Reid Wants To Deny Effective Voice To The Democratic Base

The Democratic "base" is strongly in favor of their freedom from warrantless searches and seizures guaranteed them by the United States Constitution. The Democratic senators running for President are very aware that the Democratic "base" wants the rule of law restored and strongly opposes granting AT&T and the other telecoms immunity for cooperating with the Administration's illegal wiretap program. At the very least blanket immunity will hide the extent of the Administration's blatant Constitutional and legal violations. Based on the hints leaked by various whistle blowers so far, the Democratic "base" suspects those violations are shockingly broad and extensive.

The stakes are high for the Democratic wing of the inside the beltway gang. The telecoms and their lobbyists give them lots and lots of campaign money. Many of them are well and truly in the thrall of the telecoms. They have to secure Telecom Immunity or risk losing all that money. The Democratic "base" might even hold them accountable if they are shown to have known the details of the program and did nothing to protect the Constitution.

The other day the Democratic "base" spoke so loudly in support of Chris Dodd's threatened filibuster that Harry Reid blinked and moved consideration of the bill that will grant the telecoms immunity until next year. Since the current Protect America Act (PAA) expires on February 1, 2008, Reid might seem compelled to bring the measure up for consideration sometime in the middle of January. The Democratic "base" is going to be paying close attention during January's primary season. They will punish any Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't strongly oppose Telecom Immunity. That means Democratic senators running for President are going to be under great pressure to filibuster any effort to grant the telecom's blanket immunity.

What is Harry Reid's solution to this knotty problem? According to The Hill Reid is proposing a short extension of the Protect America Act until after the primary season. After the primary season Democratic Senators can freely piss on both the Democratic "base" and the Constitution without fear of anybody doing anything about it. And you thought Harry Reid wasn't a good politician. Wouldn't it be great if he actually worked for the Democratic "base?"

There's more: "Reid Wants To Deny Effective Voice To The Democratic Base" >>

Harry Reid -- Today's Profile in Capitulation

Tonight's funny from Headzup would be funny if it weren't so damn tragic. What's even more tragic is the very little play Harry's capitulation has received in the consolidated corporate media. Those beltway boys and girls know how to stick together as they systematically strip all Americans of their rights.

There's more: "Harry Reid -- Today's Profile in Capitulation" >>

Scooter Drops Appeal

Scooter has skated so he has decided to drop his appeal. That means there is no pending criminal litigation in the Plame case. That means the White House personnel can't use the "pending criminal litigation" no comment excuse any longer. I guess the information will start flowing as Democrats ramp up their investigations for the impeachment of Dead Eye Dick Cheney.

On second thought the only thing the inside the beltway Democratic leadership piss on more than rank and file Democrats demanding justice is the Constitution. My guess is somebody is going to write a stern letter. The entire affair will die before Christmas. You can't expect Nancy and Harry not to do what George tells them, can you?

There's more: "Scooter Drops Appeal" >>

Charles Schumer, official dickhead on Mukasey

)Seconded by Harry Reid, though.)

First, Frank Rich rips him a new one, then the NYT editorial board piles on.

First, the editorial, which begins by taking a shot at Harry Reid, without naming him:

Democrats offer excuses for their sorry record, starting with their razor-thin majority. But it is often said that any vote in the Senate requires more than 60 votes — enough to overcome a filibuster. So why did Mr. Mukasey get by with only 53 votes? Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush.

Then, it focuses on Schumer:

The claim that Mr. Mukasey will depoliticize the Justice Department loses its allure when you consider that he would not commit himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal.

Then, it finishes by shooting at all the Democrats on this one:

All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their constitutional duty. Certainly, being made to look weak on terrorism might make it harder for them to expand their majority.

And, here’s a thought from Rich:

What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.

Don’t worry, though: Schumer is out saving hedge funds from additional taxation as we speak.

There's more: "Charles Schumer, official dickhead on Mukasey" >>

Democratic Voters Deserve Leaders With Fire In Their Bellies

What is wrong with the Democratic leadership? First, I read that Nancy Pelosi is all over Rep. Pete Stark for saying in public what a lot of folks all over the county say in private every day. If you haven't heard during the SCHIP debate Pete Stark, who has been in Congress for 18 terms, told the Republicans

"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Sure the comments were inflammatory, but damn it, it is time to call a spade a spade. If Republicans get their little feelings hurt, too damn bad. It is about the only thing they have had hurt since the President launched his little Iraq adventure. When is Nancy going to pull her head out of her designer frock and start standing up for Democrats.

Now I read Yellow Dog's excellent post about Harry Reid's decision to poop all over Chris Dodd just because Dodd wants to protect the Constitution of the United States. Harry you either agree the Constitution is the bed rock of America or you are right there with George W. Bush who is reported to have said the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

I don't know about you, but I am long past sick to death with fraidy cats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Damn it, the Democratic party deserves leaders who are trying to win, not wimps who are trying not to lose.

Nancy, Harry, if you are going to be leaders, sometimes you have to be a little inflammatory, and sometimes you have to stand up for the Constitution, fat cat telecos be damned.

There's more: "Democratic Voters Deserve Leaders With Fire In Their Bellies" >>

Chris Dodd Under Siege

The long knives are out for Courageous Senator Christopher Dodd, whose one-man fight to save our Constitutional Rights is being attacked by his very own "Democratic" "leadership."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trampling on 220 years of Senate tradition to ignore Dodd's hold on the bill to grant telecommunications companies amnesty for illegally spying on innocent American citizens.

Dodd is fighting back with a vow to launch a filibuster - a real one, not the fake threats the repugs use to terrify Reid & co. - but the powers funded by telco billions are just getting started.

Bloggers everywhere, including  FiredogLake, have publicized Dodd's fight, and thousands of people have responded with supportive emails to Dodd and contributions to his presidential campaign.

After bloggers revealed Harry Reid's machinations, thousands of calls and emails have poured into Reid's office, where by 4 p.m. his staff had reached the point of hanging up on people.

But it's not yet enough.  It's going to take millions of calls, emails and donations to stop the telco amnesty juggernaut.  It's going to take people talking about it to everyone you know, because the mainstream media is refusing to cover Dodd's Rebellion.

Let's get his back. 

Watch a video of Dodd talking about the bill and why he is fighting it.

Read Glenn Greenwald's superb coverage of the issue.

Read Retired Military Patriot's perfect letter to Reid.

Send a supportive email to Dodd.

Send a polite but passionate email to Harry Reid.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Chris Dodd Under Siege" >>

Senator Harry Reid Just Called Republicans To Stand Against Limbaugh's Phony Soldier Comment

Earlier today Harry Reid went to the well of the Senate and called on his Republican colleagues to sign the letter he wrote last week. The video is from C-Span, it was uploaded by TPM. Greg Sargent has some thoughts about this political maneuver. Sort of a resolution without appearing tit or tat. I wonder if Kit Bond is going to sign on?



Has Limbaugh apologized yet? Maybe Harry's letter needs some company? What do you think? Here is the address: Mr. Mark P. Mays, CEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc. 200 East Basse Road, San Antonio, TX 78209

There's more: "Senator Harry Reid Just Called Republicans To Stand Against Limbaugh's Phony Soldier Comment" >>

The Beltway Wing of the Democratic Party Stands Firm With Bush/Cheney Against The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

The House has just passed a resolution 341-79 condemning MoveOn.org for the New York Times ad asking whether Gen. David Petraeus should be called "General Betray Us." This follows a similar Senate resolution last week. Also today the Senate passed a reportedly watered down version of the Kyl-Lieberman Let's Bomb Iran Resolution 76-22. The watered down resolution probably gives Bush/Cheney the cover they need to order an air strike on Iran. The votes for the Kyl-Lieberman included Hillary Clinton. Somehow Barack Obama avoided voting.

Before we get lost in the details I think it is important to step back and take a look at what our Democratic leadership is saying to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Essentially, they, including Hillary, are saying, "progressives, go Cheney yourselves. We can afford to take you for granted because we know you haven't got any place to go. We don't want the media and our contributors in the Israel lobby jumping all over us for not signing on with Dick Cheney's Iranian war, and for not condemning MoveOn.org over a trumped up distraction invented by the Republican spin machine."

More after the break.



The President commented last week that Democrats are more afraid of MoveOn than they are of the "military." He was wrong. The Democratic leaders, including Hillary, are more afraid of the President and the neo-con wing of the mainstream media than they are of their own base. In fact, they are scared to death to oppose Republicans. Maybe it is time we members of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party stopped enabling the current Democratic leadership.

What do we do to get their attention? Maybe it is time we tell Hillary that if she really wants war with Iran so bad she should join the Republican party. I would recommend everybody write Hillary condemning her for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Let's Bomb Iran Resolution. The Democratic "leadership" seems to be motivated by fear more than principle. Maybe it is time we contacted the Pelosi, Obey, Reid and the rest of the house and Senate leadership to tell them no more money until you sign on for peace.

There's more: "The Beltway Wing of the Democratic Party Stands Firm With Bush/Cheney Against The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" >>

The Energy Bill Is In Big Trouble

Remember earlier in the year when both the House and Senate passed energy bills. The House version of H.R.6 - United States Energy Storage Competitiveness Act of 2007 was passed on January 18, and the Senate version on June 21. Passing the energy bill was cause for celebration. Headlines and high fives all around. Most rank and file Democrats think our team in Congress actually took some small, but courageous steps to solve a whole host of problems facing America.

Hooray for our side. Hooray for America. Send $25 bucks to your favorite Democratic Congressperson or Senator. It's all good. Our team is on the job. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Boys and girls never fear, Nancy and Harry have found a way to have their high fives, pick your green pocket, pander to the lobbyists and do nothing all at the same time. Call it benign neglect. Call it knowing how the system works. Call it anything you want. It seems Harry and Nancy let both houses pass legislation but have failed to appoint a conference committee to reconcile the two versions. They probably won't until way late in the year--at a time when other priorities will probably doom the energy bill.

More on the other side.

The New York Times recently reported that

Democratic leaders in both chambers have signaled that conference committee members are unlikely to be named until late October, at the earliest. Others suggested that leaders may try to resolve the differences in the bills without convening a conference, which would create other problems, including the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate. . . .

President Bush has threatened to veto the House bill, which he says does not have enough incentives for domestic energy production, and the Senate bill because it has penalties for price gouging by the oil industry.

According to Donny Shaw at Congress Gossip Blog

If Congress fails to pass an energy bill, there will be reasons to believe it was because lawmakers and the President put the interests of the utilities and auto industries over America's interests in clean and independent energy. The industries are out lobbying hard in Washington. And if you look at the campaign contribution figures for the electric utilities industry, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that there is a quid pro quo arrangement with the Republicans who are threatening to block this bill.

If you care at all about energy independence and the future of America you should give Nancy and Harry a call. Encourage them to appoint a conference committee to finish the job. If George wants to veto the bill, that's Republican business. I don't give a damn what industry lobbyists say, there is no need for Democrats to make life easy for Republicans. Anyway if we don't start moving toward energy independence we are going to be fighting wars in the middle east for most of the next century. More importantly we are going to lose all of our freedoms to oil sheiks and oil company insiders.

There's more: "The Energy Bill Is In Big Trouble" >>

Tit For Tat -- MoveOn Strikes Back

MoveOn.org's political action committee has responded to Rudy Giuliani's attack on their NT Times ad. It looks like MoveOn has decided not to take any crap off Rudy. I wonder how he is going to respond.



Posted by karinmoveon.


If you want to read more on this topic you might want to read Jane Hamsher and digby. Hampsher has the money quote of the day

I don’t expect useless DLC consultants who are advising Harry Reid to hump the leg of the GOP like a neutered terrier to understand it, but driving Republicans into the waiting arms of George Bush and making them take ownership of this war could be the best thing to happen to Democrats in 2008.

I just crack up at the image of Harry Reid as a neutered terrier humping the leg of the GOP. Penrose, where for art thou, Penrose.

There's more: "Tit For Tat -- MoveOn Strikes Back" >>

America to Congressional Democrats -- Are You Going To Do Anything?

I have spent some time reading the responses of Congressional Democrats to the President's speech last night. Senator Clinton's comments are posted below. You can find Senator Barack Obama's response here. Here are Joe Biden's comments. The comments of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and Rep Steny Hoyer can be found here.

I think all of the above comments are best be summarized by the title of the following video. Unless the Democrats in Congress get off their royal asses and do something, they may just as well "sit right down and write themselves a letter." The rest of us have had it.



Maybe that is the best description of this Congress. From now on we should refer to the 110th Congress as the "I Am Going To Sit Right Down And Write Myself A Letter" Congress.

There's more: "America to Congressional Democrats -- Are You Going To Do Anything?" >>

The Video Press Release

Earlier today I wrote a post discussing an obvious change that has occurred in political punditry during the past months--the increasing use of video as a compliment to written commentary.

That post was a follow up to two I wrote over the last couple of days about Harry Reid and the missing video. The other day Senator Reid failed to make sure a clear, clean video of the reasons behind his pulling the Defense Authorization Bill was available on YouTube. Apparently he depended on the MSM to provide a suitable clip. They universally elected to provide clips of the Republican response. Unopposed the Republicans must have looked pretty good to the uninformed.

It seems to me that Reid and the others in the Democratic leadership have failed to recognize that the blogosphere has changed. That change presents them with a major new communications opportunity. They can now visually go over the heads of the main stream broadcast media by distributing short videos, along with more traditional press materials. All they need to do is put the video up on YouTube and send emails announcing the video along with written press materials to the hundreds (or is it thousands) of on-line political pundits and activists.

I am still trying to figure out Bmaz's comment, but to the extent he is suggesting formal coordination, I don't see the point. The purpose of any press release is to make information available to people writing stories. The reporter uses the information provided as he deems appropriate. If a story has any currency the press release makes the job of the reporter easier and helps shape the reporter's story.

Right now if a blogger asks nearly every congress member will email him a press package on any topic of importance to the congress member. I know. I have asked and congressmen and senators have responded by giving me the same materials they provide members of the traditional press. One item I have yet to receive from any congress member is a video.

That is not to say that others, apparently more media savvy, haven't provided me with access to video material. The other day, I received an email from the Partnership for Quality Care, a SCHIP reauthorization advocacy group. The email contained a press release, some links, a full set of press materials. One of the links was to a YouTube video. While the video wasn't as good as it could have been, it was still pretty good. I used it in a post on SCHIP authorization. The kids are very attractive. I have read just about everything published on the web touching SCHIP during the last couple of weeks. I can confirm that the PQC video has been used by several bloggers.

Candidates routinely send me links to their latest and greatest ad. I am sure we have all received links to video materials from the DSCC and other party affiliated organizations.

It seems elected officials haven't gotten the memo. Bloggers, confronted with the daily need to grind out two or three posts, would love to consider using Harry Reid produced video instead of something from one of the major networks. Think Progress built an entire post around the McCain and Kyl clips. How do you think that post would have been written if they had relevant video from a couple of Democrats?

Right now the MSM produces most of the video linked to political punditry. Inevitably those MSM produced videos are shaping many of the stories we post. I can think of no reason the major networks should be the exclusive video gatekeeper. Can you?

I would really appreciate some feed back. Bmaz tell me more about coordination. Mostly tell me what I am missing.

There's more: "The Video Press Release" >>

I have to disagree with Kevin Drum on the Reid gambit

Kevin claims it was “too labyrinthine” for most people to follow. I disagree, and here’s why:

While Reid's gambit have been too labyrithine for John/Jane Doe, it most assuredly was NOT too labyrinthine for Washington bureaus, or even for P1 copy desks at major dailies.

Here's the headline for the Bryan-College Station (Texas) Eagle, an area that is certainly not a hotbed of liberalism, though the paper’s op-ed page is actually somewhat progressive:

“GOP defeats legislation on troop withdrawal.”

Not much simpler than that.

Besides that, this is a media failing, not a GOP victory, in other ways. Good reporters are supposed to do, or their editors are supposed to do, news analysis sidebars on things like this, and they basically didn’t.

Now, I do agree with Drum that, because Reid is pulling the defense appropriation bill, thereby squelching GOP alternatives on Iraq, Mitch McConnell’s victory may well be a Pyrrhic one. That said, that’s not a given, either, and especially when soldiers’ lives are at stake, a potential bigger bird in the hand down the road vs. a smaller one today isn’t the best trade.

There's more: "I have to disagree with Kevin Drum on the Reid gambit" >>

Where Is The Democratic Video Explaining Why Reid Pulled The Defense Authorization Bill?

Darn, I wish progressives had the audiovisual capabilities of conservatives.

This morning after the all night Senate session, when he had every body's attention, Harry Reid announced that he was pulling the defense authorization bill from consideration until the Republicans relent and give the Senate an up or down vote on Iraq. I wrote an article. Greg Sargent and Spencer Ackerman wrote extensively on the significance of Reid's move. BobGeiger posted on the topic. There are comments all over the left side of the Internet. It was big news.

If you visit Think Progress you discover with a major failure on the part of both Senate Democrats and, just as importantly, the left side of the Internet. Think Progress has posted an article with video clips of John Kyle and John McCain deploring Reid's move. Essentially they are attempting a little political judo. While they engaged in obstruction, the Republicans are attempting make it look like Reid is hurting the country by denying the troops all kinds of things. As has been written everywhere the Defense Authorization Bill is for FY 2008 and doesn't go into effect until October. Kyl and McCain are simply lying. There is plenty of time to pass the Authorization Bill.

It seems their political judo might succeed simply because there are no comparable clips from Reid or any other Democrat explaining why Reid pulled the Defense Authorization Bill. At least I haven't found any on YouTube. I haven't found any on Think Progress. I haven't found any on TPM. None. Nada. If they exist, I am not seeing them.

Think Progress does have a Reid comment calling Republicans dedicated obstructionists, but as the article accompanying that clip notes his decision to pull the bill wasn't announced come until after he left the floor. It certainly isn't part of the clip.

Within minutes of Reid's announcement there should have been a professionally produced video up on YouTube starring the most articulate and passionate Democrats around. It shouldn't be hidden on some blog somewhere. It should be all over the place. Bloggers should be getting emails containing the YouTube embed. I am not shocked, but I am disappointed the Democrats left the field to the Republicans who promptly trotted out the disingenuous Kyl and McCain.

If I am wrong, let me know.

There's more: "Where Is The Democratic Video Explaining Why Reid Pulled The Defense Authorization Bill?" >>

Reid to GOP, No Up Or Down Vote On Iraq, No Defense Department Funding.

TPM is reporting that after losing the cloture vote on Levin-Reed this morning Harry Reid surprised everybody by announcing that the Senate is not going to take up the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill until the GOP promises an up or down vote on Iraq. Here are Harry Reid's comments

I have temporarily laid aside the Defense Authorization bill and have entered a motion to reconsider.

But let me be clear to my Republican colleagues – I emphasize the word "temporarily". We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to complete consideration of a Defense Authorization bill. We must do both.

And just to remind my Republican colleagues – even if this bill had passed yesterday, its provisions would not take effect until October.

So we will come back to this bill as soon as it is clear we can make real progress. To that end, I have asked the Democratic Whip and Democratic Manager of the bill to sit down with their counterparts to work on a process to address all outstanding issues related to this bill so the Senate can return to it as soon as possible.

Harry Reid is from Nevada. I guess he is a better poker player than I thought. Lots of pressure is going to be applied by defense contractors all across the country. Can you imagine the earful Mitch McConnell is going to get from Boeing's lobbyist this afternoon?

There's more: "Reid to GOP, No Up Or Down Vote On Iraq, No Defense Department Funding." >>

Harry's Hooey Dog And Pony Show

On the surface, and from what people all over the blogosphere are saying, you would think that Harry Reid's announcement on Monday that he, as the Democratic Senate leader, was going to get tough and make the Republicans filibuster through Tuesday night was some type of seminal turning point. The Democrats are finally getting some cojones and standing up to the Republican thugs obstructing progress in the Senate. But, if you really start digging a little, it appears that there is still a cloture vote set for Wednesday morning irrespective of what occurs in between now and then in the Senate, and the Democrats still must obtain 60 votes for that cloture vote on Wednesday morning in order for the bill to go to an up or down vote on the floor. Come Wednesday morning, the Democrats will still be short of the 60 votes necessary to gain cloture and have an up or down vote on the merits of the bill. And this all assumes that Reid can get a quorum in the first place. Why any Republican would show up for this nonsense is hard to imagine. Tim Johnson is not fit to attend, and Lieberman, well, he is just not fit period, and will undoubtedly not be helping his former party. A quorum (51 Senators) may be difficult to gather.

Oh, and about that all important "30 hour" provision that has been so ballyhooed. It doesn't apparently apply as that is the maximum length of debate that can be had AFTER a successful cloture vote of 60 or more votes which, again, the Democrats still appear to be well short of. Some solace can be taken from the fact that the Levin/Reed Bill is a toothless pile of pablum that does absolutely nothing to force the Administration to initiate withdrawal from Iraq in the first place, so no great loss.

Unless I am missing something in this analysis, the only way Harry's hooey stands to have any impact is if Reid keeps repeating the stunt over and over, requiring the calendar of the Senate be cleared for the remainder of the little prime time left before their recess. But Harry Reid won't do that; which makes this a pretty weak and lame gesture. It may get some PR, but it also is an admission of how gutless our leaders really are.

It is time to "end our long national nightmare". Defund the war (funding bills do not require the 60 vote cloture step; they go to a regular vote), and, if Bush doesn't bring the troops home, impeach him and then put him in the criminal docks for the wiretapping violations and any other crimes for which there is solid probable cause. I am tired of Harry Reid's pansy charades and the respective Judiciary Committee's lame letters begging the Administration to pretty please play nice. Lets get on with it.

There's more: "Harry's Hooey Dog And Pony Show" >>

Up Or Down Vote, Up Or Down Vote, Up Or Down Vote

Earlier this month I reported that Senate Republicans have embraced an obstructionist strategy. Republicans have converted the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to force a vote on a topic (cloture) into a rule requiring 60 votes to pass anything. The Democrats either surrender to the Republicans or nothing gets done.

Donny Shaw of Congress Gossip Blog reports that Wednesday's 56-41 vote on the Webb Amendment was the 47th time Senate Republicans have forced a cloture vote since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Shaw believes that if they maintain their current pace "by the end of the 110th Congress, Republicans will have forced cloture votes 144 times," shattering the old record of 82 set by the 104th Congress.

There is a way to break all this Republican obstructionism. Draw attention to it. Voters don't like "do nothing" Senators.

There is a way to draw attention to it. As Blue Girl suggested last night Harry Reid should force a real filibuster. It would be wonderful to see some Republican or Joe Lieberman "talk for as long as he can. Bring out the roll-away beds and make the bastard stand there until his ankles swell and his lips crack and he can’t go on another second."

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott recently boasted, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us." It would be wonderful if Harry forced Trent to spend the rest of this month standing in the well of the Senate reading the phone book. Every chance we get, we have to be demand an "up or down vote."

There's more: "Up Or Down Vote, Up Or Down Vote, Up Or Down Vote" >>

Senate Dems plan Iraq timetables again: an analysis

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to attach two Iraq timetable amendments to the 2008 defense appropriations bill.

Without immediately looking at the possibility of success, there are two incidents which do bring this back to the forefront (not counting Congressional Democrats’ sagging approval ratings as an “incident”).

First is Gen. Martin Dempsey’s admission that training of Iraq army and security forces remains inadequate, even woefully so:

Describing the U.S. effort in Iraq as a labor of Sisyphus, he said the metaphoric stone is “probably rolling back a bit right now in Baghdad. But I don't think it's going to roll over us.”

Dempsey depicted the level of violence tolerated by Iraqis as “mind-numbing” and acknowledged that a dearth of security has made some Iraqis nostalgic for the rule of Saddam Hussein, who was ousted by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. “You’ll hear people say, ‘You know, we were a lot more secure and safe during the Saddam regime,’ “ he told the oversight panel of the House Armed Services Committee.

Second is Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe’s direct blaming of Bush, and Bush’s stubbornness MO, for the 2006 loss of the Senate:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she thinks her former GOP colleagues Sens. Mike DeWine (Ohio) and Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) lost reelection because of Bush’s unpopularity.

“It’s definitely because of the president and his policies, more from the standpoint of immovability and not being willing to adjust policies in response to real-time circumstances,” she said. “It wasn’t just the fact that things weren’t working well in Iraq, it was the president wasn’t willing to adjust his policy to recognize and acknowledge that.”

Last year’s losses at the polls have shaped her Republican colleagues’ view of the president in 2007, she said, adding, “All of that had manifested itself in ways this year, leading to concerns about the president’s policies.”

Now, we’ve heard enough of this in the past, but, as the drip, drip, drip of not-so-good news from people like Gen. Dempsey picks up, senators and representatives may in fact start distancing themselves more.

Key for seeing how Republicans move is seeing how this plays out in their presidential primaries battle. Already, while trying to out-macho each other on terrorism in general, most GOP candidates not named McCain are trying to detach from Iraq itself, and even Big John has been somewhat critical.

Reid has plenty of GOP senator sound-bite quotes, in other words. Let’s see how well he plays his cards.

Because, between discontentment over Democrats’ previous “cave” and knowing how the Rovian PR machine works, Reid (and Speaker Pelosi) need to have their own PR work ready in advance. That’s where quotes from GOP presidential debates and elsewhere on the hustings will come in handy — rhetorically asking GOP senators if they want to be sticking their necks out at the same time their would-be presidential nominees are drawing theirs in?

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly.

There's more: "Senate Dems plan Iraq timetables again: an analysis" >>

John Kerry Will Vote No on Supplemental

I just got an email from John Kerry. He is going to vote "NO" on the Harry Reid Surrender Bill. I guess he wants to get out of town, so voting "NO" is all he seems prepared to do. As predicted, no filibuster. Just give up the fight, vote a polite "no" and enjoy the weekend. Here is the entire email.

Hi Corpus Juris
The compromise supplemental will probably be presented to the Senate later today, but I wanted to drop a quick note to let all of you know my thoughts on it. I'm voting against it. I explain my feelings in a post I put up on the blog Daily Kos.

You can read it here.

Here are the first couple of paragraphs:

Let's be really clear about the Iraq vote coming down the pike in Congress this week.
I'm voting no on this bill. I'm tired of the false choices of Republicans and all the recycled spin of old battles and the political calculations that do nothing for our troops who bear the real costs of this war. Bottom line: we support the troops by getting the policy right, and this bill doesn't do that. I've said it again and again and I'm not about to stop: we need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform. Do we need to bring out the hand puppets and make the case again?

Thanks for all of your help so far in this fight. I'm disappointed in the compromise bill, but I'm more convinced than ever that we'll win this fight.

John Kerry

Paid for by John Kerry for Senate.

If you live in Massachusetts you might want to write him. Here is an address--John Kerry for Senate, 129 Portland St. Suite 500 Boston, MA 02114-2014, U.S.A.

There's more: "John Kerry Will Vote No on Supplemental" >>

Nancy Pelosi Does Back Flip

If, like me, you have been watching the Democrats in Congress surrender to the President you know that one of the chief surrender monkeys is Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. Ultimately she is the House Democrat who decided to allow the surrender to go forward. Deciding what legislation goes forward is her job. That's why she was elected speaker.

Nancy Pelosi has announced that she might not vote for the portion of the bill granting the President everything he wants. In a craven act of pure political cowardice apparently she is going to vote against the bill that she helped craft. I wonder why? Maybe because she realized that in November the people told the Democrats loud and clear to get us the hell out of Iraq. Maybe because she realizes her district in San Francisco will probably never elect her to anything again if she votes for the Harry Reid Surrender Bill, the bill she helped craft and allowed to move forward. A true one and a half surrender monkey back flip. A real profile in courage.

All you folks in San Francisco, are you still proud of Nancy?

There's more: "Nancy Pelosi Does Back Flip" >>