Breaking news and analysis of politics, the economy and activism.
No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?
-- George Mason, 1787
More than 5,000 people crowded the Sauk County Fairgrounds in Baraboo, Wisconsin, for Fighting Bob Fest, one of the largest gatherings of progressives in the nation. The annual event, which is pulled together by volunteers on a minimal budget, now attracts speakers such as U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, "Democracy Now" host Amy Goodman and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The success of Bob Fest serves as a reminder that there is a yearning in America for the sort of community and discourse that was once seen on the Chautauqua circuit, which in the first years of the twentieth century drew William Jennings Bryan, Jane Addams, W.E.B. DuBois and Robert M. "Fighting Bob" La Follette to cities and towns across the country. In those days, as today, the speaker circuit served as a needed alternative to a media that often failed to provide a full and honest portrait of the issues and ideas that matter most.
I was proud to be a part of the Fighting Bob Fest speaker roster, and I was thrilled that, when I brought up the subject of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, the crowd roared its approval.
I will be equally proud to participate this weekend in a similarly well-intentioned and ambitious initiative on the National Mall in Washington: Camp Democracy. Sponsored by dozens of progressive groups from around the country, the almost month-long series of events has brought the anti-war, justice and accountability sentiments of the nation to the nation's capital for Chautauqua-style forums featuring members of Congress, authors and activists.
On Sunday, we'll discuss the subject that the mainstream media loves to ignore: proposals for the impeachment of George W. Bush and members of his administration. Sunday's "Impeachment Encampment," sponsored by the good folks at Democrats.com, will feature a morning panel that includes Marcus Raskin, a member of the special staff of the National Security Council in President Kennedy's Administration, and author of "Liberalism," and co-editor of "In Democracy's Shadow"; Elizabeth de la Vega, former federal prosecutor; Dave Lindorff, author of "The Case for Impeachment" and myself. David Swanson, a cofounder of AfterDowningStreet.org and a brilliant organizer on issues of accountability, will moderate.
In the afternoon, another panel will feature: Elizabeth Holtzman, former congresswoman and co-author of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush"; Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst; author and professor Jennifer Van Bergen; Geoff King, president of Constitution Summer; Michael Avery, president of the National Lawyers Guild. Also present will be Dan DeWalt, the Vermont town selectman who started the grassroots movement to pass local impeachment resolutions last spring will also be present, along with Steve Cobble, the veteran political strategist who has been one of the smartest advocates for accountability.
In this election season, a lot of politicians are avoiding talk of impeachment. They fear a discussion about accountability that ends up at the logical conclusion. But the people have no such fear, as evidenced by the enthusiasm for local and state impeachment resolutions and the healthy discourse that is playing out across the country and, this Sunday, in Washington at Camp Democracy.
* For more on Camp Democracy, visit the website at: http://www.campdemocracy.org/
* John Nichols' new book, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism (The New Press), will be published in October. Of it, Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: "Bugger off!"So should we say today. And Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so."
Two days after President Bush used a nationally-televised address to exploit the memory of September 11 for political purposes – employing language and logic so crude that it would have made Richard Nixon cringe – the Republican Congressional leadership tried to plant a campaign yard sign in the wreckage of the World Trade Center. And the vast majority of House Democrats, lacking both the courage of their convictions and all other forms of that precious commodity, gave their assent to the desecration.
With the fall election season in full swing, House Republicans tried to take full advantage of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington to suggest that the Congress has been anything more than a useless appendage of the Bush administration for the past five years. U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, sponsored a resolution that, while it was promoted as a commemoration of one of the most solemn dates in American history, was in fact an apologia for Congressional assaults on civil liberties such as the Patriot Act.
A number of Democrats objected to the clumsy attempt by King and his compatriots to use the memory of 9-11 to justify their wrongheaded theory that the only way to fight terrorism is to shred the Constitution.
But when it came time to vote, the vast majority of Democrats joined Republicans in what will go down as one of the cheapest stunts yet in a Capitol that has seen more than its share of embarrassing behavior.
Only 22 member of the House refused to go along with the unseemly charade. Twenty-one Democrats and one dissident Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, refused to play politics.
Among the handful of House members who did the right thing was Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who complained that, "The Republican majority disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution."
Instead of honoring the memory of those who died and recalling the trauma that the attacks inflicted on the United States, Baldwin said, "[House Republicans] converted the resolution into an endorsement of the PATRIOT Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose. The Republicans show enormous disrespect to the 9/11 victims and families by playing election year politics with something as solemn as the fifth anniversary of 9/11."
Joining Baldwin and Republican Paul in voting "no" were: Arizona's Raul Grijalva; Californians Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey; Georgians Cynthia McKinney and John Lewis; Illinoisans Danny Davis, Luis Gutierrez and Jan Schakowsky; Maine's Mike Michaud; Massachusetts' Barney Frank, Ed Markey and Jim McGovern; New Yorker Maurice Hinchey; North Carolina's Mel Watt; Ohio's Dennis Kucinich; Oregon's Earl Blumenauer; Virginia's Bobby Scott; and Washington's Jim McDermott. (An additional member, Democrat Mike Capuano of Massachusetts, voted "present.")
Unlike most members of Congress, these dissenters actually believe that their votes matter. And, this week, they used their "no" votes to reject the exploitation of the memory of 9-11 for political purposes.
Press reports on the primary victory of Minnesota Democratic U.S. House candidate Keith Ellison make note of the fact that he is now likely to become the first Muslim elected to Congress. But Ellison is also likely to become one of the most left-leaning members of the next House.
The Ellison victory was one of several for anti-war Democrats seeking open seats. Others came in in New York, where City Council member Yvette Clarke won a fierce fight for a Brooklyn seat once held by Shirley Chisholm, and in Maryland, where John Sarbanes, the son of retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes, led in a crowded House race. In Maryland's highest-profile race, however, former NAACP head Kweisi Mfume, who was outspoken in his opposition to the war, lost to the decidely more cautious Representative Ben Cardin by a 46-38 margin.
In another Maryland race, activist Donna Edwards was in a virtual tie this morning with Representative Al Wynn, with a substantial number of votes still to be counted. During the campaign Edwards billed Wynn "the Joe Lieberman of Maryland" because of the Democratic incumbent's many votes in favor of Bush administration initiatives.
If Edwards pulls out a victory, it will be a very big deal.
But Ellison's win is nothing to sneeze at.
What the Minnesota Democrat did right is instructive.
Running against a crowded field for the nomination to replace retiring Representative Martin Sabo, Ellison distinguished himself as a passionate progressive who, in the words of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, mounted a campaign that was "reminiscent of the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone."
Ellison featured a photo of himself with Wellstone, the late senator from Minnesota who has become a national progressive icon, in his campaign mailings. He even borrowed the color green, which was used in Wellstone's three Senate campaigns, as the background for "Ellison for Congress" signs and shirts.
It was Ellison's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq -- which Wellstone also opposed in a critical Senate vote shortly before his death in a 2002 plane crash -- that helped him to win the pre-primary endorsenment of the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and the enthusiastic support of grassroots activists during a fast-paced campaign that began only after Sabo unexpectedly announced in March that he would not seek a new term.
"Nearly 2,600 Americans have been killed since the war began on March 19, 2003, and an the estimated 15,800 have been wounded. President Bush recently admitted to 30,000 Iraqi dead, but other estimates put the toll as high as 100,000," argued Ellison. "It is time to admit this war was a terrible mistake and bring our troops home as soon as possible."
The DFL candidate's supporters distributed "Bring Our Troops Home Now" literature throughout the Minneapolis-based district prior to the primary. In the leaflets, Ellison complained that Democrats had "allowed the Republicans to control the dialogue," and promised to "advocate for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq!"
Ellison's leading primary opponents took softer stands on the war issue, just as they did on domestic policy concerns. That allowed Ellison, a state representative, to stand out as not just as a Muslim but as a serious challenger to the status quo on health care -- he's a supporter of single-payer universal coverage -- and a host of other issues.
Ellison also departed from the political norm by targeting what his campaign referred to as "unlikely" primary voters, placing special emphasis on drawing people of color, gays and lesbians and war foes to the polls. In particular, the Ellison campaign focused on getting members of the burgeoning Somali community to vote -- a project to which Wellstone also devoted a great deal of time.
The ideas and the strategies worked. On a primary day that saw mixed results for anti-war candidates, Ellison easily beat a former DFL party chair backed by Sabo, a well-known former state senator and a member of the Minneapolis city council.
Ellison should have an even easier time in November in the overwhelmingly Democratic district. That puts Ellison, a convert to Islam, on track to become the first Muslim member of the Congress and the first African-American representative from Minnesota. It also suggests that Congress well hear an important new progressive voice come January.
There are plenty of anti-war Democrats running in today's primary elections in states across the country. There are even a few anti-war Republicans -- mostnotably Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. But few have done a better jobthan John Sarbanes, a frontrunner for an open U.S. House seat representingMaryland's 3rd District, of articulating the position that the oppositionparty should be taking with regard to George Bush's war.
While he asserts that, "It is long overdue for the Bush Administration toprovide Congress and the American people with a concrete plan for bringingour troops home," Sarbanes pulls no punches with regard to his own party.
"The Democratic leadership in Congress must take action immediately – thatmeans today – by petitioning the President to deliver to the appropriatecommittees in Congress within thirty days two proposed disengagement plansfor Iraq: one that would bring our troops home within six months; the otherthat would bring them home within twelve months," says Sarbanes, a lawyerwho is the son of retiring U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. "In making thisrequest, Democrats should make it clear that they will use all substantiveand procedural leverage available to them to force delivery of the plans,including resisting the President's budget priorities. As long as thePentagon and the Defense Department resist providing concrete scenarios fordisengaging our troops, it is impossible to evaluate the risks and benefitsof any particular course of action. The Bush Administration must get itshead out of the Iraqi sand and offer the American people a meaningful planfor bringing our troops home."
Bluntly rejecting the charge that supporters of a withdrawal timeline want to"cut-and-run," Sarbanes argues that a timeline is essential to getting theIraqis to stand up so that Americans can stand down. "Setting a timetablefor disengagement of our troops will send a clear message to the members ofthe Iraqi parliament, and will force them to make the compromises necessaryto govern, and that they must do so quickly," argues Sarbanes.
"Thatrequirement is inherent in our request that the Bush Administration delivera six-month and twelve-month disengagement proposal," he adds. "In the past threeyears, there have been three elections in Iraq. Despite this fact, theIraqis have yet to create a functional government. Although the Iraqiselected a parliament in January, the various ethnic groups within theparliament will have to make many difficult compromises in order toestablish a stable government that is responsive to the needs of the Iraqipeople. Their recent selection of a prime minister is a positivedevelopment, although we cannot overlook the fact that it took theparliament over four months to accomplish this task. The Iraqi parliamentmust exhibit a greater sense of urgency in standing up an effectivegovernment. Iraqi officials are less likely to do so if they believe thatU.S. troops are going to remain in Iraq in large numbers for the foreseeablefuture."
Sarbanes is not the only anti-war contender in the race to replace U.S.Representative Ben Cardin, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Maryland's open Senate seat. For instance, another leading contender, state Senator PaulaHollinger calls the war "a catastrophic failure" and promises to "hold theBush administration accountable for its actions." Complaining that, "inspite of the incompetence of the Bush administration, Congress continues todefer to the White House on the war," Hollinger pledges to call "forhearings to investigate the abuses of power perpetrated by the Bushadministration and for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
It is his determination to light a fire under own party thatdistinguishes Sarbanes. This year is likely to produce a number of new Democraticmembers of the House, and many of them will promise to challenge PresidentBush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. But anyonewho has watched Congress over the past five years understands that, beforethe Bush administration can be held accountable, the Democrats have todecide to operate as an opposition party. Only when Democrats have thewisdom and the courage to articulate a clear anti-war position will they begin to steer the debate in Washington. Sarbanes gets credit forrecognizing this.
Keep an eye on how he does today if you want a sense of whether a Democratic takeover of the House this fall will lead to a genuine course correction -- for the party and the country.
Keep an eye, as well, on some of the many other races where anti-warmessages are in play. Some of the most interesting of these include:
* The Maryland Senate race, where former NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume hasbeen far more aggressive in his opposition to the war than Cardin. Mfume's focus on the cost of the war is especially noteworthy. "The billions ofdollars being spent to wage this war continue to distort our priorities anddrain our economy of much needed resources," the former congressman argues. "We don't everseem to have the money that we need when it comes to driving down the costof health care or driving up the quality of our public schools, because weare throwing so much of it into this war."
* Maryland's 4th Congressional District, where veteran activist DonnaEdwards has come on strong at the close of her Democratic primary challengeto complacent incumbent Albert Wynn. With fresh endorsements from theWashington Post, the major newspaper in the district, and the region'sTeamsters, Edwards is clearly credible. And she is closing with a stronganti-war message in a race against a Democrat who she blisters for "castinghis lot with Bush and the Republicans on such critical issues as Iraq..."
* Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, where Democrat OlavMartin Sabo is retiring. Several of the candidates in the crowded Democraticprimary have articulated anti-war positions. Of the frontrunners, the mostaggressive is state Representative Keith Ellison, who says, "I am callingfor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the warbefore it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the onlycandidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."
* Arizona's 8th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Jim Kolbeis stepping down. The Democratic field is crowded and Jeff Latas lacks the funding and the name recognition of several of the other candidates. But the retired Air Force fighter pilot is a compelling contender. The recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals, and the father of an Iraq War vet, Latas says:
The Army sent my 19-year-old son to boot camp for three months, and thento truck driver school for two months, and then declared him fully trainedto risk his life for Iraq. Yet in 3 years, they have trained only one out of15 battalions of Iraqi soldiers to defend their own country.Something isn't right about that. It is time for us to leave Iraq to theIraqi people.
* Bringing the troops home as quickly as possible. The Murtha Plan is our bestoption. We need to reposition our forces out of Iraq, create a quickreaction force stationed nearby to deal with crises that will arise, and weneed to emphasize the use of diplomacy over the use of force.
* Recognizing that we should never have put ourselves in the position ofnation-building, but now that we have destroyed the previous governmentalstructure, we should shift responsibility for assisting the Iraqis from theDefense Department to the State Department, an agency far better equipped todeal with these tasks
* Regaining the trust of other nations with a goal of at least returning tothe state of confidence and good will that existed immediately after 9/11
* Working within the United Nations and NATO to build alliances to deal withcontinuing challenges in the Middle East, especially the immediate problemof how to deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability
* Insisting on separation of powers and the responsibility of Congress fordeclarations of war. Congress must never again give the President blanketauthority to go to do what he deems necessary and then be required toallocate funds to support troops that the President has sent to war.
Latas is one of a number of candidates in today's primaries who are endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, the party's most energetic anti-war pressure group. Others include: Arizona congressional candidates Herb Paine and Mike Caccioppoli and incumbent Raul Grijalva, a PDA advisory board member; New York congressional candidates John Hall and Chris Owens; and Rhode Island U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler. Maryland candidates Mfume and Edwards are also backed by PDA. While many of these contenders face tough races, none has taken on a more daunting task than PDA-endorsed candidate Jonathan Tasini.
Tasini's opponent in today's New York Democratic Senate primary, Hillary Clinton, has all the advantages of incumbency, celebrity and her vaunted fund-raising prowess. All Tasini has is his position on the war. "My position is a responsible one," says Tasini, "the troops must be brought home now. It is the best solution for our country and for Iraq. I reject the myths that have been promoted against proponents of withdrawal." Locked out of the debates and afforded scant coverage by the media, Tasini has still been a factor in forcing Clinton to moderate what had been a militantly pro-war stance. No matter what vote hegets today, his candidacy will has played a role in moving the Democratic Party toward the opposition position that it must assert if it is to gain the upper hand in this year's political debate and the Congress that will be chosen in November.
Senator Hillary Clinton's army of political aides, strategists and tacticians has spent an inordinate amount of time in recent months worrying about the Democratic primary challenge that their boss faces from anti-war candidate Jonathan Tasini. The Clintonites maneuvered mightily to keep Tasini out of the spotlight at the state Democratic convention in May. They did the same when the small but influential Working Families Party pondered its endorsement. They discouraged Democrats from supporting the petition drive that eventually got Tasini's name on Tuesday's Democratic primary ballot. And they made it clear that Clinton would not join any debate that included Tasini.
None of this is particularly inappropriate. Incumbents aren't usually inclined to aide their challengers. But the extra effort by the Clinton camp with regard to Tasini, a relatively unknown labor activist who got into the race without much money or many prominent backers, illustrates the extent to which the senator and her high-powered staff fear the main thing that Tasini has going for him: clear opposition to an unpopular war that Clinton has consistently backed.
On the eve of the primary, Clinton's team was still spinning against Tasini, spreading the word among Democrats and pundits that they did not expect--and certainly did not want--to see the challenger win more than a single-digit percentage of the vote.
In setting such a low bar for Tasini, however, the usually-savvy Clinton camp could be misjudging the depth of anti-war sentiment among the Democratic electorate, and the extent to which Tasini may have tapped into it.
It should probably come as no surprise that Progressive Democrats of America, the energetic national grassroots group that has had the guts to push the Democratic Party to back a timeline for Iraq withdrawal and to support moves to impeach President Bush, is backing Tasini's run.
PDA is all about pushing the envelope in a party not known for taking risks and thinking big. And PDA activists in New York--who have formed a half dozen chapters around the state -- well understand that the best way to get a message to Clinton before she starts campaigning for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. The same goes for the three New York State chapters of Democracy for America -- the group founded to maintain the spirit of Howard Dean's 2004 presidential run--that have endorsed Tasini.
Perhaps even more significant is the support that Tasini has earned from the "reform clubs" of New York City.
Among the groups backing Tasini in his campaign to hold Clinton to account in the September primary are the Village Independent Democrats, a reform political club with roots going backto the days when Eleanor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson were its allies andmentors in struggles to break the grip of Tammany Hall on New York Cityelections. Also backing Tasini are New York City Democratic clubs such asthe Downtown Independent Democrats, Brooklyn Democrats for Change, CentralBrooklyn Independent Democrats and the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, agroup named for a legendary gay rights activist that was formed to backDemocrats who are strong defenders of LGBT rights.
The Democratic Progressive Action Caucus of New York backs Tasini'senergetic-if-underfunded challenge to Clinton, as does the New YorkDemocratic Socialists of America chapter
Individual endorsements for Tasini, the former head of the National Writers Union, have come from prominent New Yorkprogressives such as author and social welfare specialist Frances Fox Pivenand actress Susan Sarandon, as well as national figures such as authorBarbara Ehrenreich and peace activist Cindy Sheehan.
Of course, endorsements don't elect candidates. But the support Tasini has garnered did build the base of volunteers needed to gather the more than 15,000 signatures needed to place his name on the primary ballot. And it has helped him maintain an energetic campaign against one of the most recognizable politicians on the planet.
That attention has reminded New York State Democrats that, on the fundamental issue of the 2006 electoral season--the question of whether to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq--Tasini is more in tune with them, and the American majority, than Clinton. The same goes for a host of other issues--from federal trade policy to gay rights--on which Clinton has disappointed liberals. As the primary approached, the Gay City News, a widely circulated weekly publication in New York City that is well regarded for its political commentary, editorialized that: "Clinton has ducked fair dialogue on where she stands on the most pressing foreign policy question facing the nation. Just because she can get away with it does not make it the right thing to do. Clinton has also bobbed and weaved this year on gay rights. Activists have pressed her on her opposition to gay marriage--and come away disappointed that she did not even speak out on the dignity of gay families on the Senate floor when Congress debated the ugly Marriage Protection Amendment." The editorial concluded: "Hillary Rodham Clinton needs a wake-up call. Help Jonathan Tasini place that call."
Clearly conscious of the need to more closely identify herself with the anti-war sentiment that prevails at the party's grassroots, Clinton has in recent months made moves to alter her image as a Bush administration fellow traveler--primarily by lambasting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but also by backing Connecticut Democrat Ned Lamont in his fall race against pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman. The fact remains, however, that Clinton continues to side with the White House in debates about withdrawal. As recently as June, the incumbent opposed a Senate proposal by Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold and Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry to set a timeline for bringing the troops home, although Clinton did back a milder call for the administration to discuss exit strategies with the Congress.
To the extent that Clinton has edged off her militantly pro-war position, Tasini deserves a good deal of credit. Even if she does not fear a primary defeat, all indications are that Clinton fears the prospect that Tasini will garner a credible vote.
You will not find any pundits seriously suggesting that Tasini's fervent anti-war stance--as well as his more-liberal-than-Clinton positions on a host of other issues--will be enough to win him the nomination Tuesday. But there should be a reasonable measure of enthusiasm among savvy primary voters for the challenger's "Vote for What You Believe In" message. Pollster John Zogby, who got his start in New York State, told reporters several months ago that he thought a properly-framed and financed anti-warcandidacy could take more than a third of the primary vote against Clinton."There is real palpable anger against Hillary for her stance on the war andfor the fact that she is not backing down," Zogby said. "It'sconceivable that an anti-war candidate could still get to the mid- tohigh-30s against her."
Tasini has framed his campaign properly. He has not had the necessary financing. But his energetic and creative campaign, as well as support from Progressive Democrats of America and reform clubs in New York, none of which make endorsement decisions casually, ought to count for something more than a single-digit finish. And if it does, then by the standard the Clinton campaign has set, Jonathan Tasini will have done a commendable job of delivering the anti-war message of his brave and necessary campaign.
Primary elections always matter. But some primary elections matter more than others; indeed, some primary elections define the character not just of a particular official's term, or even of a legislative or congressional session, but of the nation's politics for years to come.
Residents of the state of Wisconsin, where my family has resided for seven generations, know this better than the citizens of most states. Sixty years ago this month, Republican primary voters turned out one of the greatest senators in the history of the United States, Robert M. La Follette Jr., and replaced him with one of the lousiest excuses for an elected leader this country has ever produced, Joe McCarthy.
The Wisconsin Republican Senate primary of 1946 set the wheels in motion for the Red Scare of the 1950s, to which McCarthy lent his name and his sordid tactics. It is true that Richard Nixon and others would have ginned up some sort of anti-communist propaganda campaign, but it is doubtful that it would ever have done the damage to civil liberties and public life that McCarthy achieved with his unparalleled lies and cruelty.
That Republican primary also began the long descent of the Grand Old Party, which had once laid a far stronger claim than the Democratic Party to the progressive mantle, into the pit of petty bigotry, reaction and neoconservative fantasy that now defines it.
La Follette lost by only 5,000 votes in August, 1946, but the margin did not matter. With the defeat of the maverick senator, who had supported extension of Roosevelt's New Deal at home while wisely questioning schemes for post-World War II military adventures abroad, the era of the old-school Midwestern progressivism came to a close. And American politics entered a dramatically uglier and more irrational period from which it has yet to fully emerge.
If anyone doubts this, consider the recent editorial attack on Ned Lamont, the mainstream liberal who defeated U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 Democratic primary, by the conservative Waterbury Republican-American newspaper.
Entitled "Ned Lamont's True Colors," the Sunday editorial in one of Connecticut's larger daily newspapers was classic McCarthyism. "Red Ned may label himself a progressive, but when he espouses goals shared by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al., he gives away his true color," wrote the paper's editors of Lamont, a successful businessman who espouses views no more radical than those of U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and dozens of other House and Senate members including a few anti-war Republicans.
The newspaper alleged that "(Lamont) has surrounded himself with people who may be characterized fairly as dedicated socialists and borderline communists," when in fact Lamont's primary supporters were grass-roots Democrats who were frustrated with Lieberman's allegiance to the Bush administration's failed foreign policy.
The Republican-American editorial also claimed that "liberal journalists adore (Lamont) because they share his world view on abortion, homosexual marriage, universal health care, racial quotas, loopy environmentalism and especially the war against Islamic terrorism. They are blood brothers, or more accurately, fellow travelers. Just as journalism has become a hornet's nest of socialism (communism not yet perfected), if you shake Lamont's family tree, a lot of Red apples will fall."
Spouting innuendo and inaccuracy with abandon, the newspaper sought to claim that Lamont's blue-blood family including J.P. Morgan's partner, Thomas Lamont, and civil libertarian Corliss Lamont was nothing less than Stalin's fifth column in the United States. The paper conveniently forgot to mention that Corliss Lamont, though certainly a man of the left, authored a much-noted tract titled "Why I Am Not a Communist."
While the Republican-American may be guilty of lax journalism, the real shame belongs to Lieberman's independent campaign, which has spread the Waterbury paper's fantastic claims. The senator's communications director even quoted the editorial in a widely circulated statement on the race.
With the help of the Waterbury Republican-American, Joe Lieberman is keeping alive the politics of another Joe: the one named McCarthy. And in so doing, Lieberman's proving that the shock waves from a primary election in the summer of 1946 are still being felt in this summer of another primary election that has dislodged another senior senator.
When Russ Feingold first argued that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was in clear violation of federal law and the spirit of the Constitution, and that the Senate must censure the president for his wrongdoing, the maverick senator was condemned by the White House, ridiculed by Republicans and given the cold shoulder by most Democrats.
But, now, the Wisconsin Democrat who in March proposed that the Senate censure Bush for flagrantly disregarding the law has a federal judge on his side. And the question becomes: When will Democratic and Republican members of the Senate join Feingold in demanding that the administration be held to account for its assaults on basic liberties and the rule of law?
Ruling on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who expressed concern that the National Security Agency's spying initiative had made it difficult for them to develop and maintain legitimate international contacts and professional relationships, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit determined Thuesday that the warrantless wiretapping scheme is unconstitutional and ordered its immediate halt.
Holding that the spying program that was authorized and defended by President Bush violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion that: "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution."
The decision by Judge Taylor offers vindication for Feingold, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, who has argued since the NSA wiretapping was exposed last year that the president had dramatically overstepped his powers in authorizing the program.
"Today's district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program," Feingold said on Thursday. "The President must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so. The administration went too far with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Today's federal court decision is an important step toward checking the President's power grab."
The key words in that statement are "an important step." The ruling by Judge Taylor, while significant, does not mark the end of this fight.
This administration will continue to battle judicial efforts to require the president to follow the law.
Ultimately, the job of demanding accountability will fall to the Senate.
At this point, Feingold has only a handful of Senate allies. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and California Democrat Barbara Boxer have been with the Wisconsinite since he proposed censure in March. In May, Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry signed on. But most Democrats, including New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, have refused to embrace the proposal.
With the courts stepping in, the time for Democrats and responsible Republicans to step up is now. A failure by senators to respect their duty to check and balance a lawless president makes those disengaged legislators as much a part of the problem as an abusive executive.
At the beginning of what is shaping up as America's summer of discontent, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" for a discussion about his opposition to the war in Iraq and the prospect that he might seek the presidency in 2008 as the candidate of Democrats who want their party to propose a dramatic departure from Bush administration foreign and domestic policies.
The program's host, Tim Russert, asked Feingold: "When will you decide whether you're running?"
"I'm going to look at this, Tim, after the elections in 2006," replied the maverick senator from Wisconsin. "I need to look at what happens in the congressional races -- how are the ideas I've been presenting resonating with the American people -- and decide whether this is something that makes sense or whether it's better for me to remain in the United States Senate."
On August 8, months before the point in November when all the 2006 results will be known, Feingold has gotten a strong and positive signal about how the ideas he's been presenting are resonating.
Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont's Connecticut Democratic primary win over pro-war incumbent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman Tuesday was a clear victory for the activist wing of the Democratic Party that -- if liberal Internet blogs are to be believed -- sees Feingold as perhaps its most attractive contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.
On the morning after the Connecticut results came in, Feingold notes, a former staffer told him, "Hey, if you were looking for an excuse to not run for president, Russ, you didn't get it last night."
Feingold, whose Progressive Patriots Fund political action committee dispatched a check for $5000 to the Lamont campaign on Wednesday, describes the primary win by the anti-war challenger as "an affirmation of something much larger than Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont."
The message to Democratic leaders who are still uncertain about whether to aggressively oppose the war, said Feingold, was beyond debate: "You are simply not listening if you don't know that the American people have had it with this mistake and want it to end."
Feingold's not just jumping on the Lamont bandwagon.
The Wisconsin Democrat was the first member of the party's Senate caucus to speak favorably about the primary challenge by anti-war businessman Lamont to Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who has been the party's most high-profile supporter of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration foreign policies that Feingold has so vehemently opposed.
Back in June, when he spoke to Russert, Feingold pointedly refused to endorse Lieberman for re-election, splitting with most other Senate Democrats and most of the party's Washington establishment. While he did not endorse officially endorse the challenger, the Wisconsin senator said, "I think Ned Lamont's positions on the issues are much closer to mine on the critical issues."
Now that Lamont has defeated Lieberman, Feingold has an indication that his ideas are resonating with Democratic voters -- and candidates.
In fact, Lamont cites Feingold as an inspiration and says he would side with the senator on many matters, including a controversial move to censure President Bush for authorizing the controversial warrantless wiretapping program from which most Democratic senators have distanced themselves.
For his part, Feingold says that Lieberman's "extreme support of this ... obviously mistaken (Iraq war) policy that has hurt so many Americans has put him in political jeopardy."
The Wisconsinite also argues that the Lamont victory sends a signal that Democrats can oppose the war and still be seen as friends and supporters of the troops, a theme Lamont echoed in his victory speech Tuesday night when he said: "We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in a bloody civil war in Iraq and I say its time to bring them home to a hero's welcome."
It is not difficult to imagine Feingold borrowing that line from Lamont as he heads out on the presidential campaign trail, just as the Connecticut candidate borrowed themes from the Wisconsin senator. The Connecticut results are only a piece of the puzzle for Feingold, who has taken steps to build the organization needed to mount a presidential run and has traveled frequently to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early caucus and primary states in recent months.
But it's a significant piece. Lamont's win appears to indicate that the Wisconsin senator's unapologetic progressive positions -- a "Bring the Troops Home" stance on the war, strong support for civil liberties at home, opposition to Bush administration trade and economic policies -- have far more appeal among grass-roots Democrats than they do with the party's Washington elites.
Feingold has long complained that congressional Democrats who fail to support calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq are out of touch not just with their own party but with the country.
"Those who vote against bringing the troops home don't get it. They're not out there enough. They're not listening to the people. Frankly, they're not even looking at the polls," says the senator.
"I have been all over Wisconsin, all 72 counties, to 12 different states. I can tell you, the one thing I'm sure of [is that] the American people have had it with this intervention. They do want a timetable for bringing home the troops."
That message would likely be at the heart of a Feingold presidential campaign, along with the senator's suggestion that Democrats need to be bolder in their opposition to Republican policies.
"We lost in 2000, we lost in 2002, we lost in 2004," says Feingold. "Why don't we try something different, like listening to the American people?"
Connecticut voters echoed that theme on Tuesday. But in so doing, they may have complicated things for Feingold. The one thing that could trip up the Wisconsin senator's leap onto the national stage could be the fact that a number of other Democratic presidential prospects also seem to be getting the message from Connecticut.
Massachusetts U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who frustrated many Democrats with his tepid stance on the war as the party's 2004 presidential nominee, this year co-sponsored Feingold's call for a withdrawal timeline. Though Kerry and Feingold are working together on the Senate floor, there is a strong sense among political observers that the Massachusetts senator is trying to occupy the political high ground that Feingold previously had pretty much had to himself.
Former North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee and an all-but-announced 2008 contender, has publicly apologized for voting in 2002 to authorize Bush to attack Iraq. Edwards as well, has been taking Feingold-like stands on a host of issues. This coming week, he will campaign in Connecticut with Lamont.
Even New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner in 2008, has begun to back off her pro-war position, which until recently was only slightly less strident than Lieberman's.
Clinton did not vote for the June Senate resolution that Feingold and Kerry proposed to establish a withdrawal timeline, but she did back a milder resolution sponsored by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin and Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed that prodded the Bush administration to begin taking steps to draw down the troop presence in Iraq.
Last week, as the Connecticut primary approached, Clinton engaged in uncharacteristically aggressive questioning of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during a Senate hearing.
Though she and most other top Democrats backed Lieberman in the primary, Clinton distanced herself from the incumbent in July after he announced that if he lost the Democratic nomination he would campaign in November as an independent.
Clinton said she would back the winner of the primary, in a move that effectively shut down talk that Washington Democrats might stick with Lieberman even if he was rejected by the Democratic voters of Connecticut. On the Wednesday after the primary, she made good on her pledge by warmly endorsing Lamont, as did most other Democratic party leaders.
Like many of her other recent moves, Clinton's declaration of party loyalty was an indication that she and other Washington Democrats are increasingly aware -- and perhaps even respectful -- of the anti-war ferment at the party's grassroots. With an anti-war Democratic primary challenger of her own, labor activist Jonathan Tasini, Clinton does not want to end up in Lieberman's position. Nor does she want to cede too much political ground to Feingold.
After all, while Clinton is the clear leader in most early polls, a New Republic cover of some months ago pictured the New York senator as a sword-swinging Goliath. Feingold was also pictured ... as slingshot-wielding David.
Now that Connecticut Democrats have rejected a Democratic senator who backed the war in much the same language that Clinton has, the anti-war David of the Democratic Party is surely standing a little taller -- and feeling a little more confident as he considers a presidential run.
George Bush is vacationing in Texas, and members of Congress – with the notable exception of Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, Ohio Democratic Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur and a handful of others – have taken the president's exit from Washington as an excuse to put any concerns regarding the crisis in the Middle East on hold until the dog days of August have passed.
Not so in Britain, where members of Parliament take more seriously there responsibility to consider what is being done in their name but without their informed consent.
With British Prime Minister Tony Blair following President Bush's "look-the-other-way" lead regarding Israel's continued bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon – with the death toll now hovering around 1,000, and the dislocation of more than 900,000 men, women and children – in a conflict that has also seen dozens of Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks, leading members of Blair's own Labour party have joined with opposition legislators to demand the recall of Parliament to consider steps Britain could take to stop the killing.
Instead of putting their consciences on hold until the end of August – presumably waiting for the agonizingly slow United Nation deliberations to come up with a plan that will not be implemented until a lot more Lebanese and Israelis die -- more than 150 members of Parliament from across the political spectrum in Britain have signed a call to convene the House of Commons in an effort to promote an immediate ceasefire.
Writing to Commons leader Jack Straw – who last month criticized Blair for failing to condemn Israel's "disproportionate" use of force against civilian targets in Lebanon – the parliamentarians asked that Parliament be brought into session, and into the debate.
"There is huge concern in the country about the current Middle East crisis, and fear that the [Blair government's] early failure to insist that Israel and Hezbollah observe an immediate ceasefire has cost many innocent lives and may continue to do so," they members of Parliament wrote. "In addition, the use by US supply aircraft to refuel at Prestwick airport when transporting bombs and military hardware to be used by the Israel Defence Force in air-raids on densely populated civilian areas has given the impression that the UK has assumed a tacitly active and less than impartial role in the conflict."
Noting polls showing that 70 percent of Brits favor an immediate ceasefire, the letter argued that, "Given the massive concern in the country about these matters, we believe that it is right to allow the Commons to meet in order that the government's strategy can be fully discussed. Parliament is seriously hamstrung at times of crisis by the fact that only the government can recall parliament. It should be noted that 202 cross-party members of parliament have signed a petition calling for an immediate ceasefire.
"In light of the seriousness of current events and the overwhelming parliamentary and public interest in them, I urge you to give the utmost consideration to this letter. It is absolutely vital to the quality of democracy in the United Kingdom that elected representatives voice the concerns of our constituents at such a crucial time."
Here's a thought: If it is vital to democracy in the United Kingdom that legislators address the Middle East crisis, might it not also be vital to democracy in the United States that our Congress do the same thing? Or would that interrupt all the official vacationing?
For whom does the bellwether toll? It tolls for thee, Joe Lieberman – and, more importantly, for the neoconservative vision that you embraced more passionately than other Democrats and most Republicans.
Lieberman, a three-term incumbent whose defenses of the Iraq War and enthusiasm for a fight with Iran made him the Bush administration's favorite Democrat, lost to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont by a solid margin in Tuesday's Connecticut Senate primary.
With most of the votes counted, Lamont was leading by a 52-48 margin, a result that just a few months ago would have been unimaginable.
The Connecticut voting offered a classic bellwether contest. On one side of the Democratic primary ballot was Lieberman, a three-term incumbent who had aligned himself with the Bush administration in support of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. On the other side was Lamont, the previously unknown challenger who surfed a wave of resentment against the neoconservative nightmare that has gotten the United States bogged down in Iraq, rendered it diplomatically dysfunctional in the Middle East and created more global resentment toward America than at any time in the nation's history.
As such, the Connecticut contest was always about more than one senator and one state. And in the end, with massive media scrutiny and the frenzied attention of political players from across the country, the primary became what former Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker described on primary night as "a referendum on the Iraq war – not just for Connecticut but for the whole country."
At the very least, the Connecticut primary became a referendum on how the Democratic Party ought to respond to a war that it has often questioned but never effectively opposed.
If Connecticut said "no" Lieberman and the war, Lamont supporters in the state and beyond its borders argued during the course of the primary campaign, party leaders might finally be forced to develop a coherent opposition message. And if Democrats developed a spine, the reasoning went, the warped politics of a nation that has been manipulated for the better part of a decade by the fearmongering of White House political czar Karl Rove might finally take a turn away from the madness of a latter-day King George.
"A lot of people around the country are looking to Connecticut to see what course they want for this country," Lamont said as his state began voting Tuesday in the most closely watched U.S. Senate primary the nation has witnessed in decades.
What the country saw was a win for an anti-war candidate over one of the most prominent war supporters in the Senate. It was not so conclusive a win as some Lamont backers had hoped for. The final result was close enough for Lieberman to find encouragement for his planned independent run, setting up a three-way November contest between Democrat Lamont, Republican Alan Schlesinger and the sole candidate of the senator's "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.
If the primary offers any indication, that November contest will be an intense one. And, while many analysts still try to portray Lieberman as the frontrunner, the reality is that Lamont's star is on the rise. And he is on the right side of the issue that polls identify as the biggest concern of Connecticut voters: the war in Iraq.
Make no mistake, Lamont's victory was a breakthrough win for the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. With a candidate who had no name recognition in January, anti-war Democrats displaced an 18-year incumbent senator who in 2000 was the party's nominee for vice president and who in 2004 mounted a campaign for the party's presidential nomination.
How did Lamont succeed where others – including 2004 presidential contender and current Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean -- failed? Not by simply expressing opposition to the war, nor even by expressing frustration with Lieberman's refusal to question even the most misguided of Bush administration foreign policies.
Lamont won by doing something most national Democrats have failed to do over the past several election cycles. He put the war in perspective, telling voters that the $250 million a day that is shifted from the U.S. Treasury into a failed fight in Iraq and the deep pockets of defense contractors like Halliburton could be better used to pay for education and health care at home and smart foreign aid programs abroad.
The Lamont message was always a far more sophisticated one than most of the national media coverage of the campaign suggested. The challenger rarely spoke just about Iraq, but instead invited voters to join in a broader discussion of foreign policy, American interests and American values. And he never allowed the war debate to be isolated from the debate about how an America that was not bogged down in Iraq might better spend its resources.
Mocking the rhetoric of the Bush administration and Lieberman regarding Iraq, Lamont said on Tuesday night: "Stay the course -- that's not a winning strategy in Iraq and it's not a winning strategy for America." He meant what he was saying. Just as Lamont wants to "[fix] George Bush's failed foreign policy," he also wants to fix failed domestic policies that have produced what he correctly refers to as a "broken" health care system and an education system that leaves too many children behind. And he recognizes the linkages between failures abroad and failures at home.
Connecticut Democrats rewarded that recognition by handing the Senate nomination to Lamont in a historic primary vote.
National Democratic party leaders and strategists, who have had such a hard time figuring out their message going into this fall's House and Senate elections, would be wise to take a lesson from the campaign that Ned Lamont waged, and the result it produced.