From the WP:
In a year of bad omens for the GOP, the latest batch of disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission offers one more: Incumbency no longer means that embattled Republican representatives can expect to overwhelm weakly funded Democratic challengers with massive spending on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.There are 27 Republican incumbents classified by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report as the most vulnerable to losing reelection this fall. These incumbents still boast a clear fundraising edge, but it is much less pronounced than in years past. According to calculations made from FEC data, the Democratic challengers in these races have raised about 60 percent of what their opponents have collected and have about the same percentage of cash on hand.
At this point in the 2004 election cycle, by contrast, Cook listed nine Republican incumbents as similarly vulnerable. Their Democratic opponents had been able to raise 42 percent of what their opponents collected, and challengers' cash on hand was a lower percentage. There were similar disparities in the 2002 cycle.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader AR on Lamont/Lieberman ...
JoshI am afraid I must disagree with you and DK on whether or not attention (and money) should be directed towards the Lieberman-Lamont race.
Tactially, the current poll numbers are not particularly relevant -- recall how far Lamont was behind Lieberman 3 months prior to the primary. That gap can and will close with the right strategy. Speeches such as "Today, x number of Iraqis were killed and y number of Americans were killed. yet,
Senator Liberman is unwilling to acknowledge the foolhardiness of our Iraq misadventure. Support the troops. Support me because I support the troops and want to bring them home before more of them die". The "netroots" will play an important role.Strategically, those of us who work on "brand architecture" understand the notion of "anchor brands". This race is not an either/or proposition (support Lamont and ignore the other races). There is an interaction effect -- the more traction Lamont gets, the more the "Democrat" brand benefits,
and vice versa.Please give this some thought -- yours is an important voice in this battle and I would hate to see the overall structure fall apart because we frame this as a false choice between Lamont and others. These issues are inextricably intertwined. And, to quote another successful campaign, "Its the War ..."
--Josh Marshall
Here we go again. Republicans are running into the same kind of trouble in Ohio, where they're trying to find a successor to Bob Ney, that they have faced in Texas trying to replace Tom Delay.
Joy Padgett was handpicked by Ney and House Majority Leader John Boehner to run after Ney stepped down due to fallout from the Abramoff scandal.
The problem is that Padgett had already lost the GOP primary for Ohio lieutenant governor, and Ohio law prohibits a defeated primary candidate from running in the general election. Democrats had threatened to challenge Padgett's eligibility but, after seven other Republicans entered the primary, decided it wasn't worth the trouble.
Today the brother of one of Padgett's primary opponents filed a complaint challenging her eligibility. The local election board will rule on the complaint Sunday morning.
Update: Did I mention that Padgett declared personal bankruptcy in June? Well, one of her Republican opponents has (and you thought things were tough among Dems in Connecticut). The recent filing follows the one last year for the business owned by Padgett and her husband. Someone want to ask Boehner what he was thinking in throwing his weight behind Padgett?
--David Kurtz
Atrios was "annoyed" with my suggestion that progressive dollars could be better spent than on the Connecticut Senate race:
I'd like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank?There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that's the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they're not all safe and it's understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there.
Call me crazy, but I think I'll stick with criticizing the circular firing squad that is the Lieberman-Lamont race, rather than focusing on whether everyone has their fair share of bullets, as Atrios seems to want to do.
--David Kurtz
Early reports indicate another military setback for Israel in Lebanon:
[Israeli] security sources said commandos in two vehicles unloaded from helicopters were on their way to attack an office of senior Hizbollah official Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek in the village of Bodai when they were intercepted. After the gunbattle, the Israelis pulled out under cover of fierce air strikes.
Reports of casualties are still coming in:
Hezbollah militia fighters found bloody bandages and syringes on the ground after the battle, leading them to conclude the Israelis suffered casualties. Hezbollah, on its Al Manar television, reported a number of Israeli casualties but did not say whether they were killed or wounded.Lebanese security officials told the Reuters news agency that three Hezbollah fighters were killed and a half-dozen Israelis were killed or wounded, but Hezbollah did not confirm the toll.
Israel claims it suffered one death and two injuries. The worry, of course, is that the aborted raid--the first major violation of the ceasefire--will prompt a Hezbollah retaliation and re-escalate the conflict.
--David Kurtz
Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests? Absolutely.
Look, one of the Dems' problems in recent years is an inability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Rove Republicans throw everything but the kitchen sink into various electoral strategies. They don't worry if the strategies are inconsistent or even diametrically opposed. Some will work; some won't. But you don't know what will stick until you throw it against the wall. Meanwhile, Dems engage in agonizing strategy debates, looking for that one electoral silver bullet.
So I am all for multi-tasking: pay passing attention to the Connecticut race, while focusing with laser intensity on the races that will actually determine control of the Senate (as TPM Reader BM suggests below). Rove may be goading Democrats into fighting like hell amongst themselves in Connecticut, but that doesn't mean we have to take the bait.
Out of curiosity I did a few Technorati searches to compare how many mentions the various Senate challengers have gotten in the blogosphere. It's a rough gauge, but interesting nonetheless:
Ned Lamont (CT) -- 26,578 hits
Sherrod Brown (OH) -- 6,764
Jim Webb (VA) -- 4,516
Bob Casey, Jr. (PA) -- 3,157
Jon Tester (MT) -- 2,325
Jack Carter (NV) -- 2,077
Claire McCaskill (MO) -- 1,976
Lamont v. Lieberman is a carnival sideshow, a titilating and distracting spectacle. Rove is the carnival barker. So ignore the hoopla and keep moving on down the midway, folks. The main event is still to come, and it will be in places like Montana, Missouri, and Ohio. We've come too far to get side-tracked now.
--David Kurtz
Number of reporters contributing to Friday's front page New York Times story on the JonBenet Ramsey case: 13
Number of reporters contributing to Friday's front page New York Times story on the federal court ruling that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional: 2
--David Kurtz
Sid Blumenthal on why Bush needs Joe Lieberman in the race.
Reed Hundt with some advice for Lamont.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader BM on Lieberman ...
I don't like Joe Lieberman and hope he isn't in the Senate. End of story. Let's all move on and focus on the races where Republicans can be defeated. If Democrats regain the House or the Senate, even if Joe is elected it won't matter as much. As long as liberal blogs devote 20-30% of their time beating on Joe, they are missing out on beating on all of the vulnerable and possibly vulnerable Republican Congressmen. Conservatives understand -- make your point then move on to where you can have an effect. The best use of resources is to defeat as many Republicans as possible. Why win the "Sore Loserman" battle and lose the war?
I do think there's a certain logic to this point.
Late Update: Gilliard replies.
--Josh Marshall
The latest from the Republican-sponsored Green Senate campaign in Pennsylvania -- Republicans are helping the short-handed Green campaign fight the Democrats' court challenge.
Update: Tensions must be high -- there was a scuffle this morning.
--Paul Kiel
The FBI threw $100 million at a contractor for a software upgrade that never worked. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
As we've said so many times before, things can always get worse.
From The Guardian ...
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
...
Frustrated by the reluctance of the US and the government in Baghdad to crack down on the PKK bases inside Iraq, Turkish generals have hinted they are considering a large-scale military operation across the border. They are said to be sharing intelligence about Kurdish rebel movements with their Iranian counterparts.
The Israelis have deep ties to the Kurds. And they'd probably like to help them tangle with the Iranians. But Israel also has a key alliance with Turkey. So that might present some problems. David Frum thinks we should withdraw to the Kurdish north and make our stand there too. So Kurdistan should be a lot of fun for everyone.
--Josh Marshall
Yet more on the Martyrdom of Joe.
TPM Readers from St. Louis and Washington, DC sent us word this evening that this ad had appeared in the Jewish weekly in their respective cities. And it's apparently part of a nationwide ad campaign. As you can see, it's an ad from the Republican Jewish Coalition.
The appeal to tribalism, I guess, doesn't require a great deal of explanation. But what put a smile on my face when I saw this thing was what I can only call the ad's vaguely christological theme. See, even Joe's sad about his martyrdom. And there's the lady in the background on the left having what I guess is a beatific vision.
Anyway, the Joe cult aside, I'm more and more getting the sense that Ned Lamont just didn't get, coming off last Tuesday's win, that he was still very much the underdog and had maybe a week to thoroughly dispatch Joe from the race. But he didn't. From what I can tell he went on vacation to Maine right after the primary. And he was scarce for like a week after the primary.
Lieberman, on the hand, went basically beserk right after the vote, which of course he had to do, to make absolutely sure that everyone realized that, as far as he was concerned, his primary loss meant nothing more than a difference in the way he'd be identified on the ballot in November. He was still the senator, still running for reelection. News of his demise had been greatly exaggerated, and so forth.
This morning an insider friend of mine, who's strongly for Lamont, argued that the 53% to 41% lead Lieberman had in the new Q-poll was deceptive since Joe's support was soft (due in part to being buoyed by an influx of Republicans) and Lamont's was solid. I haven't had a chance to look closely at the internals on that poll. So I can't address the points specifically yet. But I wouldn't find that too comforting from the Lamont perspective.
Lieberman's the incumbent. He's polling over 50% -- at least in this sounding. And the issue terrain has to be better for him going forward (where the battleground is Independents) than it was during the Democratic primary (in which he and Lamont were battling over Democrats).
I'm certainly not saying this is over. I think the tide of the election cycle will further crystallize and galvanize not only opposition to the war but loss of patience with those who've been in denial about the scale of the disaster. But I think Lieberman had a pretty decent week.
--Josh Marshall
With Rep. Sweeney (R-NY) in some trouble. The Republicans brings out the push-pollers.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush again pledges more action on phasing out Social Security.
From today's bill signing ...
"Now is the time to move; now is the time to do our duty. I'm going to continue to work with the Congress and call on the Congress to work with the administration to reform [Social Security and Medicare] so we can ensure a secure retirement for all Americans."
--Josh Marshall
Tramm Hudson, the frontrunner to capture Katherine Harris' open House seat:
"I grew up in Alabama, and I understand, and I know this from my own experience, that blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know to swim."
Video and Hudson's apology here.
--Paul Kiel
Does this make any sense at all?
CNN is excerpting the Christian Science Monitor's series on their reporter Jill Carroll who was kidnapped in Iraq and eventually released unharmed. Today's segment describes the situation Carroll's father Jim found himself in when he had to decide how to respond to Jill's kidnappers deadline to have their demands met.
The FBI recommended that Carroll record a statement basically calling the kidnappers what they are: thugs and murderers. "The FBI wanted the father -- him -- to shake his fist, in essence; to go on TV and address the men who held Jill as murderers and thugs."
But Carroll's colleagues at the CSM thought that would backfire and counselled a 'sympathy statement'. Basically, to try to find any way possible to get the kidnappers on a human level and connect with them on the basis of a father's fear for his daughter.
Needless, to say, one can only imagine the anguish Carroll must have gone through making this decision. And given what we've seen in Iraq over the last few years the odds of making that human connection (or perhaps enlisting public sympathy among the constituency the kidnappers saw as theirs) would seem slight.
But it is hard for me to imagine that a combative message from the father would have been a good idea from the perspective of saving her life. Governments have different priorities. And I would agree in almost every case with a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, for all the standard reasons. But a family, necessarily, has a different set of priorities. And certainly Carroll's priority was his daughter's life.
I could see the negative effects of a plea for sympathy. In a sense, you're giving the kidnappers what they want, drawing out the emotional drama and the eventual shock and outrage at the probable murder. But I would think remaining silent would be better than voluble defiance if your aim was getting her back alive.
--Josh Marshall
Federal judge who ruled against NSA warrantless wiretap program: "There Are No Hereditary Kings in America" See that and other highlights here.
--Josh Marshall
Dark days for the Count?
This one's really music to my ears. Last night Charlie Cook moved Rep. Chris Chocola's (R-IN) 2nd District in Indiana from "lean-R" to "toss-up".
We want to follow this race closely. So if you're in the 2nd district, send us your updates for Election Central.
--Josh Marshall
National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman on whether they favor a Lieberman victory.
--Paul Kiel
Federal judge rules NSA wiretap program unconstitutional.
Update: We've posted the judge's injunction, shutting down the program. Excerpts from the opinion soon....
Later Update: Excerpts from the opinion here.
"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent power' must derive from that Constitution."
--Paul Kiel
I'm not that surprised by the new Quinnipiac poll out today that shows Joe Lieberman with a sizeable lead over Ned Lamont -- and, very significantly, over the 50% mark. With the nominal GOP nominee drawing close to literally zero support, it makes sense 
that Republicans and GOP-leaning independents would gravitate to Lieberman. What does surprise me though is that Lieberman didn't take more of a hit from the mere fact of his primary loss.
Politics is all about momentum and perceptions. And beyond all the money and free media, one of the things that makes incumbents so strong is that they are, by definition, winners. And that colors people's perceptions of them. Lose a primary to an unknown and you lose a bit of that sheen. You are a loser.
I thought that would have spread a bit more of the odor of defeat around Joe. But it doesn't seem to be hurting him.
One other issue I'd like to find out more about. It still sticks in my head that Lieberman was out on TV and pretty much everywhere on D-Day+1, +2, etc. He had to be. He had to make absolutely certain everyone realized that as far as he was concerned nothing had changed. Lamont was a lot less visible. And there was that Times piece from a couple days after the election where the reporter had to find him on vacation in Maine to get a quote. Too early to tell. But those first few days may have mattered a lot.
--Josh Marshall
New Quinnipiac University poll:
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent, gets 53 percent of likely voters, with 41 percent for Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont and 4 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger....
--Paul Kiel
How much is that donkey in the window? In Washington, K Street lobby firms are hiring more Dems, hedging their bets in case control of Capitol Hill shifts. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Anyone know where Tennessee senate candidate Bob Corker stands on phasing out Social Security? Let us know what you know.
--Josh Marshall
Puzzled (from the NYT) ...
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.
It's like we just need to be in lock down. How little more damage can we get by with in the next two and a half years?
--Josh Marshall
Media experts agree: PBS dropped the ball by neglecting to identify "conservative commentator" Karen Czarnecki as a Bush-appointed Labor Department official.
Update: PBS ombudsman concurs.
--Paul Kiel
Everybody and their brother -- at least anyone who has any sense and isn't on the payroll of the GOP -- has been saying for years that our occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with fighting radical Islamists who want to commit mass casualty terrorist attacks in the US and around the world.
'Nothing' is a very big word. Clearly, there is a 
relationship. Indeed, I think there's a pretty solid argument to be made that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has expanded the pool of terrorist recruits. And in other indirect ways with Iraq and international terrorism, we are all blind men touching different parts of the same elephant. But on the basic ground of 'Is fighting in Iraq helping reduce the threat of terrorism at home?' the answer is clearly 'No'.
And yet, I wonder if this recent terror scare out of London may have actually driven that point home in a new and more resonant way.
Living in a major American city, I take it for granted that my wife and I live under a certain general threat of major terrorist attacks. In that sense I'm not really different from everyone else in the country to this or that degree. Back in late 2001, when I was living in DC and we were in the midst of the Anthrax scare and various reports of sleeper cells in the United States, I remember having moments where I hoped the FBI and CIA were doing everything imaginable to shut these guys down, whatever the constitution might say.
Now, here's the point I want to focus in on. I want to make a basic distinction between the things we might think or feel impulsively when in the grip of fear and things we really think ought to be done. I never thought we should be torturing people or rounding people up. What I am saying is that I remember the atmosphere of those days just after 9/11 and the primal gut instincts that made part of me wish those things were happening.
It now seems that even this London bomb plot may not be all it's cracked up to be. But it did give me a moment of that gut level fear. And in that moment, as much as I've thought what I've thought about Iraq, I'm not sure I ever felt as clearly how completely beside the point Iraq is from the real threat we face of deracinated Islamic radicals (in the Muslim world and sprinkled about the West) trying to perpetrate mass terror attacks.
It hit me like a sort of epiphany even though it was a realization of something I and countless others have been saying for years.
I'm curious to know whether anyone else experienced something similar and even more whether anyone else's mind (about Iraq) actually may have been changed.
Is there anyone in the country who can say honestly, in their heart of hearts, that when that moment of fear hit them after the recent reports out of London, they said to themselves, "God, I'm glad we're in Iraq"?
Anyone?
--Josh Marshall
Over the last few years, there have been several occasions when -- for all my skepticism about the Bush administration's politicization of terror alerts -- I've been surprised at how my skepticism, even cynicism, about terror alerts just can't keep pace with the administration's bad faith.
I'm not ready to say the London bomb plot is another bamboozlement. It at least seems clear the Brits were involved in a serious investigation. But even this case now seems to be turning out to be less than met the eye. And there are real grounds to question whether Bush and Blair jumped the gun for reasons other than counter-terrorism. We'll see.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Allen/Macaca Fall-out Watch: Allen to sit down with Indian-American leaders in damage control effort.
--Josh Marshall
After Tom DeLay... TX-22 is looking like it might be a train wreck for the Republicans.
--Paul Kiel
"Good judgment is an essential part of good governance."
Ned Lamont writes an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal.
--Paul Kiel
After "Macaca" -- the American Prospect rakes new muck on Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and his involvement with a dubious high-tech firm. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Bush Secret Decoder Ring / Dictionary for Insiders.
Central Front in the War on Terror = Geographical setting of Failed Bush Policy
Got more?
--Josh Marshall
Groups on the right and left get together to muckrake congressional earmarks.
--Josh Marshall
The Republican senate nominee from Connecticut -- who no Republican will endorse -- makes his debut.
--Josh Marshall
New statement from George Allen on the "Macaca" incident:
"I also made up a nickname for the cameraman, which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely false."
--Paul Kiel
IDF Chiefs of Staff are always very prominent and important figures in Israeli politics and society. They frequently enter politics after they retire (Moshe Dayan, as an example) and at least two I can think of off the top of my head have become prime ministers (Rabin and Barak). The current one, Dan Halutz, has had a particularly prominent role in the current war.
Now it is being reported that in the hours between the original kidnapping of the soldiers on the Lebanon border and the commencement of full-scale hostilities, Halutz went to a branch of the Bank Leumi and sold off his investment portfolio.
The pure facts of the matter are not in dispute. Halutz admits that he sold off the portfolio at the time in question but says it was unrelated to the events of that day.
Said Halutz: "It was my portfolio of shares, on which I had lost NIS 25,000. It is true that I sold the portfolio on July 12, 2006, but it is impossible to link that to the war. At the time I did not expect or think that there would be a war ... I am a citizen too and have my own economic affairs. This has stained [my reputation] for no reason and is unworthy of any further comment."
Bank Leumi has ordered an investigation into the source of the leak.
--Josh Marshall
Lieberman commits to caucusing with Dems, supporting Harry Reid if he's reelected in November.
--Josh Marshall
If you're still interested in Republican efforts to phase-out Social Security, read this post from Campaign for America's Future's Roger Hickey. They've got a good new report detailing where the key 2006 candidates stand on phase-out.
--Josh Marshall
More apparent evidence of dirty tricks come to light in Pennsylvania: Backed by a forensic expert, Democrats are charging GOP staffers faked signatures to get a Green Party Senate candidate on the ballot.
--Justin Rood
TPM Reader TC has a darker read on the Allen tape ...
Josh:As that blogger you linked yesterday demonstrated, "macaca" and its derivatives are well-known among white supremacists and neo-nazis. What about the thought that Allen used the epithet, knowing it would be reported, as a subliminal way of telling these people (and they're out there in greater numbers in the south, unfortunately) that "I'm one of you"???
Let's review that this guy used to have the Stars and Bars on his car in southern California 40 years ago, and was noted in his high school yearbook as being "pro-Confederate" with the things he wore. You weren't around then, but I was, and I can tell you that any white person doing that was a racist and a white supremacist, identifying with the "southern resistance" to the civil rights movement.
This guy is not just dangerous like Bush is, he's dangerous as "the next progression" of the Republican far right.
TC
Could be. Could be.
So he's either a closet racist who let the truth slip. Or a very calculating crypto-racist.
Nice range of choices. And this guy's a major GOP prez aspirant.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, George Allen's America. Where the borders are secure and dark-complected Americans are derided as monkeys.
What did Allen mean? We now know that not only is 'macaque' a French language slur used to describe North Africans but Allen has a dizzyingly direct way of being familiar with the word. His mother is French Tunisian. Given that it would be amongst the French colonial population in North Africa that the word would have the greatest currency (even if only by familiarity rather than use), it seems close to impossible to believe that Allen didn't become familiar with the word growing up.
Last night a friend asked me if it's really believeable that Allen teed off on Sidarth with a racial epithet while he knew he was being videotaped. (My understanding at least is that it was Sidarth himself, the Indian-American Webb campaign volunteer, who was videotaping him as this happened.) I had a couple thoughts along these lines. No, I don't think Allen would have done it intentionally, at least not in the narrow sense. He may be a closet racist (and there's actually a pretty good case to be made (sub.req.) that he is, quite independent of this incident) but I don't think he's intentionally self-destructive.
What I do think, what I know from experience, is that all sorts of things come out of your mouth when you're speaking extemporaneously. Ask anyone who's spent much time on TV or radio. Not things that weren't in your mind somewhere to say, but some things you might have thought better of if you had a few moments to consider it. If you're not a racist, in most cases racial slurs don't come pouring out or, like one conservative yacker, fantasies about sterilizing African-Americans.
I suspect that Allen started off with a pretty crude effort to make fun of Sidarth as an immigrant, an outsider, perhaps by snidely but in his mind jocularly mispronouncing his name. Who knows? But in the moment, when he was looking at this kid who was clearly getting on his nerves, and amongst a lilly white crowd, this is the word that came to his mind and he used it.
To me, that's actually the most innocent explanation I can think of.
--Josh Marshall
Sometimes letters to the editor need a bit more scrutiny (Pennsylvania Senate Edition.)
--Josh Marshall
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff: Why can't I hold subjects of terror investigations for a month without charges? It's just not fair. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Rabbi Marc Gellman: How could Jews not all support Lieberman since he's a Jew too?
--Josh Marshall
The pro-Joe alternative reality, brought to us by TPM Reader NJ ...
Dear Mr Marshall,So, you have always had a soft spot for Joe Liberman. You actually liked him You were ambivalent as to who won the primary. But now . that this good and decent man refuses to be cast aside as the result of a scurrilous, sickening, bigoted, racist attack ----- voila, you have changed your mind . He now deserves your f--ck you epithet . You are now free to endorse and spew the vitriol of the lunatics who wiil destroy our party.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
NJ
I think I've probably said about as much as I want to about this race at the moment. But I'm still amazed at how far a lot of people manage to get wrapped up in this Joe martyrdom, Saint Joseph routine.
There were some harsh things said in this campaign -- not all on one side, mind you. But as hard-fought political campaigns go, it doesn't strike me as that bare-knuckled. And bundled up in this outrage there does seem to reside a basic feeling that Lieberman was wronged, violated in some deep way.
I just don't see that.
Turnover in office and accountability are good things in a democracy. Lieberman doggedly supported what has become a very unpopular policy. Democrats in his state disagreed. So when they got their 6 year bite at the apple, they fired him.
That's a very good thing.
Whether it was wise with respect to this particular issue I'll leave to another discussion. But on simple accountability and engaged politics terms we need more of that, not less. And it's certainly not something shameful.
--Josh Marshall
From TPM Reader DN ...
Josh,No need to respond to this email, but I have a suggestion for a worthwhile blog post.
I'm a white, southern male, jwho graduated from [XXXXXXXX] in 1999. I was a varsity athlete, a history major and considered myself a moderate in both temperament and ideology. I even identified with certain aspects of "conservatism" and was eager to criticize the worst elements of both parties, etc. etc.
When I found your site, you had a similar sort of "New Democrat" approach. You talked a lot about ideas and while you were certainly a Democrat, but not in a partisan or overly ideological way. I think we would agree that ideas matter, both parties overreach, had problems with trial lawyers and unions, etc.
What I first loved about your site is gone, however, but I don't blame you. I blame Bush et al. And that's a shame. I feel like I lost a real part of me is gone, taken by Bush and the greater Republican movement. That all of our efforts must focus on opposing each and every assertion made by this group; detailing, chronicling and exposing every lie, fallacy, and evil act. Clearly, you too realize this is the only reasonable tactic for us to pursue.
The era of ideas, debate, and moderation is gone (for now), not by our choice, but by theirs. That is Lieberman's problem and an ever shrinking number of holdouts. I really am angry about the loss of a worldview and approach that I valued. Your site's transition is one small bit of evidence of that loss.
I'd love to hear your view of the evolution of your approach to your politics, your writing, and your profession.
All the best,
DN
PS. I don't view your site's metamorphosis as "bad," but as a necessary move in a broad effort.
I have mixed feelings about what DN has to say. But I do recognize a lot in it I identify with. TPM has always been pretty aggressive and pugilistic in its politics. The site, after all, started during the 2000 recount, the founding political bad act from which, you might say, everything else followed. And some of the difference in the site isn't because of changes in my politics or changing political times. Some comes from a difference in what I do. I now publish three or four sites, depending on how you count them. So I don't have as much time as I used to for writing at length. That's something I regret and it's something I plan to change over the next few months. But that's another matter I'll get to later.
With all those caveats though, there is a difference. And I think at some level or another, it's one almost everyone in the center-left can relate to, at least at some level. For my part, I don't feel my politics have changed much over the past half dozen years, if by that we mean my basic political orientation, policies I believe in and don't, basic understanding of how the world works and so forth. Many people who read my site are much more to the left politically than I am. And occasionally, some issue will come up where that fact suddenly becomes evident, often to people's surprise and sometimes anger.
I was going to start by saying that what's changed for me is that the country I know and value is under attack. But that's not quite it.
I live in Manhattan and have a certain perspective on the country. Folks in Oklahoma or evangelicals in South Carolina have a different one. And that's fine. It's their country too. What I think is that a certain political movement has taken over the country -- call it movement conservatism in its late, degraded form -- and wants to govern it by all or nothing rules.
The Bush presidency is in so many respects an example or embodiment of this. The president twice took the presidency with a divided electorate -- first a minority president, then a 51% president. And he proceeded to govern as though he had a mandate to completely remake it, often in what appeared to be profoundly destructive ways geared to short-term political benefit and intended to consolidate power. The folks who've made efforts toward bipartisan compromise have again and again, in this era, been played for chumps. And that's one of the reasons President Bush has had a much harder time in his second term (one among many): he made it too clear too many times that he'll take anyone who'll give him an inch or lend him a hand and use them up and toss them when he's done.
Our policies abroad are a whole other matter. They're related to what I've described above, part of the same story. But there's more there. President Bush and his acolytes and enablers deserve all the blame in the world. But it's not sufficient. As Americans I think we need to grapple with what's happened. And it goes beyond President Bush. He did after all win reelection. He marginally expanded his congressional majorities. In the rough and tumble of the political moment, the fight needs to be taken to the president and his party. But we also need a more probing consideration of the forces that have made all this possible.
In any case, this is all a way of saying that in this all-or-nothing crisis the country has been passing through, I think it's made sense to line up with those who say, No. I guess I'm one of those partisanized moderates Kevin Drum has spoken of (not sure that's precisely the phrase he used.) That leads to a certain loss of nuance sometimes in commentary and a loss in the variegation of our politics generally. As a writer, often it's less satisfying.
But I cannot see looking back on all this, the threat the country is under, and saying, I stood aloof.
--Josh Marshall
So what did Sen. Allen mean by calling that kid a 'Macaca'? A blogger does some research.
--Josh Marshall
Bush Administration official Karen Czarnecki moonlights as a "conservative pundit." And the PBS show she appears on can't see what the problem is.
--Paul Kiel
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) singles out Indian-American Webb volunteer S.R. Sidarth at a campaign event, calls him "Macaca" and 'welcomes' him to America. "Lets give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia," said Allen.
--Josh Marshall
One of the main factors in the Lieberman-Lamont race is the absence of a serious GOP challenger on the ballot; besides having little funds or name recognition, Alan Schlesinger has the liability of being known mostly for his gambling exploits.
The race would change overnight if Schlesinger would only step aside. And to heighten the pressure, businessman and Republican Jack Orchulli told Greg Sargent this afternoon that he'd spend at least $1.5 million of his own money in the race if that happened.
--Paul Kiel
The GOP-sponsored Green Party candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate race is confident he'll come up with the money to fight a Democratic lawsuit, because "This is America, money is like air."
--Paul Kiel
Bush fixin' to support Lieberman? More shortly.
In this morning's press briefing, Tony Snow said President Bush would not endorse Alan Schlesinger (R-CT) the Republican nominee in the race.
Update: Here's a transcript of the exchange.
--Josh Marshall
That Marine's lawsuit against Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for defamation isn't likely to make it very far. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Karma update: Latest poll from the Florida senate race. Nelson 60%, Harris 25%.
--Josh Marshall
