September 12
I just heard Air America Minnesota call the 5th congressional district DFL primary for Keith Ellison. Obviously he won because I've been blogging about him. Even more obviously I'm not delusional to believe that. There was also a lot of phone calling and doorknocking that went on. There were also the fundraisers that cost $50 instead of $1000 and double as campaign rallies. Plus I have an Ellison sign in my lawn, which I'm sure was the main factor. There was speculation Republicans might cross over to vote in the DFL primary since there wasn't much for contests, and either they would vote for Ellison because they thought he would be the only DFLer they'd have hope of beating, or they would vote for the DFL candidate they could stand the most, usually thought to be Junge. I bet both happened and they cancelled each other. I'm not reveling in the other candidates' defeat because these were strong candidates who probably would make good representatives. Mike Erlandson in particular deserves credit for the job he did as state party chair. The fact is Ellison's support came from people who strongly supported their candidate rather than opposing another candidate, like many of us Kerry supporters two years ago. Ellison will be a heavy favorite in DFL district in a generally Democratic year, though I'll admit that from the little I've heard of Alan Fine, he sounds better than most Republicans who actually win. Nonetheless, I believe Minnesota has it's first non-white congressman and America its first Muslim congressman.
The Air America Minnesota hosts handling coverage of election night mentioned several times that the secretary of state's office wasn't providing much information, and they were relying on other sources. I just looked at the secretary of state's web site and it is way behind on results. I'll admit it's a reasonable question whether they would have been so critical of a DFL secretary of state, but I bring it up to remind all of you reading this who care about fair elections that it matters very much just who runs elections. Mary Kiffmeyer has not descended to the level of Katherine Harris or Kenneth Blackwell, but this isn't the first accusation of incompetence in Kiffmeyer's office, and just like 2004 there has been a dispute about the use of tribal IDs for registering. Like a typical Republican, Kiffmeyer always comes down on the side of restricting voting rights, and somehow it's always the poor who get disenfranchised. Kiffmeyer has previously gotten a mention in this blog for one thing where she does have something in common with Katherine Harris. Kiffmeyer is also a Christian fundamentalist who strongly opposes the separation of church and state. Given how religious conservatives seem to have no problems disenfranchising people who vote the wrong way, that's a bit worrisome. So these secretary of state races are important. The 2008 presidential election might be decided this year when you pick who gets to count the votes. Kiffmeyer has a strong opponent in voting rights activist Mark Ritchie. Whatever state you're in, don't forget your secretary of state candidate when deciding where your volunteer time and campaign contributions ought to go.
September 11
Five years after 911, fours years after I said that though we were all likely wrong about just how, the world changed. The fear the outside had world had that the US would go nuts have proven justified. Starting with leaving the war in Afghanistan half done to divert resources to invading a country that wasn't involved, lying to the public and Congress to sell the invasion of the country that wasn't involved, entering into a prolonged and bloody occupation that was as corrupt as it was unplanned, and then throw in secret prisons, incommunicado imprisonment, torture, detention without charge or trial, and then we have an assault on civil liberties at home. I recall hearing even before 911 that the goal of terrorism was to provoke the government to an overreaction that would undermine the government and engender support for the terrorists. If Al Qaida wanted the overreaction, it got it. While many Americans think we're the only ones ever subjected to a terrorist campaign, they support the aggrandizement of power by a president that was inevitable with the violations of civil liberties and basic human rights. These same Americans, including unfortunately those in charge of the government, forget that we came through every prior crisis in our history without secret prisons, legalized torture, and incommunicado imprisonments. Our government, already a laughingstock for its illegitimacy after two stolen elections, has managed to convince much of the world that the US is the biggest threat to piece, above even Islamic fundamentalism. I avoid making predictions, but I feel safe in predicting this period of American history will be viewed in two ways. Either this will be the start of the slide into dictatorship, or this will go down as one of those times we slid part way down before recovering our senses, as we did during the communist witchhunts of the 1940's and 50's or the outlawing of opposition to the war during World War I. Either way, the idiocy of our leaders has brought a premature end to the Pax Americana we thought we saw in the 1990's.
On a cheerier note, and I don't mean chuckling at the bizarre camera work in "The Path to 911", Keith Ellison was the subject of an article in today's Washington Post. The reporter, Alan Cooperman, noted that he would make history by being the first Muslim member of Congress. I assume he didn't know Ellison would also be the first black congressman from Minnesota. I can't fathom why he thought the race ever looked like a cakewalk -- I always thought this would be very close, but of course I live here. Tomorrow is the primary in Minnesota, and the race for the DFL nomination for the 5th district is thought to be even between three candidates, and maybe four. I've gotten robocalls from the incumbent Representative Martin Sabo, and former Secretary of State Joan Growe for other candidates. Having been through the process of selecting candidates for party endorsement, I now understand why the endorsement matters to party activists and I'm sticking to Ellison. I'm fully aware of the chance to make a bit of history by electing the first Muslim and first non-white from Minnesota, but that's not why I'm supporting Ellison. If I thought he was a poor choice I wouldn't support him. This might surprise those of you who don't get liberalism. I'm a liberal, so I'll always support the minority, right? Being liberal doesn't mean always supporting the minority. It means always giving the minority a fair chance, and making whatever extra effort is needed to give that fair chance. It means if the minority candidate can't get the same media attention, I'll take the time to visit the candidate's web site. It means I'm not impressed by who can afford more TV commercials. It means I'll take the time to write positively about him in my blog when there are other things I could be writing about. I was impressed with Ellison when I heard him speak at the State Senate District convention, the first time I'd ever heard of him. I was impressed when I met him during the subcaucusing to pick delegates to the state convention. I hope readers realize that I've chosen Ellison as a topic instead of writing on something else shows how important I think this primary will be.
So I urge readers who live in Minnesota to turn out tomorrow. If you live in the 5th district, you don't have to support Ellison just because he's black or Muslim. Just don't dismiss him for those reasons. Someone as dynamic as Ellison could become a leader in the House instead of the milieux plodding towards seniority and plum committee assignments.
September 9
So why does the acting president need his new military commissions? He's had the suspects in his secret prisons for years. The US still has a functioning court system. So why not just bring them to trial? Maybe because he can't make the case for their conviction? Just to prove he can change the rules whenever and however he wants? There are some things we do know. He has now admitted to having secret prisons. Lots of countries have secret prisons. Lots of countries allow prosecutors to use evidence which is kept secret from the defense. Lots of countries imprison people without charge, trial, or access to family and lawyers. Lots of countries allow the use of evidence extracted by torture. We call those countries "dictatorships". We're quite different from those countries of course. Unlike them, our president has to win a free and fair election and ... oops, bad example.
There was an interesting revelation in yesterday's news. You may have heard conservatives arguing that Saddam did after all have ties to Al Qaida because Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the US invasion. It turns out that not only did Saddam not have ties to Al Qaida, he actually was hunting for Zarqawi. The Newsmax article is from 2004, but I've heard that in the last couple weeks on talk radio. The revelation of Saddam's lack of ties comes from the Senate Intelligence Committee report released yesterday, but the question that interests me is just when did they figure this out? Have the members of the committee been proclaiming Saddam's Al Qaida connections since they found out otherwise? Did they know before the invasion? And if the intelligence committee knew, the administration must have known, so when did they know? And what have they said since? The most immediate concern is they have five reports and have released only two. Given how damning this one is, the rest must be doozies. Doozies of impeachment? Makes on wonder.
Speaking of Iraq related lies, they haven't stopped. It turns out that at the same time the administration claimed the big drop in Iraqi casualties in August was due to their security measures in Baghdad, they had chosen not to count people killed by car bombs or mortar attacks. This strategy of reducing casualties is brilliant in its simplicity, and should be applied to other problems. For example, we could cut down on the number of murders in the US by not counting killings on the odd numbered side of the street, or by not counting murders committed between noon and six.
I haven't had a chance to comment on the revelation that Richard Armitage was the first leaker of Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA, but this doesn't really change anything. Fine, it was Robert Novak who called Karl Rove to get confirmation of Wilson's identity, not Rove calling Novak, but note that Rove did confirm which doesn't strike me as any different from the initial leak. Libby was indicted for trying to cover up Cheney's intense interest in discrediting Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. I still doesn't explain why Bush claimed to have no idea who leaked when Rove obviously didn't just forget that he confirmed her identity to Novak. They could have come clean and gotten the investigation over quickly. Also, why has there been so little consternation over the warning Ashcroft gave the White Hose staff about the coming order to preserve evidence? Why, when Novak knew Wilson's identity, didn't they ask him not to publish it? They may not have plotted to destroy her undercover career and blow her operations, but they sure seized the opportunity when it was presented. Since Armitage came forward and fessed-up, why was his leak kept secret when the whole country knew the leaker's identity was being sought? We still need to know what Bush knew and when. This isn't over by any means.
September 7
As I was driving home from work this evening, Minnesota Matters on Air America Minnesota had a call in poll asking listeners who they are voting for in the DFL primary for the 5th district congressional seat. That's the only seat with a primary contest. Keith Ellison won in a landslide with over 60% of a four way race, but with the caveat that the callers were self-selected. Maybe Ellison just has a lead among people with the time to call talk radio, or are more willing to dial a cell phone while driving than I am. It could also be Ellison's supporters are more intense. A couple callers invoked Wellstone, like a mentioned the other day when I gave away the secret that some DFLers are whispering Wellstone's name in regard to Ellison. That his supporters feel so strongly about him strikes me as a strong point. Many of those backing him do so because they feel quite strongly about him, not merely because he seems like the best of available choices. That's how I read the phone calls to Minnesota Matters, and the reaction to him I've seen at DFL events. I pitied every candidate whose turn to speak at the local DFL picnic came after him. Ellison wowed the delegates at the state senate district convention. Being purely subjective, I was motivated to find a banner for his campaign and place it here on the blog in the banners you'll find at the end of the page. It might not be Ellison's since I decided to do the same for other congressional candidates who could use readers' votes, not to mention funds. I also placed Ellison's banner on my personal site front page.
There haven't been any scientific polls, but two things I've noticed about the primary election campaign so far. One is that Paul Ostrow, who got no votes in the call in poll, was the first to go negative, doing so in a radio ad where he did some speaking though another voice gave the hardest hits, and while he did offer criticism of Mike Erlandson and Ember Reichcott Junge, most of the ad was directed at Ellison. These lead me to believe Ostrow is fourth and it might be a three way race.
The other thing I noticed is that Erlandson went after Ellison and Junge in a recent campaign mailing. This suggests a three way race with Erlandson being third. So far I've seen no negative campaigning by Ellison or Junge, and word of mouth suggested they are the top two. Junge has more money, and Ellison has more volunteers, so it will be ads versus ground game. The wild card is there are no contested primaries on the GOP side, so Republicans will be tempted to cross over. Either they will pick Ellison because they he would be easiest to beat in the general election, as one caller gave as his reason for voting for Ellison, or Junge because she's viewed as the most moderate. At least that's my guess. By the way, the primary in Minnesota is Tuesday the 12th. That's this coming Tuesday. Yes, that's a hint.
A bit of good news. Scholastic has pulled it's study guide to accompany "The Path to 911" from its web site. That doesn't fix the film but it does remove some credibility. That's assuming a film sent around for previewing only to the far right can be said to have credibility. Republicans are wanting to compare this film to "Fahrenheit 911". Funny, I don't recall Michael Moore previewing his film only to liberal bloggers and talk show hosts.
September 6
ABC is going to air a film on 911 which puts the blame on the Clinton administration, and not on the people who were actually in charge and ignored every warning. No, I haven't seen it yet, but it's telling that while they won't show the film to anyone in the Clinton administration, they have been giving copies to right wing talk show hosts including Hugh Hewitt according to Think Progress, and tonight on Countdown Keith Olbermann mentioned it was shown to Rush Limbaugh. If they also gave copies to liberal talk show hosts I would conclude that they want to use talk radio for promotion. It's the one-sidedness that arouses suspicion. It's a drama, so some dramatic license is to be expected like turning e-mail conversations into dialogue. There's bound to be some interpretation of what was said when the contents of a conversation aren't known, or what was intended when some action was taken. I've written historical drama so I understand that the dialogue isn't just handed to the writer and some filling in has to be done. The events have some meaning for you or you don't write the story. Still, you tell the story as accurately as you can, at least if you have some integrity. If they have any integrity at ABC's entertainment division, why rely on conservative media for publicity?
The DNC (Democratic National Committee --- the national Democratic party) has put together some of the specific inaccuracies.
September 5
My response to RebukeTheWorld in a moment, but first, even people who plan on voting in Minnesota's primary election don't know when it is. I've found that even voters who have voted in primaries before don't know quite what a primary is for. First, the primary is on Tuesday the 12th -- a week from today! Second, it's for choosing each party's candidates for the general election in November. When you vote you have to choose entirely within one party through the whole ballot. If you want to vote for a DFL senate candidate, you have to vote just within the DFL for all offices. If you want to vote for a GOP governor, you have to vote just within the GOP. If there's someone you really want to win, you need to vote for them on the 12th or you won't have the option in November.
Here's my response to RebukeTheWorld's post from yesterday:
Since you're willing to concede that you went too far saying all Iraqis have an insurgent mentality, I'll meet you part way and say that it might be a fair description of the Kurds, though that's using "insurgent" in the sense of the use of guerilla tactics, not terrorists. The Kurds I expect would rightly resent being thought of like the Sunni insurgents. I looked at the outline of Iraqi history you linked to, and I found it a bit tricky to follow. It got mixed in with an outline of Iranian history, which I caught only when I noticed the name "Mossadeq".
There was one place where you seem to have misunderstood my point. When you said, "Yes, I agree with you that Saddam did create a more seemingly harmonious country but that was because the Shiites were suppressed and persecuted by Saddam." My point was actually that Saddam made things less harmonious, not more, and his period of Iraqi history will be remembered as exceptionally violent, not as typical or even better, the current dissolution of Iraqi society notwithstanding. Sunni dominance started with Iraq's existence as a state like we know now, when Britain set up a Sunni king. Interestingly, the other day Nick Hayes was talking about Iraq being Winston Churchill's biggest screw up. He was correcting a caller who said Churchill was ridiculed for pointing out the Nazi threat, when he was actually ridiculed for an at best mixed record in military matters.
At the risk of getting off on a tangent, I'm glad you disagreed with the article at The Fourth Rail you linked to. It and the lengthier article it linked to at The Belmont Club were saying that talk of civil war was a way of shifting attention from the failure of the insurgency. What patent nonsense. You'd have to ignore the simpler explanation that civil war speculation may be caused by the obvious possibility there might be a civil war. You'd have to believe their assertion the insurgency has been mostly defeated. In fact, insurgent attacks on US forces are increasing, not decreasing. They've increased their capabilities so they can attack US troops, Iraqi security forces, and Shiite civilians at the same time. So attacks on US troops aren't down, just less salient amidst growing attacks elsewhere. It seems like conservatives judge the accuracy of their opinions by how well they question the motives of liberals rather than how well they fit the facts.
I think it overstates things to say Shiites and Sunnis have been in conflict all this time since they split. They've usually gotten along, which is why current sectarian conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere can be taken as a sign of a disturbance, even a crisis, within Islam. I take the violent flare up as a symptom, not as a permanent condition any more than the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant branches are in permanent conflict. That's another big topic by itself, the crisis in modern Islam and how it manifests itself in sectarian strife, terrorism, fundamentalism, and difficulties assimilating in non-Muslim nations.
Veering way back towards our starting point with Hillary Clinton, there's speculation she may skip the presidential race in exchange for becoming leader of the Senate Democrats. It's unexpected developments like that which cause me to shy from making predictions. I prefer to stick to what I want to happen, like the hypothetical Pres. Russ Feingold. To get back to our starting point, who was right, Clinton or Rumsfeld, clearly she was right. Rumsfeld's record is screamingly awful, a record of nearly nonstop failure. He didn't plan, his strategy was wrong, his tolerance of torture has undermined our efforts and reputation, and he has shown no understanding of the situation before him. However unfortunate may be Clinton's own record on the war, and even if her rebuke of Rumsfeld was just to get liberal diehards like me to like her better, her remarks were spot on, a classic case of a flawed messenger delivering a valid message.
September 4
Here's the next part in my ongoing blog conversation with RebukeTheWorld. This is her response to my response on August 19th.
Hello Eric, pre-Saddam in my opinion, is the inner Iraq conflicts between the Kurds, Sunni and Shiite people.You had asked me what civil wars existed before Saddam. This is a great article with an outline of the Iraqis' inner conflicts.
Typical definition- A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power.
This article disagreed with my thoughts on civil war but I thought I would still share it. In my opinion, civil war is more broad than the narrow dictionary defines. I don't see the individual camps, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, as armies trying to fight for power. I see them as groups of people with different political, religious and cultural agendas and yet; both Arab, both believe in the same God and both live in the same country.
The insurgents mentality is to kill each other to speak up politically. Insurgents are the Shiites, Sunnis, religious fanatics, secular Saddam loyalists and just fighters with their own agendas. I thought this was a great article.
Their inner civil war has been slight these last fifteen years and will be ugly all over again as it was when Saddam first took rule.
The Sunni religious and political power under Saddam, created a great war leading to millions dying throughout the 80's. Yes, I agree with you that Saddam did create a more seemingly harmonious country but that was because the Shiites were suppressed and persecuted by Saddam. These two tribal camps have had conflicts since 650 AD. I do agree that their conflicts are measured differently relative to the numbers who died but vast numbers of people still died. That is pre-Saddam and with a long history. They have the same religion, believe in the same God but definitely have a different culture but still can't make peace amongst each other.
I realize the conflicts subsided after the war and under Saddam's rule but I have other conclusions for that. After a great war, conflicts do subside. If we observe history and even go back to the Roman Empire, the ending of war does silence the conflicting parties often but for a short moment. Those historical brief peaceful moments are usually because time is needed to reorganize or time is needed to fuel the anger from those who are suppressed. If we hadn't started the Iraq war, I think it's a fair guess when considering human history, that the Shiites would have eventually fought again against the Sunni control but now we will never know that.
When we pull out of Iraq, we will be blamed for their inflamed civil war to come. And, America will be partly to blame. We negated to understand the political control Saddam had. It took Saddam victories in war, millions died and then it took years for him to obtain a sustaining rulership. A new leader, just can't walk in and not expect barriers to gain the peoples respect or to gain their fear. Eric, I think its fair to say that you agree with the basic definition of civil war and yours is the accepted version. I guess I go against the grain on the popular vote; thus leading to my conclusions that the insurgents are the way of the Iraqi people. I will post our conversations about this on my article because I feel I wasn't sensitive enough when I wrote that. It does imply an "ALL" statement and I don't believe anything is ALL. The Iraqi people don't all possess insurgent mentality. I should have worded that differently to have made my opinions clearer to the reader.
September 2
Last Thursday my wife and I went to a fundraiser for Keith Ellison, the endorsed DFL candidate for our congressional district, Minnesota's 5th. This was the $35 activist sort of fundraiser, not a $5,000 lobbyist and rich guy fundraiser. The headline attraction was Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and runner-up to John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination race. Ellison is a dynamic speaker and an immensely likeable individual when you meet him in person. I haven't had time to volunteer like I had hoped, so I've been restricted to some checkbook activism. Ellison has attracted more attention than the other Democratic candidates, and possibly more than any congressional candidate in a state with some tight races. I hedge with "possibly" because I haven't quantified it, and I'm sure many people who don't get the Twin Cities media haven't heard much.
Not all the coverage has been positive, in fact mostly it hasn't. Ellison is a black Muslim, and would be the first Muslim member of Congress and first black congressman from Minnesota if he wins. He's not the fundamentalist sort of Muslim, but he did say some hotheaded things in college, and he made the mistake of thinking the anti-Jewish bigotry of Nation of Islam could be overlooked in light of a positive message of black self-reliance and responsibility. Ellison has admitted he was wrong on this point and gotten Jewish colleagues in the state legislature to attest to his lack of bigotry, though how much that reassured 5th district Jewish voters is unknown. Nonetheless, the local right wing blogs picked up some of these things and the wingnut columnist at the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, brought attention to his past with a couple columns which managed to exclude any attempt to speak to the candidate, but why bother with research when bloggers hand you their opinions ready-made? More fun for conservatives to pretend to be champions of Jews after their long history of persecuting them. Minneapolis used to be a hotbed of anti-Semitism, and it wasn't us lefties who made it such. The history of activism which included cooperation with Nation of Islam was soon followed by revelations that he had been habitually delinquent with parking tickets, and had similar problems with campaign finance reports. He was fined $2500 for missing deadlines and needing a warning, though it seems Republicans were unconcerned when Tim Pawlenty was fined $600,000 for campaign finance violations. Democrats however were concerned by Ellison's problems judging by the discussions at our DFL Links (like Meetups, but without the chance of copyright infringement).
Ellison fortunately had the sense to admit his mistakes and show some contrition. He didn't lie (with all the scrutiny, we would know by now), spin, or try to blame others, but he isn't running as a conservative anyway. Recent coverage has been more of the profile variety, more in depth than parking tickets, which is where most of the above information can be found. NPR ran a story on All Things Considered yesterday, and there's a lengthy story in the City Pages August 30 edition.
The City Pages article lets out a bit of a secret, or actually Sam and Sylvia Kaplan let it out. They're wealthy backers of the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor party) and their blessing is a big help to a candidate. Their support in 1990 gave Paul Wellstone a credibility boost, and they used the W word in their quotes in the article -- W as in Wellstone --- to describe Ellison. Other Democrats have been saying it privately among ourselves. Ellison's public speaking style, as well as his unabashed adoption of liberal positions and willingness to use the L word, remind some of us of Wellstone, but we've mostly just said it in private conversations. When someone said it me I agreed, but I've been reluctant to say for fear of unreasonably raising expectations including my own, and that's too much to put on someone. It's like saying, "Be Wellstone, or you're not good enough". I think Wellstone reminded many of Hubert Humphrey, though I don't know if the onus of being Humphrey was placed upon him. Of course, Wellstone had the benefit of more time lapsed since Humphrey died and Humphrey died after a long bout with cancer, not from a plane crash late in a campaign where the opposing party spun and lied to take advantage. To be fair to Ellison he should be judged on his own, and on his own he uses the word "progressive", but he also uses the L word. He says outright he supports single payer health care and getting out of Iraq. I'll admit, he says the things I want to hear.
It's not a done deal at all though that he'll win the primary. He has three strong opponents each with their own strengths. I suppose that's why he brought in Kucinich for the fundraiser. It's normal for candidates to bring in big names to bring in the bucks, and Kucinich has his devoted supporters after voting against invading Iraq and then running for president on a peace platform. Nonetheless this one of those instances where the candidate is a bigger draw then the headliner. I recall that happening when I went to a Wellstone rally during the 1996 campaign and Pres. Clinton, who you may have heard of for being the last legitimate president, was the featured speaker, yet it was Wellstone who attendees really went to hear. Kucinich isn't the dynamic speaker the Ellison is, but his appeal is that he feels genuine. I'm not crazy about the expression "speaks from the heart" but I think it applies to him. Kucinich told a story of being the first US official, and maybe the first American, in southern Lebanon after the truce took effect. He went to Qana, the town where the apartment building was hit that resulted in roughly 50 dead civilians. His driver (I could be wrong --- this wasn't written or recorded so I'm going from memory) feared for his safety once the locals found out he was a US official. It turned out nothing happened and no locals were hostile. I'm cutting the story very short and skipping how it felt very unlike a stump speech, but the point was the people there asked him to tell Americans that they don't hate us, or even hate Israel. They just want peace. Kucinich passed the story on to us so I'm passing it on to you.
Kucinich also said he rarely appears at fundraisers and is very choosy about who he campaigns for, but this Ellison fundraiser was one he had to make. They met when Ellison visited Washington earlier in the campaign and met Kucinich. Kucinich called Ellison the best candidate he had met in 10 years. Take the literalness of that as you will, but it's a strong and I believe genuine endorsement.
