Stop Me Before I Vote Again

You know, there is such a thing as being too forgiving. It should be a Priority One job for the Bay State anti-war movement to get at least one of these guys out of office, no matter who replaces him. Yeah, it's sheer, bloody-minded, Judgement at Nuremburg vengeance, but it's vital to do it. Democrats need to learn that they can't fuck us over and then get an all-is-forgiven hug when they come to their senses. Particularly in Massachusetts, fer Chrissake, it's an act of amazing effrontery to defy anti-war sentiment like this and then expect to be received like the Prodigal Son when they drag their tails home from their debauchery.

I'm tempted to say we should just pick the weakest one -- the low-hanging fruit -- and make sure he faces a three-way race his next time up, with demonstrators in camo and corpse paint everywhere he appears. And I do not mean a primary challenge: I mean a red-hot lefty running on a third-party ticket in the general election.

But if we feel like being a little more sporting about it, we could make it a contest. Start sending all three letters, like f'rinstance:

Dear representative X:

Do you enjoy your office?

Well then, get us the hell  out  of  Iraq now, 
or buster, you are headed back to private practice. 
No excuses.  Get us out or  plan on a lobby job
starting in January '07. 

Your friend, 

The Electoral Avenger

Only thing these guys understand is punishment at the polls. This is how the gun nuts and the Israel lobby, to name but two, enforce their will. We've gotta learn how to operate this way too. Don't welcome these guys back to the fold. Make sure they and their colleagues understand there's a price to pay when they do the wrong thing.

Dear Howie -- 

This is to let you know that no Democrat who 
had a hand in starting the Iraq 
war will ever get my vote for any office,
including the Presidency. 

If Hillary or Biden or Edwards or -- nefas! -- 
Lieberman is the Democratic nominee in '08, even for 
Vice-President, I'll pull a third-party lever, or write in 
Noam Chomsky,  or maybe just stay home. 

Ditto when these creeps run for re-election. I 
don't care if Genghis Khan is the Republican nominee; 
I will not soil my hands by voting for a war criminal. 

You have been warned. 

Sincerely, 

Fed Up

Send a copy to your local paper, too.

None of these charges had any basis, of course. Yee is now a free man and his story makes quite a read.

Among Yee's persecutors was none other than Vile Chuck Schumer, democratic Senator from New York and pilotless drone of the Israel lobby. The NYRB piece notes that Schumer "seize[d] on [Yee's] arrest as evidence that radical Islamists had taken control of the recruitment of Muslim chaplains into the armed forces."

Amazingly, or perhaps not so amazingly, "Up" Chuck still has these fantasies posted on his Web site. "NEW REVELATION: CAPTAIN YEE WAS TRAINED AND SELECTED TO BE A MUSLIM CHAPLAIN BY GROUP BEING INVESTIGATED FOR TERRORISM," Chuck's headline screams. The body text is a thing of beauty -- Roy Cohn would have been proud to claim it. Vague references to "connections" among groups, "investigations" that implicitly constutitute evidence of guilt, people with "checkered pasts" and sinister links on Web sites -- it's a minor masterpiece of scattershot character assassination firmly based on thin air.

As a New Yorker, I feel about my distinguished Democratic senators pretty much as Mr Bennett, in Pride and Prejudice, feels about his sons-in-law. I admire them both highly; but Schumer is, perhaps, my favorite.

Well, Nancy, I'd sure love to see you stare down the DLC. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I note that you won't "call for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because 'a vote on the war is an individual vote.' " Now why is that -- unless you're still trying to provide some cover for the War Democrats, without losing your own cushy seat?

Okay, so the man rode in to town and the yeller-belly War Democrats are scurrying for cover like Arkansas weevils. A thing of beauty. But now what?

Well first off, Murtha is not a dove. What we're hearing from him is probably what he's hearing from his pals in the Pentagon. (Seymour Hersh has got the dope on this topic.) And the Pentagon is not yet pushing for an admission of defeat. In fact, this war will continue till it's stopped.

The ground action may well be pretty much over -- that arm got lead poisoning and needs a serious spell in rehab. But according to Sy, who has been right many times before now, the scrap will be continued by Uncle's peerless combined air arm.

Do I need to point out that's what Murtha meant by an "over the horizon" American presence? It's obvious, right? And so is the mission all us peaceniks are now stuck with completing, if we plan on a nice afterlife with Jesus and Cary Grant. We'll have to end the Phase II air war too. And believe me, the Demo goats will come charging out from under their wooly sheep costumes as soon as any "progressives" in the party try that kind of action.

And that's one more reason, if another were needed, to get these hounds out of office by any means necessary. Do not go for the old lesser-evil scam and vote for some supposedly reformed Democratic warmonger in '06 or '08. And be sure to let the party know you won't.

I personally have no hope at all for the Democratic Party. But I imagine some of y'all reading this may not be quite at that point yet. Well, let me suggest to you that if you want to have any hope of turning your party into a force for good, your absolute top-priority Job One is to purge the Liebermans, the Hillary Clintons, the Chuck Schumers, the Joe Bidens. You may well end up with a smaller party in Congress, but if it's a party that's actually willing to act like the opposition, you'd be infinitely better off.

Now the fact is you don't have sufficient clout within the party to deny them the nomination. But you might very well be their margin of victory in the general election. Once again: if you live in a district, or a state, represented by a Democrat who voted for the war, serve notice on the party that you will not vote for that person again. And stick to it. Come next November, vote for a third party or write somebody in.

You really have nothing to lose. These people are repeat offenders, and they will kill again.

"When you've become the president's best friend on the war in Iraq, you should not be in office, especially if you're in the opposing party," Weicker said.

Goddam, I hope he runs. And of course I hope he wins. But the second-best outcome would be if he deprives AIPAC zombie Lieberman of his seat, in favor of a Republican. There's absolutely no downside to this scenario. A Republican couldn't possibly be worse than Lieberman, and the little rat's fate might, just might, be a salutary lesson to those of his Democratic colleagues who aren't too far gone.

If there are any such.

Yes, you heard me right -- the pit viper of the Dalmatian coast says, stop babying those towel-headed Teheranian blood zombies! Disarm their militias! Seal their border crossings! Pump dry their oil! Dare their unemployed kids to come out into the streets and fight like men!

Looks like Wesley has joined the "real men" who wanted to go to Teheran all along. How long do you think it will be before some deputation of Congressional Democrats will bring this little Christmas gift to the floor of the House?

Editor's note: This is the same Wesley Clark who wrote a few years ago,

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan… I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned." – --Winning Modern Wars, page 130.

dear rep steve

  okay   you are it  buddy boy

we with the brown bags over our heads have chosen

you

we want you
you
the  bay state's
       lowest hangin  war mongrel

yup we're givin'
marty and ed a pass
           in 06
long as they fly straight
here on out

but  u

u gotta  prove u mean it
                             big time

like cinderfellah

u be our bitch or

we  run over
     ya  next november

and
we got just the right blend of candidate
                                          to bounce ya
a bemedaled
  marine  viet vet from southie

he's bronzed  buff
sharp as a grade school thumb tack
                          and  ready to rumble .....

but
     hey  here's a thought

  not  that this will save u

but as a token of u
             "catchin our drift"


try this on

   since   you're on the house sub-c
  charged with the  noble mission
                    of rooting out all fetid thievery
    inside   gub contracting
                  over there in the sand trap...


    start  raising holy  hell   steve
stop the river of green gravy
right
in its  privatizing tracks

call for a freeze of funds
call a halt to about the biggest
taxpayer rip-o-ramakoff
since bebe rebozo resold
      those    alp high piles
            of hot tires
                      back in '43

do it steve nooooow
  sing solo baby

sing  like its wagner

  'out truman truman'
as  they used to say
     back in bebe's day

Two names to conjure with:

• Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)
• Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.)

This pair of quivering dermatophytes are respectively the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman and the second-ranking House Democratic leader. You can probably play their song without me even humming a few bars: Pelosi's stance "could backfire on the party." Twisted Cal gals Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher have articulated a House clone of the Republican Senate resolution calling for "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" and a Bushmill explanation of his "strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

But of course la bella Pella stands firm, right?

Wrong. I quote her press flack:

"While Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today's meeting against adopting this as a caucus position."

Aaahh Nan, you still have my, um, attention; but my heart is broken.

On Monday, the ex-medic said "The idea that we're going to win this war is an ideal that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Today?

"It was a little out of context. ... We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically. ... We want to serve our troops well. They're doing a fantastic job in Iraq.... [Bush] is going in the wrong direction. We'll go in the right direction and save soldiers lives while we're doing it... We can and we have to win the war on terror."

... when churchyards yawn, and Hell itself breathes forth

Contagion to the world.

Yep, the Republican implosion has brought the democratic-party Undead clambering out of their graves. A particularly ripe and fragrant specimen is Dick Holbrooke, baulked of the top job at Foggy Bottom when his noble steed Kerry died under him. Behold, he sniffs the air. A terrible excitement animates his decaying sinews. Hollowly, tonelessly, mechanically, he speaks:

"I'm not prepared to lay out a detailed policy or strategy... It's not something you can expect in a situation that is moving this fast and has the level of detail you're looking for.... I don't believe in an arbitrary drawdown, whether it's Vietnam or Bosnia or Iraq.... A departure must be based on realities on the ground.... Iraq is a country enmeshed in civil war, with no purely military strategy available.... Sunni insurgents cannot win but U.S. troops also cannot win, cannot eliminate multiple insurgencies.... Rather than a prescription I prefer to talk about goals.... we need to reach a point where U.S. troops are not participants in this civil war but where we're still able to protect U.S. interests like oil, regional stability, counterterrorism and Israel."

And it's very gratifying to reflect that mealy-mouthed temporizing like this is quite likely to deprive the Democrats of a recrudescence in '06 that they have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve.

Not to the unspeakable Rahm Emmanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- Mr. Moneybags, in other words, for the national party. Emmanuel has apparently passed down the word that Bishop would get little support from the DCCC.

This is starting to look like a pattern.

Among those dodging the bullet with a bold and resolute "present" was our friend Rahm Emanuel.

"There is no one Democratic voice... and there is no one Democratic position."

I say it with deep regret, since I find Nancy fantastically attractive, but she must be expunged. What is the matter with all you peace and love San Franciscans? How can you abide her willingness to sup so calmly with the worst devils in all of Tartarus?

There's your House Democratic party package -- Nan and Rahm. Why would anyone think it's an improvement for these electric eels to gain control of Congress?

To think this is the same Nan who, as whip, back in '02, rallied 126 Democratic house votes against the war authorization, right under pig-pants Gephardt's bristled snout! Now it's all too clear that was Nan doin' showbiz -- dancing to the local Frisco beat, a noble meaningless gesture, pure theatrics.

Come the Murtha moment -- come a real chance to kill the war -- the real Nan emerges, gladly setting places at the table for an Emanuel or a Harmon.

Frisco does not see Iraq like Nan, and Frisco needs to wake up and punish her. This dirty desert war is profoundly not a matter of "individual conscience".

Come next November vote your conscience, Frisco. Vote her out, in the primary if you can and the general election if you must.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

The Duckworth campaign, orchestrated by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chief of the House Democratic political operation -- who nationally has been recruiting Iraq vets for House races -- will be boosted by Illinois Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama.

"I'm just solidly in Tammy Duckworth's corner," Durbin said Friday as Obama, standing at his side, nodded in agreement.

Democratic congressional leaders have signaled for months that a central theme of the party's 2006 campaign will be that Republicans have focused more on the concerns of lobbyists and special interests than of ordinary families.

"It is time to put an end to … the pay-to-play politics that are going on in Washington," said [Montana] state Sen. Jon Tester. "This kind of politics … doesn't really represent the rank-and-file folks that are out there every day trying to make ends meet."

Starting with the 2000 cycle, Abramoff and his clients pumped about $4.5 mil into the American political pigsty; during that same period, the corresponding stream of pro-Israel bribery was a little shy of $22 million. Go back as far as 1990, and the total is almost $56 million.

I'm not sure what Abramoff got for his money, but I can tell you at least one thing the Israel lobby got for theirs: the Iraq war. I know, I know, there were other factors, bla bla, but there can be no question, I think, in the mind of anybody who is paying attention, that pressure from the Israel lobby played a crucial, perhaps even a decisive role in getting this murderous folly going. Just as there can be no doubt that Democrats are even more willing to dance to AIPAC's tune than Republicans are -- and that's saying something.

So if you're still scratching your head about why the War Democrats are sticking to their guns, so to speak, even while the public is heading for the hills (not, I hope, the Hills), there's your answer: a long-standing "culture of corruption" that makes Abramoff look like some poor small-time schlemiel who has to buy retail.

Last time as a very pliable and well-financed incumbent member of Orthrus' junior-head party, she won in a dog-trot (2 to 1) over a literally zero-financed token elephant act. But recall it was just a couple of cycles ago that she barely nosed out then one-term Republican Kuykendall to retake "her seat". The tally: 48% to 47%.

Her district has a take-away "prog" base large enough to pull her under -- if they're willing to walk away.

"The beach-lined district, which includes Los Angeles International Airport, tends to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Democratic and Republican registration is almost equal... roughly a fifth of voters register with third parties or decline to state their affiliation."

All you Left Democrats -- there's only two possibilities; either the Democratic Party can be turned into something useful, or it can't. If you think it can, then Job One has gotta be to get rid of dedicated NSA spy backers and all-too-open friends of war in the Middle East like Harman.

Do a little Googling on "jane harman" and iran to see what this Blue Dog stands for.

This district is a toss-up in a well-fought two-racer. It was for a long time -- four terms -- the stompin' ground of flashy d'Amato crony Rick Lazio, till Hillary drew his fangs in Senate race 2000.

Nice revenge theme here.

Israel squeaked in with 48%, fighting for Lazio's vacated seat in 2000. Last cycle, a dummy Repub got a third of the vote, running literally on $2k in campaign funds against Israel's million-plus band wagon.

Come next November hit this fat AFL-AIPAC war pig from the peace-loving left, and you can leave the rest to the right.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you seriously think there's any hope for the Democratic Party as a "progressive" force, you've gotta make the concept "right-wing Democrat" into an oxymoron. And this is the kind of district that really deserves a Republican, anyway.

The latest Osamagram, according to Reuters, apparently offers us a "truce" if we get out of Iraq:

bin Laden said al Qaeda was willing to respond to U.S. public opinion supporting an American troop pullout from Iraq. He did not specify conditions for the truce, but indicated it was linked to U.S. troops quitting Iraq.

"We have no objection to responding to this with a long term truce based on fair conditions."

Benjamin was a National Security Council apparatchik during the Clinton Administration. He and a colleague from those palmy days, Steven Simon, have been parked in a liberal think tank since their expulsion from Eden, and have written a couple of books articulating what you might call the Kerry line -- namely, that the "war on terror" would be better run under Democratic management. Benjamin intones, ominously,

"Remember that bin Laden, in many of his pronouncements over the years, has held out the possibility of a new deal between the Muslim world and the U.S. It's just that the cost has been unbelievable, like getting out of the Middle East entirely or withdrawing support for so-called apostate regimes."

Do you have to ask?

Here's some highlights from a Valentine spread in yesterday's LA Times:

SAN FRANCISCO -- Nancy Pelosi is explaining the ways of Washington... "You have to understand, Washington is a secret-sauce town."

... way of disdaining those who profess to know the perfect ingredient for political success.... [yet] Pelosi... insists she knows the recipe for winning back the House in November: "It's one good month in front of another. Beat Social Security. Make sure the world knows what's happening -- ethically. Attract the candidates. Raise the money. Build the unity for our message."

A flashpoint came last month... Pelosi seconded a proposal by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

"Politically speaking, the president was bleeding profusely from an open wound... To effectively move the spotlight from a place that was horrendous for the president to a question on which there is no public consensus..."

Behind the steely smile, Nan appears to agree.

"I think the attention is very much there with George Bush," she said, adding that her support for Murtha was a personal endorsement and not a statement of the party's position. "you don't do that on a question of war... that's a completely individual decision."

Congressional Quarterly reports that in 2005, Democrats were more unified than at any time in the past half century ... 88% of the time, compared with the Republicans' 90%.

Pelosi [is] a combination den mother, — perennially reaching out to members to hear their concerns — and strict disciplinarian, cracking down on those deemed less than team players.

We get one grandstand moment:

Pelosi allies happily publicized [her threat] to remove Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York from a prized seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee after he defected on a pair of high-profile votes."

Meanwhile, back in the district -- how's it going?

She represents one of the most liberal cities in America -- she has been picketed in San Francisco for being insufficiently antiwar.

to broaden Democrats' national appeal.... by embracing... deficit reduction and veterans affairs. "She's shown a recognition of the need for a party with a big tent and diversity," [says] Tim Roemer, former Indiana congressman and more moderate Democrat, urged by Pelosi to run for chairman of the national party despite their differences on abortion

Of course the big split in the party is

...among those... who believe that Democrats should act to end the war and those who prefer to attack Bush in hopes that voters will take out their frustrations on Republicans.

"the already sticky wicket of the war [becoming] a Venus' flytrap."

"No one Democrat "fits perfectly in every single congressional district like Cinderella's slipper," says Roemer.

Well, fair enough. You folks in Frisco -- how do you find that your "peace now" slipper fits on the wide square foot of Nan "you CAN have it both ways" Pelosi?

Kick her out, Friscoites. Whoever she's representing, it's not you.

January 28, 2006

Dear Cindy Sheehan --

Last year, you almost single-handedly revived the dead American anti-war movement -- a movement killed by its own fatal attraction to the Democratic Party and its lesser (but still plenty evil) warmakers like Kerry, and Clinton, and Pelosi. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

I'm sure you have your own ideas about what to do next, but perhaps you'd be interested to know what one admirer, at least, would like to see you do.

I think you should set your sights on one of these Democratic war criminals and run against him or her. And I don't mean a primary challenge, or just a primary challenge; I mean run on a third-party line, in some state or district where anti-war forces are strong, as a frank and self-proclaimed spoiler.

What would be the point of this exercise?

It's pretty clear to a lot of us that the Democratic Party, at least in its present form, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But counsel is divided about how that might and should change. Some of us think the Democratic Party is just hopeless and needs to be cleared out of the way. Others think it can be somehow claimed or "reclaimed" by "progressives" -- for lack of a better word.

I don't know which of these views is yours. Personally, I tend to the lost-cause view of the party. Perhaps you wouldn't quite go that far. But I would argue that either way, the conclusion is the same: there can be no quarter for War Democrats. One way or the other, that must become an untenable position.

If you think the Democratic Party can be salvaged as an anti-war party, then the first order of business is to squeeze out the War Democrats by any means necessary. If they can't be defeated in a primary challenge, then they have to be fragged from behind in the general election. (I am speaking metaphorically here, of course.)

Take Hillary Clinton (please!). She faces a couple of anti-war primary challengers, which is a fine thing, as far as it goes. But her war-chest from the Israel lobby, among other sources of lavish funding, is immense, and many Democrats, even many of those who oppose the war and deplore Hillary's support for it, will be so mesmerized by the mirage of "electability" and the sophomoric appeal of strategic voting that they will pull a lever for her even in the primary. If the primary challenges fail, what then? Do we sit back and say, oh well, better luck next time, and watch this monster's triumphal progress back into the Senate and on, quite possibly, to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008?

There is an alternative. We could take the view that we must expel the malefactors, regardless of party label, starting with the easiest, most vulnerable ones -- which means, of course, the War Democrats. We could take a frankly and openly punitive approach to people like Hillary. We could teach them that unless they stand for what we stand for, we will take our votes elsewhere, come what may. They can tell us bloodcurdling tales about the Republican bogeyman until they are Blue in the face, but we can let them know we've seen through that: if they're going to tag along behind the Republicans on the life-and-death issues that matter most to us, what have we to fear from their defeat?

As a movement, we have to show that we have too much self-respect to grovel for crumbs. We will never be taken seriously until we show that there is a price that must be paid for our support -- and a price to be paid for betraying us. "If I can't sell it, gonna keep sittin' on it," runs the old song; "Never catch me givin' it away." We've been givin' it away to the Democrats for way too long.

Now let's get down to brass tacks for a minute. I've been talking about Hillary a lot, and since I live in New York, I can't tell you how much I would love to see you show up here, determined to battle the ogress on a third-party line in November. That would get her attention in a way that her primary challengers probably are not. So if you're disposed to do that, I would be the last person in the world to dissuade you.

But perhaps you're thinking, understandably, that Hillary would be a tough nut to crack. If so, two words: Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi is very vulnerable in her peace-loving San Francisco district, as my blogmate J.S. Paine has explained. If you were to go West, Cindy Sheehan, go West, and challenge Pelosi in the primary and then challenge her again in the general election, it's very likely you could could make an example out of her that would strike fear into the hearts of all her fellow War Democrats. In fact, it's not at all inconceivable that you could end up in her House seat! Think of the hell you could raise there.

This scenario has me in such a paroxysm of delight that I'm going to have to end this letter. I do hope you will consider the idea. Think how happy you would make me -- and many, many others.

Very respectfully yours,

Michael J. Smith

"There's far more dignity in jumping off a cliff than being chloroformed and thrown off...."

Let's start with this conciousness killer: "politics is the art of the possible." Surely you know who that's attributed to?

It's in that spirit I take up Kerry's recent NYT blooper, "we all support surveillance."

My lord, eh?

Well, though we must never ever again vote for the likes of him, I implore you -- forgive 'em. They so wish they had a hard-nosed profile. They are so far from the streets, the merit snobs believe mythical millions of white gum-heads really adore sheriffin' leaders. Liberal ilks like chinny John and Saint Hillary want nothing more then to lead America back to the humanist 90's -- but first they think they have to out-Herod Herod, before they can lure the mutts away from the Republican vigilantes.

Ah the plight... trying to shepherd a nation that they too believe is on the verge of turning lynch mob, back to peaceful pastures.

Naturally, this discontent has given rise to some primary challenges to the Hillarys and Feinsteins, by well-meaning people like Steven Greenfield and Jonathan Tasini in New York. The latest may be the admirable Cindy Sheehan, who seems to be considering a primary run against Feinstein in California.

Now I hate to be a Grinch, but this strategy is doomed to failure. The evildoers will get their party's nomination -- Pelosi might be the one truly vulnerable one, if anybody took her on -- because they have all the money, and because the party faithful are petrified by the twin Gorgons of "electability" and "realism."

What's needed, instead of a primary challenge, is an aggressive left-wing third-party campaign in the general election against these Democratic malefactors -- even if the result will be a Republican victory.

Thought it might cheer you up to know it's not just Hillary and Feinstein facing primary challenges from anti-war candidates: right now I'm working for my friend Johnny Hap on a volunteer, grassroots campaign to unseat the unspeakable Rahm Emmanuel in Illinois' 5th district.

True, Rahm has plenty of money and even more party-machine connections, but still we feel he is vulnerable to a progressive challenge because of the strong discontent among even mainstream Democrats in the district....

Johnny Hap is affiliated with members of the Progressive Democrats of America and is chiefly concerned with pulling the Democratic party back to the left, to a point where it may embrace a radical revision of our electoral system, including the opening-up of our two-party hegemony. Whether or not this is possible from within the Democratic party remains to be seen, but the point is we believe Rahm Emmanuel can be defeated in the primary by a progressive, anti-war, anti-corporate government candidate. Anyway, check out the website www.JohnnyHap.org...

The crucial question is, do you loathe Rahm enough to help a Republican knock him off? If you don't -- and I don't mean you personally, I mean frustrated lefties generally -- then I think you're still entertaining some illusions about the Democratic Party, illusions that are likely to prove seriously crippling.

Some updating here: since the Murtha moment the likes of Howie Dean and senator Jack Reed have been madly scurryiing around tacking togerther a party center plan. So far, its very much the twin of Republican sour grape Larry Korb's.

Why does the Korb plan for Iraq trump the Murha plan? Answer: the time frame.

Murtha wants a 6 month out, Korb gives till the end of '07 -- yes, '07. He answers the question of the hour among Orthrian Democrats: "What's the time frame that puts us beyond the cut and run rap?" Their answer seems to be -- one more year.

Now remember these are both "redeploy plans" -- that means boots and bombers stay next door in Kuwait. Now here's how we close the gaps between the two time frames. Watch closely.

The Murtha hundred in the house stand ready to ram this through -- but they can't unless we give 'em their 50 mint condition brand new army mules elected in November. But then, boy, will the fur ever fly -- thy'll goose the Orthrian high command to greenlight the 6 month "redeployment".

Now let's see... well that oughta get the troops out by 6 months from next January. But when you lay out the feasible time lines like that, Korb and Murtha start looking kinda similar, eh?

My bet is that the Rumsfeld timeline ain't too far off that pace either.

Rules:

• No more than four names per contributor
• Must be incumbent House donks (or Rahm-picked challenger mules)

PS -- No senators here, please -- send those big fish to Herr Smiff.

Kate Michelman, a prominent abortion-rights advocate, said yesterday that she was giving "some thought" to running as an independent in the race for a Pennsylvania seat in the U.S. Senate.

A possible candidacy by Michelman, 63, appears to have much to do with channeling frustration that some reproductive-rights activists have over the National Democratic Party's choice of Bob Casey Jr., an abortion-rights opponent, to challenge Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who also opposes abortion rights.

Anyway, I hope Michelman runs -- though it's probably a long shot -- and I hope she spoils it for Casey. Experience keeps a hard school, as the man said, but a fool will learn in no other.

What puzzles me is this -- and I don't at at all mean to indulge in a coarse joke here -- but can somebody tell me why the women's movement has so much bigger balls than the anti-war movement?

As far as I know, there are no peace candidates threatening to do to their local Democrats what Michelman is threatening to do to foetus-fan Casey. Certainly not in microscopically close settings like Pennsylvania, where a few votes can really make a difference.

Kate -- I would vote for you if I lived in Pennsylvania. Would you do me a favor and give Cindy Sheehan a call?

A few excerpts:

Our troops are in Iraq to make possible the establishment of a legitimate functioning government....

The ominous challenge we face today is to prevent Iraq from sliding deeper into the quagmire. The time bomb of civil war is ticking, and our most urgent priority is to defuse it....

The Iraqi constitution must be a fair compact between all the Iraqi people. If it is not, our intervention is doomed to keep failing....

A fundamental aspect of this process should be to disarming the militias, which Ambassador Khalilizad has rightly described as "the infrastructure of civil war." No solution can work unless the Iraqi Security Forces are loyal to the government and not to a political party or faction.

After a decidedly dubious showing in Texas, Rahm Emanuel's Sockpuppet Army used a late winter snowstorm to cover it's advance through Illinois, defeating antiwar forces in CDs 06 & 14 like Panzers rolling though Polish cavalry.

Despite a spirited defense by local antiwar partisans, Tammy "Lots of local support." Duckworth beat Kosniki fave-rave Christine Cegelis in CD06.  Duckworth's DCCC-financed campaign proved too much for the homegrown Cegelis campaigners and the RahmPuppet squeaked out a victory 43% to 40%.

Less surprising was RahmPuppet John Laesch's storming of CD14, where he overwhelmed the harassed forces of antiwar dem Ruben Zamora by a nearly 2-1 margin (65% to 34%.)  Using the time-honored Democrat tactic of trying to sue your opponent off the ballot. Zamora fought off early attacks as party operatives launched a challenge to his primary signatures.

Thus all three "Fighting Dems" will advance to the general in Rahm's homestate.  Prowar Duckworth will be facing equally prowar Pete Roskam in Henry Hyde's old district, while prowar Laesch will tackle House Speaker Denny Hastert and Dick Auman (whose position on the war I've yet to find) will try to face down Congresscritter Don Manzullo in CD16.

The next big challange for the RahmPuppet Army is the May 2nd Ohio primary; where we'll find out if shivving Paul Hackett has hurt the prowar cause.  Fighting dem partisans will also duke it out in Indiana and North Carolina for the chance to lead the party to glorious victory.  Stay tuned!

That's from a blogation outfit called "the left coast".

The line here quite obviously pursues the usual course of least mental resistence. The blog perp goes on to suggest the Bush brigades' massive Iraq threat hype back in the spring-summer-early fall of '02 -- i.e. prior to the first midterm election -- "jammed " the leading donks into backing the topple caper.

Makes sense if you figure the GOP master minds not only wanted to "do" the topple on its own merits, but also had the spineless donks well scoped out -- and if you assume that the donks actually needed any jamming. Anyway, our leftcoaster draws a parallel to now -- and ain't he or she right about the visible facts, anyway -- the hee haw chorus line once again is dancing its classic fake, fiddle and feint routine.

So let's say a war is on the docket. And again, the donks are moving it right along -- either because they've been fecklessly "jammed," or because they're signed up without having to be jammed. Either way they're doing their bit for the war effort, led by the muppet prince side saddle Joe and the heinous Hill.

Comrade Leftcoaster is trying to answer a question that runs like this: why in Hell hasn't the bulk of congressional donkeydom wised up? Why aren't they raging in bloodshot fury? Why are they not throwing republicans into the mouth of a volcano?

Leftcoast needs to understand it's all just a fine fiction really -- only fun if you let yourself go, suspend disbelief and let yourself be taken in by it all. Forget for the moment its all just Orthronics out there. Play along. Pretend to share the feelings of the average old gull -- like you're part of one of those iconic 50's wrestling crowds, and you just shout yourself hoarse trying to warn our baby-faced hero, as once again and for the umpteenth time, he's about to get bashed over the head from behind with a folding chair by the designated villain, while he good-naturedly helps an old lady to her seat.

Here's a serendipitous little juxtaposition.

Wesley Clark reports for duty (again) and thoughtfully takes a directorship, just in case duty doesn't work out so well.

The news item refers to Clark's

... role alongside the Senate Democratic leader, Harry M. Reid of Nevada, and the House Democratic leader, Nancy P. Pelosi of California, in crafting the national security plank in which the party pledges to ''eliminate" Osama Bin Laden, better equip the US military, and ensure that 2006 ''is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty."

Iraq was the most difficult point of agreement for party lawmakers. Over the past months, Clark spent hours on the phone and in meetings with lawmakers ranging from centrist to leftists. Last fall, he urged Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania not to make his famed call for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. And while Clark calls the Iraq war a ''strategic blunder," he continues to disagree with such lawmakers as Kerry who propose specific reductions of troops.

''No Democratic should put numbers" on an exit by American troops, he [said].

My favorite quote from the "real security" brochure:

After September 11, all Americans trusted President Bush to take the steps necessary to keep our country safe.

Wonder what this means. Is it that he doesn't mean to be a candidate in '08, so he can play the Judas goat who will keep antiwar Democrats in the fold? Or does he think that the war ship is sinking and it's time for the rats to desert?

Either way, I guess it's good news, as far as it goes. Strange that I feel so obliged to look this particular gift horse in the mouth. Maybe I'm so profoundly convinced of Kerry's inveterate, invertebrate pliancy that I can't imagine anything he would do could possibly be a good thing.

Kerry's speech had some amusing moments. My favorite, I guess, is this:

Even during the Cold War--an undeclared war, and often more a war of nerves and diplomacy than of arms--even the mildest dissenters from official policy were sometimes silenced, blacklisted, or arrested, especially during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Joseph McCarthy went through the gates of delirium and began accusing distinguished U.S. diplomats and military leaders of treason that the two parties in Washington and the news media realized the common stake they had i