If you read conservative blogs, you’ll see the name of one supposed boogeyman come up time and time again, connected–often tenuously–to various scandals in one way or another. They seem to be terrified of this guy, considering they spend so much time obsessing over everything he says and does. Why? Well, this is what they say about him:

He’s a foreign-born billionaire financier. He’s a political extremist with a radical agenda, which he pushes on all of us by using a shady network of political organizations and news outlets. He finances smear machines and character assassins who go after his enemies, while fostering ties to prominent politicians. In addition, some of his organizations have been widely criticized and/or gotten into legal trouble in the past.

The person they’re talking about is, of course, George Soros. But isn’t there already someone out there who matches that exact description? Someone conservatives know quite well? In fact, doesn’t that paragraph perfectly describe Rupert Murdoch?

Murdoch is an Australian-born billionaire media mogul. He’s a right-wing conservative with a radical agenda, which he pushes on all of us through the various news outlets he owns and the organizations he influences. Murdoch’s news outlets carry a wide array of smear merchants and character assassins–such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity–who go after his enemies. He was a friend of Ronald Reagan, a proponent of Pat Robertson’s presidential bid and a strong supporter of George W. Bush, among others. Finally, his Fox Network has gotten in trouble with the FCC; there was controversy over his acquisition of Turkish TV channel TGRT; and his News Corporation has been widely criticized for paying almost no corporate taxes on billions of dollars of profits.

I don’t pay much attention to what George Soros does, but this right-wing obsession with him smacks of hypocrisy– especially considering that Murdoch is far more powerful and influential than Soros has ever been. So is the conservative obsession over him simply hypocrisy? Projection? Or maybe it’s an attempt to deflect criticism, since influential millionaires and billionaires have huge amounts of influence in the Republican Party, investing significant amounts of time and money into getting Republicans elected.

Perhaps the right wing should check for the monster under their own beds before hysterically checking under ours.

From tonight’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia:

Sen. Joe Biden: “Giuliani is probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the Presidency…there are only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11″

There is a ridiculous Op-Ed from a Jena reporter circling on the right-wing blogs, supposedly “debunking” the Jena 6 controversy. Naturally, it’s filled with incorrect assumptions, misleading statements and downright lies. dnA at Too Sense does a great job tearing the article apart here. It’s quite telling that the only time the right wing pays attention to the travesty in Jena is to “debunk” the egregious racial nature of the controversy.

I’ve often heard conservatives describe themselves as “colorblind, ” but I’ve never bought that description. There is still a lot of racism here in America, and it’s a significant problem that demands our attention. Calling yourself colorblind is a convenient way for you to ignore racial problems in America, to turn your head and pretend that ugly racism doesn’t exist anymore. It’s disturbing, especially from a party that has spent decades engaging in dog whistle politics–sending subtle signals to racist whites in order to pick up their votes.

The Republican Party has a long, shady history of courting racist whites, dating back to Nixon’s southern strategy. The subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) thread of racism is interwoven throughout the fabric of modern conservatism, from incidents like Jena to immigration and even national security.

In the end, their response to Jena isn’t surprising–conservatives clapping their hands over their ears, closing their eyes and assuring themselves that they’re not racist–they’re just “colorblind.”

Sorry again for the spotty posting but, like I said, its midterms season–I have a lot on my plate and little free time.

I caught some of the World Series game tonight, which ended with Boston beating Colorado 4-3 to sweep the series.  I was rooting for Colorado, but the Sox were clearly the better team, and they deserved to win.  Congratulations guys–2004 wasn’t a fluke, your team is officially uncursed. Careful, though–once your fans get used to winning, they’ll be awfully disappointed if you get yourselves into another 86-year slump.    

In another hemisphere, Argentine first lady Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner declared victory tonight in her bid to succeed her husband, Nestor Kirchner, as President.  Nestor was credited with helping Argentina recover after the financial meltdown of 2001-2002, and Cristina has pledged to continue her husband’s successful economic policies. 

None of her rivals have conceded, but Kirchner presently leads with enough votes to avoid a runoff, and election officials have confirmed that there have been no voting irregularities.  The next president will begin a four-year term on December 10th, and will face a variety of problems such as inflation, an energy shortage and crime–this in a nation that used to rank among the world’s 10 wealthiest. 

Kirchner is the first woman elected to lead Argentina, though Isabel Peron–wife of Juan Peron–ruled briefly after her husband’s death before being overthrown several years later.  Kirchner joins Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Mier, and many others as the first woman elected to lead her nation.  

Congrats Boston and Kirchner–both of you are bringing home a victory tonight. And sometimes it just feels good to win.  

Republicans are determined to stay in Iraq, and they don’t care how much it costs:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported today that “total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017.” With $705 billion in interest, the cost of the wars could amount to $2.4 trillion — with $1.9 trillion in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino attacked the report as “a ton of speculation” and downplayed it as a creation “based on questions that Democrats in Congress that don’t want us to be in the war asked.” Perino added that the White House is not concerned about the exact cost of the war:

[I]t’s just a ton of speculation. It’s a hypothetical … What I can tell you is I’m not worried about the number.

[...]

The CBO’s projection is not “pure speculation.” In fact, the report considers a range of predictions about the U.S. military presence in Iraq, consistent with the administration’s desire for Korea-like, “enduring” occupation of Iraq. For example, in one scenario, the CBO predicts 30,000 troops deployed for the “war on terrorism” until FY2017. In another, they predict a more “gradual” decline to 75,000 by the start of fiscal year 2013 until 2017.

While the White House may not be “worried about the number,” the cost is certain to be harmful to the economy. “[I]t’s clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path,” CBO Director Peter Orszag told Congress today. The “higher debt and interest costs, is going to cause severe economic dislocation, which are exacerbated by war costs.”

[...]

Tim Grieve adds: “CBO officials were asked this afternoon whether the $2.4 trillion figure represents their ‘worst-case’ scenario. No, they said: It represents only the worst of two different scenarios the CBO priced out. The real costs could actually be higher.”

So, the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan will be close to $2.4 trillion dollars, according to our government’s own estimate.  In comparison, that’s more than twice than the entire United States federal budget for 2008 (which is a mere $1.075 trillion).  And that’s not even the worst case scenario–that’s the likely cost.  The actual cost may be even higher.

In all fairness, though, that’s the White House.  They’ve always had little compunction against spending huge amounts of our money. But what about Congress, which is (supposedly) full of those Republican fiscal conservatives? Surely they will fix this. Surely they will demand the government reign in it’s reckless spending. Surely they will raise hell at hearings and floor debates, demanding conscientious management of the people’s money. Surely they will use the bloated costs of these wars to demand a return to common-sense fiscal policies.  Right?

Well, in a word, no:

The House Budget Committee held a hearing today to receive testimony regarding the CBO’s estimate that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may total $2.4 trillion. Only one Republican member of the committee attended. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) noted their absence:

Doggett: “I assume, by Mr. [Paul] Ryan (R-WI) being here, that every member of this panel, including every Republican member on that side of the aisle where all the seats are vacant, received notice about this hearing about the cost of war in Iraq?”

Spratt: “I’m sure they did.”

Doggett: “And when was this notice of the hearing sent out?”

Spratt: “Seven days ago, as required by the rules.”

Not only does the White House not care about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Republican Party doesn’t, either.

There are significant questions as to if our money is being spent well or not–corruption and wastefulness run rampant in Iraq, bloating the cost of the war to extraordinary levels.  We’re the ones funding this war, we have a right to know where our money is being spent and who it’s going.

As I said before, fiscal conservatism is dead–conservatives have shown us that they don’t mind wasting staggering amounts of the people’s money.  Nobody who supported and still supports the Iraq war can  ever claim to be fiscally responsible–Iraq alone will cost nearly $2 trillion dollars.  $2 trillion dollars of our money, needlessly spent on a pointless war in pursuit of a goal that we had little chance of accomplishing to begin with.

Of course, it’s easy to overlook the price tag when you’re spending someone else’s money…

1. No more “fiscal conservatism”

Sorry, guys, but you have shown us repeatedly that you could care less about managing the people’s money well.  Being responsible with the public purse is no longer synonymous with conservatism, and for good reason.

Also, no conservative who argued for going into and staying in Iraq can claim the mantle of being fiscally responsible, ever. How dare you complain about government spending on social programs (like health care for children) because it costs too much.  Sorry, but you’re the ones who are spending over $2 billion a week on an unnecessary war—you can’t waste our money on one hand and attack others for spending money on the other hand.

1. No more complaining about a lack of civility

Stop with the fake outrage and the pearl clutching.  Remember, you’re the ones who gave us the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Malkins—it’s your movement that spawned the O’Reillys and the Coulters.  Your side has spent decades demonizing your political opponents, engaging in disgusting smears against sick children, veterans, war heroes, you name it. You’ve compared your political enemies to terrorists and you’ve outright questioning their patriotism. 

Yet, you have the nerve to cry fake tears when someone goes after you, even legitimately?  You have the nerve to complain about the smear artists and spin doctors, despite the fact that conservatives have elevated smearing and spinning to an art form? Are you kidding? Pot, meet kettle.

So, no more crying about being attacked by savage liberals.  No more complaining about being taken out of context when you were directly quoted.  No more talking about vast left wing conspiracies.  No more complaining about being oppressed or having your right to free speech taken away.  Until you clean up the trash heap on your side, don’t complain about the smudge of dirt on ours.

1. Pro-life means pro-life.

Sorry, but “pro-life” does not mean anti-abortion.  Words have meanings, and you can’t change what some words mean to come up with a handy political label. You can’t be pro-life while denying sick children health care.  You can’t be pro-life while pumping your fists every time we kill a few more Iraqis.  You can’t be pro-life while vehemently defending the death penalty. 

Supporting life means supporting life in all circumstances, not just the ones that are convenient.  If you oppose abortion and support the war in Iraq, for instance, you’re a hypocrite and you’re not pro-life.

1. Similarly, support our troops means support our troops.

Support our troops isn’t a bumper sticker slogan.  It’s not an applause line.  It’s not a synonym for  “support the war.”

You can’t support the troops and give them inadequate body armor and armored vehicles. You can’t support the troops and deny them world-class healthcare and doctors and hospitals. You can’t support our troops and attack and smear veterans who disagree with you politically.  You can’t support our troops and use soldiers as political props to inoculate yourself from criticism.

Ideally, it means you want to bring our soldiers home so they stop getting killed.  The bottom line is, if you say you support our troops, you better do it all the time, not just when and how it’s convenient to do so.

1. You’re no longer the tough-guy party.

Sorry, but  there are a lot of people on your side who believe that a few thousand loosely-organized and poorly-funded religious fanatics are going to conquer the world.  These conservatives wholeheartedly believe that terrorists  are a bigger threat to the U.S. than the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the Civil War and even the British during the Revolution. 

After 9/11, you were all to willing to throw your ideology out the window: small government, states’ rights, limited government spending, protecting civil liberties.  You let your party get turned into a cult of personality and you lead us into worst foreign policy disaster in a generation, wreaking havoc on the American military.

You’re the ones who are willing to throw nearly everything this country stands for in the garbage.  You’re the ones willing to destroy our constitution—the very foundation that American greatness rests on—in order to maybe prevent another terrorist attack.  You’re so afraid of terrorism that you’re willing to destroy America in order to save it.

You don’t need to upend your social and political order to fight terrorism—look at the British and the Spanish, who have both faced significant terrorist attacks.  You pass stronger laws, you gather better intelligence, you improve law enforcement, you go after the people responsible (and not just anyone you feel like), and you go about your lives.  If the point of terrorism is to destroy what makes America great, then don’t hand them a victory by doing it yourselves.  Freedom has risks, but our founding fathers and generations of Americans understood that those risks are, by far, a price worth paying.

Lieutenant Michael Murphy, a true American hero:

Two years after he was killed in a firefight in Afghanistan, Dan and Maureen Murphy and their son John will receive Lt. Murphy’s Medal of Honor for heroism on the battlefield today from President Bush.

[...]

In June 2005, Murphy, 29, led his four-man Navy SEAL team into the 10,000-foot peaks of Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush to search for a terrorist thought to be in the region. But they were soon spotted and started taking fire from more than 40 insurgents.

According to a Navy report on the incident, the insurgents held the advantage of terrain and launched a well organized, three-sided attack on the team, forcing them deeper into a ravine.

All four men were soon wounded, said the SEAL team’s lone survivor, Petty Officer 2nd Class Marcus Luttrell.

“We were hurtin’ bad,” Luttrell said. “We were out of ammo, and you know everybody, it was bad, it was real bad.”

Murphy exposed himself to enemy fire while trying to keep his team together, Luttrell said.

“He was in a horrible position. He left himself open so he could move back and forth to each individual guy.”

The mountainous terrain blocked communications. The team’s communications operator was wounded as he tried to find an area to transmit from. According to the Navy report, Murphy moved into the open and “calmly provided his unit’s location and the size of the enemy force while requesting immediate support for his team.”

The report said that at one point Murphy was hit in the back and dropped the handset but retrieved it and completed his call, even saying “thank you” at the end of his transmission.

Luttrell witnessed Murphy’s heroism.

“I looked back up at Mikey and he took two rounds to the back and sat back up, hung up the phone. … That was the last time I saw him.”

[...]

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government.

Thank you for your sacrifice, Lieutenant.  You served your country well.

I apologize for the light posting–it’s midterm season, so much of my free time has been spent studying.

While I was away, a few elections happened, both of which are worth talking about.

The first was the special election in Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional district to replace retiring Democrat Marty Meehan.

I had been following this race for a while, and as we got closer to the election, the media narrative started bothering me. Essentially, much of the media was talking about Ogonowski’s strength and the potential for an upset against Tsongas (this piece from the Politico is a perfect example). Yet, the latest polls–like this one from SurveyUSA on October 10th–showed Tsongas with a solid 9-point lead. If a candidate is heading into election day with that much of a lead, there’s usually little question as to who’s going to wine–yet, this time, the media seemed to throw reality out the window to push this potential upset meme.

In the end, Tsongas won, 51%-45%. The question is, was this some kind of upset? Should Tsongas have done better in a Democratically-held district in Massachusetts? Truthfully, not really. Though the district elected and re-elected Meehan by large margins, MA-05 is easily one of the most conservative districts in Massachusetts. Beyond Red & Blue shows us the vote totals from the 2002 gubernatorial election, where Mitt Romney won that district with 55%. They also show us that, in 2006, Republican Kerry Healey and conservative independent Christy Mihos won a combined 47% of MA-05–though it went for Democrat Deval Patrick, it was certainly one of his weakest districts.

Not only that, but there were other factors that played a significant role in this race. Tsongas won a highly contested primary that left many progressives feeling cheated over what they saw as the coronation of an “inevitable” nominee with a famous name. Also, the Republican candidate, Jim Ogonowski, ran an atypical campaign where he actually ran against his party and President Bush (something unlikely to occur among most GOP candidates in 2008). Finally, this was a special election in an off-year with both low-interest and low-turnout. In the end, Tsongas’ performance was pretty much what was expected from that district under the circumstances, and this race is anything but a bellweather for 2008.

But what about Louisiana, where Republican Bobby Jindal won the previously-Democratic Governorship with 54% of the vote? That must be good news for the GOP, right? Well, not really. It was a victory, yes, but it was a hollow victory.

First off, keep in mind that Louisiana is a deeply red southern state that–when it elects Democrats–elects some of the most conservative Democrats out there. In 2002, Senator Mary Landrieu (who has a mean progressive rating of 73%, making her more conservative than every Senate Democrat except Max Baucus, Kent Conrad & Ben Nelson) was re-elected with only 51.7% of the vote, while in 2004 Republican David Vitter won the Senate seat previously held by Democrat John Breaux. In the last gubernatorial election, Kathleen Blanco edged out Bobby Jindal in the runoff, 52%-48%. In short, Lousiana was a pretty conservative state to begin with.

The elephant in the room is hurricane Katrina–these were the first state-wide elections in LA since the hurricane. A large part of Jindal’s victory had to do with the fact that a significant number of New Orleanians–the Democratic base in Louisiana–no longer live in the state. Many of them left due to Katrina, and now live in Mississippi, Texas, etc.

Jindal didn’t win because Republicans are doing well or Democrats are doing poorly–he won because a significant number of Democrats no longer live in Louisiana. So while this is a technical victory for the GOP, it rings pretty hollow, and it’s another poor bellweather for 2008.

Taking a step back from these two elections, every indicator–fundraising, polling (generic ballot, specific candidates and issues), retirements, recruitment, etc.–show that 2008 is going to be another Democratic year. If Republicans are so desperate that they are grasping at an electoral loss and an indisputably hollow victory as sources of good news, then they’re in a far worse situation than previously thought.

That didn’t last long. Senator Mel Martinez is stepping down as head of the Republican National Committee:

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) “will resign as general chairman of the Republican Party today, saying he wants to spend more time on his work as Florida’s GOP senator,” according to The Politico.

“Martinez, who took the job nine months ago as the public face of the national GOP, steps down during a tough time for the Republican party, out of power on Capitol Hill and trying to gain traction in the national campaign under the shadow of an unpopular, lame duck president. Martinez, who publicly parted ways with GOP congressional leaders earlier this year on immigration issues, will not be replaced as general chairman.”

“The day to day duties of running the Republican Party’s political operation will be left to chairman Mike Duncan, the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.”

Martinez ’s tenure as head of the RNC has been extremely tumultuous and controversial.  Recently, he received massive flack from his party’s base for supporting a moderate, sensible immigration policy.  Lately, the RNC and it’s committees have been dwarfed by the Democrats in fundraising, an almost unheard-of occurrence.

The most telling part of this story is the fact that Martinez won’t be replaced, leaving the day-to-day operations in the hands of Mike Duncan.  It’s likely that the GOP wants to avoid another high-profile leadership battle,  so they’ll put off naming a new chairman as long as possible.  Martinez was little more than a figurehead anyway–Duncan actually ran the RNC–so there will be little change in how the RNC operates.

Of course, this is bad news for Republicans.  If I were in the GOP, I would demand new and better leadership–stat. The person at the top matters–look at how much Howard Dean revolutionized the DNC after the long (and mostly fruitless) tenure of Terry McAuliffe.  Changes in fundraising, in organization, in operation–all of these contributed significantly to the Democratic victory in 2006.

The GOP is falling apart, and it’s leaders are deserting it like rats fleeing a sinking ship.  Without some new blood and fresh ideas, it’s hard to see the Republican Party making any real changes before the next election. In the end, all of this indicates another electoral disaster for the elephants.

From Think Progress:

This morning’s New York Times and Washington Post reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee had reached an agreement with the White House on FISA reform legislation. That agreement reportedly “would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”

At this afternoon’s Judiciary Committee hearings, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) openly criticized the Intelligence Committee, calling it a “cave” to White House pressure:

I think the fact that [the administration is] bringing so much pressure on the Intelligence Committee — and if the press is to be believed, the Intelligence Committee is about to cave on this and bring pressure on this committee to immunize past illegal conduct — is because they know that it was illegal conduct.

The Bush administration justifies their unconstitutional domestic spying program by claiming they need extensive power in order to combat terrorism.

Yet, as we recently learned,  President Bush began the spying program in February of 2001, seven months before 9/11.  And, despite the fact that this program was in place long before 9/11, it didn’t stop 9/11 from happening.  We’re sacrificing our constitutional rights and accepting massive expansions in Presidential power for the sake of a program that failed to prevent the worst terrorist attack in American history.

Sadly, American telecommunications companies went along with this program, despite the fact that the Bush administration broke the law by failing to obtain warrants for their investigations.  They deserve no immunity whatsoever for their actions.  If the American people want to hold these companies accountable for completely ignoring the constitution, they should be allowed to.  One of the basic tenets of our great American democracy is that nobody–no politician, no corporation, no CEO–nobody is above the law.  If they act outside the law, they should receive no special treatment.  

And I give credit to Senator Chris Dodd–  he is placing a hold on the FISA bill granting telecoms immunity, preventing it from moving forward. It only takes a single Senator to put a hold on a piece of legislation, and it’s stunning that this tactic isn’t used more often. Though I’m still undecided, Dodd has always stood up for our constitutional rights, and he deserves credit for that. I wish more Democrats would do the same.

We need backbone.  We need leadership.  We need people to stand up and speak out. We need to pick and choose our battles, but we should never, ever relent on our constitutional rights.  They are the cornerstone of our great American democracy and, without them, everything we stand for falls apart. 

So says Political Wire:

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) will drop out of the 2008 presidential race tomorrow, the AP reports.

“Brownback, a long-shot conservative contender, had trouble raising money to compete in the race. He is expected announce his withdrawal in Topeka, Kan.”

Brownback is the third GOP candidate to drop out, after Wisconsin’s Tommy Thompson and Virginia’s Jim Gilmore.  On the Democratic side, the only dropout has been Iowa’s Tom Vilsack, who has now become an integral part of the Clinton campaign.

Brownback was a third-tier fringe candidate; his popularity with evangelical Republicans has waned with the rise of second-tier candidate Mike Huckabee. Brownback proved himself to be little more than a cookie-cutter Republican, easily dwarfed in a race chock full of interesting personalities.

In the past, Brownback has worked extensively to end the genocide in Darfur, and I give him a lot of credit for that.  Now that he will be returning to the Senate, I hope he invests his time and effort toward Darfur.

Dennis Hastert is resigning before the end of his term:

Roll Call reports that Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is “expected to announce Thursday that he is resigning his seat in Congress effective later this year, eventually setting up a special election to succeed him.” In August, Robert Novak reported that Hastert would resign effective Nov. 6

More from Political Wire:

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) “is expected to announce Thursday that he is resigning his seat in Congress effective later this year, eventually setting up a special election to succeed him,” Roll Call reports.

The Politico: “Republicans are already locked in a hard-fought primary. But Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich could fast-track that intramural contest in order to schedule the special on the same day as the state’s Feb. 5 primary — when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will be on the ballot in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Dennis Hastert was installed as Speaker of the House in 1998, after right-wing revolutionary Newt Gingrich was forced to resign in shame. Hastert was supposed to be a low-profile leader who would constantly tow the Republican party line, no matter the cost.

Hastert lost the Speaker’s gavel after his party’s crippling defeat last November, and his role in the Republican’s downfall can’t be understated. Under his watch, the Republican-controlled House an exceptional amount of inept, reactionary, ineffective policies. He and the GOP leadership became infamous for their abuses of power–they did nearly everything they could to shut Democrats out of the governing process. Corruption flourished, partisanship abounded, and every sort of misdeed–from Jack Abramoff to Mark Foley–was not just tolerated, but actively covered-up.

I daresay Dennis Hastert will leave the House in worse condition than when he arrived. Now, like many of his colleagues, Hastert is walking away from his battered party, to move on to greener pastures.

There are 12 Republicans retiring from the House in 2008; the GOP will have a hard time holding all of those seats. There’s a good chance that Hastert’s seat itself may switch parties next cycle. In this regard, retiring is perhaps the best decision Dennis Hastert has ever made.

From CNN:

The Turkish parliament has voted to allow its military to make an incursion into Iraq and chase down Kurdish rebels staging cross-border attacks.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government had asked parliament in Ankara on Monday to authorize a military incursion, and the lawmakers responded with overwhelming approval, 507 to 19.

[...]

But the chances of such military action raises great concerns in the United States, which fears it would undermine the stability of the American-backed government in Baghdad and jeopardize the supply lines that support U.S. troops in Iraq.

And it heightens anxiety in Iraq, where officials have been taking all-out diplomatic efforts to keep Turkey from carrying out cross-border assaults against Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, rebels in northern Iraq.

[...]

In an agreement signed in late September, Iraq agreed to crack down on the PKK, which the U.S. and the European Union consider a terrorist organization.

Iraqi army has no plan to deploy its soldiers near the rugged Turkish-Iraqi border to take on the Kurdish rebels targeting Turkey, and Iraqi authorities are satisfied with the efforts by the Iraqi Kurdish regional authorities to deal with the militants there, a top Iraqi military official told CNN Wednesday.

“It’s a mountainous area, difficult terrain and our troops are not trained for that,” said Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, Iraqi Armed Forces deputy chief of staff.

But Abadi said it was in the interest of the Kurdish Regional Government to deal with the Kurdish rebel problem because of its economic relationship with Turkey.

“They can’t afford the PKK to spoil it,” he said.

[...]

He said most PKK rebels are believed to be in southern Turkey, Syria and Iran.

“They are very good at hiding; it’s guerrilla warfare up there,” Abadi said.

A lot of people have been attributing Turkey’s threats with the Armenian genocide legislation, but that’s not the source of this conflict–it’s simply exacerbating an already-poor situation

The United States needs Turkey as an ally in order to continue fighting in Iraq–Turkey provided a key staging ground from which the war was launched, and they still provide us with significant assistance and resources.

There have been frequent reports of clashes between Turkey and the PKK, and Turkey’s relation with the Kurds has caused problems during nearly the entire course of the Iraq war.  The Armenian genocide bill isn’t spurring Turkey to war, but it is souring Turkish-American relations during a crucial time, and it’s giving Turkey a pretext to act.

Iraqi Kurds have significant autonomy, and rumors of Kurdish secession have abounded since the Hussein regime fell in 2003.  They are already quite close to independence, a fact that threatens both Turkey and Iran.

Why? Well, both Turkey and Iran have sizable Kurdish populations of their own–in fact, as this map shows, the Kurdish population of the middle east is concentrated in the geographically-contiguous region where Turkey, Iran and Iraq all border one another.

If Iraqi Kurdistan secedes, it would border the regions of Turkey and Iran that contain large Kurdish populations.  Subsequently, secessionist groups such as the PKK could use Kurdistan as a staging ground to launch attacks against neighboring countries. In addition, a successful secession movement in Iraq would spur Turkey and Iran’s Kurds to action potentially sparking civil wars in both nations.  Potential retaliation may lead Iran and Turkey to take direct action in Iraq, a disastrous situation for both nations.

This leaves Turkey is in a precarious situation–they are facing a ramped-up secessionist movement, partially based in and motivated by the semi-autonomous Kurdistan in northern Iraq.  They want to respond to these attacks, yet they don’t want to get caught up in the Iraq conflict–a potentially disastrous situation for Turkey and the greater region.
The problem is that Iraq lacks the capability to deal with the PKK itself–the violence in that country is so great and has so many sources, the PKK occupies a long list of violent factions that need to be dealt with.  The U.S., similarly, lacks the resources to take the PKK on and effectively defeat them–a situation exacerbated by the fact that the PKK can cross the border into Turkey and Iran, while the U.S. military cannot.

As a result, Turkey feels that they need to act, and they also know that Iran will support their actions in this regard.  They don’t want to get caught up in Iraq, but they feel the need to respond to the PKK and to prevent them from gaining enough power to spark a greater conflict in Turkey.

The Kurds desire self-rule, but they have significant economic ties to nations such as Turkey.  They have to walk the fine line between seeking greater autonomy for themselves while not threatening other nations with large Kurdish populations. The PKK represents the fringe of the Kurdish population, but there is potential they may gain further support, especially if Iraqi Kurds make the jump to full-blown independence.

It’s a delicate, complex situation that will take a lot of maneuvering to diffuse, and I doubt there are any simple solutions.  This is just one more unintended consequence of the Iraq war–one that poses a significant threat to the entire region.

Let me get this straight.

John Edwards buys an expensive haircut on his campaign’s tab; he then reimburses the campaign for the cost. This story is picked up by the right wing, eventually making it’s way into the traditional media. It is covered repeatedly and endlessly.

Mitt Romney buys $300 worth of makeup on his campaign’s tab; nobody picks the story up, and it’s barely mentioned in the traditional press. Apparently, expensive haircuts are worse than massive makeup purchases (at least if you’re Mitt Romney).

And now, Rudy Giuliani is spending tens of thousands of dollars on luxury hotels:

Giuliani’s spending was elevated at least in part because he traveled in style. He often stayed in luxury hotels, spending $2,010 at the Greenbrier in West Virginia, $4,034 at La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif., and $5,370 at the Fairmont in San Francisco.

How much do you bet that this story will barely get mentioned, as well? It seems that, if you’re a Republican, spending ridiculous amounts of your campaign’s money on unnecessary costs is perfectly acceptable. If you’re a Democrat, expect your expenditures to be scrutinized, where any slight impropriety will be blown out of proportion and used to attack you repeatedly.

Once again, the double standard lives–it’s okay if you’re a Republican (of course, Rudy Giuliani isn’t really a Republican. At least according to, well, Rudy Giuliani himself).

Is Virginia on the verge of turning blue?

Q3 fundraising numbers:

Mark Warner (D) $1.1 million (entered race 9/13, so two weeks)

Jim Gilmore (R) $200,000
Tom Davis (R) $222,000

Davis raised $600K in Q1 and $400K in Q2 — both pretty good amounts. However, his numbers are clearly on the downswing. Jim Gilmore might’ve raised enough money to simply get out of debt (he was about $60K in the hole after Q2). Both their numbers should get worse now that Mark Warner and his dominant poll numbers are in the race (Warner raised that cash without a single organized fundraiser). And while we can hope the NRSC wastes money on this race, that doesn’t seem very likely unless the numbers tighten considerably.

Based on all this, Atrios makes a bold prediction:

15 months from now there will be two Democratic senators from Virginia. 

His optimism is warranted–these numbers are phenomenal. I’m reluctant to call any race that’s more than a year away, but as it stands this race is already extraordinarily one-sided.

Warner is perhaps the most popular Virginia governor since Thomas Jefferson, and he has a proven track record of success.  Gilmore is another former governor, but he’s far less popular and accomplished.  Davis is a moderate-conservative Congressman with few significant accomplishments and low name recognition outside his district.  Both of the Republican candidates pale in comparison to the charismatic, successful Warner. 

And there’s more good news out of Wyoming, as Democrat Gary Trauner declares his candidacy for that state’s single House seat, which he lost in 2006 by only 1,012 votes:

At his announcement today in Casper, Trauner said he’d been mulling over whether he should run again as the Democratic candidate when a recent incident pushed him into running again.

“I had gone to the grocery store when I heard my name called,” Trauner said. A gentleman having coffee in the grocery store pointed to a newspaper and asked Trauner if he’d read about the growing controversy over expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which Congress had approved, President Bush had vetoed and had that veto sustained by a Republican minority.

Trauner said the gentleman having coffee was upset with the partisan politics, and said “I’ve been a Republican all my life, but don’t we deserve something better?”

Trauner, after long discussions with his wife, decided the answer was “Yes.”

“I’m running again for the same reasons I ran before,” Trauner said. Critical issues like health, energy and immigration haven’t advanced in the past year, he said. “Wyoming deserves better.”

All of this is good news.  Hopefully come January, 2009, we Democrats can finally roll up our sleeves and get to work fixing the GOP’s messes. 

I’m sure you all know by now that Al Gore, along with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Gore’s efforts to bring attention to the threat of global warming has changed the political and social landscape of this country, and it has laid the foundation for substantive change that will protect our planet for untold generations to come. Via Daily Kos, I came to Paul Krugman’s article in today’s New York Times about Al Gore. Some excerpts:

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

[...]

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

[...]

For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

[...]

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.

[...]

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Al Gore has repeatedly proven to be incredibly smart and prescient. As Krugman points out, it drives the right wing crazy–they can point to nobody in their own ranks who is like Gore, who has bucked the conventional wisdom to speak the truth. The GOP values towing the party line, right or wrong–the truth is inconvenient because, to them, it’s often irrelevant to politics.

And that’s why Republicans are dragging their feet on climate change–it can’t be solved with conservative ideology. The free market won’t fix the problem. Tax cuts won’t fix the problem. Greed and self-interest won’t fix the problem. The only way to stop global warming is to be progressive–to see one another as members of the same community. To give up something to help others in need. To put our own desires aside to think about the next generation. All of these principles are absolutely anathema to conservatism.

But there’s a deeper lesson in all of this that we must take to heart. Remember those people back in 2000 who said there was no difference between the two parties? Remember those people who threw their vote away (and arguably threw the election within reach of George W. Bush) because they didn’t think a President Gore would do any better than a President Bush?

This all proves how utterly wrong those people were. In the intervening 7 years, look at the vastly different paths both men have taken.

One has become a rigid, dogmatic President whose stubbornness, obstinance and poor leadership will forever enshrine him as one of our nation’s worst leaders. He has fostered a culture of corruption, a culture of cronyism, a culture of incompetence and disregard for the law that will take our nation generations to recover from. His greatest accomplishment is a massive, bloody war that has claimed untold lives and untold billions of dollars.

Another has become a smart, charismatic, prescient leader whose foresight and passion will forever enshrine him as one of our country’s best activists. He has worked tirelessly to bring attention to one of the most pressing issues of our day, laying the groundwork for substantive change that will save untold lives. His greatest accomplishment (besides a Nobel Peace Prize) is the change that his passionate advocacy will bring.

These two men–who many people were once so quick to lump together–have emerged with two vastly different legacies. Let this be a lesson to all those who say there is no difference between the major parties–look at where Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore ended up, and tell me you wouldn’t trade one for the other in a heartbeat.

Take a look at this diagram of proposed federal spending for 2008.

The President’s requested 2008 federal discretionary budget is 1.075 trillion dollars; 67% (717 billion) is allocated for military spending, while only 33% (358 billion) is allocated for non-military spending.

This shows visually where all the money is allocated–notice how large some parts are as compared to others.  And the large circle around the outside? That’s our debt, which is several times larger than the entire proposed budget for next year.

It’s an interesting visual representation of where your tax money goes.  And, if you’d like, you can order one as a massive poster.  Just something interesting I thought I’d share with you (all 13 of you).

It’s a simple fact. Republicans can’t govern.

I don’t need to point to their failures in the past several years–by now I’m sure you have the entire shameful list memorized, from Iraq and Katrina to the PATRIOT Act, habeas corpus, Jack Abramoff and the U.S. Attorneys scandal.

Why does the GOP do such a bad job when put in charge? Sadly, this isn’t about a few bad apples spoiling the bunch–this is about an ideology that is inherently against good governance.

Remember what Ronald Reagan–the patron saint of modern conservatism–once said: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” That’s the issue in a nutshell–Republicans don’t believe government can do any good. They see no reason to govern well, because they don’t think it will help anyone.

It’s common sense. You won’t do a good job at something you feel is inherently immoral. For example, you wouldn’t expect a vegetarian to cook a world-class filet mignon, right? Not because they can’t–if they tried, they could probably do decently well–but because they believe it’s wrong. Republicans feel that using the government to help people is wrong, so they won’t do it.

In the end, conservatives create a self-fulfilling prophecy: they think government is bad, so when they’re put in charge of the government, they do a bad job.

We Democrats see it differently–to us, government is a tool that can be used to help people. We see government as inherently neutral, only as good or as bad as the people who run it.

That’s the major difference between the two parties–Democrats want to get elected to make America better; Republicans want to get elected for the sake of getting elected.

And now that the GOP is in the minority, we see them continuing their shameful legacy of poor governance: throwing roadblocks up in front of every piece of major legislation we Democrats try to pass. Solving Iraq? Blocked. Improving SCHIP? Vetoed. The GOP  blocks good legislation just to stop the government from helping people.

The solution? Don’t elect Republicans. Until they ditch their outdated, dead-end, Reagan-era dogma and realize that government can be a force for good, they don’t deserve to be put in charge of it. Otherwise, all we get is an endless cycle of conservatives predicting failure, then conservatives causing failure–personally, I’d take the problem-solvers over the doomsayers, any day.

From Media Matters:

Summary: On his radio show, while discussing an incident in which a student shot four people at his Cleveland high school before killing himself, John Gibson asserted that “I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don’t do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again.”

On the October 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated Fox News Radio show, while discussing 14-year-old Asa H. Coon, who earlier that day shot four people at his Cleveland high school before killing himself, Fox News host John Gibson asserted that “because the school is very heavily African-American, I did leap to a conclusion” that “the shooter might have been African-American.” Gibson went on to say that he “knew this was not a classic hip-hop shooting” once he learned Coon killed himself. Gibson continued: “Hip-hoppers do not kill themselves. They walk away. Now, I didn’t need to hear the kid was white with blond hair. Once he’d shot himself in the head, no hip-hopper.” Gibson later stated, “I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don’t do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again.” Gibson added: “I know there’s a few of you who want to call me racist. But when you do, remind — let me remind you, African-Americans are dying in major cities because people won’t face this problem.”

We might as well call this Bill O’Reilly, Part II.  Gibson’s claims he’s not racist.  He says he’s trying to help.  But his words betray a horribly skewed view of African-Americans; that’s the racist part.

In Gibson’s world, “hip-hoppers” are cold-blooded assassins, who “shoot and move on and shoot again.”  You can tell from his words that “hip-hoppers” implies that the person is black– Gibson says he thought the shooter was black, “because the school is very heavily African-American” but then goes on to say ” I didn’t need to hear the kid was white with blond hair. Once he’d shot himself in the head, no hip-hopper.”  To me, it seems like Gibson is using “hip-hopper” as a synonym for “black.”

Again, just like O’Reilly,  Gibson lets the facade slip and shows his true beliefs about African-Americans.  It’s not a pretty sight.  And now that we’re calling him on this, I wonder how long it will be until Gibson says he was taken out of context? How long until he starts attacking Media Matters and anyone else who picks this story up? How long until he’s talking about corrupt journalists or smear merchants or whatever particular phrase he decides to use on us?

We’ll have to wait and see.

I’ve spent some time thinking about the recent O’Reilly and Limbaugh controversies, andI figured I would sharre my thoughts on all of this.

What O’Reilly said wasn’t necessarily racist, but it did betray a horribly bigoted worldview. He was surprised that blacks can act civilized and polite, just like everyone else—it shows that O’Reilly believes most black people embody some ridiculous stereotype. A lot of conservatives have claimed that O’Reilly was actually complimenting blacks–though that may have been his intention, that’s not what he said. It reminds me a bit of the antiquated pseudo-compliment, “You’re a credit to your race.” Though the intent is to compliment, what it really does is insult others by betraying a skewed perception of other races.

Limbaugh’s statement was more direct. Limbaugh called soldiers who oppose the Iraq war “phony soldiers.” Don’t give me that nonsense about Jesse Macbeth–Limbaugh didn’t even mention Macbeth until nearly two minutes after his original “phony soldiers” comment. That’s not who he was referring to, and if you read the transcript/listen to the audio, it’s clear what he was talking about. And I mean the actual transcript and video, not the edited version Limbaugh aired—the fact that Limbaugh felt the need to air an edited version of his show and provide an edited transcript shows that he knows what he said was wrong. He wouldn’t have to edit his own remarks if he wasn’t guilty. You don’t need to alter the truth if the truth vindicates you. Limbaugh attacked soldiers who disagree with his political ideology, and then tried (poorly) to cover it up.

What gets me most is what O’Reilly and Limbaugh did next. What do you normally do when you offend someone, even inadvertently? You apologize. That’s the sensible thing to do; that’s the decent thing to do. You say “Look, I didn’t mean to offend anyone, and I’m sorry if I did. That wasn’t my intention.” Simple, easy–you apologize, you show that you’re the bigger person and you move on.

But that’s not what O’Reilly or Limbaugh did. They both took a page out of George W. Bush’s playbook (or perhaps it was their playbook first) and refused to admit that they were wrong. They believe that apologizing, even when warranted, betrays weakness and softness.

Instead, they dug in and went nuts. O’Reilly went on an insane tirade against the “corrupt media,” threatening to go to people’s houses, fantasizing about strangling certain “corrupt journalists.” He basically called blacks idiots, insinuating they couldn’t think for themselves and asserting that they let journalists fill their heads with lies. Limbaugh went after John Murtha and Harry Reid and Media Matters, spreading the blame to as many people as possible. He attacked even more veterans, insinuating that one who was particularly critical of him was like a suicide bomber. Instead of apologizing for his own outrageous remarks, Limbaugh “apologized” to America on behalf of Media Matters (who did nothing but publicize his remarks, with context). Both of them claimed to be taken out of context, even though their complete remarks are all over the place, right out there for everyone to see.

Instead of admitting any culpability, they attacked the messengers. Why? Why would you engage in such a stupid, stubborn strategy when it’s undeniable that you’re wrong?

Well, guys like O’Reilly and Limbaugh are not used to being called out. They came to power during the 80’s and 90’s, when they could spout their radical nonsense with impunity. For years, the only people who tuned in were conservatives who agreed with them wholeheartedly. They could say whatever they wanted about whoever they wanted with no fear of retribution whatsoever.

These ultra-conservative pundits have been doing this same shtick since the Clinton administration, and yet they faced nearly no criticism–until now. In the past few years, a variety of individuals, groups and blogs have sprung up, not afraid to call the O’Reillys and Limbaughs of the world out on their nonsense. Now, whenever these guys lie or spin or say something completely outrageous, they have to face an angry public.

That leads these pundits to the conclusion that it’s not them. They haven’t changed; nothing’s different about them or their beliefs or their routine. So, it must be everyone else–namely, the people who call them out. Whenever conservative pundits catch heat for what they say, they turn around and blame those who caught them red-handed–because, to them, they should still be able to get away with this stuff.

They don’t understand that they live in a different world–they can’t lie and spin and smear with impunity anymore. There are millions of people out there willing to take them to task, and they have to start watching what they say–or face an angry public.

In the end, though, I don’t think they’ll get it. None on the right will get it, because this is their entire mode of operation–attack anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, stoop to any level, cast aside all standards and decency for the sake of scoring political points. For example, Michelle Malkin—a right-wing protégé who occasionally subs for O’Reilly–is on a crusade against a 12-year-old boy with brain damage because—get this—his family has the nerve to receive assistance through S-CHIP. No, I’m not kidding. To them, everything is politics, and everything can be turned into a partisan battle.

It must be a sad, tiring life. To always be on the defensive or the offensive, to always be either looking for enemies in the shadows or inventing new ones out of thin air. It must be a tiring, sad, lonely existence—spending your time and energy defending yourself and fighting everyone else. We’ll never be free of disagreement or partisanship, but I hope to one day live in a world free of the dishonesty, spin and slander that has become intrinsic to many on the right.

Sorry for the lack of an update on Tuesday–it was an incredibly long day, and I didn’t see my apartment between 7:30 AM and 11:30 PM. I have an idea in my head about the greater implications about the O’Reilly-Limbaugh scandals, I just need to get it typed up and fleshed out.

For now, though, here’s a good post from Think Progress on the damage Iraq has done (and is doing) to the American military. A real eye-opener:

Gen. David Petraeus has repeatedly stated that he would like the U.S. to be in Iraq for 9-10 years. “[T]he average counter insurgency is somewhere around a nine or a 10 year endeavour,” he said in July.

But in a press conference yesterday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey indirectly dealt a blow to Petraeus’s plan, stating the Army would continue to be “out of balance” as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq.

Casey reemphasized that that the “current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply,” leaving the U.S. unable to handle future threats. He elaborated on the long-term commitment it will take from the U.S. to restore our forces to peak capability.

It’s going to take us three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put ourselves back in balance.

Under the current strain, the Army must “reset,” or restore forces “in a period of persistent conflict.” These resets require a substantial commitment from the U.S. “It takes about $13 billion dollars to reset a 15 brigade size force plus their enablers every year,” he said.

Casey’s “three to four year” time frame, however, depends on the rate of withdrawal from Iraq. Responding to a question about how long after the war would the Army need to continue paying for reseting its forces, Casey stated:

We’ve said two years. And that’s right. The question is, when does the conflict end? … As forces begin to draw down, there’s still going to be a need to reset those forces.

[...]

Casey also said he would like to increase dwell-time between deployments and “come off a 15-month deployment” for U.S. troops. Such a measure was proposed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) last month, but conservatives blocked the amendment, buckling to pressure from the administration.

Ironically, while Petraeus is pushing for a decade-long occupation, he has “agreed the military was stretched too thin, and the Army likely would not be able to respond if trouble arose in another part of the world.”

I touched on this before, and today Greg Sargent brings us some interesting revelations from Clark Hoyt at the New York Times:

Stephen Biddle, a scholar at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said Petraeus’s December number was “very high” but was likely the result of “statistical noise” — the tendency of Iraq numbers to jump all over the place. Biddle was an adviser to Petraeus last spring but believes the general’s testimony was “potentially misleading” because it didn’t discuss all the reasons why the numbers might have improved.

He said the best way to analyze statistics from Iraq is to gather all the numbers from all sources and look for broad trends instead of picking isolated points, as Petraeus did. Biddle examined data from nine sources on Iraqi civilian deaths, including the U.S. military, independent organizations like Brookings and Iraq Body Count and four news organizations. Although the specific monthly numbers varied widely, he said they all showed declines since late 2006.

[Emphasis added]

As a lot of us in the blogosphere have said for a while, Petraeus’ testimony relied on doctored numbers and cherry-picked statistics to paint an overly-optimistic picture of Iraq. Despite the fact that Petraeus’ testimony directly contradicted several government reports that came out at the same time–such as the NIE and the GAO report–the traditional media and the GOP treated Petraeus’ words as gospel.

And now we have one of the General’s own advisers saying that Petraeus’ numbers were off. According to Biddle, the General didn’t take into account numerous developments that affected the security situation in Iraq, therefore giving too much credit to the surge. In addition, by picking December 2006–a month where casualties were abnormally high–as a comparison point to this past summer summer, Petraeus made it seem as if deaths were declining far more rapidly than they actually were.

Petraeus was wrong. He is a highly-decorated General who has served his country well, but he is also a White House political appointee whose career is tied to the success or failure of Iraq. His testimony should have been treated with far more skepticism than it was, and revelations about the questionable nature of Petraeus’ report are now putting his predictions into serious doubt.

Talking Points Memo brings us the new right-wing narrative:

[National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Rep. Tom] Cole, who admits Republicans hurt themselves in 2006 with scandals and out-of-control spending, said the [latest Washington Post] poll confirmed for him a comment he heard this week from a Republican colleague. Speaking of the Democrats, he said, “My God, they’re dragging themselves down to our level.”

It all adds up, Cole said, to a political environment reminiscent of 1992 — a tough year for entrenched incumbents of both parties who suddenly saw their margins shrink or disappear. “The American people are rising up in disgust,” Cole said, “and incumbents will pay. It’s not anti-Republican anymore. It’s anti-Washington.“

Cole argues that the House Democratic leadership has made a strategic error by wielding its narrow majority to craft partisan bills that invite a Bush veto. That was the case with several resolutions to shorten the Iraq war, and it will be the case later this fall with a series of appropriations bills. Polarization is exactly what the voters hate, Cole said; they are looking for cooperation and agreement.

[Emphasis added]

It’s funny, whenever the Republicans are in charge all we hear about is mandates and political capital and “elections have consequences.” But now that the Democrats are in charge, all we hear about is compromise and cooperation and bipartisanship.

That is the perpetual media narrative: conservative majorities always have mandates, while liberal majorities never have mandates. I wonder, where was all this talk of bipartisanship and cooperation when the GOP was running roughshod over the Democrats and the American people?

Of course, this is all nothing more than the latest spin, reprinted by unwitting right-wing mouthpiece David Broder. I wonder if he reads his own newspaper?

Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush’s $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority support an expansion of a children’s health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.

[...]

Despite discontent with Congress this year, the public rates congressional Republicans (29 percent approve) lower than congressional Democrats (38 percent approve). When the parties are pitted directly against each other, the public broadly favors Democrats on Iraq, health care, the federal budget and the economy. Only on the issue of terrorism are Republicans at parity with Democrats.

Part of the displeasure with Congress stems from the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy. Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party’s failure to force the president into a significant change in policy.

[Emphasis added]

The public isn’t stupid. They know the Democrats are trying to move this country forward, and the Republicans are throwing every conceivable roadblock in their way. And while the American people are unhappy with Congress as a whole, they hate the Republicans far more than they dislike the Democrats.

In addition, the American people don’t want compromise, especially not on Iraq. In fact, they want the Democrats in Congress to be more hard-line and confrontational with President Bush and the GOP. The American people are actually to the left of Congressional Democrats on the war; meanwhile, they agree with Democrats on almost every other issue under the sun. Even on terrorism–traditionally a strong issue for Republicans–the public is equally divided on which party would do a better job.

All of this is bad news for Republicans. Despite losing the majority, the public is still fed up with the them. When the American people go to the polls in a little over a year, they’re going to be taking their anger out on the GOP, not the Democrats.

Of course, none of this will change the GOP’s obstructionist strategy one bit. When their party goes down in flames in November, 2008, they’ll have only themselves to blame. Who knows, maybe a few cycles spent out in the wilderness will knock some sense back into them; Lord knows they could use it.

From the New York Times, via Daily Kos:

Scholars who study the role of religion in politics now say it is possible that the Bush years were an anomaly and that evangelicals, of whom religious conservatives are only a subset, could find themselves back where they were before — divided among themselves and just one of many interest groups vying for attention.

“It’s not so much that evangelicals are more divided than they were before, it’s that Bush himself was a unique candidate,” said Corwin E. Smidt, director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College, an evangelical school in Grand Rapids, Mich. “It’s partly going back to previous patterns.”

And that stings. Religious conservatives were alarmed last month when none of the Republican front-runners showed up for the Values Voter Debate Straw Poll in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. More than 40 groups, some of them major organizations known for their capacity to mobilize voters, had put together the event. Questions were directed even at the no-show candidates, and many of those questions were angry.

“Beyond their cowardice, there’s an arrogance on the part of these candidates,” said Janet L. Folger, the president of Faith2Action, who helped organize the debate. “The arrogance is this: ‘We are just taking your votes for granted. You have nowhere else to go.’ “

Large-scale, organized political participation by evangelicals and religious conservatives has been pretty rare in American history. It occurs sporadically and briefly, coinciding with a major issue, event or personality. For example, the Great Awakenings–periods of religious revival in American history– galvanized religious voters and got them involved in the political process.

Jimmy Carter was a major vanguard of the modern evangelical movement–the Georgia Governor was himself an evangelical Christian, and his numerous appeals to his faith drove many new voters to the polls. Carter’s presidency was based, to some extent, on evangelical voters.

Yet, while Carter got evangelicals to vote, Reagan got them to become Republicans. His conservative focus on social issues and his deft use of the GOP’s southern strategy coalesced evangelical Christians around his candidacy. Since then, religious conservatives have been an integral part of the Republican Party.

George W. Bush understood the power of a unified evangelical movement, and he became an expert at winning their support. His strong conservatism united the evangelical movement to an extraordinary extent. Recently, the influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party has grown exponentially, leaving the GOP far outside the American mainstream on many issues.

It was this radical conservatism that lead to the GOP’s defeat in 2006. While many Republicans try to spin that election one way or another, the bottom line is that the national party became so radically conservative on so many issues–including Iraq–that the American people got fed up. Moderates and conservatives alike were caught up in the tidal wave of disgust directed toward the GOP and their corruption, their incompetence, their hypocrisy, their radicalism.

On top of that, many conservative and evangelical voters just stayed home in 2006. Dissatisfied with a lack of progress, with decades of broken promises (Roe v. Wade is still law) and rampant corruption, many religious conservatives felt that the GOP didn’t deserve their vote in 2006. And, truthfully, they were right.

And now, evangelicals are disintegrating as a voting bloc. This collapse is exacerbated by Presidential candidates who are at odds with the evangelical movement on a variety of issues. Religious conservatives will not support a candidate who could care less about the issues they’ve spent decades fighting for.

So, as has happened before in American history, religious voters are exiting the political stage, disgusted with their impotent, corrupt, hypocritical candidates. And, honestly, who can blame them?

Meanwhile, the GOP loses one of their biggest and best-organized voting blocs, watching the sand pour through their fingers, helpless to stop the flow of voters away from the sad remains of their party.

Paul Waldman examines the current primary system and finds it lacking:

And after all, we know Iowa and New Hampshire voters aren’t fickle like those in some other states. They’re serious and studious, applying their down-home common sense and refusing to vote for anyone unless they look them in the eye and get a sense of the person behind the politician.

[...]

If there is any consolation, we are told, it is that the wise and deliberative citizens of the early states take their responsibilities so seriously. But do they really? And if they don’t, what does that say about the way we’re choosing the next leader of the free world?

[...]

This isn’t just because the rest of us get virtually no say in who the parties’ nominees are. It’s also because of this simple fact: No small group of Americans deserves this power, but if any does, it sure isn’t the citizens of Iowa.

[...]

And the good people of Iowa? They couldn’t give a rat’s ass.

If this is a typical election, somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of voting-eligible Iowans will bother to show up to a caucus. Yes, you read that right. Those vaunted Iowa voters are so concerned about the issues, so involved in the political process, so serious about their solemn deliberative responsibilities as guardians of the first-in-the-nation contest, that nine out of ten can’t manage to haul their butts down to the junior high on caucus night. One might protest that caucusing is hard — it requires hours of time and a complicated sequence of standing in corners, raising hands, and trading votes (here is an explanation of the ridiculousness). But so what? If ten presidential candidates personally came to your house to beg for your vote, wouldn’t you set aside an evening when decision time finally came?

[...]

Not only that, despite all the attention, Iowans know barely more about the candidates than citizens of other states, and don’t discuss politics any more than anyone else (unless something has changed since this research was conducted in 2000). Yet around 200,000 of them, possessed of no greater wisdom or insight than the rest of us, will determine who presides over this nation of 300 million for the next four years. The problem isn’t that Iowans aren’t like the rest of the country (95 percent white, for one). The problem is that despite the extraordinary privilege of having the next president grovel before them, they’re just as indifferent and apathetic as any other group of Americans.

But what about New Hampshire…? Don’t hold your breath. If nothing else, unlike Iowans, they have the good grace to find their way to the polls, at least to a degree. New Hampshire turnout in the 2004 primary was under 30 percent; in 2000, when both parties had contested primaries, it hit 44 percent. (Figures on primary turnout in the last two elections can be found here.) But only three times since the current nomination system took effect in 1972, and only once in the last 20 years, has the New Hampshire winner in either party not been the man who placed either first or second in the Iowa caucus a week before

[...]

So though we might not be able to predict what the Iowa results will be, we can say with relative certainty what will happen after. The press corps will invest those results with titanic meaning and import, and we voters will select from our remaining pre-approved choices, one of whom, on each side, will become his or her party’s nominee. Yet again, it will feel to all but a few Americans like a process in which they played no part. And they’ll be right.

It’s clear that primary system is broken.  Iowa and New Hampshire have a massive amount of influence over the nominating process, despite the fact that neither state is particularly representative of the rest of the country, neither has large voter turnout or more well-informed voters than any other state.  It makes no sense that they should perpetually be first.

The GOP has put South Carolina toward the top, while the DNC has moved both SC and Nevada up, but that’s just a band-aid– no matter who else is near the front, disproportionate influence will be given to the results in IA and NH.  Their results will, inevitably, dictate those of the other easly primary states, essentially making IA and NH the only real deciders in the whole primary process.  Momentum follows victory, as the saying goes.

The solution is to redesign the primary system from the ground up.  The designation of IA and NH as the first in the nation was made decades ago, when the electoral landscape was vastly different. Right now, there are plenty of other worthy states that deserve a chance to nominate our candidate.  The question is, how do we redesign our system to allow those other states more of a voice?
There are several alternate ideas out there, each of which should be examined and taken into consideration:

One plan would order the primary states according to their magin of victory in the last Presidential election, with the closest states going first.  So, this time around, Wisconsin (.38%) would be the first primary, followed by Iowa (.67%), New Mexico (.79%), New Hampshire (1.37%), Ohio (2.11%), Pennsylvania (2.50%), Nevada (2.59%), Michigan (3.42%), etc. The philosophy behind this is that states that were close in the last election are likely to be close in this election, so letting them choose the candidates ensures that the nominee is the person likely to win the closest states.

Another plan–proposed by Senators Klobuchar, Lieberman and Alexander–would divide the nation into four regions: West, Midwest, South and East.  Each region would take turns hosting the first round of caucuses and primaries.  The process would begin on the first Tuesday in March, where all the states in the first region would hold their primaries/caucuses, and continue on the first Tuesday in April, May and June.  This way, different areas of the country get the chance to choose the nominee, preventing a small group of states from perpetually receiving disproportionate attention.  In addition, putting a month between each round of caucuses/primaries would prevent one candidate from sweeping due to his/her momentum.

(Sadly, the legislation creating this system would keep IA and NH first, undermining the  point of overhauling the primary system).

Another idea is to hold a one-day national primary, where all the states in the nation cast their votes.  This way, a candidate’s tidalwave momentum has little influence on the other states (since it won’t be known who’s winning until the votes have been cast anyway),  and the candidates have to choose carefully where they will spend time campaigning in order to receive the most votes (much like the general election).

Of course, elected officials in IA and NH will fight tooth-and-nail to keep their power, but we can’t be afraid of making a few people angry if the rest of us will benefit in the long run.  I think the Democratic Party would benefit from taking some power away from the IA and NH elites and spreading it out to more voters.  That way, we can choose candidates who are more competitive, who are more well-liked by the country as a whole, and who stand a better shot at winning the general election itself.