My new job

-- by Dave

Some of you may have noticed it's been a bit quiet here this past week or so. Some of that's due to some travel I did last week (went to Arizona), but a lot more of it has to do with my new job -- as of Monday, I'm now doubling as the managing editor at Firedoglake.

It's a challenge of the kind I've been looking for the past year or so and it's exciting to get this kind of opportunity. I'm very much enjoying working with the amazing array of talent Jane has assembled there, and I'm humbled that Jane has entrusted me with them.

I'm sure many of you are wondering what will happen to Orcinus. Here's what: Not a lot will change. This past week has been tough, but things should get on an even keel soon (I hope) and I'll be posting here daily and more again. Sometimes there will be crossposts, but a lot of what I do here doesn't mesh with what FDL does, and my reasons for doing them here haven't changed significantly: I still want this blog to be an important informational resource for people dealing with the far right and the other issues I write about here. Also, FDL does better with short, snappy posts, and as most of you know, I tend to indulge the long form at this blog, since the purpose is different.

Hope you all read me at both places, but most of all, you can still count on Orcinus doing what it's always done for the foreseeable future. I may be a little diverted at times, but that will be a tradeoff I hope everyone can live with.

The Real McCain on Immigration and Race

-- by Sara

Our buddy Cliff Schecter has been hard to miss the past couple days. The buzz over his forthcoming book, The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't, has been heard even beyond the sheltered garden of liberal blogdom, and is now hitting the mainstream media with the thunder of an oncoming B-52.

And well it should. Cliff's got a hell of a tale to tell. Actually, perusing my advance copy, he's got several of them. His indelicacy in chewing out his wife -- you know, the one whose large personal fortune has made McCain's career possible -- and calling her the c-word in front of reporters is the story all over the front pages right now. But there's more. Much more.

The larger point that runs throughout Cliff's book is that Senator Straight Talk has a long record of being anything but. On any issue you can name, he's hemmed and hawed and twisted himself around to fit whatever group he was currying favor with (or taking funding from) on any given day. (That, in the end, is why conservatives don't trust him, and nobody else should, either.) And that habit absolutely extends to his record where issues like race and immigration are concerned.

McCain on Immigration: Way out front -- then nowhere to be seen
McCain's home state of Arizona has been ground zero in the immigration wars, so you'd expect the state's most visible national politician would have a strong voice and a well-considered and consistent point of view on this issue. And so he has -- right up until he started running for president.

On the plus side, he seems to clearly understand that the GOP's obsession with the issue is devastating its future prospects with the growing pool of Hispanic voters. He knows that building fences is futile. He came out against a draconian 2004 state initiative in Arizona that would have denied all public services to undocumented immigrant. The state's conservatives returned the favor by trying to pass a state resolution censuring McCain for refusing to cave into their racist demands.

Two years ago, he even went so far as to co-sponsor an immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy. But as soon as he put himself in the running for the 2008 nomination, McCain suddenly was nowhere to be seen when immigration -- an issue he could have owned, and been the country's leading voice of sanity on -- was being discussed. By late 2006, he began to back away -- from the negotiations, from Kennedy, from any relationship to his bill at all. By May 2007, the Washington Post noticed that he'd taken his name off the bill, and wasn't making the meetings any more. A "top Senate Democrat" told the Post that McCain withdrew because "he knows it's killing him in the primary."

McCain on Race: Is it "offensive," or just "heritage"?
That same lack of moral center can be seen on his mushy handling of race issues. Cliff points out that McCain's ancestors were slaveowners and fought on the side of the Confederacy -- a piece of his personal history you can be quite sure wasn't prominently highlighted on last week's "Biography Tour." Perhaps because of this -- and because he's done almost nothing to stake out a strong stance for equality at any point in his career -- his record through the years has been all over the place.

One example, which was originally reported by Steve Benen in an August 2006 post at The Carpetbagger Report, regards McCain's attitude toward Bob Jones University and its student conduct policies, which McCain attacked in the 2000 primaries as "racist and cruel" and declared belonged in the 16th century, not the 21st. At that point, he was trying to draw a favorable contrast with George Bush, who had recently spoken at BJU. According to Benen:

McCain assailed the appearance, arguing that Bush's uncritical speech at BJU was tantamount to an endorsement of the school's policies. John McCain told reporters, "If I were there, I would condemn openly the policies of Bob Jones, because I would want to make sure that everybody knew that this kind of thing is not American."

It was hard to disagree. BJU, of course, is a rigidly Christian fundamentalist school with a record of virulent racism and anti-Catholic policies. (The school, for example, used to ban interracial dating among its students and school officials have repeatedly attacked the Roman Catholic Church, referring to the pope as the "Antichrist" and calling Catholicism a "satanic cult.")

But McCain changed his tune six years later, as his current bid for the nomination began to get underway. When asked if he'd accept an invitation from BJU in 2006, he left the door open, saying he'd have to look at the school's latest policies. "I understand they have made considerable progress," he said. "I can't remember when I've turned down a speaking invitation. I think I'd have to look at it."

To be fair: the school had lifted it interracial dating ban in the meantime. But it also sent Bush an effusively creepy note affirming his status as God's hand-picked gift to America -- follow the link to read it all. It's not an improvement. Really.

McCain on the Confederacy: Flapping in the breeze
On the issue of the Confederate flag, McCain also seems to wave with the slightest breeze -- and changes direction faster than the weather of a southern summer. Here's Cliff:

Nothing reveals McCain's contortionism better than his various positions on the Confederate flag. In September 1999, McCain said that choosing whether to fly the Confederate flag "should be left to the states." In January 2000, he proclaimed, "The Confederate flag is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know. It's a symbol of racism and slavery." Three days later, he said, "Personally I the flag as a symbol of heritage."

It's a long journey from "racism and slavery" to "heritage" in only three days. So it wasn't surprising to learn that it was a journey McCain never actually took. He made this clear in an April 2000 speech in South Carolina. McCain told the mostly supportive crowd, "I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary...So I chose to compromise my principles. I broke my promise to always tell the truth."

About the only thing McCain been absolutely consistent on through the years has been his unwavering opposition to making Martin Luther King's birthday a federal holiday -- although he recently tried to back away from that record, too. According to a recent post at the Democratic Party's website:

John McCain today brought his effort to reinvent himself for the general election to a new low by misleading the voters on his full record on a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. McCain tried to suggest that his opposition to a holiday honoring Dr. King was limited to his 1983 vote against a federal holiday. In reality, McCain maintained his opposition to it until at least 1989, voted against funding for the commission working to promote the King Holiday in 1994, and used divisive language about state's rights to defend himself. McCain even supported Republican efforts to repeal a holiday in his state in 1987.

"It's frankly disingenuous for John McCain to try and reinvent himself for the general election by distorting his record of opposing a holiday honoring Dr. King," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "John McCain should be honest about his full record of opposing the federal holiday, opposing a state holiday four years later, using divisive language to defend himself, and voting to cut off funding for the commission working to promote the King holiday as recently as 1994."

The website goes on to list five votes between 1983 and 1994 in which McCain consistently voted against the holiday. Way to stand tall there, John.

McCain on Racists: Some of his best friends are
Finally, notes Cliff, McCain doesn't seem to mind consorting with the GOP's known racists. He campaigned heavily for George "Macaca" Allen in 2006. That same year, he hired Terry Nelson -- the guy who approved the notoriously racist "Call me, Harold," ads that tanked Harold Ford, Jr.'s senatorial bid in Tennessee -- as his first national campaign manager. In Florida, McCain's campaign co-chair was Bob Allen, who was arrested for soliciting sex from a police officer in the men's room at a Titusville city park. Allen blamed the event on the African-American police officer, who was "a pretty stocky black guy" and therefore somehow scared Allen in to propositioning him.

The overall picture here doesn't suggest that McCain is overtly or even covertly racist. In fact, it's clear that he has at least a cursory understanding of the logic of civil rights, and can speak to it when called to do so. But the record does reveal a distinct lack of conviction where racial equality is concerned. It's just not that important to him -- certainly not a matter of deeply-held principle. As far as McCain is concerned, this issue is infinitely negotiable: he'll sing whatever song the crowd wants to hear, whether it's a traditional tune of white "heritage" or a manly declaration that racism is "offensive."

That same flexibility is evident in his choice of friends: obviously, in the good-ol'-boy network of the GOP, there are any number of qualifications that will overcome a truly ugly record on the issue of race. And, given his persistent limpness on one of the country's core issues, we shouldn't doubt that those friends will push him to play the race card, over and over, starting the very moment Obama clinches the nomination. This wandering moral maverick has proven he doesn't have the will or the guts to stop them.

It's like Barack Obama said last month in Philadelphia:

We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

McCain's flaccid record on race will guarantee that, if Obama's the man, the GOP's side of the 2008 campaign will fit this exactly. We're going to see race as spectacle, as tragedy, as media fodder, as a smear tactic. We're going to see the GOP hitch the demons unleashed by Hillary to the deepest racist fears of the party's base. And we can be sure that McCain, fearful for every vote, will try to say all the right things to everyone -- but, in the end, will not lift a finger to stop it.

And if he wins, nothing will change.

-------------------------

Cliff Schecter's book, The Real McCain, is available for just $10 at Amazon.com. You're going to need these talking points between now and November.

A little race with your stocks

-- by Dave

Investors Business Daily has always been prone to running with bizarre far-right crap -- during the 1990s there wasn't a Clinton conspiracy they wouldn't promote, including some New World Order and Y2K fearmongering. It's a handy place for stocks news, but you wouldn't want to bet the farm on the accuracy of their news.

This week, though, Hatewatch reports that they've finally leapt off the cliff and into outright promotion of white-supremacist kookery:

Last Friday, a highly conservative publication called Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) published an editorial on its website called "The Real Cost of Immigration" that previewed a report to be released [Tuesday] at the National Press Club -- an analysis, as IBD noted, by one Edwin S. Rubenstein that is being published by The Social Contract journal. What IBD didn't bother to tell its readers was the troubling truth about Rubenstein's politics and those of his Michigan publisher.

According to IBD, Rubenstein’s report, “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration: An Analysis of the Costs to 15 Federal Departments and Agencies,” concludes that every immigrant to the United States costs taxpayers more than $9,000. That’s vastly more than other analyses have concluded, and no mention whatsoever is made of what most economists agree on —that immigrants, legal and otherwise, help grow the economy in ways that actually increase jobs for native Americans. But that's no surprise, given where Rubenstein and his publisher are coming from.

The truth is that Rubenstein is a man who has written for years for a racist anti-immigration website called VDARE -- short for Virginia Dare, said to be the first white child born in the New World. He also writes for the white supremacist National Policy Institute. Last spring, the institute released a report, prepared with Rubenstein’s help, that paints “a statistical and narrative portrait of the war on white America,” in the website’s words. Nicholas Stix’s introduction to the article describes the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling outlawing school segregation as “arguably the worse decision in the Court’s 216 year history.” He claims later civil rights legislation was unconstitutional. “[I]ntegration and the civil rights movement led directly to the destruction of great cities,” he concludes.

The other day, Paul Rosenberg at OpenLeft, in reviewing Glenn Greenwald's excellent new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling The Big Myths of Republican Politics,, observed that this is how garbage from all quadrants -- including the far racist right -- makes its way into mainstream-conservative media. This is, of course, a live and current example, which has been the case for the immigration debate generally.

Trust me: Before long, you're going to hear folks like Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage citing the IBD report as accurate.

Because Nobody Wants To End The War More Than Joe

[Cross-posted at Firedoglake.]

 Wow. Holy Joe now sees Americans’ continuing disagreement with him and the White House over their intransigence on ending the war as comparable to the violent extremism that’s currently awash in Iraq.

That was the message today in his testimony before the Petraeus/Crocker hearing, when he told us that Iraq has made more political progress since the surge than Americans have:

What I’m about to say, with respect to my colleagues who have consistently opposed our presence in Iraq, as I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there’s a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.

The fact is, there has been progress in Iraq, thanks to extraordinary effort by the two of you and all those who serve under you on our behalf.

I wish we could come to a point where we could have an agreement on the facts that you are presenting to us, the charts you’ve shown, the military progress, the extraordinary drop in ethno-sectarian violence, the drop in civilian deaths, the drop in American deaths, and the very impressive political progress in Iraq since last September.

Hey, let’s be honest about this: The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we’ve got to give credit for that.

Yep, the violent extremism in Washington these days is just intolerable. Quoth Scarecrow: "Lieberman is correct. Petraeus should take 30,000 troops and liberate Washington from the threat of extremists. And they shouldn’t leave until we have victory. The consequences of losing America to extremists would be catastrophic."


As Josh Marshall observes, Lieberman obviously "sees no harm in overstating the progress in Iraq."
Matt Yglesias says what needs saying:

To state the obvious, America has a heated political debate, but liberals and conservatives aren’t shooting mortars at each other and we don’t have pitched battles in the streets. To compare the situation in Iraq to the persistence of strong partisan disagreement in the United States is idiotic.

But that’s only half the idiocy. While Joe is busy accusing his fellow Democrats of refusing to face reality, he and his fellow Surge Sycophants refuse to even acknowledge, let alone confront, the hard realities on the ground in Iraq. As Scarecrow observed yesterday:

Even if we credit the surge with temporarily neutralizing Sunni forces (while creating further risks of civil war) that only set the stage for competing Shia factions to fight each other for control of Badghdad and Southern Iraq — with Bush using the fighting as an excuse to keep US forces bogged down in Iraq indefinitely. Fighting one side’s grab for power by laying siege to Sadr City’s million people risks hundreds of civilian deaths.

Of course, Joe also insists we have to "win" before we leave. And like Cokie Roberts, Lieberman has a, um, flexible definition of "victory" in Iraq — so flexible, it’s now entirely ass-backwards. Up is down. War is peace. Quagmire is victory.

In the real world, today’s appearance at the hearing was just all about Lieberman’s continuing Zell Millerization, using his "bipartisan" credentials to bash Democrats. We all know when he gets in front of the mikes that he’s going to attack liberal critics of the war with whatever Bizarro World version of reality he’s adopted that day.

Yet in spite of that, Harry Reid says Lieberman is going to be keeping all his committee assignments next year, including his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The Courant story includes the usual attempt by Lieberman to relegate his critics to the fringes:

In a telephone interview from Washington, Lieberman said he went on the air expecting to discuss Iraq or the presidential campaign, not his place in politics.

Lieberman said his critique against the "small group on the left" was directed at the online advocacy group MoveOn.org and liberal bloggers like Daily Kos, not any colleagues.

He said he was struck by how the leading Democratic presidential candidates attended the Yearly Kos convention of liberal bloggers, skipping the annual meeting of the moderate and once influential Democratic Leadership Council.

Hmmm. I don’t suppose it could be that the candidates appeared at YearlyKos because poll after poll has shown that Americans, by substantial majorities, agree with those dirty fucking hippies and not Joe (and his fellow war apologists in the DLC) about ending the war, could it? In the old days, we used to call that "democracy."

Ah well. We’ve become accustomed to such gum-flapping from Lieberman. As the story notes:

[W]hen he raises alarms over hyper-partisanship, a term he used in a foreign-policy speech last year, Lieberman focuses on Democrats.

But wait! Joe says that there have been Republican hyper-partisans — but only back in the ’90s:

"I will certify to the fact that the hyper-partisanship has been on both sides," Lieberman said. "There were a lot of Republicans who had a similarly hyper-partisan reaction to anything — literally, anything — that Bill Clinton did during the ’90s."

And of course, back then, Lieberman made sure pandered to them, too. It’s what he’s always done.

Bolder by the day

-- by Dave

So now the skinhead set is trying to gain recruits in Pennsylvania (specifically, Wilkes-Barre) by hanging banners near public throughways:

The banner on the Market Street Bridge, which promotes the Keystone State Skinheads organization, reads, “Preserve Our Heritage,” on a white bed sheet with black spray paint. The sign was hung on the west side of the bridge and also promotes the organization’s Web site, www.keystoneunited.com.

It comes just a day after similar fliers were posted in Shickshinny and earlier last week in Pittston, and days after police arrested two teenage girls – one a self-proclaimed Nazi – on charges of spray-painting anti-Semitic words and symbols on two buildings, the Ohav Zedek Synagogue and the vacant Mertz Building on Conyngham Avenue.

According to the Keystone State Skinheads Web site, the KSS was formed in September 2001 by a “small group of skinheads” residing in Harrisburg, with the goal of uniting all racially aware skinheads in Pennsylvania. The organization has a local branch in Dunmore with a P.O. Box address.

“They seem to keep putting (banners up) under the disguise of nightfall,” said Ron Felton, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “Obviously they don’t want to be detected, but want to promote their cause by defacing public property.”

You'll note that the message of the banner is intended to resonate with whites resentful about Latino immigration.

Left Behind: Waaaah!

-- by Dave

Dude: Did you know that the Rapture has already happened?

When House Majority Leader Tom DeLay delivered a moving speech from the halls of Congress last week, in which he argued that his political enemies are persecuting him because of his religious faith, there was just one problem: he wasn't supposed to be there. Earlier this month, say observers, the 'Rapture,' the much-anticipated event in which God summons his faithful to the heavens, finally happened.

But instead of Mr. DeLay and millions of other believers making the skyward trek, the biblical bash appears to have been an exclusive, invitation-only affair. As of today, fewer than three dozen Christians are confirmed to have been 'raptured,' leaving their rejected brethren to deal with seven years of Tribulation, a turbulent period marked by the return of the anti-Christ.

For those who had hoped to be cashing in on their heavenly rewards, these are days of soul searching and regret. From Capitol Hill to the mega-churches of the south, disappointed travelers are asking the same questions: 'Why not me?' 'What did I do wrong?' and 'Was it something I said?'

Ooops, well, maybe not:

Saying that it can no longer stand by its story that the Rapture may have happened earlier this month, the Swift Report, a popular conservative weblog, is officially retracting its account of the much-anticipated event in which God summons his faithful to the heavens. After receiving hundreds of complaints from outraged readers who'd been 'left behind,' an editorial investigation determined that the Swift Report had failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece.

One of the more important of these principles, of course, was to check and see whether the persons they reported as having been "raptured" even existed in the first place:

"As the current pastor of Spring Hill Baptist Church for the past three years, I hate to tell you but we have never had a Pastor DeLong here, not even as a visitor and we do not know anything about a Mr. Dumé. If we find any evidence of the rapture occurring we will let you know. I am going to ask the janitor if she found any jewelry or clothing."

But of course, when called on the carpet, the author of the piece retreated to the good ol' right-wing way of accepting responsibility for her shoddy work -- blame it on a subordinate:

While Ms. Swift initially stood by her reporting, she has since acknowledged that the story was flawed, attributing its many errors and inaccuracies to a Swift Report intern who was responsible for researching the article. "This has been a difficult but important period for us. It represents a unique opportunity for all of us at the Swift Report to learn from the mistakes surrounding the flawed Rapture article and reaffirm our commitment to the American public to practice journalism of the highest standard,'' said Ms. Swift.

You may also want to note that "The Swift Report" is in fact named for Deanna Swift, whose bio describes her as a "season professional journalist" who "found herself all but blacklisted during the Clinton years." This is hard to imagine, since Swift's standards of journalism are obviously the kind that, during the Clinton years, would have guaranteed her success.

Maybe she was too busy getting ready for the Rapture herself.

Whiny McSame

-- by Sara

With only seven months left in the Longest Election Season Ever, it's not too early to start pointing out how entirely unsuitable for office John McCain is -- and how far the mainstream media will go to defend his tender ego and quick temper from the slightest bruising.

Crooks & Liars has today's story, which involves a McCain appearance earlier this week that devolved into a life-threatening free-fire situation on a par with....well, maybe Hillary's daring escape from a fusillade of eight-year-olds with poems:

At an appearance at an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, Virginia during his Biography tour, a student calmly and rationally pointed out the rather obvious political overtones to the assembly (despite it not being portrayed as such to the student body, evidently) and asked what McCain's intent was being at her school.

STUDENT: We can see that this isn't completely absent, uh, political motivation isn't completely absent, yet we were told this isn't a political event. So, what exactly is your purpose in being here, not that I don't appreciate the opportunity, but I'd just like some clarification.

MCCAIN: I knew I should have cut this thing off. [laughter] This meeting is over. [laughter] Um, this is an opportunity and part of a series of visits that I'm playing…paying…we started in Mississippi, uh, where my family's roots are back to the middle of the 19th century, to here. We're going from here to Pensacola, Florida, to Jacksonville, Florida, and a couple of other places where…we're going to Annapolis, where I obviously attended the Naval Academy.

And it's sort of a tour where we try to not only emphasize the values and principles that guided me and I think a lot of this country in the past, but also portray a vision of how I think we need to address the challenges of the future, and a lot of that is in retrospect, but a lot of it is also advocacy and addressing certain challenges that face the nation. I hope that attendance here was not compulsory.

CNN reporter/McCain acolyte rushed to report on Our Hero's breathless escape from the threat of this Raging Student Heckler:

ACOSTA: So there you have it, John McCain, who is no stranger to incoming fire, able to handle that heckler there...

As Nicole Belle at C&L put it: "It is such an indictment on the pathetic notions of journalism from a journalist–especially when it comes to dealing with media darling John McCain–that CNN reporter Jim Acosta can't even recognize a legitimate question being asked of a presidential candidate and characterized it as being under fire from a heckler."

The story took me back to last July, and what 1500 bloggers put seven Democratic wannabe-candidates through at the debate held at Yearly Kos. We were polite (mostly) -- but those seven (Hillary and Obama, plus Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, and Gravel) spent an entire afternoon fielding questions that were several orders of magnitude more challenging than "Why are you here?"

If the mainstream media had any sense of proportion at all, McCain's apologists would have to liken what Obama and Hillary endured at our hands to...well, maybe surviving Hiroshima would qualify.

The funny thing is, though: all seven came through the grilling at the hands of Those Nasty Bloggers without a scratch. (In fact, several of them looked like they were having a pretty good time.) We can only conclude from this that every last one of those early Democrats would have made a tougher, better, less whiny-ass candidate than McKleenex.

If enduring the "threat" from a high school student with a softball question is what passes for "tough" in McCainland, he doesn't have the grit to be president of the local AARP chapter (those old gals can play rough), let alone the country.

That dialogue on race: The hard part

-- by Dave

Well, it's become painfully self-evident by now that when it comes to having that actual "dialogue on race" Barack Obama tried to help inspire a couple of weeks ago, sincere people of good will are just going to have to go it alone.

The media aren't going to be helping much -- they're obviously only interested in the issue as a means for bashing liberals, and Obama in particular.

And conservatives, even more obviously, not only intend not to join in, they're only going to head in the opposite direction.

Which leaves those of us actually interested in a real dialogue hanging alone out there by ourselves. And that, really, may prove to be the most difficult part.

A crystalline example of the obstacles ahead can be found on the Kent State University campus in Ohio, where a debate has been raging about black-white relations since the publication of an interesting column in the student paper by a young white woman named Beth Rankin wrote a provocative column about her own difficulties in trying to overcome the racial gap in her own community, particularly in her dealings with the Black United Students organization, beginning with her attendance at a BUS-sponsored concert when she was a freshman:

From the moment Justin and I entered the ballroom, the tension was palpable. We received puzzled stares from students sitting around us, and though we couldn't put a finger on why, we felt incredibly unwelcome. I left feeling uncomfortable and unable to make sense of what had happened.

Back in Tri-Towers, when I told my dorm mates where I'd been, I received similar puzzled looks. You went to a BUS event? Hasn't anyone told you about BUS? They don't want white people attending their functions.

I didn't believe it. Even as I heard the exact same dialog from every non-black student and coworker I discussed BUS with, I had a hard time believing that a group fighting for equal rights would covertly push away other people fighting for the same cause.

A couple months later, as a member of the Stater editorial board, the forum editor and I had a small meeting with BUS leaders. The Stater and BUS have always had a notoriously rocky relationship, and my editor thought that by hearing from BUS itself about the group's goals, we could help bridge the gap.

Boy were we surprised when we were informed by then-leaders Teddy Harris and Demareo Cooper that BUS's goal was not equality, but to advance blacks beyond that of whites. The goal was black-owned, black-operated businesses and universities. When we said,

"... but that's racism ..." we were told that as the majority, we were unable to feel racism. We just couldn't understand.

Indeed, it is not just hard, it's practically impossible for a white person to understand the resentment that young African Americans feel after a lifetime of having doors slammed in their faces and being treated as second-class citizens. Even seemingly sincere efforts by other whites to reach out are often seen (and not always incorrectly) as self-serving attempts to make themselves feel superior, to other whites, if nothing else.

It's not clear that Rankin understands this. But it's also obvious that she's very sincere about wanting to overcome the obstacles, and so she issues a challenge worth making:

So this is what I say to you, current members and leaders of BUS: Tell me again. Tell me again what your goals are. I certainly hope they differ from those expressed to me in 2004.

Tell me what you are doing to reach out to non-black students who support your cause. As a straight girl, PRIDE!Kent has always welcomed me to their meetings and functions because they knew I supported their cause. I want to be able to attend BUS functions and feel the same love.

Racism is still a problem in this country, and it will never be solved if we continue to divide black from white. I have been called names and ostracized for the color of my skin, and I have been ridiculed for sharing my life with a man who is not white.

I am not a white bitch. I am a straight, white girl who will always do everything in her power to support the plight of all minorities.

I don't use the color of your skin against you, so please do not use mine against me.

Please, BUS: Tell me how you plan to use your powers for good. I want to hear your voice, and I want to become a united front in the fight against prejudice.

I am not a white bitch. I am not whitey. I am not a cracker. I am not the man.

And I never want to feel ostracized because of my race ever again. Don't you feel the same?

If nothing else, Rankin's efforts spurred a real dialogue on the Kent State campus in which both sides were able to clear the air:

Carla Smith, a former BUS executive board member, said students need to challenge themselves and step outside their comfort zone. They should not be afraid to be different.

"Take it beyond a conversation," she said. "You're responsible for yourself."

As blacks, Smith said, it's natural instinct to stick together. She asked people not to hold blacks accountable for not recognizing other races who attend their events if the person him or herself does not take the initiative to talk.

And just as a reminder to everyone that taking these kinds of steps produce difficulties on all sides, some white supremacists chimed in as well:

But her March 13 column found its way to a white supremacists' Web site, where some readers posted comments that she was ''groveling'' at the feet of blacks, and worse, she said.

''A couple of them said they wanted to kill my family in front of me and then me,'' said Rankin, a former student correspondent for the Beacon Journal. ''They thought I deserved to be punished.''

An FBI officer in Cleveland notified Rankin on Wednesday that her column — headlined ''I am not a white bitch'' — had attracted the attention of white supremacists.

She called KSU police, who turned out for a previously scheduled meeting on Wednesday with Black United Students, or BUS.

I recently read Randall Kennedy's excellent new book, Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal, which focuses on the difficulties black people face when they adopt political positions seen as inimical to black-community interests. As someone who also has been accused of being a "race traitor" by white supremacists, I pondered chiming in at the Firedoglake book salon with the perspective of a white person who deals with similar issues, but decided not to, since I wasn't sure it would be constructive.

But now I wish I had.

When Jingoes Legislate Art

[Cross-posted at Firedoglake.]

There’s been an ongoing debate in Arizona about the state’s 9/11 memorial, which is in fact a striking conceptual piece of art that tries to encompass the broad range of public reactions, and feelings, about the 2001 terrorist attacks, and the events surrounding them.


Unsurprisingly, the problem is less with the memorial itself than with the Republican jingoes who can’t abide honesty or truth in public art. They want the memorial to be all about good ole American patriotism, and are accusing its designers of being unpatriotic, unAmerican, and just plain ungood.

Yesterday, the Republicans in the Arizona Legislature passed a resolution to remove the elements deemed insufficiently patriotic:

Known as Moving Memories, the memorial at Wesley Bolin Plaza was unveiled to widespread acclaim on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Built with $500,000 in private donations, its sweeping design of concrete and steel includes rubble from the World Trade Center and Pentagon and dust from the Pennsylvania field where the final hijacked plane crashed. Sunlight passes through 54 inscriptions laser-cut into the memorial’s cylindrical face, making the phrases visible on the concrete below.

But the memorial soon found itself the target of criticism by those who considered some of its inscriptions anti-military, unpatriotic or simply inane. GOP gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil made the memorial a centerpiece of his candidacy against Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had praised the structure as "impressive and meaningful."

There was talk of knocking down the memorial, covering it over or building anew. In the months since, emotions have cooled little. "The memorial as it now stands shows how far the roots of moral relativism have now spread," Rep. Bob Stump, a Peoria Republican, said Wednesday.

We’re all somewhat familiar with this kind of nonsense. After all, it was just three years ago that Michelle Malkin was frothing about another 9/11 memorial that she and the other wingnuts had decided was part of a secret Islamist conspiracy to instill Muslim values in America.

What the wingnuts apparently can’t handle is any reflection of the complexity of American life, manifested in our widely varying responses to the attacks — as well as the many failures in our national-security apparatus before and after them. The only views they evidently can stand to have displayed on the memorial are those that either express support for the American military and the Bush administration, or express hatred of brown-skinned foreigners.

These are the lines the Arizona jingoes want removed:

• "Must bomb back"
• "05 19 03 Avtar Singh Cheira, a Sikh, shot in Phoenix"
• "Foreign-born Americans afraid"
• "09 15 01 Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh, murdered in Mesa"
• "Middle East violence motivates attacks in US"
• "FBI agent issues July 2001 warning in ‘Phoenix Memo’ "
• "06 03 02 Congress questions why CIA & FBI didn’t prevent attacks"
• "Fear of foreigners"
• "Feeling of invincibility lost"
• "03 13 02 New Afghan leader elected"
• "You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles"
• "Violent acts leading US to war 05 07 1915, 12 07 1941, 08 04 1964 & 09 11 2001"

Now, you can argue all you like about the truthfulness or accuracy or validity of these views — but it’s incontestable that the breadth of American opinion did include them. Which is what the memorial is supposed to be about. That’s what gives it its power.

If Arizona Republicans want to have their own memorial, perhaps they can finance it themselves and erect it on their own. I’d suggest a statue of John McCain, singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

The threat of difference

-- by Dave

Well, I guess we all knew that Jonah Goldberg is simply incoherent when it comes to thinking through the logic of right-wing politics. This is not terribly surprising, since right-wing politics are really more about irritable mental gestures expressing bellicose claptrap rather than anything based in fact, logic, or reason.

Still, it's hard to top the claptrap that Goldberg propagated in his most recent L.A. Times column:

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

It might be helpful to come to grips with the concept in question here: Bigotry is usually defined as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own," and a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Bigotry, as we have known it historically, is not based on rationality or reason -- as the scientific belief in evolution is -- but founded instead on prejudice, inbred beliefs, and supernatural reactionarism.

And what we also know about bigotry historically is that it has largely been a characteristic of the right, particularly the cultural conservatives who enforced the segregation and oppression of nonwhites for much of the 20th century.

That's not to say that liberals and the left are incapable of it. Certainly, evolutionary thinkers, as well as scientists and liberals generally, can be found to harbor bigotry as well. The Christopher Hitchens brand of atheism making the rounds these days probably qualifies as a kind of anti-religious bigotry.

But sporting a Darwin Fish on your car isn't any indication of bigotry. Clearly, the Darwin Fish symbol isn't an attack on Christianity per se -- it's an unadulterated assertion of belief in the Darwinist evolution, in contradistinction to the Creationist brand of Christianity (which is, in fact, a very narrow band of Christian belief).

It's entirely possible, in fact, for a practicing Christian to have one on their car, given that large numbers of Christians in fact also believe in evolution. (I know this from experience; my devout, church-going and elderly mother -- who also thinks creationism is a pile of balderdash -- proudly sports one on hers.)

Obviously, there are belief systems that naturally conflict, and the Creationist view clearly conflicts with evolutionary thinking. And naturally, there is some antagonism toward the opposition inherent whenever each side asserts their values.

But to argue that this constitutes "bigotry" is blithering nonsense. People can and should be able to strongly assert their own beliefs without others feeling threatened by that.

Is it "bigotry" when right-wing conservatives (like Jonah Goldberg) assert that global warming is either vastly overstated or a hoax?

Is it "bigotry" when Republicans insist that Democrats should not win voters' approval?

Is it "bigotry" when Christians insist that the world was created in seven days -- in contravention of every bit of real science known to humans?

Indeed, one might more reasonably argue that the "Jesus fish" swallowing the Darwin fish we've all seen similarly adorning people's cars -- like the one atop this post -- is in fact a form of bigotry, because it clearly is intended as an attack on other people's beliefs. But Goldberg seems either to be unaware of the existence of such stickers, or he simply finds them inconvenient when it comes to his thesis.

But then, as we saw with Liberal Fascism, eliding the inconvenient fact is a central motif of Goldberg's style of argumentation.

Goldberg is like so many conservatives: They see any ideology or idea that falls outside of their own belief system as a threat to those beliefs. So any assertion of ideas outside that realm becomes interpreted as an attack.

This is why so many right-wingers love to attack gay marriage as an "assault on the institution of marriage" -- when in fact no gay marriage on the planet harms a single straight marriage. It's also why so many creationist types insist on trying to remove science education from their children's curriculum.

Now, opposing beliefs often do come into contention, and that clearly is the issue underlying the whole "Darwin fish" matter. It's probably reasonable that someone might fear that someone's opposing beliefs might prove their own hollow, absurd, or meaningless -- as innately an attack on them. And so the easy response to this is to dismiss these as "bigotry."

But the only real bigotry in play here -- the kind that simply cannot tolerate someone else holding beliefs different from theirs, and so they must attack those beliefs on the grounds that they are attacking -- is the kind that Jonah Goldberg is blithely promoting. And of course, consonant with the projection strategy, he's doing so in the name of supposedly attacking it.

The problem with racist cops

-- by Dave

We've discussed previously the red flags that go up whenever law-enforcement officials are involved in any kind of racist organizations.

Recent news reports about two cops in Philly, both members of an elite squad, who were found with racist stickers in their locker were especially disturbing:

Two racist stickers were found inside Schweizer's locker. One sticker read: "White Power." The other depicted a cartoon of a man, half as an officer in uniform and half as a Klansman, with the words "Blue By Day — White By Night."

Ramsey described the discipline as harsh but just, and said he stopped short of firing the officers because they "had no histories that would indicate that they engaged in any racist type of activities."

Schweizer's attorney, Allan J. Sagot, maintained that his client was the victim of a practical joke played by another officer, who affixed the stickers to the outside of Schweizer's locker. Once he saw the stickers, Schweizer pulled them off his locker and stuck them inside, Sagot said.

An Internal Affairs Bureau investigation concluded that Dial created the stickers and put them on Schweizer's locker in the narcotics strike force headquarters in the city's Bridesburg section, Ramsey said.

The story notes (as does an An AP story about the cops) that the men weren't fired because they hadn't any prior history suggesting racist activity -- which seems reasonable enough, I suppose.

But there really can't be any tolerance at all for this kind of stuff within law enforcement, because it's essential for their credibility with the public that racist cops are immediately expelled.

And especially in Philly, which still is living with the legacy of Frank Rizzo.

Time to sink the SAVE Act

-- by Dave

If there were political booby prizes handed out each year -- something like the Razzies for the Beltway set -- the award for Worst Legislation Proposed by a Democrat this year would have to go to Heath Shuler's misbegotten "SAVE Act, an attempt to pass a "deportation only" approach to the immigration issue. Of course, it not only reflects the worldview of the anti-immigrant wing of the party, headed by Rahm Emanuel, but it's a profoundly bad piece of legislation.

Among its more awful provisions, you may recall, are "verification" measures that essentially would require every American to get an OK from the federal government every time they get a new job or change jobs.

Let's face it: Not only is SAVE a bad piece of policy (more on that shortly) it's also incredibly shortsighted politically -- it's certain to alienate the very voters (working-class people and Latinos) on whom the Democrats' electoral future almost certainly depends. It's also a remarkably dumb piece of politics in the short term: How did Democrats let themselves get dragged so far to the right by a freshman with no previous background in dealing with immigration?

Earlier this month, Republicans tried to force the bill to a floor vote in the House, just before congressional recess, using a discharge-petition maneuver that so far has accumulated 181 signatures -- short of the 218 needed.

Some 49 Democrats signed up as cosponsors of the bill, but only eight have signed onto the discharge petition. So with Congress returning this week from recess, there will be a push from the GOP to get the rest of the 41 Democrats to sign on.

But the House leadership -- with the support of activists from within the immigrant and labor communities -- has been trying to hold the line, keeping the bill in committee for the time being. The question is how much longer they'll be able to do that without hearing more from their constituents.

At the bottom of this post, you'll find a complete state-by-state list, including contact information, of the 41 Democrats being wooed to sign the discharge petition. Many of them are vulnerable Dems running in conservative districts, and a number of them have been feeling pressure to let the bill go to a vote.

We're urging every reader who opposes this bill to check the list for members of Congress from their own districts or states, and then write or phone them directly to tell them how you feel.

Time to Sink the SAVE Act

[Cross-posted at Firedoglake.]

Heath Shuler (right): 'To the right of Genghis Khan'

If there were political booby prizes handed out each year — something like the Razzies for the Beltway set — the award for Worst Legislation Proposed by a Democrat this year would have to go to Heath Shuler’s misbegotten "SAVE Act, an attempt to pass a "deportation only" approach to the immigration issue. Of course, it not only reflects the worldview of the anti-immigrant wing of the party, headed by Rahm Emanuel, but it’s a profoundly bad piece of legislation.

Among its more awful provisions, you may recall, are "verification" measures that essentially would require every American to get an OK from the federal government every time they get a new job or change jobs.

Let’s face it: Not only is SAVE a bad piece of policy (more on that shortly) it’s also incredibly shortsighted politically — it’s certain to alienate the very voters (working-class people and Latinos) on whom the Democrats’ electoral future almost certainly depends. It’s also a remarkably dumb piece of politics in the short term: How did Democrats let themselves get dragged so far to the right by a freshman with no previous background in dealing with immigration?

Earlier this month, Republicans tried to force the bill to a floor vote in the House, just before congressional recess, using a discharge-petition maneuver that so far has accumulated 181 signatures — short of the 218 needed.

Some 49 Democrats signed up as cosponsors of the bill, but only eight have signed onto the discharge petition. So with Congress returning this week from recess, there will be a push from the GOP to get the rest of the 41 Democrats to sign on.

But the House leadership — with the support of activists from within the immigrant and labor communities — has been trying to hold the line, keeping the bill in committee for the time being. The question is how much longer they’ll be able to do that without hearing more from their constituents.

At the bottom of this post, you’ll find a complete state-by-state list, including contact information, of the 41 Democrats being wooed to sign the discharge petition. Many of them are vulnerable Dems running in conservative districts, and a number of them have been feeling pressure to let the bill go to a vote.

We’re urging every reader who opposes this bill to check the list for members of Congress from their own districts or states, and then write or phone them directly to tell them how you feel.

It’s been clear, as things have gone along, that Shuler — who was described this week by National Republican Congressional Committee chair Tom Cole ("with a certain envy") as "to the right of Genghis Khan" — is uninterested in discussion or negotiation. Because he has the complete backing of the nativist wing of the Republican Party, including Tom Tancredo and Rep. Brian Bilbray, his co-sponsor, he has stormed full speed ahead in pushing the bill forward.

Because it has remained bottled up in committee, Shuler has been complaining (somewhat dishonestly, as Howie Klein observes) that somehow John McCain is to blame. But the reality is that members of his own caucus are determined to hang onto the bill.

"It’s just really stupid politics," says Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza. "For now, it’s not about how far Democrats are willing to go to protect Blue Dog Democrats, now it’s about, OK, you have one freshman who’s actually making you more vulnerable."

NCLR’s leaders, as well as the SEIU and other interest groups, have been leading the charge against SAVE, for obvious reasons: It’s simply another legislative attempt to scapegoat working-class people, Latinos especially, for a problem created by the status quo of immigration law. And with its fetish about "securing the borders," it’s singularly ineffective: It doesn’t even begin to address, for instance, the undocumented workers who come to the U.S. legally and simply overstay their visas — people who constitute nearly half of the so-called "illegal immigrant" workforce.

"We’re worried about what Mr. Shuler is trying to do," says Martinez. "In terms of the discharge petition, we’re hoping that leadership’s gonna stand strong and not allow that to happen. However, this strong stance also needs to translate to dealing with the substance of the bill and not just the procedural maneuver that’s being used right now to stop it. Our ultimate concern is that substance.
"Obviously, forcing it to the floor without any discussion is problematic, but in this case, there seems to be too much willingness to go along with something that is basically going to result in every American having to ask permission from Washington to get a job or change a job."

There has been some previous discussion of the manifold problems created by Shuler’s bill, notably by Digby, who explained that the bill:

[T]throws even more police power at Homeland Security, tons of money at police agencies, both militarizes AND privatizes the border (a neat trick), empowers the IRS to share information with other agencies and creates a new federal database that contains information about every American worker.

It’s filled with all kinds of neat new requirements for all people who work for a living. If you are a person with two jobs, like a lot of people, I’m sure you’ll enjoy this:

Notification of Multiple Uses of Individual Social Security Numbers
Prior to crediting any individual with concurrent earnings from more than one employer, the Commissioner of Social Security shall notify the individual that earnings from two or more employers are being reported under the individual’s social security account number. Such notice shall include, at a minimum, the name and location of each employer and shall direct the individual to contact the Social Security Administration to submit proof that the individual is the person to whom the social security account number was issued and, if applicable, to submit, either in person or via electronic transmission, a pay stub or other documentation showing that such individual is employed by both or all employers reporting earnings to that social security account number.

The National Immigration Law Center has a complete rundown of the bill’s provisions and the issues at play here. Among other things, SAVE would:

• • Expand the problem-plagued Basic Pilot electronic employment eligibility verification system (recently rebranded “E-Verify” by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, or DHS) into a nationwide mandatory program for all employers and workers in the economy.
  • Convert the Social Security Administration (SSA) “no-match” letter program into a blunt immigration enforcement tool by requiring employers to fire workers with mismatched information unless the workers can fix the problem within 10 days (70 percent of errors in SSA’s database pertain to U.S. citizens).
  • Require all individuals who work for more than one employer at the same time to provide proof of employment to SSA before their Social Security account can be credited.
  • Override current confidentiality of tax and Social Security information by dumping all reported anomalies such as multiple use of a Social Security number (SSN) and mismatches into a DHS database while providing few if any protections against misuse of such information.
  • Continue the exponential but ineffective increase in the number of Border Patrol agents that we have seen in recent years without providing for any balancing protections needed to hold the government accountable for reported abusive practices.
  • Continue to pour even more money into infrastructure and technological gadgetry along the southern border without addressing the problems of mismanagement that have tainted the massive contracts that have been let in recent years.
  • Expand the scope of activity that can be prosecuted as “alien smuggling” and narrow the protections from such prosecution enjoyed by religious workers.
  • Provide incentives for more state and local police to enforce immigration laws. (Police nationwide have been reluctant to embrace such enforcement because it detracts from their core mission of preventing crime and catching criminals.)
  • Continue the recent unprecedented increase in immigration incarceration capacity from 27,500 to 35,500 beds while providing for none of the reforms that human rights advocates have urged in response to well-documented abuses in current detention facilities.

It’s also worth remembering, of course, that not only is SAVE endorsed by the Tancredo wing of the GOP, it also enjoys the avid support of FAIR — recently designated a hate group by the SPLC — but also such like-minded souls as the David Duke and Stormfront factions.

"We know that the anti-immigrant folks are definitely stirring the pot on this," says Martinez. "And we know that the strategy on the Republican side to force the discharge petition right before recess was definitely to create that environment."

The current problem, however, lies within the Democratic Emanuel-Shuler faction. "What we’ve heard is that they keep saying to people to go visit them — that in conversations they can be more upfront, and that’s that they need a vote on something. And that’s the pressure to get on board with Shuler — that’s the only vote out there.

"That takes us back to the mother of all conversations on immigration — that when you have a leadership that is not articulating that position and working with its members to articulate its position, you either allow your enemy to define you, which is Republicans are doing by trying to label them soft on immigration, or you allow somebody who has no taste for the substance and is a freshman to be dragging the whole party."

Republicans, Martinez says, are going to put the squeeze on vulnerable Democrats in the coming weeks. And that’s where ordinary citizens come in.

As we suggested, check the following list for representatives within your district or state to whom you can write or phone. (Folks from Pennsylvania and Tennessee will have their work cut out for them.) If there isn’t anyone who fits, feel free to write any or all of those listed in any event. Rather than use any kind of boilerplate, voice your opposition in your own words (and feel free to explore any of the above links to help).

A number of those listed are vulnerable — notably Jerry McNerney, Kristin Gillibrand, Jim Matheson, Ron Klein, Paul Kanjorski, Jason Altmire, and Steve Kagen, all of whom have tough races this fall (Kanjorski, in fact, is running against a rabid nativist). For most of these, simply hearing from constituents and donors who oppose SAVE will give them reason to stand tough, especially if we help them think about how they can frame the immigration debate in a forward-looking way.

Some of them — notably Paul Hodes, Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy — are good guys who should be relatively willing to listen to these concerns. One of them — Leonard Boswell — faces a tough primary challenge from a more progressive Democrat (Matthew Grimm at Down With Tyranny has much more on Boswell’s race with Ed Fallon; it seems likely that contacting Fallon could be productive as well). Mark Udall is running for the Senate; and Bud Davis has announced he’s retiring; both should be responsive to pleas to do the right thing here. Likewise, Artur L. Davis — despite his close proximity to Emanuel politically — is bucking for a spot with the Democratic Caucus Leadership, so he should listen to constructive pressure from progressives. And of course, there are Blue Dogs and really not-very-progressive Dems on the list: Allen Boyd, Sanford Bishop, Jim Marshall, Melissa Bean, Baron Hill, Charles Melancon, Bart Stupak, David Boren, and Zachary Space. Your mileage may vary regarding the effectiveness of contacting them, but it never hurts for them to hear from the progressive side.

Others are fence-sitters who don’t face particularly tough challenges this fall: Marion Berry, Mike Ross, Ed Perlmutter, Peter Visclosky, Michael Arcuri, Brian Higgins, Tim Ryan, Robert Brady, John Murtha, Tim Holden, Lincoln Davis, Jim Cooper, Gordon Bart, John Tanner, Ciro Rodriguez, Rick Boucher, and Brian Baird. These folks will probably need the most bucking up of any group.

The important thing is to make contact and let them hear that there are plenty of Americans, plenty of their constituents, who want them to do the right thing and get a spine in the face of this kind of destructive legislation.

The list:
ALABAMA
5th District:
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer Jr.
2184 Rayburn House Office Building 2184 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0105
Phone: (202) 225-4801
Fax: (202) 225-4392
7th District:
Artur Davis
208 Cannon House Office Building 208 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0107
Phone: (202) 225-2665
Fax: (202) 226-9567
ARKANSAS
1st District:
Marion Berry
2305 Rayburn House Office Building 2305 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0401
Phone: (202) 225-4076
Fax: (202) 225-5602
4th District:
Mike Ross
314 Cannon House Office Building 314 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0404
Phone: (202) 225-3772
Fax: (202) 225-1314
CALIFORNIA
11th District:
Jerry McNerney
312 Cannon House Office Building 312 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0511
Phone: (202) 225-1947
Fax: (202) 225-4060
COLORADO
2nd District:
Mark Udall
100 Cannon House Office Building 100 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0602
Phone: (202) 225-2161
Fax: (202) 226-7840
7th District:
Ed Perlmutter
415 Cannon House Office Building 415 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0607
Phone: (202) 225-2645
Fax: (202) 225-5278
FLORIDA
2nd District:
F. Allen Boyd
1227 Longworth House Office Building 1227 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0902
Phone: (203) 225-5235
Fax: (202) 225-5615
22nd District:
Ron Klein
313 Cannon House Office Building 313 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-0922
Phone: (202) 225-3026
Fax: (202) 225-8398
GEORGIA
2nd District:
Sanford D. Bishop Jr.
2429 Rayburn House Office Building 2429 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1002
Phone: (202) 225-3631
Fax: (202) 225-2203
8th District:
Jim Marshall
504 Cannon House Office Building 504 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1003
Phone: (202) 225-6531
Fax: (202) 225-3013
ILLINOIS
8th District:
Melissa L. Bean
318 Cannon House Office Building 318 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1308
Phone: (202) 225-3711
Fax: (202) 225-7830
IOWA
3rd District:
Leonard L. Boswell
1427 Longworth House Office Building 1427 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1503
Phone: (202) 225-3806
Fax: (202) 225-5608
INDIANA
1st District:
Peter J. Visclosky
2256 Rayburn House Office Building 2256 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1401
Phone: (202) 225-2461
Fax: (202) 225-2493
9th District:
Baron P. Hill
223 Cannon House Office Building 223 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1409
Phone: (202) 225-5315
Fax: (202) 226-6866
LOUSIANA
3rd District:
Charlie Melancon
404 Cannon House Office Building 404 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-1803
Phone: (202) 225-4031
Fax: (202) 226-3944
MICHIGAN
1st District:
Bart Stupak
2352 Rayburn House Office Building 2352 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-2201
Phone: (202) 225-4735
Fax: (202) 225-4744
NEW HAMPSHIRE
2nd District:
Paul W. Hodes
506 Cannon House Office Building 506 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
NEW YORK
20th District:
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
120 Cannon House Office Building 120 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3220
Phone: (202) 225-5614
Fax: (202) 225-1168
24th District:
Michael A. Arcuri
327 Cannon House Office Building 327 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3224
Phone: (202) 225-3665
Fax: (202) 225-1891
27th District:
Brian Higgins
431 Cannon House Office Building 431 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3227
Phone: (202) 225-3306
Fax: (202) 226-0347
OKLAHOMA
2nd District:
Dan Boren
216 Cannon House Office Building 216 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3602
Phone: (202) 225-2701
Fax: (202) 225-3038
OHIO
17th District:
Tim Ryan
1421 Longworth House Office Building 1421 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3517
Phone: (202) 225-5261
Fax: (202) 225-3719
18th District:
Zachary T. Space
315 Cannon House Office Building 315 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3518
Phone: (202) 225-6265
Fax: (202) 225-3394
PENNSYVANIA
1st District:
Robert A. Brady
206 Cannon House Office Building 206 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3801
Phone: (202) 225-4731
Fax: (202) 225-0088
4th District:
Jason Altmire
1419 Longworth House Office Building 1419 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3804
Phone: (202) 225-2565
Fax: (202) 226-2274
7th District:
Joe Sestak
1022 Longworth House Office Building 1022 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3807
Phone: (202) 225-2011
Fax: (202) 226-0280
8th District:
Patrick J. Murphy
1007 Longworth House Office Building 1007 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3808
Phone: (202) 225-4276
Fax: (202) 225-9511
11th District:
Paul E. Kanjorski
2188 Rayburn House Office Building 2188 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3811
Phone: (202) 225-6511
Fax: (202) 225-0764
12th District:
John P. Murtha
2423 Rayburn House Office Building 2423 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3812
Phone: (202) 225-2065
Fax: (202) 225-5709
17th District:
Tim Holden
2417 Rayburn House Office Building 2417 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-3817
Phone: (202) 225-5546
Fax: (202) 226-0996
TENNESSEE
4th District:
Lincoln Davis
410 Cannon House Office Building 410 CHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4204
Phone: (202) 225-6831
Fax: (202) 226-5172
5th District:
Jim Cooper
1536 Longworth House Office Building 1536 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4205
Phone: (202) 225-4311
Fax: (202) 226-1035
6th District:
Bart Gordon
2310 Rayburn House Office Building 2310 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4206
Phone: (202) 225-4231
Fax: (202) 225-6887
8th District:
John S. Tanner
1226 Longworth House Office Building 1226 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4208
Phone: (202) 225-4714
Fax: (202) 225-1765
9th District:
Steve Cohen
1004 Longworth House Office Building 1004 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4209
Phone: (202) 225-3265
Fax: (202) 225-5663
TEXAS
23rd District:
Ciro D. Rodriguez
2458 Rayburn House Office Building 2458 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4323
Phone: (202) 225-4511
Fax: (202) 225-2237
UTAH
2nd District:
Jim Matheson
1323 Longworth House Office Building 1323 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4402
Phone: (202) 225-3011
Fax: (202) 225-5638
VIRGINIA
9th District:
Rick Boucher
2187 Rayburn House Office Building 2187 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4609
Phone: (202) 225-3861
Fax: (202) 225-0442
WASHINGTON
3rd District:
Brian Baird
2443 Rayburn House Office Building 2443 RHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4703
Phone: (202) 225-3536
Fax: (202) 225-3478
WISCONSIN
8th District:
Steve Kagen
1232 Longworth House Office Building 1232 LHOB
Washington, D.C., District of Columbia 20515-4908
Phone: (202) 225-5665
Fax: (202) 225-5729

Ending the war: Gaining steam

-- by Dave

The Responsible Plan for Ending the War in Iraq showed signs of gaining real momentum this week inside the Beltway, thanks to the growing numbers of signees -- now up to 42 -- and the notice that drew in a Washington Post report:

Rejecting their party leaders' assertions that economic troubles have become the top issue on voters' minds, leaders of the coalition of 38 House and four Senate candidates pledged to make immediate withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of their campaigns.

"The people inside the Beltway don't seem to get how big an issue this is," said Darcy Burner, a repeat candidate who narrowly lost to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in 2006.

The group's 36-page plan does not set a specific deadline for when all combat troops must be out of Iraq. "Begin it now, do it as safely as you can and get everyone out," Burner said.

The starkest difference between the group's proposal, dubbed a "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," and those embraced by many senior Democrats and the party's presidential candidates is that it rejects the idea of leaving U.S. troops on the ground to train Iraqi security forces or engage in anti-terrorism operations. The group instead calls for a dramatic increase in regional diplomacy and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces, if necessary.

You might want to note that Burner is having a fund-raiser and is close to reaching her goal. If you like what she's doing, go pitch in.

The Boss

-- by Dave

Went to see Springsteen tonight at the Key. This was the third time I've seen him, but it was his best performance of the three -- he seemed to be working harder and having more fun.

Best for me personally was that I finally saw him do "Rosalita," which is one of my three favorite Springsteen songs, none of which I've seen him perform before (though I didn't get to see him the first time until 1989, which was probably part of the problem). It was great, particularly Clemons' sax work, which I think this song showcases better than any other Boss song except "Kitty's Back" -- which happens to be my co-favorite (along with "Candy's Room," which I'd heard he never performed live, but which I see he has resurrected for this tour.) Someday I hope to hear him sing, "Catlong sighs, holding Kitty's black tooth ..." But getting to sing along with on "But your papa says he knows that I don't have any money" was one of the highlights of my year.

So I can sleep tonight a happy man.

Breaking through on anthrax?

-- by Dave

Credit where it's due: Fox News (and evidently no one else) is reporting a significant breakthrough in the anthrax attacks of 2001:

WASHINGTON — The FBI has narrowed its focus to "about four" suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.

Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

The FBI has collected writing samples from the three scientists in an effort to match them to the writer of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed to two U.S. senators and at least two news outlets in the fall of 2001, a law enforcement source confirmed.

The story appears credible, particularly in the focus on Fort Detrick, which is indeed the most likely source of the lethal powder used in those attacks; this is something we've known since 2003, when it was clear that this, like Oklahoma City and 9/11, was another in the line of asymmetric terrorist attacks on American soil.

The fact that there was so little resolution of the matter probably had something to do with the political dimensions of the attacks. But it's also increasingly likely that there was some outright incompetence involved as well:

In December 2001, an Army commander tried to dispel the possibility of a connection to Fort Detrick by taking the media on a rare tour of the base. The commander said the Army used only liquid anthrax, not powder, for its experiments.

"I would say that it does not come from our stocks, because we do not use that dry material," Maj. Gen. John Parker said. The letters that were mailed to the media and Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy all contained powdered anthrax.

But in an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"

Gee, imagine that: A general with incomplete information misled the media in the process of covering his ass. Never heard of that in this administration.

Believing in the dream

-- by Dave

I think those of us who advocate comprehensive immigration reform recognize that getting there is going to be a long, slow row. But along the way, there are opportunities to help push reform forward in incremental steps.

One of these is the DREAM Act:

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (also called "The DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that would provide high school students who are long term undocumented immigrants with good moral character and who wish to attend college or serve in the armed forces to be able to gain legal status.

The bill, in various incarnations, has been introduced several times in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the House it has never been brought to a floor vote as a stand-alone bill; in the Senate it was finally brought for debate on the floor on October 24, 2007, and though it was able to gain a majority vote it failed to gain cloture by a 52-44 vote, 8 votes short of overcoming a filibuster.[1] The text of the bill has also been included in various other immigration-related bills, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, though none so far has been successful.

It's an important first step in opening up a path to citizenship for immigrants and their children, which is a cornerstone of any larger progressive approach to immigration reform.

Robert Greenwald, whose Brave New Films outfit has done such great work exposing Fox News and Wal-Mart, among other targets, has turned his focus on getting the DREAM act. He's set up a Web site where you can sign a petition urging the remaining presidential candidates to support the bill:

All three presidential hopefuls co-sponsored the federal DREAM Act, yet it has never been made law. The DREAM Act would enable states to grant in-state tuition to these hardworking immigrant students, making higher education (and eventually citizenship) a real possibility.

It's a worthy cause, and well worth your signature.

A Change of Season

-- by Sara

Faithful Orcinus readers may have been wondering over the past couple months just where Sara went. The answer is: a lot is changing for me these days, and the particulars of when, where, and for whom I blog are changing, too.

Much of my mindshare since mid-January has gone to my guest-blogging gig at the Campaign for America's Future blog. The original plan was that I'd be doing one piece a week for 12 weeks, ending in the second week of April. Dave and I knew going in that this meant y'all would necessarily see quite a bit less of me here.

But it turns out that that temporary distraction isn't. At Take Back America last week, Bob Borosage called me into his K Street office and asked me if I'd be willing to make the arrangement permanent. Since it's a hugely visible site (my co-bloggers there include David Sirota, Bill Scher, Rick Perlstein, and Digby, and our own Dave has been known to pop up occasionally) and there are actual paychecks involved -- well, of course, I said yes.

Making room in my life for this new gig (and working on my thesis, which is also now fully underway) has meant I've had to get serious about re-arranging my priorities. The new schedule has me putting up a major article at ourfuture.org on Mondays or Tuesdays. (Most weeks, I'll throw up a link to it here as well, so you can hop right over and take a look.) I'll be back here at Orcinus regularly on Fridays, and perhaps a second time whenever events compel me to speak up. And since something had to give, I've cut way back on my commitment to Group News Blog, and will appear there only very occasionally when something appropriate catches my fancy.

So that's what's happening with me.

This week's piece at ourfuture.org is a contemplation on the past, present, and future of the American civil religion, and what it has to do with the persistent insanity over the candidates and their religious advisors we're seeing in this election cycle. I'll also be doing a live interview on "The Solution Zone" with Christiane Brown on KJFK, northern Nevada's Air America affiliate, this coming Monday afternoon at 3:00 pm. You can tune in online here.

Update: The radio show was pre-empted for Monday, so I've been re-booked for Wednesday at 3:00. See you there.