reform - didn't even get mentioned. Talk about parallel universes and an ideological divide.

Does the cancellation of the Dec 10th Democratic debate due to the WGA strike work to Hillary's benefit? It was to be the last group gathering before the Iowa caucuses and with the holidays underway (and an expected hiatus from negative politicking) does it mean the voter sentiment will remain static? Or is the Iowa electorate as fluid as South Carolina, where 49% of Dem voters remain undecided according to a Clemson University poll?

Random Thoughts 11.28.07

Presidential Liabilities: What is Bill Clinton thinking? How smart is it for the former POTUS to be tacking to the left of his presidential candidate spouse at this point?

Endorsement Mania: I'm a firm believer that endorsements are a bunch of hooey --- most of the time. I mean, the idea that trumpeting the support of the local alderman, the city dogcatcher or even the A-List Hollywood celebrity reeks of a condescension to the average voter. The assumption is: "Mr & Mrs Smith, you don't have the time (or the intellect) to determine who would make the better president, so because Angelina Jolie says she's voting for me, you should support me too!" Nevermind Angelina's concerns may be far different from Mary and Joe Shmoe.

The frenetic race to collect the most endorsements has always seemed a tad bit overdone. Having sad that, the upcoming Oprah for Obama campaign swing through the early states is the exception. Oprah has proven over and over again how her "Seal of Approval" carries tremendous weight. While recommending a book or other product is very different from backing a political candidate, her millions of supporters are certainly going to give Obama a serious look simply because she's telling them to. I think it makes him an even more competitive general election candidate.

As a response, the Hillary campaign rolls out their endorsement of the day...Barbra Streisand.

Really?

Sorry, Babs, selling millions of recordings isn't the same as having millions of voters invite you into your living room each afternoon. Oprah wins this one hands down.

One Thousand Five Hundred & Eighty-Three Days

Is how long American troops have been in Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid announced from the US Senate floor this morning.

Think about it: One Thousand....Five Hundred...and...Eighty-Three Days

of war.

Today, it was 115 degrees in Baghdad.

Our troops are wearing 100 lbs of gear, patrolling the hostile streets as the Iraqi parliament prepares for an extended August vacation.

Those 160,000 troops deserve our respect. And they deserve to come home AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Meanwhile, back in the US Congress' air-conditioned corridors, Mitch's Merry Men whine about being kept up all night.

It amazes me they can sleep at all - especially if they remembered one more number:

Three thousand, six hundred and twenty-two.

How much larger will this number grow before the GOP Senators stop protecting their president's failed strategy?

Chrispy's Political Prattle for Friday the 13th

A "Baker's Dozen" quick hits list from around the West (and more!) on Jason Voorhees' favorite day:

• WA-08: Recent GOP-convert Rodney Tom announced he will be a Dem candidate in the suburban Seattle district of GOP Rep. Dave Reichert. 2006 Dem nominee is hard at work raising money and working the netroots (she'll be liveblogging at FireDogLake on Saturday morning -11AM PDT, 2PM EDT)
• OR-Sen: In the "Revised Comments" section, Sen. Gordon Smith - facing re-election in 08, told Fox News the other day that his December 2006 observation about the Iraq War as "criminal" was inaccurate. He now describes the war as "Insane" - will any of his GOP colleagues agree?
• Show Me the Money: How important are the Q2 fundraising numbers? Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg has an interesting article "Historical Review of Second Quarter Fundraising." Does money at this stage of the cycle predict who wins? Hint: Howard Dean.
• Iraq - the Endgame: Craig Crawford @ CQPolitics.com points out Thursday's House vote (223-201) represents a molasses-like pace movement away from the president's Iraq surge. Needing another 67 votes to override any presidential veto means the Dems won't get enough support until summer 2008 if the current pace continues.
• MT-Sen: From the "Majority Matters" file: Montana Sen. Max Baucus (and Finance Committee Chairman) reports his fundraising total for Q2 2007 has doubled over the same period back in 2001. His CoH amount ($4.3 million) is a considerable sum, particularly in a state the size of Montana. His broad based support across the state helps explain why the GOP has only put Loony Mike Lange as an opponent to the five-term senator.
• NM-01 & ID-01: The trend of Iraq War veterans jumping into politics continues - Democrat Byron Paez has tossed his hat in the ring in New Mexico. This comes a week after Republican Matt Salisbury announced his primary challenge to freshman GOP Rep. Bill Sali.
• AZ-03: The "gut-check" terror alarm: Arizona GOP Rep. John Shadegg apparently shares the same gastro-intestinal pyschic abilities as Homeland Secretary Chertoff. Since we know the administration doesn't need factual intelligence to go to war, does it surprise anyone that the person responsible for monitoring terror threats relies on his tummy?
• GOP House Outlook: NRCC Chairman Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) is already 'spinning' his party's 2008 House election prospects and you know they're worried when he says, "Nobody gets two 2006s in a row," Cole said. He pointed out that the 202 seats Republicans currently occupy are ten seats better than President Reagan held "on his best day."
• Rudy's Rough Ride: The Giuliani campaign's foundation seems to be crumbling with each passing news cycle. The people that know him best - the firefighters and the voters of New York City don't seem to like him. How long will it be until Rudy's front-running campaign follows McCain into the second tier of GOP contenders.
• NV-03: Swing State reports the DCCC may have finally suceeded in recruiting a top tier challenger to Vegas area GOP Rep. Jon Porter in Clark County prosecutor Robert Daskas.
• CA-44: What is it with California's GOP delegation? A grand jury ruled GOP Rep. Ken Calvert and two business partners bought and sold real estate in violation of state regulations. The Hill reports the decision will not affect Calvert's re-election plans, nor cause him to lose his seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
• WA-GOV: Christine Gregoire, the Democrat narrowly elected over Dino Rossi in 2004, is credited by Forbes Magazine with making Washington State one of the top five business-friendly states in US, undercutting the GOP argument that Democratic regulations hinder economic activity. It remains unclear whether Rossi will mount a challenge in 2008 (the state Dems argue he's declared and then undeclared already). The news this week that an investigation has been launched into whether his non-profit Forward Washington organization violates state law means a rematch would likely be a 'no-holds barred' contest between the two parties.
• From deep in the heart of BLUE TEXAS, one last picture, in memory of Lady Bird.
  
  

Who "Lost" Iraq?

It may seem like an inconsequential - perhaps even obscene - question to pose, as the answer is so obvious to those of us who inhabit the liberal blogosphere. The answer, however, is NOT as clear to the rest of America - and a failure to proactively and repeatedly reinforce the message that the REPUBLICANS are responsible for "losing Iraq" could result in long-term Democratic electoral difficulties.

As the political establishment grudgingly accepts that Bush's Iraq Disaster is approaching its inevitable - and much belated - endgame, the question as to which party will be held responsible for "Losing" Iraq will become a central - if subtle - theme in American politics. In fact, the talking points are already fully developed if we take a look behind the red curtain.

If the progressive netroots doesn't engage in this debate, WE will be held responsible for the Iraq "defeat."

Please note my deliberate use of quotations in the discussion - the point is to illustrate the American public's "perception" regarding Iraq - not necessarily the reality. It behooves us to understand that the conflict over Iraq is increasingly (and arguably always was) viewed by many Inside the Beltway politicians and strategists as a battle of ideas, slogans and themes. I'm not trying to define winning/losing or debate whether or not Iraq was ever winnable. I'm acknowledging that Americans will perceive a troop withdrawal as a "loss" and we must not only accept this but also do everything in our power to make sure the blame for this "loss" is placed on the Republicans. After all, they've earned it.

I find myself motivated to write this post as a result of a recent conversation I had with a close friend - a steadfast, yet pragmatic liberal. He expressed concern over the American public's view of the Democratic Party as 'pacifist' and vulnerable on defense and national security issues. I won't go into the details, but it got me to thinking - and worrying.

Of course, we all know this fear permeates the Inside the Beltway mindset. The spectre of looking soft on defense paralyzes Democratic officials. Hillary's steadfast refusal to apologize for her original Iraq vote and the Congressional leadership's Memorial Day capitulation on the Iraq supplemental arise from this fear.

Let's face it - Americans don't like to lose. And, when we do, someone must be made the scapegoat. In the early 50s, the refrain was "Who Lost China?" in the aftermath of the Communist victory. In the mid-70s, the fall of Saigon prompted another round of finger-pointing. In both cases, the American public perceived the Democrats to be responsible for the "defeat." Truman and the Dems were vilified for the defeat in China, paving the way for McCarthy's excesses and eventually a Democratic-led escalation in Southeast Asia. The Vietnam defeat, at least in the public's long-term recollection, was blamed on the anti-war protest movement. And, because the protestors were associated with the McGovern Democrats, the Dems paid a political price. This explains why the current Democratic leadership continues to be leery of the netroots' anti-war demands. They fear being labeled as the "losers" in future elections.

Make no mistake - the perception as to who "lost" is more important than who is to "blame." The American public - at least for the time being - places the blame for getting into Iraq where it rightfully belongs - with Cheney/Bush. We've won that argument. Finally, most Americans understand the link between 9/11 and Saddam was non-existent.

Now that a majority of Americans finally agree Iraq was a mistake, ironically, the question becomes less important. Being identified as the instigator evaporates relatively quickly (especially to an electorate who posesses a long-term memory shorter than the average goldfish). But, the stigma of losing can linger for decades (as it still does with Vietnam).

The next stage of the Iraq debate is fast approaching - and it's critical to understand the long-term political and strategic consequences of allowing the other side to successfully label the Democrats as "Defeatocrats." If the right convinces the general public a troop withdrawal represents the Democrats "capitulating" to the anti-war extremist netroot base, we risk becoming marginalized within our own party. Achieving all of our other goals will become more difficult.

So, how do we confront this situation? We repeat LOUDLY and OVER and OVER and OVER again the gross incompetence of how this Administration conducted this war. This may not go over well amongst this audience, but the debate over whether the war was immoral or unjustified (of course the answer is YES to both questions) is irrelevant at this point.

The Republicans LOST this war, and it is our duty to make sure the American public remembers this simple truth.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

On the Campaign Trail - Iraq Causing Problems for Leaders of Both Parties

It looks like leadership puts a "bull's-eye" on your back.

In the Senate, USA Today has a story about Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's troubles back home. The two most divisive issues - Iraq and immigration have got poor Mitch in a vise and, despite a campaign account with over $2.7 million, Democrats see him as vulnerable:

The local congressman, Rep. Ed Whitfield, is a Republican and a McConnell ally, but he doesn't dispute the forecast. "All of us on the Republican side do have concerns about the political climate next year," Whitfield said.
McConnell denies that he's worried, but there are signs that he's moving to protect his political flanks:
•Two weeks ago, after helping to shepherd the president's immigration bill through several tough fights on the Senate floor, he helped kill the legislation by voting against it.
Conservatives took credit for changing the senator's mind. "If he had voted for that legislation, his position would have been in danger," said Leland Conway, a Lexington radio talk-show host and blogger.
•Last week, McConnell qualified his defense of Bush's war policy. He said the president should be allowed to commit additional troops to Iraq but added, "People are running out of patience — with good reason."

Compounding McConnell's problems is the reelection campaign of ethically challenged GOP Gov Ernie Fletcher, who won the party nomination despite McConnell's public endorsement of his primary opponent. The results were viewed as evidence of McConnell's declining influence back home - and the rift caused Fletcher and his supporters to vow revenge. Local blog, "Ditch Mitch" has daily political news from the Bluegrass State.

War protester Cindy Sheehan made news this weekend by threatening to move to the City by the Bay and challenge Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't impeach President Bush within the next two weeks. Now, I don't think this is a smart strategy for a number of reasons. Let me say I respect Cindy Sheehan's position - and cannot begin to comprehend the loss she has experienced as a result of this immoral war. The WaPo reports:

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan said. "We hired them to bring an end to the war."
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the congresswoman has said repeatedly that her focus is on ending the war in Iraq.

Daly is right. And, Sheehan needs to understand that Pelosi is NOT the enemy, and by focusing on her and the Democrats, she undercuts the movement she has worked so hard to build. As a citizen in Pelosi's district, I don't believe Sheehan can mount a credible challenge to the Speaker. And, if she can't win in San Francisco, the war's supporters will point to her defeat and say, "See, even in liberal San Francisco, Sheehan's anti-war position is too far left." It might be smarter for her to run against a war supporter and see how the voters in a district there respond to her message. No one would expect her to win, but if she got a respectable (over 40% of the vote) it would be a HUGE victory.

Pelosi has been consistently against the war. Her pragmatic approach to the political realities have certainly been frustrating - and her hesitancy to directly confront the Bush/Cheney assault on our Constitution has been more than disappointing. In the aftermath of the Libby Liberation, I think it's time to at least put "impeachment" back on the table.

But, I don't think Cindy running is a good idea.

The Gray Lady Speaks - NYT Urges End to Iraq War

Today's Sunday New York Times in a sobering editorial titled "The Road Home" finally acknowledges the reality in Iraq by stating the obvious:

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

It's about time! What took them so long? The Times goes on,

"A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda."

Once again, the wisdom of the people leads the way.

The media awakens, slowly acknowledging the obvious.

After years of enabling a doomed policy, the fourth estate finally demands the "decision-makers" change course.

Now, the question lingers: Will the politicians finally listen?

It's time to tell this administration we've "Had Enough."

Independent Voters Revealed as "Anti-War Extremists"

Independent voters are often viewed as the decisive power brokers in national elections. The party who successfully courts these quintessential "swing voters," typically wins presidential elections. In 2006, an unprecedented 57% of self-described independents voted Democratic (this represents an 8 point gain over the 49% Kerry got in 04) handing control of Congress to our pals Nancy and Harry.

But independents are not a monolithic group. While many in the media and public view them as the 'moderate middle' searching for the noble compromise between two intractably feuding parties, this is simply NOT true. Independents (who make up 25-30% of the electorate) are located all along the partisan spectrum.

A recently completed Washington Post/Henry J. Kaiser Foundation/Harvard University survey profiling the independent voter's diversity was reported in Sunday's WaPo. The results are fascinating - and, despite what the MSM is saying, the independent voter agrees with the Democratic base when it comes to Iraq!

Political strategists and observers make a mistake by treating these voters as one voting bloc. The media, in their never-ending quest to simplify the complex, promote the "independents as moderate" meme, providing politicians cover and an excuse to govern without conviction. We've grown weary of the familiar refrain, "The Democrats can't move too far to the left and appease their "partisan" anti-war extremist base for fear of offending the all-important independents."

The full WaPo survey can be found here (pdf!!). The responses to the poll's three Iraq-related questions reveal that independent voters are aligned with the Democratic base and want action on Iraq.

The three critical questions:
#36/37: "All in all, considering the costs to the US versus the benefits to the US, do you think the war with Iraq is worth fighting, or not? Do you feel STRONGLY that way or NOT?

"NOT WORTH FIGHTING" Responses: Indies 67%, Dems 85%, GOP 28%, Overall = 62%

#38: "Do you think the goal of bringing stability to Iraq is still possible, or not?"

"NOT POSSIBLE" Responses: Indies 62%, Dems 73%, GOP 35%, Overall = 58%

#39: "Do you think (the US must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success) or do you think (the war on terrorism can be a success without the US winning the war in Iraq)? (answers rotated)

"WINNING IRAQ NOT NECESSARY" Responses: Indies 62%, Dems 70%, GOP 35%, Overall = 56%

On EVERY Iraq-related question, nearly 6 of 10 independents are in the "anti-war extremist camp."

It's time for the Democratic leaders to understand this and act. If they don't it's not only the Democratic base that will punish them, but they could find the all-important independents abandoning them, as well.


The Kaiser/Harvard poll uses cluster analysis to break down this diverse group into five distinct categories, the Disengaged (24% of indies), the Disillusioned (18%), the Dislocated (16%), Deliberators (18%) and Disguised Partisans (24%). The characteristics of each group are fascinating and reveal where the Democrats should focus their energies.

The Disguised Partisans. The Democrats within this group are indies mainly because they are frustrated and angry with the Democratic Party. The Post describes this group as:
"Walking and talking Democrats, these independents lean overwhelmingly toward the Democratic Party; two-thirds always or mostly support Democratic presidential candidates.
They are more tuned in to government and politics than rank-and-file Democrats, and 13 percent said they get a lot of information about politics from blogs (the most of any group)."
This group agrees with the Dems' progressive ideology and but there is danger lurking as 93% believe Iraq is not worth fighting. More than 75% indicating they would consider voting for an independent candidate in 2008, the risk of losing these voters increases with more Iraq capitulations.

The Dislocated: Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, 46% define themselves as "progressive." Clearly, this group leans toward Democrats (57% voted for Kerry, 60% voted Dem in 06), particularly in the wake of the recently deposed GOP Congress' uncontrolled spending. The way to keep these voters is to increase transparency - and it behooves Democrats to get out in front on the issue of earmarks. More than 8 in 10 view Iraq as not worth fighting. This group is more "anti-war" than the extremist base, too.

The Disillusioned: This group feels the system is broken and are not happy with either party. They're furious with Bush and Iraq. The WaPo defines says further:

"Bush and the war are crucial components of the disillusionment.
Three-quarters say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and just two in 10 think it is still possible to stabilize the country.
Fifty-seven percent call Bush the worst modern president.
For 2008, this group leans Democratic, but high levels of disenchantment could keep them home. They would also welcome an independent candidacy."

The Deliberators: These are the true independent swing voters - and note: they make up less than 20% of the 30% of the independent vote! They swung HUGE between '04 and '06 elections, as Bush received 66% of their support and the Dems won 52% in the midterms. Even a majority of voters within this group (55%) do not feel Iraq is worth the cost. This group will support the party and candidates that show competence.

The Disengaged: Forget about 'em. They represent 3% of voters and don't tend to vote.

Independents are Democratic-leaning voters. They are opposed to the War in Iraq. These numbers reveal that moderation isn't what a majority of independents want. They crave leadership, particularly on Iraq.

Are the Democratic leaders listening?