You know your legal problems are bad, when you're spending more on your campaign manager's legal fees than he makes, and more than you're spending on campaign polling despite facing the two toughest challengers you've seen in nearly twenty years.

With an election-year corruption investigation looming, Rep. Don Young has tapped his campaign war chest to pay not only his own million-dollar legal tab but also to hire lawyers for his campaign manager, who is also under FBI scrutiny.

The Alaska Republican spent more than $35,000 between October 2007 and April on lawyers for longtime campaign manager Steven Dougherty. That's more than Dougherty himself made during that period and nearly as much as the campaign spent on political polling, according to campaign finance reports.

It's fortunate that Young has amassed such a formidable war chest over the years, as his campaign coffers are taxed on three fronts now. One, of course, is keeping him in Congress.

One is keeping him out of prison.

And the third, apparently, is keeping his cronies out of prison with him.

The payments, which are legal under federal law as long as they are associated with the candidate's official duties, are another indication of how the FBI investigation has become a drag on the congressman. Instead of coasting to a 19th term, Young is shelling out money to pay his bills and Dougherty's even as he faces a well-funded opponent in August's Republican primary.

The best part is, he's spending all his campaign money to defend himself from an investigation into, yup, his fundraising practices.

Young and Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens are under scrutiny for their relationship with VECO Corp. executives, who have admitted bribing Alaska lawmakers to push legislation favorable to their oil field services company. VECO executives were, until recently, Young's largest contributor and hosted an annual pig roast fundraiser for him.

He's on the hook for over $1 million in legal fees so far, so I hope it was all worth it.

Young still has not been charged; nor has Dougherty, or Senator Ted Stevens, who is also under federal investigation.

Race tracker wiki: AK-AL

In April, as they were being buried under a flood of some 310,000 new Democratic voter registrations in Pennsylvania, state Republican leaders promised a major effort to win back voters after the primary.

But according to Pennsylvania Republican Committee Spokesman Michael Barley, the GOP will mount a "pretty aggressive voter registration effort right after the primary," to get those who have switched sides back into the Republican fold.

Republicans predicted success.

[Republican] party officials believe they can get as much as 40 percent of those who left this year back into the Republican fold after they’ve voted in the primary.

Not only did voters not return, Republicans haven't even mounted the effort they promised. Now they're talking about getting around to it some time this summer. Derrick Nunnally of the Inky reports:

In several counties, Republicans are just beginning to move to try to recapture lost ground...

In Bucks County...GOP leaders haven't yet begun a planned effort to shepherd home their lost sheep.

"We haven't pushed yet to send out letters and talk to them," said Harry Fawkes, Bucks County's Republican chairman for 36 years. "A lot of them, we're hoping, will come back. I can't predict it. We're going to try to do it."

Can't you just feel the enthusiasm? Scott Kraus reported in the Morning Call on June 28 (no link) that the state GOP is adrift:

In Montgomery County...a highly promoted GOP website set up to win back wayward Republicans disappeared after a change in party leadership...

"We do feel that within the summer months and as we get closer to the presidential election, and more volunteers come out, that is a big effort we will be pushing," Barley said.

As Republicans wait for volunteers who aren't showing up, the imbalance in party registrations quickly grows even greater. Between the April primary and the end of June, some 47,000 voters have registered as Democrats. In the same period, Republicans lost about 2,000 registrations.

The following counties (all but one in the south east) have added more than 3,000 new Dem voters: Allegheny, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Berks and Delaware. The gains in Bucks and Lehigh counties were not far behind.

Remember back in April when Republicans tried to dismiss the Democratic tidal wave as an artifact of Rush Limbaugh's gravitational attraction? Well, nowadays they're exploring other excuses.

"I'm just not sure that people consider registration as important as in the past," said Bob Asher, the longtime state Republican power broker. "There's just a lot more people that vote more of an independent streak and not necessarily a straight party, so they don't really feel that's important."...

The tide of Democratic registrations in the Philadelphia suburbs has not been matched by new independent or third-party registrations, suggesting that the change may be decidedly partisan. Montgomery County, for example, has gained about 1,000 more Democrats since April 22 than it has independent and third-party registrants combined.

Nobody but Republican leaders seem to be buying the argument that party registration no longer matters. The Morning Call (no link) quotes pollster Chris Borick on this talking point:

[Borick] said the continued Republican voter erosion shouldn't be shrugged off. The post-primary registration numbers continue a damaging two-year trend for the GOP.

Switching voters "have done this for a reason," Borick said. "That might be a broader statement of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, the leadership and the [Iraq] war, but whatever it is, these people have taken the time to redefine themselves. I don't take that lightly."

Neither do Republican leaders in PA, you can be sure, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to spin the bad news. So it's all the more remarkable that they've been unable even to begin to address their problems.

A new poll conducted by Scientists and Engineers for America indicates an overwhelming majority of voters prefer candidates who support research into science and technology, with emphasis on the three E's: education, environment, and energy. Nice to know, and in a sane world I'd be tempted to add a snarky "No shit?" But in the bizarro conservative fantasy world constructed by the Bush-McCain GOP, maybe it's we best count our few remaining blessings even as they vanish faster than dry ice on a hot summer day. Among the key findings:

Majorities across partisan lines say they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to these issues. However, Democrats express considerably more intensity than do independents and Republicans for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century, reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare, and addressing climate change and the demand for energy through public investments in science and technology.

Almost twice as many Democrats (65%) are "much more" likely than Republicans (38%) to vote for a candidate committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education. Predictably, Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one (48% to 17%) when asked if they're much more likely to vote for a candidate committed to addressing global climate change through public investments in science and technology. Strangely a similar partisan pattern is seen when asked the same question about using science and technology to address the demand for energy. One interpretation of the above would be, apparently, a lot of Republicans still resist admitting they were wrong -- or more accurately were misled by sources they inexplicably continue to trust -- over climate change. And a sizable chunk seems to feel that either energy policy is fine as is, or that science isn't part of any solution.

Some of this may seem odd in the most technological nation on earth, but keep in mind the process isn't static; we're probably seeing the end result of some partidularly vicious recent iterations. In today's political climate, a sort of cultural selection regularly combs through the conservative base with every new shiny piece of evidence for [Insert Respective Field of Science Currently Under Right-wing Assault], leaving behind only those conservatives with the greatest immunity to invading intellectual pathogens from the insidious liberal vector called reality.

From the MASSACHUSETTS-ANNEXED FRONTIER TERRITORY OF MAINE...

The Declaration of Independence: Brittle Parchment of Liberty

If you are going to sever ties to your Commonwealth through bloody struggle, it is considered polite to write down why. Nobody wants to get three years into a revolution only to realize the whole thing was a Three’s Company-esque misunderstanding. The Declaration of Independence was the laundry list of grievances stating America’s case for freedom. Its accusations against the King ranged from egregious ("He has plundered our seas, burnt our towns and ravaged the lives of our people") to the trifling ("Sometimes when he sees us at a party he acts like he doesn’t know us"). But proud men would not take up arms against the Crown solely because the King had "erected a multitude of new offices." The authors of the Declaration knew they would also have to appeal to man’s higher nature, to stir men’s souls. They needed something with some zazz. Enter a hot-shot tobacco executive from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson.

His task would be to synthesize the unique brand message of America down to something that would captivate the hard to reach "12-28 ragtag militia" demographic, all the while not offending traditional "Butterchurn Moms." His first attempt at a Preamble was:

-
AMERICA. A is for All the tea they taxed. M is for the Minutemen they shellaxed..."
-

It tested poorly. But his rewrite would be win-win:

-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-

In a scant 35 words, Jefferson had given the nation the kind of positive brand identity that tendered moot the issue of whether or not we had to live up to its ideals. Still, knowing the inherent contradiction between their noble words and the reality of a slave-owning nation, Jefferson and the Founders wisely decided to strike from the Declaration of Independence the phrase "or your money back."

---From America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction

Happy 232nd Birthday, America, We The People luv ya.  Cheers and Jeers starts in the Commonwealth of There's Moreville... [Washington's sword: Swoosh!!]  RIGHTNOW!  [Liberty Bell: Gong!!]

Abbreviated July 4 edition. Happy holiday from Daily Kos, the home of American patriotism in the best sense of the word (now get out and do some field work).

Eugene Robinson:

Anyone who took U.S. history in high school ought to know that one of the five men killed in the Boston Massacre, the atrocity that helped ignite the American Revolution, was a runaway slave named Crispus Attucks. The question the history books rarely consider is: Why?

Paul Krugman: Well, we now know what McCain really stands for: Karl Rove's third term. I don't think the press will buy it. And, btw, this may not only be the week that Obama finds his inner self again, it may be the week I do, too.

Charles Krauthammer: Let's see, here are my talking points... where are my glasses? Obama not a patriot, he's a Democrat? Check. Obama and flag pins? Check. Jeez. It's July 4^th, Karl, no way I'd have left that one out. Obama a flip-flopper. Check and check. Obama's no liberal? WTF? He's got the most liberal voting record... okay, okay, orders are orders. Check. Get off my lawn! No, that's not in the column, I'm yelling at the kids outside. Man, this is not fun.

E. J. Dionne Jr.: Obama's efforts on faith-based efforts are reasonable, sensible and likely to work both politically and administratively.

Michael Gerson: Obama's efforts on faith-based efforts are reasonable, sensible and likely to work both politically and administratively. I said it first.

Victor Davis Hansen: I'm okay with torture, I'm a neocon. But you've never seen torture like this: watch me mangle every metaphor from sports to the classics as I try to explain why McCain is Liston and Obama is Ali. No, no, Liston lost, so McCain can't be Liston. I got it...  McCain is the tortoise and Obama the hare. Stay with me, people, I'm on a roll.

According to Rasmussen,

In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.

In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.

And now?

During the month of June, 41.0% of Americans considered themselves to be Democrats, 31.5% said they were Republicans and 27.5% were not affiliated with either major party.

This marks the fifth straight month that the number of Democrats has been between 41.0% and 41.7%. During that same period, the number of Republicans has also stabilized, ranging only from 31.4% to 32.1% (see history from January 2004 to present). Prior to February of this year, neither party had ever reached the 39% level of support.

This is the background for the media-driven narrative that Obama and McCain are in a "statistical dead heat". They are not, of course, but to say so would spoil the narrative.

The "statistical dead heat" nonsense was CNN. Frank Newport from Gallup has a more sensible take on summer polling:

We know at the moment that for the most part Obama is maintaining a very modest lead over McCain, ranging from 2 to 7 points in the weeks since Hillary Clinton made it final that she was ending her quest for the presidency. This is equivalent of a first quarter lead of a few points in the Super Bowl.  It's better to be ahead than behind, most coaches would agree.  One has to give Obama the early edge. BUT!  Stay tuned.  There's a lot to come in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters. And polling is our best scorecard.

Polls aren't predictive in July, but those who read them ought to know how to interpret them. A case in point from ABC:

There has been little change in the polls in the weeks since Obama defeated his last Democratic challenger, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. The latest Gallup polls give Obama a slim 46-44 lead over McCain.

"It's actually very, very close," Stephanopoulos said.

Although not quite that close. Stephanopoulos reported that both camps believe Obama actually has a lead of five to eight percentage points. But Republicans are surprised that the Illinois senator's lead isn't bigger, because McCain is burdened by the unpopularity of President Bush and a sputtering economy.

So, it's not actually "very, very close", and neither camp thinks so. In a hardly-surprising comment, ABC reports that the political camps read the polls the way we do, and not the way Stephanopolous does.  

Okay, despite Stephanopolous' opinion, Obama maintains a small but significant lead. But then that means Obama should be winning by more than he is, right? Well, another interpretation (since it's always Republicans who are surprised Obama's lead isn't bigger, despite the LA Times/Bloomberg and Newsweek polls who had the lead at 15) is that Republicans know how much McCain sucks as a candidate and can't believe he's not losing by more. Still another is that like 1980, until they get to know the new guy better, voters will reserve their opinion until the race is nearer the vote. But that's okay because it sets up the next media narrative: scrappy underdog John McCain is about to make a comeback.

And so the new narrative is primed and in place (and it’s the same as an old narrative): McCain could actually do this thing. (Actually, while the polls remain tight, right now he’d settle for not being counted out -- but he’ll take what he can get.)

You've got all the elements: a new story line with the disciplined Rove protege taking over messaging in the McCain camp, a desire for a close race, an expected attack barrage... and here we go, 2004.

Of course, there are some problems with that. State by state, Obama's doing better than the narrative says. Obama is about to go abroad and get all the good press of "well-received overseas", including by state leaders weary of George W. Bush, and in direct contrast to McCain's "what the hell is he doing in Colombia instead of Akron?" trip. The economy sucks, and McCain will try and convince American voters the party in power is not to blame. And until the polls say that McCain, the candidate with no communication skills, is actually communicating with voters, there's no comeback.

On issues that matter? Maybe the media will talk about them, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll just mark time:

According to Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst , the flip-flopping charge may not resonate as much with voters this year as it did in the past.

"So what if voters think both candidates are flip-floppers?" asked Schneider. "After eight years of George W. Bush, voters may welcome some pragmatism and flexibility in their leaders. Times change."

But don't worry. The media is fired up, even if the voters are not. John McCain's base will make sure you hear the story the way it needs to be told. Otherwise, you might get the wrong impression about who's leading in the polls. An Obama lead, my friends, is not the narrative the media is working from.

Happy July 4, everyone!

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Yashua, ybruti, Got A Grip, dadanation, YatPundit, and joyful, with shayera as editor.

• MA Voter highlights the joys of volunteering in Community Service: Impact from the inside out. (ybruti)
• donnasicko finds little to celebrate in SiCKO Effects: A Birthday Wish from Your Insurance Company. (joyful)
• Jeff Huber explains how he lost his last drop of respect for pundit class in the traditional media in Mission Accomplished ala Lieberman and Schieffer. (Got a Grip)
• In a moving tribute to the people of New York, ArthurPoet describes their Path of Service: WTC - 9/13/01 - 1/2 Mile No, W.S.Hwy. (ybruti)
• pmorlan examines an important example of the common phenomenon of our traditional media clucking away as they knit the scandal du jour while ignoring the rampaging elephant destroying the room in Clark & Taguba - A Media Tale of Two Generals. (Got a Grip)
• What at first blush seems to be just too blatant to be true actually is borne out by the facts in dhonig's troubling diary FOX News Anti-Semitism. (dadanation)
• In a moving tribute to the people of New York, ArthurPoet describes their Path of Service: WTC - 9/13/01 - 1/2 Mile No, W.S.Hwy. (ybruti)
• Detroit Mark shares a sense of healing at the impending end of the BushCo Reign of Terror and the hope of a better president in I Can Not Tell A Lie: I've Never Felt More Patriotic. (Got a Grip)
• Just in time for the 4th of July weekend, Milos Janus Outlook carefully disentangles fact from fantasy in Remembering Our Roots by looking at the actual religious perspectives of many of the famous "Founding Fathers (and Mothers)." (dadanation)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - July 2, 2008.

noweasels has Top Comments: Duck & Wabbit Season Edition.

If you enjoy Diary Rescue, please consider joining the Rescue Rangers. It's a great way to become more involved with the Daily Kos community. Did we mention it's rewarding and fun? To volunteer or learn more, please contact us (don’t forget to tell us your screen name) at: dkos.rescuerangers@gmail.com

We do too much "heroification" in America, according to James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (a book that ought to be on everybody's shelf).  Like me, he thinks the word hero has been cheapened, ending up more often a description for football quarterbacks who throw perfect last-minute passes than for, say, the passerby who risks her own life to pull a child from a flooding river.

Heroification describes what textbooks, too many teachers,  and the likes of Lynne Cheney have done to historical figures such as the deeply racist Woodrow Wilson and a multitude of other notable Americans. The process of heroification not only turns the notorious into role models but many people who actually deserve the praise pressed upon them into one-dimensional stereotypes without flaws. As if we couldn't stand to see our heroes as human beings who don't always get things right, who, in fact, sometimes behave deplorably and hypocritically.

Despite his flaws, my number one personal hero is - and has been since I was 14 - Frederick Douglass, the runaway slave whose persistent eloquence was one of the leading factors persuading Abraham Lincoln to bring black soldiers into the Union Army. Without them, it is uncertain that the Union would have survived. As historian Eric Foner wrote a few years back:

At an Independence Day meeting sponsored by the Rochester Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society in 1852, the former slave Frederick Douglass delivered one of the nineteenth century's greatest orations. His theme was the contradiction between American slavery and American freedom.

Douglass did not mince words. He spoke of a government that mouthed the language of liberty yet committed "crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages"; of patriotism reduced to "swelling vanity"; of hypocrisy destroying the country's "moral power abroad." Although slavery is gone, Douglass's critique remains as relevant as in 1852. But so too does his optimism that the days of empire are over, and that in the modern world abuses cannot permanently be hidden from the light of day. Douglass, not the leaders of a slave-holding republic, was the genuine patriot, who called on his listeners to reclaim the "great principles" of the Declaration from those who had defiled and betrayed them. That is a truly patriotic goal for our own Fourth of July.

Here is what Douglass said 156 years ago, with obvious resonance for our own time.

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that the dumb might eloquently speak and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn that it is dangerous to copy the example of nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can today take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! We wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorry this day, "may my right hand cleave to the roof of my mouth"! To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate, I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just....

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not as astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, and secretaries, having among us lawyers doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; and that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshiping the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!...

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply....

What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms- of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

While this is a message intended for Alaskans, it makes sense for the entire West, not to mention the country.

The Begich plan includes:

• Standing Up Against Government Interference - including warrantless wiretapping, the assault on habeas corpus, the pursuit of Real ID cards, and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that illegally helped the federal government spy on Americans.
• No Surveillance on Law-Abiding Americans – Begich opposes efforts since 9/11 to take advantage of public fears, bypassing the courts and Congress to eavesdrop on Americans.
• Repeal the Patriot Act – Begich believes national security resources should be built on human intelligence and Special Forces that will identify and respond to real threats of terrorism, not monitoring what books Americans read.
• Restore Habeas Corpus – Begich called the Military Commissions Act, passed in 2006, the lowest point in our country’s response to the threat of terrorism. The Act suspends habeas corpus for millions of Americans, and that right needs to be restored.

That Begich is implementing civil liberties as a core element of his campaign shows how important these issues are to Western voters. It's a message that resonates particularly well out here in the Western part of the country. That's why Jon Tester wasn't hurt but was helped when he said that he didn't want to see the PATRIOT Act weakened, he wanted to see it repealed. It's why Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been able to lead a successful revolt among governors against the the Real ID act. It's why Gary Trauner is standing so strong against FISA in his red state of Wyoming.

If Democrats are really serious about turning the purple mountains majesty blue, particularly in this election, they should be paying attention to the messages successful Democratic candidates out here are sending: privacy matters, civil liberties matter to Western voters.

Hopefully, Mark Begich will be able to join his fellow Western Senator Tester on the floor next year, leading the charge to repeal the PATRIOT Act, restore habeas, and maybe even try to undo some of the damage the Senate is set to do on FISA next week.

Race tracker wiki: AK-Sen

This is a flood of delicious news. A flood.

Here are the Cook Political Report's latest race ranking changes.  

From "Solid Republican" to "Likely Republican":

AL-03, Mike Rogers
CA-46, Dana Rohrabacher
FL-09, Gus Bilirakis
FL-18, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
ID-01, Bill Sali
IN-03, Mark Souder
IA-04, Tom Latham
KY-02, Ron Lewis (open seat)
MN-02, John Kline
NE-02, Lee Terry
NV-02, Dean Heller
NJ-05, Scott Garrett
NC-10, Patrick McHenry
OH-07, Dave Hobson (open seat)
PA-05, John Peterson (open seat
PA-15, Charlie Dent
TX-07, John Culberson
TX-10, Michael McCaul
VA-05, Virgil Goode
VA-10, Frank Wolf
WY-AL, Barbara Cubin (open seat)

From Likely Republican to Lean Republican:

FL-08, Ric Keller
FL-21, Lincoln Diaz-Balart
PA-03, Phil English
WV-02, Shelley Moore Capito

From Toss Up to Lean Democratic:

NY-13, Vito Fossella (open seat)
NY-25, Jim Walsh (open seat)

From Likely Democratic to Lean Democratic:

PA-11, Paul Kanjorski

Wow.

That's an astonishing number of changes, first of all, but I'm equally amazed by the particular districts on this list. Most of the rating changes involve long-shot flanking races, the kind of races that would never be competitive in normal years, but happen to have unusually strong Democrats running this year, in an unusually favorable climate for Democrats. Some of these districts - like ID-01, IN-03, KY-02, NC-10, and TX-07 - are just wildly Republican, and many of them didn't even feature competitive races in 2006.

Many of those races added to the "Likely Republican" category won't be especially competitive this fall. But some of them will, and a few might even be Democratic pickups.

Even if it's just for this cycle, in the perfect storm of 2008, Democrats are making inroads into areas they have written off for years. The world is grown so good, it seems, that we are making prey where angels have long feared to tread.

So my plans for the Fourth fell through when gas prices killed the journey of houseguests to my abode. Let me live vicariously through your plans.... What do you guys have on deck for the holiday?

And guess what? He's not beside himself with fear that disagreement with his position will cost him the election.

Here's the key part for me:

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country.

To no one's surprise, Obama doesn't appear to be in need of defending. He's quite at ease with the fact that there will be disagreements within the family, and doesn't feel compelled to tell anyone to sit in a corner. In other words, he can handle it just fine. Just as his most ardent defenders doubtless knew in their hearts that he could, though they felt moved by the strength of their support to do so, anyway.

Could it be that he in fact does feel the pain very deeply, but dare not let on, for political reasons? Certainly possible. But that would leave us in a very awkward situation, having to consider why our nominee simply can't be straight with us. I prefer to think he's just got a considerably thicker skin than people who don't run for President of the United States, and really means it. Don't you?

On the substance, I continue to disagree with the gloss of the exclusivity provisions. But it should be noted that if a president intends to ignore the law, there's really no way to draft such a provision sufficiently, so it's not a matter of tweaking it or improving it. You either recognize that exclusivity is just so many words so long as we've got a president who is willing to believe he has the "inherent power" to trump any law, or you don't.

I'm also unimpressed by the promise of the report of the Inspectors General, largely because I've been unimpressed with the response of the Congress to all previous such reports, not to mention their inability to actually enforce their own subpoenas.

I'd also note that the promise to conduct a thorough review of all surveillance programs once sworn in is very welcome, though that's not the same thing as saying there will be criminal prosecutions, as some have insisted would be the case. Indeed it might be rather foolish for him to commit to such an investigation before taking office and having the opportunity to review the evidence and the circumstances from the inside. It'd be satisfying as all hell, but I don't think we're going to see that kind of a pledge. As such, future arguments over this issue should probably not turn on promises or even vague hints that such prosecutions are in the offing. They're not, at this point, and though we'd all love to see them, holding out the possibility that they might come through should not be taken as a substitute for a substantive position in favor of the bill. It's a last resort, if anything, and a long shot on top of that. You can't consider your argument won if you're clinging to that sort of a distant possibility.

It was good of Senator Obama to address the subject, and to take notice of the fact that the group of supporters asking him to consider a different position on the upcoming FISA bill had quickly become the single largest group organized on his web site to date. He's not a United States Senator and the Democratic nominee for President for nothing. And neither are the organizers' efforts undeserving of attention.

The substantive differences remain largely unresolved, and likely will remain so. But if Obama wasn't OK with that, he probably wouldn't have run for president. And if you weren't OK with it, you probably wouldn't be participating on blogs.

Issued here, where there is an ongoing discussion with policy advisors taking place:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.  Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

   Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

   I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

   Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok.  But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

   So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

I've gotten a million media requests lately to talk about Obama's "move to the center". Exhibit A for that conventional wisdom is Obama's capitulation on FISA.

As I've made clear to those reporters, there's nothing "centrist" about the FISA vote. There's nothing liberal or conservative about protecting the constitution. And given libertarians and liberals are both for keeping the Constitution out of the shredder, it's hard to pretend the issue sits on the simplistic left-right axis.

Bottom line is that Obama wants to cave on FISA not because of "moving to the center" concerns, but because they are afraid of television ads claiming Obama is inviting terrorists over for BBQ. It's the same crappy-style ads that failed miserably in the IL-14 special election (and Foster went on to vote against the FISA capitulation) and have gotten little traction this year. But the Obama campaign thinks that by capitulating, it'll "take the issue off the table", as if Republicans need any excuse to accuse Democrats of being weak on terror.

"Taking the issue off the table" led Democrats to vote for Bush's disastrous tax cuts, and most still lost that year (like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland). It led them to vote for Bush's disastrous war, yet that didn't stop Republicans from morphing Cleland into Osama Bin Laden. And of course, no matter how they vote on FISA, Republicans will still accuse Democrats of being weak on terror. It's pretty much the only thing they've got left in their toolbox, no matter how ineffective it has become.

But in any case, Obama's FISA capitulation has nothing to do with "moving to the center", and everything with being afraid of the ads Republicans will run.

But don't expect the media to care. Their media narrative has been set. It ain't going anywhere.

Karl Rove:

Mr. Obama may be overreaching by running ads in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota – states Republicans won by comfortable margins in recent years. It would require a shift of between one-sixth and over one-quarter of the vote to win any of them. Shifts that large rarely happen.

Big shifts do occur – witness West Virginia in 2000, which swung more than 20 points between 1996 (when Bill Clinton carried the state) and 2000 (when George W. Bush did) – but these require sharp contrasts on big issues, not just money. Money may be the mother's milk of politics, in Jesse Unruh's famous phrase, but when running for president, money alone can't buy a candidate love. Cash matters, but being a good candidate and right on the issues matters even more.

Hey Karl, meet your "big shift":

Rasmussen. 7/1. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (4/6 results)

There still aren't enough polls in Montana to generate a Pollster.com composite score, but it's tight. Montana is a changing state, and with a popular Democratic governor who will romp to re-election, a state legislative body that has been adding Democrats, and two Democratic senators, including one who will also romp to reelection this year, this isn't the crimson Red state of Karl Rove's dreams. Perhaps that's why Obama will actually spend 4th of July in the state.

Butte, MT: THE OBAMA FAMILY ATTENDS FREEDOM FEST INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE IN BUTTE

Reason's Dave Weigel speculates as to why Montana is suddenly in play:

Montana's libertarian streak makes it, I think, rocky territory for McCain. This is a state that elected a Democratic senator in 2006 who told voters "I want to repeal the PATRIOT Act." This is a state whose governor gave Homeland Security Michael Chertoff a rhetorical kick in the teeth when he opted out of REAL ID. This is, finally, a state whose Republicans gave Ron Paul a quarter of their primary and caucus votes, and where the balance of power in the state House is held by the Constitution Party. Voila: Another state falls off the Republican map, and McCain will have to scramble and spend money to save it.

And there you have Rove's "sharp contrasts on big issues". Few issues are bigger than freedom, and Democrats are (mostly, when not cowering from fear and capitulating) on the right side of the issue of "freedom".

MN-Sen: So, Norm Coleman is having a mini-scandal, apparently, involving a sweetheart deal he supposedly got on his Washington apartment.

Long story short: Coleman rents a basement apartment from a friend and Republican operative, Jeff Larson, who owns a townhouse on Capitol Hill, just four short blocks from the Capitol Building. The two of them have a longstanding relationship: Larson's wife works in Coleman's St. Paul office, and Larson's company has done a great deal of work on Coleman's Senate campaigns (earning more than $1.6 million in fees and expenses).

Coleman pays $600 a month in rent, which appears to be almost a nominal agreement. On one occasion, he missed rent payments for two successive months until reporters asked him about it. On another occasion, Larson failed to cash his rent check for three months until reporters asked him about it. Now, this appears to be quite a nice apartment; not only is it a stone's throw from the Capitol, but it's described as being quite lovely inside:

Downstairs, a huge English basement with a media center, office space, gorgeous custom marble and oak bar, plus an airy guest bedroom and bath. (A C of O allows you the flexibility of an income unit).

Simply divine!

Coleman's people claim he is paying market value for the apartment. The Minnesota DFL, however, has looked into the issues, and disagrees.

They note that similar apartments in the neighborhood can rent for nearly three times as much (see here).

English-basement apartments and studios on Capitol Hill comparable to
Coleman's for rent at amounts far in excess of $600 per month. In
addition to the research that it released last Monday, the DFL Party
today released more research showing that rentals of English basements
and small apartments comparable in location, safety and amenity to
Coleman's run from $1,100 to $1,800 per month. One Capitol Hill
one-bedroom English basement is nearly identical to Coleman's in
location and safety, for $1,700; another at $1,475 per month sits on a
block with five times the number of crimes committed in the last year,
including 12 times the number of violent crimes; and another at $1,350 a
month is a mere 625 square feet in size.

As a result, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed an ethics complaint against Coleman:

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan stated, "Few Americans have landlords who sometimes fail to cash their rent checks, ignore unpaid rent, or accept furniture in lieu of rent. That Sen. Coleman has just such a landlord, who also happens to financially benefit from his relationship with the senator creates exactly the sort of appearance of impropriety that undermines the public’s faith in government." Sloan continued, "Senators must abide by the ethics rules at all times, not just when they get caught flouting them."

AK-Sen: Ted Stevens really is losing it. His latest nugget of wisdom: "Chuck Schumer runs the Alaska Democratic Party".

I am not making this up.

The fellow is getting a mite paranoid, methinks.

ID-Sen: Polling for Idaho Senate candidate Larry LaRocco shows his Republican opponent, former Governor and current Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch, under 50% in a matchup against LaRocco and indie Rex Rammell.

Not a terrific poll for LaRocco, but not that bad, either. The poll also indicates that when given basic background information about the candidates on the issues, LaRocco rated a slight edge:

But LaRocco took the lead when respondents heard about Risch and LaRocco's stances the issues and were asked to vote again: LaRocco had 40%, Risch 37%, Rammell 5%, Other 5% and Undecideds dropped to 13%.

I'm unsure LaRocco will actually have the resources to get his message out, but one never knows.

ME-Sen: I'm a native New Englander, and as such, I love nothing so much as eating food from the ocean. So this DSCC Road to Victory video about the plight of Maine lobstermen (due to astronomical fuel prices) makes me cry.

NH-Sen: I wrote yesterday about how medical associations were targeting John Sununu for his vote on the Medicare bill. Well, it seems that one of his staffers actually informed doctors that Sununu would support the bill:

Dr. James Fieseher, a primary care physician in Portsmouth, traveled to Washington, D.C., in May to personally lobby Sununu and Sen. Judd Gregg for support to stop the cut and said a staff member for Sununu said he would support the bill.

"I'm concerned and disappointed," said Fieseher, who added that as Medicare providers keep getting squeezed, it's likely that fewer younger doctors will be able to afford to become primary care physicians like him. "We (doctors) are being hurt really bad by this. ... Our profit margins are already narrow. It won't do anyone any good if we are run out of business."

Also, Sununu was one of those shiny happy people who repeated the GOP myth about Big Bad China drilling off the coast of Florida. Thing is, someone bothered to tell him it was a myth.

So now, Sununu has neatly changed Big Bad China to Big Bad Cuba, and is back to spreading the Great White Lie:

Sigh. Sigh. Double sigh.

House Races

AK-AL: As a 36-year incumbent and former chair of the House Transportation Committee, Don Young has built quite a network of power - and a formidable campaign warchest - over the years.

This is very fortunate, as his legal troubles - and those of his cronies - are mounting, to the point where he is not only forced to lawyer up, but to obtain legal representation for his campaign manager as well. More on this later.

Somewhat fortunately for Young, he picked up the endorsements of the NRA and Mike Huckabee today. In other news, it appears that his primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, has his own problems to worry about. Parnell has been criticized for not issuing a public release on the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision, and it's been murmured that this may be because his firm, Patton Boggs, defended Exxon in the proceedings.

When the Supreme Court’s decision on the Exxon Valdez litigation came out last week—slashing Exxon’s punitive damages to a tenth of the original $5 billion ruling—Alaskan pols were ultra-swift with their press releases condemning the court’s decision. Reporters’ email inboxes were flooded with indignant missives (Mayor Begich’s was titled, "Begich Angered by Exxon Valdez Ruling") from sitting officials, including Alaska’s entire congressional delegation, the governor, and also from the aspiring candidates who are in the thick of their respective campaigns.

The candidates for Alaska’s U.S. House seat were particularly vocal: Democrats Diane Benson and Ethan Berkowitz and Republican Gabrielle LeDoux (as well as Don Young, as part of the delegation’s statement) all denounced the decision (a compilation of the statements is available online at the Daily News’s website at http://community.adn.com/... Conspicuously absent from our inboxes, though, was any sort of message from Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, also running for the House seat.

Not that Parnell didn’t rebuke the decision as well, but his statement only appeared on his website (www.parnellforcongress.com), and there were subsequent whispers that Parnell was keeping his opinion on the Exxon decision on the down low, since in 2005 and 2006 Parnell was a partner at Patton Boggs, the international law firm that was representing Exxon in the litigation.

NE-02: I wrote recently on New Nebraska Network's investigation into Lee Terry's record of accomplishing nothing in Congress.

Well, it appears that the pro-Terry folks resemble their remarks, so they've been scrambling to find something, anything, constructive which Lee Terry has done in his time in Congress, and sending it all along to NNN, hoping that someone will buy it. Fortunately, the New Nebraska Network folks aren't suckers. Responding to their claim that

Under legislation introduced by Terry (HR 3117), all such centers must have at least one E85 fuel pump.

NNN does their due diligence, and reports

Terry did not "conceptualize" or "take the lead" on this issue.

The original idea was introduced in the Senate in 2006.

He did not submit it in a committee hearing as an amendment. Rather, Rep's Stupak and Inslee did that in the bill the committee submitted.

The same language was used in bills in the House and Senate, with the language eventually being pulled from a bill introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi by the House Rules Committee.

And Terry fought the legislation the entire way.

Ouch.

More bad news for Lee Terry: the Cook Political Report downgraded his race from "Solid Republican" to "Likely Republican".

Hooray for Democrat Jim Esch!

VA-05: While Democrat Tom Perriello has been doing excellent work in the fundraising race, incumbent Republican Virgil Goode has been spreading the Great White Lie.

You remember..."China, Florida, drilling, Cuba, Communists, stupid Democrats won't let us drill offshore".

Sadly, it doesn't appear to be helping him: Cook moved his race to "Likely Republican", too.