Still Fighting

Activism

The Progressive Legislative Action Network's (PLAN) mission is to drive public policy debates and change the political landscape in the United States by focusing on attainable and progressive state level actions. It will do so by providing coordinated research support for a network of State legislators, their staff's and constituencies, in order to equip them with coherent logistical and strategic advocacy tools necessary for advancing key progressive economic and social policies. This year, PLAN's national conference will take place on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, in Seattle, Washington. Senator John Edwards is scheduled to speak, and now that he's not under John Kerry's shadow, he's becoming a much more important force. If you're going to be in the area, we encourage you to register for the conference. You can also check out PLAN's blog here.

News

A Little More Skepticism Please. Atrios has the almost-story of the week. When the Supreme Court decided last week to not rule on the Valerie Plame case, Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller went back to District Court. Time Magazine decided to turn over Cooper's notes, which would go a long ways to showing who leaked Plame's name. Guess who the big name is? If you guessed Karl Rove, you'd be correct. Although Rove's lawyer denies that Rove leaked the name, it only makes sense. Rove is linked to this somehow, and it's pure hypocrisy for the administration to demand answers on how Plame's name was leaked when it began in-house. Kudos to Lawrence O'Donnell for staying so close to this story.

In the Center, Hers Was the Vote That Counted. Charles Lane has an excellent analysis of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's role in the Supreme Court, and how her departure leaves "a hole in the center of the country." Regardless of the fact that O'Connor was nominated as a conservative, she has maintained a steady course of actually...gasp...ruling by the Constitution, and not her morals. O'Connor was frequently the deciding vote in a Supreme Court that was divided 4-4 more often than not. Now that she's going, it's extremely critical that we nominate someone who will not be guided by morals, but by law. The Washington Post has a listing of the potential nominees here. Speculation runs wild that Alberto Gonzales is at the top of Bush's wish list, but conservatives don't want him, and neither do we. A Supreme Court Justice who condones torture? We'll pass, thanks.

Review Finds AIDS Agency 'Troubled'. Dr. Jonathan Fishbein had been hired by the National Institutes of Health in 2003 to improve the safety of its AIDS research. In addition to his research, Fishbein raised several questions about the agency's conduct, specifically sexual harassment and maintaining a hostile workplace, labeling himself a whistleblower in the process. Although NIH has corroborated many of Fishbein's allegations, the agency still fired Fishbein. This action has many Republican and Democratic Senators up in arms, who see FIshbein's firing as an example of "whistleblower punishment." An internal NIH report from 2004 shows that it would be considered dicey to fire Fishbein, and that no documentation had been given to him to substantiate NIH's claims of "poor performance." It's becoming clearer now that Fishbein's firing is an example of a bigger issue - the ability of the AIDS agency to effectively conduct themselves. It's astounding that, in this day and age, government agencies and corporations still believe that they can commit this kind of absurd behavior and get away with it. Then again, they have no reason not to, as this administration has done nothing to protect whistleblowers. The point that Fishbein is a respected scientist is moot - his dismissal sends a clear message to others in the same situation that, if they do the same, no one will protect them.

Editorials

America Held Hostage. Paul Krugman on the biggest foreign problem America currently faces - Iraq. Bush has painted a picture of Iraq as a place we need to stay and keep fighting, even though, for the first time, the majority of Americans believe that Bush misled the U.S. into war. Krugman is of the mindset that we cannot afford to continue to stay in Iraq, and although it isn't the "moral" thing to do, we, as Americans, need to, at the very least, demand a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq. Krugman gives three reasons for doing so. The war is helping terrorists, the "clear victory" we were promised will never happen, and a time limit will do far more good than harm. The coalition is shrinking. There aren't any more troops to send. We're far from winning, and the insurgency is not even close to its "last throes." Bush claims that a timetable sends the message to our troops, that we need them to know that we are committed to finishing the mission. But we're not equipping our troops, and the insurgency is not fighting a conventional war. Our presence in Iraq is making America less safe, and it's time to leave.

Why the Public Believes Dems Stand for Nothing. Is it better to appear to stand for nothing, or to stand for the wrong thing? Looking at the data David Sirota has compiled, 56% of Americans think that America is heading in the wrong direction. But more voters have positive feelings about Republicans than Democrats (43%-38%). Certainly some of that can be contributed to the fact that Democrats have not had any opportunities to introduce and then debate any legislation of substance. Aside from Howard Dean, Americans find it hard to relate to Democratic leadership. Oh, and lest we forget, as we've been saying since last November, Democrats still have no message. Sirota has compiled an extensive list of Democratic blunders, including voting for the energy bill, the Estate Tax, Condi Rice and bankruptcy, that send the message to the American voters of "We care about you, don't pay attention to how we vote." Sure, Democrats have been (mostly) united against Social Security, the Patriot Act, and a few others, but it's not nearly enough. We don't want to see clip after clip of Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA) or Joe Lieberman (D-CT) debating for the party. We want to see Barak Obama (D-IL), John Conyers (D-MI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and other Democrats not from the Northeast making cases that Democrats are still the party of "the remaining 99%." Sirota concludes that it's not about a "liberal" agenda; it's about convictions. "It is about actually making principles dictate policy decisions." What are we waiting for?

A Livable Shade of Green. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Accords because, in his words, the cost to America would be too great. He'll say the same thing this week at the G-8 Summit. Only, we're not entirely sure how it would cost us too much. We've written before about how individual companies have already, voluntarily, lowered their emissions without cutting jobs or raising costs. Still, the skeptical might say that one or two companies aren't indicative of the whole system. Now, Nicholas Kristoff writes about Portland, OR, America's "environmental laboratory," where emissions have dropped to 1990 levels (which are the same levels as the Kyoto Accords would have required). Only, Portland hasn't suffered financially. In fact, with less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise that is being disseminated to other cities across the world, Portland is proving Bush dead wrong. City incentives for public transit and non-mechanized transportation have increased both, and lowered carbon emissions. Portland also offers financial incentives to anyone constructing a "green building" with built-in energy efficiency. Portland's vast turnaround is nothing short of incredible, and should be a model to Bushco as to how we can cut down emissions in this country. Of course, as long as he maintains that it will cost "too much," but not show proof, he sends the message to the rest of the world that he just doesn't care. Couple that with his desire to remove all Amtrak funding, and it's easy to see where Bush's priorities lie.