Music fans know John Hall as the lead guitarist for Orleans and songwriter of hit singles like Still the One, Dancin' in the Moonlight, and Dance With Me. Activists know him as the musician who organized No Nuke concerts and released the song Power, an ode to alternative energy, just three weeks before the Three Mile Island meltdown. His fellow-citizens in upstate New York know him as a member of the Ulster County Legislature, and president of the Saugerties Board of Education. And, now, it looks like Americans might soon know this great musician and good man as Congressman John Hall (D-NY).
Hall is poised to unseat an incumbent previously thought to be invincible, Rep. Sue Kelly of the 19th District. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[Kelly] took 67 percent of the vote two years ago and has exceeded 60 percent in every election since 1998." That's why risk-averse, inside-the-Beltway Dems initially lined up behind Judy Aydelott, a lawyer and one-time Republican who they felt would appeal to the electorate as a moderate. But longtime activist Hall believed he could take his message directly to the people. And he did. He hired Amy Little, a 30-year veteran organizer on social justice issues, as his Campaign Director. (Little's career past includes raising over $30 million for Citizen Action groups and labor coalitions across the country, and serving as a National Field Director for GOTV and voter registration in 2004.) Since taking the helm of the Hall campaign, she has built a gutsy and effective grassroots organization.
Hall has a simple yet powerful message that resonates with voters. He told The Ostroy Report, "The biggest issue of the days are ending the war in Iraq, achieving universal health care with an affordable prescription drug plan and finding safe, clean, renewable solutions to our energy needs." On why he's running Hall says, "The situation in the nation and the world is at such a crucial juncture, and the stakes are so high. Right now, there are no checks and balances. I want to be a voice for creativity and honesty in solving our problems. I want to be proud, not just of our country but of our government."
The emphasis on a grassroots field operation has produced terrific results. On primary day the campaign had 400 people in the field and voting numbers were up 100 percent from the previous election. Hall defeated Aydelott by nearly 2:1, and received 49 percent of the vote in a 4-way race. The field team has now grown to 1,200 people, and it seems Hall – who flew under the radar for so long – may turn out to be the perfect stealth candidate to unseat Kelly.
Sadly, instead of celebrating Hall's ability to connect with the voters – not to mention his down-to-earth manner (see his spirited appearance on the Colbert Report) – big ticket Dems are still shying away from Hall's progressive credentials. One sign of that – 85 percent of Halls' fundraising comes from individuals contributing $200 or less.
Meanwhile, Kelly has done nothing to endear herself to the voters. Questions have arisen over her role in the Foley scandal (which broke on her 70th birthday) since she was Chair of the Page Board from 1999 to 2001. She lost her cool at an editorial board meeting when it was brought up; she literally ran away from reporters who wanted to talk to her; and she has defended and supported the Bush administration ad nauseam while building a voting record voters will love – if they love Tom DeLay!
On Sunday, the New York Times endorsed Hall as "a lawmaker of energy, steady conviction and clear principles" with an "ambitious and coherent" platform. He's also collected the endorsement of the Times Herald-Record (which has endorsed Kelly in the past). This week he will announce the Sierra Club's backing and he is heavily supported by labor.
While Kelly still has the typical big bucks of a Republican incumbent – and no one should underestimate the work that remains – the humanpower supplied by a unique coalition of labor and environmental activists could prove to be the difference on Election Day. If so, a lot of happy progressives will be dancing in the moonlight come November 7.
This morning at a briefing on the congressional elections, an event that featured former Representatives Dick Armey, Jennifer Dunn, and Dick Gephardt and that was sponsored by a Washington law firm, political analyst Charlie Cook--an independent handicapper trusted by Ds and Rs--offered good news for the Democrats. He compared 2006 to 1994, the year when Republicans shockingly seized control of both houses of Congress, netting a whopping 52 House seats. Cook noted that in October 1994, 39 percent of Americans said they believed the country was heading in the right direction and 48 percent thought it was on the wrong track. Now the right direction/wrong track numbers are far more negative: 26 percent to 61 percent. In October 1994, President Bill Clinton's approval rating was 48 percent. These days, President George W. Bush is about 38 percent. The approval rating for Congress in 1994 was 24 percent (with 67 percent disapproving). Today, it's lower: 16 percent (with 75 percent giving Congress a thumb's down). In 1994, Republicans had a 6 point lead in polls asking respondents to say whether they preferred a GOP or Democratic candidate. Now the Democrats have a 15 point edge. But when asked if their own member of Congress deserved reelection, 49 percent in 1994 said no; now only 45 percent say no. (In both years, 39 percent said boot the bum out.)
The bottom-line: out of five key indicators of the national politicalmood, four are significantly worse for the Republicans in 2006 compared to the Democrats in 1994. As Cook put it, the 2006 political wave (at this moment) is bigger than that of 1994. But that does not mean the Dems are going to win as many seats as the GOPers did twelve years ago. Gephardt cautioned that congressional districts are far more gerrymandered these days than they were in 1994 (which means fewer are in play) and that Republicans have had a year to prepare for this election and build a wall to hold back the coming storm. In 1994, he said, the Democrats were taken by complete surprise. And Dunn--perhaps trying to convince herself--maintained that her party had plenty of money to dump into the limited number of House contests up for grab and would be able to prevent the Democrats from picking up more than a dozen House seats. The Democrats need 15 seats to obtain control of the House.
Still, Cook, who attributes 70 percent of the electorate's sour mood to Bush's war in Iraq, was predicting a Democratic gain in the House of at least 20 seats and perhaps 35. As for the Senate, Cook described it as a toss-up, with control of that body resting on what will happen in Missouri, Virginia, Tennessee, and New Jersey. The Democrats, according to Cook, probably will need three of these four races to win the Senate. He warned that there is a fair bit of "volatility" within the electorate and that it is nearly impossible to predict what will happen by adding up outcomes in individual House races. In 1994, he recalled, he and other trackers foresaw a GOP gain of 20 to 30 House seats--but nothing like what happened. "When there is a wave," Cook said, "they always go bigger than you expect."
Democrats, who have not done much to shape the current political dynamic, can hope so. For nail-biters, the immediate questions are obvious. Can Bush and Karl Rove do anything in the last two weeks of the campaign to change the weather? There's not much time left for an October Surprise. Can they pull off a November Surprise? If not and the forecast doesn't shift, can the Republicans construct fortifications to beat back the wave in just enough spots to keep their majority afloat in Congress? Cook thinks not. I'm not going to be as gutsy and make any predictions except this: Rove is either about to meet his Waterloo or to confirm his reputation as an odds-defying political genius.
It's always gratifying to know you got something right. At this pre-election briefing, I conducted interviews with top-dog Washingtonians (former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Armey and Dunn) for the Pajamas Media website, and I had the chance to talk to Armey about Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff. In the book, we chronicle how Armey first objected to the idea of going to war in Iraq, questioning the necessity of such an action and telling President Bush an invasion would lead to a quagmire. But after Dick Cheney pressured Armey, the Texan relented and voted in October 2002 to give President Bush the authority to launch a war against Iraq. In the book, we quote Armey saying he regretted that vote. So this morning I asked Armey if we portrayed his story accurately. Yes, he said: "I still think it's one of the worst votes I made." The Republican Party, he added, might deserve to lose the coming elections for having made the wrong call on Iraq.
FOR INFORMATION ON HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, click here. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.
Democrats have a money problem. The Republican National Committee has three times as much money to spend on key races as the Democratic National Committee does. The Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees are doing better, but Republicans overall still have $10 million more available to dump on last-minute attack ads and get-out-the-vote programs.
Luckily, there's a short-term fix. Seventy House Democrats who are running for re-election against weak or non-existent opponents are sitting on $50 million in campaign cash. Netroots groups, such as the blog MyDD.com and MoveOn.Org, are asking these protected Democrats to give 30 percent of that money to Democratic challengers or the party committees.
Of course, the best long-term solution would be to get money out of politics by supporting clean elections. Yet under our current system, the "Use It or Lose It" plan should help Democrats make do.
The facts are so stark, even American military commanders are nowspeaking openly about an approaching climax for our bloody misadventure in Iraq. "To Stand orFall in Baghdad," the New York Times headline declared thismorning. A show-down is here, the generals acknowledge. There are nomore back-up strategies.
Learned policy experts from all sides are now debating the variousalternatives for an exit plan. Preferably with honor, they hope, butgetting out is becoming unavoidable, regardless. They would like todream up a some sort of fig leaf that gives cover to our failed warriorpresident. Not that he deserves one, but they want a plan will encourageBush--finally--to accept reality.
Who is being left out of this momentous discussion? The Iraqi people,whom we were allegedly teaching how to become small-d democrats. Bushrelentlessly touted "democracy" as his true goal. He cited the threeIraqi elections as proof that he was succeeding.
So let's have one more election in Iraq--a referendum where the Iraqipeople get to decide whether America's armed forces withdraw and when.
This ingenious proposal comes from Harold Davis, an attorney in Douglas,Mass., whose letter to theeditor appeared in Saturday's Boston Globe and spelled outthe logic. "Let's put our Iraq withdrawal to a vote--an Iraqi vote,"Davis declared.
His proposition is sincere, but also cleverly hoists Bush on his ownbloated rhetoric. "If the principles hold true," Davis says, " shouldn'tthe Iraqi people hold the fate of their country in their hands?" Hisletter provided sample wording for the ballot initiative.
Voters in Iraq would be asked to choose one of the following options:
1. I ask that all coalition forces be withdrawn within six months ofthe date of this referendum.
2. I ask that all coalition forces be withdrawn within one year of thedate of this referendum.
3. I ask that the government of Iraq determine some time in the futurewhen all coalition forces should be withdrawn."
That sounds reasonable enough, but recent polls suggest Iraqis (if they could getto the polls without being killed) would vote for immediate USwithdrawal.
Will the dwindling ranks of war enthusiasts in Washington rally aroundHarold Davis's call for Iraqi self-determination? Or does the WhiteHouse fear that a free election on war and peace would be pushing thisdemocracy talk a bit too far?
The state of South Dakota is the epicenter of efforts to turn back the clock on reproductive rights this election season.
Earlier this year the state's legislature passed an abortion ban so restrictive, as Kate Michelman writes in a new Nation online piece, that it makes even pre-Roe v. Wade laws seem enlightened. The law provides no exceptions: not for rape, not for incest, not in cases of severe fetal abnormality, not to protect the mother's health. Doctors can be charged with a felony and be sentenced to five years in prison for violating any of the bill's provisions.
Here's what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says about HB 1215: It is "not based on science, strips women of their legal rights, and criminalizes essential aspects of women's health care. The intervention of the legislature into medical-decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous."
Fortunately that message is coming through loud and clear to many South Dakotans, and following the legislation's passage, a coalition of feminist, reproductive-rights and civil-liberties groups formed the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families (SDCHF) to ask that voters repeal the ban through a referendum on the November ballot. As Rebecca Claren explains on Alternet, "in just nine and a half weeks, more than 1,200 volunteers gathered over 38,000 signatures--double the number needed--from every county in the state." Nonetheless, the contest is extremely tight. The latest Zogby poll shows a statistical dead heat.
The anti-choice forces have their act together. VoteYesForLife.com, the organization fighting to retain the ban, says it has thousands of volunteers planting lawn signs, staffing phone banks and holding house parties. The SDCHF is working overtime to counter these efforts. In the next few days, the group is putting out a series of new TV ads statewide elucidating the bill's draconian provisions. Watch the ads. Then click here to contribute $10, $25 or $50 to help keep them on the air in South Dakota over the next two weeks. In this contest, every little bit really does count.
The stakes are high. According to a 2004 survey by the Center for Reproductive Rights, abortion could quickly become illegal in as many as 30 states if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Where does your state rate?
The twenty-one states that are seen as being at high risk for banning abortion are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The nine states considered to be at medium risk are Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
The twenty states estimated to be at low risk are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Barack Obama is running for President. Or at least seriously, seriously, thinking about it.
He conceded as much on Meet the Press yesterday. "I don't want to be coy about this," Obama told Tim Russert, "Given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility, but I have not thought about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required."
A pretty frank admission, after months (or years) of flattering media coverage. But why hint at a possible candidacy now, in advance of the midterm elections? Is he just trying to sell his new book, The Audacity of Hope? Or is there another possibility: Obama's hoping to push Hillary Clinton out of the race. Also on Meet the Press, Wall Street Journal reporter John Harwood said a former top Clinton Administration aide told him Obama would run and Hillary wouldn't.
If they both run, the election becomes Obama versus Hillary and then everyone else. If Hillary doesn't run, it's Obama versus everyone else.
Is the Democratic primary big enough for an Obama and two Clintons?
In these critical midterm elections – with so much on the line – a disastrous war in Iraq; the continuing erosion of our bedrock rights and liberties; and deepening economic inequality…. the great singer and activist Pete Seeger has written a powerful letter on behalf of the Working Families Party (WFP) and its slate of candidates on the ballot in New York.
The WFP aims to send a strong antiwar message to the politicians, and it has updated and re-recorded Seeger's Vietnam-era classic, Bring 'em Home as part of its "Bring Them Home" campaign.
In his letter Seeger writes, "Here in New York, voting on the Working Families line is the best way to tell the politicians, bring them home, bring them home." Seeger quotes a key verse of his song to capture the spirit of the WFP message: "the world needs teachers, books and schools … And learning a few universal rules."
In addition to ending the war, the WFP agenda calls for universal healthcare, affordable housing, a living wage and closing the income gap through progressive taxation. The WFP claims an organized and diverse bloc of voters committed to economic populism, and it uses its electoral power to push major-party politicians to follow its agenda. Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Eliot Spitzer, solicited Working Families as his first endorsement.
There are eight states in the nation that allow "fusion" voting (where a candidate can appear on the ballot as the nominee for more than one party), and Spitzer will be listed separately as the nominee of both Democrats and the WFP--as will Senator Hillary Clinton. (For those who believe the WFP should have stayed neutral in the Clinton race--or, better, endorsed her opponent Jonathan Tasini--just vote for Spitzer and WFP candidates in down ballot races.) By pulling the lever for the WFP (Row E on the ballot), voters can support a candidate while also making a clear statement that the WFP and its antiwar stance represent their values.
"When you vote on the Working Families Party line, your vote carries a distinctive message. Start bringing American men and women serving in Iraq back home. Right now," said WFP Executive Director, Dan Cantor.
With Spitzer far ahead in the polls, and real and justified disappointment among progressives about Clinton's position on the war, there is a concern that New York's voter turnout might be low. But for those committed to ending this war, and sending that message loud and clear to Clinton and her fellow-Democrats – show up for this election and vote for Spitzer and WFP candidates in down ballot races.
As Seeger reminds in the close of his inspiring letter, "Our votes do count. And if we vote to bring the troops home, they count even more."
On Friday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Inspector General's audit of a secret Pentagon Iraqi propaganda program contracted to the Lincoln Group (which calls itself "a strategic communications & pubic relations firm providing insight & influence in challenging & hostile environments") had cleared the Pentagon of violating laws or its own regulations So challenging and hostile was the Iraqi environment, it seems, that the Lincoln Group spent its time using U.S. military personnel to create good "news" stories, having them translated into Arabic, and then secretly paying bribes to members of the newly "free" Iraqi media to publish them as Iraqi-generated news reports.
According to a brief summary of the investigation released by the Inspector General's office, "Psychological operations are planned to convey selected, truthful information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of Psychological Operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to U.S. objectives."
Get that mouthful? Now, all you have to do is translate it into Arabic and bribe an Iraqi news editor to publish it. Think of your goal as messing up a few more Iraqi minds when it comes to "objective reasoning."
The New York Times, which saw some of the other unclassified documents in the investigation, summarized the clearing of the Pentagon of illegal activity this way: "The report said that the secret program, run by the military in conjunction with the Lincoln Group, a Washington contractor, was lawful and that it did not constitute a ‘covert action' designed to influence the internal political conditions of another country."
Now, to a normal human being, a secret Pentagon operation to produce propaganda pieces--call it "selected, truthful information," if you wish--and slip them into the Iraqi press for a price might sound remarkably like a "'covert action' designed to influence the internal political conditions of another country."
Though I haven't seen the full documentation myself, I do have a theory about why the Inspector General might have cleared the five-pointed bureaucracy of illegality. The Bush administration has always been more focused on American than Iraqi public opinion. After all, Iraq is just a place where "stuff happens." The goal of administration officials was always to win the war at home above all else. With that in mind, perhaps the Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group to slip those good-news pieces into the Iraqi media not to influence Iraqis, but Americans. Perhaps the hope was that the "free" Iraqi media would be the royal route back to the American press. And, of course, if that's the conclusion the Inspector General came to, then influencing the "internal political conditions of another country" obviously doesn't apply. We're not another country. We're the original country, the only one that matters.
Oh, by the way, the IG's audit did dun the Pentagon for not retaining "adequate documentation to verify expenditures" or explain how the Lincoln Group got its initial $10.4 dollar contract in the first place. But, the Times tells us, since that contract had already expired, the inspector general "did not recommend any punishment for the violations." And the Lincoln Group is now back at work for the Pentagon in Iraq.
We have entered the ugly season of the political cycle, the time when election day looms close enough that politicians, parties and pundits are willing to utter just about any claim, any innuendo, and libel in order to sway a vote.
Reasonable Americans are understandably inclined to shut off the noise and presume that nothing more of importance can or will be said in the final weeks before the vote.
It is in precisely in such white-hot moments, however, that the statements that matter most are often made. And such is the case with a short article titled "After Pat's Birthday," which appeared Friday morning at the essential online magazine site Truthdig. Since then, the words of Kevin Tillman, the brother of perhaps the most famous casualty of the Bush administration's military adventuring, have ricocheted around the internet faster than the speed of light – a proper rate, as what veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts has to say is far more illuminating than anything on offer from the current crop of candidates.
After September 11, 2001, Pat and Kevin Tillman signed up for the U.S. Army. It was an especially dramatic sacrifice for Pat, a player with the Arizona Cardinals football team who turned down a $3.6 million contract to play the next three years with the Cardinals in order to join the Army Rangers in Iraq and then Afghanistan.
Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004, and received war-hero honors at a memorial service where U.S. Senator John McCain spoke. Supporters of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, endeavors that by the time of Tillman's death were growing increasingly controversial, sought to spin the football star's sacrifice as evidence of the nobility of the Bush administration's military adventure. Sunshine patriot Sean Hannity swore his allegiance to Tillman on his television program, declaring: "I love him and admire him..." Ann Coulter oozed, "Tillman was an American original: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be."
The propaganda push eventually fell apart, however, when it was learned that the Pentagon had delayed revealing to Tillman's family the circumstances of his death -- he was shot three times in the head by so-called "friendly fire" and U.S. troops then burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent cover-up attempt -- until after the memorial service, with all its patriotic flourishes and media attention, was finished. Later still, it was revealed that Pat Tillman had during the course of his service become an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and was in the months before his death urging fellow soldiers not to vote for President Bush's reelection.
Kevin Tillman survived his deployments, and was discharged from the Army in 2005. Now, on the eve of the first national election after that discharge, with "After Pat's Birthday," he has made it clear that he shares his brother's disenchantment with the armchair warriors of the Bush administration and its amen corner in the media.
In so doing, Kevin Tillman has made the most vital political statement of 2006:
It is Pat Tillman's birthday November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice.... until we get out.
Much has happened since we handed over our voice:
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few "bad apples" in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It's interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers who die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don't be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that "somehow" was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat's birthday.
Kevin Tillman's election message -- and, thankfully, with its references to November 7, there can be no question that this is an election message -- is not particularly long. With a little trimming, it might make a compelling radio or television commercial. After all, this is the dose of truth that needs to be administered to voters who are still searching for perspective as they prepare to cast their ballots.
But Kevin Tillman's message ought not be circulated by a campaign committee or a political party. It should be shared, citizen to citizen, first on the internet, but then in phone calls to family members and old friends, in conversations over coffee and along the sideline at the soccer field, in leaflets slipped under the doors of neighbors and handed to one another after church.
This is the message that, unvarnished and unpackaged, can touch the hearts and the minds of voters who -- if they read seriously the words of the brother who made it back – will come to understand that they can and must redeem the American experiment on the day "After Pat's Birthday."
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." 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. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com
If there's one thing the media loves, it's a nice round number. Unlessyou had chosen this week to play Henry Thoreau, you probably noticed thatthe United States population passed the 300 million mark at some pointin the last few days. Local newspapers rushed to declare one of theirown the 300 millionth soul and nearly every media outlet from NPR to CNNto The News Hour devoted air time to explain to the their viewersWhat It All Means.
All the attention brought into high relief just how absent demography isfrom our routine political discussions. Well, with some notableexceptions. On October 18, I got an e-mail from the Federation for AmericanImmigration Reform (FAIR) with the subject "300 Million and Counting!"--complete with the obligatory black-and-white photo of a crowded citystreet at rush hour: Hell is other people. "Can the US sustain thiscontinued increase in its population or will this growth suffocate aonce thriving nation?," the e-mail asked. It wasn't really a question.
It's a strange quirk of the anti-immigration movement, that while thebase is animated largely by xenophobia, the leadership, like FAIR, Numbers USA and others aredriven by the far more esoteric concern of population growth. Much ofthis is the legacy of John Tanton, the eccentric, brilliant opthamologist from Petoskey, Michigan who founded FAIR and pretty muchsingle-handedly started the modern anti-immigration movement. Tanton'sworldview was formed at a time when demography was a major concern,thanks to Paul Ehrlich's landmark book The Population Bomb, whichpredicted the world was about to breed itself out of existence. As theUnited States' native-born birthrate leveled off in the 1960s, Tantonturned his attention to the source of the nation's continued growth,which was propelled by immigrants and their offspring. The rest ishistory.
So that explains why Dan Stein, head of FAIR, was everywhere last week,from MSNBC to the op-ed pages of USA Today making the case that300 million was an ominous milestone and the culprit was our porousborders. For FAIR, the rare spotlight on population growth was a goldenopportunity to make their case. "Overcrowded schools, congestedhighways, environmental stresses: We are a nation paving over itswildernesses while depending on our enemies for vital resources," Steinwrote in an editorial in USA Today. "Why? Because Americans havebeen blindsided by a government-mandated mass immigration program that'sfueling this nation's runaway population growth. This growth was neitherplanned nor expected, but we feel the consequences every day."
Stein's partly right. There is little official policy that sets out anideal US population, but images of crowded streets and traffic jamsaside, the fact remains that the US is still a very big place, andrelatively sparsely populated. With thirty-two people per squarekilometer, the US ranks 172nd in the world in density. Amsterdam andSouth Korea, just to name two, are each more than ten times as dense.
But of the world's richest nations, the United States is also the onlyone with a robustly growing population. Most of Europe has been caughtin a much-discussed population drought, a birthrate so far belowreplacement rates that countries like Italy and Spain could lose halftheir population in the next fifty years. But thanks largely to higherbirth rates of America's immigrants, the US faces no such problems.
Is that a good thing? There are arguments on both sides, but ultimatelyit's the wrong question. Some in the anti-immigration movement point outthe environmental effects of the increased resource consumption comefrom increased population, but if that's your concern, there's no reasonto wall off the United States and let, say, Mexico slide intoenvironmental ruin. And while it's true that once people come to the USthey burn a lot more carbon, that logic would also imply that it's agood idea to keep the rest of the world poor, which doesn't quite seemfair. The fact is that population growth isn't really a problem for theUS. As one environmentalist told me, "It's not that we have too manypeople--we have too many cars."
Of course, you can't very well win elections or raise much money demonizing cars. Groups like FAIR figured that out long ago.