I'm not surprised that Harman won the California Democratic Party endorsement Sunday because she's a very wealthy incumbent who has hand-picked many delegates to help keep her power when it counts. I'm saddened by it, but it shows how the game works and how hard it is to fight an incumbent. It doesn't matter if that person supported George Bush and got caught up in a national scandal about Bush's warrantless wire-tapping, or her role in trying to corrupt the media in the process. I was at the convention Saturday, but not Sunday.

d-day:

OK, so we’re on to the endorsement for Jane Harman. And this is a crackup. CDP Chair John Burton has kind of lost control of the thing. More in a minute.

Here’s the deal. Burton rushed the question on the endorsement to the floor, asked for whether there would be speakers on behalf of Winograd and Harman, and didn’t hear that there were. Then he called the question and nobody knew what the question was. Then he got hot and yelled at people who didn’t understand. He called the question again, but then Winograd and her supporters asked to speak again. Burton chided them for not getting their act together but allowed them to speak.

John Burton really isn’t interested in the party business stuff and it shows.

John Burton made an absolute mess of this important floor vote. Did they stack the deck against Winograd? From what I'm hearing, there's no way they could have counted those votes in the time frame allotted.

I was sitting at a table during yesterday's lunch at the convention and was talking to some really nice people. Arianna was waiting to give the keynote speech (she did very well), but Diane Watson was introduced first and she got a standing ovation. She's retiring after many years in the House.

I told some delegates that there's a big problem between the local Democratic Party infrastructure and the netroots across the country, but especially in California. Many in the state party seem pretty devoid of any interest or knowledge in using the Internet and the many local bloggers to their advantage. California is loaded with us DFH's.

As I was making my point to the table, John Burton stood up and introduced Arianna Huffington and to my disbelief he said that he never touches a computer or goes on the Internet. Now, it's certainly not his job to do this, but come on. In a time when computers, the Internet and the blogosphere have been changing politics, how can the head of the California Democratic Party be so out of touch? I turned to the table and said, "You see what I mean?" They all nodded in agreement. After Arianna's great speech, he told the audience that her speech might change his mind and force him to sit in front of a computer. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point. This disconnect between the party and the real world is starting to have dire consequences.

Winograd's team did a good job of getting enough signatures to thwart an automatic endorsement from the CDP, forcing a floor vote at the convention.

I talked to Marci and she was really upset at how this all shook out. Burton seemed to try and ram through the endorsement of the Bush Dog-like Harman. Marci gave me this quote:

I was pleased to see so many delegates, perhaps the majority of the floor, we'll never really know, stand up to block the endorsement of a Blue Dog that worked to reelect George Bush and foreclose on as many homes as possible.

Yes, she did get impressive numbers and Harman is going to have her hands full with the Winograd campaign. Don't be shy and help support Marci over Blue Dog Harman. The way Burton handled the Harman/Winograd situation was abominable. However, even with his hackery, I think with the blogosphere's support, Marci can still win.

Digby writes about the floor vote and says:

This is really all inter-party kabuki and doesn't mean much. The fact that Winograd even got a floor vote is a testament to Harman's weakness. She is after all, a very powerful incumbent and nationally known figure in the party. They always hang together against grassroots threats.

What matters is the primary vote. LA Progressive puts it this way:

Harman vs. Winograd is the quintessential battle of opposites; conservative vs. progressive, corporate donations vs. grassroots donations, power broker vs. people power, special interests vs. people’s interests, war vs. infrastructure, war vs. jobs, war vs. education, war vs. housing, war vs. health, war vs. the environment, and on…

This contest means the difference between reelecting an entrenched incumbent politician who supports militarism and corporatocracy or electing an inspired organizer and educator who’s dedicated her life to the local community and the community at large.

Lila Garrett, radio host, progressive icon and convention delegate summed it up for me this way:

“Winograd vs. Harman is not just another ho-hum congressional election. It’s a battle to define the Democratic Party. If it is represented by a permanent war economy fed by a policy of permanent war, secret government, authoritarian rule – that’s Harman. If it’s a party whose first priorities are peace, universal education, healthcare, employment and dignity – that’s Winograd.

They [Harman and Winograd] are polar opposites. Let the Democratic party be defined by this election. Then let those of us who care what our party stands for decide whether to remain Democrats or move on. It has come to that.”

I'm a believer in staying and fighting rather than "moving on" to quixotic, third party politics, but I agree with the rest. If Winograd wins this race it will send shockwaves through the Democratic establishment. Harman is considered untouchable, but as was demonstrated by the floor vote at the convention, she's on the run.

Harman is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. She can flood the zone with her own cash if need be. Winograd, on the other hand, is dependent on contributions from like-minded individuals who would like to have some representation in Congress that answers to the people rather than corporations, defense contractors and lobbyists.

You can donate a couple of bucks here to support her effort.

I've heard from some delegates that John Burton is doing a very good job fixing many of the problems the CDP has faced after he took over the party so that's really good to hear. They know the nuts and bolts of the party apparatus.

Robert Cruickshank has a great post up on Calitics about the CDC called:

A Movement - and a Party - In Search of Leadership

On a related note, Jerry Brown is the nominee for Governor and I haven't seen much if any outreach to the bloggers or advertising to get his message out on TV, have you?

Brown did challenge Whitman to a debate that she refused so they are now going after her hard on it with an action called: Demand Meg Join The Debate

We'll see how that winds up, but so far the word is that it's a very tight race right now.

Early polls show Brown in a statistical dead heat with Republican Meg Whitman, the billionaire former eBay CEO.

I do know one thing. If the Brown campaign doesn't get their act together soon, we'll be following up the horrendous Arnold years with Meg Whitman as Governor. I shudder at the thought.

(corrected from an earlier draft)

(photo found here)

As more secret memos from the Bush Administration are revealed we find that it took only two weeks for the former president and his lawyers to plot the subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law:

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges. Read on...

We've known about the secret memos for years, but it still sent a shiver down my spine to actually read them. I applaud President Obama for making these memos public so that the citizens of the U.S. and the world can begin to understand what happened during those dark years in our history and to insure that never again will any president of any political party abuse their powers this way again.

To read all of the secret memos in their entirety click here.

War and Piece: G-Dub to close Gitmo?

William K. Wolfrum: Christopher Hitchens lets Vanity Fair blow off his legs, kill his entire family, destroy his home; he writes about it

MediaBloodhound: PBS and NBC's symbiotic sins of omission, and Fox's thirteeen-year-olds.

TalkLeft: Is the government tracking you? At least one Federal Judge still believes warrantless spying is illegal.

David E's Fablog: The newspaper of record's fawning profile of professional liar Limbaugh made me sick. Imagine how David E. felt when he noticed his name in the article!

Angry Bear: Republicans warn that Democrats will cause a difference

Snuggly Bear explains warrantless wiretapping. (h/t Scarce)

I stole this post from Nicole. Fiore had a great animation way back in 2004 when the White House was using terror alerts to play the fear card and disrupt the election. Good Old Tom Ridge admitted as much too.

In the legislative debate over the RESTORE Act, the administration is focusing much of its attention on immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in Bush's legally dubious schemes. Responding to an argument from Time's Joe Klein, Glenn explains how misguided this really is.

To Klein, telecoms did not act illegally. Not at all. They were simply victims of "the Bush Administration['s] refus[al] to update the law" to make the law consistent with what the telecoms were doing. That would be tantamount to a criminal defendant charged with embezzlement going into court and saying: "Your Honor, I didn't do anything wrong. Why should I be punished just because the Bush administration refused to update the law to make my criminal behavior legal?"

Such an "argument" would trigger judicial laughing fits and probably sanctions. But our Beltway elite is so desperate to defend telcoms (and, more importantly, to close off the sole remaining mechanism for investigating the administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its illegality) that they will twist themselves into the most inane positions in order to defend something as extraordinary as granting retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms....

[E]ven more unfathomable is the idea that the Congress would pass a law that has no purpose other than to protect from all legal consequences the largest and most powerful corporations in the event that they are found to have broken our nation's surveillance and privacy laws. What possible justification is there for any of that?

Christy has been working hard on this all week, and has more.

From the Center for Constitutional Rights' website:

On August 9, 2007, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) appeared before Federal District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to argue that the NSA's program of warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and should be struck down. The argument in CCR v. Bush comes days after Congress and the Bush administration passed the Protect America Act of 2007 which broadly expands the government's power to spy on Americans without getting court approval.

According to attorneys, there are substantial questions about whether the new law, which is temporary and due to expire in six months, is constitutional, and they will seek permission to file additional legal papers to that effect today. The law effectively removes oversight for spying from the FISA court and leaves it up to the Executive Branch to monitor itself, with Attorney General Gonzales having the primary responsibility for oversight. For that reason, CCR attorneys will argue in court today that the new law violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement that judges approve warrants for surveillance and do so only on evidence of probable cause.

It looks like the most talked-about media piece of the day is David Frum’s take on Karl Rove’s White House tenure. Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, argues, relatively persuasively, that Rove crafted a White House political strategy that was predicated on helping Republicans, instead of helping the country. That’s true, of course, but anyone who’s been paying attention the last six years already knew that.

More importantly, Frum offers this take on, well, us.

I notice that much of the Democratic party, and especially its activist netroots, has decided that the way to beat Rove Republicanism is by emulating it. They are practicing the politics of polarization; they are elevating “framing” above policy; they have decided that winning the next election by any means is all that matters — and never mind what happens on the day after that.

Does Frum pay any attention to politics at all? Stop by any of the leading progressive blogs and you’ll see ample discussion of substance, policy, and legislation. In general, the netroots are practically obsessed with what happens “the day after” the election. Indeed, most the online discussion recently hasn’t elevated framing above policy, it’s done the opposite — how can Dems make strides on adding safeguards to warrantless surveillance programs? On restoring habeas? On affecting war policy? On investing in infrastructure?

If Frum wants to suggest Rove believed that “winning the next election by any means is all that matters,” I’d agree with him. But the netroots? Sounds like projection to me.

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey seems to have raised eyebrows throughout the political world with his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony yesterday. While the prosecutor purge was supposed to be the key topic of the hearing, Comey’s story about the 2004 reathorization of the NSA warrantless-search program turned out to be the big news.

As Anonymous Liberal put it, “Comey’s testimony today reads like the script of a Hollywood movie."

Watch Comey tell this truly amazing story:

Dan Froomkin said, "Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's gripping testimony yesterday about his high-speed race to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside -- and the ensuing standoff with senior White House aides over the administration's warrantless wiretapping program -- may turn out to be the political-scandal equivalent of the tune nobody can get out of their heads."

The Agonist (cross-posted at The Seminal):

A bill introduced last week by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is beginning to raise eyebrows.

[It] would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.

The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records. (emphasis mine)
This is a terrifying development and it must be stopped before it gains any significant momentum. Background, Action items and contact information below the fold.
Under the guise of reducing child pornography, the SAFETY (Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act) Act is currently the gravest threat to digital privacy rights on the Internet. Given the increasing tendency of people, especially young people, to use the Internet as a primary means of communications, this measure would effect nearly all Americans in ways we are only beginning to understand. Also, given the fact that the Act requires all Internet Service Providers to record the web surfing activity of all Internet users, this amounts to the warrantless wiretapping of the entire Internet.

Does this worry you? Good. It should. If this continues, it is an OUTRAGEOUS violation of our privacy and civil liberties. Read the full article and start contacting people immediately. Contact list at the bottom of the article.

Glenn Reynolds lists his reasons why the GOP might lose the '06 election. I'm not sure what will happen in November, but I'm hopeful. While I agree with some of his choices, I find it very odd that he leaves off the single most important reason that the Republicans might lose in November: IRAQ. With the blood of so many Iraqis and American forces littering the battlefield, I find this astonishing.

I guess it's hard to admit when you've had a hand in cheer-leading such a colossal blunder. I would have thought he'd at least mention the handling of the war as an out for himself---or maybe include the bad liberal media, but not a whisper.

You can write your own list about the GOP's problems which might include Iraq, Katrina, corruption, Scooter Libby, Foley, torture, NSA warrantless wiretapping…etc

Kevin writes up a nice post about what went wrong for the GOP.