Top 4 GOP Candidates Refuse "Moral Values" Debate

Much as tonight's laughable GOP debate has garnered media and blogosphere attention today, it may have been easy to overlook yet another telling GOP debate story: the snubbing of a social conservative so-called "values voter" debate. This debate, scheduled for September 17th and hosted by ultra wingnutty ValuesVoter.org (I refuse to provide a link), will be attended by most of the 2nd-tier contenders for the GOP nod, but will be avoided by McCain (though he's pretty much 2nd-tier now), Romney, Giuliani and Freddy.

The Murdoch-infested New York Sun has the story:

If self-styled "values voters" have felt snubbed by the Republican presidential candidates this election season, that snubbing is now official.

Mayor Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Senator McCain are all declining to participate in a September 17 debate in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., that's being hosted by an umbrella social-conservative group called ValuesVoter.org. Social conservatives will be upset; other conservatives might well be heartened by the waning power of the religious right.

A number of second-tier Republican candidates have confirmed attendance at the event, according to the news site WorldNetDaily.com, whose editor, Joseph Farah, is slated to moderate the debate. They include Rep. Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Senator Brownback, Rep. Ron Paul, and John Cox.

Much as the top-tier GOP candidates scrambled tonight to please the Neanderthal Christianist mirror-image of the Taliban that comprises an increasingly large portion of the Republican base, their refusal to attend this event was extremely telling: several major players in the Christian Conservative movement including anti-feminist icon Phyllis Schlafly will be asking questions, and the debate will be streamed over the Internet and on satellite television. In many ways--from media coverage to political environment (strong activist base), failure to attend this debate would be similar to a Democratic candidate refusing to attend YearlyKos. It's a duck of extremely significant proportions.

Not that Rudy McRomneyson aren't stuck between a rock and a hard place:

Without any of the top-tier candidates in attendance, the ValuesVoter.org debate is unlikely to garner much attention from the mainstream press. The question is whether skipping the debate will hurt the Big Four more with the base than attending it might have hurt them with the rest of the country. Given the agenda of those who will be asking the questions-- anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-judicial-independence, anti-immigration, and pro-censorship--it's likely the Fantastic Four made the right decision.

While they may have saved themselves from the stinging questions from these nuts, they haven't escaped the wrath of the base for evading the forum. Just look at the thread over at FreeRepublic:

Freeper Sun:

What a bunch of chickens.

Now we know that Rudy McRomney are part of the RINO establishment.

Freeper puroresu:

If social conservatives are losing power in the GOP, then the GOP is history and we’ll be a full socialist nanny state in twenty years.

Freeper jsdude1:

Lets see the Republican Party (and their liberal donors) Win without Christians..I WILL ACTIVELY PORTRAY THEM AS TRAITORS/AND CAMPAIGN FOR THE CONSTITUTIONL/LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE-AGAINST THEM!! If they support a liberal RINO as Republican POTUS Standard Bearer-08.

Freeper Man50D:The Republican party has been incrementally replacing Conservative core values with Socialism for many decades. Conservatives are the minority RINOS because they have been pushed out of the party. Consequently the GOP and the Socialist Democrats are essentially one party. Conservatives only logical alternative is to leave the GOP and unite with the large number of unaffiliated Conservatives.

Freeper AD from Springbay:

If this: GOP Candidates Snub Social Conservatives is true in September of 2007 then this: GOP Candidates Fail to Win Election in December 2008. As a 'social conservative' I'm tired of being a Republican step-n-fetchit.

Of all the candidates to take heat from the Freepers, however, Freddy seems to have come off the worst, because he would have been expected to attend:

Freeper GhostofFreepersPast

That’s a deal breaker for me. Fred is on my won’t vote for list rigth along with Rudy McRomney. Game time is over. These are the issues I take most seriously.

Freeper puroresu:

Fred should participate. I don’t understand why he’d avoid this. The other three have good reason for being busy elsewhere that night.

Now, it is true that some have with some reason argued that the major candidates cannot attend every forum--but with base conservatives already worried that the probable do not respect them or their "values", every evasive move like this carries increased significance. Personally, I think it's extremely enjoyable to watch the "moral values" party of Vitter, Craig, and Mark Foley excoriate their head candidates as they attempt to dance on the head of a pin.

Pass the popcorn!

Also at MLW

Get Off The Internet!

At the risk of sounding melodramatic and of telling some in the Netroots what they may already know, I think it's necessary to highlight something that may not be adequately clear to many here in Left Blogistan: We have a nearly unprecedented opportunity to SWAMP the Republicans--but only if people will commit to getting off the blogs, and on the ground for significant portions of the next 15 months.

Now, don't get me wrong: most people who have read my posts over the last couple of years know that I tend to be a blog triumphalist: I know that simply electing Democrats doesn't solve everything, that the media must be held accountable for progressive electoral messaging to gain traction, and that, as Al Gore says in his must-read Assasult on Reason, blogs on the left and right create a much-needed two-way conversation between the government and the people--a conversation that has been sorely lacking for almost a century.

That said, however, there have been three recent events that have changed my perspective and priorities in a large way. These events are the reason why I haven't been around the blogs as much over the last few weeks, and why I haven't slept more than 6 hours in I can't remember how long. These events have crystallized a cold, hard fact to me that makes me giddy with excitement and drunk with the passion to evangelize everyone I can to understand the following fact: This election, in 2008, we have the opportunity to crush the Republican Party in a way that may not be repeated in our lifetimes--but we need your time and volunteerism to do it.

The first of these occasions was attending training sessions put on by Democracy for America here in Orange County. A two-day crash course in the nuts-and-bolts of running a successful electoral campaign, this training is the best money and time that I can remember spending anywhere. DFA is also conducting training at YearlyKos--something people may want to consider doing as part of their stay in Chicago.

Among the many key points impressed upon me at the training was the cold, hard mathematical realities involved in running a campaign: everything--and I do mean everything--comes down to a simple calculation of

• Votes needed
• The time to persuade and GOTV
• The money to persuade/GOTV them with
• The people to do the persuading/GOTV

Once you figure out how many votes you're going to need to reach 52% based on previous comparable election and where those votes are, it's really just a simple math problem of volunteer hours, number of volunteers, and amount of money to spend on reaching voters. It's really that simple. Sure, a candidate like Paul Hackett who runs a true grassroots populist campaign can gain traction and do better than the numbers would indicate, and a corrupt Republican can do worse, and one major gaffe can throw everything off. But in most cases, it's just a matter of of time, people, and especially money.

The second key occasion was mentioned by Markos on the dKos frontpage just yesterday: The GOP money advantage has all but disappeared in 2008. I cannot begin to express how important this is. Throughout the past several decades, the Republicans have had weaker positions and an uphill road in convincing the American people of electing politicians actually contrary to their own self-interest. Pulling that off requires an extraordinary amount of time, money, volunteers and discipline--and in that respect, Dems actually have it easy: all we have to do is go out there and tell the truth, and we automatically tip the playing field in our favor. Even so, the Republicans have largely been able to overcome this disadvantage by doing two things:

• Organizing an army of volunteers through churches and other conservative organizations, while weakening our own organizations such as unions
• Taking the time to build their party infrastructure all across America even when it wasn't campaign season
• And most importantly, outspending Democrats by factors of 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 and more during every election cycle

Now, everything has changed. As of today, the DCCC has over 10 times as much cash as the NRCC. In 2006, the NRCC had a $40 million fundraising advantage over us. As of today, the DSCC has almost 4 times as much money as the NRSC. In 2006, the DSCC did better, but not by a factor of four. And this year, the RNC's advantage over the DNC is shrinking--and will be almost entirely spent on the Presidential election. As Markos says,

Making matters worse for congressional Republicans, the RNC, which was able to focus on House and Senate races in 2006, will be refocused on its usual mission in 2008 -- the White House. So while the RNC was able to make up some of the 2006 shortfall experienced by their Senate committee, and the smaller than usual advantage by their House committee ("only" a $40 million advantage), they can't be expected to make up this year's dramatic shortfalls while still focusing on winning the presidency.

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates are showing that their own fundraising negates the necessity for leaning on the DNC.

Meanwhile, Howard Dean's 50-state strategy is building the local parties, as well as concentrating on doing some important behind-the-scenes work, such as getting our voter files up to speed with those of the Republicans.

The third event to change my perspective has been working on the Ron Shepston campaign against Dirty Gary Miller in CA-42. The amount of complacency and corruption that has taken hold of the Republican party in many of their "safe" districts like Miller's is absolutely unbelievable. Most people in these areas (unless they're dominated by SBC evangelical Christians) hold centrist or even progressive values--they just haven't been given the opportunity to consider voting for a real Democrat who shares their values. Ron Shepston--and many other candidates like him--can definitely win if we pull together and provide the support they need, because the traditional advantages that the Republicans have used to crush great candidates like him are disappearing fast.

The conclusion is inescapable: as Democrats, we are drowning the Republicans with our fundraising. All the issues are lining up in our favor. The American people are with us. Every time the GOP opens its mouth, it is on the defensive. We are poised to make substantial gains in the Senate. Our presidential candidates are far more inspiring than theirs.

All we need is the time and volunteers to get out there and canvass, phonebank, drop literature, etc., to make the final push to convince wavering voters--those undecideds and leaners we call the 2s, 3s, and 4s--to get out there and vote for Dems in '08.

And it's NEVER too early to volunteer. If you have a candidate in your area facing an uphill battle against a GOP incumbent, or a candidate in your area facing a tough re-election battle in a conservative district, get off the internet for a minute and figure out how much time you can schedule to volunteers for that candidate over the next 15 months today. Some candidates may even have tough primary fights and may need all the support they can get right now. But in any case, contact your local candidates today to ask them what you can do to help provide them that crucial time and volunteer help they need.

And then when you're done, get back online and keep holding the media and the government accountable to the people. Because this election is an opportunity like we may never see again in our lifetimes.

Why We Can't All Just Get Along

When, in the course of human events (no, not that Human Events), the members of an activist community decide to lose their minds and throw feces at one another with indiscriminate abandon, a reasonable respect for human dignity and sanity impels us to more thoroughly examine the causes of said monkey-like behavior. It is going to be practically impossible to make peace between the increasingly divided pro-impeachment crowd and the focus-on-other-priorities crowd without a basic understanding of what is even at issue, and what it is we're trying to fix. Markos' recent "Can't We All Just Get Along, or Else?" post is a noble sentiment, but it won't fix much until we dig to the structural root of what the community is trying to accomplish.

The problem with the impeachment debate is that both sides are talking past one another, and usually trying to accomplish either different goals without knowing it, or--worse yet--the wrong goal for the tool in question (be it impeachment or elections).

For the last many years leading up to the 2006 elections, progressives across the blogosphere have been fighting on many fronts: from human rights to civil liberties to defense of the Constitution to privacy rights to anti-war issues and everything in between. Some of us set out to most specifically focus on getting Democrats elected, as is the purpose here at DailyKos. Some of us set out to raise awareness of issues not on the Democrats' radar, even if it came at the temporary expense of Democratic electoral fortunes. Still others of us, like Chris Bowers & Matt Stoller at MyDD and now at Open Left, have set our sights on broader movement-building among progressives.

Almost all of us, however, had a fairly single-minded objective no matter the specific focus: to prove Karl Rove wrong about his math. Most of us remember Karl Rove's famous asserations that while the rest of us were looking at our silly polls showing Americans supporting Democratic positions and distrusting Republican "leadership," he had THE math. Karl Rove's delusional math told him that America is a fundamentally "conservative" country--a beliefshared by many top Democratic consultants in the DLC mold who continue to believe that 2006 was an exception, rather than a proper reflection of American sentiment--where progressive opinions are eschewed and the ultra-conservative base free to dictate policy with impunity. No matter whether we were getting specific Democrats elected, building a broader movement, or pushing the Overton Window even farther left, our fundamental goal was the same: kill Rove's math dead and prove that this is really a majority Progressive country after all, if people will only vote their beliefs rather than their fears.

Fortunately for us, there was a definitive accountability moment for Rove's Math: it was called Election Day. And while not everyone, of course, was completely convinced by the results, we have the opportunity to prove Rove's math wrong again and again every two years: 2008, 2010 and beyond. With each victory for Democrats (whether at the Presidential, Congressional, State or Local levels) and for progressive values (usually but not always one and the same), we can convince more and more of the country that Rove's Math is, will be, and was always wrong--so long as a cadre of progressives with a spine is willing to stand up to the corporatists, NeoCons and other Republican allies. Someday soon, perhaps even the recalcitrant David Broders of the world will be forced to acknowledge that the "reality-based community" is and was always respectable, correct, and on the right side of history and American opinion--disrespecable idiots like Bill Kristol notwithstanding.

But Rove's Math is not, now, the only force we must combat: now that we have our first major electoral victory in years under our belts, we also have to deal with something I like to call ROVE'S LAW (it's really more Cheney's law, but Rove also has a heavy hand in it, as with everything). Rove's Law is just as delusional and destructive to this country, if not more so, as belief and trust in Rove's Math. Rove's Law is not all that different from Nixon's Law: When the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal. We can see a clear-cut example of the thinking behind Rove's Law in former White House counsel John Yoo's editorial today in the WSJ asserting that Bush's only role from here on as President is to "protect" the "Constitutional rights of Executive Privilege for future presidents." Rove's Law states that the President is a Monarch elected on four-year cycles, able to do whatever he pleases without oversight or consequence beyond the next election.

Historians understand that demagogues who are allowed to take republican or democratic (note the small r's and d's) governmental systems and subvert them under the sorts of dogmatic executive rules being pushed by proponents of Rove's Law inevitably detach governments from the accountability of their people and lead to de facto dictatorships. Rove's Law must therefore be rejected just as explicitly as his math has been.

Unfortunately, however, unlike Rove's Math, there are no number of elections that will provide a rejection of Rove's Law. We can prove by means of elections that the American people are fundamentally progressive in their beliefs; we cannot prove by means of elections that Rovian theories of presidential power are illegitimate. And this is where the fundamental crux of the misunderstanding between impeachment advocates and impeachment opponents within the Progressive community comes.

All too often, those who promote impeachment do so as a means of getting rid of George Bush and/or Dick Cheney. That is, frankly speaking, deeply misguided and ill-considered. If you want to get rid of George Bush and people like them, there's an answer for that: it's called an ELECTION. Work to win the elections you can influence, or pipe down about it. On Jan. 20, 2009, either a Democrat or another Republican will take office--and no, the world isn't going to end in the meantime because Bush stayed in office.

Yet all too often again, those who oppose impeachment believe that we can reject Rove's Law by putting Democrats in power. That is also, frankly speaking, deeply fallacious and utterly naive. Without an explicit condemnation of and especially accountability moment for Rove's Law, this problem will never be truly resolved. As much as George Bush makes Richard Nixon look like Thomas Jefferson, so will the next Executive to use this authority make Bush look like Nixon--unless something drastic is done to thoroughly reject the premises of Rove's Law.

Perhaps impeachment is not that rejection. Perhaps, as Digby said in the radio conversation with myself and clammyc, a failed impeachment drive would be worse for that accountability than doing nothing at all. But if impeachment is not answer, I have yet to hear anything coherent that would be a more significant or long-lasting approach to solving the problem.

We must be aware, of course, that there is a possible conflict between rejecting Rove's Law and rejecting Rove's Math--but we must also acknowledge that both are critically important and fundamentally separate.

When we take our positions on impeachment, we must be aware of which piece of delusional Rovism we are attempting to reject with what priority, and using what tools. We should acknowledge the progressive legitimacy of those who believe that Rove's Math is still a bigger problem than Rove's Law, and vice versa. We should acknowledge that impeachment is a bad way to get rid of Rove's Math (and Bush and Cheney), and that elections are no way to rid of Rove's Law (and the Unitary Executive theory).

Only then can we all begin to truly get along again.

Bush at 36% in Rasmussen (ALL-TIME LOW); Independent Voters Increase

This post won't be as substantive as some of my others, but I figured I'd give everyone a whack at the new numbers to come out of Rasmussen.

Bush's approval rating has always been higher in Rasmussen than in other polls, largely due to discrepancies in weighting methodologies. Today, however, Rasmussen reports that Bush dropped another 3 points in the month of May to an all-time Rasmussen month-over-month low of 36%. This drop comes as a sharp tumble from his previous all-time low of 39% set in April.

Not only that, there is an increasingly large discrepancy in the extremes: the number of those who strongly disapprove of Bush's performance is almost triple that of those who strongly approve. As the report says:

During the month of May, President George W. Bush’s Job Approval rating fell to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports--36%. That’s down a full three points from April’s 39% which had previously been the lowest rating for the President.

During the full month of May, just 16% Strongly Approved of the way the President has performed his role and 45% Strongly Disapproved. Both those figures are also the worst ever recorded for the President who lost ground across all partisan and demographic groups.

However, not everything is coming up roses for Democrats: a separate Rasmussen report states that Republican party identification seems to still be dropping (now at 30.8%, down from 31% at the end of April)--and has been in a freefall since the 2004 election--but at a slower rate than Democratic party identification, which has dropped to its lowest total in seventeen months (to 36.3%, still a good five and a half points higher than the GOP). The number of those who are registered as independents has skyrocketed, however, to a full 32.9%--with possible implicatons for a Bloomberg candidacy. As the article says:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in May found that just 30.8% now say they’re Republicans. That’s down slightly from last month and down more than six percentage points from the GOP peak of 37.3% during Election 2004. The number of Republicans has been falling fairly steadily since the middle of 2005.

However, the survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seventeen months (since January 2006). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back most of those gains. Today, 36.3% say they belong to Nancy Pelosi’s party.

As a result, the number not affiliated with either major party has jumped to another all-time high—32.9%. That’s up nearly nine percentage points since Election 2004 and means that there are now more politically unaffiliated adults than Republicans...

My personal take on this is as follows: the Republican Party is continuing to bleed support from independents who are seeing through the ineptitude of conservative ideology put into practice. What was a mass exodus is now a steady trickle. Bush's support, however, is drying up very quickly among his wingnut base that still considers itself Republican, partly because of his failure in the Occupation of Iraq, but more importantly because of his push on the immigration bill which is driving his base absolutely insane. Even so, the Dems gained many new voters in the run-up to the '06 landslide election on their promises to end the occupation of Iraq or at least hold Bush accountable; their failure to do so has unsurprisingly resulted in an exodus of voters in frustration.

Nevertheless, American still trust Dems more than Republicans on all ten of Rasmussen's key issues, including a three-point lead on the issue of national security and a five-point lead on taxes (!):

Democrats are currently trusted more than Republicans on all ten issues measured in Rasmussen Reports tracking surveys. Democrats even have slight advantages on National Security and Taxes, two issues “owned” by Republicans during the generation since Ronald Reagan took office.

On National Security, 46% now trust Democrats more while 43% prefer the GOP. On taxes, the Democrats have a five point advantage, 47% to 42%. Democrats enjoy double digit advantages on ethics and government corruption, the War in Iraq, Immigration, Education, Social Security, and Healthcare.

The Republicans are within single digits on Abortion and the Economy.

Meanwhile, Dems hold an 11-point lead in the generic ballot.

The upshot? The GOP is bleeding support; Bush is losing even those few xenophobic die-hards who used to support him; Dems are losing support because of their failure to hold Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Ratings' occupation of Iraq in check; there are a lot of frustrated independent voters out there eager for a change; most of those voters trust Democrats in general more than Republicans; and every single issue of importance breaks the Dems' way.

In other words, we should be holding our ground and standing strong on every issue. There is no downside to opposing Bush at all opportunities; the only way we lose support at this point is by caving in. Above all, it's going to be critical to stand for our ideals strongly enough that no Michael Bloombergs or Unity '08 candidates can steal what should be Democratic thunder and siphon off our votes in the 2008 elections.

this is as good as they're going to get

Now that the first debate between the Democratic candidates for president is behind us, the blogosphere has been treated to a massive array of posts, counter-posts and arguments trashing one candidate's statements and performance while supporting the statements and performance of their own. And while this phenomenon has not been entirely unexpected, it is also disturbing and quite frankly puzzling.

I find it amazing how many Democrats and progresssives are willing to overlook the blemishes and flaws in their favorite candidate's positions. I see supporters of specific candidates defending their candidates' choice of centrist positions and rhetoric on everything from the Occupation of Iraq to healthcare to impeachment, and I'm amazed. I refuse to single any candidates out specifically, though certainly Hillary's stubborn refusal to call her war vote a "mistake" and centrist positions on civil rights issues, and Obama's tip-toeing and often capitulating rhetoric towards the administration on Iraq and a number of other issues do come to mind.

I've got news for people: this is as good as it's going to get with these people. If you ever intend to hold a candidate's feet to the fire--even your favorite, darling candidate--you MUST speak now or forever hold your peace. And quite frankly, though some are indeed better than others, I haven't seen any candidate SO devoid of flaws and SO progressive that I would be willing to defend them unto the death at this point and promise with undying affection my well-considered vote.

Why? Because this isn't just a Democratic primary race we're in right now: this is early in a Democratic primary race. It's a truism that the base is key in a primary election. But what often goes under-reported these days is that, while this election is unusual in the intensity of the attention given to candidates at this early date, it is still very early of even the primary election cycle. And what that means is that while the traditional media is providing cursory coverage of the race, pretty much only the Democratic activist base is paying a lot of attention at this point.

When you, the Democratic activist blogger, hear a candidate on our side speak at this point, realize that they are pandering to YOU right now. This is their best effort to earn YOUR support. Not the support of a Republican; not the support of an undecided; not the support of a moderate Democratic; not the support of your run-of-the-mill progressive. No, right here, right now, they are attempting to engage the support of YOU--the activist progressive base paying an almost unhealthy attention to all matters political.

If you don't like everything you're hearing out of a candidate right now; if you're not completely comfortable with a candidate's progressive language, credentials and policy positions, it's time to get worried RIGHT NOW. Everything they say and do now is their wedding proposal to YOU, down on their knees and on their best behavior in their best Sunday clothes. Just like in marriage, it's only going to get uglier from here from the moment you say "yes"--and unlike in marriage, you don't have the option of divorce.

Because once the primary race comes down to its last two months, the primary race itself will come down to swaying undecided, average Democrats. And once a candidate has taken the Democratic nomination, we're stuck with him or her for better or for worse, 'til death do us part--because the alternative is unthinkable. Papering over a candidate's weaknesses and centrist flaws now is as stupid as getting engaged to a lover thinking that you'll change his/her behavior once you're married, or that he/she will be more faithful to you once there's a wedding ring involved. It ain't gonna happen.

So be discerning. Play hard to get. Be choosy. Stop papering over weaknesses and pledging undying loyalties.

Because this is as good as they're going to get

I would work hard for a Hillary/Lieberman ticket

I would beat down doors for Hillary/Lieberman. I would fly across the country to swing states for GOTV operations for them. I would donate my hard-earned money to the campaign. I would serve in any capacity as an official attache or strategist for the campaign. I would carry signs and happily risk being pelted with objects by passing red-state motorists for Hillary/Lieberman. It would be an honor and a privilege to do these things for the Hillary/Lieberman campaign.

Or for Biden; or Dodd; or Kucinich; or Gravel; or Richardson; Obama; or Edwards; or Wes Clark; or Al Gore.

Any Democrat would be great, for that matter.

Today should be a constant reminder to any progressive sitting on the fence, insisting that they will positively not vote for any one of our primary candidates for any reason: the stakes are too high to allow one's personal feelings about specific votes on Iraq, bankruptcy bills or allegiances to the DLC to stand in the way of doing what is right by our country.

Today, as we all know, the Supreme Court insisted that the EPA do its job in acting on reduction of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming--and it did so by the narrowest of 5-4 margins. The four rightist members (Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas) stood firmly and unsurprisingly in opposition to justice and human decency, as they usually do.

Remember: the balance of the court hangs by thread. Five are sane, if not exactly progressive; four are nuts. All they need is one more nut.

Just ONE more rightwing activist judge, and you can say goodbye to commonsense rulings like this one. For the next decade or more, regardless of who wins the House or Senate, if a Republican takes the White House, the probability is that the the balance of the court will shift dramatically.

And there will be no solace or comfort in the nature of the Republican president: even the likes of Rudy Giuliani has pledged to nominate judges like Alito to the court, in the hopes of assuaging his distrustful wingnut base.

There is also little solace or comfort to be derived from the ages of the justices--especially the sane ones. Unfortunately, the nuts are comparatively young while the moderates are no spring chickens. Here's the list:

Stevens: 86
Ginsburg: 74
Scalia: 71
Kennedy: 70
Breyer: 68
Souter: 67
Thomas: 58
Alito: 57
Roberts: 52

Given the fact that incumbent presidents rarely lose elections, if a Republican takes the White House in 2008, it will probably be eight years before a Democrat can replace him. At that point Stevens will be 94 years old--if he survives that long.

And I'm going to say something somewhat controversial here: our immoral, misguided and inept invasion and occupation of Iraq will be a blip on the radar screen compared to decades of future Supreme Court rulings--especially those concerning the balance of power between the Executive and the Legislative branches. In the long run, we and the people we have violated in the Middle East will recover from our criminal actions in Iraq. The world will not so easily recover from runaway climate change and a runaway Imperial Presidency.

What that means is that I will fight like hell for whichever Democrat comes out of the primary process next year. Even if it's Hillary. Even if it's Biden. Even if it's Ben freaking Nelson, with Joementum as his running mate.

Now don't get me wrong: I will do everything in my power to ensure that a progressive we can be proud of graces the national Democratic ticket in the fall of 2008. But should we fail in that endeavor get a DLC centrist, occupation-justifying candidate, I will still work my heart out to ensure that that Democrat gets swept into the Oval Office.

And the same should go for anyone who calls themselves a Progressive. Or a Liberal. Or an Environmentalist. Or a Libertarian. Or an Economic Populist. Or an Anti-War Activist.

The stakes are too high to do otherwise.