"They should have thought of that during the primary"
Yesterday, Steve Benen ("The Carpetbagger") took note of Lieberman's nonchalant response to questions about the political effects of his independent run for Senate, not just on Lamont, but on the rest of the Connecticut Democratic ticket as well.

Actually, "nonchalant" isn't quite the word I'm looking for. From a Connecticut FOX news station report ("The Lieberman effect"):

FOX: You think he's actually going to motivate Republicans to come out and vote against Democrats?
Michael O'Brien (SEIU): Absolutely.

[Cut to Lieberman]

Lieberman: Pfft (chuckle). Guess I should say (chuckle) they should have thought of that during the primary, but here we are.

No, the hell with you, Joe, those are the words I'm looking for. As Benen adds:

As recently as last week, Lieberman reiterated his belief that he's a "committed Democrat." But confronted with the idea that he may single-handedly keep Dems from taking back the House, he literally laughs and blames Dem voters for the problem. It's not a particularly subtle message — Lieberman's telling Connecticut Dems, "You backed the other guy, and this is my payback."

Fair enough. I see the error of my ways, and I've even figured a great new slogan for the Lieberman campaign:

Joe, Joe, he's our man
If he can't scr*w us no one can

posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:45:00 PM -- |    

 
Security Council votes 12-0-3 for UN troops in Darfur
Reuters reporter Evelyn Leopold, via the Washington Post:

The U.N. Security Council on Thursday voted to create a United Nations peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region, despite the Khartoum government's strong opposition.

The vote was 12 in favor, with abstentions from Russia, China and Qatar, the only Arab council member.

Seems like the best result one might have reasonably hoped for. Getting actual troops will be a challenge -- as will of course getting Sudan's acquiescence:

Sudan's U.N. envoys refused to attend the meeting. In Khartoum, Ali Tamin Fartak, a presidential adviser, told Reuters, "Our stand is very clear, that the Sudanese government has not been consulted and it is not appropriate to pass a resolution before they seek the permission of Sudan."

Writing for Coalition for Darfur, Eugene Oregon excerpts the key parts of UNSCR 1706 (.PDF), including an "all necessary means" statement:

12. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, (a) decides that UNMIS is authorised to use all necessary means, in the areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities:

- to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, to ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, assessment and evaluation commission personnel, to prevent disruption of the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement by armed groups, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of the Sudan, to protect civilians under threat of physical violence,

- in order to support early and effective implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement, to prevent attacks and threats against civilians,

- to seize or collect, as appropriate, arms or related material whose presence in Darfur is in violation of the Agreements and the measures imposed by paragraphs 7 and 8 of Resolution 1556, and to dispose of such arms and related material as appropriate;

The Save Darfur coalition expressed "cautious optimism" in its press release reacting to the news, adding:

"While we applaud the hard work that has gone into passing this resolution, the United States and other Security Council member nations must now turn their attention to making sure that this newly authorized peacekeeping force is actually deployed, and deployed soon," said David Rubenstein of the Save Darfur Coalition. [...]

"Only the actual presence of these peacekeepers will provide the security the people of Darfur so desperately need," continued Rubenstein. "We must turn words on paper into boots on the ground."

If you want to do more than just cross your fingers about this, consider joining the rally for Darfur in New York City's Central Park on September 17. Satellite rallies will be held elsewhere in the U.S. as well, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Des Moines, Fort Wayne, St. Louis, Nashville, Las Vegas, Portland and Seattle.

My only observation right now is that I think it will be crucial to avoid turning this into some kind of front in the so-called "clash of civilizations" -- while also making sure that any UN force that eventually arrives in Darfur will actually do its job. But getting in is the main thing at this point, so make nice with Sudan now, and leave hanging tough with Janjaweed genocidaires for later. posted by Thomas Nephew at 3:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Drum strikes out Mallaby to retire the side
After Townhall.com mudslinger Herman Cain and the L.A. Times editorial board fouled out last week, cleanup hitter Sebastian Mallaby stepped to the plate for the Wal-Mart Shills on Monday with "Shopping for Support Down the Wrong Aisle." Observing that opposition to Wal-Mart has infected even the inner sanctum of the DLC -- Biden! Bayh! Clinton! even (gasp) Lieberman! -- Mallaby adopts the old "more in sorrow than in anger" tone,* fretting:

How can supposedly centrist Democrats defend this betrayal of their principles?

... and disingenuously locating the supposed objection to Wal-Mart in Chinese imports, rather than American union-bashing, communities racing to the bottom, workforce exploitation, and rule by fiat over much of the rest of what passes for the American economy these days.

Now of course the cynical answer to Mallaby's question would be "What principles?" But believe it or not, I don't like cynical straight up, so I recommend Kevin Drum's answer as well:

Well, here's the thing. When every single moderate Dem starts attacking Wal-Mart, maybe nobody's betraying any principles at all. Instead, maybe they've figured out something that Mallaby hasn't: it's not the 80s anymore and things have changed. And one of the things that's changed is that Wal-Mart has gotten a lot bigger, unions have continued shrinking, working class wages have stagnated, and corporate power has grown tremendously. It's perfectly rational for even moderate, pro-business Dems to look at the record of the past couple of decades and conclude that things have gotten pretty far out of whack and that Wal-Mart is a good symbol of this imbalance.

Drum even stuck a Wake Up Wal Mart button to his post for good measure. And the whole Washington Post editorial board might do well to study where Drum takes the argument next:

In other words, reality matters, not just politics. At one of my panel sessions this weekend, a member of the audience asked if reading blogs for the past four years had made me less willing than before to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt. I answered that it would be silly to pretend that reading people like Digby and Atrios hadn't affected my political views, but that something much more important had happened during my time reading blogs: George Bush had mismanaged the country for four years. Anyone sentient who has simply watched Bush govern during that time would be less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hell, even conservatives feel that way.

The same is true more broadly. There's a reason that so many former moderates are so irate these days, and it's not because they aren't moderates anymore. It's because moderates should be irate over the events of the past decade. People like Mallaby seem unable to figure that out, and therefore assume that any change of heart is motivated not by events, but by a "betrayal" of principles.

There are Democrats I'm willing to believe this about, and there are others I'm less sure of. No matter: they're all showing up at Wake Up Wal-Mart rallies now. And that speaks volumes about where the political center of gravity is shifting on the issues of Wal-Mart, the "dwindling anti-trade labor movement," and freeloading as business model. Mallaby may splutter, and Lieberman may have his fingers crossed behind his back, but Wal-Mart's unscrupulous, unwise, and unAmerican domination of this country's economy may be nearly over.


=====
* I imagine a Shirley Temple voice asking "What's happening to my very favoritest party ever?" posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:04:00 AM -- |    

 
"Recording Katrina"
As I've mentioned before, I've been helping out now and then with a second blog about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. It's called "Recording Katrina," and our description of it is

A collection of survivors' stories and non-traditional reporting on the recovery effort in the Gulf.

The effort was fellow "RK" blogger eRobin's ("fact-esque") idea. We were both outraged by what we were seeing in the news in the first weeks after the hurricane hit, the levees broke, and the Bush administration proved so incompetent and venal at everything (again).

We were moved by the raw, first-person accounts we were finding around the Internet which we had started to mention in posts on our blogs, and we decided to collect links and excerpts in one place. Soon after, we were joined by riggsveda ("it's my country, too") and thatfarmgirl, who have posted first-person accounts about what they saw and learned as volunteers. Now riggsveda is adding new entries from her time in Louisiana in October, 2005.

Over time we've also included other "nontraditional" takes on Katrina, including everything from activist organization press releases, and key official documents and reports, to satellite photographs, innovative or freelance journalism, and more. When a post isn't a narrative by one of us, I think we've succeeded in keeping our own commentary to a minimum and letting the accounts and documents we've found speak for themselves. We haven't been all that different from everyone else in moving on to other topics as well, but maintaining the site challenged us to keep paying attention to the story and continue recording what we found.

We're all pleased now to have drawn the notice of the New York Inquirer ("The first all-online alternative weekly"; "We don't break news -- we put news back together") where Andrew Bast and his team have assembled a feature one-year retrospective on the disaster: "Katrina: One year later, shameless silence." It's a perfect fit between two non-traditional news gathering teams -- Bast complimented "Recording Katrina" as a great resource as he researched the series, and the Inquirer will run one of riggsveda's accounts on Thursday. We thank him in advance for including riggsveda's story and mentioning our group blog, and invite everyone to have a look both at the Inquirer series and at "Recording Katrina."

Personally, the main way I'd like to see "Recording Katrina" improve is to get some Gulf Coast residents and/or Katrina survivors to join us. If you're interested, leave a comment here or e-mail one of us, and we'll let you know.


=====
CROSSPOSTED in revised form at "Recording Katrina." NOTE: banner by permission of the New York Inquirer. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 PM -- |    

 
David Corn's "HUBRIS"
It's not his attitude, it's the title of his book. David Corn is now publicizing "HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War." Co-authored with Michael Isikoff, and due for release on September 8, it sounds like a very good companion to Suskind's "One Percent Solution." From the jacket blurb Corn cites:

...HUBRIS connects the dots between George W. Bush's determination to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the role of neoconservatives in pushing the case for war, the manipulations of Iraqi exiles, and the outing of a CIA officer that led to the indictment of a top White House official. Written by veteran reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn, it's the insider tale of how Bush took the country to war using faulty and fraudulent intelligence.

Follow the link and proceed to the next several posts for fresh reporting particularly on the Valerie Plame affair, but more importantly the whole way intelligence was politicized and "stove-piped" in the runup to and first year of the Iraq war.

A while back I mentioned Corn's comments to students on the problems of modern day journalism in "Who pays for the news?":

The problem is, I told the students, that people their age do not want to pay for information. So the long-term question for them is, who's gonna pay you to be a journalist in the years ahead? If people are not willing to buy information, it will be hard to earn money providing information.

Not that I'm their age, but I intend to cheer Corn up about the future of journalism -- at least a little bit -- by buying his book and rewarding a real reporter. I hope you'll consider doing it, too. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:12:00 AM -- |