Warning: not to be taken literally

On January 31, 2006, President Bush gave his State of the Union address, and among the issues he mentioned were America's "addiction" to oil. On February 1, 2006 -- less than 24 hours later -- two administration officials, the energy secretary and the national security advisor told us this was not to be taken literally, that these words were only meant to be spoken in terms which the American People could understand. Bush didn't really mean we had to break our oil addiction. It was just an "example", they said, but what they meant was that it was a metaphor, which Merriam Webster defines as 'an elaborate or fanciful way of expressing something <"it's raining cats and dogs" is just a colorful metaphor and not a meteorological announcement> -- see CONCEIT '. So apparently it was only a figure of speech; something between truth and untruth.

This past week Bush spoke in Los Angeles -- presumably to defend his domestic spying program -- and in it he disclosed for the first time a 2002 plot to fly a plane into a building in L.A. Indeed, the president went into more detail than has ever been usual regarding threats to The Homeland, and even told how the plot was thwarted. Almost immediately, the mayor of Los Angeles responded by saying he had never heard about the plot before. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also said he had requested meetings with Bush in the past to discuss homeland security issues and as yet there have been no meetings. However, former administration officials said that there was no direct threat to Los Angeles -- not in 2002, and not at the present time. So was this just another example of something the President said that shouldn't be considered seriously?

We seem to be entering a new realm of administration prevarication. Previously when Bush has been questioned on the "truthfulness" of his statements, his lackeys have been quick to cover it up by saying "the President misspoke". Now the spin is "it wasn't meant to be taken literally." Just an example, random musings, presidential ramblings spoken off the cuff ...

Could this mean when Bush said Iraq had WMDs -- Rumsfeld even said he knew exactly where they were; "around Tikrit" -- that he didn't mean it literally? Was that actually just a postulate, a hypothetical scenario?

How about his statements regarding "not knowing Ken Lay or Jack Abramoff"? Did he really mean that when he said it? Or was it another statement we shouldn't take seriously?

We've been told since the 2000 campaign that Bush is a straight shooter. Over and over again, press secretary Scot McClellan has said, "The President meant it when he said ..." Is 'straight-shooter' a figure of speech? A metaphor?

Perhaps the Traditional Media should consider running a disclaimer when broadcasting a Bush speech, as a crawl beneath his picture: Warning: Not to be taken literally. Or perhaps the corporate press corps could simply ask Bush or designated spokespeople a permanent followup to every other question they ask: "Can we take that literally? Or is it just a metaphor, a figure of speech, a hypothetical scenario, random musings ... ? "

A disturbing hypothetical scenario to consider: when Bush took the oath of office and swore to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, did he mean it metaphorically?

Was that not to have been taken literally?

Greg Abbott takes on an invisible issue

Ed Ishmael takes him down:

Like most Republican leaders these days, Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott seems scared. He sees the writing on the wall in large urban counties and knows there is little he or any Republican can do to keep those counties from turning Blue. What with Republican corruption, a do-nothing Governor and a Republican- controlled legislature that cannot even fund our schools, the only thing the Republicans have left may well be the one thing Abbott is advocating: voter suppression.

In his recent opinion piece Voter Fraud Must Stop, Abbott takes a well-worn page from the Republican’s playbook and twists himself in knots setting up a straw man -- voter fraud -- which he then attacks. He claims we have an epidemic on our hands but predictably offers no evidence supporting his wild assertion. His attempt would be laughable if it did not involve the denial of voting rights to hard-working concerned Texans and if it wasn’t costing you and me $1.5 million dollars.

If you were surprised by Mr. Abbott’s epidemic alarm, you’re not alone. Even noted experts on Texas politics in general, and on Texas voting in particular, have no idea what he’s talking about. You see, you haven’t heard about this so-called epidemic before because it does not exist.

If you want to understand the smoke and mirrors trick Abbott is performing you must look no further than his own words. He starts his presentation by listing instances he claims prove voter fraud in Texas.

And what is the first example he references? One from 1948. That alone should tell you how weak his coming argument will be.

Go read the whole thing, and then read Phillip Martin's post at Burnt Orange Report, which is quickly becoming the go-to blog on Texas politics. Commenter Sonia cogently explains there why this is garden variety, poll-tax-style voter suppression and intimidation.

I'm guessing we'll be talking about it some at the Tejano Democrats' convention this weekend.

Tejano Dems, Bell/Gamage face off, and the Band of Brothers in DC

The Tejano Democrats are here in Houston to screen and endorse candidates. There are several events open to the public, and lots of candidates for you to see, hear, and meet.

Bob Gammage and Chris Bell debated on a live television feed this afternoon, carried by WFAA in Dallas. BOR live-blogged it.

The Band of Brothers gathering in Washington yesterday was nothing short of awesome.

More on all this later.

Kay Bailey caves in to BAR and the vets

See? It works.

"The people, united, can never be defeated":

After U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky's nearly two years of advocacy for a VA hospital south of San Antonio, Kay Bailey Hutchison asked the Veterans Administration yesterday to consider turning a former regional hospital into a VA hospital for South Texas veterans.

In her June 27, 2005 press release Radnofsky formally called for a veterans' hospital south of San Antonio as soon as Hutchison entered the race, and she repeated that call in over 300 campaign stops, rallies, meetings and press conferences throughout Texas, as well as in media advisories and position papers including her most recent press release on February 2, 2006.

Succumbing to Radnofsky's advocacy, the activities of local veterans, South Texas legislators, and a resurgent Democratic Party, and feeling the pressure of declining support among Hispanics (56%, Nov. 2005 to 46% in Jan.2006) in the most recent Zogby Battleground States poll, Hutchison moved to limit the damage by finally moving ahead with a much-needed hospital.

"Hutchison, as Veterans Affairs Subcommittee chairwoman on the appropriations committee, has failed to fill the gap in projected VA budget shortfalls and has deserted our veterans," says Radnofsky. "Her resistance to a hospital south of San Antonio until forced by my campaign, and her repeated votes against increased veterans’ funding, demonstrate that our veterans need a real advocate in Washington, not a rubber stamp for the administration."

According to Radnofsky, "Sen. Hutchison, after following my lead on a VA hospital for South Texas veterans, now needs to follow my recommendations on guaranteed funding for the VA, protection of veterans and service personnel from unscrupulous lending practices and discrimination in bankruptcy proceedings, insurance reform, and federal research authorization for pharmacy and medical schools in South Texas and El Paso."

Governor's primary heating up

The campaigns of Chris Bell and Bob Gammage haven't yet drawn much attention from the Traditional Media, but that's OK. That's what we're here for, right?

Vince Leibowitz at Political State Report is first out of the blocks with extensive interviews conducted with both candidates. Philip Martin will have more of the same this week. Greg reports on the fundraising numbers and has his usual sharp-edged opinion regarding them.

But this is just hilarious (it comes from an e-mail on Carl Whitmarsh's listserv, so no link):

The Queen is Alive and Well and Living in Montrose

In Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, Alice remarks to the Queen of Hearts, "I can't believe that!" The Queen admonishes Alice to try again. Alice replies that there's no use trying because "one can't believe impossible things." The Queen replies that, with daily practice, she had sometimes managed to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Ideologues in Houston's gay community have been practicing lately.

The Queen would have been pleased if she had attended the tea party at the HGLPC's February 1, 2006, political endorsement meeting. In the upcoming Texas gubernatorial primary, the Caucus endorsed 70-something political has-been Bob Gammage over long-time GLBT Houston ally and Democratic front-runner Chris Bell. The capacity to believe the impossible shown by this inexplicable endorsement approaches a political death wish.

Never mind that Chris Bell was the only candidate for any office to come out publicly against Proposition 2 (the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage) last November. Never mind that Chris Bell's act of courage came at great political risk to himself, given the fact that he is seeking election as governor in a state where 77% of the voters support the constitutional ban and view gay marriage as a threat of apocalyptic significance. Never mind that Chris Bell was the first member of the Human Rights Campaign's major-donor Federal Club ever elected to Congress.

Never mind that Bell was almost single-handedly responsible for initiating the process that has now removed Tom DeLay, the scourge of equality in all its forms, as Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives and made him a criminal defendant in an Austin courtroom. Never mind that Chris Bell personally came to the Caucus meeting in Houston, hat in hand, to humbly ask for the Houston gay community's support, while Gammage quietly phoned in an interview to the Caucus screening committee well before the meeting.

And never mind that Chris Bell, who has been actively campaigning for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination for a year, is the easy front-runner over last-minute filer Bob Gammage, an attractive but geriatric also-ran who has been retired from Texas politics for over 10 years and has a name-recognition factor slightly higher than that of my dead grandmother.

Chris Bell was not good enough to win the endorsement of the HGLPC. Why? Because — despite his public opposition of the constitutional marriage ban — Bell has stated that he is not yet prepared to support gay marriage. Well, get out the torches and pitchforks! Let's all drive this monster out of the village before he can kill again!

Here's a novel political concept the Houston GLBT community might want to consider while marinating alone in its newly-discovered ideological purity: electability. A public office is not an ecclesiastical bishopric, where the successful candidate has to prove exact and mathematical alignment with all doctrinal positions of the sect before being ordained. Maybe the Second Baptist Church has the luxury of defrocking a pastor who does not believe in the "dunking" form of baptism. The gay community does not have this luxury — especially in a state where electable Democrats are few and far between. But at Our Lady of Perpetual Indulgence located at 3400 Montrose — where both Mad Hatters and Cheshire cats were in attendance on February 1, 2006 — we apparently don't even let pastoral candidates approach the pulpit until they prove they are willing to burn themselves alive on the altar of same-sex marriage.

Has anyone been keeping count? The same Republicans who coasted to easy victory on Proposition 2 in November 2005 by a margin of 50 points — yes, 50 points — now control the governorship, lieutenant governorship, both houses of the Legislature, every legislative committee chairmanship, and every seat on the Texas Supreme Court. When the Texas House went Republican in 2002, it was the first time in 138 years. No one can deny that Texas is a solidly Republican state in 2006. Not only has not a single Democrat been elected to statewide office in Texas since Ann Richards last won in 1994, but the last two Democrats who ran for governor spent millions of dollars to garner an anemic 40% (Tony Sanchez) or less (Gary Mauro).

We may not like it, but the gay community had better wake up and face two harsh facts: (1) No Democrat is likely to be elected governor of Texas (or any other statewide office) without being able to appeal to moderate, centrist voters; and (2) Moderate, centrist voters in Texas will stampede to the polls to vote AGAINST any candidate who calls for same-sex marriage equality. No governor has been elected in any state of the union by calling for same-sex marriage. As the world changes, this may some day happen. I even believe it will happen sooner than most people think. But it won't happen in 2006, and when it does happen, it won't be Texas where it happens first.

Now don't get me wrong. I like Bob Gammage. He was my Congressman when I arrived in Houston ready to set the world on fire in 1978. I voted for him for the Texas Supreme Court in his last election 15 or 16 years ago. His signature is on my law license. But the idyllic little world where people of good will elect as their governor a 6-foot-tall white rabbit with a pocket watch, and merrily follow him to the land of same-sex marriage equality does not exist. Bob Gammage will NOT come out publicly in favor of same-sex marriage. If he does so, he will greatly increase Chris Bell's margin of victory in the primary. Gammage will go to the primary in 5 weeks with a position on gay marriage identical to Chris Bell's, notwithstanding that the Caucus's stated belief that Gammage's position was "better" than Bell's — predicated, as it was, on a single telephone interview instead of an actual record or body of work— earned Gammage the Caucus endorsement.

In March, Chris Bell, long-time friend to the Houston gay community, will win the Democratic nomination for Texas governor over Bob Gammage by a landslide. Celebrations will abound all over the state, as Texas Democrats look forward to the greatest chance for gubernatorial victory in 12 years. But the Houston gay community will not be there. Thanks to the Caucus' ability to believe at least six impossible things before breakfast, Bell will have won despite the ostentatious opposition of the very community whose rights he has championed at every turn for over a decade.

I can think of only one thing appropriate to say about the Caucus for that: "Off with their heads!"

There's a few things to contend with in there: Bell wasn't the only candidate to publicly denounce Prop. 2, and I don't believe it will be a landslide in the primary. Forty percent of the general election vote tally, even by the bipartisan Beltway consultantocracy's measurement, isn't 'anemic'. And I believe that my candidate -- previously disclosed -- stands an excellent chance of being elected in November, garnering multiple thousands of votes from former Republican voters ('moderate' and 'centrist' labels having grown obsolete to the point of being misleading). But I wouldn't acidly state my strongly-held opinion as a fact.

Mostly though, the Gammage supporters' heads are going to explode from the truth about their candidate being so bluntly told.

Watch the comments here and elsewhere over the next few days and see if I'm right.

Grilling some Attorney General, with a side of Lay and Skilling

I've got a good bit of campaign documentation and fundraising calls to make today so I'll have some of the 'Berto Gonzales stir-fry going on in the background, though I wish CourtTV were showing the crucifiction of Kenny-Boy and Jittery Jeffrey. Does anyone else think Judge Sim Lake was a fan of Greezed Lightnin' at Astroworld, the way he likes speedy thrillrides?

The Tejano Democrats meet this weekend in Houston to screen and endorse candidates; Chris Bell will emcee the banquet Friday evening. There's also an excellent college baseball tournament going on.

Update (today): A commenter points out that I have cited the September 2005 event as this Friday. I've contacted the TDs for an agenda for the weekend and will post that when I get it.

Update #2 (today): Ali G's testimony has been a monumental embarrassment. He appears mostly ignorant of the law, oblivious to what's going on at other agencies, and blindingly incompetent to the duties of the nation's top law enforcement officer.

Just popping in to say hi briefly

OK, let's play catchup ...

Tuesday, the State of the Union was protested locally by about 250 of us, who marched down to KHOU and got some publicity.

Wednesday was a Texas congressional candidate forum at the Democracy for Houston monthly meeting, and Ted Ankrum and Jim Henley and David Murff and Gary Binderim all spoke.

Thursday Dot organized our Meetup for Democrats; here's info on the next one.

Yesterday I blockwalked with Borris Miles in Meyerland in the morning and then attended the "Talking the Talk" workshop in the afternoon. It was sponsored by the Harris County Democrats and featured Dr. Richard Murray, Dr. Stephen Klineberg, and also candidates Bob Gammage and Nick Lampson. We went back and mingled with the Borris supporters at his campaign office's open house in the evening.

(Stace has two cents' worth -- actually it's worth considerably more than that -- about something Dr. Murray said.)

That was my week; how was yours?

Henry Cuellar got the Fredo Corleone treatment from Bush and Ciro Rodriguez is $50,000 better off for it (so far).

There's a new House Majority Leader, he moonlights as George Hamilton (scroll down to almost the end), and all the good Who/Won't Get Fooled Again plays on words got taken months ago when it looked like Roy Blunt was going to be the man ...

There's a big football game today. I like the Steelers. How about you?

Transitions

An interesting day of transitions today.

First and most importantly, today is Groundhog Day, and it coincides this year with the State of the Union speech. I find the confluence of these events quite an ironic juxtaposition; one involves a meaningless ritual in which the country looks to a creature of nearly no intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog.

Today is Alan Greenspan's last day on the job; he gives way to Ben Barnanke.

And on the day that Sam ScAlito is sworn in as the nation's 110th Supreme Court Justice, Coretta Scott King passes away.

As I watched the whip count for the cloture vote on C-Span yesterday afternoon, I was surprised and pleased that it showed 57 votes aye, 40 no (a 'no' vote for cloture, or ending debate on the nomination, being evidence of the strength of the opposition's prospects for filibuster). Only 41 votes were needed, and had cloture failed, the filibuster would have commenced, and the Republicans' nuke threats would have been called.

But that hope was dashed, as at least fifteen Senators abandoned their commitment, and the final vote was 72-25.

These are the Democrats who, despite furious activism, abandoned their party and voted yes on cloture:

Akaka -HA
Baucus -MT
Bingaman -NM
Byrd-WV
Cantwell-WA
Carper-DE
Conrad-one of the Dakotas
Dorgan-also a Dakota
Inouye-HA
Kohl-WI
Landrieu-LA
Lieberman-CT
Lincoln-AR
Ben Nelson-NE
Bill Nelson-FL
Pryor-AR
Rockerfeller-WV
Salazar-CO

As I watched the vote, I was struck again by the congeniality evidenced by the Senators. Lots of laughing, hand-shaking, back-slapping, and not among the Republicans but the Democrats. What is so funny, I kept thinking. And then I began to recall the words of the Senators who voted for cloture but said publicly that they thought it an exercise in futility: Joe Biden, chuckling with Don Imus -- well, ha ha, I already did my filibuster when I questioned Alito. We don't have a prayer of stopping him. I'll vote no on the first cloture vote, but it's really a waste of time ...

Barak Obama said to George Staphylococcus he'd vote no to cloture, but also said it was a waste of time. We really need to elect more Democrats ...blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the enthusiasm, Barak.

Jeff Bingaman: 20 minutes before the vote he tells us, through an aide, maybe he'll vote against cloture if we give him 2,000 calls in 20 minutes. He voted for cloture.

Mary Landrieu, who had us all crying for New Orleans, voted for cloture. See, this will focus attention on a relief package for New Orleans. Alito is a distraction. So much for a pro-choice woman that Emily's List endorses.

Robert Byrd, the respected constitutionalist; the man who carries a copy with him at all times, who rails against executive power and the surrender of Congressional war-making authority to an imperial Bush, votes yes on cloture to a Supreme Court nominee whose "unitary executive" theory gives a blank check to that same President to torture, wiretap, and hold Americans indefinitely and without charges because "it's wartime".

Maria Cantwell. The guru of Real Audio, the Internet personified, votes for cloture on a man who won't tell us if there's a constitutional right of privacy.

And the noble Tim Johnson and Byron Dorgan -- profiles in courage on the great plains.

Sean-Paul Kelley is outraged, calling them a "quivering, quavering, gelatinous mass of timorous toadies".

B & B is much more reserved.

Casual Soapbox breaks it down nicely.

Me? I think I'm through being mad about it, but the fight goes on. We've got to take not only our country back from the fascists but we've got to take the Democratic Party away from the quitters and cowards, and we must do so before it is too late for democracy, and for us all.

To that end, there's an interesting protest opportunity this evening.

Corruption Chronicles: Gov. MoFo and Texas' own K Street project

Already blogged here, and also by Kuff and Eye on WC and others, and Paul Kiel pushes even more of the pieces together:

The more you learn about the Texas lobby boondoggle (this is where the state's federal relations office was gutted in order to hire K-Street-Project-approved private lobbyists such as DeLay's former Chief of Staff), the more ludicrous the narrative becomes.

The Texas Office of State-Federal Relations (OSFR) has existed since the 60's, and its purpose is clear from the title. According to the website, it's there in Washington to "advocate for the interests of Texas." Simple. You might even say that they're there to lobby the federal government on behalf of Texas. ...

... Members of the OSFR staff quietly went over the bids and selected the Federalist Group's Drew Maloney, who had been Tom DeLay's Chief of Staff until March of `02. The Federalist Group is literally an all Republican firm.

The Governor and his minions at OSFR snuck this past the Democrats, the press, everyone.

...

Gov. Perry is responsible for this, on whose orders you can probably guess (hint: back in 2003, the Houston Chronicle had an anonymous source who claimed that a certain Majority Leader was responsible). It was clearly his initiative. The Governor appointed Perez to his post, and Perez serves at his pleasure. The idea that a career bureaucrat would come up with this on his own, offering to deeply cut his own staff - from 17 to 7, more than half - is ludicrous.

...

Everyone seemed happy with this arrangement until early 2004, when Sen. Hutchison and Gov. Perry clashed over the issue of base closings. Perry made a big show of supporting the Pentagon's draft guidelines; Hutchison came out against. At the same time, Hutchison was reportedly mulling over running against Perry for the Governorship.

Then, in February, the Governor began to publicly worry whether Piper Rudnick had a "conflict of interest" in representing Texas, since the firm was reportedly in negotiations with Florida to lobby to preserve their bases.

Now, there is an inherent conflict of interest when a private lobbyist, with a full slate of corporate clients, is paid with state taxpayer dollars to lobby for federal dollars. So this is obviously a phony line of argument. And the Federalist Group has a host of other governmental clients (cities, counties, university systems, etc.) that the Governor has never had any problem with.

No matter: the contract with Piper Rudnick was abruptly severed in the spring of '04. Another round of bidding ensued, and Todd Boulanger, former member of Team Abramoff, won the contract, despite the fact that his bid wasn't the best, as if that was the point.

The excerpts above simply don't do justice to the research done by Kiel. You must read the entire thing to get the true sense of the breathtaking cronyism that has snaked its way throughout our state government.

Kiel says he's got more to come, but I've already read all I can stand.

The past week's Democratic candidate scramble

Yesterday, at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in southwest Houston, I met Wesley Clark briefly. He was in town stumping for Bob Gammage, and he also met Hubert Vo and Kristi Thibaut and a small clutch of media and supporters before he left for Corpus Christi to campaign for Juan Garcia.

Eddie tried to live-blog the event in CC but got caught in that weak-wireless-signal Catch 22 -- stay inside to hear the event, or go outside to post, but not both.

While I was there, John Kerry decided to filibuster Alito. Good on him.

David Van Os asked me to be his campaign manager, and I accepted. So I'll be blogging a lot less, and as a matter of ethics, not at all after today about the man whom Ronnie Duggar calls "the Ralph Yarborough of his generation". So you need to bookmark his website, and help out a little from time to time if you can.

You see, Van Os has no intention of running television commercials ad nauseum or even trying to blanket the state with yard signs; his campaign runs on a virtual shoestring. My time and efforts, for example, are currently gratis, as I wind down my business in order to go full-time. His message is delivered the old-fashioned way; directly to the people.

One thing I've learned in the short period of time that David has been my good friend is that once you hear him speak, it's over.

I experienced this for myself a few years ago where he outshone Jim Hightower, and I've seen it happen time and time again, most recently at a little place called Arturo's Underground Cafe in Austin where about fifty people ( about forty of them under the age of 25) gathered at a post-steering committee meeting after-party. They came to hear a four-piece bluegrass band named Herb Pharm (sorry, no link; when you Google their name and add 'bluegrass' or 'austin' you still only get 100,000 hits for supplements) and they stayed to hear David.

I also added the button in the right column for SH 146 candidate Borris Miles, who's taking on incumbent Al Edwards. I could say a lot about my representative, but I'm pretty sure it's all been said. And I can't say anything bad about the third Democrat in the race, Al Bennett, who is an outstanding gentleman and to whom I wish all the best. I want to support your candidacy in another race very soon, Al.

There's a lot more to talk about, but I'll get back to you later on it. Don't go away and stay away, please.

Senators, Spines, and Sam ScAlito

Harry Reid met with progressive lobbyists this week and told them he has 44 votes against Alito, but that there are eight Democratic Senators who will not support a filibuster.

Reid only needs 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. If he has 41, then every one of those Senators should support a filibuster, or their 'no' vote is meaningless.

Reid also said he would not pressure Democrats on this because it's a "conscience vote".

Reid would not name the "Alito 8" who are blocking a Democratic filibuster -- so it is important to identify them and tell them not to betray the Democrats who funded them and voted for them. If Democrats want our support to win in 2006, we need their support now.

Here's an easy directory for you to use, today, to contact them.

The most likely Alito 8 suspects are "Red State" Democrats:

Tom Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA) -- she is speaking publicly against a filibuster
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mark Pryor (AR)

The "Alito 8" may also include some of the 7 Democrats in the Gang of 14:

Robert C. Byrd (WV)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Joseph I. Lieberman (CT)
Mary Landrieu (LA) (see above)
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR) (see above)
Ken Salazar (CO)

Nelson has already said he will vote for Alito. Screw him, but we don't need his vote as long as we get nearly all of the others.

You can also, if you're feeling strong, call the Republicans who have not declared their support for Alito according to C-SPAN -- the best prospects are in bold:

Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Ensign (NV)
Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
Pat Roberts (KS)
Rick Santorum (PA)
Bob Smith (OR)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)
John Vitter (LA)
George Voinovich (OH)

And most certainly call the five Democratic Senators who want you to support them for President in 2008. If they want to prove their leadership, they need to lead the filibuster. It only takes one Senator to start a filibuster. Call them with a simple message: IF YOU CAN'T LEAD A FILIBUSTER, THEN YOU CAN'T LEAD OUR PARTY IN A CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT.

Evan Bayh (IN)
Joe Biden (DE)
Hillary Clinton (NY)
Russ Feingold (WI)
John Kerry (MA)

See, I don't think it's all that complicated. You use the filibuster because your instincts tell you it's the right thing to do. If you're afraid to use the filibuster because you're afraid you might lose it, then it's pretty apparent that you've already lost it.

If you use it, and Frist goes nukyuler, what have you lost? That which you were willing to concede anyway? And what have you won? The respect of the base of your party perhaps? Or the media or -- God forbid -- even the Republicans that you're willing to stand up and fight? An opportunity to again display the ruling monopoly as power-tripping and corrupt?

The Times sums it up for me:

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Sometimes it's difficult to believe the people allegedly on our side need to be reminded of this. Nevertheless, let's be sure we remind them. Today.

Update (1/26, about 1 p.m.): Well, whaddya know. You were heard.

So did you hear about the oil spill in the Gulf?

Me neither:

A massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has escaped widespread notice provides graphic evidence that damage done by last year's hurricanes poses an ongoing problem for the Gulf's oil industry and coastal environment.

A double-hulled tanker barge now drained and floating upside down at a dock off Mobile Bay was responsible for what appears to be one of the Gulf of Mexico's largest oil spills, which received scant attention when it occurred after midnight Nov. 11. A gash in the hull 35 feet long and 6 feet wide released up to 3 million gallons of oil off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas.

Federal officials said the 442-foot ship's hull ruptured and spilled the oil after it collided with a submerged oil platform wrecked by Hurricane Rita in September. Federal records show at least 167 Gulf platforms were damaged or destroyed during the active 2005 hurricane season. Many of these are submerged or so damaged that the warning beacons on them no longer function, and federal officials acknowledge they have no idea how many have working marker lights.

At least two more vessels have collided with submerged platforms since the Nov. 11 incident, federal records show. As of Thursday, the Mobile Register was unable to obtain details of the other two incidents.

Coast Guard officials said the spill, and the $35 million cleanup associated with it, might have been avoided if the owners of the oil platform had marked the submerged wreck with a lighted buoy, as required under federal law. But the wreck was marked only with floating plastic balls described as "cherry fenders." Such buoys are not lighted and would be difficult to see at midnight, when the accident happened.

More troubling, officials with the U.S. Minerals Management Service, which regulates the offshore oil fields, told the Register that they don't know if lighted buoys have been placed at any of the 115 wrecked platforms that remain in the Gulf. Three weeks after the spill incident, the agency published a "Safety Alert" that lists the locations of damaged platforms and warns mariners the platforms "were destroyed and might be potential obstructions."

Annnnnd there's more, and it gets worse.

I wonder if Halliburton got a no-bid contract to clean it up...