This evening I finally had enough time to put my thoughts regarding the poor job of framing the Dubai Ports deal into an email to many members of the Democratic hierarchy, including the 2 Democratic senators from my home state of NY.  I feel that we as a party have missed out on a golden opportunity to frame the debate not as one of purely homeland security and xenophobia, but rather as one where we question whether this administration considers the Congress a relevant part of the democratic process.  The following is the letter that I sent to each key senator and representative in hopes that this theme will be adopted in future interviews about the Ports deal:

Here we go again. It seems that on the heels of the high and mighty rhetoric that Bush used in both his inauguration and SOTU addresses, the "freedom and liberty" campaign is ramping up to high gear. News from Europe today is that new Secretary of State Rice is scolding England, France and Germany for not treating the nuclear aspirations of Iran seriously enough. This charge is absolutely incredulous in the light that these three countries have actually engaged Iran diplomatically and have made it possible for the IAEA to do a good job of deterring Iran for acquiring weapons grade material. I am not professing to be an expert on Iran's nuclear intentions, but it seems to me that they are much further along than Iraq ever was. The fact that prominent EU countries are trying along with IAEA to prevent Iran from ramping up to weapons capability should be an indicator of where the "threats" really are. However, Rice's comments show that this administration is basically going to play lip service to the new diplomacy tactics mentioned in the SOTU and by Rice during her confirmation hearings. Add to this the same type of language regarding Iran ignoring sanctions, and it seems like we have a pattern re-emerging. With Seymour Hirsch's reports of leaks in the Pentagon regarding "precision air strikes" in Iran that could materialize for this summer, it looks like we are moving ever closer to significant military actions in Iran that will stretch the already thin US war machine even thinner. This is sure to be a hot topic as the second term administration shapes up. Let's see how our elected officials in the Congress go about evaluating the merits of a second pre-emptive strike. Will they be more willing to question the intelligence (or lack thereof) from the administration this time? Or will they knuckle under again?

I was just breezing through the news as I opened up my web browser and ran across this little story:

WASHINGTON(AP) In a psychological war of words, Senate Republicans are issuing only slightly veiled threats against their Democratic counterparts if the minority party resuscitates its penchant for blocking President Bush's choices for federal judgeships.

Learn from the election defeat of Minority Leader Tom Daschle, the Republicans say, contending it was Democratic "judicial obstructionism" that led to a variety of GOP victories and Daschle's downfall on Election Day. The not-so-subtle message: Let conservatives have their way when it comes to judicial picks, or you too will face the wrath of voters.

But Senate Democrats, though diminished in number by four, see no link between the election losses and Bush's judicial nominees and plan to stand their ground. More filibusters should be expected if Bush tries to put someone too conservative on the Supreme Court or other top courts. With Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist seriously ailing from thyroid cancer, Bush could make a court appointment soon.

Based on raw numbers, Democrats still can make a filibuster stick, since it takes 60 votes to overcome one. The new Senate will have 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Democrat-leaning independent. The GOP would have to persuade five Democrats to defect on a filibuster to break it.

During Bush's first term, Democrats successfully blocked 10 of his judicial nominees to U.S. Appeals Courts _ the nation's second-highest courts. At the same time, the Senate confirmed 203 of Bush's court appointments.

Not surprisingly, it's the 10 blocked nominations that peeve the Republicans.

"I'm wondering if they have the heart to try it again," said Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.

Absolutely, says Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the most outspoken senators against what Democrats consider extremist right-wing judicial nominees.

"Everything stays the same, and the ball's in the president's court," said Schumer, who was just overwhelmingly re-elected to another six-year term. "I don't see the Democrats backing down on this issue."

Slightly veiled threats! The discourse in the Congress sounds more pre-fight comments at a boxing match arranged by Don King, or trash talk between scripted professional wrestlers. It has only been two days, and the Repubs are already showing that they have no intention of reaching out to the "those who voted for my opponent" as Bush croaked on Thursday. I think the situation is perhaps more immediate and dire than we may have anticipated, and we need to unify more than ever. It is not time to recoil and lick our wounds, but to come out swinging.

It strikes me as ironic that, as I listen to Senator Kerry's concession speech, that the Bush administration is the one considered to stand tall on moral issues. Mr. Kerry's words show his moral strength and his certitude in the value of individual rights and freedoms. I can feel that he really stands behind his statement that he is there for us. Even though Bush may believe that he stands behind his words and morals, I think the rest of his party is pretty much morally bankrupt. They have had 3.5 years to show me otherwise, and I have yet to see any sign to the contrary.

Many of you probably also are/have listened to Mr. Kerry this afternoon, and you are seeing a real person talking from his heart, showing what a real president is supposed to be all about. This is probably the most relaxed and personal you'll ever see Mr. Kerry in a public event, and it is perhaps unfortunate that we could not have seen more of this during the campaign. Perhaps it is this type of relaxed and personal approach that needs to be ingrained into our next generation of Democratic leaders so that we can reach out to the folks who make morals their number one issue. I'm not saying "dumb it down", but I am suggesting that if more politicians were honest and straightforward, the Republicans couldn't twist and spin every word around.

The first thing that I heard this morning on NPR about voter demographics is perhaps the most disappointing news of this election. After all the push to get 18-24 year olds out to vote, the turnout was a pathetic 1 in 10. I had not been very confident about MTV's efforts, and I guess my lack of faith was well founded. Apparently the threat of a draft, and the rising cost of college tuition (plus plenty of other issues) were not enough to motivate that group to get out.

Overall, unless Ohio swings on some miracle, this is an extremely upsetting result. I really can't figure out what happened. It seems hard to believe that rural voters could have so much in common with the Republicans. The Reps are clearly the party of big business and could care less about rural voters unless it is election day. I cannot honestly think of one piece of legislation in the last 3.5 years that has helped that group. What is even more striking is that this group was motivated by threats of terrorism and the war in Iraq. Without sounding like too much of a jerk, I really don't think that terrorists would ever strike a target in the US that didn't have some symbolic meaning - i.e., a big US city or landmark - and that just is not the rural areas of the country. It seems like an irrational fear of something that just is not likely to ever happen. So people have sacrificed their own well-being because of this fear mongering to "stay the course" against terror.

It also appears that Republicans made significant gains in the House, the Senate, a number of state legislatures, and among state Governors. Equally upsetting is the bigotry being displayed by the states that voted for the ban on gay marriages. We are actually sliding backwards in terms of extending rights to all of our citizenry. The right-wing groups see this as shoring up our morals, but I honestly believe that we are going back in time and not recognizing reality. This latent conservatism is just amazing. I guess living in New York and working at a university has just isolated me from this surge around the country because I honestly did not think that this many people around the country held such strong opposition to the rights of all people.

Well, enough ranting. Jerome and Chris have done a wonderful job here, and just because this election may not turn out the way we were hoping, we cannot just sit back until 2008. If we do, we will find ourselves in such a hole that we won't be able to dig out until a viable new party emerges or the Democrats basically become Republicans-lite. There are going to be a number of political battles in the next four years (e.g., the Supreme Court, Iran, North Korea, Constitutional Amendments) and sites like MyDD and it's contributors need to stay as interested and active as they are now.

I'm watching CNN2 right now and David Kay is absolutely refuting the satellite photos that the Defense Department is trotting out in defense of the missing 380+ tons of explosives. The DoD is claiming that these photos show a convoy taking explosives away 2-3 days before the US attacked Iraq. For Kay, these photos are inconclusive at best because they do not show evidence that explosives were moved (and they also show no evidence that they weren't). However, having been in Iraq for a significant amount of time before and after the initial attack, Kay is certain that explosives have been looted. He cited personnel experience with looting, noting that he saw explosives taken away by donkey cart, a few hundred pounds at a time. He stated that it would not surprise him in the least if Al Qaqaa was looted in a similar fashion because the military had ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN to secure any explosives facilities. It seems they had no plans to secure anything - I remember listening to NPR during that first month after the initial attack and hearing reports that mental hospitals were emptied and looting was rampant in Baghdad. Seems to me that if they couldn't keep people confined to a hospital, that they certainly didn't think to far ahead except for the oil fields. I guess those special forces troops already in Iraq in January 2003 should have been working on a plan to secure and lock down explosives, prisons, mental hospitals, etc. Oh well.

A major story that the media is not really discussing with much zeal (but to their credit, NPR gave some attention to), is the recent bombing within the Green Zone in Baghdad. The fact that "insurgent" attacks have steadily escalated and have increasingly crept closer and closer to the Green Zone should have been the first sign that Iraq is not going as swimmingly as the Pentagon and the Administration claim. The news that a major bombing actually occurred INSIDE the US Army controlled Green Zone should have set off flashing lights to the American public of just how the situation has deteriorated, making it clear that the White House is not dealing with reality.

Do other DDers agree that this should be a big story? I think if Kerry could use this story to help more people realize just how the Administration's "optimism" is blinding their objectivity, he could have a strong point about why their current plan is the wrong one, and his is better for Iraq.

What do you all think??

Tim Noah posted a really scary column on Slate today (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/). In it, he points out that those of us who are  not initiated into the wonderful little Right-wing world, missed the fact that Bush's reference to Dred Scott is actually code for Roe v. Wade. Apparently there are all types of little code words and phrases for the Christian Right that Bush peppers his speeches with. In support of his observation, Noah suggests that you try doing a Google search with Dred Scott, Roe and Wade as the key search words. I did, and you'll be quite surprised with the pages that you'll get. After you pass by the first few links that also document this little story, you'll start to see all types of propaganda pieces by religious and right wing groups that talk about judicial activists, etc. Apparently, Dred Scott is a way of saying to the Christian right that Bush would never select judges that support RvW.

So before we dismiss Bush's incoherent babble in the debates as further proof of how unintelligent the man is, we should carefully watch for the code that his handlers have prepared him with. I can't overemphasize how important this election is in terms of the future make-up of the Supreme Court. Although you may not feel the changes instantaneously, once the pendulum swings it is very difficult to move it back the other way because justices are appointed for life.