There will be no honeymoon

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

On the eve of the Democratic Convention, I think it might be a good idea to remind ourselves what happened after the last one and prepare ourselves for how quickly the Republicans will try to change the subject.

On Thursday, July 29, 2004, John Kerry had a modest lead in the polls and Democrats were energized as the convention came to a close. Delegates, activists and party leaders returned home, ready to re-engage with their communities. But before Monday rolled around and anybody had a chance to gather at the water cooler, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge emerged with an important announcement:

Secretary Ridge: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. President Bush has told you, and I have reiterated the promise, that when we have specific credible information, that we will share it. Now this afternoon, we do have new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack. And as a result, today, the United States Government is raising the threat level to Code Orange for the financial services sector in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, DC.

Since September 11th, 2001, leaders of our commercial financial institutions have demonstrated exceptional leadership in improving its security. However, in light of new intelligence information, we have made the decision to raise the threat level for this sector, in these communities, to bring protective resources to an even higher level.

Code Orange!

It was still 2004, so millions of Americans who know now that the Bush Administration will tell them absolutely anything were still willing to accept that there was a legitimate threat and action needed to be taken immediately. It wasn't just Republicans, after all. When crazy Howard Dean suggested there may be politics involved (YEARGHH!), George Bush's favorite Democrat took to the airwaves with outrage:

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I don't think anybody who has any fairness or is in their right mind would think that the president or the secretary of Homeland Security would raise an alert level and scare people for political reasons.

Perish the thought. This was "specific credible information" and Sec. Ridge had no choice but to come right out that particular Sunday and deliver the grim news. After all, the information they had was, uh, three years old.

Ridge hadn't exactly divulged that the information was in their possession for a long time and was more along the lines of surveillance notes rather than attack plans. But any reporter -- or citizen -- with the ability to think rationally when the government screamed "TERROR!" might have noticed that this is a strange thing to see when you bring your camera to a building that's about to be attacked by al-Qaeda:




Naturally, when there is "specific credible information" that a building is about to be attacked, the Presidential Playbook instructs him to send his wife and children to the target for a photo op with the mayor and governor. Bush's decision was textbook.

It is as clear in retrospect as it should have been to any observer back then: The Bush/Cheney/Rove operation would play on America's fears to win the election. Keith Olbermann has documented this strategy well with his Nexus Of Politics And Terror.

It's also important to note that there is a steep cost to us all when this happens. Not just the psychological damage that comes with an electorate whose judgment is clouded by fear and not just the damage done to our nation when a population ceases to trust a government that cries wolf. According to the American Public Transportation Association, "[e]very day on Orange Alert costs transit systems at least $900,000 a day."

In 2003, New York Governor George Pataki explained that Code Orange isn't free:

GOV. GEORGE PATAKI (R), NEW YORK: Well, there's no question that being at this heightened level of alert has cost New York State hundreds of millions of dollars.

MESERVE: Neighboring New Jersey says maintaining threat level orange costs $125,000 a day. And the city of Baltimore estimates its costs at $300,000 a week.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2003 (PDF) wrote:

[W]we estimate that cities nationwide are spending nearly $70 million per week in additional homeland security costs due to the war and heightened threat alert level. If the war and/or threat alert level continue for six months, cities would incur nearly $2 billion in additional costs.

We stress that these costs come ON TOP OF existing homeland security spending already underway or planned since 9/11. In addition, this survey only asked cities about DIRECT costs, new money that had to be allocated for homeland security because of the war or threat alert. These figures do NOT account for the huge INDIRECT costs cities are experiencing.

In the case of this "limited" Orange Alert in New York, many of those indirect costs were paid by ordinary citizens:

''Anything that slows down the city in general has economic impact, and anything that affects the financial institutions that are still our most important industry also has an impact,'' said Ronnie Lowenstein, an economist who is director of the city's Independent Budget Office. ''It is hard to imagine that these kinds of warnings don't have any impact.''

Rob Kotch, who runs Breakaway Courier Systems, a business that like much of New York's economy depends on speed and mobility, put it another way.

''The cost of all this security is friction to the economy,'' Mr. Kotch said. ''You consider the cost of a driver is $45 an hour. Do the math. If you put a dollar amount on waiting time sitting in traffic for security checks, it can be huge.''

Millions of dollars for the First Lady and Twins to "reassure" the people working in one building. Millions of dollars to make everybody in America afraid. Mostly taxpayer dollars. That Aug. 1 Orange Alert remained in effect for 102 days, through the RNC in New York City and until after the election.

And the cost was actually much steeper. It wasn't simply a financial loss America took to change the subject away from John Kerry's convention:

But what's more disturbing, perhaps even more than the new details of al-Qaida's twisted plotting, is the Bush administration's outing of an undercover al-Qaida agent in its rush to justify raising the terror alert. This move, whether politically motivated or rooted in incompetence has terrorism and security experts shocked and dismayed for the harm inflicted on intelligence operations against al-Qaida. CNN reports today that the administration "may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al-Qaida arrests" when officials revealed Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's identity to journalists last week (Khan is the computer expert who "flipped" last month and was operating as a double-agent for the Pakistani government). Do we have so many plugged-in al-Qaida double agents that we can afford to lose one and with him all of his connections and leads? Of course not.

Juan Cole looks at the consequences: British intelligence agents scrambled last week to arrest 13 members of a London al-Qaida cell before they fled after learning  from the Bush administration!  that Khan had been arrested. "The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully," Cole writes. And even worse: 5 got away. "If this is true," Cole says. "It is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest. Of the 13 taken into custody on Aug. 3, two were released for lack of evidence and two others were 'no longer being questioned on suspicion of terrorism offences.'"

It may be another election, but George Bush is still president, Dick Cheney is still VP. Karl Rove's team is advising John McCain. Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge are on television every day as McCain surrogates and potential VP picks. The polls are close and all the talking heads believe (as does McCain, evidenced by his reaction to events in Georgia) that anything involving threats to America will help the GOP.

I'm glad Barack Obama already had a week to have fun in Hawaii. There will be no honeymoon after this convention.

UPDATE: By popular demand, here is a 2005 USA Today story about the source of Ridge's announcements:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

For the record, I'm not predicting that there will be a terror alert next week. I'm merely pointing out that this crew will go to serious lengths to change the subject and we might as well prevent the element of surprise from being a factor (and bust out the popcorn).

Trumped

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

I see Ed Koch is, once again, sharing his views on the war:

I’m bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war.

Well, hallelujah.

ThinkProgess noted that he attacked war critics a year ago:

There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time, thereby strengthening our country’s enemies. As a result of the language and tactics of those opposed to our presence in Iraq, our enemies have been emboldened, believing the American public to be sharply divided on the war, and in fact at war with itself.

Sounds like a certain Senator from Connecticut.

I failed to find any apologies or concessions in his column today. I guess the war critics were wrong until this very moment. Personally, I don't care about apologies from politicians very much, even less when it comes after thousands of unnecessary deaths, including America's reputation. But Koch has a lot to apologize for. It's not simply that he lashed out at people who were right all along. He willingly abandoned the principles he claimed to hold and did so, apparently now, for no reason at all.

Consider the meat of his column today (I'll make no comment on the wisdom of the person upon whom Koch relies for support):

My voice is a modest one, so I would like to buttress my pro-withdrawal position with arguments put forth by the highly regarded New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. In his July 11 column, he stated:

“But getting out has at least four advantages. First, no more Americans will be dying while refereeing a civil war. Second, the fear of an all-out civil war, as we do prepare to leave, may be the last best hope for getting the Iraqis to reach an eleventh-hour political agreement. Third, as the civil war in Iraq plays out, it could, painfully, force the realignment of communities on the ground that may create a more stable foundation upon which to build a federal settlement.

Fourth, we will restore our deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and we will be much freer to hit Iran -- should we ever need to -- once we’re out. Moreover, Iran will by default inherit management of the mess in southern Iraq, which, in time, will be an enormous problem for Tehran.”

I agree with Friedman and repeat that I would support our troops remaining in Iraq if our allies were to join us. But they have made it clear they will not.

[...]

But my support for remaining in Iraq was conditioned on our allies joining us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, very few have done so. Instead, many of those same allies criticize us for staying in Iraq.

It was all about the allies, huh? Too bad the Democrats didn't run a candidate who made an effort to bring America's allies and regional interests together the centerpiece of his Iraq policy. A candidate who repeated things like this over and over during the debates and throughout the campaign:

I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.

That would have been a perfect candidate for Koch.

But, no, Koch didn't see or hear anything like that in 2004. Instead, he went to George Bush's convention in New York and said this:

"I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom."

Trumped. Every major domestic issue trumped. What a bargain that was... A responsible, effective government dealt away for a failed foreign policy, broken military, catastrophic debt and the loss of respect around the world. Last October, Koch told Chris Matthews that Bush should be given credit for his courage. Now, Koch's home town is disintegrating in an asbestos shower, symptoms of the diseased policies he swallowed out of fear. New Orleans has drowned and the warmonger from Connecticut he endorsed turned around and refused to do his job and investigate the failure .

Koch doesn't just owe the war critics an apology, he owes everybody an apology.

Deadly potential

Kagro X read my last post and added an excellent point, that Congress is kidding themselves if they think that "(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran" will make the administration think twice about proceeding any way they see fit. This is an administration that doesn't think they require any authorization, anyway.

I also forgot a key point I intended to make... One that RJ Eskow briefly touched on in his outstanding essay:

The amendment doesn't just ask for intelligence on Iranian activity. It requires ongoing reports on proactive U.S. efforts against alleged Iranian efforts, placing political pressure on our military to become more active against Iran. Word in Washington is that top military leaders are resisting an attack on Iran, saying we lack the resources. This is a great way to lean on the generals to change their minds.

The way Sen. Feingold put it, "it basically just required a report on Iran's role in Iraq and any responses by the US government" as if this were a passive transaction, like requesting a PDF from the Government Printing Office. Of course, this assignment is a perfect job for whatever Department of Making Stuff Up is currently killing trees and collecting taxpayer dime in the vice president's office.

But, as Eskow writes, this is an "active" role for our military. The amendment doesn't limit in any way the scope or methods of the intelligence-gathering operation. Did Congress essentially justify an incursion into Iran for the purposes of obtaining information for this ongoing reporting? The intelligence has to come from somewhere and, technically, wandering over the border to gather information isn't the same thing as the "use of Armed Forces against Iran."

Not only could the Congressionally-mandated increase in intelligence result in less reluctance on behalf of high-ranking military leaders (or, as I'm sure Cheney and Lieberman dream, the production of some justification for preemption), it also radically increases the potential for armed conflict.

As I mentioned in my last post, when the 15 British sailors were captured in ambiguously-close-to-Iranian waters in March, the Bush administration allegedly offered military options to Tony Blair, who declined. Tony Blair was basically given the power to decide whether or not the United States would go to war with Iran. I cannot understand for a minute how that doesn't infuriate any senators as much as it infuriates me.

But think how disappointed the neocons must have been when Blair didn't allow his sailors to become pawns in Bush's desired war with Iran. Now imagine American soldiers, seeking information for Congress and crossing the border into enemy lines to get it. What happens if a few are captured?

Tony Blair [or Gordon Brown] won't be able to say "no, thanks" when Cheney offers the menu of options next time.

Consequences

The Supreme Court is lost. Of course, we we fairly certain of that in November 2004. We knew it for sure after the worthless "Gang of 14" made the loss complete. Today, we can see the results of such a momentous failure.

It's hard for DB to decide which is the worst opinion of the term. The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case is clearly the most illogical. Today's decision on school desegregation is the most dispiriting. The McCain-Feingold and faith-based decisions were disappointing, but unsurprising and based, at least, on a consistent application of the law on the part of the majority.

Chief Justice John Roberts (and Justice Alito) both said they respect stare decisis, but that was clearly a distortion. They respect precedent only in the context of what things were like before cases were settled in ways in which they did not appreciate. President Bush said he wanted judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, and he got them.

Thomas, of course, told the Senate that he had never thought about Roe (an unbelievable claim) and then, as a Justice, stated that it was wrongly-decided. Scalia's willingness to violate his own rules in order to reach the decision that pleases him is well-documented.

The Roberts Court is not only failing America; Roberts is failing to meet the expectations he set for himself. Norman Ornstein says it quite well:

He did seem to be someone who would be respectful of stare decisis and would move to change the court in small steps, using a more consensus-driven approach, looking for narrow solutions that could command 9-0 or 8-1 decisions, rather than 5-4 votes. Such narrow decisions ultimately erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because they underscore a sense that rulings are not driven by careful adherence to law and precedents but by the political calculus, based on who retires and which president gets to make the replacement.

In his initial service on the court, I was encouraged that Roberts would fit that institution-building mold, working with a like-minded institutionalist on the other side of the philosophical divide, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. Now, with the decisions this week, I see that I was wrong. We have fallen into a pattern of key decisions that come down 5-4, with Roberts and the more rigid Samuel Alito joining Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy to throw out precedents established only a few years ago, all driven not by changes in the law or objective deliberations over facts, but by the simple fact that Sandra Day O'Connor left the court and was replaced by a more conservative justice.

The good news is that these 5-4 decisions carry as little weight as possible (I know, that's not much silver lining) and Justice Kennedy's opinion actually does a little bit to protect affirmative action. The bad news is that we're stuck with this court for a long time and it could possibly get worse.

Thanks a lot, Joe Lieberman. The next time this blogger hears you talk about being a Freedom Rider, I hope somebody asks you why you helped destroy Brown v. Board of Education.

What did I miss?

Quite a bit it looks like. It's amazing how much happens in one week these days. DB was without Neternit access or TV (more or less) while travelling. Every time that happens, I come home mildly optimistic... maybe things straightened themselves out while I was gone!

Nope. Going to be a while before I catch up, but I did see that Joe Lieberman is still insane. Thanks again, Connecticut.

Here's a post at Daily Kos, picking up on DB's ongoing frustration with Congress' absolute lack of political will when it comes to preventing Bush from unilaterally deciding to expand this terrible war to Iran.

Various matters

Here are a bunch of random thoughts for the day. Blogging is light today, both because DB was busy, but also because I wanted to let my last post stay on top for a while. In fact, I tried my hand at my first cross-post on Daily Kos, but I'm starting to think from the comments in it, which almost all have to do with Tony Blair, that a diary posted when Europe is waking up and America is sleeping, entitled "We didn't elect Tony Blair" -- well, that was probably a mistake (blushing).

In any event, please consider calling your Senators and ask them if they were aware that the Bush administration was on the verge of provoking a war with Iran until England declined the offer. At least two Senators have already said that Bush does not have the Constitutional authority to attack Iran. If Congress is waiting for Bush to make a move before fighting back, reacting to the news of this offer would be immeasurably preferable to reacting to a war that's already claiming lives and will probably be impossible to stop.

If your Senators weren't informed that Bush was ready to go to war with Iran, ask them when they are planning to get an explanation from him. Shouldn't they be concerned by the fact that the decision to take America to war with Iran was left up to Tony Blair, not Congress or the American people?

Let me know what they say.

A few other items of interest:

Thanks for the link, Greg Sargent. And great work.

Abstinence-only programs have failed. Seems to me the people of Connecticut should ask Joe Lieberman why all that taxpayer money that leaves the state and comes back at a lower rate than almost every other state in the country should be getting funneled into the worthless faith-based abstinence programs he helped make possible.

COOT OFF! Like the grouchy "get off my lawn" neighborhood curmudgeon who lives forever, Ted Stevens sets a longevity record. Couldn't have happened to a lousier Senator. "I just the other day got, an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why??"

Great job on the document dump, blog-o-sphere!

On the draft

Tonight on Scarborough Country, Joe and his guests were discussing Charlie Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft. Lawrence O'Donnell tried to shout everybody down to make the case that people who haven't served in the Armed Forces shouldn't advocate for war.

Now, DB is certainly disgusted by foamy-mouthed (and cheeto-fingered) war hawks who wouldn't dream of enlisting or watching their children risk anything. But the argument O'Donnell was making so passionately is rather hollow in the context of any real discussion of policy (especially when he complains that the Bush girls aren't in Baghdad). After all, it's not an accident that the Constitution puts control of the military in civilian hands and does not list service in the military as a requirement for elective office.

Abraham Lincoln never served a day in his life and he presided over the bloodiest conflict in American History. DB, for one, is pleased with the results.

Obviously, anybody who calls the war in Iraq (or elsewhere) an "existential threat" and is still unwilling to make any real sacrifices in order to win it is a hypocrite and, quite frankly, an immoral piece of crap.

As far a Rangel's proposal, DB supports him. Not because this blogger supports the proposal, but precisely the opposite. The country resoundingly believes the draft is a bad idea, that this war is a bad idea and either expanding or escalating this war is a bad idea.

Rangel's proposal serves a series of useful purposes. It reminds the country how rotten this war is. It reminds us how wrong John McCain and Joe Lieberman are. It reminds us that they don't have the public support to actually pull off the things they are suggesting and, therefore, they are not credible people or presidential contenders. And it reminds us that these two hawks and their ilk are not, as the media tries to tell us, centrists. They are extremists, far, far out of the mainstream.

So Rangel's proposal is not good for America (or the world), but the act of proposing it is fantastic.

Faith the music, Connecticut

During the 2004 presidential campaign there were plenty of atrocities. One of the most infuriating to this blogger was the insulting way George Bush talked about Massachusetts. He said the name like it was a venereal disease.

As unseemly as it was for a sitting president to disparage an entire state of his constituents to score some political points, it wasn't completely surprising. After all, he was speaking to his base and we all know what they think of latte-drinking, body-piercing liberal freaks in New England.

You know, his base being people like this:

On the broadcast of the Christian television program "The 700 Club," Falwell made the following statement:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Falwell, pastor of the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, viewed the [9/11] attacks as God's judgment on America for "throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked."

[...]

Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club program, seemed to agree with Falwell's earlier statements in a prayer during the program.

A couple of swell guys. But nobody can argue that these two didn't have a whole lot of success when it came to getting out Republican voters and getting Bush reelected. And they certainly spent a lot of money, which is why it's no surprise that these guys were also proponents of Bush's faith-based initiatives. Falwell with a few reservations:

I think that when persons are clearly bigoted towards other persons in the human family, they should be disqualified from funds. For that reason, Islam should be out the door before they knock.

(And that was before 9/11.)

It's also no surprise that they are big fans of Joe Lieberman.

The obvious problem with Lieberman is the way he has allowed the GOP to use him to shut down debate. Whenever the Democrats seem on the verge of amounting a real challenge to the GOP agenda, there's Joe to warn against partisanship or undermining presidential authority. Meanwhile, the voters of Connecticut, like voters in all the Blue states, have their voices silenced. The GOP has run the country like they have a mandate since Bush was handed his authority by a divided court (and divided nation). People in Connecticut deserve a representative that will fight for their rights, values and well-being. Instead, they have Lieberman.

During the primary debate with Ned Lamont, we heard this exchange:

LIEBERMAN: Well, that's the point of it. And let me stress again, I intend to win the primary, but I want to say, why did I do what I announced the other day, create the option? It's because I believe this man can't be elected in November.

And I know -- and I have to say this directly -- that I can do a better job for the people of Connecticut, a lot of whom are going to need some special help in the next six years than either he or Alan Schlesinger can, and I want to give all the voters, including a lot of Democrats, the opportunity to make that final decision in November.

NESTI: Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Lamont, you need 30 seconds or ...

LAMONT: Yes, look at the last 18 years. We have lost 40 percent of our manufacturing-related jobs. We have lost over half of our defense-related jobs. People are earning less. A lot of our good paying jobs are leaving the state and leaving the country. Senator Lieberman has never seen a trade agreement that he didn't applaud.

I don't think this is the type of leadership we want. When it comes to bringing home things for the state of Connecticut, we are 49th out of 50 states -- 49th out of 50. New Jersey is last. I think we can do an awful lot better.

Lamont was absolutely correct. Connecticut gets squat when it comes to federal funding. Lieberman has done practically nothing to get Connecticut its fair share of federal funding, and while the president mocks liberal states like Massachusetts for taxing and spending, Red states like Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia get nearly triple the return on their tax dollars.

But don't suggest that Lieberman hasn't taken the lead when it comes to directing those federal funds.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for your leadership on this, and thanks to Senator Santorum and all our colleagues and our staffs that worked very hard on this.

I have always believed that faith, right from the beginning of this country, was one of the great unifiers of the American people, and that faith has been strong enough to unify all of us as we went forward to find a constitutionally appropriate way to have a faith- based initiative, to help people who want to do good works and whose desire to do good works is motivated by their faith.

Outstanding. He joined with Rick Santorum (with whom he now shares campaign workers and now, apparently, tactics) to help George Bush erode the wall between Church and State.

But what does that mean in terms of dollars? Here's a clue: In the election year 2004, the federal government gave over $2 billion of taxpayer money to faith-based groups. That would be, all things being equal (which they are not), an average of $40 million per state (actually a little less with three territories included). Based strictly on population, Connecticut would have received $24 million.

So how much did Connecticut get? $7.4 million. By contrast, Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing received $9.6 million (and $14.4 million in 2005). Another example of Lieberman selling out his state for what he considers "unity."

While Lieberman was supposed to be fighting for his constituents, he was paving the way for the Bush Administration to take taxpayer money out of Connecticut's pockets and hand it over to the nuttiest right-wing theocrats. The same people who blame liberals for 9/11 and used their churches to ensure that the federal government would not be representative of people like Connecticut Democrats.

Sure he's got the NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorsements. But what has Lieberman wrought on the nation?

In the Bush administration, conservatives are discovering that turnabout is fair play: Millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have flowed to groups that support President Bush's agenda on abortion and other social issues.

Under the auspices of its religion-based initiatives and other federal programs, the administration has funneled at least $157 million in grants to organizations run by political and ideological allies, according to federal grant documents and interviews.

An example is Heritage Community Services in Charleston, S.C. A decade ago, Heritage was a tiny organization with deeply conservative social philosophy but not much muscle to promote it. An offshoot of an antiabortion pregnancy crisis center, Heritage promoted abstinence education at the county fair, local schools and the local Navy base. The budget was $51,288.

By 2004, Heritage Community Services had become a major player in the booming business of abstinence education. Its budget passed $3 million -- much of it in federal grants distributed by Bush's Department of Health and Human Services -- supporting programs for students in middle school and high school in South Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky.

Again, the "pro-choice" Lieberman is in Washington, spending his time working to help Bush, Falwell, Robertson, James Dobson and all the rest take money from Connecticut voters and hand it over to pro-life "abstinence educators."

And when that money does come back to Connecticut, look what it's used for: The largest faith-based grant in Connecticut in 2003 went to "sexual abstinence-only programs."

But Lieberman's been running around claiming that he's the only one who can fix health care and energy prices.

49th out of 50, Connecticut. Dump him already.

He'll take us there

Lieberman on CNN today:

LIEBERMAN: Look, that's a semantical -- a question of words. I'd say there's not technically a civil war because there still is a unity government and there still is what I call a nonsectarian military. There is terrible violence there. But you want to see a real civil war and a collapse of a great country in the center of the Middle East? Pull out by a date certain and that's what you'll see.

[...]

LIEBERMAN: An independent-minded Democrat. Incidentally, all the polls that have come out so far have shown me ahead, which is a surprise to me. But as I said when the Quinnipiac poll came out last week, early polls don't determine campaigns. I'm the challenger here. I'm challenging the conventional partisan politics that has dominated too much of our life these days. I'm going to run hard as if I was behind all the way to November 7th. I'm very encouraged by all these polls, because they show that I'm getting support across party lines. And that says to me the people are really hungry for a new politics of unity and purpose. And the purpose is to solve some of our problems and their problems.

Wouldn't it be great if we had the kind of "unity" they've got in Iraq?

I think the people in Connecticut are as fed up with the partisanship that has stopped Washington from solving their problems as I am.

As if the people of Connecticut are oblivious to the fact that the GOP has propped him up over and over to stifle debate about the direction they've taken this country. The reason the partisanship hasn't solved Connecticut's problems is that it's been effective for the GOP and they have Lieberman to thank for that.

Principled Democrats for Bork

How far across the aisle do you have to reach to make a speech like this on the Senate floor (Oct. 27, 1995)?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a thought-provoking speech recently given by Judge Robert Bork about the media, and our perceptions of the first amendment and censorship.

Judge Bork, who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, made these remarks at a forum sponsored by AEI entitled, `Sex and Hollywood: What Should Be the Government's Role?', at which I had the privilege of speaking. As the title suggests, this forum sought to examine what effect the media's bombardment of sexual messages is having on our children and our culture, and what steps the Government can and should take to address the public's growing concern about the threat posed by these increasingly explicit messages.

In his comments, Judge Bork argued that this threat puts not only our children at risk, but our civil society as well. If the entertainment industry's standards continue to drop, he suggested, the Government would be well within its constitutional bounds to take more active steps to protect children by regulating lewd and indecent content. In making this argument, Judge Bork reminded the audience that the Government has regularly played the role of censor--albeit a limited one--for most of our history, and that in recent years the general notion of what forms of expression are fully protected by the first amendment has, in Judge Bork's eyes, become distorted. Judge Bork's comments remind us that our commitment to free expression must be balanced by our commitment to protect our children and the moral health of our Nation.

Democrats for Feeding Tubes

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Lieberman, your Republican colleague from Connecticut in the House, Christopher Shays, had this to say. "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. ... There are going to be repercussions from this vote [on Schiavo's constitutional rights]. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

You agree with that?

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, (D-CT): I don't. But that's a very credible and respectable opinion for Chris to take. See, I think--and Chris was there on the floor of the House, so maybe he heard in the debate some things that I didn't hear following it from a distance. The fact is that, though I know a lot of people's attitude toward the Schiavo case and other matters is affected by their faith and their sense of what religion tells them about morality, ultimately as members of Congress, as judges, as members of the Florida state Legislature, this is a matter of law. And the law exists to express our values.

I have been saying this in speeches to students about why getting involved in government is so important, I always say the law is where we define the beginning of life and the end of life, and that's exactly what was going on here. And I think as a matter of law, if you go--particularly to the 14th Amendment, can't be denied due process, have your life or liberty taken without due process of law, that though the Congress' involvement here was awkward, unconventional, it was justified to give this woman, more than her parents or husband, the opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated by an act which was sanctioned by a court, by the state.

These are very difficult decisions, but--of course, if you ask me what I would do if I was the Florida Legislature or any state legislature, I'd say that if somebody doesn't have a living will and the next of kin disagree on whether the person should be kept alive or that is whether food and water should be taken away and her life ended that really the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to life. And the family member who wants to sustain her life ought to have that right because the judge really doesn't know, though he heard the facts, one judge, what Terri Schiavo wanted. He made a best guess based on the evidence before him. That's not enough when you're talking about aggressively removing food and water to end someone's life.

MR. RUSSERT: You would have kept the tube in?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I would have kept the tube in.

Yep, one judge just guessing. It's better if the GOP decides.

Find the principled Democrat!

On Tilting the Supreme Court Far to the Right: "The spirit was very unified in the meeting. I think every one of the 14 of us feels that our membership and participation in the so-called gang of 14 is one of the best things we've done in the Senate ever, because we cut across party lines to deal with the national interest, what's right for the country, and it's something critically important, and that is nomination and confirmation of justices to the Supreme Court."

On Censorship: "Well, I was just going to say the word that Bill [Bennett] used. We've been trying for four or five years to shame the leaders of the entertainment industry, to say, 'Look, draw a line. Won't you please decide that going over that line can make you a few more dollars but it's just not worth it because it's harmful to our children and our whole society.' I'll tell you about those lyrics. They come-and the game Doom. You know, in almost every one of these school yard killings, Tim, the kids have either been focused on Marilyn Manson, 'Natural Born Killers,' 'Basketball Diaries,' or 'Doom and Quake.' This is no accident. We're coming dangerously close in the entertainment industry, much as we prize our liberties, to the point where they're going to invite legal restrictions on their freedom because they're beginning to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire and they're going to be held accountable."

On Rape Victims Denied Birth Control: "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."

On Social Security: "This is an ongoing problem, and we'd be wise to deal with it... If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great."

On the Separation of Church and State: "Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for your leadership on this, and thanks to Senator Santorum and all our colleagues and our staffs that worked very hard on this. I have always believed that faith, right from the beginning of this country, was one of the great unifiers of the American people. And faith has been strong enough to unify all of us as we went forward to find a constitutionally appropriate way to have a faith-based initiative, to help people who want to do good works and whose desire to do good works is motivated by their faith."

On Bill Clinton's Morality: "I have chosen to speak particularly at this time before the independent counsel files his report because, while we do not know enough yet to answer the question of whether there are legal consequences of the President's conduct, we do know enough from what the President acknowledged on August 17 to answer a separate and distinct set of questions about the moral consequences for our country. Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times in the past to speak with my colleagues about the concerns which are so widely shared in this Chamber and throughout the Nation that our society's standards are sinking; that our common moral code is deteriorating and that our public life is coarsening."

On 42 Minutes of Congressional Oversight: "I am glad the President has nominated someone already familiar with FEMA's mission to become Deputy Director. Mr. Brown, I thank you very much. I will certainly support your nomination. I will do my best to move it through the committee as soon as possible so we can have you fully and legally at work in your new position."

On Congressional Oversight during War: "In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

On Undermining Presidential Credibility when You, Yourself, are a Candidate: "In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president's conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It's not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility."

What's the worst that can happen?

"If you tell your enemy when you're going to leave, they'll wait and create disaster." -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, at the debate Thursday night.

This is something DB is having a tough time understanding.

Lieberman says he's "not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq." (Of course, we know he's lying because he's already said he's in favor of permanent bases. But let's pretend, for sake of argument, he never said that.)

Look what else he said during the debate:

So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home. But not because we set a deadline. That would make it harder.

Why? Why would it make it harder?

Here's Lieberman's best-case scenario:

• We don't tell the enemy when we are leaving, Iraqi troops continue to prepare to defend the country and in six months or so, American troops start to leave.

Here's Lieberman's worst-case scenario:

• We do tell the enemy when we are leaving, the enemy waits, Iraqi troops continue to prepare to defend the country and in six months or so, American troops start to leave.

The only difference, in Lieberman's description, is that the enemy waits. Wouldn't that make it easier? Lieberman seems to think that the Iraqi troops can not only become prepared enough to defend the new government while car bombs are going off and new recruits are being executed in some back alley, but that the carnage has no apparent effect on the speed of their progress.

And he offers no explanation of how his best-case scenario avoids ending in disaster. The bottom line is that we cannot stay there, in the numbers we are today, forever. Regardless of whether we tell anybody when we plan to leave, the enemy will want to "create disaster" when our egress begins.

With or without a timetable, if our troops begin to leave and the violence continues, we'll have to make a decision at that point whether or not to extend our stay. And, also with or without a timetable, we should have some benchmarks that need to be met before we make any troop level decisions.

But Lieberman provides no benchmarks in lieu of a timetable. Either would require some actual decision-making and we all know the Decider has already decided to pass this mess on to the next President.

Having it both ways, Joe

As the headlines around Connecticut have demonstrated this week, Joe Lieberman, you are a pioneer in the art of trying to have it both ways.

Are you Democrat? An Independent? What the heck are you? In the debate tonight, you sounded like a Bush Republican.

But it goes deeper than just that. Having it both ways is the only way you will have it.

You said that a timeline for Iraq is "dumb." But you also said you don't "want to be there indefinitely." Joe, what is the opposite of indefinitely? Or do you actually have a date in mind, but don't think the voters in Connecticut deserve to hear what it is?

When John Murtha first spoke up, retired generals joined him and the Democrats were beginning to find a voice on Iraq. But you didn't just say they were wrong... You said they were threatening America by undermining Bush's credibility. You took a page out of Karl Rove's book, painted your fellow Democrats as a threat to America and stifled the debate. Now you want to stand there, at a moment of accountability to the voters, and tell your constituents that Ned Lamont and the Democrats are trying to silence you? Whom do you think you are kidding?

You praised the Supreme Court for it's Hamdan decision, but because of your Gang of 14, that might be the last time the court ever stands against unchecked executive power. You also have some nerve praising the Court for standing up to the president's illegal actions when you and your colleagues abdicated your own responsibility to act as a check on that power.

You complained that Congress is filled with partisanship, claimed you know how to reach across the aisle and then tried to bash Lamont for working with local Republicans.

Staying the course in Iraq is wrong. You want to stick with a failed policy because there is uncertainty in the alternative. Sounds like a metaphor for the campaign you are running.

Do one good thing, Tom...

... Please take Joe with you.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has posted his first observations on the rise of Ned Lamont as he attempts to take over for Joe Lieberman. He discusses Lieberman's unwillingness to stand with the Democrats on Social Security:

In the end it just seemed like a desire to be in the mix for some illusory compromise or grand bargain, an ingrained disinclination to take a stand, even in a case when it really mattered. There's some whiff of indifference to the great challenges of the age, even amidst the atmospherics of concern.

Illusary is right. Marshall makes a bunch of good points, but this is the best. (Marshall deliberately decided not to harp on Lieberman's position on Iraq, which actually is refreshing because there is so much more to why many on the left oppose him.) The death of bi-partisanship is the biggest reality to which Lieberman is apparently blind.

Nobody says it better than Digby:

The grassroots of the Democratic Party see something that all the establishment politicians have not yet realized: bipartisanship is dead for the moment and there is no margin in making deals. The rules have changed. When you capitulate to the Republicans for promises of something down the road you are being a fool. When you make a deal with them for personal reasons, you are selling out your party. When you use Republican talking points to make your argument you are helping the other side. When you kiss the president on the lips at the state of the union you are telling the Democratic base that we are of no interest or concern to you. This hyper-partisanship is ugly and it's brutal, but it is the way it is.

The way it is indeed. And lest you doubt it (that means you, Lieberman), just read Tom DeLay's last words on the floor of Congress:

"You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny," Mr. DeLay said, adding, "It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."

Republicans crowded the chamber and applauded. But many Democrats, who listened at first, exited noisily to show their displeasure, though a few dozen stayed. "Bitter to the bitter end," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, who heard out Mr. DeLay.