U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert appears to have survived a second Democratic wave election, bucking a national trend that flipped at least 23 Republican congressional seats to Democrats.
The Associated Press determined tonight that Reichert's lead for the 8th District seat was insurmountable.
While Burner's spokesman says in that piece she has not conceded, they released a statement a short time later:
"It is likely at this point that Congressman Reichert has won re-election, and while we will certainly ensure that every valid vote is counted, we accept the decision of the voters.
"I would like to thank the thousands of people who put so much time and effort into the campaign, as well as the countless thousands more who went beyond voting to actively participate in our democratic process this year. The election of Barack Obama as our new President will ensure that the change to the direction of our country called for in this campaign is realized in the new year."
Just terrible news. Darcy took time and effort away from campaigning into creating the Responsible Plan to try and change the conversation around Iraq. She succeeded in that - but put a huge target on her back, and the hard right and the NRCC fired away at her. The Seattle Times ran a ridiculous story claiming that she lied about her Harvard degree, which was simply untrue.
Because she took all that fire, she probably drew it away from other progressive Democrats, who have her to thank in part for getting them into Congress. But that's the kind of person Burner is, and she'd never ask for their thanks. She leads by her very nature.
I'm sure there will be an emerging narrative that this means the netroots always lose when they push too hard behind a candidate. There will be a cherry-picking of Ned Lamont and Darcy and that will harden in the CW. You'll hear it everywhere. It's just wrong. We need MORE leaders like Darcy, not less. And I certainly hope she runs again.
You Can't Build A Progressive Movement With Conservative Republicans
Digby and I, along with a bunch of LA-based bloggers, were fortunate enough to have lunch a couple days ago with Darcy Burner, the progressive candidate in WA-08 who is fighting to upend Bush rubber stamp Rep. Dave Reichert. By the way, give money to Darcy.
She is optimistic about her chances in November, but as Howie Klein, who set up the luncheon, notes, she is being somewhat stymied by the counterproductive way that labor unions and Dem-leaning orgs sometimes do business.
One thing we did discuss, though, is the NEA and how they, and other "progressive" interest groups like them routinely sell out progressive candidates for their own pathetic, shallow and ineffectual Inside the Beltway politics. Earlier today I corresponded with someone from the campaign of Florida Blue Dog Christine Jennings. She was trying to persuade me that Jennings was a good match for Blue America and, naively, mentioned other "progressive" organizations that had endorsed her. One was HRC, one of the most craven and despicable of all the sell-out one-issue bottom feeders in DC. Desperate for the "credibility" of bipartisanship, HRC looks for Republicans who may be disastrous for gay families but who aren't quite as disastrous as a Jim Inhofe, John Cornyn or self-loathing closet queen Mitch McConnell. Take their shameful endorsement of Susan Collins whose so-so voting record is no match for her Democratic opponent's perfect voting record. Collins voted for all Bush's hideous, violently anti-gay judicial appointments. Tom Allen, of course, opposed every one of them and, as a senator, has vowed to never vote to confirm anyone who favors discriminating against any group of Americans.
The NEA, similarly desperate for that kind of bogus Inside-the-Beltway credibility, scoured the country for Republican incumbents in high profile, tight races who they could endorse. One was Darcy's abysmal opponent, Dave Reichert, and another was Missouri reactionary goon Sam Graves. Like HRC, the NEA has lost all credibility. (Fortunately the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Darcy, which means the bureaucrats who waste tax money are for Reichert and the actual front line teachers are for Darcy.)
This is just ridiculous. No matter how many endangered Republicans the NEA endorses, they are not going to fully support the kind of education policies the NEA purports to wanting. And the most important vote any member of Congress makes is for the leadership. Dave Reichert would vote for John Boehner. The NEA endorsement is an implicit endorsement for Boehner.
I'm sure the calculus here is that Reichert might be with them on one or two extra votes if he wins, whereas Burner will vote with their interests anyway, so why not cover all of their bases? This does nothing, of course, to help progressive leaders actually move education policy. And it's important to note that right-leaning groups NEVER do this, and certainly not in hotly contested races. Much like our leadership feels the need to extend remarks like "John McCain is a hero" before disagreeing with his policies, organizations like the NEA feel like they must appear bipartisan, while the NRA dispenses with such niceties. Look what they're running against Obama.
Burner is not the only candidate to speak out about this. Josh Zeitz, a progressive candidate in NJ-04, has spoken out as well.
Public pressure is what will end this perniciousness... or better, building truly progressive infrastructure to take the power out of the hands of the single-issue groups. Burner is endorsed by Blue America, which over its lifetime has raised $1.288 million dollars for candidates and causes. Until groups that claim to support progressives actually do so, they're your best bet.
So Blue America is raising moneyfor Darcy Burner in her time of need. This money will go toward her campaign; it's a FEC nightmare to give her direct donations for her house and possessions, and the campaign contributions will help because it gives her time to stay off the campaign trail and get her life back in shape instead of attending fundraisers and bugging people for money. David Goldstein writes:
We’ve asked a lot of Darcy, and I’ve never known a politician who has worked harder to deliver. It was a grueling race in 2006, and after briefly pausing to digest her narrow loss, she got right back to work. But now she needs to take a few days off to tend to her family and herself… to literally get her house in order. And that’s where we all can help.
Darcy needs to raise about $150,000 this July to keep pace with Dave Reichert and her own 2006 fundraising, and everyday she takes off makes her campaign budget that much harder to hit. That’s about $5,000 a day.
And that’s why I’m joining with bloggers nationwide to ask our readers to contribute what they can today, to help give Darcy the breathing room she needs to tend to her own affairs without worrying about neglecting her campaign. Every $5,000 increment we raise represents a day that Darcy won’t have to dedicate to her own fundraising efforts. It is a gift more precious than money; it is a gift of time.
Donate here to Darcy Burner's campaign. And check out this news report from local Seattle news:
Let's pitch in and help our progressive friends. I just gave her a hundred bucks.
Activists in the Northwest have set up HelpDarcy.com to provide assistance and support to Darcy Burner and her family in the wake of the tragic fire that consumed their home yesterday.
Upload any pictures you have of the Burners to help them replace the recorded memories they lost. Original JPGs are preferred. (Images will not be displayed publicly, however, they will be given to the family).
The Burners are not looking for donations right now, but if that happens I'll let you know. I wouldn't even know how to begin to put my life back together if I lost everything to a fire, so I really feel for her situation. Please visit HelpDarcy.com and show your support.
UPDATE: This is the shirt Darcy was wearing when the fire hit:
She's not going to be able to raise money for a while, so give at Act Blue if you can.
The other day Digby invited you to give donations to Darcy Burner's campaign. I'm sad to report that Darcy's house burned down in a fire early this morning. The family was in the house at the time and they all made it out OK, including the pets. Of course that's the important thing. But the house appears to be a total loss. The pictures at the above link and here are heartbreaking.
I consider Darcy a friend as much as an ally, and I feel awful for her and her family today. If there are any ways to help them further or just express your condolences, I'll let you all know. For now, feel free to add something in the comments.
I was happy to co-host an event last night for Darcy Burner (WA-08), a future leader in the Democratic Party. My friend occams hatchet wrote up a great capsule summary of the event.
Darcy was the featured guest at the event; two other netroots congressional candidates, Ron Shepston of CA-42 and Mary Pallant of CA-24, also attended.
Darcy told the story of how she came to be involved in politics: In 2003, around the time her son was born, her brother was being shipped off to Iraq. Darcy thought about the state of the country and the state of the world, and realized that no matter what choices she might make for her son as he grew up, unless a dramatic change took place in the direction the nation was heading - well, she did not like her choices.
So, as she likes to say, she did what any responsible American parent would do: she decided to run for Congress.
She started with zero name recognition, but ran a textbook campaign and almost toppled Republican incumbent Reichert.
Although Darcy came up short in her 2006 bid - but only by a little; five voters per precinct, to be exact, as she will remind you - she put a very big scare into the Republican Party. So much of a scare, in fact, that George Bush and Karl Rove both have visited Darcy's district in an effort to raise money for Reichert. (She also will remind you, with a smile, that when an online counter-fundraiser was held last fall to offset the Bush $1,000-a-plate event for Reichert, 3200 donors contributed $123,000, outraising the president himself.)
This year Darcy show a lack of leadership in the Congress over the issue of the war. People kept asking her on the campaign trail how she would end the war, and she grew tired of waiting for the leadership to give her something she can use. So she took the matter on personally, joining with military and counterterrorism officials and creating The Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq, which doesn't just call for a full withdrawal of all military forces and a diplomatic, economic and humanitarian surge to manage that withdrawal, but calls to end the failed structures that got us into the war in the first place, things like Constitutional reform, and green energy, and ending media consolidation, and restoring the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch.
So far 54 Congressional challengers have signed on to this plan, giving it a value that is measurable. If dozens of freshman Congressmembers enter Washington with a mandate to end the war, that has a rare power. Which is amazing. But the real takeaway of the night is the fact that Darcy handmade the button that I was given as one of the co-hosts of the event. She told me that she needed a bunch of buttons for visibility during her initial campaign run and decided that it would be cheaper to buy what you need to make buttons instead of buying the buttons themselves. It's a little thing, but it shows initiative and a commitment to get things done. And it was charming. She's as far removed from an everyday politician as anyone I've ever come across. And maybe that's why she's such a natural leader; there's no artifice and no cringing fear about the consequences.
After a day where there was a lot of sturm und drang among the grassroots in California, particularly because of the Democratic campaigns purging delegate slates for upcoming elections, I was reminded of these two amazing events I got to participate in this week, both with Tim Goodrich and last night with Darcy Burner. The grassroots is strong when we are all working together for incredible candidates who can bring about progressive change. And that's what I saw last night.
The Village, via Cokie Roberts, gives their very serious assessment of Iraq on ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOLOUS: But this is going to be a split in the party. You all (at The Nation) are backing a plan that a lot of Congressional challengers are backing (The Responsible Plan) saying, immediate withdrawal, unconditional...
VANDEN HEUVEL: that's right...
(crosstalk)
VANDEN HEUVEL: There are 42 Congressional challengers...
ROBERTS: But no major Presidential candidates are saying that, because they're sitting there saying look, we've been there, we've seen it, we think it's an irresponsible thing to do.
VANDEN HEUVEL: It is not, but you know what, the responsible thing to do is withdraw.
(you hear Cokie odiously chuckling at this point)
VANDEN HEUVEL: If we withdraw responsibly, the region would be more stable in the long term, America will be restored as a responsible global leader, and there are 42 challengers, you are absolutely right Cokie, who have a responsible plan to withdraw.
ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is--
VANDEN HEUVEL: But what is winning? This war is unwinnable, there are no military solutions. And Cokie, Americans are already behind this, 2/3 of Americans believe this war was a mistake to fight. And when Dick Cheney said to ABC's Martha Raddatz last week, "I don't care what Americans think." The contempt, the disdain for Americans and for what this war has done to the military, to our economy, and to our future as a nation. If you care about responsible...
Well, Katrina Vanden Heuvel handled that a bit better than I would have, because I don't think I would have been able to hold down the bile after hearing Duchess Cokie of Versailles blather on about what Americans would prefer. Not that she's likely to have talked to anyone who's had to serve in this war or felt the burdens of this war, of course, but she just feels it in her very sensible and responsible gut.
She doesn't have a clue what the hell she's talking about, and if she's being informed about Iraq by "Sunni, Shi'a, po-tay-to po-tah-to" McCain and his man-servant Huckleberry Graham it'd be a wonder if she could pick the country out on a map. We've got an important week coming up with A Man Called Petraeus and Ryan Crocker testifying before Congress, and if this is the sober analysis we can expect out of that, we're all doomed. Because in point of fact, Iraq is at a major crossroads right now. The Basra offensive was a complete failure and large swaths of the Iraqi Army essentially refused to fight. Now Maliki is basically forming his own militia from the pro-Iranian Badr Brigade, and the intra-Shiite warfare is continuing, with US troops dying inside the Green Zone and at forward operating bases in Baghdad. The political situation is stalemated, tensions are rising between practically all groups, and whatever gains have been made by the surge have vanished. We're going to hear a lot of crap in the next week out of the Administration and their spinners, and robots like Cokie are going to lap it up because "Americans would prefer to win." That's just an ignorant and dismissive remark, and it sadly represents the depth of understanding of the tragedy in Iraq. Of course, Cokie's just repeating what "real Americans" think; that it happens to line up with establishment opinion and helps provide cover for their epic mistake of going along with the initial invasion is just a nice perk.
In the environment of Iraq, leaving 80,000 troops to babysit the Iraqis will do about as much as having 160,000 troops do the same; in other words, nothing at all (Russ Feingold understands this). Until the fundamental question - whether a continued presence in Iraq is making us safer - is answered, we're doing nothing but spinning our wheels. Keeping troops in the region to try and put a lid on violence until George Bush is safely tucked away creates a huge moral hazard where the Iraqis have no responsibility for their actions.
Here, the overriding risk is all-out civil war – whether inter-or-intra ethnic group – or regional war, or both. Our presence mitigates these risks – at least in the short term. Thus, Maliki can take risky actions like raiding Basra or openly turning the army into a wing of Badr, knowing that he and his allies won’t be exposed to the full risk of those actions (civil war) because of the American presence. Similarly, other countries (like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia) feel less urgency to engage diplomatically (which is itself a “risky” omission) because of the American presence.
If, however, America announced that it would leave Iraq in a year, then the parties involved (both inside and outside Iraq) would suddenly bear more of the consequences of their risky behavior. Accordingly, they would be more motivated to bear down and bang out political deals [...]
This explains why the Kagans’ “Iraq 4-Ever” strategy is actually worse than withdrawal. The Bush/Kagan strategy is simply to keep the maximum number of troops in Iraq as long as possible in the hopes a pony will appear. To maintain political support for the Pony Strategy, they need to peddle worse-case scenarios and paint pictures of genocide and all-out civil war.
I’ll fully concede that such events are possible – anyone who doesn’t is being dishonest. But my point is that our occupation makes them more likely, for the reasons explained above. Specifically, the longer and more indefinitely we stay, the greater the moral hazard we produce. As long as we stay indefinitely, parties will act more recklessly than they otherwise would. These actions, in turn, will have profound, unpredictable, and irreversible consequences.
The plan that Vanden Heuvel was referencing, the Responsible Plan, reflects a significant wing of the Democratic Party that simply is not willing to wait around anymore while the leadership tries to come up with a coherent endgame strategy. Darcy Burner, who was the driving force behind the plan, has actually improved her electoral position as a result. I don't know how that fits in with Duchess Cokie's pronouncements, other than the obvious fact that it doesn't. Well over 50 Congressional challengers have endorsed the plan, understanding that a comprehensive strategy to end the war and repair the broken institutions that enabled this disaster not only makes political sense but is absolutely vital to our national security. Ilan Goldenberg sums up the plan nicely.
For the past two years, Democrats have been offering plan after plan to end the war in Iraq. But this one is different. As opposed to the usual broad language, combined with a laundry list of policy proposals that make up traditional party platforms, the plan has a sharp focus, with a clear strategic logic focused around two fundamental principles. First, the United States must find a way to sensibly end its military mission in Iraq--and use the political, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic tools at its disposal to mitigate the negative consequences of the war. Second, the Iraq War has done irreparable damage not just to Iraq but to our country, and the time has come to reform our institutions and put the checks and balances in place to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated [...]
Beyond just being good policy, though, the plan exhibits a unique understanding of the legislative branch's role in foreign policy. Too often, candidates running for Congress make very specific proposals about foreign policy that are far outside of their purview. The "Real Security" plan of 2006 was ultimately about the executive branch; it was backed by a 120-page smattering of documents and reports that criticized the Bush Administration and catalogued hundreds of pieces of legislation that would reshape American foreign policy, but were, on the whole, too unwieldy to act as an agenda vehicle.
"A Responsible Plan" would instead serve as the congressional corollary to a Democratic presidency. It doesn't include elements over which Congress has little control, but it does push for 15 pieces of existing legislation, which focus on issues such as improving healthcare for a new generation of veterans and phasing out our reliance on military contractors such as Blackwater. Only the president can end the war in Iraq, but Congress can do its share by focusing on institutional repair and funding the right programs.
This approach is apparent in the most creative part of the document, titled "Preventing Future Iraqs." These policies focus on checking presidential authority and ensuring that Congress can't easily give the president a free hand to go to war. It calls for incorporating war funding into the regular defense budget instead of using "emergency supplementals"; eliminating the president's use of signing statements to alter the substantive meaning of a law passed by Congress; repealing parts of the Military Commissions Act that suspended habeas corpus; and ending the use of wiretapping without a FISA warrant. These are good policies for both Republican and Democratic presidents to abide by.
Without a robust Congressional counterbalance to executive power, we will not be able to stop more Iraqs. Darcy Burner and the dozens of endorsers are not only running to enter Congress but to restore the institution itself.
This Wednesday I'm helping host a low-dollar fundraising event for Darcy, where she will be flanked by two California candidates who have endorsed the plan, Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Mary Pallant (CA-24). If you want to reward and recognize true leadership and courage, join me in Los Angeles on Wednesday night. All the information is at this ActBlue page, and you can donate at the link as well.
Ron Shepston is a friend, and I've just signed on to be the netroots coordinator for his Congressional campaign. He's an avionics engineer, a Vietnam-era veteran, and a Daily Kos diarist who stepped up to contest a seat in CA-42 that was unopposed in 2006. Rep. Gary Miller is a complete slimeball and it's great that he'll have some competition this year. And it's all the better that he's showed some leadership and become the first California Congressional candidate to endorse the Repsonsible Plan to end the war in Iraq.
George Bush or the next President must give the order to prepare a plan to leave. Generals implement orders. From General Franks to General Petraeus, they have all attempted to plan to wage a war and occupation they didn’t want to wage. As a veteran, I know that generals have few choices – they could do their best to execute their orders, or leave the service.
Generals don’t get far by being negative so they will always look for a way to succeed. It’s no surprise that General Petraeus can sound positive in the face of such a daunting occupation. It’s part of his job [...]
When Darcy Burner first asked if I wanted to be part of the effort to create the plan I immediately said “yes”. I was grateful for the opportunity to be involved in something this important to the future of America, Iraq and in fact, the world.
The Responsible Plan will not only end the war but change the conversation around national security. As Darcy Burner put it in her op-ed in the Seattle Times, it became endlessly frustrating waiting for the elites in Washington to come up with a plan to end this war. So she built it herself, and is assembling a group of leaders that will enter Congress with a mandate for change.
This plan presents a set of actions that Congress can take to convert our current military approach in Iraq to a more effective civilian one that addresses the root problems we face. It proposes using the full strength of our nation to achieve our goals and strengthen our country, and includes measures to rebuild the military, expand the capabilities of the State Department, and keep our promises to returning veterans.
We can do all of these things and save hundreds of billions of dollars that can then be used here at home addressing our growing list of urgent needs: economic stimulus, affordable health care, better schools, improvements to infrastructure. Ever wondered why there is so little federal money to replace the aging and dangerous Highway 520 Bridge? Taxpayers in my congressional district alone have sunk roughly $1.5 billion into funding the war so far — money that now can't be spent here at home.
The national media like to say that Iraq is off the table, but voters in the 8th Congressional District don't seem to have gotten that memo. The voters I talk to understand that this war is undermining our country. Five years is long enough, and $3 trillion is too much; as a nation, we simply cannot afford this misguided war any longer.
Ron Shepston is at the forefront of this effort, and I invite you to support him with a donation so he can keep this message going. He's in a contested primary against a carpetbagger from Montebello, and considering that the primary will have low turnout, he needs some help from his friends. Getting a solid progressive like this as the nominee has benefits even if he doesn't win - a nominee appoints members of the California Democratic Party and enhances efforts to change the party from within. We need more people like Ron Shepston in public life. I'm proud to be part of his campaign.
If a candidate running in Idaho and a candidate running statewide in Montana, can support this supposedly dirty fuckin' hippie plan to end the war, then really anyone can. This is a common-sense document that recognizes the fundamental transition we need to make in foreign policy and national security.
Larry Grant, Democratic candidate for Congress in Idaho's 1st District, today joined a dozen other congressional candidates in backing a plan to end the War in Iraq.
"Given my feelings on the war, I have decided to join these congressional candidates to support the plan," Grant said.
"The plan incorporates many of the recommendations made over a year ago by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission. Most of those recommendations were never implemented.
"The plan may not be perfect but it's a good start to changing the current administration's disastrous policy on the war," Grant said. "It opens up discussion and provides a forum for debate. I applaud and support Darcy for her effort."
Ultimately, we should see hundreds of Democratic candidates supporting this view. So far, two Congressional candidates in New Jersey and both of Oregon's Senate challengers, Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick have endorsed as well. Goldy at Horse's Ass has a good roundup, but I want to circle back to Juan Melli's post to give an understanding of how courageous it was for Darcy Burner and her team to work on this:
This is not a press release that was cranked out in a few hours. It's a real plan that has been thoughtfully considered and developed over a period of months in consultation with respected military experts. It's the type of thing that eats into valuable fundraising time, which is why candidates are so strongly discouraged from doing it. Further, I can't speak for Darcy Burner specifically, but EMILY's list has a history of knee-capping female candidates on the issue of Iraq and military policy in general by insisting that they "talk tough." This counterproductive strategy sometimes leads candidates to end up fighting from weak defensive positions.
Darcy has sacrificed valuable fundraising time and probably overcome significant pressure to create this plan. She and the other 9 candidates who are endorsing the effort deserve our support to show that we value thoughtful, meaningful and substantive leadership. They are trying to build a caucus of challengers who will sweep into Congress with a mandate to change the course in Iraq.
Quite right. This is the definition of leadership, and I would hope my Democratic friends in California can see that endorsing this document will take a big step in that direction. There's no need to be timid about this.
Second, I'm going to be trickling this out as the day progresses, and we have to wait until 5:30pm ET for the official release of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. But I've collected a bunch of video from the Congressional candidates who have currently signed on and the military leaders who were instrumental in its creation.
In addition, here's an excerpt from Chellie Pingree, from ME-01, writing about the plan at the Huffington Post:
Let me be clear: we have to stop the war and end our occupation of Iraq. More "surges" or "pauses" won't solve anything. But we need a plan -- a responsible plan to not just end military operations in Iraq but to also start putting our efforts into using non-military means to address the political, economic and humanitarian problems in the region. At home we have to rebuild a broken military and repair our institutions of government. The checks and balances built into our Constitution must be restored and we must restore our commitment to an independent media.
The problems that the Iraq War has created are complex and reach into every corner of our society. The solutions are complex, too, but within our reach. Working with Darcy Burner (candidate in WA-08) and Donna Edwards (candidate in MD-04) we have developed a package of policy proposals that, if elected, we will work to pass in Congress. The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq goes well beyond ending military activity in Iraq -- it includes proposals that not only get us out of Iraq, but begin to repair the damage the war has done to our economy, our society and our standing in the world. We have also focused on what went wrong in the run up to the invasion, with the goal of preventing a future Administration and Congress from getting us into another unjustified, indefensible, misguided war.
I heard from Darcy Burner yesterday at a conference held by the New Organizing Institute, and I'm reading over the plan in more detail now. As I said, I'll have more later, but let me just say that, speaking for me only, the amount of support a candidate for Congress or the White House will get from me, in terms of dollars, volunteer time, online organizing, precinct walking, etc., is largely predicated on whether or not they support this plan. This is non-negotiable.
Yes, today was busy enough that I think it warrants a "best of the rest":
• The Chertoff-to-Attorney General trial balloon has officially popped.
I think, by the time I got to this story, BushCo had already decided Chertoff was an impossible replacement candidate (though if he's not, let's not forget the allegation that Chertoff allegedly okayed Chiquita Banana's funding of right wing terrorists in Colombia). Just on the off-chance that Chertoff really is named as Gonzales' replacement, Pat Leahy had the perfect response when asked if he would support a Chertoff nomination. I can't find the quote (it was NPR), but he basically said nothing more than, "You mean the guy who was in charge of the Katrina reconstruction?"
I agree with Glenn Greenwald, the next AG must come from outside the Administration, and no insider hack can be allowed to be confirmed.
• Yes, it's hysterical that on the same day Abu Gonzales resigns, the President goes and attends a fundraiser for Pete Domenici, who of course helped push out US Attorney David Iglesias after meddling in the middle of a state corruption investigation and pressuring Iglesias to indict Democrats. When Iglesias would not politicize his office, Domenici brought the hammer down. The reward is today's event, which I guess is the price of loyalty. There's a tragic sidenote to that event, as a police officer in Bush's motorcade died after crashing his vehicle.
• Bush is in Washington State tonight at another fundraiser for Rep. Dave Reichert, and the national netroots community made a huge push to raise $100,000 for his Democratic opponent Darcy Burner. And they've reached their goal. I met Burner at Yearly Kos and found her to be piercingly intelligent and very down-to-Earth. I can't wait to see her torch Reichert next year and make the trip to DC.
• Larry Craig, not content with destroying his own credibility, is taking down the Romney campaign's as well. Romney's team tried to scrub a pro-Mitt message from Craig (a co-Senate liaison until today), but it's hard to hide anything on the Internets. It's been found. Also Hugh Hewitt is calling on Craig to resign, no doubt because he might hurt Golden Boy Mitt, who is to Hewitt as a golden statue is to an idol worshipper.
• Meanwhile, this juxtaposition is just freaky. Apparently the Idaho Values Alliance has a shout-out to Sen. Craig on their site, and just underneath, a paragraph decrying the scourge of homosexuals using airport bathrooms for anonymous sex. Is that where Sen. Craig got the idea?
• This IAFF endorsement of Chris Dodd is news for his campaign, but I think that really falls under the category of "no endorsement," since they clearly didn't want to get into a top-tier fight. The IAFF endorsed John Kerry when it looked like he was about to drop out of the race, though, so maybe this will have some import.
• Here's something I missed from last week: some wingnut actually said "You're going to look super in a burka." Out loud. On television. There is this strain that really thinks we're about to be taken over by an Islamic caliphate. Really. They think that little of the United States.
• This is worrying but unsurprising. Apparently there's a loophole in the President's recent executive order outlawing torture that you can drive a truck through.
The Judge Advocates General of all branches of the military told the senators that a July 20 executive order establishing rules for the treatment of CIA prisoners appeared to be carefully worded to allow humiliating or degrading interrogation techniques when the interrogators' objective is to protect national security rather than to satisfy sadistic impulses [...]
The JAGs cited language in the executive order in which Bush said CIA interrogators may not use "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual." As an example, it lists "sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation."
Among lawyers, "for the purpose" language is often used to mean that a person must specifically intend to do something, such as causing humiliation, in order to violate a statute. The JAGs said Bush's wording appears to make it legal for interrogators to undertake that same abusive action if they had some other motive, such as gaining information.
I try to refuse to be shocked anymore and I always fail.
• Finally, Fred Thompson is trying to set the record for most people fired from a campaign that hasn't even started yet.
Typically, a lot of energy comes out of a Yearly Kos Convention, and I'll have a lot to say about it later today. But I think we're all waking up from fixing the balance on our sleep deprivation and picking up the paper (OK, picking up the laptop and clicking on the paper) and saying "They did what now?"
It's disappointing, but not surprising. After the president scuttled a compromise between Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and congressional Democrats, Senate Dems did what many expected they would do: they caved.
The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.
The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today, would expand the government's authority to intercept without a court order the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating with people overseas.
This is such a familiar and infuriating pattern. The Democrats talk about compromise, the White House doesn't budge, and the Democrats give in. It's NEVER the other way around. The big "compromise" the Senate extracted was to sunset these provisions after 6 months. Right, because it'll be so easy to cut off the law during an ELECTION YEAR.
I actually did hear about this during Yearly Kos, and I tried to start a flash mob of dialing for democracy. Long story, but you could text a message to the big video wall in the main center, which I did before the Presidential forum. The very next text was "No." You get the democracy you deserve. The House passed it too with 40 Democrats voting to eliminate the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution.
This is inexcusable, and it should never have come up for a vote. Bush can throw his little tantrum all he wants. I hope those hopeful idealists on the left can end all talk of impeachment now. Because this law ends any possibility of that by RETROACTIVELY LEGITIMIZING the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, one of the chief rationales for removing the President and Vice President. This law sanctions it.
The key provision of S.1927 is new section 105A of FISA (see page 2), which categorically excludes from FISA's requirements any and all "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.
The key term, obviously, is "directed at." The bill includes no definition of it.
How you could entrust a President and an Attorney General who have shown an eagerness to lie about this very warrantless wiretapping system, who we know put it in place BEFORE September 11, shows the moral bankruptcy of this Congress. The Military Commissions Act was pushed through by Republicans when the Democrats were in the minority. This is the majority party we're talking about here. A party without any semblance of a spine. Representative quote:
"I’m not thrilled," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "There are some changes we need to make to make sure that American citizens are protected. But it's a lot better than a lot of things that have been forced down this Congress' throat right before recesses that trampled on American's liberties."
So this thing that was forced down Congress' throat right before a recess is somewhat less disturbing. That's the rationale.
The Democrats currently in the leadership are afraid of their own shadow. The vestiges of the battered-wife-syndrome from being in the political wilderness for 12 years is still apparent. They have ceded their responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Those who voted for this abomination and those in the leadership who tacitly supported it do not deserve the support of anyone who cares about civil liberties. Period. We need more and better Democrats. And they do exist.
NOTE: I'll have more on this later, but in the small breakout session, John Edwards answered this question on FISA with snark. "I know, let's give George Bush more power to wiretap on Americans, and let's ensure he's not breaking the law by putting that trust in Alberto Gonzales!" It sounds completely absurd, but that's exactly what the Congress has done. Disgusting. More and better Democrats. Emphasis on BETTER.
UPDATE: Fred Hiatt gets it, and he doesn't get much. This was an unconsidered bill that cedes power to the President and recklessly harms us all.
Shortly after passing legislation to temporarily expand the administration’s spying authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Conyers introduced a bill to amend that legislation “as soon as possible.”
"We didn't mean it!" There are no take-backs in legislation like this. You've just crossed out the Fourth Amendment. You receive no credit for not really wanting to.
Yesterday I supported two measures to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These measures were considered against the backdrop of heightened concerns from our nation's intelligence community abut the threat of international terrorism. The ramifications of the two amendments before us last night were not political. Instead they related to the urgent demands of national security. I chose to heed those warnings. We now have six months to work in earnest to bring full accountability to the process.
This distinction and the threats to national security were stated clearly by Admiral McConnell as well as four of the eight Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. These members, Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties. They chose to give significant weight and deference to the intelligence community on FISA reform, and so did I.
There is near uniform, bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FISA to reflect modern telecommunications and information technology. We must do so in a way that safeguards basic civil and constitutional rights. But we must also remember that the terrorist threat to the nation is extremely serious. I remain fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans.
They're a-scared of chatter and threats and booga-booga. But they never ask themselves what there is left to protect. "The terrorist threat is very serious" is not a good enough reason to sanction the turnover of massive amounts of data to the federal government to do with as they please. A patriot doesn't believe they'll do positive things with it.
I am a film and video editor, stand-up comedian, and blogger. My editor resume is here. A sample of my stand-up is here. The blog is what you're reading right now. Wasn't that easy?
View blog reactions
