Weisman and the Post are at it again
Oh no! "Democrats' Momentum Is Stalling: Amid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish, " says the Washington Post's Jonathan "Little Broder" Weisman:

...now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.

But it turns out "some Democrats" once again means Weisman's LLTLC (Looks Liberal, Tastes Like Chicken) go-to source Leon Panetta -- traumatized from his stint as Clinton's chief of staff back in the late 90s -- who backs up Weisman with the David Broder-esque view that everything would be ever so much easier and better if Democrats weren't so darned contentious:

The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."

The trouble with that analysis -- Leon! David! Jonathan! stop fidgeting and pay attention! -- is that right now the most pressing domestic agenda is to roll back outright executive lawlessness at home, and to free up money that's being poured down a worse than hopeless rathole called "Iraq." Among examples from just the past weeks: Condi Rice regally refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas or even allow State Department staff to be questioned; the White House trying to stonewall on AttorneyGate; security officials quietly undoing their recent pledge to work within FISA for domestic electronic surveillance; dozens of soldiers and billions of dollars lost forever each week in Iraq.

Leon Panetta et al would apparently shrug their shoulders and seek some remaining tiny patch of common ground elsewhere -- i.e., pretty much the post office naming that Weisman derides in his piece. But most Democrats and most Americans seem to disagree. TPM's Greg Sargent points out that Weisman had to ignore strong evidence from the very poll he cites for "lack of progress" that Americans are just fine with Democrats for going after Bush and the GOP -- in fact, we'd like the heat turned up. Sargent:

Check out the numbers in this recent Pew poll:

Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?

• Too far 23%
• Not far enough 40%
• About right 30%
• Don't know/Refused 7%

So 70% say that Dems are being appropriately or even insufficiently aggressive in challenging Bush.

I've noticed that Jonathan Weisman has become the predictable conveyor of Broderish conventional "wisdom" halfheartedly disguised as "reporting" at the Washington Post -- and that his pieces about Democratic discontent and retreat are proving untrue time after time. Earlier this week, he reported that Democrats had already decided to "back down" about Iraq timelines -- only to have that denied by Nancy Pelosi herself soon thereafter. During the run up to the supplemental appropriation vote in the House, Weisman reported that Democratic leadership was going to make timetables "advisory"-- with no trace of that in the bill eventually voted through.

Meanwhile -- and as usual -- Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-8) gets it right:

[The] chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee [said] his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.

=====
NOTES: "Looks liberal, tastes like chicken" line originally by stolen from James Wolcott, who used it for Lanny Davis. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
UPDATE, 5/5: Avedon Carol ("The Sideshow") and Steve Benen ("The Carpetbagger Report") lay into Panetta as well.
UPDATE, 5/6: re money down a rathole, eRobin ("Fact-esque") notices the calculation that the cost to date of the Iraq War -- $456B -- could have fed and educated all the world's poor for 5 and a half years.
EDIT, 5/7... accordingly revised from "tens of millions" to "billions" of dollars a week.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:22:00 PM -- |    

 
Four legs good...
...two legs bad:

White House criticizes Pelosi's planned Syria visit (CNN, 3/30/2007):

Four legs good...
...two legs BETTER:

U.S. and Syria discuss foreign fighters in Iraq (CNN, 5/3/2007):

In "Animal Farm," there's a defining moment when the farm's pig overlords finally begin walking on their hind legs, in brazen defiance of the old "four legs good, two legs bad" slogan -- with the top pig even holding a whip:

There was a deadly silence. Amazed, terrified, huddling together, the animals watched the long line of pigs march slowly round the yard. It was as though the world had turned upside-down. Then there came a moment when the first shock had worn off and when, in spite of everything-in spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticising, no matter what happened--they might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of--

"Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER! Four legs good, two legs BETTER!"

It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse.

To be clear: in the present context, I welcome the Bush administration being willing to talk with Syria. It's common sense. But so was Pelosi talking with Syria. What's a little scary is the administrations's ability to just turn on a dime and do exactly what they'd condemned a month ago -- with a chorus of sheep called CNN, FOX, Drudge, etcetera accompanying them. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:40:00 PM -- |    

 
Stand up Congress, don't back down
As advertised, I went to a MoveOn "emergency veto rally" this afternoon, one of several around the DC area. This one was right on the Maryland-DC border, near the Friendship Heights Metro station, at the corner of Wisconsin and Western Avenues -- well chosen for a lot of exposure to heavy traffic from every direction.

I'd say about 50 to 60 people showed up; a coordinator passed out placards to those who didn't have their own. (I recycled a Van Hollen lawn sign, writing "OUT OF IRAQ NOW" on the back side.*) There were mostly friendly beep-beep-beep-BEEEPs from cars, taxis, and even one Metro bus passing by, compared to only a few scowls and a single middle finger salute.

There was a little of the usual demonstration chanting, but the one I joined in fully was simply "Stand up Congress, don't back down." I'm with John Edwards on this -- the video clip below is the ad he's started running tonight. I think Democrats should wait a while, and then just send back the same bill Bush vetoed. My wrinkle would be to send it back in two pieces: one with the various other items (Katrina, etc.) and one with the Iraq appropriations and a timeline that's either the same or stricter than the one Bush vetoed. That is, make him wish he'd signed this one.

The organizer told us after we stopped at 7 PM that phone calls to Congressional leaders would help; she singled out Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD-5) as a particularly good call to make. Matthew Yglesias points to a Matt Stoller ("MyDD") post** saying he's already in touch with Republicans about climbing down from timetables to benchmarks -- but also reports "pushback from Hill folks" saying that's the usual (royalist-)media attempts to portray divided Dems in disarray.

For my part, I left a late message at Hoyer's office this evening thanking him for his support of the supplemental bill, and urging him to stand up to Bush with the same bill. If you want to do the same, or something similar, his number is (202) 225-4131, or call your own Representative. Credit where it's due. I half suspected Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, et al wouldn't find a way to get this bill in front of Bush to veto. But I think they've proved they know the power of the purse is their most substantial weapon -- and that they know we know it, too.






=====
* I also wrote "Send Bush a bill with dates, not benchmarks" underneath that.
** Stoller thinks the Dems should send a 2-month no-strings bill to Bush, and let the war's unpopularity break the will of Republicans on the Hill in the next round. There may be something to that; listening on NPR to Representative Zach Wamp (from my part of Tennessee, I'm sorry to say) saying "we know Bush isn't popular" and defending his intransigence as "refreshing" in the face of that unpopularity seems like the kind of faint praise that can't last. But I prefer Edwards' advice.

EDIT, 5/3: "or call your own" text and link added.
UPDATE, 5/3: Looks like Congressional Democrats may be blinking after all. Join this MoveOn petition urging them not to:

We demand that Congress stand firm against the veto, and include a deadline to end the war in the bill it sends back to the president. No more blank checks for war.

UPDATE, 5/3: TPM's Greg Sargent reports that Pelosi and Hoyer are denying today's Washington Post item claiming "Democrats Back Down." This kind of thing seems to happen to the Post more and more often these days. (Hat tip R.D.)
UPDATE, 5/4: More photos of the Friendship Heights rally by radsciencegeek and Ronit; more from around the country here.
UPDATE, 5/6: The Washington Post's "Democrats Back Down" story is now running with a correction:

A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first 9major [sic] concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House.

Not the best news either (emphases added) -- but then again at this rate maybe there will be a correction to the correction. Via Avedon Carol ("The Sideshow") and Greg Sargent.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:37:00 PM -- |    

 
Voice of the Voters -- in Maryland and on the Internet
I happened to see TrueVoteMD.org activist Robert Lanza this weekend and congratulated him on the recently passed Maryland verified voting bill (SB392/HB18), which envisions verified voting systems in Maryland by 2010. (For those unfamiliar with the issue, the idea is that voters should be able to verify that their votes are correctly printed for counting and recounting -- rather than wonder whether they were correctly tallied and transmitted by an electronic voting device.)

Lanza was happy about the win, too, of course, but pointed out that the bill only takes effect if funding becomes available soon enough:

SECTION 4. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act is contingent on the appropriation of sufficient general, special, or federal funds in the State budget no later than fiscal year 2009 for the State Board of Elections to perform the functions set forth in Section 1 of this Act, and if sufficient funds are not appropriated in the State budget to the State Board of Elections by fiscal year 2009 to perform the functions set forth in Section 1 of this Act, this Act shall be null and void without the necessity of further action by the General Assembly.

Given a looming budget crunch in Maryland, it ought to be significant to Governor O'Malley and the Maryland legislature that a study of Florida's voting expenses found voter-verifiable optical scan technology to be significantly cheaper to operate than Diebold style "DRE" (direct recording electronic) voting systems -- on average nearly 41% cheaper.* There's a straightforward explanation for the difference:

One factor that may explain why having touchscreens cost so much more than optical scanners is because the county has to own and maintain so many more machines. We estimate that one optical scanner can count handle six voter’s votes a minute (or 360 per hour) as they are cast but because it takes a voter at least three minutes to vote with touchscreens; it would take at least 18 touchscreens to perform per hour as well as optical scanners. In order not to have huge waiting lines on Election Day, most counties buy at least 10 touchscreens per precinct. Thus while one optical scanner adequately serves a precinct, the precinct needs approximately ten times as many touchscreens in order not to have huge lines of voters waiting to vote.

You can send Governor O'Malley an e-mail via TrueVoteMD.org urging him to fully fund the measure. The form e-mail is a little dated, referring to the legislative battles of late March and early April, but can be rewritten with little trouble.



Voice of the Voters Internet Radio
To learn more about electronic voting issues -- and the stubborn resistance to reform by companies like Diebold and their political allies -- you should check out Voice of the Voters, an Internet radio show produced by the Bucks County, PA Coalition for Voting Integrity. This Wednesday at 8pm, they're streaming interviews with three key leaders of the fight for verifiable voting:

Steve Heller became known as the "Diebold Whistleblower" when in January 2004, he stole and exposed legal documents providing smoking gun evidence about Diebold Election Systems' nefarious activities in the State of California. Partly as a result of Heller's actions, in April 2004, former California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley de-certified Diebold in California for what he called their "fraudulent," "despicable," and "deceitful behavior."

From Utah, Bruce Funk is the Emory County Clerk, who resigned his position rather than preside over elections that used Diebold machinery.

This week's special guest host, Ion Sancho is the Supervisor of Elections in Leon County, Florida, and the first elected official in the country to call for and carry out independent testing of electronic voting machines in his county.

He is a legend in voting rights circles. In December of 2005, Mr. Sancho stepped onto the national stage when he became the first elected official in the country to call for and carry out independent testing of his county's electronic voting machines.

Those in the Philadelphia area can listen at 1360 AM; anyone with an Internet connection can listen via http://duxpond.com/wnjc/listen.html, where live Windows Media or WinAmp streaming audio can be accessed. There are also "Voice of the Voter" archives if you want to listen to a show you've missed. (Via eRobin, "Fact-esque".)

=====
* The Florida study found that both systems led to cost increases compared to punch cards and other non-electronic systems: compared to the two year period before the changeover, counties with electronic systems saw expenses go up by 57.3% in the two year period following the switch, versus 16.7% for optical scan systems -- a difference of 40.6%. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:35:00 AM -- |    

 
Worth reading: you know who you are edition
I've been readin' (Avedon Carol, "The Sideshow") ---

I still don't get it that people who were sworn to secrecy couldn't think of some way to tell the American public that they knew the administration was lying. I mean, whatever they were seeing in briefings was also usually on page 17 of The Washington Post, even if it hadn't been announced by Hans Blix or whatever.

Durbin really should have tried harder. "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, too, and I can tell you Walter Pincus (Warren Strobel, Jonathan Landay, etc.) is on the right track. I've seen no convincing evidence of Saddam's WMD programs."

But would I have believed him? All I can say is, I hope so. I know I got pretty locked in to believing there were significant WMD programs, based in part on conventional (lack of) wisdom and in part on what I thought were independent German sources. But I think something like this might have made a difference.

To be clear, though: my mistakes are my mistakes; I could have come to the same conclusions Carol or any of millions of others did without the benefit of Durbin's help. Clearly, there could not have been evidence of something that didn't exist, and clearly, I didn't demand that evidence. Instead, I accepted the say-so of authorities I no longer trust.

Haditha Update: Killer Mindset, Immunity Deals (Nell Lancaster, "A Lovely Promise") --- Prompted by a new and sadly similar story from Afghanistan, Nell follows up on the Haditha, Iraq massacre story -- where immunity deals to senior officers threaten to derail any semblance of accountability for what happened there:

It's one thing to offer immunity deals to help ensure the conviction of those believed most responsible for an atrocity; it's another to give a free pass to someone whose lies and orders make him at least as culpable.

Silent Exodus ("Danger West") --- Paul Palubicki is a highly skilled and educated aircraft maintenance mechanic, supervisor, and trainer who's leaving the Air Force after building up a very impressive resume. It seems he's not the only one leaving:

The Air Force isn’t going to advertise it, and I doubt it’s a high percentage, but when you regularly bump into people getting out and you hear people from different squadrons all complaining about losing key personnel, then it’s hard not to think something unusual is going on.

Paul points to a March 2006 AFSO-21 directive from the Secretary of the Air Force emphasizing a "leaner" Air Force as something that spells mediocrity, reductions in force, and a lack of respect for highly trained personnel. He adds:

A highly educated force wants more responsibility and it wants to be appreciated. [...] An unhappy result of the dumbing down of the Air Force is that very smart and talented people are being told to shut up and color. Those smart and talented people are now walking out the door to earn what they’re worth. It’s not hard to leave the Air Force when the Air Force has already left you.

Finally, I think Iraq raises its head as well here:

As more and more airmen are snatched to drive trucks for the Army, and more and more leaders start talking about “Combat Airmen” and a “culture change”, it’s apparent that the focus has shifted to being second best and accepting mediocrity as the norm.

Between airmen driving trucks and leaving for the private sector, who's left to maintain the country's air force? Maybe nobody, eventually. I'm reminded of the Boeing air tanker controversy -- where one of the "attractions" of the deal, such as it was, was the ability to outsource maintenance of those planes to the private sector -- since that also put whatever onus there still is for health and retirement benefits on the private sector.

This may be yet another example of the Bush administration devaluing government (even the military), pulling it apart at the seams, and effectively outsourcing it to the corporate world. Paul is no doubt making the right choice for himself and his family by leaving the Air Force, but I suspect the country is the poorer for pointing him in that direction.

Every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war (eRobin, "Fact-esque") --- eRobin's right: if Bush vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill, there's no reason for Democrats to do anything but send the same one back to his desk unchanged. She closes:

As always - as always - we have the power to change minds in Washington. A lot of money is spent convincing us that we don't and that we shouldn't want to be bothered thinking about using that power or that if we did use that power it would be unseemly but the power is ours. So how, in the next several of very crucial days, are you going to use it?

The links lead to MoveOn afternoon/evening veto rally signups. That's likely to be Tuesday or Wednesday. I've signed up. You should, too.


=====
UPDATE, 5/1: Paul comments, clarifying that the Air Force situation he describes is neither purely a Bush administration effect nor a strongly Iraq-related one. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |