I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
One of the best parts of learning about foreign countries and their cultures is the sudden realization that these places aren't actually foreign at all. You're not studying an opaque alien world, you're only looking in the mirror. As Americans, it fills us with hope to look across at, say, our progressive allies in Pakistan and note that they're working hard, just like us, to correct and reform their country's policies. But are we also capable of seeing the negative parallels? It's all well and good to lecture the Pakistanis about total military subservience to a strong civilian government, but what about our own weak President and our own anti-democratic generals?
American military officials are building a case to minimize the planned withdrawal of some troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, in an effort to counter growing pressure on President Obama from inside his own party to begin winding the war down quickly.
With the administration unable yet to point to much tangible evidence of progress, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who assumed command in Afghanistan last month from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is taking several steps to emphasize hopeful signs on the ground that, he will argue, would make a rapid withdrawal unwise. Meanwhile, a rising generation of young officers, who have become experts over the past nine years in the art of counterinsurgency, have begun quietly telling administration officials that they need time to get their work done.
When something like this happens in Pakistan, we completely lose our s**t and call them a failed state, a tyrannical dictatorship, a collapsing nuclear-armed time bomb full of apocalyptic religious fanatics and corrupt, out-of-touch plutocrats. When it happens here, it's called a "media blitz." Oh you know, General Petraeus is just out there to "counter the growing pressure" by the American people, and hopefully force the Commander-in-Chief's hand on war making policy. The young officer corps is simply pressuring your elected politicians to give them more time to occupy foreign lands and engage in aggressive wars. Totally normal, everything is fine.
It's time for Congress to wake up. Petraeus needs to be reminded of exactly who he works for. The generals don't tell us what to do, we tell them what to do. This is not Pakistan, this is the United States, and if President Obama is too weak to preserve our civilian-military order, then Congress is obligated to enforce its constitutional authority over the power - and the purse - of war.
Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.
Legislative inaction must be more tiring than I realized.
Still, I don’t view this month as a cooling off period. If anything, it’s time to turn up the heat.
Over the next few weeks, Senators will be holding "town hall meetings" in their states. Last year, these meetings came to define the health care debate. This year, they could help us reshape America’s energy policy.
If you are like me and you are still stunned that the Senate refused to pass a bill that would have created nearly 2 million new American jobs, put our nation at the forefront of the clean energy market and helped end our addiction to oil, then go to a town hall meeting and tell your lawmakers what you think.
Tell them that it is in America’s best interest to embrace clean energy now.
And while you are at it, please tell them to block attempts by some Senators to weaken the Clean Air Act—the 40-year-old law that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives—in an effort to further delay reductions in global warming pollution.
Some naysayers claim that voting on visionary legislation is a risky proposition when we are this close to an election. They are wrong, and history proves it.
As I wrote in a recent blog post, 13 of the most powerful environmental laws were passed during the fall of an election year or in the lame duck sessions following elections.
We can pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall, but only if we demand it of our lawmakers.
Use this August to make your voices heard. You can find your Senators' schedules by checking their Senate websites, as well as their candidate websites - Republican or Democratic.
As I pick up the pace of work again, coming into the midterms, I have to get some stories cleared off the desk in order to make room for some others, and that's what we're about today.
We'll be talking about saving more than 300,000 of this country's most important jobs, and paying for it in a way that is not only good policy, but is a real problem for Republicans who are yelling "no new taxes!" once again while pretending they care about actually paying for actual spending and actually want to cut actual unemployment.
We have a bit of work to do today, but we want to keep it somewhat short...so let's get going.
Today, students in the Madison County and Huntsville started the 2010-2011 school year.
When I was in school, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we pretty reliably got the summer from Memorial Day to Labor Day off. Actually, by my high school years, we were starting before Labor Day - which of course meant that we got Labor Day as a holiday.
But apparently those days are gone for American K-12 students. They have to work through August just like all the rest of us who are fortunate enough to still have jobs.
Across the pond, though, the so-called socialist cheese-eaters are hanging on to their summer holiday. I understand that the entire country of France basically shuts down for August, because everybody goes to the beach (or the mountains, or wherever). Sweet gig, if you can get it...
But you know who else gets August off? Why, the U.S. Congress, that's who! Even as we speak, the nation is into the August recess of the U.S. Congress, during which all our elected "representatives" are supposedly keeping a finger on the pulse back home.
Right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it...
Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi, bless her, has her priorities in order - she has ordered the 435 layabouts back to vote on funding for teachers, education employees, and air traffic control. You're in the right of it, Ma'am - no vacation for these delinquents until they've done their work. To put it in Pink Floyd terms, they can't have thier pudding until they've eaten thier meat...
It's awfully tempting to call for a hiatus on air traffic control while Congress is flying back to DC, but let's not go there.
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).
Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.
Rep. Lance actually was challenged by not one, not two, but three "Tea Party" candidates. One of Lance's opponents, David Larsen, even produced this nifty video, helpfully explaining that "Leonard Lance Loves Cap & Trade Taxes." So, did this work? Did the Tea Partiers overthrow the tyrannical, crypto-liberal Lance? Uh, no. Instead, in the end, Lance received 56% of the vote, easily moving on to November.
Meanwhile, 100 miles or so south on the Jersey Turnpike, Rep. LoBiondo faced two "Tea Party" candidates - Donna Ward and Linda Biamonte - who also attacked on the cap-and-trade issue. According to Biamonte, cap and trade "is insidious and another tax policy... a funneling of money to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore through derivatives creating a carbon bubble like the housing bubble." You'd think that Republican primary voters in the year of the Tea Party would agree with this line of attack. Yet LoBiondo won with 75% of the vote.
Last but not least in New Jersey, Christopher Smith easily turned back a Tea Party challenger - Alan Bateman - by a more than 2:1 margin. Bateman had argued that "Obama knows he can count on Smith to support the United Nations' agenda to redistribute American wealth to foreign countries through international Cap & Trade agreements and other programs that threaten our sovereignty." Apparently, Republican voters in NJ-4 didn't buy that argument.
Across the country in California's 45th District, Mary Bono-Mack won 71% of the vote over Tea Party candidate Clayton Thibodeau on June 8. This, despite Thibodeau attacking Bono-Mack as "the only Republican west of the Mississippi to vote for Cap and Trade." Thibodeau also called cap and trade "frightening," claiming that government could force you to renovate your home or meet requirements before you purchase a home. Thibodeau's scare tactics on cap-and-trade clearly didn't play in CA-45.
Finally, in Washington's 8th Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert has drawn a Tea Party challenger named Ernest Huber, who writes that Cap and Trade "is widely viewed as an attempt at Soviet-style dictatorship using the environmental scam of global warming/climate change... written by the communist Apollo Alliance, which was led by the communist Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar." We'll see how this argument plays with voters in Washington's 8th Congressional District, but something tells us it's not going to go over any better than in the New Jersey or California primaries.
In sum, it appears that it's quite possible for Republicans to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation and live (politically) to tell about it. The proof is in the primaries.
While we've all been busy watching the "oil spill live cam", a similar uncontrolled discharge has been taking place in Washington, DC
In this case, however, it's lobbyists that are spilling all over the landscape as the House and Senate attempt to merge their two visions of financial reform.
They're trying desperately to influence the outcome of the conference in which House and Senate negotiators have been engaged; this to craft the exact language of the reconciled legislation.
There's an additional element of drama hovering over the events as eight House members, including one of the most vocal of the Republican negotiators, face ethics questions related to this very bill.
The best part: if you're enough of a political geek, you can actually watch the events unfold, unedited and unfiltered, from the comfort of your very own computer.
So far, it's been amazing political theater, and if you follow along I'll tell you how you can get in on the fun, too.
My role is now disclosed in my signature - Sorry for not doing that sooner. I have not had time to post as much as I like lately. I was not trying to be deceitful, I just assume that everyone knew since I had disclosed in previous diaries that I was volunteering and supporting Shelia.
Today Shelia announced that House Whip James Clyburn and Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson have gotten behind her bid to win the AL-07 runoff.
U.S. Reps. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., and Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., had both contributed to the campaign of state Rep. Earl Hilliard Jr., but he finished third.
Smoot, a Jefferson County Commissioner who was campaigning in Washington D.C. recently, said both congressmen have agreed to support her in the runoff against Birmingham lawyer Terri Sewell.
This comes on the heels of Sewell's internal poll announcement. Smoot has also picked up the endorsements of the American Federation of Teachers Local #2143 and the Alabama Education Association. So while Sewell claims to have an advantage over Hilliard voters now, Smoot is lining up previous Hilliard supporters and endorsements publicly. It's always a good thing in my book when potential future colleagues endorse you.
I don't write many diaries these days since I have so much to do in preparation for relocation, but I cross-posted this one here and on my own blog.
Apparently on Tuesday the South Carolina Democratic voters have shown why there isn't any Democrats or progressives on the ballot to challenge seating U.S. Senate Jim "Demented" DeMint (google the son-of-b*tch and see why I call him "demented").
Choosing a qualified candidate often rests within their support from the community and past record of performance. It is essential that the candidate has been active and visible in the community for some period of time in order to build a bond with and trust from the community for which they would like to represent.
With that said people ask questions:
Where has Taze Shepard been for the past 10 years?
Why will Taze Shepard not talk about the issues important to the people of the district for which he would like to represent?
Why would Taze Shepard use his own loaned money to broadcast expensive "attack" commercials instead of talking about the issues?
Is it really possible to invoke the spirit of John Sparkman by mentioning him (and not the issues) at every event?
People consistently bring up "what the Republicans will do in the fall" and that we need a candidate that can survive that election. Surely, since Shepard received a notorious loss for state school board as he did, he has little chance of standing up to this similar challenge against a Republican. Invoking John Sparkman was unsuccessful in this and many other situations.
We need a candidate that can stand on his own merits - We need Steve Raby.
These are a just few questions that the people have been asking but have yet to receive any answers.
In contrast for the hardworking people of the district, here are a few answers from candidate Steve Raby (from a previous post):
Simply put, Steve Raby is the candidate with the experience, past record of performance, ability to build successful team and most importantly, Steve Raby is just a good old nice guy.
Sometimes I think America is the proverbial child-star-gone-bad of nations: we have a crippling addiction, but we still won't go to rehab.
We are hooked on burning dirty fossil fuels like cavemen, and no matter how many times we hit rock bottom -- deadly coal mining accidents, the uncontrolled oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and American soldiers risking their lives overseas -- we won't embrace the safer, smarter, cleaner path of renewable energy.
Change shouldn't be this hard.
That is the message behind a new ad campaign launched by NRDC's Action Fund this week. The ad urges senators from both sides of the aisle to put America back in control of our energy future.
Americans want change: a recent poll found that seven in ten Americans think clean energy legislation must be fast-tracked in the wake of the catastrophic Gulf oil spill.
Yet our elected officials haven't delivered the clean energy that voters want. Too many lawmakers fear that if they vote for a clean energy future, they will fall prey to populist mood swings come November. But they are mistaken and here is why:
1. Support for clean energy and climate action is not a flash in the pan. President Obama made clean energy one of the three planks of his platform. His energy policies have been vetted, reviewed and fleshed out through the longest presidential campaign in history and into his administration.
And all the while, clean energy has remained popular with American voters. So much so that Tea Party candidates now talk about it themselves. Most of their claims are bogus, but it is revealing that they haven't left clean energy on the cutting room floor.
2. Tea Party candidates are like the streaker at a football game. They get a lot of attention for their bold, rebellious positions, but after you get a closer look, you want to turn your head away. Their catchphrases simply don't hold up to scrutiny, never mind a 24-hour news cycle.
Rand Paul sounded good in his 30-second campaign spots, for instance, but just days after he won the primary, he started saying business owners should be allowed to kick people of color out of their establishments. After seeing Paul on The Rachel Maddow Show or Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric, viewers start to realize that Tea Party slogans don't always make for sound governing policy.
3. The Tea Party is today's rebranding of conservative Republican voters. It baffles me that people talk about the Tea Party as if it were something new, when in fact it is just the latest packaging of the radical right. We have seen this before and we know how it ends: people who identify with the radical group of the day are people who already vote and who will continue to vote for the most conservative candidate. This is not a new batch of voters up for grabs, and therefore, there is no point in pandering to them.
4. Angry voters may scream the loudest, but that doesn't make them powerful. It is human nature to pay attention to the loudest person in the room, but that doesn't mean you have to like them. The official Tea Party page on Facebook has only 200,000 fans. The "Can this poodle wearing a tinfoil hat get more fans than Glenn Beck" Facebook page has 280,453 fans.
Right now, every politico is trying to figure out how to win in November, and some are getting distracted by the noise of the radical right. The truth is that these people have been angry for a long time and they will be angry long after lawmakers leave Congress. It is how they live their lives. And while they have extra visibility right now, it looks like most elections will be decided on issues particular to each state, not Tea Party anger.
5. People will vote for lawmakers who create jobs, growth and security. In the end, winning elections and governing the nation is about making people's lives better. Passing clean energy and climate legislation will do that. It could generate nearly 2 million jobs, put America at the forefront of the global clean energy marketplace, strengthen national security and reduce dangerous pollution.
Now is not the time to be bullied. It is the time for lawmakers to stand up and put America on a path to a cleaner, better future. This kind of change isn't hard at all.
If you look at any of the 24X7 news shows or even the Today Show, you will see everyone proclaiming that there is an anti-incumbent mood spreading across America. There is good reason to say that as evidenced by the size of Tea Party rallies and even a few of the races last Tuesday. But, my personal opinion is that this is less about an anti-incumbent mood and more about a "pro-change" disposition. Voters are angry about the current state of blame and stall politics. They expect elected officials to keep their promises - and that extends to clean energy and climate legislation.
Even though clean energy and climate issues are rarely at the heart of the anti-incumbency rhetoric, the frustration with all things Beltway could block comprehensive energy legislation this year.
President Obama's leadership is the only force that can change that.
You see, when the electorate turns anti-Washington, Congressmen freeze up. They get scared of taking bold steps and they start saying "no" to everything.
Even on a good day, the odds of passing any bill in Congress--no matter the issue--starts at about 5 percent. Smart gamblers always bet the no vote in Congress.
But being a naysayer becomes even more attractive to politicians when they think their job is at risk. Voting "no" on a big, transformative bill allows them to give the illusion that they are "playing it safe" and to keep the bull's-eye off their back for potential mid-term popularity contests.
"No" may be an easy decision for politicians, but it is the wrong choice for the American people.
We need to say yes to a clean energy and climate bill that will generate nearly 2 million jobs, put our nation at the forefront of one of the biggest markets of the 21st century, end our reliance on oil, and reduce dangerous pollution. Yet so many lawmakers are in a panic over elections that they can't see these benefits.
They need to snap out of it. In a movie, this is the moment when someone would come along and slap the panicking person in the face. In politics, that slap is leadership.
President Obama must take charge of clean energy and climate legislation. The only major bills that pass through Congress are the ones with White House support. We are fortunate that President Obama backs climate action, but given this anti-incumbent mood, we need him not just to support it; we need him to lead it.
What would that look like? We saw it in the heath care debate. President Obama went into campaign mode and stumped on that bill every single day. He called in political chits. He got people in the same room to negotiate. He dragged it over the finish line because he went farther than asking for change. He demanded it.
That is what we need him to do for a clean energy and climate bill. Because let's be frank: either we see some leadership or we call it a day.
If we don't pass the bill this year, we won't get another chance for years. Dave Robert's painted the grim prospects for national climate action given the likely outcomes of future election cycles in his Grist blog this week. It doesn't look good for another eight years - at least.
We need to get America moving right now toward a clean energy future, and we need President Obama to lead the way.
This week, Robert Redford appeared in a television ad for the NRDC that has already been written about in the Washington Post and New York Times. Interestingly, he didn't call on Congress to take clean energy and climate action. He called on President Obama.
The president is the one with the bully pulpit. Tell him to use it on behalf of clean energy and climate solutions. Securing our future depends on it.
Remember back in December when Ron Sparks tossed his campaign manager under the bus as he declined to run for Parker Griffith's seat in Congress? He did it again during a televised forum in Huntsville Monday evening. Sparks had to choose between questions in sealed envelopes marked "honesty" and "public office." He chose the latter and was asked about his perceived indecisiveness when it comes to seeking public office.
"What do you say to voters who may be questioning your level of committment to public office?"
"I have never considered running for Congress. That was a staff member that was on my staff. He's no longer with us. I have been dedicated to running for governor because I know the state of Alabama is headed for economic disaster ... There has been no indecisiveness, it was always somebody from the other side that wants to speak for me."
Without doubt, Sparks has expressed interest in other offices, and regret that he can't run again for Ag Commissioner, several times -- to the extent that his primary opponent put together a video of those statements called Ron Sparks for Anything. Everyone misspeaks from time to time, but Sparks' consideration of a Congressional run in the 5th district was far more than a slip of the tongue.
Got a call from the DCCC yesterday regarding the 5th congressional seat abandoned by Parker Griffith. I will be considering all options.
Ron Sparks' "I never considered it" story wasn't believable the first time, but it did sort of slap a fig leaf over the embarrassment and move on -- until he dredged it up again Monday night. That fig leaf is wearing thin. In checking with sources close to Sparks at the time, I was told point blank that "Ron Sparks was fully engaged and interested in running for Congress in December." By all accounts, the "conversations with members of Congress," which Sparks admitted having, included calls with DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Steve Israel, Chair of the DCCC Recruiting Committee.
At the time, Sparks' gubernatorial campaign was moribund, polling looked bad and his cash on hand was low, see table here. Under those conditions it would be surprising if Sparks hadn't given serious consideration to a high profile Congressional race opening up in North Alabama.
The possibility that Sparks might leave the gubernatorial race apparently galvanized certain interests -- primarily education and pro-Alabama gambling -- because Sparks received a veritable windfall of campaign contributions from them in the two weeks after he reiterated his commitment to run for governor. He had a major staff shakeup, as well.
That's all fine and you can see how an influx of cash and different advisors could revitalize his gubernatorial campaign and make running against an incumbent Congressman, even a turncoat, look less appetizing. However, it's unnecessary and unseemly to continue to pin the blame for that whole thing on his former campaign manager and disingenuous to maintain that he "never considered" running for Congress. The AP reporter talked directly to Sparks. Sparks admits he spoke to Members of Congress about the possibility. He waited five days, as speculation grew, before affirming that he would stay in the governor's race.
Why not just tell the truth? Something like:
Parker Griffith's switch opened up a tempting opportunity and I did briefly give thought to running in that district. The people of North Alabama deserve an effective, hones Congressman but I know I can best serve the state of Alabama as governor. That's what I'm running for.
I do not like the tendency to make up a story when the truth will do perfectly well and I really do not like the tendency -- repeated -- to blame underlings when things don't turn out well. This is the kind of sign I want to see on our Governor's desk ...
Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done. People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric. Let's just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.
Congressman Parker Griffith's new best friend is probably the most polarizing member of the GOP. House Republican Leader John Boehner, "The Man with the Tan" will be the "special guest" at an upcoming $100 a couple fundraiser for the party-switcher Griffith.
While Griffith hopes his buddy Boehner will draw a crowd with open wallets, there's also word that another crowd will form to protest the former Democrat and the tan one. The Tea Party is getting out the word to gather too. According to one tea bagger, they've been flooding Boehner's office with phone calls telling the Republican from Ohio to stay out of Alabama business. Meanwhile, Democrats may take this opportunity to protest too.
Choose your corner. Come early for a ringside seat. It all goes down Monday, March 8, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Huntsville Marriott Ballroom.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, we missed mooncat by minutes today. But my intrepid cameragirl and I were welcomed by several nice people and Mr. Shepard was gracious enough to give me a few minutes of his time.
Dang, but screen captures are funny on the YooToobz. They say it's the middle frame, but I've noticed that's not at all true. It seems to lie at a random point 33-50% of the way through the video.
We are having some real interesting discussions about AL-07. Great diaries about what the Hilliard and Sewell campaigns have been doing. As a Smoot for Congress supporter I would like to share a couple of links about this campaign.
Shelia at this point may be in third in monetary support but she has certainly been visible in the ground throughout the district. Here a couple links about her visits to Demopolis.
"We have built senior citizens centers under my leadership, community centers, new housing. We brought jobs. We've got our third data operations center going in at one of our parks, and we just got Home Depot."
Smoot said that this region of Alabama should focus on bringing in jobs that fit its area, dealing with agriculture and the waterways.
"First, we've got to have an action plan, not a piecemeal plan," she said. "Secondly, we have got to explore those jobs that we think are not attainable: 'green' jobs, technology, biotech, agribusiness and aquabusiness. You've got all the water, you've got all the trees, the soil. You can create a model that brings in jobs around those very resources."
T.H.E. Social Work Agency Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers. blog advertising is good for you
... instead of this one ... 
Congressman Parker Griffith's new best friend is probably the most polarizing member of the GOP. House Republican Leader John Boehner, "The Man with the Tan" will be the "special guest" at an upcoming $100 a couple fundraiser for the party-switcher Griffith.
