Author: PsiFighter37

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

Back at school in Philadelphia, I’ve decided to volunteer my time for PA-08 Democratic congressional candidate Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran with impeccable credentials. He’s young, he’s good-looking (or so the women of the blogosphere tell me), and his biography is one that all of us could envy. Democratic efforts to take over the House of Representatives will be won in the swing districts. There are other states that have several such districts, most notably Connecticut, that have districts that will be tossups as well, but if we don’t win in Pennsylvania, we won’t take back the House. With the weather cooperating today, I hopped a SEPTA Regional Rail train to the campaign’s main headquarters in Levittown, and after getting briefly acquainted with a canvassing script, it was time to head out and canvass part of Middletown Township (where part of Levittown is located).
My canvassing partner today was a guy named Lou. He’s not too much older than myself (he’s in his mid-20s), but perhaps the more important thing to note is that he’s a registered Republican. Lou let me know that the area of Philadelphia that he grew up in has more of a GOP presence than the rest of the city, and that he’s never particularly considered himself a Republican since Bush was (s)elected as president. He’s one of the small grassroots donors, like much of the netroots, and he has been volunteering his time to the campaign on weekends since February – an admirable feat considering that he works full-time. In addition, he follows a couple of the prominent liberal blogs, Daily Kos and MyDD, so perhaps he’ll add some details that I left out or messed up. The campaign staff, Lou told me, is indeed filled by those in the under-30 crowd, which is impressive. In addition, there are volunteers from many of the regional colleges coming out to help. I later found out that some colleges in New Jersey might be organizing a fleet of vans to transport students down to help out. It’s great to be a part of not just a people-powered campaign, but a youth-powered campaign. Our canvassing instructions were pretty simple: the main goal was to get Patrick’s name out there, but it was imperative that we mentioned he was a Democrat. I’m so damn glad that this campaign and the one I previously volunteered for (Ned Lamont) aren’t afraid of calling themselves a Democrat.

As the photograph above shows, the area Lou and I canvassed was probably what I’d call a solidly middle-class neighborhood. Most of the people on our lists seemed to be middle-aged, which explained why there were many young kids out playing today. The neighborhood was extremely spread out; at one point, I’d say we walked a good mile or more on just one road – just to cover 15 houses. As usual, most people weren’t home during a weekend canvass – in addition, I’m sure that after a couple days of miserable rain in the Philadelphia area, many families took the opportunity to get out of the house. Nevertheless, we were still able to get in contact with a reasonable number of people. In this election – which has become conventional wisdome that the Democrats will pick up seats – it’s important to target those voters that vote Democratic in years of presidential elections but aren’t as inclined to vote in the midterms.

That’s not to say that everyone was enthusiastic about voting, though. I spoke to 2 people who told me they’re most likely not going to vote; Lou also spoke to someone who was not going to vote. Although I was able to give these folks a flyer detailing Patrick’s accomplishments and his priorities should he be elected (on a national and local scale), it was disappointing to encounter folks who are either too apathetic or too disillusioned to participate in the political process. There were also two particular instances that shocked me a little. Lou encountered one woman who told him that she’d vote ‘for whoever her husband told her to’. Even more disconcerting was an encounter I had. I introduced myself to a woman who lit a cigarette when I spoke. After I finished, she declared she didn’t pay attention to politics and that she’d vote for ‘whoever you tell me to vote for. What do I know? I’m a woman; I know how to do my hair.’ I nearly dropped my papers after hearing that…I’ve never heard a woman speak with such disregard for herself. Nevertheless, I carried on and spoke a little about Patrick’s background; she took my flyer and hung it on her doorknob to remind herself who to vote for. I’m sure that may be a household that other Democratic campaigns may want to target, but it’s certainly not an attitude that I’d endorse.

Most of the people I ended up speaking to didn’t know who Patrick was. Because our goal wasn’t to get into policy debates, there wasn’t an opportunity to have much back-and-forth on the issues. I asked everyone what their biggest issue was, but no one gave me a concrete answer, so it’s hard to tell what will play well in the district. One person I encountered – a young man my own age who is a registered Green – asked me what Patrick’s stance on stem cell research was, but only after I began mentioning a few issues. Those that knew Patrick overwhelmingly supported him – which is no surprise, considering that his internal poll showed as much. Combined, Lou and I probably encountered somewhere between 5-10 households that said they voted straight-ticket, along with a few union households that supported Patrick. One of the undecided votes was a woman who said that she went to the same deli Patrick did when he was growing up. How could you not vote for someone you’ve known since he was a little kid? Regardless, it was good to know there was a decent amount of support in the neighborhood. Most people won’t be paying close attention until October, I feel – many said they hadn’t started to think about it yet.

We only saw 2 signs for the incumbent, GOP Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. Lou told me that he was someone who tried to tone down the right-wing red meat in the district, as it’s a more socially liberal area. The interesting things about the Fitzpatrick signs is that nowhere on them does he mention that he’s a Republican. Under his name, it says, “Independent. Proven leader. Trusted neighbor”. All three of those statements are diametrically opposite of what today’s Republican Party has become, and Fitzpatrick is running as fast as he can away from his party and the White House. There were a couple more on Bristol Pike, one of the main roads that runs through Bucks County, but there doesn’t appear to be any overwhelming support for the Republican.

Once Lou and I finished canvassing, we headed back to the office to tally our numbers. In the end, I had 7 strong Patrick supporters, 4 leaners, and 15 undecided. There was one person I encountered who, after querying what party Patrick belonged to, declared his allegiance (somewhat proudly, ironically enough) to be to the GOP. However, he wasn’t the person on my list for the given address. After we added up our totals, we wrote out handwritten postcards to each of the leaners and undecideds thanking them for their time. While I wrote fairly standard fare to most people, I tried to mix it up for people I had made mental notes of. For people who said they wouldn’t vote, I wrote that ‘every vote matters’, and that we needed it for change to occur. For those I had noticed had young kids, I inserted a reference to the future. Although it killed my writing hand, it’s a pretty smart idea, and a good follow-up that shows that we care about them and their vote.

It’s great that Patrick has so much support already, but we can use all the manpower we can get. Although I can’t participate on weekdays due to a strenuous courseload, the campaign does go canvassing on weekdays, from the late afternoon to the early evening. I was informed that many more people are around during that time period, making the canvassing much more effective. And if you’re too far away to help out the campaign physically, send them some cash – a 30-second ad buy for 1,000 points (meaning that the average person will see an advertisement 10 times) in the Philadelphia area costs $650,000 to run – and that’s just for one week.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

A couple days ago, I profiled the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District, Patrick Murphy. At the ripe young age of 32 years old, he has all the makings of a future rock star of the Democratic Party – but one with progressive ideals and substance. Although the weather has been absolutely crappy today in the Philadelphia area – it’s only recently stopped pouring – I made the trek up to the official grand opening of the new office headquarters in Levittown, up in Bucks County. This is where ground zero for any statewide battle in Pennsylvania is won – the suburbs in Southeast Philadelphia. In recent years, these areas (also encompassed by the 6th and 7th Districts, where Lois Murphy and retired admiral Joe Sestak are running, respectively) have been trending towards Democrats. Both Al Gore and John Kerry won the suburbs, and they have been areas of exceptional strength for both Governor Ed Rendell and Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey in their previous statewide runs. In the battle for the House of Representatives, PA-08 is going to be a district we need to win – and Patrick Murphy is the man for the job.
I was picked up from the small Levittown train station by a pair of ‘super volunteers’ with the Murphy campaign, both ironically named Ben. One of the greatest strengths of Patrick’s campaign – just as with Ned Lamont – is the amount of young people working for the campaign. Several of my colleagues, past and present, with the Penn College Democrats, as well as other students (both undergraduate and graduate) who attend Penn, are taking the semester off or having a reduced courseload to work for Patrick. I would venture to say that just about every staffer at the office was around or below the age of 25. It’s true that young people don’t have the best voting record, but the enthusiasm the right kind of candidate, like Patrick, creates is incredible and genuine.

After arriving, I signed up to volunteer on the weekends. There appear to be plans to hit the streets every weekend from now up until Election Day. In addition, there is plenty of other work – phonebanking and data entry, for example – to be done. The new volunteer coordinator has only been there for about 2 weeks or so (the last one had to return to school), but she said that there was plenty of enthusiasm and that new volunteers were signing up to give their time to the campaign in droves. When I spoke to a staffer on the phone earlier, I was asked if I’d like to be an intern. While I’d love to get some official campaign work on my resume (to date, I have only volunteered for John Kerry, 2004 PA-Sen candidate Joe Hoeffel, NJ Governor Jon Corzine, and Lamont), I had to pass, as 6-class courseload is not conducive to taking 45-minute train rides (one-way) to the suburbs everyday.

As one can see, there were many people who showed up, despite the horrible weather outside. Originally, this had been billed as a barbeque, so there probably would have been more space had the weather cooperated with us. However, with some time to kill, I was able to chat with my fellow College Democrats as well as get acquainted with some of the other folks in the campaign. I caught up with one of my good friends who had worked for Joe Lieberman (C4L-CT) over the summer. I told her it’d be difficult to forgive her for that lack of good judgment (jokingly, of course! I’m not a mean guy), but she agreed that Lieberman was now being a ‘jerk’. I also found out that the PA-Sen race should not taken for granted by the grassroots. Bob Casey has no ground game at all. Despite their massive fundraising efforts, most of their money is going into direct-mail messaging and media. When I went canvassing for Lamont, there were tons of direct mailings from both campaigns that were sitting in people’s mailboxes, and other times, had blown away and were on the sidewalk. Mass-mailing people information in the middle of the summer does not seem like the brightest idea. Numerous sources informed me that the Casey campaign is essentially going to piggyback off of Ed Rendell and his campaign when it comes to the GOTV effort. This is awful – there’s absolutely no infrastructure in place to get votes out for Casey. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, is going to have a strong ground game because of his ties to the socially ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party. If it’s still a 6-point spread (as recent polls have shown) come Election Day, someone told me, the race is going to be a toss-up. Definitely not good news.

After being occupied with a longer-than-expected radio interview, Patrick finally emerged to address the crowd. He was introduced to the crowd by State Representative Tony Melio. He started out by thanking all of us and was launching into a little speech before being interrupted by a local activist who went on a rant against national and local Republicans. It was quite disruptive, but we heard him out, and at least he had the good courtesy to tell us to elect Patrick. Afterwards, Patrick thanked his family members for coming out, as well as local Democratic candidates running for office. In addition, he thanked those of his Army buddies who had shown up to volunteer for him. For the most part, the speech was not focused squarely on the issues; instead, Patrick chose to highlight the fact that he would run a positive campaign, something that is sorely missing these days from political campaigns. Given that the internal poll the Murphy campaign released in mid-July showed him only behind by 6 points – but up by 19(!) points once people were informed of their respective biographies – this may be a good tack to take. It seems that all that Patrick needs to do is raise his name ID and hit the airwaves to let people know who he is.

To finish up, the campaign’s first ad – it will be relased Tuesday – was shown to us. I recorded it on my digital camera, but the campaign asked that I do not post it. For those of you who would like to see it, it will be up on Patrick’s website on Monday. However, I can divulge the general content, and for your typical polished ad, it does a good job of highlighting the captain’s career – lawyer, soldier, professor, and now congressional candidate. To say the least, I think Matt Stoller, who has been running an Adwatch at MyDD, will be pleased. It starts off with a clip of John F. Kennedy and states that Patrick is a Democrat, so there’s no shame in telling voters that he’s a proud member of the Democratic Party. Accountability is included – while Patrick’s opponent, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, is not mentioned, a line is included about the need to stop giving Bush a ‘blank check’ on Iraq – the other main component that Stoller has been emphasizing. Instead, the ad tells us we need to focus on the real war on terrorism – of which Iraq has no part in, no matter how much the GOP tries to combine the two. All in all, I thought it came out very well, and the audience liked it a lot. I’m sure Matt will be writing about it on Monday – a Penn alum who is working for Patrick was well aware of the dissection that is occurring in the blogosphere over candidate advertisements.

While the event was open until 6 PM, the main event – Patrick speaking to all of us and the airing of the ad – finished up a couple hours early. He went on to mingle with the crowd; although I didn’t get a chance to speak with him, I figured I’m the last person he needs to chat with – I’ve already decided to volunteer for him, and I can’t vote for him (Penn is located in Rep. Chakah Fattah’s district). On the drive back to the train station, the man who was giving me a ride told me he was worried about Bush attacking Iran – and it was the main reason he wanted to get Fitzpatrick out. Although the Republican has been running from his party, labeling himself ‘independent’ (his lawn signs don’t include his party affiliation), I think people are wising up to the fact that the GOP have been rubber stamps the past 6 years. The man told me that if Fitzpatrick were re-elected, he’d go ahead and do whatever the White House wanted him to. Indeed, staying the course hasn’t done us much good to date. It’s time to change direction – and Patrick Murphy is going to be a big part of it.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

Today, the jobs figures for the past month were released. To the everyday person, the numbers would seem to paint a good picture – the economy added jobs, hourly wages went up, and unemployment went down. Here’s a snippet from the press release from the Burear of Labor Statistics:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 128,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.  Payroll employment grew notably over the month in education and health services; several other industries had modest increases.  Average hourly earnings rose by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, in August following larger gains in the prior 2 months.

Naturally, the Bush administration was eager to put a positive spin on this. Despite becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to post a net loss in job growth in his first four-year term, the White House been particularly eager to jump on any seemingly positive economic news. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao could hardly restrain herself in touting the figures as proof that the Bush administration is indeed strong on the economy:

“We enter this Labor Day holiday with …. a strong economy that is producing steady, consistent gains for America’s workers,” said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

The more puzzling interpretation comes from economists, though. These are people who should know what would be good or bad for the economy – and yet the reaction to today’s forecast was one of ‘restrained joy’, if I may say so myself. Some reaction from today’s economic figures from the AP article:

“This provides some peace of mind,” said Oscar Gonzalez, economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

Yet more positive spin from economists comes from the New York Times:

“The softer trend in employment growth is still in place, though the numbers are certainly not melting down,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief United States economist with High Frequency Economics.

Many economists today are focused on the federal funds rate, which is controlled by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). There is a general consensus that the Fed needed to pause its streak of 17 consecutive 25-basis point (0.25%) raises, which it did the past month. Indeed, the reaction to last month’s job numbers – which were worse than what was released today – was met with a largely positive reaction. Why? Current Fed chairman Benjamin Bernanke has indicated that he will make rate decisions based on incoming data. With jobs figures that are relatively low, the belief is that the economy’s growth is beginning to moderate, and because inflation is less likely, the Fed will be less inclined to move interest rates higher. The trick, though, is to ensure that the Fed does not overextend itself to the point where rates are too high, thereby choking off growth and causing the economy to dip into a recession.

Nevertheless, the problem with these jobs numbers should not be that the economy is growing at a steady pace. It’s that it’s not growing at a fast enough pace with demographic changes, as the Times article notes:

The tepid job market is consistent with the wider economic slowdown that is now taking hold. Today’s report was another sign that as growth slows, employers are pulling back.

On average, private nonfarm employers have been adding just under 128,000 jobs a month since the spring, well fewer than the 150,000 a month that many economists regard as the minimum necessary to absorb the demographic growth of the working age population.

It’s been no secret that 150,000 is the number considered to keep unemployment stable and ensure that there is not growing slack in the labor market – it’s been out there for quite some time. Economists are hoping that there is a moderating in job growth in the way that a cubic function looks, except that the middle part is not a dip but rather a flat plateau on the general path upwards. However, the additional attributes of the BLS report give cause for concern that even though the new figures may make investors happy, they aren’t helping workers out much:

The number of hours in an average work week, however, declined to 33.8 in August from 33.9 in July. The average hourly wage grew at its slowest pace this year, inching up to $16.79 — a gain of only 0.1 percent after an 0.5-percent gain in July.

Indeed, this is what worries other economists: the job growth isn’t indicative of moderation, but could possibly be an indicator that the economy is slowing down.

[The] report … was reasonably in line with market expectations, although the mix of job growth was skewed toward low-paying industries. There is nothing here to prompt the FOMC to move at its next meeting on Sept. 20. Almost one-half of the August rise in private service employment occurred in the health and social assistance category, which are generally low-paying jobs. On the service side, weakness is most evident in the retail component, which is simply not growing … while other sectors have not picked up the slack. — Joshua Shapiro, MFR Inc.

The pace of job creation has slowed dramatically. In 2004, hiring averaged 175,000 per month; in 2005, it averaged 165,000 per month. So far this year, job creation has averaged just 140,000 per month while over the past five months it has average only 119,000 per month. The sluggishness in payroll employment will likely persuade the FOMC to continue to pause at their September meeting. However, a return to stronger inflation numbers will allow them to maintain a bias toward tightening. — Steven A. Wood, Insight Economics LLC

[…]

Subpar jobs growth indicates the economy is slowing significantly, and underperforming its potential. In the months ahead, loosening labor market conditions will put a lid on wages and help contain inflation but ordinary workers will pay a heavy toll in declining real incomes. Inflation will continue to outpace wages for many workers. Conditions in labor markets remain mixed. Workers with key technical skills, for example in construction, finance, information technology, and health care, continue to find good opportunities, and their incomes easily outpace inflation. However, workers with only high school or a few years of college, without key technical skills, face mounting challenges finding jobs offering good pay and health benefits. – Peter Morici, Univ. of Maryland

The AP article notes that year-over-year figures for wage growth is 3.9%. However, when one considers that wage growth has been heavily skewed towards the wealthy and upper class, it’s hard to know if real wages for the lower and middle classes are keeping up, given that the Fed’s favored measure of inflation, the personal consumption expenditure (PCE), shows year-over-year inflation to be at 3.4%. The core figure, which excludes food and energy, is at 2.4%, but real people are sensitive to changes in those volatile measures, even if economists don’t look at them as much (they prefer to look at core figures, which they hope will reveal underlying trends).

With jobs being added at a number lower than needed to keep up with the growing workforce, and with the lower and middle class being squeezed by slow wage growth and rising inflation, there is cause for concern that the economy could be facing a slowdown. Some economists may see it as sunny news – the stock market has tended to go up on ‘bad’ figures for the economy, as they are only anticipating how it will affect the federal funds rate. For the average person, though, the trends are worrisome.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

I’m not a very good blogger, and I don’t know all that much.

If you want to read top-notch material in the blogosphere, there are other writers who will far outdo anything I ever write. Meteor Blades, Booman, Chris Bowers, Kid Oakland, and many others – these are the folks who know politics and write about it in an unmatched fashion. They’re great people, some of whom I’ve had the privilege to meet, and I hope to meet many more in the future.
This isn’t a GBCW diary of the memorable type. In fact, this isn’t really a GBCW diary at all. But sometimes, we have to face reality. I’m taking 6 classes this upcoming semester, including 2 of the hardest courses in the Wharton School (where I currently attend, as my profile notes). I also will have additional obligations to fulfill with the Penn College Democrats and at the student-run bank that I work at. Despite all of this, I’m going to do my best to volunteer at much time as humanly possible to congressional candidate Patrick Murphy. I may even show up for some of the Drinking Liberally sessions in Philadelphia, even though it’s a weekday and technically, I’m not old enough to drink yet.

Who knows, though. At the beginning of the summer, I didn’t think I’d have the time to blog much, if at all, because of my summer internship at a hedge fund. And yet, three months later, I’ve managed to write a little something every day. Some of it’s been utter crap. Others have been barely noticed at all. When I was liveblogging at Ned Lamont’s victory party, I joked to Chris Bowers that I needed to find another compelling race to follow – it’s about the only thing I wrote that got much attention. Nevertheless, one learns a lot through blogging. I’ll be dead honest – I do not claim to be an ‘expert’ on many of the subjects I blog on. Instead, I usually find a policy issue, a topic, or a race that interests me, and I do the necessary research to weave a blog entry together that tries to tell some kind of story. In the end, blogging is about having a conversation with people, and I’ve had many fantastic ones throughout the summer.

I’ve been lucky enough to be fairly active in the community-based blogosphere (e.g. sites that use Scoop or SoapBlox). It’s been a pleasure chatting with many people, whether it be AndiF and Family Man at Booman Tribune in the early mornings of June and July, or whether it’s been needling Elise at dKos…well, for no good reason, really, except to get a good laugh or three. 🙂 It’s been a real pleasure getting to know many of you better, particularly those around my age who have joined the College Kossacks Facebook group.

In closing, I’ll do my best to post as regularly as school allows me to. I’ll be doing my little gig over at Deny My Freedom with Yoss and MadCasey. To everyone who’s read my stuff, crappy, unpopular, or otherwise, thanks a lot. It’s been a good time.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

Today, former Virginia governor Mark Warner criticized the Democratic Party. At least that’s the impression one would get from the title of the AP article. However, what Warner had to say was not to be critical of our party in the present, but instead supporting the idea of the DNC’s 50-State Strategy.

“I got pretty frustrated after 2004,” said the former Virginia governor. “We are making a mistake if we put up candidates that are only competitive in 16 states and then we roll the dice and hope we win Ohio or Florida.”

In an interview with The Associated Press, Warner insisted he wasn’t being critical of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, whom he called “a very strong candidate.” But Warner said Democrats must stop conceding entire regions of the country.

“We do our party and the country a disservice if we’re not competitive in the South and the balance of the Midwest,” Warner said. “I’m disappointed in campaigns that write off the South and leave behind wide swaths of our country.”

Indeed, the article goes on to mention that DNC chair Howard Dean has been doing exactly that – beginning to fund Democrats in deep red states that haven’t seen money in years. One would expect the results of such an effort to take years – even decades – to show results. However, in the upcoming elections, we may begin to see electoral results sooner than expected. Although some races are a combination of having a completely incompetent opponent – as is the case in the ID-01 race, where certifiable nutjob Bill Sali is opposing Democrat Larry Grant. However, we also have good candidates running as well. In Nebraska’s 3rd Congressional District – an open seat – Democrat Scott Kleeb is facing off against Republican Adrian Smith. Despite this being a heavily Republican district, Kleeb may very well pick off a seat that we should theoretically have no business winning.
Kleeb’s biography reads very well: a fourth-generation resident of Nebraska, he attended Yale University, where his research often led him back to his home state. Here are a few of his observations:

Scott heard tales of hardships brought on by globalization. He heard about the decline in commodity prices and the loss of manufacturing jobs. He heard about stagnant wages and rising costs of living. But he also heard tales of triumph; cases where creative leadership and targeted investment enabled some towns and cities to fare better than their neighbors. The lesson was simple: Nebraskans need more than business as usual from their leaders. They need energy, innovation and investment, and they need it now.

“Elected officials in this state tend to talk about free trade as though it were a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Scott said. “In reality, Nebraska wasn’t ready for free trade, and these deals have been hard on our rural communities.

“Can freer trade make us stronger than we have ever been before? Of course. Nebraska has some of the best schools in the country, high quality affordable housing, low crime rates, clean air, and first-class transportations systems–we are a globalization success story waiting to happen. But we need to invest in the systems, infrastructure and people that will enable us to take advantage of this new environment.”

This is a point that can play well in the state – over the first four years of the Bush administration, Nebraska lost over 6,000 jobs, including more than 12,000 blue-collar manufacturing jobs. One of the dirty secrets about free trade that the GOP brushes under the rug is that it forces many workers out of jobs. And the main idea behind free trade – that it will lower a company’s costs over time – isn’t necessarily true. However, this doesn’t deter Kleeb’s challenger, Adrian Smith, when it comes to the issue of free trade:

We talked about NAFTA and CAFTA. Adrian believes we should have free and fair trade. “NAFTA and CAFTA are here, so we have to live with them. The United States should focus on new technology, new crops, new genetics, and pharmaceutical crops.”

Talk about proactively seeking solutions. Better to deal with it than to learn from the flaws of the trade agreements so that we can indeed have fair trade.

Kleeb has a comprehensive issues page, which you may notice has one glaring omission: it does not talk at all about any of the hot-button social issues that get much play in Republican states, such as abortion or gay rights. Some may be displeased that he doesn’t take these issues head-on, but much of Kleeb’s plank is based on a populist message – and this is what the local people will care most about. Here’s a little tidbit from his section on agriculture:

Under the $249 billion farm bill approved in 2002, two-thirds of farm subsidy payments go to the top 10 percent of farm-subsidy recipients. Meanwhile, the incomes of most farm families remain stagnant, and our rural communities continue to decline.

We need a new generation of farm incentives that will reward farmers who support local economies, practice responsible land stewardship, and invest in bringing value-added farm products to market. We need to shift incentives to boost innovation. Because, as we all know-especially farmers-the best subsidy is a higher price.

There will probably be something in there that will displease everyone. His position on Iraq, to say the least, will probably make many of us upset, as it sounds an awful lot like a position that either the Bush administration and conservative Democrats are pushing:

Given the enormous costs of this war to the people of the United States, these are very serious matters. But, for me, that is where that particular discussion ends. And I’ll tell you why. We, as a nation, cannot afford to dwell on these mistakes any longer. We must focus our attention on finding solutions to the very serious challenges we face today.

It is disgraceful to see Washington politicians trying to score political points by calling Iraq an abject failure (which it is not) or by suggesting that it will be a beacon of Western Democracy in the Middle East the day after tomorrow (which it will not). Let’s not have civilian politicians standing up saying we ought to withdraw 20,000 troops by the end of the year. Such a move runs the risk of destabilizing Iraq further just when we are seeing real signs of progress. And let’s not make public comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam. This not only demoralizes our troops, but also ignores the facts.

While we can certainly run against politicians such as Lieberman in much bluer states who would hold such a position, in a place like Nebraska, it’s probably the best we can hope for at this point. In my view, where Democrats of all stripes can find the most common ground is on the bread-and-butter economic issues that affect working families the most. A unique aspect of Kleeb’s website is that he allows Nebraskans to post their own thoughts on the issues at the issues blog, allowing fellow 3rd District residents to express themselves and what they’d like to see. If you compare Kleeb’s comprehensive policy stances to his opponent’s, you’ll see that there is a clear difference – as well as the fact that Smith has a section devoted to the ‘culture of life’ that defends his opposition to stem cell research.

How is the campaign going? The most recent financial news is startling, to say the least. While Smith battled through a primary to gain the GOP nomination, Kleeb ran unopposed and was in a very good financial position:

Kleeb raised $203,821 in the second quarter of 2006; Smith raised $290,000. But Smith was forced to spend a lot of money to win a hotly contested three-way primary race, while Kleeb ran unopposed.

In cash on hand, Kleeb has $277,069 while Smith has just $105,000, according to data released by both campaigns.

And that $105,000 that Smith has? About $100,000 of it came from a fundraiser hosted by Dick Cheney. In other words, without help from the White House, the GOP candidate in a heavily GOP state would be just about broke. Even so, Kleeb still has a big cash-on-hand advantage. It’s also something that didn’t play too well with some of the local media, as seen above, and the Democrats hammered Smith about the cost to taxpayers that Cheney’s visit would cost:

“I think it’s completely unacceptable that the taxpayers of Grand Island are being asked to pay to help Adrian Smith raise money,” Kleeb said in a statement.

It is not unusual for challengers to demand that the party in power reimburse local governments for the costs of a presidential or vice-presidential trip. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) charged that operating Air Force 2, Cheney’s plane, costs $57,000 per hour, an amount U.S. taxpayers inevitably will incur.

The campaign seems to be infused with support from Republicans, if this excerpt is any indication:

Kleeb said it isn’t unusual for him to receive a phone call asking him to attend a fund-raiser.

“I got a call from Scottsbluff where a woman had organized an event, asked me to be there and I was greeted by 80 Republicans,” Kleeb said.

Kleeb has criss-crossed the Third District at least twice in nine days, and Hughes said people are glad for an opportunity to meet Kleeb.

Kleeb has also appeared at rallies with former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey. The Nebraska Democratic Party, which had been virtually nonexistent before Dean took the DNC chairmanship, is showing a resurgence – a movement that Kleeb is now a part of.

“We didn’t show up” is the explanation offered by Barry Rubin, executive director for the Nebraska Democratic Party. “I’ve had people tell me that they haven’t seen a Democratic Party person in their town for 20 years.”

Rubin sees job No. 1 as finding viable candidates for local office — “for town council, mayor or weed supervisor.” This puts a familiar face on the Democratic Party, he says, and helps groom talent for future races.

One recruit, Scott Kleeb, could very well set off a political earthquake. A rancher educated at Yale, Kleeb is running strong against Republican state legislator Adrian Smith in Nebraska’s sprawling 3rd Congressional District — the seventh-most conservative district in the country. Republicans are so alarmed at the prospect of losing it that they flew out Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert to buck up Smith’s campaign.

While he may not align with us on all the issues, it’s clear that Scott Kleeb would be a much-needed improvement over the current representative, Republican Tom Osborne. In a cheap media market, dollars will go a long ways towards helping fund any on-air advertisement that Democrats in Nebraska can run. The party in the state was probably thought to be long dead, but it’s come alive as a result of Dean’s committment to the 50-State Strategy. The state party has a blog that follows the races in Nebraska, including Kleeb’s, on a regular basis. Last month, Daily Kos had a front-page entry on the NE-03 race, along with the NE-01 race. At MyDD, blogger Ryan Anderson wrote a definitive entry on Kleeb a few months ago. While MyDD doesn’t have it listed on its latest House forecast, we can’t ignore a race simply because we may not win it. After all, the 50-State Strategy is about taking the fight to Republicans in every corner of the country, no matter how unfavorable the circumstances are. In this case, with popular Democratic senator Ben Nelson up for re-election in Nebraska, there’s an opportunity to ride his coattails – and the disapproval with Bush in-state (he is currently at 48% approval, with 50% disapproving) – to a surprising showing this November in Nebraska. Scott Kleeb may not agree with everything you and I believe in, but it’s a hell of a lot better than sending another rubber-stamp Republican to Congress. A close showing or a victory for Democrats in NE-03 would not only send ‘shock waves’; it’d also be a validation of the 50-State Strategy.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

A lot is said about ‘rock stars’ within the Democratic Party. Ever since Bill Clinton became president in 1993, there’s been an aura of him being one of those rock stars in our party. The same goes for his wife, Hillary, even though she has many detractors within the party itself – after all, she has raised $33 million for a re-election campaign that will be a cakewalk. After his rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has become another one of those charismatic personalities within our party. Heck, even Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont, a political unknown 6 months ago, may have attained rock star status.

On the eve of the netroots fundraising push, though, I thought it’d be a good time to talk about a congressional candidate in the Philadelphia suburbs who has a very bright future ahead of him. His name is Patrick Murphy, and below the fold, I’ll tell you more about him – and why we should be donating our time and money to his campaign.
If you take one look at Patrick’s biography, you’ll see that he has an excellent background: legislative aide, Iraqi war veteran, professor at West Point, and a civilian lawyer in his own right. He’s one of many congressional candidates who have military experience and are running for Congress as Democrats this year. This gives him a great deal of credibility with regards to speaking on the main issue facing our country today – the war in Iraq. Patrick’s plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq is a sensible strategy:

I believe we could have all Guard and Reserve troops home in 90 days–or no later than this summer–if we radically speed up the planned redeployment of U.S. Troops from Europe and Asia. The Bush Administration is rightly planning to pull up to 60,000 troops out of Europe and another 30,000 out of Asian posts, recognizing that the vast majority of these troops are no longer necessary from a military perspective.

[…]

After we have brought the guard and reserve home, U.S. troops should begin a strategic drawdown of forces, bringing another 50,000 troops home by the end of 2006. We do this by withdrawing from the cities and redeploying the remaining troops to protect the borders with Syria and Iran. I agree with Rep. Murtha that we will also need to leave a strike force in the region, either in Iraq or Kuwait, made up of elite forces from the Marine Corps and perhaps members of my own division, the Army’s 82nd Airborne, who will be ready to deal with emergency situations.

If you look at the rest of Patrick’s issue page, you will see that he holds progressive positions on the important issues to us – fiscal responsibility, working towards energy independence, and properly funding stem cell research. His list of endorsements is impressive – many unions are endorsing him, and he has the backing of Democratic Party establishment figures such as Senator John Kerry (D-MA), former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and his future colleague from Pennsylvania, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).

In addition, Patrick has long been a part of the Bucks County community through his community service organization, MURPHYcorps. I was lucky enough to have the time to participate in one of their events last November in Morristown, where we cleaned up the leaves in the local YMCA’s parking lot and the nearby playground (the picture above is from that event; Patrick is on the left, the Penn College Democrats’ political outreach director is in the foreground, and yours truly is on the right), an event that I wrote about afterwards. He has been involved in community service in the community since 1995, when he helped sandbag Wilkes-Barre during a bad flood season. Recently, the Corps has also been helping provide local flood relief in the area after particularly heavy periods of rain earlier this summer. He is truly a local boy who’s done much good. A recent profile of Patrick shows how much he has gained from his past experiences in the Pennsylvanian community:

Murphy, however, isn’t just an average out-of-towner who spent some time in the Wyoming Valley and went on to bigger things. He says he’s forever indebted to Wilkes-Barre and King’s College and remains vested in the area’s success.

“It’s where I really found myself,” Murphy said recently during a telephone conversation while campaigning. “I would not be running for U.S. Congress right now if I didn’t go to King’s.”

[…]

From the classroom to the courtroom to the battlefields in Iraq and now to the political scene, Patrick Murphy always reflects how his formative years spent in Wilkes-Barre set him up for success. A three-year captain of the school’s ice hockey team, Patrick Murphy was among the ROTC cadets who were up at 5 a.m. training while other students were still sleeping. He fondly recalls long chats about politics with the Rev. Thomas O’Hara, now the college’s president. An altar boy as a youngster, he often went to noon Mass at the King’s Chapel, sometimes with Michael and Patrick O’Connor’s mother.

When a conversation begins about Patrick Murphy at King’s, it always comes back to his performance in introducing Clinton and how proud officials are to call him a graduate, said Frank Pasquini, the school’s vice president for institutional advancement.

Patrick is running against freshman GOP representative Mike Fitzpatrick, a mouthpiece for the Bush administration who is running away from his record as quickly as possible, claiming to be an independent representative for the district. In addition to the questionable sources of his funding, Fitzpatrick is not the independent voice that he claims to be – just check out his voting record over his current term. On the bill that would be expected to get the most GOP votes – funding for embryonic stem cell research – Fitzpatrick voted against it not just once, but twice. Progressive Punch ranks Fitzpatrick at 207 in the House, putting him near the top of the GOP. But his highest score on the issues is the environment and corporate subsidies (at or just above 50), with a score of zero on both family planning and housing issues and low scores across the rest of the board. Fitzpatrick is a supporter of staying the course in Iraq, no matter how much he tries to dissociate himself from his fellow Republicans in the White House and in Congress.

While any Democrat running in PA-08 would be better than Mike Fitzpatrick, I think Patrick Murphy has the potential to be something special – not just now, but in the future. He has the charisma of the ‘rock star’ Democrats and is able to charm just about any audience. Even more importantly, he is able to connect with younger voters, something that is dearly lacking in many politicians today. As a member of the Penn College Democrats, I’ve had the chance to meet Patrick 3 times to date. He attended one of our weekly meetings in the spring, as well as speaking at our fundraiser in April, and I have never seen such enthusiasm for a candidate in our group that was shown for Patrick. Several of our members, including our chapter’s president, have worked on his campaign over the summer, and I expect several more (including myself) to volunteer regularly during the stretch run this fall. In addition to being a progressive voice, he has been a great friend of the netroots, particularly the local Philadelphia blogs. Staunch supporters of Patrick’s include Atrios, Booman, and Chris Bowers of MyDD, and the campaign itself has an excellent blog in its own right. Many of us, though, see Patrick as someone who could go far in politics – maybe even to the top spot at some time down the road. His ability to connect with people of all different ages, his charisma, and his willingness to stand up for what he believes in are attributes that will serve him well down the road. When I made my $10.01 donation to the campaign this morning, it was for an immediate cause – winning the PA-08 race in 2006. However, I also think of it as an investment in a politician who could be a great voice for the progressive cause in the future to come.

An internal poll released in mid-July showed Patrick behind by 6 points – but when a biographical sketch was offered, Patrick led by 19 points, by a 55-36 margin. This race is going to be one of the closest in the country, along with the Lois Murphy in PA-06 and Fighting Dem Joe Sestak in PA-07. I’d urge you to contribute to them as well; both of them are equally good candidates who will make the Democratic Party and their constituents proud of their service. For me, though, Patrick Murphy is one of those candidates you meet and can immediately tell that he’s an extraordinary candidate – and he is someone whose name we will remember long after this year’s midterm elections. If there’s only one candidate you can contribute to, Patrick Murphy is an excellent – and in my humble opinion, the most deserving – candidate to give our money to.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

I’m going to preface this entry by saying that I live in New York, so I feel I have some right to speak as a constituent of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). In addition, the reason why the title of this entry is Why I would vote for Hillary Clinton is simply this: I attend college in Pennsylvania, and I feel that my vote in the 2006 midterm elections will be much more valuable to Pennsylvania’s Senate Democratic nominee, Bob Casey, then it will be for Clinton, who is going to easily cruise past her primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini, as well as her eventual Republican opponent in the general election.
Many in the blogosphere do not like Hillary Clinton. It’s a strange shift from the hearty support that the former First Lady drew during the 1990s, when many on the left applauded her for being more than your typical president’s wife. To me, the sources of this anger are largely twofold: first, many are upset with Clinton’s position on Iraq, particularly that she refuses to recant her 2002 vote to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq. The tone of her reasoning certainly won’t win her any love from many of us – including myself:

Still, Mrs. Clinton has not backed away from her initial vote, a stand that has helped her avoid the sort of flip-flopping charges leveled by Republicans at Senator John Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign, even as it has complicated her effort to distance herself from criticism that she was a war supporter.

“You know, you don’t get do-overs in life or in politics,” she said in an interview in late June. “You have to be a grown-up. I take my lumps.”

Of course you don’t get do-overs, but there’s nothing wrong with admitting mistakes – something the current occupant of the White House has been loath to do. But what that excerpt brings out is the second reason why many on the left do not like Hillary: they see her as someone who has slowly shifted to the right in preparation for a presidential run in 2008. Whether it be her hawkishness on matters of national security or a perceived rightward shift on abortion, many feel that she has abandoned her liberal roots in order to appeal to centrists around the country. Anytime Clinton is questioned about a potential presidential run, her campaign always sidesteps the question and states that she is focused on her re-election this year. When you see Time run a massive story on the possibility of Clinton ’08, though, it almost seems like it’s inevitable that she will run, much to the chagrin of progressives and liberals in the grassroots and the netroots.

I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. She is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an organization that I revile for their hostile, dismissive attitude towards the netroots. Her hawkishness disturbs many of us who believe that the current conflicts in the world must be solved through diplomatic, not military, means. But if I were voting in New York this year, I would be pulling the lever for her on Septemer 12, even if I am more in line with Jonathan Tasini’s views – and below are my reasons why.

Who is Jonathan Tasini?

I consider myself to be fairly informed about politics. However, I didn’t have a clue about Jonathan Tasini’s background until I went to the Wikipedia entry on him. His own campaign website doesn’t have a biography of what he does. So for those of you who may be in the dark about him, here’s a bit about Tasini:

Jonathan Tasini (born 1956) in Houston, Texas, is the current president of the Economic Future Group, a national consulting group in the United States. He is a strategist, organizer, activist, commentator and writer, primarily focusing his energies on the topics of work, labor and the economy. He writes most frequently for the popular labor and economy blog Working Life. He is currently challenging incumbent Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primary.

From 1990 to April 2003, he served as president of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981). Tasini’s term as NWU president was quite controversial and divisive; some members blame him for failing to act properly when members began to notice problems with the union’s health insurance program. Ultimately, the insurance company was unmasked as a fraudulent operation and went under, leaving members with unpaid bills and no coverage.

Some members stood by Tasini, who remains the union’s president emeritus, while others bitterly criticized his leadership skills. The union began suffering a severe dip in membership during the later years of his term and has not recovered.

Tasini was the lead plaintiff in the case of New York Times Co. v. Tasini, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in June 2001) in favor of the copyright claims of writers whose work was republished in electronic databases. He is also the president and executive director of the Creators Federation.

This little bit draws into question just how competent Tasini is. It appears that under his watch, the union that he led suffered a great deal from declining membership and from being linked to a fraudulent insurance company. There doesn’t appear to be much love from members of the NWU:

With the reputation of the Tasini-Menaker regime having tarnished the NWU throughout the writing world, how badly will this hinder the NWU’s organizing efforts–efforts that President-elect Colby has promised to make a priority? The arrogance and power-hunger of the outgoing regime (one can hardly term it `leadership’) has crippled the NWU, something it can ill afford as it struggles to gain members and revive itself as a primary and indispensable bulwark against the global corporate onslaught. How will the new organizing VPs encourage writers to reassert their role in the struggle? How will we undo the damage? What’s in all this to attract new members to the cause of writers in particular and labor in general?

Taking a look at Tasini’s stances on the issues, there is much that the grassroots would support: immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq, impeachment of both Bush and Dick Cheney, pro-gay marriage, and anti-death penalty. The positions he takes appeals to liberals like myself who would be more inclined to vote in a primary election. But while his positions on national issues are excellent, how good is his grip on local issues in New York? Being a senator is a position of national prominence, but it is replete with local politics. Clinton has worked hard to ditch the notion that she is a carpetbagger, connecting with and surprising people in New York, particularly residents in the more conservative upstate region. Her issues page highlights what she has done for the New York. An excerpt from the Time article shows how she familiarized herself with the military presence in the state:

This year the Republicans couldn’t even find a credible candidate to take her on, in no small part because of the inroads she has made in more conservative upstate New York. There are other unlikely places where she has won friends and admirers. When Hillary was first elected, General John Keane, then Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, sought an audience, hoping to acquaint the new Senator with some of the Army’s priorities in her state, including West Point and the perpetually deployed 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum. It didn’t entirely surprise him that it took three months to get on her schedule or that, once he did, her staff called his twice to remind him that she couldn’t spare more than 15 minutes.

When he finally got in to see her, however, the meeting did not go as he had expected. For starters, it lasted 45 minutes. “She committed immediately to West Point and the 10th Mountain Division, with follow-up on-site visits,” he says. “But it was her enormous depth of knowledge about the military and her sincerity about our people which surprised and disarmed me.” As First Lady, Hillary told Keane, she had traveled the globe and had often been able to see parts of the world that security prevented her husband from visiting but where the U.S. Army was always present. “She had an extraordinary grasp of our military culture, our soldiers, our families and what it was like for them,” Keane marvels.

Another favorable personal recounting comes from The New Republic:

But, if her relationship to Elmira at the start of her campaign was tenuous at best, since then the town has become emblematic of just how intimately Clinton has gotten to know the geography, politics, and personalities of upstate New York–and how well upstate New York has gotten to know her.

Sitting in a living room adorned with pictures of Clinton posing with various members of his family, Elmira City Council member and former Mayor Jim Hare ticks off all the local places she has been: Bradley Farms, the Hilliard Corporation, Granny’s Restaurant, the warplane museum, Brand Park, Elmira City Hall, Light’s Bake Shop, Mandell’s Restaurant. “She shakes hands with people, and they come away very impressed,” says Hare, a moderate Democrat. “She’s not the demon they thought she was.”

Recently, the New York Times did a profile of Tasini. He hardly comes off as someone who can easily work the crowds and pick up supporters:

Tramping across picnic blankets before the outdoor movie in Bryant Park on Monday night — “Take off your shoes,” people yelled — Mr. Tasini drew skeptical glares as he bellowed: “New York Democrats? Any Democrats here?”

Here and there he was invited to make his pitch: that Senator Clinton “supports criminalizing flag-burning,” “supports discrimination against gay couples on marriage,” and “supports the Yankees even though I’m the lifelong Yankees fan.” He was clearly grateful for any attention.

Out of 20 voters who talked to Mr. Tasini, about half said in interviews afterward that they would consider voting for him. Among those were a group of young female voters, a demographic that the Clinton camp views as part of its core support.

The same Times article begins with a reference to Ned Lamont and his victorious surge to the Senate Democratic nomination in Connecticut. Lamont was able to gain popularity among the grassroots because he went to town committee meetings, really got to know the local issues well, and had an outstanding background – a successful small business executive who has volunteered his time as an after-school public school teacher. Jonathan Tasini’s most notable accomplishment appears to have been driving a national union into the ground.

Hillary Clinton is a team player

It may surprise you to know that Hillary was once president of a College Republicans chapter. However, as long as she has been a Democrat, she has been a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party. Her move towards the center has led to some improbable alliances, such as those with former House speaker Newt Gingrich on the issue of health care. But she has never used her position as a Democratic senator to lash into the Democratic Party. And although she may be shifting her position on Iraq more slowly than other prominent Democrats, such as Senator John Kerry or former senator John Edwards, it is clear that she is recognizing that the war is becoming worse the longer we stay there, or that the political winds are shifting, or both. She voted for the Levin/Reed resolution that stated the Bush administration needed to formulate an exit strategy. More recently, Clinton has called for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation – a move that comes better late than never. Some gripe over Hillary’s corporate ties, but she supports net neutrality, even though an official from her husband’s administration, Mike McCurry, does not – and says so in an extremely hostile manner. And if one looks at Clinton’s Progressive Punch scorecard, she does surprisingly well – she is ranked 10th overall. That’s higher than either Russ Feingold or John Kerry.

I do not have exact figures for the amount of money that Hillary has given to other Democrats, but it’s sure to be a decent amount, given her prodigious fundraising skills. On her political action committee’s website, she is raising money for all kinds of Democrats – whether they be for shoo-ins such as Dianne Feinstein, incumbents in a tight race such as Daniel Akaka, challengers such as OH-Sen Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown, longshots such as TX-Sen Democratic candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky, and netroots favorites such as NY-29 Democratic candidate Eric Massa.

Joe Lieberman got in trouble in Connecticut not solely because of his position on Iraq. It’s for writing editorials that blast those in his party and for being an egoist of the highest order. Although Hillary endorsed Lieberman during the primary, afterwards, she endorsed Lamont, donated $5,000 from HILLPAC, and more recently, offered to raise more money along with lending Lamont one of her senior advisors, Howard Wolfson, for the duration of the campaign. This is what being a good Democrat is about; even though they may differ on Iraq, they are nearly identical on all other issues. Lieberman, on the other hand, is throwing the Democratic House challengers under the bus now that they support Lamont.

One also questions just how good of a Democrat Jonathan Tasini is. He hailed Lamont’s victory as a sign that his campaign would gain traction, but shortly thereafter, he criticized Lamont:

“I, frankly, differ with Ned Lamont,” he told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. “You know let’s be honest, Ned Lamont is not a progressive Democrat. Ned Lamont’s position on war has shifted a number of times…. Ned Lamont’s position on the war did shift and I don’t see his position as being the same as mine.”

It seems rather disingenuous to criticize the person one hopes to follow to an insurgent victory in a Democratic primary. The general feeling one gets from Tasini is that he knows he has no chance at getting any sort of real support in the primary. He has no money and no real support from the grassroots. All that he is getting from this is free publicity, perhaps to rehabilitate his public image after his unceremonious departure from the NWU.

Conclusion
As I said above, I’m probably more aligned with Jonathan Tasini on the issues than Hillary Clinton has been. But as a Democrat, I would not be able to, in good faith, vote for someone who doesn’t present himself as genuine political candidate or as a good representative of the Democratic Party. Hillary is a very good Democrat. Do I want to see her be president? No; I think we need someone who is less hawkish in charge of repairing our diplomatic relations with the world after the Bush administration leaves town in 2009. But as a senator from New York, she gets my full support.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

It was big news when British Petroleum (BP) announced a few weeks ago that it would have to shut down. Oil prices shot up towards record highs that had recently been hit due to the Mideast conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and there was much concern that oil prices would climb even higher. In the past year or so, though, a closer look at the Prudhoe Bay oil facility (pictured above) reveals a sad look at America’s energy policy. We have become so thoroughly dependent on oil that we are caused to squeeze every last drop that we can. Neglect for the environment, along with shoddy maintenance, has resulted in a shutdown of a crucial pipeline to America. The lesson that we should learn? It’s imperative that we stop relying on oil so much, where the costs – whether they be environmental (incurred to the general population) or company-related (increased maintenance costs) – are going to outweigh any benefits there may be to continually relying on oil.

Before delving into Prudhoe Bay’s – and more specifically, BP’s – problems, we’ll start with a Washington Post article a year ago that chronicles the decline of the region’s oil fields. In it, a stark picture is painted:

PRUDHOE BAY, Alaska — Oil keeps flowing through a maze of aging wells, pumps and pipelines that poke through the snow on this desolate North Slope tundra.

But this vast field is ailing: Output has fallen by nearly 75 percent from its peak in 1987 and is expected to continue dropping.

The Prudhoe Bay field sprawling over an area the size of Howard County still pumps more oil than any other site in the United States. But its shrinking production reflects a trend throughout the country: After years of pumping, fields in the U.S. are drawing less oil from the ground.

The production numbers aren’t pretty: in its heyday more than 35 years ago, Prudhoe Bay produced plenty of oil to help keep America supplied. Now, the field accounts for only 8% of our production – an amount that’s still enough to cause a spike in oil prices:

Oil companies like BP are trying to extend the life of U.S. fields by using a variety of new technologies to wring more oil from the ground. But the technology and increased Gulf production are not enough to reverse the declines.

Nationally, daily production of oil and natural gas liquids dropped last year to an average of 7.2 million barrels a day — a 36 percent decrease since peaking in 1970. At Prudhoe Bay, average daily production last year was about 450,000 barrels a day, a 72 percent drop from its peak.

My summer work exposed me to several various types of oil and energy companies that were planning on drilling. While companies in the industry do seimic surveys to determine what kinds of oil reserves are around, they do not exactly pinpoint where oil is. In particular, when one is attempting to extract additional oil from nearly exhausted oil wells, the process essentially becomes a shot in the dark. I can’t divulge the types of technologies that I looked at, but the process is no longer scientific – in essence, these companies make their best bet as to where some oil may be, and they create additional holes underground in hopes that oil trickles into the newly-created flow. I’m not an expert, but one can surmise that blasting through the bedrock must have some detrimental environmental effects.

The Post article interviewed an executive from BP, which operates more than 1,000 wells, tried to put a positive spin on the situation but acknowledged that additional exploration was pointless and that it’s only a matter of time until oil runs out:

BP, which operates more than 1,000 wells on the Prudhoe field, has given up exploring for new oil on the North Slope, saying its prospects are better elsewhere.

The company says that when the first wells started producing here, officials envisioned that even less oil would be flowing by now. BP executives say they’re doing everything they can to squeeze as much oil from the ground as possible.

“It does feel like we’re pedaling hard and running out of options,” said Maureen Johnson, a BP senior vice president in charge of Prudhoe Bay and nearby fields.

With an aging oil field, one would expect that there would be heavy monitoring of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, which begins at Prudhoe Bay. However, earlier this year, there was an oil spill caused by leaks in a feeder pipeline. While it was only 1/42 the size of the massive Exxon-Valdez spill, it was still the largest spill in the northern region of the fields:

“I can confirm it’s the largest spill of crude oil on the North Slope that we have record of,” Linda Giguere, from Alaska’s state department of environmental conservation, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

[…]

The spill covers about two acres (one hectare) of the snow-covered tundra in the sparsely populated region on Alaska’s north coast, some 1,040km (650 miles) north of the state’s biggest city, Anchorage.

The source of the spill was a hole caused by internal corrosion in the pipeline, officials say. It remains unclear when the leak started.

It’s difficult to determine just how much harm such a spill could cause. One potential problem in identifying any short-term or long-term effects is that a lot of it probably seeped into the ground:

It was not immediately apparent how much ground the spill covered. Hot oil in the pipe melts snow and spreads underneath it along the ground, he said.

“A lot of the oil isn’t visible,” Beaudo said.

Field responders said oil had reached the edge of a lake.

Remember that the cause of the oil leakage was deemed to have been corrosion? Well, this resulted in an inspection of the pipeline – and that inspection is what led to the shutdown of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in August. BP owns 22 miles of the pipeline, and another leak – a very small one – led to the shuttering of production:

BP, the world’s second-largest oil company, began shutting down the pipelines on Monday and said it would replace 16 miles of the 22 miles of transit pipeline in the Prudhoe Bay field following a leak discovered Sunday.

After the shutdown, there was alarming talk that the oil field would not be reopened until next year. However, half of the potentially lost daily production was restored when BP was given clearance to reopen the western portion of its oil fields. Nevertheless, one has to wonder if it’s best to let a company continue pumping, given its awful record with maintaining the pipelines by which the oil flows:

“They have a real blind spot when it comes to the North Slope,” says Athan Manuel, director of lands protection for the Sierra Club, an environmental activist group.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., chastised BP Monday for failing to properly clean out many of its oil pipelines.

He cited April testimony from Stacey Gerard, acting administrator of the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, that BP has failed to exercise some of the most basic techniques to remove sludge.

“We have no single logical reason why they did not use the scraper pigs,” said Gerard in that testimony. Scraper pigs clean the line of corrosion and other foreign material.

A damning article in the Christian Science Monitor shows that these are not isolated incidents. It appears that hundreds of leaks occur each year, undoubtedly a result of poor maintenance on the pipelines. Although it’s stated that the situations are ‘remedied’, who knows just how much damage has been done to the environment when one adds up all these ‘minor’ leaks:

Despite what industry supporters say are more environmentally friendly ways of detecting and extracting oil from the North Slope today, the means of transporting the liquid gold south is old and – critics say – becoming dangerously decrepit. In some places pipeline walls have lost as much as 80 percent of their thickness as a result of corrosion, industry officials say.

[…]

In recent years, about 500 oil spills have occurred in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and along the 800-mile pipeline each year, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, even though the daily “throughput” of oil has declined from about 2 million barrels a day in 1987 to less than half that today. Most leaks are minor, quickly detected, and remedied.

While the average American probably isn’t happy by any gasoline price increases the shuttering of the oil field caused, the shareholders of BP aren’t any happier. It appears that they will sue BP for an unspecified amount of damages:

Senior executives at BP PLC face a lawsuit filed by shareholders who claim the oil giant’s poor maintenance practices at Prudhoe Bay led to the partial shutdown of the nation’s largest oil field.

The suit alleges that BP has known for years about the severe pipeline corrosion that led to last week’s shutdown, but took no substantial steps to properly monitor and repair the transit lines that ferry oil straight into the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline.

I’m no legal prognosticator, so I can’t say whether or not such a lawsuit holds any merit. However, it appears that a potentially damaging piece of evidence has come to light recently. The grand jury for the shareholder lawsuit was exposed to an engineering report by a Seattle firm. Yesterday, the Associated Press wrote an article that revealed that BP was warned about its practices – and that this occurred almost five years ago:

The draft report by Seattle’s Coffman Engineers, published in November 2001, is among documents being reviewed by a federal grand jury in Anchorage that is investigating a March oil spill of more than 200,000 gallons from a pipe on the western side of the Prudhoe Bay oil field.

[…]

The 2001 report questioned whether BP was using remote-operated devices that check for corrosion and other wear extensively enough. Most of the comments about the devices were eliminated from the final report, published early in 2002.

In the aftermath of last March’s spill, BP acknowledged that the transit lines in western Prudhoe Bay had gone without an inspection by the remote-operated device since 1998, and it has been scrambling to make those inspections.

It’s always great to know that corporate executives are manipulating independent reports given to them, essentially covering up negligent business practices. To view what the Project On Government Oversight has on the reports, you can visit them and read the disgusting truth for yourself. In the Seattle Times, a brief overview of the report’s contents shows just how much was changed:

Warnings by a Seattle-based engineering firm about problems with BP’s monitoring of its Alaska oil pipelines were significantly toned down after the company complained that the report was “extremely negative,” according to documents now under review by a federal grand jury.

The draft report by Coffman Engineers, published in November 2001, raised concerns about the way BP was tracking and reporting Prudhoe Bay pipeline corrosion, which this year resulted in oil spills and forced a partial shutdown of those fields.

But the final Coffman document, in its summary, had a strikingly different tone: It praised BP for a “comprehensive program of monitoring and inspections” and “steadily improving” trends in internal pipeline corrosion.

It’s unclear just how much this will hurt BP, which has been trying to improve its public image by branding itself Beyond Petroleum. However, there’s a good chance that it could take a hit in the pocketbook if the lawsuit is successful. The firm had $7.3 billion in net income in the most recent quarter, but unless oil prices continue to rise, its loss of profits from losing half of Prudhoe Bay, added costs of maintenance (now that they will be under increased scrutiny), and potential damages from the lawsuit could impact the company in a highly negative way.

While BP is clearly another example of corporate malfeasance, the overall lesson is clear: as our infrastructure for pumping oil ages, it becomes even more environmentally harmful to use oil – and that’s before it’s burned off, which adds to global warming. Hopefully, this will cause politicians to face the unpleasant reality that drilling for more oil in places such as ANWR will merely compound the problem.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

The topic of Wal-Mart is a difficult one to broach. On one hand, the prices that Wal-Mart charges are legendarily low, in large part due to their highly efficient supply chain system. Its praises have been sung far and wide by business leaders and in the marketing textbooks that business students like myself study from. However, the retail giant also has its dark side as well. Whether it be the lawsuits that the company has faced from employees, their lack of good health care coverage, or their strict anti-union policies, there’s something for everyone to dislike about how Wal-Mart does business. Sure, it may make their profits larger (they only suffered their first fall in quarterly net income this past quarter), but it doesn’t mean that they are treating their employees any better.

Recently, several high-profile Democrats, including several possible contenders for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, have appeared at anti-Wal-Mart rallies around the country. That being said, is it really smart for us to use Wal-Mart as the proxy for the wealthy contributing to the middle class crunch? It’s certainly a question that merits some debate within the blogosphere, which has never had many kind words for the low-priced retailer. I think that while it is admirable to put public pressure on Wal-Mart to change their practices, it is not something that is necessarily a political winner.
One of the problems with criticism of Wal-Mart lies in slamming the wages it pays its workers. Here’s what Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) had to say about the wages the company pays its employees:

“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

In addition, Wake-Up Walmart echoes similar sentiments on its ‘Real Wal-Mart Facts’ page (linked to above):

The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the average associate’s annual wages $17,114.

It’s no surprise that the salary Wal-Mart pays puts people at near-poverty levels – but it’s not any news that many working Americans don’t make a livable wage. However, there are several problems with this criticism. First, it’s higher than the federal minimum wage, which has sat at $5.15 for almost 10 years. It seems somewhat wrong-headed of us to focus on the wage Wal-Mart pays its workers when there are several other companies – fast-food restaurants, for example – that pay its employees even less. The average of $9.68/hour is higher than the highest lawfully mandated minimum wage at the current time ($8.82, in San Francisco). Democratic criticism of Wal-Mart’s wages make it difficult to square away with our support of increasing the federally mandated minimum wage. The stand-alone minimum wage raise in Congress (along with the version that was tied to cuts in the estate tax) would have raised the minimum wage to $7.25/hour. That’s almost $2.50/hour less than what the average Wal-Mart worker makes.

If we are to avoid being called hypocrites on the matter, we might do well to talk more about a ‘livable wage’ than a ‘minimum wage’ that clearly does not make it easy for people to get by with one job. Chicago has taken the lead in this, overriding Mayor Richard Daley’s veto to establish such standards:

Defying Mayor Daley and challenging Wal-Mart and Target to follow through on their threats, a bitterly divided City Council voted Wednesday to require Chicago’s big-box retailers to pay employees a “living wage” of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.

[…]

The ordinance that will make Chicago the nation’s largest city to mandate wage and benefit standards for retailing giants will be phased in, beginning with mandatory pay of $9.25 an hour and $1.50 in benefits on July 1, 2007, and ending July 1, 2010, with $10 an hour and $3 in benefits. After that, the “living wage” would be raised annually to match the rate of inflation.

It’s hard to say whose numbers are right – the supporters of the ‘living wage’ law in Chicago cited the average salary of a Wal-Mart worker to be $7.70/hour. Nevertheless, it’s clear that this is a move in the right direction – not only increasing the wages required to be paid to retail workers, but also increasing the amount of benefits that are accrued on the job. By separating the two discussions, most Americans won’t be able to distinguish why we criticize Wal-Mart for paying above the minimum wage if we push for an increase in the minimum wage to levels that don’t even match what workers currently make.

Another problem that we face is the public perception of Wal-Mart. At a Wake-Up Walmart rally, former senator John Edwards spoke about the need for consumers to think about where their money was going:

“We want every single consumer in America, every person in America, to know that if they walk into a Wal-Mart, that first of all their tax dollars are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. Their tax dollars are helping provide health care for Wal-Mart employees, because Wal-Mart’s not doing it. Their tax dollars are going to provide housing and food stamps for Wal-Mart employees,” Mr. Edwards told a crowd of 400 at Hill House. “What is wrong with this picture?”

It’s an honorable ideal – but realistically, the average person doesn’t really give half a damn where their money goes, so long as they are getting a good deal. It’s difficult to compete with Wal-Mart when it has lower prices than its closest competitors. A couple weeks ago at work, CNBC was interviewing people at Wal-Mart about what they thought about the company. They largely had a positive reception to the store, even when the abuses that took place were brought up. In today’s Wall Street Journal, poll findings seem to confirm that Americans seem to enjoy the benefits of Wal-Mart’s low prices:

Polls commissioned by the company suggest it might have popular support on its side. A June poll by RT Strategies, a bipartisan polling firm, found that 62% of voters disapprove of Democratic candidates making Wal-Mart an issue in the election. Among Democrats, 48% disapproved while 34% approved.

A July poll by Strategy One, a research arm of Wal-Mart’s outside public-relations firm, Edelman Public Affairs, found that 64% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Wal-Mart, with much of the support coming from African-Americans, one of the party’s most loyal voting blocs.

One could question the methodologies that these polls used, given that Wal-Mart commissioned them. However, in a quick scan of the Internet, I haven’t been able to find any real criticism. Additionally, here’s a deeper breakdown of the RT Strategies poll that was conducted:

• 71 percent of Americans believe Wal-Mart is good for consumers while 63 percent of union households hold the same belief
• 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of union households believe union leaders should make protecting union jobs a higher priority than attacking Wal-Mart
• 60 percent of Americans say the campaign against Wal-Mart is not a good use of union dues and 44 percent of union households agree
• 54 percent of Americans and 42 percent of union households believe the campaign against Wal-Mart makes labor union leaders less relevant to solving the economic challenges facing working families today.

Although union households are less likely to have a favorable image of a very hostile anti-union company, it still seems to suggest that they believe consumers get a good deal. Therein lies our problem – we are focusing on helping the workers of Wal-Mart, who need it greatly – but what affect it has on the consumer, who just wants the cheapest goods around, seems to be very little. Also, regardless of the working conditions, there still seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm among people to work at Wal-Mart. An excerpt from the Journal recounts what happened when a new shopping center opened near Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s district:

The retailer recently opened a new store near Mr. Jackson’s Chicago district. About 3,000 people applied for the store’s 300 positions. Wal-Mart also hired local minority businesses to do accounting and logistical work for the store.

There’s been a documentary, countless articles, and several interest groups set up to confront Wal-Mart’s misdeeds. But is it best for Democratic politicians to become actively involved, as if it’s a ‘rite of passage’, in a sense? It’s a double-edged sword because we are criticizing a company that, while it may treat its workers poorly, gives undeniable benefits to its consumers – people who are largely in the same class as those who work at the store. The 2004 election showed how difficult it was for the Democratic Party to manage a nuanced position; is it something we should really trust them to do well on when it comes to Wal-Mart? Sure, it may be the easiest proxy to use when it comes to truly assessing how American workers are doing, but it’s a small slice of the working population. What many of us see as a righteous stand against an abusive corporation, many others see as an attack on a company that helps alleviate their living costs through low prices. Senator Evan Bayh had this to say about the company:

“Wal-Mart,” he said, “has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze.”

The issue of Wal-Mart, though, could come back to squeeze Democrats if we do not address the issue sensibly. In an election year where the dominant issue is going to be Iraq, is it worth our time to focus our firepower on one chain of stores? I believe that while Democrats can endorse what groups like Wake-up Walmart are doing, there’s no reason they should have to actively campaign – particularly when it could look like we are advocating for the rights of one set of workers but not everyone else.

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

What could I have possibly been thinking?

Listening to Joe Lieberman’s defiant non-concession speech on August 8, I honestly believed that he was going to be a very competitive candidate in the long run. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Lieberman (C4L-CT) holds a double-digit lead over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, almost solely on the strength of his overwhelming support from Republicans. Two more recent polls – one by Rasmussen and one by the American Research Group shows the race to be a statistical dead heat. Right now, it looks like this race could go down to the wire.

It won’t, though. Just looking at the factors, there’s no way Lieberman is going to be able to sustain a campaign for another 2 1/2 months. Come November, his campaign as an ‘independent Democrat’ will be a fading memory.
I still believe Lieberman’s ego is too big for his own good. Nevertheless, I don’t think that there will be a huge spectacle when he drops out, as Lawrence O’Donnell imagines. Instead, there are several harsh realities that the junior senator will have to face as he attempts to gain traction for his unaffiliated candidacy.

Rebuilding a campaign
The day after Lieberman’s loss in the Democratic primary, he fired his entire staff, replacing Sean Smith and Marion Steinfels with Sherry Brown and noted wanker Dan Gerstein as campaign manager and spokesperson, respectively. Last week, the Lieberman campaign hired a new media consultant and pollster, even though the recent work both Josh Isay and Neil Newhouse have done has been for GOP candidates. In particular, Newhouse’s client list is entirely comprised of Republicans, including two in Connecticut (Governor Jodi Rell and Representative Rob Simmons). So it’s clear that Lieberman has at least the head of his campaign put together. But as any anatomical expert will tell you, the head doesn’t work so well without a body.

That’s precisely where Lieberman’s problem lies. First, the main point of access to a political campaign these days – the Internet – is one at which Lieberman is sorely lacking. After pathetically claiming that the Lamont campaign was responsible for hacking its website, a brand-new site was relaunched on a new host – but there has been absolutely no work done on it. There’s a new ad hosted on YouTube, but judging from the messages left on the profile, as well as the comments left for the ad, people think it’s a complete joke. There’s not much scouring of his website to do – no issues page, no contact page – only two links for volunteering and donating money. It’s hardly something that proactively makes people want to volunteer for the campaign. Additionally, it seems that Lieberman is having great difficulty finding a Democratic vendor who will work on his website. Leave it to those in the business to tell it like it is:

One firm, Media Mezcla LLC, which produces Campaign Engine, a Web site management platform, has been running online ads highlighting Lieberman’s site outage as a way of drumming up business. “If Joe Lieberman had used Campaign Engine, his site would still be up,” the ad reads.

Would Media Mezcla work for Lieberman’s independent campaign if approached? “My firm works with Democrats and progressive candidates,” said President Ben Schaffer. “Joe Lieberman is neither.” (emphasis added)

Lamont’s campaign still has its all-star tag team at the top – campaign manager Tom Swan and campaign spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. Recently, they’ve added former state Senate Majority Leader and Connecticut Democratic Party chairman George Jepsen as campaign chairman, and today, there’s news that Clinton advisor Harold Wolfson and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s ‘war room’ advisor Stephanie Cutter will be joining the Lamont campaign as well. Whatever one may think of the D.C. consultant crowd – and Cutter certainly has her share of detractors – it’s clear that the big guns are lining up behind Lamont. It’ll be very difficult for Lieberman to match that kind of firepower.

Money
Although the political system would be a lot better off with full public financing of elections, that’s not the world we live in right now. After the primary, Gerstein reported that Lieberman had $2 million left after the primary. Considering that Lieberman raised over $1.2 million in the last 15 days before the primary, it’s clear that he had the connections to raise money quickly and easily. The funny thing is, you don’t hear a lot about Lieberman raking in money hand over fist nowadays. Sure, you have the occasional idiot like Steve Rattner state that he’ll keep putting up money for Lieberman, but is this really going to play? You haven’t heard Rattner or any other big-time Democratic donors so much as utter a word in favor of Lieberman since the first couple of days past the primary.

I’d have to agree with Steve Gilliard’s take on the Wolfson addition to the Lamont campaign. It sends a clear message to the moneybags in New York that Hillary’s taken a side – and they had better not cross her.

Wolfson is probably the one person in Hillary’s operation I actually respect, besides Peter Daou. He helped Chuck Schumer into the Senate and is a pro. Dan Gerstein is a boy compared to him.

What this means is that Hillary is firmly in the Stop Joe camp.

More importantly, this sends a signal to the New York money people that she’s committed to Lamont and they might want to not feed Joe money.

Lamont has a very large base of small donors who will probably be willing to donate again if called upon. In addition, big names within the Democratic Party, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have given money. With a campaign stop with John Edwards under their belt and one upcoming with John Kerry, you can expect that more money will begin to flow into Lamont’s coffers. It’s only a matter of time until Lieberman’s $2 million – an amount he raised as a Democrat – will dry up, while Lamont will have more money flowing in than before.

Iraq
Put simply, this issue alone was most likely responsible for Lieberman’s primary defeat. Although most of us know that Lieberman is still a true believer in the failure in Iraq, his increasingly ‘finger-in-the-wind’ positioning is going to cause him to lose even more support. Considering how Lieberman criticized Lamont in their July 6 debate for taking too many positions on the war, it’s quite ironic that it’s the senator who is now all over the map on the issue. Let’s take a look at some of his latest political posturing on the issue – and keep in mind that this is all after the primary:

August 13, 2006 (according to MyDD, the date the site came back up):

And I’m staying because I want to help end the war in Iraq as quickly and successfully as possible, in a way that brings stability to the Middle East and doesn’t leave us even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

August 20, 2006:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot “walk away” from the Iraqis.

[…]

“With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

August 23, 2006:

“Iraq has now become what everyone thinks it was before, another battlefield in this war with Islamic terrorists, and we’ve got to end it with a victory,” Mr. Lieberman said during an interview with the nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck on Tuesday.

[…]

 Mr. Lieberman also reiterated his belief that the war against terrorists could drag on for several years, and that pulling troops out of Iraq would allow the Iranian government to move in and would increase the price of oil.

“If we walk away, then the Iranians will — as sure as I am talking to you — surge into Iraq, certainly take over the south and the oil that’s there,” he said. “We’ll be paying six or seven bucks a gallon. And that’ll just be the tip of it. I mean, there’ll be instability and war throughout the Middle East. We’ve got to wake up to this. It is the test, unfortunately, of not just this generation of American leaders, but of the next generation as well, because this enemy ain’t going away.”

August 25, 2006:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen nationally as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he may consider a timeline for troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The proposal was floated by Republican Rep. Chris Shays, another Connecticut politician facing a tough re-election battle with an anti-war candidate. Shays has long been a supporter of the war and previously has opposed withdrawal timetables.

“It seems to me that Chris saying, maybe we ought to set some goals for when we want to get out and I’d like to see what he has in mind before I comment on it,” Lieberman said while campaigning in New Haven, Conn.

Lieberman has gone from advocating a need to the end of the war to calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation to telling Glenn Beck the war is on the scale of past world wars to saying he’ll consider a Republican’s plan – even though Shays’ remarks may remind you more of Lamont’s position than what Lieberman has advocated for the past 3+ years. The Republicans were able to make political hay out of John Kerry’s perceived flip-flopping on the issue, even though it wasn’t that blatant. Here, it’s clear that Lieberman is struggling to win points however he can. 61% of America opposes the war in Iraq, putting the senator and his Republican cohorts in the severe minority of the country. Now, he may actually be moving towards the position that Lamont has been taking all along – setting a timeline to bring our troops home. If he hopes to win by belatedly taking the other side’s position, he might do well to heed Harry Truman’s words, with a slight modification: if voters have a choice between a real Democrat and a fake one, they’re going to pick the real Democrat – Ned Lamont.

Conclusion
To me, there’s only so much momentum that Lieberman can claim from these recently released polls before the tide begins to turn once again. It’s clear that the Democratic establishment, with the exception of a few traitorous senators, are strongly behind Lamont. He’s getting the money to compete; he’s bulking up his campaign while keeping true to his campaign’s roots – the grassroots; and while he can continue to hammer away at Lieberman over other issues, the biggest one of them all – Iraq – is the gift from the senator that will keep on giving.

Lieberman seems extremely disinclined to officially accept Republican aid, no matter how much he’ll need it to have any realistic shot of winning in November. However, with every important Democrat abandoning him, I don’t see any choice for him except to drop out. It may not be next week, but come the days running up to November 7, I suspect we’ll be spending our time focusing elsewhere – because Ned Lamont will be running virtually unopposed by then.