Stiffing our ally...More guns, less oversight...Audubon likes wind

Good Morning. Got a good one from London. Gotta love how we support our allies.

LONDON -- Mayor Ken Livingstone, upset that the US Embassy is not paying a quarter of a million dollars in traffic congestion charges, has called Ambassador Robert Tuttle a ''chiseling little crook."

Last July, the embassy stopped paying London's $14 daily congestion fee, imposed on every car that travels into the city's center on weekdays.

''When British troops are putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy it would be quite nice if they paid the congestion charge," Livingstone, known for his inflammatory remarks, said Monday.

Rick Roberts, a spokesman for the US Embassy here, said he did ''not want to dignify those remarks by responding to name calling."

State Department lawyers believe that the congestion charge constitutes a commuting tax and that diplomats are exempt from taxes according to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Roberts said.

The $14 charge, which began in February 2003, was designed to lessen traffic congestion. Those who don't immediately pay the $14 fee incur stiff penalties. If the fee is not paid in a month, the charge turns into a $260 ticket.

''When the ambassador calls on the [British] foreign secretary he is charged. It interferes with conducting business," Roberts said. He said Tuttle, who worked in the Reagan administration and has run one of the largest automobile dealer organizations in the United States, was sworn in as ambassador in mid-July, after the decision to stop paying was made.

That did not stop Livingstone from lashing out at him.

''It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out of it like some chiseling little crook," Livingstone said.

OK, maybe that story wasn't so serious. But this one is a little bit more. In the climate of spend, spend, spend under the Bush 'administration', it looks like less and less oversight of weapon manufacture is occuring. So Bush and his cronies get richer, and no one is sure if anything that is being produced is effective, or even safe, for our troops to use in battle.

WASHINGTON -- A special Pentagon office created by Congress to review the performance of new weapons has not publicly released an assessment in four years, raising concerns that the Department of Defense's commitment to oversight is dwindling at a time when weapons spending is on the rise, according to current and former Pentagon officials.

The office of Operational Test and Evaluation still prepares annual reports, but none has been made public since 2002. Between 1998 and 2002, however, the office issued dozens of reports on weapons under development for the various military branches, according to a review of the record.

The public assessments raised questions about some weapons' effectiveness, and took issue with military contractors for delays or cost overruns. Political pressure often forced changes in the weapons' designs or production processes, according to defense officials.

But under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the influence of the office has waned, according to a former director, congressional planners, and private defense specialists.

''I used to put my annual reports on the Web," said Philip Coyle, who ran the office during the Clinton administration, from 1994 to 2001. ''That stopped with the current Bush administration."

The office, which reports to Rumsfeld, has not had a permanent director for more than year. Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report found that military contractors were seeking ways to relax the testing regimen for new weapons. And a Pentagon study commissioned by Rumsfeld's top deputy recommended in January that some weapons testing be curtailed to speed up the process of getting new weapons into the field.

The Pentagon declined to say why the declassified test reports, which were once widely circulated on the Internet, now go in hard-copy form only to a few select congressional committee chairmen, a small group of Pentagon insiders, and, in a few cases, to chosen outlets of the defense industry press.

Acting Director David Duma declined to be interviewed, but his office's spokeswoman responded by e-mail to some questions.

The spokeswoman said the office's yearly assessment of weapons programs has been comprehensive, covering all 200 weapons systems under its purview. In addition to the annual reports, the office has produced three assessments on the missile defense program since 2001, but those reports are classified.

Meanwhile, the office says, it has produced 48 other reports since 2001 to help acquisition officials decide whether to approve various weapon systems for ''full-rate production."

But former defense officials and congressional staffers say the lack of circulation of the reports is more indicative of the Pentagon's attitude toward testing under Rumsfeld.

The reports were once a powerful tool to allow outsiders to scrutinize Pentagon spending and, they said, the current veil of secrecy seems intended to prevent any second-guessing of Rumsfeld's decision-making. Continued...

And lastly today, in some local news...the Audubon Society has given its blessing to the Cape Wind project. They've determined that no birds will be put at risk by the many windmills the project entails...removing yet another piece of ammunition from the oil-sucking NIMBYs.

The Massachusetts Audubon Society gave its preliminary blessing yesterday to a large-scale wind power project off Cape Cod, saying its studies show that turbine blades are not likely to cause significant harm to birds, as the group had once feared.

Support from the environmental group, one of the most respected in the state, is important because the threat to birds has emerged as a controversial aspect of the five-year-old proposal to turn stiff sea breezes into a source of electricity.

The group had previously raised questions about potential bird deaths, but Jack Clarke, advocacy director of Mass Audubon, said extensive studies it conducted in the last four years showed that endangered roseate terns and piping plovers, the group's main concerns, and other sensitive species generally avoid the 24-square-mile footprint of the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

''Our preliminary conclusion is that the project would not pose a threat to avian species," he said.

The most significant hurdle for the project, which would be the nation's first offshore wind farm, is an ongoing federal environmental review, and Mass Audubon's preliminary stance is likely to be helpful. But the group said its final decision will hinge on additional research of several bird species.

WEB LINK: The Massachusetts Audubon Society statement

Mass Audubon officials said they want the government and Cape Wind Associates, the project's developer, to study the flight paths of birds for one more spring and summer season and at night, to be absolutely sure the whirring blades of the wind farm's 130 turbines would not kill too many sea ducks, migratory birds, terns, and plovers. They also said that one more winter study of sea ducks might be necessary.

''We want to get this right," Clarke said. ''This is a big step for the US." Continued...

Looks like there's a bonus click this morning....sounds like a teen prank to me.

Right reviewing nominations...So is the left...and some local news.

Good Morning!

Well, you can tell it's heading for election season. Bush's "base" is starting to trot out the wingnuts for review. Of course, they get endless mileage from bashing Massachusetts. Here's the odious Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR). Quite a difference from the last president from Arkansas.

WASHINGTON -- Most Americans know one thing about Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, if they know anything: He lost more than 100 pounds in a year, a triumph touted in a weight-loss book he has hawked around the country.

But evangelical conservative activists know one or two other things that make the governor a standout among Republicans who may run for president in 2008: Huckabee is a Baptist minister and a fierce defender of traditional family values.

''Let's face it," he recently told a crowd of Christian conservatives in Iowa, the state that holds the earliest presidential caucuses.

''In our lifetimes," Huckabee said, ''we've seen our country go from 'Leave It to Beaver' to 'Beavis and Butt-head,' from Barney Fife to Barney Frank, from 'Father Knows Best' to television shows where father knows nothing."

Huckabee's outreach to evangelicals, in Iowa and elsewhere, demonstrates the clout of the Christian conservative wing of the GOP. That faction was crucial to President Bush's reelection in 2004, and it is maneuvering to have a big say in who wins the party's nomination in 2008.

The Iowa Christian Alliance has invited potential Republican candidates to address voters around the state. Antiabortion activists have scoured the records of potential contenders. A coalition of national conservative groups has summoned potential candidates to a conference in September where 2,000 or more activists it calls ''values voters" are expected to attend.

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has disavowed past statements supporting abortion rights. Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, dropped his support for allowing gays to be covered by federal hate-crimes legislation. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor who is considered to be a liberal on social issues, spoke recently at a meeting of evangelical leaders in the South.

The influence of social and religious conservatives may be limited by the fact that they have not rallied around a single consensus candidate. They view the potential candidates with the strongest showings in early polls, Giuliani and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, with suspicion.

Those more closely aligned with the religious conservatives, such as Huckabee and Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, are relatively unknown to the electorate.

Some activists are urging social conservatives to close ranks behind a like-minded candidate, to maximize their effect.

''If we get together and get behind a single candidate, we can be formidable," said Paul M. Weyrich, a conservative leader. It is not clear when or whether that agreement will happen.

Of course, we've got our issues, too. On our side, Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) attempt to censure the 'president' has garnered little support in the Senate Chamber. But it's done wonders for his national stature and presidential aspirations. If their issue in 06 and 08 is going to be the usual "Gods, Guns, and Gays,"...then ours has to be "Iraq, Incompetence, and Impeachment."

WASHINGTON -- Only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Senator Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, but the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, insists his proposal has nothing to do with his political ambitions. But he does challenge Democrats who argue it will help energize Republicans.

''Those Democrats said that within two minutes of my announcing my idea," Feingold said last week. ''I don't see any serious evidence of that."

A Newsweek poll taken March 16 and 17 found that 50 percent of those surveyed opposed censuring Bush while 42 percent supported it, but among Democrats, 60 percent favored the effort.

Feingold's resolution would censure the president for authorizing a warrantless surveillance program, which the senator contends is illegal. Cosponsors are Democratic senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California.

The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing Friday on the resolution.

Other Democrats have said that bringing up such a punishment is not helpful before an investigation of the eavesdropping program is complete.

''I think to say that you should censure the president before you have had the inquiries is premature, so I don't think it's helpful to reach that conclusion at this point," Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, told ''Fox News Sunday."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, also said that it is too early to consider censure. He would not, however, rule out voting for such a measure if the Bush administration stonewalls a congressional probe.

''It's a close case," Kennedy said on CBS's ''Face the Nation."

The White House says Bush was authorized to order eavesdropping on American citizens under his wartime powers as commander in chief.

Feingold said his sole purpose was to hold Bush accountable, but he contended that it's also good politics.

''These Democratic pundits are all scared of the Republican base getting energized, but they're willing to pay the price of not energizing the Democratic base," he said. ''It's an overly defensive and meek approach to politics."

Some Republicans have been thanking Feingold for what they consider a political fumble. ''This is such a gift," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show.

Turning lastly to local election news, Representative Michael Capuano (D-Somerville), who once had designs on the office himself, has just endorsed Deval Patrick for governor. I say don't waste your time with the establishment candidate....take a look at the only independent running, Christy Mihos.

BOSTON --U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, who weighed his own bid for governor this year before deciding to run for re-election to Congress, told The Associated Press on Sunday that he has decided to endorse Deval Patrick for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

The endorsement, scheduled to be formally announced Monday afternoon at Patrick's campaign headquarters, will mark the second congressional backing for the first-time political candidate.

Patrick previously picked up the support for U.S. Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

Capuano, formerly the mayor of Somerville, holds a political seat representing Boston and Cambridge that was previously held by House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. and more recently by U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II.

Patrick has emphasized his commitment to working with city and urban leaders, and his campaign hopes that Capuano's endorsement will echo in those ranks.

It's never too early to start paying attention....even if the elections are 9 months (and almost 3 years!) away.

Why I will never, ever, EVER, forgive the Right.

You know me. Come into my house, and there’s aviation materials all over the place. Go and look at my desk, and the largest picture is not of my wife, not of my son, but of my beloved B-17 Flying Fortress.

My computer wallpapers are aviation photos…even my startup sound is the roar of the mighty Wright R-1820.

Suffice to say, I like airplanes. It’s really been my life’s interest, since I was a wee lad. My father tells me that one of my very first words was “airplane”. I am forever grateful to his friend Bob for giving me my first ride at around the age of 7, in his wonderful, vintage Piper J-3 Cub.

Ever since then, I’ve been hooked. I lived near the airport, have a scanner to listen in, and am serious enough about flight simming to keep a logbook…the current iteration of which is about 40 hours, but I have more than 350 hours logged since I bought my first simulator a few years back. Flying the real thing has remained out of reach, though.

Growing up, my grandparents spent the winter in Palm Beach, Florida…and an annual ritual was heading down for April vacation and then spring break. As always with Italians, that was a family affair. We always, always, always stopped to visit my Aunt Nora in East Boston. In those days, we flew Eastern Airlines, always the 10pm BOS-TPA-PBI. In later years, it was Delta….but there was always a visit to our relatives in East Boston on the way to the airport.

I joke now that everybody hates to fly with me, because I’m always chattering about procedures, where we are, what the airplane is doing, calling out landmarks, v-ref speeds, and whatever else pops into my head. I always talked to the flight attendants on board…tried to meet the flight crew….and no trip via aircraft was complete without the obligatory visit to the cockpit upon boarding or deplaning.

But then, on a beautiful September morning, two jets took off from Logan Airport and changed the course of history.

It’s been six years since that awful day…and I’ve only flown twice since then. We’ve been planning our vacations to be local, or no more than a day’s drive away. The airline industry has been in a tailspin; the prices keep going up and up while the service keeps going down and down. Just today, Northwest airlines announced that it was going to charge more for aisle and exit row seats.

But that’s not why I will never forgive the Bush ‘administration’. You can’t get on a plane today without being subject to background checks, a whole host of security measures that are ineffective, and all along being poked and prodded by surly, ill-mannered employees of the federal government.

Some among us will chastise me and say “but, you’re safer than before”. But I say no, we’re only cowed and browbeaten, and because this government is so out of control, nobody dares to stand up and point out the constitutional violations that take place in every airport and on every single day. I’m certain that I am on the no-fly list, simply for running this blog, and at Air America Place, and for daring to speak my mind.

It’s for this reason… It’s because they have taken the joy and the magic of flight and turned it into government intrusion and fearmongering….that I will never forgive the right. They have taken the one thing that has brought me constant joy and excitement in my life away from me, and turned it into something tedious and hateful. I still look at the sky for whatever is overhead when I hear an aero engine…..but the joy is gone.

And that, my friends, is unforgiveable.

Spying on Pacifists...Impeachment...Something old

Good Morning...

Senator Feingold's censure motion may have failed...but the domestic spying goes on and on. Remember, the "president" is justifying all of this under the warron terra.

PITTSBURGH -- FBI antiterrorism agents spied on a US peace group simply because it opposed the Iraq war, part of an ''unprecedented campaign" to spy on innocent citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union said yesterday.

FBI documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act and provided to reporters show that the FBI conducted surveillance of the Pittsburgh-based Thomas Merton Center for Peace & Justice during antiwar demonstrations and leaflet distributions in 2002 and 2003.

One document said the Pittsburgh Joint Terrorism Task Force had learned that ''The Thomas Merton Center . . . has been determined to be an organization which is opposed to the United States' war with Iraq."

A separate document said, ''One female leaflet distributor who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent inquired if (confidential source's name withheld) was an FBI agent. No other TMC participants appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent."

FBI officials in Pittsburgh said that the bureau was engaged in legitimate investigations and that in one case dropped the probe upon determining that someone photographed at one demonstration was not the person they were looking for. ''We had a legitimate purpose for being there," FBI special agent Bill Crowley said, referring to a November 2002 protest.

The ACLU said the spying fit a pattern of federal abuse following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ''From the FBI to the Pentagon to the National Security Agency, this administration has embarked on an unprecedented campaign to spy on innocent Americans," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement.

A November 2002 FBI memo said the Merton Center ''holds daily leaflet distribution activities in downtown Pittsburgh and is currently focused on its opposition to the potential war in Iraq." The war began in March 2003.

The memo called the Merton Center ''a left-wing organization advocating, among many political causes, pacifism."

The FBI acknowledged that the report sounded as if it were reporting on the activities of an antiwar group, but said ''such a characterization would be factually misleading."

The agent was pursuing leads ''from another source possibly establishing a link between an ongoing investigation and the group engaging in antiwar protests. Finding no such link, he terminated his surveillance," the FBI said in a statement.

Previously disclosed documents showed that the FBI was retaining files on antiwar groups, but the ACLU said the most recent documents were the first to show conclusively that the FBI targeted the Merton Center because of its pacifism.

''We know that this surveillance is about the political views of the Thomas Merton Center because that's what the documents say," said Mary Catherine Roper, a lawyer with the Pittsburgh ACLU.

And speaking of Censure...apparently John Conyer's (D-MI) old impeachment bill hasn't been killed yet. It's starting to pick up a little bit of support locally. Remember these gentlemen, as they are all up for re-election this fall.

WASHINGTON -- Three of the 10 US House members from Massachusetts have signed a resolution calling for an investigation and the possible impeachment of President Bush, placing them among a small minority within the Democratic Party who are supporting the long shot effort.

Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat, last week joined Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Salem, and Representative John W. Olver, Democrat of Amherst, to cosponsor the resolution.

Capuano acknowledged that the bill has ''no chance" of succeeding as long as Republicans control Congress and a majority of Democrats -- including party leaders -- have serious reservations about the idea, fearing a backlash at the polls this fall. But Capuano said it's important to show that the president is not above reproach.

''If all my suspicions are held up, then, yeah, impeach him in a heartbeat," Capuano said. ''If we were lied to to go to war -- if that's an established fact -- that is an impeachable offense. I can't think of a higher crime or misdemeanor."

The resolution has been quietly gaining support since Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, filed it last year. Conyers's bill demands a special committee to probe the Bush administration's ''manipulation of prewar intelligence," ''retaliating against critics," and ''encouraging and countenancing" of torture. The committee would subsequently advise whether there are ''grounds for possible impeachment."

Still, only 29 of the House's 201 Democrats have signed on, along with Representative Bernard Sanders a Vermont independent. No one in the House's Democratic leadership has endorsed the resolution, and Bush's toughest critics within the Massachusetts delegation have pointedly avoided it.

The lack of significant support for the resolution reflects Democrats' worries about how to attack the president and avoid angering voters in a year where they have high hopes for electoral gains. Most Democrats want investigations of the administration's drive for war, but they stop short of using the word ''impeachment."

''The first thing that we need to do is to effect appropriate oversight so we know the facts, then decide what the facts lead us to do," said the House minority whip, Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland. ''This Congress has been a complicit, complacent, cover-up Congress."

In the Senate, the resolution by Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure Bush -- a step short of impeachment that has no legal ramifications -- has not found a single cosponsor since it was introduced two days ago.

Lastly, in a story that has absolutely nothing to do with politics...Doctors are worried that today's teens are doing immeasurable harm to their hearing with their Ipods and other music devices. Remember back in the 80s when the Walkman first came out, they were worried about the same thing? Only this time, the nanny state has to get involved. You'll note in the story that my congressman has called for an investigation, and he's already got a co-sponsor!

WASHINGTON -- More research is needed to determine whether popular portable music players like Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod increase the risk of hearing loss, the National Institutes of Health said in response to a lawmaker's request for a review of the issue.

Earbud headphones, like the ones typically used with iPods, project sound directly into the ear canal, while traditional earmuff-style headphones allow the sound to diffuse, the NIH said in a Feb. 14 letter made available yesterday.

The proximity of the source of the sound to the ears can contribute to hearing loss, but ''more research is required to determine whether a particular type [of earphone] increases the risk," wrote James Battey, director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, in the NIH letter.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, sent a letter on Jan. 26 asking NIH to review research to determine whether portable music players are contributing to premature hearing loss. He asked the NIH to recommend what people can do to prevent it from happening.

Markey said at a panel discussion yesterday that he plans to work with Representative Mike Ferguson, a New Jersey Republican, to encourage more research.

''Sales of the devices have shattered all expectations," Markey said. ''There is a very real need for research."

Ferguson said he is concerned about the potential risk because many users of portable music devices are children. ''Kids are often more familiar with these products than parents, but they don't realize how harmful these products can be to hearing," he said. ''It can lead to a lifelong ailment."

Apple, which dominates the market for the devices, sold 14 million iPods during the Christmas holiday quarter and said in January that it had sold 42 million devices since October 2001, when the iPod was introduced.

Sony Corp. and Thomson's RCA sell portable music players, and Cingular Wireless, the largest US wireless carrier, offers Apple's music software in a cellphone.

Research into the phenomenon began in the early 1980s, soon after the 1979 introduction of portable radio and cassette players with headphones.

Battey said research on the subject surged following the introduction of portable MP3 players, which have maximum sound-output levels comparable to the sound level of a jet engine.

So there you have it. It's hump day, and it's all downhill to the weekend from here! And turn down that radio!

Censuring the President...A stronger DNC?...Local election news

Good Morning!

It is indeed shaping up to be a good morning, for Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is going to introduce a motion before the senate today to censure the 'president' over illegal wiretapping. Some on the left have high hopes that Senator Feingold will run for president himself, and this can only increase his standing and visibility. Naturally, the Repugnicans are accusing the Dems of giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy', and are hiding behind 9/11, as their are wont to do.

WASHINGTON -- A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing to censure President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

''The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in US history -- against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee and the majority leader, called the proposal ''a crazy political move" that would weaken the US during wartime.

The five-page resolution to be introduced today contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush contends that his authority as commander in chief as well as a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism gave him the power to authorize the surveillance.

The White House had no immediate response yesterday.

The resolution says the president ''repeatedly misled the public" before the disclosure of the NSA program in December when he indicated that the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the United States.

''Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president," Feingold said. ''And, hopefully, he will acknowledge that he did something wrong."

The Wisconsin Democrat, considered a presidential contender for 2008, said that he had not discussed censure with other senators but that, based on the criticism leveled at Bush by both Democrats and Republicans, the resolution makes sense.

The president's actions were ''in the strike zone" in terms of being an impeachable offense, Feingold said. The senator questioned whether impeaching Bush and removing him from office would be good for the country.

In the House, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing legislation that would call on the Republican-controlled Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment.

The program granted intelligence officers the power to monitor -- without court approval -- the international calls and e-mails of US residents when those officers suspect terrorism may be involved.

Frist, appearing on ABC's ''This Week," said that he hoped Al Qaeda and other enemies of the US were not listening to the infighting.

''The signal that it sends -- that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief, who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer -- is wrong," Frist said.

A statement from the Republican National Committee said Feingold's proposal shows ''that Democrats are willing to play politics with the most important issue facing the American people."

A longtime critic of the administration, Feingold was the first senator to urge a withdrawal timetable for US troops in Iraq and was the only senator to vote in 2001 against the USA Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers. (Continued)

Meanwhile, DNC Howard Dean has been busy in non-traditional areas of the country, working at the grassroots in the South and Southwest to build back up the party in areas that have been abandoned in favor of the liberal cities of the Northeast....maybe this will make a difference in 2006 and 2008.

ALBUQUERQUE -- When Howard Dean took over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee last February, the selection of the man known for ''the scream" sent chills down the spines of many Democrats in Southern and Western states, where a Dean-injected dose of East Coast liberalism carried the risk of dooming the party for years.

But a year after the crusading former Vermont governor took over the DNC, the party has reacted in some surprising ways. It's the East Coast liberals who are grumbling about Dean's talk-show gaffes and staring at the DNC's near-empty coffers with dismay.

Meanwhile, many Dean skeptics in state Democratic parties -- especially in places like New Mexico, a swing state that voted Republican in the last presidential race -- have been won over. The reason is the millions of dollars Dean has spent rebuilding Democratic organizations in places that haven't seen a coordinated Democratic effort in a long time.

It's a high-risk strategy: Democrats have historically done this kind of grass-roots organizing only in the voter-rich big cities, and right before Election Day. Building the party in rural areas involves spending precious resources long before voters go to the polls.

But as Dean's mini-army of more than 150 DNC-paid operatives have fanned out across the country, many rural and conservative-leaning Democrats are nodding with approval.

''I've never really been a Dean guy," said John Wertheim, chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party. ''But I've really bought into his program. Is it risky? Sure. But I think it's a darn good investment."

In Albuquerque, four energetic young staff members -- trained by and drawing paychecks from the DNC -- have divvied up the map of New Mexico, a state that was more closely divided than Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

From a cluttered warren of offices tucked into a strip mall, the DNC's new employees are building voter lists, organizing county-level Democratic caucuses, and installing precinct chairmen in rural portions of the state that have voted overwhelmingly Republican in national campaigns.

But Dean's push to rebuild state parties has been costly, and has left the DNC coffers surprisingly bare. He has burned through nearly all the $61 million the party has raised since the beginning of 2005, according to Federal Election Commission data filed last month. That leaves the party with a nest egg of just $6.9 million, virtually all of it left over from the 2004 campaigns.

Though the DNC's fund-raising was up 20 percent last year over 2003 -- the last year that didn't have congressional elections -- the party has brought in far less than the Republican National Committee.

Ken Mehlman, RNC chairman, has already begun amassing a war chest for use in 2006 and 2008 -- it stands at $38.9 million so far -- even as Dean sends huge sums to many states where Democratic prospects appear to be bleak for the foreseeable future. (Continued...)

Lastly this morning, we'll take a brief look at the campaign for governor of Massachusetts. After State AG Tom Reilly spun in a few weeks back, people are starting to notice the other candidates. A question being asked today is "Can Deval Patrick Win?"

A friend at a big metropolitan newspaper e-mailed me the other day. He was thinking about coming to Boston to write a story, but he had a question he wanted answered before committing himself.

''Can Deval Patrick win?"

That seems to be the question that follows Patrick around like a shadow. It was certainly in the air Saturday afternoon, at the Patrick pep rally at Faneuil Hall.

An overflow crowd had assembled to see the candidate. They didn't seem to care how much money he had in the bank or how much less his campaign chest contains than Tom Reilly's. Significantly, not many of them seemed to have been sent by their union or to have been otherwise coerced in the name of Democratic ''unity." Many pointed out that they had never been involved in politics before, at any level.

It was an odd event, in some ways. The long arid stretch between the caucuses and the party convention is not generally seen as a time for a big event, partly because it will be months before anyone casts a vote. Most of the questions Patrick got from the press corps after his appearance were variations on ''What was the point of this?"

To the campaign, the idea was a show of strength, a demonstration that Patrick's support is real and that he could not only pack a hall, he could excite one.

On those terms, it could only be judged a success.

Listeners were treated to Patrick's bio, his journey from the South Side of Chicago to Milton Academy to Harvard. They were exhorted to go out and raise money, and to spread the word about the campaign. They were told, repeatedly, that the political establishment and the media were against them, but had no claim on their loyalty. They were instructed to reject cynicism and embrace hope. They seemed to eat up every word of it. It was a very good performance.

There's some evidence that Patrick's message is catching on. Poll results indicate his campaign is surging, in the sense that more voters know who he is and view him favorably. Reilly's campaign, by contrast, appears stuck in neutral, though that's to be expected, if only given its missteps.

The problem with the obsession -- nearly six months before primary day -- with whether a candidate can win is that it drowns out the campaign itself. (Continued)

So, there you have it. It's another great week for blogging...stay in touch with the news here at Northeast Liberals, and come on by and visit us at Air America Place!

Ready for the next war?

Good Morning....It's been a few days since the last update. There have been some login issues with Blogspot in recent mornings, so I've been sticking with Air America Place. In any case...here's the skinny...


VP Blasty McBirdshot is starting to prep us for the coming war in Iran. The "administration" is taking a hard line against Iran for perceived offenses, and they've wheeled out their big guns. (pun intended.)

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration drew a hard line on Iran yesterday, warning of ''meaningful consequences" if the Islamic government does not back away from an international confrontation over its disputed nuclear program.

Edging toward the UN Security Council review it has long sought, Washington rejected any potential 11th-hour compromise that would allow Iran to process nuclear fuel that could be used for weapons.

Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States and other nations are in agreement that ''we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

''The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said.

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, Cheney did not specify what the United States would do but said it ''is keeping all options on the table." American officials have said the government has no plans for military force but will not rule it out.

The United States, Israel, and several Arab nations fear development of an Iranian bomb would put Israel at risk or forever change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Russia, which has played middleman on Iran since the breakdown of talks between Tehran and European nations, reassured US officials that it remains on board as the UN nuclear watchdog agency again took up the Iran case in Vienna. The Security Council could have full purview over the issue by week's end, but there is no timetable for action there.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States is not seeking sanctions against Iran ''as a first matter." [hint-that means war. - Ed.]

Of course, that ties in with the latest false flag. Donald Rumsfeld is claiming that Iran is sending forces into Iraq. So a second justification (in case we can't make nuclear proliferation stick) is going to be the "Warron Terra". Since Iran is supporting the insurgents, they must hate our freedoms, right?

WASHINGTON -- Raising a new complaint about Iran, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday accused Tehran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq.

At the same time, he rejected the idea that Iraq has slipped into civil war, asserting that media reports have overstated recent violence there.

Rumsfeld offered few details concerning his allegation of interference by Iran, which fought an eight-year-war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s and shares a largely unguarded border.

''They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said at a Pentagon news conference. ''And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."

He did not elaborate except to say the infiltrators were members of the Al Quds Division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the network of soldiers and vigilantes whose mandate is to defeat threats to the 1979 Islamic revolution. The Al Quds Division is responsible for operations outside Iranian territory.

Rumsfeld and other US officials have previously complained of Iranian complicity in the movement of explosives and bomb-making material across the border into Iraq, but Rumsfeld had not mentioned Iranian forces before.

He initially said the infiltrators were doing ''things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," but later when asked specifically whether they were gathering intelligence or fomenting violence, Rumsfeld said he did not know what their mission was.

Appearing with Rumsfeld, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that although there have been indications of Iranian-manufactured weapons coming into Iraq, ''the most recent reports have to do with individuals crossing the border." He said he had an estimate of the number but declined to reveal it.

Pace said he did not know whether the Iranians were sent by their government. Asked the same question, Rumsfeld replied, ''Of course. Quds force, the Revolutionary Guard, doesn't go milling around willy-nilly, one would think."

This certainly bears some watching in the next few weeks and months....but any student of history really shouldn't be surprised by the course of action we're taking.

Germany. 1938. Check it out.

Winning the hearts and minds...Republicans and Video..Mine Safety

Good Morning!

Finally emerging from a week-long sick....and getting back to my blog duties at AAP and here...

So, we'll start in Iraq, as we often do. Looks like we're winning the war by wiping out the civilians..something Genghis Khan, Hitler, and Pol Pot tried with limited success.

BAGHDAD -- The death toll among Iraqi civilians in insurgency-related violence last year was more than twice as high as that of the country's soldiers and police combined, according to government figures obtained yesterday by The Associated Press.

And the civilian death count in the first two months of this year already stands at more than one-quarter of last year's total -- due largely to sectarian violence triggered by the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine and car bombings in Shi'ite neighborhoods around Baghdad.

Figures compiled by the Health Ministry put the civilian death toll for 2005 at 4,024. The ministry's count for the first two months of this year is 1,093.

Death tolls for the police and army are compiled by the ministries of Interior and Defense. Their figures show that 1,695 police and soldiers were killed last year. Most of the victims -- 1,222 -- were from the police.

That pattern has continued through January and February of this year, when 155 policemen and 44 soldiers died. Iraqi soldiers have better body armor than police officers and make better use of armored vehicles. Many Iraqi police patrol the dangerous streets of Baghdad and other cities in cars and pickup trucks without armor.

There is no way to verify the figures independently. In a dangerous country that is as large as California, journalists generally tend to rely on figures provided by local police, hospitals, and the Interior Ministry.

Figures in major attacks often vary widely, with police spokesmen giving different figures to different Iraqi and international news organizations. In some cases, Interior Ministry death counts in major car bombings are different from the totals provided by subordinate police units. In some cases the discrepancy is a result of the difficulty in counting bodies ripped apart by fierce explosions. In others, politicians may be inflating figures to draw attention to the suffering of their community.

By the time the tallies are standardized, news organizations tend to have moved on to reporting other violence, and may be unaware that the figures have been adjusted.

An Associated Press count from April 28, 2005, when the current government took office, through December 2005 found that at least 3,375 Iraqi civilians and at least 1,561 Iraqi security personnel were killed.

The Brookings Institution estimates that between 5,696 and 9,934 civilians were killed in Iraq during all of 2005. Brookings estimates at least 2,569 Iraqi military and police were killed during the year, based on a monthly count by the website icasualties.org.

Turning to Louisiana now, have you seen the videotape that was obtained by the AP? Apparently, the day before Katrina struck, "president" Bush attended a full briefing in which all the concerns were raised...about the levees, about evacuating people, about not having enough troops to help in the rescue, about not having enough food and water on hand, and so on and so forth. This should become exhibit #1 in the People vs. The Bush "administration". If this isn't criminal negligence, then I don't know what is.

WASHINGTON -- The White House, already on the defensive against bipartisan allegations about its handling of port security, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina, yesterday sought to stem a new flow of criticism of President Bush's level of honesty and engagement on Katrina, with Democratic lawmakers accusing Bush of covering up the ''incompetence" of the hurricane response.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said a recently released video of Bush, sitting at a Crawford, Texas, table and listening to administration officials brief him on the looming disaster in the Gulf states, shows a president ''focused on making sure that the federal assets were in place to help the people of New Orleans."

But Democrats, building on bipartisan irritation with an increasingly unpopular White House, called it more evidence of the administration's failure to protect the American people against natural disasters and national security threats. The Democratic National Committee yesterday sent out a mass e-mail of the video, saying that it ''directly contradicts Bush's attempt to excuse his administration's awful response to the worst natural disaster in American history."

The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the video ''confirms what we've suspected all along: that this administration is doing everything it can" to avoid responsibility for the lackluster recovery effort. ''It's certain from all the records that we have that they have systematically misled the American people to hide the basic incompetence of the recovery and response," Reid said. ''And as a result of this, it's made America less safe, not more safe."

The White House's GOP allies dismissed the video as nothing new, saying that they gave congressional investigators a transcript of the tape last year, in which Bush is warned before the storm hit that New Orleans levee system could fail.

Capitol Hill Republicans also suggested that Democrats were making too much of the video, which the Associated Press obtained and released this week. But they acknowledge that it is damaging to Bush.

The president, who enjoyed support from loyal congressional Republicans during his first term, has been the target of growing criticism from his own party on the Hill recently. Some GOP lawmakers with tough reelection campaigns or presidential ambitions have been distancing themselves from the president, who registered a historically low approval rating of 34 percent in a CBS poll this week.

Lastly today...remember the Sago Mine Disaster? Well, it's coming to light today that the teams that participated in the rescue have yet to be de-briefed by the Feds...so that means that not only are the Feds continuing their fine program of ignoring mine safety, anything the teams may have learned is slowly, but surely, receding from memory.

WASHINGTON -- Rescuers who helped pull victims out of the Sago and Aracoma mines said yesterday that they are still waiting to be interviewed by federal investigators who have not yet turned to them for insight into the January accidents.

Waiting to contribute to and learn more about the investigations has been difficult, the rescuers said during a visit to Capitol Hill that coincided with Senate hearings into mine safety.

''I would like to personally find out what their findings are," said mine rescuer Jim Klug. ''We're just as curious as you are."

The rescuers were vocal about their displeasure over federal rules that require mine rescue teams to be within two hours from mines. They said teams should be much closer than that and should be assigned to specific mines, so they could be familiar with them during accidents.

It costs roughly $250,000 to train and equip a team, they said. Rescuer Harry Powell said it's as if insurance companies don't want to spend the money on it, but ''like it when they need it."

The rescuers declined to talk about their experience inside the Sago and Aracoma Coal Alma No. 1 mines, citing the ongoing investigations into the January accidents in West Virginia.

One person survived, and 12 people were killed at Sago. Two were killed in the fire at the Aracoma mine.

Sam Stavischeck said that he has been a mine rescuer for 22 years, but that nothing prepared him for the emotional aspects of the Sago rescue, in which the victims were overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning.

''Going to the Sago Mine has been one of the roughest things I've ever done," Stavischeck said.

Phil Smith, United Mine Workers of America spokesman, said he knew of no mine rescuers who had been interviewed to date.

So, there you have it. It's Friday...everyone is feeling better....so come on, read some news and stay informed!