Daily Kos Blog

• Wow, Luskin really IS the stupidest man alive. And competition is stiff in that department.

• Speaking of competition, there is Fred Wertheimer of the anti-free speech Democracy 21, who lives in a fantasy media world so immune to reality that is breathtaking. Speaking of giving blogs the press excemption, he said, "Last time I looked, press institutions aren't in the business of raising money for candidates." Homeboy must be blind, since Krauthammer, Limbaugh, FNC, NRO, and so are all press institutions that have raised money for candidates. So Wertheimer is either Luskin-level stupid, or blind, or disingenuous.

• Any basketball fans in the house? Sports Illustrated has a photo gallery of the top 10 point guards of all time.

• The Center for American Progress is looking for interns.

• A sign of good things to coming? Two retired Democratic congressmen are considering retaking their old seats in 2006 -- Ken Lucas in KY-04 and Ron Kilnk in PA-04. Those seats are now held by Republicans.

• Wolcott wins a skirmish on the War on Christmas (TM).

• 10 Marines killed by a single IED. More of the cost of Wittmann/Lieberman/Bush-style "resolve". I have a Marine family member over there right now. My heart skips a beat every time a Marine gets killed. Not a problem for Wittmann, Lieberman, or Bush. Their social and family circles doesn't bother themselves with such niceties as "national service".

• The National Guard, desperate for recruits, is paying "finders fees" to exisiting members. Not a bad idea, actually, but indicative of their desperation.

• Greenspan, who helped cause the current deficits by giving Republicans a green light for their irresponsible tax cuts, is now whining about those deficits. He demands the deficit be closed "from the outlay side". Good luck eliminating $300-500 billion via budget cuts, especially if national security spending is sacrosant.

• Andrew Natsios has resigned. Who was he? A neocon at the U.S. Agency for International Development who swore up and down to Ted Koppel that the US share of Iraq reconstruction wouldn't exceed $1.7 billion. He mocked higher estimates as "hoopla" and "outlandish". We've already spent $10 billion and more is in the pipeline. (Note, reconstruction costs aren't the same as the hundreds of billions spent to wage the war.)

• It's not the Avian Flu, but the last thing I want to hear is that the U.S. is being invaded by bed bugs.

• One last meta question -- do you guys like these quick-link open threads? I found in the course of blogging that a lot of good stuff never made the site because of time constraints or an inability to add anything of substance to the debate. These bulleted open threads allow me to pass them on without having the pressure of doing a full post on them. Should I keep doing them? I added a poll.

Funny how Ahnold is suddenly running as fast as he can away from the Republican Party. There's the problem of trying to move left -- by hiring a new Democratic chief of staff -- but pretending to still be a Republican to mollify his GOP base:

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger insisted this week that "there will be no change in direction at all" despite naming longtime Democratic activist Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff.

It was meant, apparently, to reassure his GOP base that he's not suddenly veering to the left, but with his governorship plummeting into the abyss of failure and irrelevance, Schwarzenegger should change direction, or he will join Kennedy's former boss, Gray Davis, as a footnote to history.

Political circles are buzzing with speculation about the meaning of Kennedy's elevation - ranging from hopes among some that it will help jump-start Schwarzenegger's governorship after voters rejected his "year of reform" ballot measures to fears among others than she'll preside over his exit from politics.

Those on the furthest right and the left wings appear to be equally unhappy. While conservatives worry that Schwarzenegger's wide-ranging mélange of advisers will be purged of Republicans and that he will be hearing only from liberals, some liberals are denouncing Kennedy as an ideological traitor.

Then there's the Republican Governors Association conference in California, which Arnold is avoiding (except for a "private" reception).

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has declined to appear with Bush during the president's last two visits to California, did not appear in public with his fellow Republican governors. Instead, he planned to speak to them privately Thursday at a reception.

Schwarzenegger, who named a Democrat on Wednesday as his new chief of staff, has tried to distance himself from Bush as he prepares to seek reelection next year in a state that has largely shunned the GOP.

Schwarzenegger sealed his political fate when he spent over $50 million in state funds in a special electioon in which every single ballot initiative was defeated. Governing like a Republican has fallen flat in this solidly blue state, and at 35/63 approval/disapproval ratings, he's now desperate to ressurect his political fortunes.

Pretending to be a Democrat, then pretending to be a Republican and promising that his agenda won't change, won't do the trick.

Public opinion is turning against the war, and more and more people are clamoring for withdrawal. Democrats, sensing the public mood, are increasingly calling for a withdrawal timetable, led by military hawk John Murtha.

Yesterday, Pelosi endorsed Murtha's plan, and The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman framed his endorsement as "fissures" within the Democratic caucus. I'd like to think that anything that brings together Murtha and Pelosi, on opposite ends of the party's ideological spectrum, as simply being "ahead of the curve". Well, that's the nice spin. We can also call that fissure "cowardice" on the part of Democrats still afraid they'll be labelled weak on defense.

Because no matter what the war apologists might want, fact is we'll be pulling out soon enough anyway. Even Bush seems to be losing his political will on the issue.

But not the chickenhawks at the DLC. Nope, not they:

Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security.

"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."

Wittmann, like Jean Schmidt, has now accused Democrats like Murtha of cowardice. But, unlike Murtha, I doubt Wittmann has spent much time in Iraq or at Walter Reed. Unlike Murtha, Wittmann hassn't seen combat or even served his nation in uniform. Unlike Murtha, Wittmann has no clue what this conflict is doing to our military readiness, morale, and fighting effectiveness as our armed forces degrade to "paper tiger" status.

Of course, Murtha is concerned with the safery and welfare of our men and women in uniform, not about what Rove thinks. A different set of priorities, no doubt. But even politically, Democrats are on solid footing.

The more public attention has been focused on Iraq, the lower Bush's numbers have gone, the lower the Republican Party has sunk. Unlike Wittmann's odd obsession with Rove, Iraq is not a political winner. Like Lieberman, his "stay the course" alarmist rhetoric simply exposes him as yet another PNAC-style, reality-addled neocon.

The American people are unhappy with the debacle in Iraq. They are looking for courage from those who would change course, not acquiescence from cowards too afraid to speak out on the moment's biggest issue.

They want more Murthas and less Liebermans.

Update: Republican governors are sweating it:

Political fallout from corruption scandals and the Iraq war cast a pall over a gathering of Republican governors in Carlsbad, Calif., on Thursday as GOP strategists and leaders acknowledged the party faced a tough climate for its 2006 campaigns.

"You'd have to be really disconnected from reality to not see and admit that Republicans nationally have gone through a tough patch here the last six or eight months," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said. "We should just acknowledge that."

But don't Marshall that. He thinks standing with the president in Iraq and "showing resolve" is the path toward Demcoratic electoral victories.

Update II: I didn't even notice that Armando beat me to this in the previous post. But I don't mind the 1-2 punch. It's well deserving.

The DLC will remain a corrosive and harmful entity for the Democratic Party as long as it continues to include people like Marshall Wittman:

Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security.

"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."

David Sirota, a Democratic strategist in Montana long critical of the party leadership's timidity, fired back: "It is not surprising that a bunch of insulated elitists in the Washington establishment -- most of whom have never served in uniform -- would stab the Democratic Party in the back and attack the courage of people like Vietnam War hero Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for their stand on Iraq."

I agree with David but I think he is too kind to Wittman calling him an insulated elitist. Wittman is a Rovian pawn who practice the New McCarthyism with Republican aplomb. Criticizing Pelosi and Murtha's position is certainly his right, and we can argue fiercely about the policy, but to accuse them of "offering surrender"? Rove himself could not have done it better.

The DLC, if it actually cares about the Democratic Party, should disassociate itself immediately from Marshall Wittman. The man is an affront.

The problem of the Media in a microcosm, from James Wolcott:

Rich Lowry gave himself whiplash today at The Corner, and it was not a pretty sight.

"FALLOWS--UNBELIEVABLE [Rich Lowry ]

The Wall Street Journal reports in its Iraq editorial today that the public affairs shop at the Multinational Security Transition Office Command in Iraq--they do the training--says Fallows never visited nor did he ever contact them during the course of the reporting for his piece. . .  

Posted at 01:52 PM

Right off you can see the problem . . . First, Lowry assumes what the WSJ says is true; then speculates on how Fallows would snootily defend himself; then treats his own speculation as fact, and expresses incredulity at Fallows' highhandedness. Lowry is so sure of himself you just know he has to be wrong.

And sure enough...

"FALLOWS--UNBELIEVABLE, CONT. [Rich Lowry ]
It looks like it was too good (bad?) to be true. Cullen Murphy has written this letter to the Journal:

To the Editor:
Your editorial about President Bush's speech latest speech on Iraq ('Complete Victory,' Dec. 1) contains a false statement about an article on the effort to train Iraqi forces by our correspondent James Fallows ('Why Iraq Has No Army,' Atlantic Monthly, December 2005). You said that according to the training organization, the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, Fallows 'didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.'

"That is untrue. Mr. Fallows had extensive email correspondence, starting last August, with the Public Affairs Officer for that organization, Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman, who arranged an interview with its commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, in September. Mr. Fallows spoke with General Petraeus by phone for more than an hour, and checked quotes from that interview via Lt. Col. Wellman before using them in his article.

"He also interviewed one of Petraeus's deputies, Colonel John Martin, and had not-for-attribution discussions, via phone and email, with other members of the organization. As Mr. Fallows pointed out in his article, and as he has records to demonstrate, the Pentagon's press office turned down his requests to interview Major General Paul Eaton and others who had been involved in the training effort.

"At no point before printing this false statement did you contact Mr. Fallows or me to determine whether what you intended to publish was true.

Cullen Murphy
Managing Editor
The Atlantic Monthly

Posted at 04:42 PM"

Of course Lowry expresses no regret for sliming Fallows, a serious and careful reporter/analyst. And of course, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page is simply not only not trustworthy, but a propaganda machine for Republicans.

Not a sin in and of itself, it is an opinion page - but they have proven time and again they will flat out lie. So, I guess Lowry is better than that - at least he acknowledges the error. You think Paul Gigot wil acknowledge his? Printing a LTE is hardly the same thing.

The next time Tina Brown wants to slime the blogs and defend her cocktail party friends:

Mainstream Media are trapped in the pincer assaults of the fact-free ethical anarchy of the blogosphere...."

she should try and understand that there is a BIG difference between the Left and the Right when it comes to sticking to the facts. Her inability to understand that pretty much demolishes HER credibility.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

BREAKING!!  Top Ten New President Bush Strategies For Victory in Iraq...

10.  Make an even larger 'Mission Accomplished' sign

9.  Encourage Iraqis to settle their feud like Dave and Oprah

8.  Put that go-getter Michael Brown in charge

7.  Launch slogan, 'It's not Iraq, it's Weraq'

6.  Just do whatever he did when he captured Osama

5.  A little more vacation time at the ranch to clear his head

4.  Pack on a quick 30 pounds and trade places with Jeb

3.  Wait, you mean it ain't going well?

2.  Boost morale by doing his hilarious 'Locked Door' gag

1.  Place Saddam back in power and tell him, 'It's your problem now, dude'

---Late Show with David Letterman

Weekend...straight ahead!!  Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!]  RIGHTNOW!  [Gong!!]

This is disgusting:

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo concluded. The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.

But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.

J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."

. . . The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos, while not binding, historically carry great weight within the Justice Department.

Corruption in every part of the Bush Administration. Scandalous.

This is hilarious:

A new National Research Inc. (R) poll finds that the National Republican Senatorial Committee's ad campaign against Cranston, RI, Mayor Steve Laffey (R) may have negative consequences for Sen. Lincoln Chafee's (R-RI) campaign. Sixty-one percent of GOP respondents said they had seen the ads, and of those, 34% of them said they were now more likely to vote for Laffey. Only 25% said they were less likely to vote for Laffey after having seen the ads.

Liddy Dole's NRSC is lagging behind the DSCC in fundraising, yet it has spent a significant amount of its meager war chest running ads against a fellow Republican in a bid to sabotage Laffey's campaign early. Now, the numbers suggest that this money is actually having the opposite effect.

Dole can't do much right these days.

Bill O'Reilly's Enemies List is out, and it contains three meager entries. No explanation of why they are enemies, either, which makes it less an Enemies List than an Enemies Bazooka Joe Wrapper.

Bill says -- and this is the sum total of Bill's Enemies List, so far:

The following media operations have regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left websites:

• New York Daily News
  
• The St. Petersburg Times
  
• MSNBC
  

These are the worst offenders. In the months to come, we expect to add more names to this list. We recommend that you do not patronize these operations and that advertisers do the same. They are dishonest and not worth your time and money.

Of course, Atrios' commenters point out that the New York Daily News is one of the papers that carries Bill's column. So, you know, don't patronize them, but still read the column. He's not a fanatic about this or anything. [UPDATE - JakeC notes that his column was dropped by the DN and is now carried by the NY Post. Maybe that's a giant clue, eh?]

But Bill is honestly very, very upset. The indespensible George Soros-funded communist plot called Crooks and Liars has some audio from his show today, which they title Bill O'Reilly goes Nuts, and which I would have titled "The Voices Inside Bill O'Reilly's Head Any Damn Day of the Week". Note that in the audio clip, though, he's talking about smiting the enemies of the President, not of Bill O'Reilly, so somebody might have been been faxing talking points to the wrong offices.

Anyway... Honestly, Bill, if it takes you this much research to produce an Enemies List, I think you're doing it wrong. Enemies can't be analyzed, they just "are".

Look, I've got lots and lots of mortal enemies, myself. I can rattle them off without hesitation:

Federalist X finds a WaPo story that defines the difference between true military people like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace and amoral jerks like Donald Rumsfeld. From the WaPo story:

The nation's top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.

. . . When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.

But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.

Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.

Why do I think highly of our military? Pace demonstrates one of the reasons. Why do I despise BushCo? Rumsfeld also demonstrates one of the reasons.

I'm about to go to bed after Jerome, our editor Safir, and I spent 20 marathon hours trying to finish up the editing of our book, Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics. Alas, we failed. We still have to finish the acknowledgments. And we ran out of steam with a few pages left on the final chapter.

Regardless, it's safe to say it's just about there. And we're actually quite proud with the outcome. Surprisingly, it's not half bad!

I'll be talking about the book more in the coming weeks and months, so it'll be clearer what the book is about. There will be a pre-sale period, and those books will ship out in late February. Otherwise, the book will hit stores in mid-March.

Good night!

Harry Reid responds:

Just two weeks ago, a bipartisan majority of the United States Senate registered a vote of no confidence in the president's current policy in Iraq. Democrats and Republicans called on the president to change course and release a strategy for success in Iraq with specific benchmarks by which the progress could be measured.  Today, President Bush failed to meet this call. Instead, he recycled his tired rhetoric of `stay the course' and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home.

After nearly 1,000 days of war in Iraq, our troops, their families, and the American people deserve more than just a Bush-Cheney public relations campaign.  They deserve a clear strategy with military, economic and political measures to be met in order to successfully complete our mission.  The president's continued refusal to provide that plan does nothing to support our troops or their families.  Simply staying the course is no longer an option, we must change the course.  We can do better.

You can look at the little of substance from Bush's speech and  demolish it. But I thought it was just more of the same.

Shorter Bush: Stay the Course, into the ditch:

After two-and-a-half years and 2,110 U.S. fatalities, the Bush administration finally released a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (NSVI). The problem is, it's not a new strategy for success in Iraq, it's a public relations document. The strategy describes what has transpired in Iraq to date as a resounding success and stubbornly refuses to establish any standards for accountability. It dismisses serious problems such as the dramatic increase in bombings as "metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use." Americans understand it's time for a new course in Iraq. Unfortunately, this document is little more than an extended justification for a President "determined to stay his course."
. . . THE NATIONAL PAT ON THE BACK: The NSIV is less of a strategy and more of a pat on the back. Much of the 35 pages is devoted to describing how well things are going. Oddly, the strategy declares on Page 5 that "Our Strategy Is Working." On the economic front we are told, "Our restore, reform, build, strategy is achieving results." On the political front: "Our Isolate, Engage, and Build strategy is working." On the security front: "Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working."

Mission BEING Accomplished. Delusion. Or worse.

On May 2, 2003, President George W. Bush was flown onto an aircraft carrier which was moved further out to sea to make for better pictures and said:

[M]y fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. . . . And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.

. . . With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

. . . We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

. . . The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America. By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world.

They have failed.

America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers.

Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.

Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all.

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice.

Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted.

. . . The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.

Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger.

Count the falsehoods. 31 months later, 160,000 American soldiers remain in Iraq and President Bush today will unveil a "victory strategy" for a "mission accomplished."

I'll consider the "victory strategy" on the flip.

Update [2005-11-30 9:4:17 by Armando]: Via Steve Clemons, the "Victory Strategy" itself.

(From the diaries -- Plutonium Page. Norway, Iceland, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Romania, Italy, and now the UK. Secret flights, secret prisons... this is a very important developing story.)

The Times Online is reporting today that as many as 11 UK airports have been used for torture flights.
I had guessed that Blair might have been smart enough to not allow the flights through England, but I guess his trust in Bush was too great. Foolish, foolish man.

Flight records show that at least 210 private jets carrying detainees apparently leased by shell companies attached to the CIA have stopped over in the UK since September 2001.

See more below

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Columnist Mark Shields spoke with Rep. John Murtha before the congressman gave his now-famous Iraq speech, and...

I predicted that the speech he was about give would have the same impact on the debate over Iraq that former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite had on February 27, 1968, when he spoke of the near-certainty that "the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate."  President Lyndon Johnson said: "That's it. If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."  Murtha did not believe me.

What made it all true was the venality and stupidity of the Republicans.  From the personality-challenged White House press secretary accusing him of "surrender" to the clueless, but venomous, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, unaware of his combat record, accusing Murtha of being a " coward," Republicans made Jack Murtha the most prominent Democrat in town.

As one astute Senate Republican aide observed to David Rogers of The Wall Street Journal, "If the House Republicans want to make Jack Murtha the face of the Democratic Party, then Republicans will really be trounced next year."

Congressional Democrats, a large majority of whom need vertebrae transplants and are terrified of taking any position on Iraq, mostly kept their distance from Murtha until they realized that public reaction had swung his way.  They then embraced him.  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has changed the terms of the national debate, and Democrats should be so lucky as to have Jack Murtha as their party's 2006 face.

Read the rest here.  It's quite good.  

Bush lost Murtha.  And if he's lost Murtha, he's lost middle America.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!]  RIGHTNOW!  [Gong!!]

Tonight's installment of the Fighting Dems features David Harris, running in the Texas 6th Congressional District. The Fighting Dems series is meant to highlight men and women who worn the uniform and have chosen to run on the Democratic ticket. Turns out there's tons more on our side than theirs.

Harris is running against Joe Barton. Lots of good information available in this post from the District Sizer Blog, which is closely tracking the race:

First and foremost, David has been involved in building the Democratic party for many years. He shows up at county headquarters and gives his time and money to the party. This is not some guy who just popped up out of the blue and decided to run. This is someone with a long history of helping build the party.

David Harris served as a delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. He served his country honorably as a member of the Army and Army Reserves. He completed a tour of duty in Iraq, so we believe David is uniquely qualified to offer advice to his (future) fellow Representatives on how to achieve victory or an honorable withdrawal from Iraq.

That blog post has all sorts of info on where Harris stands on the issues. So head on over if you want to know where he stands on healthcare or energy or education.

The segment will run at around 9:20 p.m. ET, though your local Air America affiliates may have it at different times. Here's Harris' ActBlue page, if you're so moved to donate. Led by Anna of Annatopia, they're trying to raise $3K today. Here's his official campaign site.

Previous Fighting Dems:

Andrew Duck (MD-06)
Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
Paul Hackett (OH-Sen)
Bryan Lentz (PA-07)
David Ashe (VA-02)

You can get streams of these segments on Air America's Fighting Dems site.

SUSA's monthly tracking poll of all 50 governors is out. I don't have time to pore over the numbers right now. But you guys can.

Courtesy of Atrios:

Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting.

• A list of the bribes Cunningham admitted receiving.

• Think Progress gives us a reality check in Iraq. Here's another one.

• Coleman drops out of Ohio governor's race. Strickland will be our nominee.