After a strong push by Senate leadership and by President Obama himself to set up the DISCLOSE Act cloture vote today, the measure looks likely to fail, at least in a first round of voting today.

That's largely because Sen. Joe Lieberman won't be there.

Senate Democrats will be one vote down when they consider sweeping campaign finance disclosure legislation this afternoon as Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) has told party leadership he will miss the vote to attend a friend's funeral.

The senator's absence reduces the caucus's numbers from 59 to 58 voting members, all but assuring that the DISCLOSE Act won't pass when it comes up for a cloture vote Tuesday afternoon. The legislation's authors were already having difficulty finding a 60th vote to break a likely Republican filibuster. Without Lieberman, they will need two Republicans to cross party lines as opposed to one. Already two of the three most likely defectors -- Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- have said they will oppose the measure.

All of the Democrats, including Ben Nelson, have committed to voting yes on the bill. Lieberman is a likely yes, which makes, you guessed it, Olympia Snowe the deciding vote. Presuming that Lieberman would vote yes, swinging Snowe over gives the Dems the chance to bring the vote back up for consideration in the future. Sargent has more:

Snowe, who is up for reelection in two years and is expected to face blowback if she votes No, can in fact vote Yes today. Because of Lieberman's absence, she would not be ensuring that it would pass, sparing her the wrath of Mitch McConnell, who is trying to keep the GOP caucus united against it.

But: A senior Dem Senate aide tells me that if Snowe does this, the measure could be brought up for a vote again when Lieberman is present, putting pressure on her to maintain her Yes vote. So again, as long as the odds are, this could still end up passing.

It's an important vote. Dems are going into this vote with the intention of defining the Republicans. That puts Snowe in a tough position, but she also needs to be looking ahead to her own reelection campaign in two years, when she's fully expecting a hard primary run at her from the right. Having this law in place could actually help her then.

Update: CQ is reporting that Snowe will join Republicans in filibustering the bill. Politico confirms that Lieberman will be a "yes" vote if Dems bring it back up. Now what to look for in the vote, which should start in about 20 minutes, is whether Reid votes yes or no. If he votes no, they'll bring it back up.

The procedural picture on exactly how the House will vote on consideration of the war supplemental has cleared up, and you're not going to like it.

As the question is framed, the House will be voting on a straight-up cave-in to the Senate position, i.e., that the supplemental should fund some limited number of domestic priorities plus the war efforts, but not the additional money for aid to the states, teacher retention, etc.

If the motion passes today, that would mean the very complex and carefully structured rule passed by the House back on July 1st was all for naught. Remember, though, that the motion is being brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote to pass. Sadly, it now appears there's some chance that that could actually happen.

How did we get here? Well, if you're interested, take a few minutes to review the details in the posts listed below.

• What happened on the war supplemental, part I: the rule
• What happened on the war supplemental, part II: the Senate amendment
• What happened on the war supplemental, part III: the trade-off

Together, these posts describe the fine line the House leadership had to walk in order to give the various factions of the Democratic Caucus a chance to have votes on the different approaches they favored, chief among them the insistence of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI-07) that the House not agree to the Senate's demand for war funding without demanding funds for other domestic priorities as their price. It was a bold attempt to leverage moderate and conservative anxiety about the need for war funding (lest anyone invoke the dreaded "support the troops" attack against them), but also viewed as a less-than-principled sell out by activists opposed to the wars and/or those who hoped to see the Democrats' campaign pledge to stop funding those wars through supplementals strictly honored.

House Democrats did indeed construct a complex rule that allowed for votes on several proposals aimed at bringing the Afghanistan war to a conclusion, and one including additional spending on emergency domestic priorities, plus a special provision requiring that at least one such proposal be adopted before the bill would be allowed to proceed to the Senate for additional action. That very unusual rule design guaranteed that at least one House demand would be written into the bill before it was presented again to the Senate.

And in fact the House did end up attaching the additional funding as its ransom for the war money. But after all the effort and complexity, the Senate simply said, "No thanks," and the House is now set to vote on whether or not to say, "Oh, OK. Sorry."

Technically, the vote will be on a motion that the House recede from its amendment to the Senate amendment, meaning that they'll vote on withdrawing the amendment they fought so hard to pave the way for with that complex rule, and instead agree to the bill as the Senate sent it back to them at the end of May.

Earlier today, I noted that the motion would be coming under suspension of the rules and thought that perhaps that indicated that they weren't particularly eager for it to pass all that easily, since doing things that way would require a 2/3 vote. But as the day has worn on, it seems the thinking is more that Republicans might in fact support passage of the Senate version of the bill on the theory that it: 1) funds the war, which they like, and; 2) represents a defeat for House Democrats who wanted additional domestic spending to save teacher jobs, aid the states, etc. Of course, the Senate version of the bill is basically the original House bill from March, with both war money and additional domestic funding tacked on, meaning that for House Republicans to help pass this motion today, they'll have to vote for domestic spending they originally opposed, even though the levels of such spending have only increased since they first opposed it.

But that's no problem for Republicans. It's enough of a win for them that they're spending war money and denying House Democrats what they wanted in exchange. Deficit, shmeficit, the Dems who wanted to help actual Americans got beat.

So, why suspend the rules and make it harder than it has to be? There are probably a number of reasons. But one might be this: Republicans are happy to vote with a hundred or so Dems to get this war funding passed, even at the cost of a little hypocrisy on domestic spending. But they don't want to be seen "voting with Nancy Pelosi" -- i.e., with the Democratic leadership -- on a rule for the bill, even though they'd cheerfully vote for the bill later the same day. And between Republican game-playing and Democrats resistant to the cave-in, the rule might be defeated. Suspension does away with the need for a rule and allows Republicans to go right to supporting the war money (and being hypocritical on the domestic money), without first having to "vote with Pelosi."

Could the bill be defeated under suspension and the war funding stalled? Absolutely. Getting to 2/3 is never a given, and if the 162 Members who voted for the McGovern amendment demanding timelines for withdrawal from Afghanistan held out, we'd have to go back to the drawing board. But that's not looking likely.

What can you do about it? Well, there's still a little time to call your Representative before the vote, which could take place as soon as 2pm EDT. And if you want some red meat background for the call, check out Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Raul Grijalva on the issue.

Delaware's special election to fill Joe Biden's old seat is considered one of the GOP's top pickup opportunities this year. Republicans have Rep. Mike Castle in the race, the lone congressman from the state.

Castle has long been popular, and while the race has featured little recent polling (and non from a non-Rasmussen source), the early numbers gave Castle dominant leads over Democrat Chris Coons. For Republicans eager to make big gains against their foes this year, not to mention embarrass Biden, this is a must-win race. So naturally, the teabaggers are doing everything they can to give Democrats a lifeline.

Long-shot Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell continues to line up support from conservative interest groups for her GOP primary bid against Rep. Mike Castle, with a nationally prominent tea party organization the latest to come to her aid.

The Tea Party Express, which unloaded a half a million dollars on behalf of Sharron Angle in the Nevada GOP primary and backed GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Mike Lee in Utah, endorsed O’Donnell Tuesday, lauding her “strong voice for conservative constitutionalist principles” and lambasting Castle as a “liberal establishment Republican who has repeatedly turned against conservatives.” [...]

POLITICO has also learned that the Concerned Women for America (CWA) PAC is expected to announce its endorsement of O’Donnell later this week. The conservative anti-abortion group, which champions “religious freedom and American sovereignty” is mostly focused on House races but a spokesman said the organization is watching the Delaware Senate race “very closely.”

“We endorsed Christine O'Donnell primarily because Mike Castle is so bad on our issues - he has a 43 percent overall rating and is pro-abortion, has voted in favor of so-called hate crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Castle is the second coming of Dede Scozzafava. We will be activating our folks so that they know about Christine’s campaign,” said CWA spokesman Mike Mears.

A source says the National Right to Work also may be offering an endorsement in the primary, now seven weeks away.

The more steam O'Donnell picks up, the more Castle will be forced to veer Right to head her off. By all indications she's a fringe joke of a candidate. In a normal year, with normal dynamics, that would be enough to write her off. But Sharron Angle was similarly fringy and it didn't make a difference to the teabagging crowd. It's certainly not making a difference to Jim DeMint, who has been "extremely impressed" with O'Donnell. If we get lucky, they'll similarly "win" this primary.

The primary isn't until September 14.

From National Journal and Pew:

Despite a tough year for President Obama, the public believes his administration's policies offer a better chance at improving the economy over the policies of his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. According to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center, 46 percent said Obama's path would do more to improve economic conditions in the next few years, compared to 29 percent who said policies put in place by Bush would.

And regarding the most significant domestic policy of Bush's time in office, his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the public is offering a split verdict on what course lawmakers should take as they all expire at the end of the year.

Overall, Obama's lead on the economy, although it falls short of a majority, is notable considering the public's sour mood. In a Congressional Connection Poll conducted last month, the National Journal Political Confidence Index for Obama stood at -16 and was at -14 for expectations that the federal government will make progress on the country's most pressing problems.

Keep this in mind when you read about the Bush 'comeback'.

States that hang around the bottom of various rankings (education, per capita income, etc) always joke, "Thank God for Mississippi!" You can count on the Magnolia State to make every other state look better.

I'm sure Rand Paul most sometimes think, "Thank God for Sharron Angle"! Because if it wasn't for our favorite nutcase in Nevada, we'd be hearing more about Paul's comically bad campaign for Senate in Kentucky. Witness in recent days:

• Paul is pretty ignorant about his state:

  Rand Paul and I are trying to remember why Harlan, Kentucky, might be famous. That's where Paul is driving me, on a coiling back road through the low green mountains of the state's southeastern corner, in his big black GMC Yukon festooned with RON PAUL 2008 and RAND PAUL 2010 stickers. Something about Harlan has lodged itself in my brain the way a shard of barbecue gets stuck in one's teeth, and I've asked Paul for help. "I don't know," he says in an elusive accent that's not quite southern and not quite not-southern. The town of Hazard is nearby, he notes: "It's famous for, like, The Dukes of Hazzard."

  Actually, Harlan is famous for its coal wars which spurred the creation of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Kind of a big deal. And Hazard Kentucky has nothing to do with the Dukes of Hazzard. Obviously.

• His cluelessness extends from pop culture and history, to policy.

  Renewing his attack on federal farm subsidies, Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul told a Kentucky Farm Bureau audience Thursday that three agriculture companies have received a total of more than $1 billion in aid.

  “It is really galling to people that three companies in the U.S. got a billion dollars,” he said in an appearance with his opponent, Democratic nominee Jack Conway, at Farm Bureau headquarters in Louisville.

  But, in fact, the “companies” are all cooperatives that are owned by thousands of farmers.

  Paul's spokesperson Jesse Benton confirmed their institutional ignorance:

  I don't know what a co-op is.

• And what was Jeb Bush thinking?

  When former Florida Governor Jeb Bush hosts a fundraiser on behalf of Senate candidate Rand Paul on Monday it will symbolize, in more ways than one, the uncomfortable union of opposite poles of Republican ideology. Bush's brand of pragmatic conservatism stands in contrast to Paul's Tea Party temperament. The Kentucky Republican, likewise, often touts his independence from the GOP, citing the antiquated Republicanism of the Bush clan as an example.

  And so it seems almost appropriate that the two would team up, of all days, on the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

  Rand Paul, of course, wants to repeal the ADA.

There's a reason why this is a competitive race. Check out Jack Conway's latest internals:

Benenson Strategy Group for the Jack Conway campaign. 6/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.46% (No trend lines)

Paul is helping make this race competitive, and so can we. One of the keys to breaking the teabaggers will be defeating their candidates. Help Jack Conway defeat Rand Paul.

Despite the statement of national security adviser James Jones condemning the release of more than 92,000 classified documents as endangering national security, Michael Isikoff reports that a review by the Pentagon finds, so far, that's not the case.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday.

The initial Pentagon assessment is far less dramatic than initial statements from the Obama White House Sunday night after three major news organizations – The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel — published what was touted as an unprecedented “secret archive” of classified military documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. The documents appear to show, among other matters, close collaboration between elements of the Pakistani intelligence service and the Taliban — an awkward issue that U.S. intelligence officials have strenuously complained about for some time but are loath to talk about publicly....

But David Lapan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, told NBC News on Monday that a preliminary review by a Pentagon “assessment” team has so far not identified any documents whose release could damage national security. Moreover, he said, none of the documents reviewed so far carries a classification level above “secret” — the lowest category of intelligence material in terms of sensitivity.

That should be further impetus for changing the conversation from the issue of the leak and the leakers and turn the focus to what the nation has learned from the leak, including, to list just a few elements:

• How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial.

• How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.

• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

• How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

The conversation needs to happen as this war drags on and as Congress this week will consider another war supplemental. That supplemental has been largely viewed as the last chance to get some critical jobs funding passed, but the Senate stripped out all the funding to retain teachers, to extend Pell Grants to low-income students, to provide $1 billion for summer jobs (already almost too late for that one) and even for additional border security--all stimulative programs.

The Senate decided on behalf of the American people that guns matter over teachers, since apparently we can't have both. Perhaps this WikiLeaks document release will change that calculation.

Not exactly a shock:

Seventeen percent of potential regional tourists have indicated they have canceled or delayed a trip to Louisiana because of the ongoing oil spill and pollution problems resulting from the Deepwater Horizon-BP rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a study commissioned by the state's tourism agency.

Melody Alijani, director of research and development for the tourism office in the Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, said the survey was taken among 903 residents of the state's regional tourist markets that stretch from San Antonio, Texas, to Pensacola, Fla.

The survey, taken by Market Dynamics Research Group of New Orleans, said that before the spill, 44 percent of those surveyed indicated they planned to visit the state. After the rig accident, 17 percent canceled or postponed plans because of the spill, and 83 percent indicated they still would travel to the Pelican State.

These findings mirror a national survey cited by the Times-Picayune which revealed that the spill had caused the cancellation or delay of about one-quarter of planned travel to Louisiana. So far, BP has paid the state's tourism agency $15 million to help boost numbers.

Given that the annual economic impact of tourism to Louisiana is $8.3 billion, $15 million doesn't seem nearly enough to help the state rebuild it's battered image. Nonetheless, when it comes to making good on its promise to pay for the damage it has caused, BP continues to drag its feet.

Two little stories succinctly explain one of the main reasons our government is so dysfunctional. The first came from the Washington Post:

Three out of every four lobbyists who represent oil and gas companies previously worked in the federal government, a proportion that far exceeds the usual revolving-door standards on Capitol Hill, a Washington Post analysis shows.

Key lobbying hires include 18 former members of Congress and dozens of former presidential appointees. For other senior management positions, the industry employs two former directors of the Minerals Management Service, the since-renamed agency that regulates the industry, and several top officials from the Bush White House. Federal inspectors once assigned to monitor oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico have landed jobs with the companies they regulated.

With more than 600 registered lobbyists, the industry has among the biggest and most powerful contingents in Washington. Its influence has been on full display in the wake of the BP oil disaster: Proposals to enact new restrictions or curb oil use have stalled amid concerted Republican opposition and strong objections from Democrats in oil-producing states.

This just may have something to do with the inexcusable failure of energy and climate legislation. Of course, the problem is even worse. As explained by HuffPo's Ryan Grim:

Lobbyists for major banks, insurers, pharmaceutical firms, energy companies and at least one foreign government have been helping organize lavish gatherings of staffers and members of Congress since early 2009, funneling K Street money through an officially chartered staff organization called the Congressional Cigar Association.

The CCA, founded by Republican staffers and sponsored by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), is chartered by the House Administration Committee to encourage networking among congressional staff. Its most recent gathering was held Tuesday at a townhouse just steps from the Capitol, where staffers were feted by Miami Cigar & Company.

As evening fell, guests lounged in the garden out back, sipping cold drinks and puffing away on what smelled like high-end cigars. Gary Pesh, owner of Old Virginia Tobacco and a member of the Congressional Cigar Association, said the event is just an excuse to "get together and have fun." When asked about the conflict of interest inherent in allowing lobbyists to fund a congressional staff organization, dozens of attendees just continued wordlessly on up the red brick steps. "This is approved by the House, so we're good," one staffer said. (Another staffer told HuffPost that filming wasn't allowed, though she was standing under a sign warning passersby that the area was under video surveillance.)

Your government is owned, and unless you're a wealthy corporate person, it's not owned by you.

In the House, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2010

House Meets At... 9:00 a.m.: Morning Hour
10:00 a.m.: Legislative Business
First Vote Predicted... 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Last Vote Predicted... 5:00 – 6:00 p.m.

“One Minutes”

Suspensions (22 Bills)

1. Senate Amendment to H.R. 4899 - Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Rep. Obey – Appropriations)
2. H.R. 5730 - Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act (Rep. Markey (CO) - Transportation and Infrastructure)
3. H.Con.Res. 258 - Congratulating the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Superintendent of the Coast Guard Academy and its staff for 100 years of operation of the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut (Rep. Courtney - Transportation and Infrastructure)
4. H.Res. 1401 - Expressing gratitude for the contributions that the air traffic controllers of the United States make to keep the traveling public safe and the airspace of the United States running efficiently (Rep. McCarthy (NY) - Transportation and Infrastructure)
5. H.Res. 1366 - Recognizing and honoring the freight rail industry (Rep. Hare - Transportation and Infrastructure)
6. H.R. 5825 - To review, update, and revise the factors to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster and to evaluate the need for assistance to individuals and households (Rep. Hill - Transportation and Infrastructure)
7. H.Con.Res. 266 - Expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (Rep. Berkley - Foreign Affairs)
8. H.Res. 1538 - Condemning the July 11, 2010, terrorist attacks in Kampala, Uganda (Rep. Davis (CA) - Foreign Affairs)
9. H.R. 5138 - International Megan's Law of 2010 (Rep. Smith (NJ) - Foreign Affairs)
10. H.R. 5849 - To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (Rep. Velazquez - Small Business)
11. H.R. 5681 - To improve certain administrative operations of the Library of Congress (Rep. Brady (PA) - House Administration)
12. H.R. 5682 - To improve the operation of certain facilities and programs of the House of Representatives (Rep. Brady (PA) - House Administration)
13. H.R. 415 - Fallen Heroes Flag Act (Rep. King (NY) - House Administration)
14. H.R. 3040 - Senior Financial Empowerment Act (Rep. Baldwin - Judiciary)
15. Senate Amendment to H.R. 2765 - Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (Rep. Cohen - Judiciary)
16. H.R. 5281 - Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (Rep. Johnson (GA) - Judiciary)
17. H.R. 2780 - Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act (Rep. Rooney - Judiciary)
18. H.R. 5827 - Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 (Rep. Boccieri - Judiciary)
19. H.R. 5143 - National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010 (Rep. Delahunt - Judiciary)
20. H.R. 5810 - Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2010 (Rep. Lungren - Judiciary)
21. H.R. 4748 - Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010 (Rep. Owens - Judiciary)
22. H.R. 5662 - Simplifying the Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act of 2010 (Rep. Loretta Sanchez - Judiciary)

H.Con.Res. 301 - Pakistan War Powers Resolution (Rep. Kucinich – Foreign Affairs) (Privileged Resolution)

• Conference Reports may be brought up at any time.
• Motions to go to Conference should they become available.
• Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 10:00am

Following any Leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time until 12:30pm equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. The Majority will control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans will control the next 30 minutes.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15pm to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

The republican Leader or this designees will control the time from 2:15pm until 2:30pm and the Majority Leader will control the remaining time until 2:45pm. At 2:45pm, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.3628, the DISCLOSE Act.

Votes:
2:45pm roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act (S.3628).

Yes, twenty-two suspensions on the calendar for the day. But look out for the first one, it's a doozy! Does anyone say "doozy" anymore? Spellcheck doesn't appear to think so. What's that mean, anyway?

Yes, the supplemental appropriations bill is slated to come to the floor tomorrow under suspension of the rules. Remember, that means it'll require a 2/3 vote (290 votes in a full House) to pass. Which makes it look like it's their intention not to pass it.

Now, it's listed merely as consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4899, and I'm not entirely certain what amendment that means. The original H.R. 4899 passed the House and went to the Senate without any war money in it. The Senate added war funding and sent it back to the House. The House insisted that it would only accept the war money if there was additional emergency domestic spending tacked on and sent that back to the Senate. The Senate tried to invoke cloture on the motion to agree to the House's amendment but couldn't get the job done, and instead later merely disagreed to it by unanimous consent.

That's where it gets hazy for me. Although it's clear that the Senate didn't agree to the House's latest changes, it's not clear that they amended the bill in any way, so I'm not entirely sure what amendment the House thinks it's voting on tomorrow. But if it's somehow the Senate's old amendment adding the war funding without the domestic funding (or something similar), the fact that it's coming to the floor under suspension of the rules tells us that they're not particularly interested in having it actually pass. Maybe they're just looking to formalize the state of disagreement between the houses and ask for a conference. Or maybe this is their way of having a vote before leaving for recess, but not giving in to the Senate's unwillingness to consider additional domestic funding. Hopefully this will become clearer as the day goes on.

On the Senate side, it's another cloture voting day, this time on what appears to be the 109th cloture motion filed in the 111th Congress. We are 30 motions shy of tying the all-time record for such filings, which goes all the way back to... the Congress before this one.

But hey, the good news is that if they invoke cloture today, they will have agreed to have just 30 more hours of debate on the question of whether or not to begin debate on the DISCLOSE Act. Think about that and then tell me we don't need filibuster reform.

Today's committee schedule, along with what I'm calling "Will's Picks for Today's Hot D-on-R Committee Action" -- despite the fact that it might not be all that hot, and I think the guy who prepared the list actually prefers to be called William -- appears below the fold.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE

We'll Return to Our Blog After This...

ANNOUNCER: Hey kids! Your parents loved playing the awesome '70s board game BP Offshore Oil Strike. Now it's your turn to don your hardhat in the exciting NEW oil-biz game, BP Deepwater Damage Control!

KID UNFOLDING BOARD: Let's play!

ANNOUNCER: First, choose your playing piece...

KID #1: I'm a BP manager and I'm silencing my rig's blowout safety alarms so they won't wake people up!
DAD: I'm the BP CEO and I assure you this spill is modest!
KID #2: I'm a BP lawyer and I deem that your claim is not legitimate!

ANNOUNCER: Then, once your lobbyists have "persuaded" the Minerals Management Service to water down regulations, and you've registered your rig with the proper authorities in the Marshall Islands, and you've filled out your emergency response plan...

KID: We'll airlift all the affected gulf walruses to the walrus sanctuary in Aruba!
MOM: And a dead professor will be our chief contact!

ANNOUNCER: Roll the dice over and over again until...

KID: My blowout preventer failed! Quick---call in BP Deepwater Damage Control!

ANNOUNCER: BP Deepwater Damage Control puts your corporate reflexes to the test as you guide your company through the choppy waters of legal loopholes, the unforgiving forces of nature, and the undulating waves of public opinion. Will you succeed?

KID (Draws card): You hire private security thugs to keep the media away from contaminated beaches. Collect 5 PR points!
GRANDPA (Draws card): You just bought off a private scientist to study the effects of the disaster while prohibiting him from publishing or sharing his research with other scientists. Collect 10 PR points!
KID #2 (Draws card): You orchestrate the capping of the well so that no one will ever really know the rate at which your oil was gushing out of the pipe and therefore you could pay less in fines. Collect 100 PR points!  Awesome!

ANNOUNCER: Or will you fail?

DAD (Draws card): You're caught removing wildlife carcasses from beaches in the dead of night to keep them out of public view. Lose 10 PR points!
KID #1 (Draws card): Your CEO tells America he's inconvenienced and wants his life back. Then he flies back to England for a yacht race. Lose 25 PR points!
KID #2 (Draws card): Your approval numbers plunge when one of your Republican shills in Congress insists you're owed a great big apology. Lose 50 PR points!

ANNOUNCER: Along the way, you'll pick up valuable golf balls and tires for your junk shot! And when the game's over, everybody loses!

FAMILY (Together): Yaaaaaayyyyyy!!!  Wait...what?

ANNOUNCER: BP Deepwater Damage Control is heart-pounding, white-knuckle nightmare excitement for the whole family. Play it tonight! From Wanker Games...of course!

Batteries and anti-depressants sold separately.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Tuesday punditry.

WaPo Wikileaks CW:

-- New evidence that the war effort is plagued by unreliable Afghan and Pakistani partners seems unlikely to undermine fragile congressional support or force the Obama administration to shift strategy.

-- The disclosure of what are mostly battlefield updates does not appear to represent a major threat to national security or troops' safety, according to military officials.

-- The documents' release could compel President Obama to explain more forcefully the war's importance, military analysts said. Some have criticized Obama for not explaining the administration's strategy for bolstering the weak Afghan government and countering the Taliban's rise.

Politico:

With the GOP's hopes for reclaiming the Senate seeming to hinge increasingly on their success in the west, the NRSC is bringing in a veteran press operative to help Republican Senate candidates in three key races against longtime Democratic incumbents. Brian Jones, a former RNC communications director, is going to advise Sharron Angle in Nevada, Carly Fiorina in California and the GOP nominee in Washington state. The NRSC’s move to bring in Jones comes as Republicans are starting to go public with worries that Angle and her campaign team are out of their depth running against Harry Reid. Jones is currently the managing partner at Mercury Public Affairs’s Sacramento office -- not far from Angle's Reno headquarters.

Maybe they'll advise not talking to the press. Oh, wait.

David Brooks:

Not much is going to get passed in the next two years anyway, but the president could lay the groundwork for a whopping second-term agenda: tax simplification, entitlement reform, a new wave of regional innovation clusters, a new wave of marriage-friendly tax policies. If the president is looking for a long-term growth agenda, he could read "Path to Prosperity," co-edited by Jason Furman and Jason Bordoff, or "The Pro-Growth Progressive" written by Gene Sperling. Some of these guys already are on his staff.

Eventually, I see a party breaking out of old stereotypes, appealing to entrepreneurs and suburbanites again, and I start feeling good about the future. Then I take off the magic green jacket and return to my old center-right self. A chill sweeps over me: Gosh, what if the Democrats really did change in that way?

Mark Blumenthal from 7/23:

Thus, the case for true "jump" in Democratic performance on the generic House ballot is weak. If we add the context of other recent polls, it gets weaker still. Their results scatter around a dead-heat margin in ways that are more or less consistent with their typical house effects on the generic ballot.

As always, more data next week will likely settle the issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next move in Gallup’s weekly tracking in the Republican direction, not because of real-world events but rather due to what statisticians call a reversion to the mean.

Gallup:

This past week marks the second time since March that either party has held any type of edge on the generic ballot for three consecutive weeks. Exactly what is behind the uptick in support for Democrats is not clear, although last week's gains coincided with the passage of the financial reform bill. Independents continue to be more likely to say they will vote for the Republican rather than the Democratic candidate, while both Republicans and Democrats maintain more than 90% allegiance for their party's candidates.

Democrats' improved position on the generic ballot is counterbalanced by the continuing wide advantage Republicans have in voting enthusiasm. This GOP enthusiasm gap foreshadows a typical Republican turnout advantage in midterm election voting, meaning that Democrats need a substantial lead on the registered voter generic ballot to offset their turnout disadvantage. Still, the results show that expectations of an assured Republican landslide in the congressional elections this fall are not a foregone conclusion.

Keeping Mark Blumenthal's caveats in mind, I'd like to see another week still.

Greg Sargent:

This isn't about Republicans banking on mass economic suffering to help them at the polls. Rather, they're dragging out the discussion of unemployment in the belief that the public will conclude that Dem policies have failed -- and that Dems have their heads in the sand about how much money they wasted on their pie-in-the-sky liberal dream schemes.

The idea is that the argument over who has better intentions towards the unemployed will have become a sideshow to the main narrative: That Dems, whatever their intentions, have lost control of the wheel. That's the real game plan here.

Doesn't mean that the R plan will work. Bringing back the Bush agenda, and mistrust of R's also play a counter-balancing role.

The Hill:

Healthcare reform will end up helping Democrats at the polls this fall, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Monday.

Reid, who is facing a tough reelection challenge himself, said public opinion is shifting in favor of the new healthcare law Democrats passed through Congress earlier this year and predicted more and more voters would reject Republicans’ calls for repealing the legislation.

The more people know about healthcare, the better they like it, said Reid, who listed several aspects of the new law he sees as popular.

And a follow-up from Sunday from USA Today:

In the midst of what could be the largest whooping cough outbreak in more than 50 years...California health officials are recommending booster shots for nearly everyone in the state, especially healthcare workers, parents, and anyone who may come in contact with babies." Infants "are the most likely to die from it," and the "only way to protect" them is "to vaccinate everyone around them...says Stacey Martin of the CDC." Thus, the "state health department is providing whooping cough boosters to new mothers and other close contacts of infants at all birthing hospitals, community health centers and local health departments." Notably, "nearly 1,500 Californians this year have been diagnosed with whooping cough -- five times the normal level for this time of year," and "doctors are investigating another 700 possible cases.

Today, Louisiana 1976, jlms_qkw, claude, dopper0189, ybruti and vcmvo2, with ItsJessMe editing scoured through 24 hours' worth of diaries to find these gems for you.  Please take the time to read them and comment in them to let the diarists know that you appreciate the time they took to share their thoughts with the community.

Literary Inspirations

• With Wallace Stegner in mind, Mother Mags examines the situation in Arizona and says, We Failed You Wally, And It May Get Worse. (Louisiana 1976)
• Stranded Wind senses "a Steinbeck moment" in his illustrated NN10: The Immigrant's Travails. (ybruti)
• veritas curat posts detailed criticism of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael in Leavers vs. Takers: The Battle of the Strawmen. (ybruti)
• gjohnsit explores how the class struggle aspect of a famous bandit has slowly been edited away in modern retellings: When Robin Hood was real. (dopper0189)

Inspiring Photography

• Photos! Graphs! And More! jamess puts it all together in Disruptive Technology, Micro Solar, and Recovery Act Innovation. (jlms qkw)
• Pakalolo shares some extraordinary photos of extraordinary natural phenomena along with descriptions of what they are and how the occur in Strange Earth Phenomena - Photo Heavy -Updated x2. (claude)

Inspired by Nature

• Here are some insights into same-sex-couple parenting from examples of such in the animal kingdom, compiled by gaycatholic in Same Sex Parents, Furred and Feathered. (claude)
• LaughingPlanet makes a plea to stop the environmental destruction in Action! Utah seeks 1st tar sands project in US history. (vcmvo2)
• fishgirl26 muses beautifully on parenting, suicide, fishing, her father, and mutual support, in Life and Death in a day. (jlms qkw)

Inspired by the Past

• Clytemnestra tells a personal story of school desegregration from the 1970's in What we learned on the playground: a story of racism. (dopper0189)
• Mokurai gives us some perspective in Godless, Gritless Liberals, Then and Now. (jlms qkw)

Finding Inspiration in the Present

• thefourthbranch says Glenn Beck's "crusade" against social justice attacks a basic religious principle. (ybruti)
• In a thoughtful approach to journalism and ethics, 8ackgr0und N015e writes How Obama can change the tone and defend democracy. (vcmvo2)
• rfall wonders if there are Ghosts in the Machine? (jlms qkw)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: July 25, 2010.

emeraldmaiden has Daily Kos Top Comments 7/26/10 - The Evil Weed.

The Wrap is being written, for what it is worth, by a guy wearing a parka at the moment. Because...seriously...when you have languished in 108-degree heat for five days, 75 degrees feels downright frosty.

Here is hoping that everyone has made it home from Netroots Nation 2010 in Vegas safely and happily. And for those who haven't had their political fill in the wake of that wondrous event, there is quite a bit to peruse in the Monday edition of the Wrap....

THE U.S. SENATE

IN-Sen: Indiana Dems tweak Coats for lobbyist past
While the Wrap will not cover every new ad that gets launched this cycle, I am enough of a sucker for parody ads that this one made the cut. The Indiana Democratic Party gives a good-natured smack to Republican nominee Dan Coats (a former Senator and lobbyist) by going through his lobbying greatest hits by riffing off of the famous "priceless" MasterCard commercials. Worth a watch, to be sure.

KS-Sen: Moran's former campaign head kisses Tiahrt, tells on Moran
Paul Moore used to be the campaign manager for Senate candidate Jerry Moran. He has now endorsed Moran's opponent, Congressman Todd Tiahrt. That, in itself, is interesting. But it gets more interesting when you see what Moore is saying about Moran. Moore complains in an AP article that Moran "winced" at being referred to as a conservative, fearful of alienating pro-choice moderates in a state whose rivalry between mods and cons is the stuff of legend. That is probably not the story Moran wants to see with eight days remaining in his primary.

LA-Sen: Vitter internal claims enormous primary edge
The Vitter/NRSC internal poll giving him a big lead over Charlie Melancon was posted on the Wrap this weekend, but SSP's Crisitunity caught another data point of note in that internal. The poll gives Vitter a dominant edge in the Republican primary: Vitter polls at 76%, with former judge Chet Traylor at 5% and former Indie House candidate Nick Accardo at 2%.

NH-Sen: Palin becoming Paul Hodes' best asset, according to PPP
Tom Jensen from PPP is a master poll-tease. Today, he hinted at the results his crew will release tomorrow in the New Hampshire Senate race. From the looks of things, the Sarah Palin endorsement of Attorney General Kelly Ayotte had divergent impacts on the landscape in the Granite State. Jensen teases that the tip of the cap from Mama Grizzly has made Ayotte more popular than ever among GOP primary voters, but less popular than ever among the general electorate. Expect Ayotte's edge over Hodes to be smaller than ever when the poll is released tomorrow.

SC-Sen: Alvin Greene...Superstar
This is a pretty unbelievable statistic: according to Yahoo's Michael Calderone, the candidate who received more media coverage than any other 2010 candidate is...Alvin Greene, the accidental Senate nominee from South Carolina. Greene tops the chart, followed by Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. In fairness to the American press, however, this study by Pew only included media coverage from June 8th (the primary day for South Carolina) through July 18th.

WI-Sen: Ron Johnson hates the President, loves BP
Two separate news items from the weekend paint a pretty ugly picture of likely GOP Senate nominee Ron Johnson. The first one came during the weekend, when Johnson sat mute while a campaign town hall guest ripped President Obama as a "criminal" and an "American-hater." When asked if he agreed with that sentiment, Johnson stammered a bit, saying "I am not going to argue with...arm wrestle you about it." On Monday, Johnson revealed something he can stand for--profitting from BP. After saying two weeks ago he was going to dump his BP stock, Johnson is now saying that he has not made a final decision. Either way, he is a pretty bad guy. Either he sells the stock and pays for his campaign with BP's blood on his hands, or he keeps the stocks and advocates on their behalf, because he personally stands to gain from their success.

THE U.S. HOUSE

MN-06: Clark claims major endorsement for general election
Law enforcement will apparently have the back of Democratic House contender (and NN10 attendee) Tarryl Clark. The MPPOA, the largest police union in the state, has endorsed Clark over incumbent Republican Michele Bachmann. The union has endorsed Republicans in the past (including Norm Coleman in 2008), but has never endorsed Bachmann in her three bids for the House.

NE-02: Terry told to keep partying ways to a minimum
This is delicious, especially for a candidate in the Heartland. Both Roll Call and the New York Post ran stories today highlighting the renewed efforts of Minority Leader John Boehner to keep his caucus out of trouble amid a wave of frat-like behavior, particularly with female lobbyists. The best nugget from the stories, however, is the actions of one Lee Terry, who is locked into a potentially competitive battle with Democrat Tom White. Check out this little excerpt from one of the Post's reporters:

GOP Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska -- who's in a tough race against Democratic opponent Tom White -- was witnessed by Page Six in close conversation with a comely lobbyist at the Capitol Hill Club in DC recently.

"Why did you get me so drunk?" Terry asked the giggling woman, among other personal remarks.

When Terry realized he was sitting near a reporter, he quickly changed the topic of conversation to his three children and the struggle to pay their college tuition.

Terry was given a 100 percent rating by the Christian Coalition for his pro-family voting record.

NM-01: Dueling polls paint very different pictures of race
Depending on who you believe, either Democrat Martin Heinrich has a double-digit lead in his re-election bid with Jon Barela, or he is trailing him. Those are the split verdicts from a pair of polls that came to light today. KOB's poll, conducted by SurveyUSA, had Barela out in front of Henrich by a 51-45 margin. This shows a bit of consistency for SUSA, who has been bearish on Democratic prospects virtually across the board. Heinrich's campaign immediately countered with a poll from GQR (a Democratic pollster, but one that has been pretty even-handed in the past). They polled about two weeks ago, and had Heinrich leading Barela by a dozen points (53-41).

PA-03: Kelly internal poll claims double digit lead over Dem freshman
This is an internal poll with a fairly small sample size, so use more salt than what would normally be prescribed for an internal. That said, a new Tarrance poll conducted for Republican challenger Mike Kelly has the Republican staked to an eleven-point edge over Democratic incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper (48-37). The poll claims a surprisingly high level of name recognition (67%) for Kelly.

RI-01: Progressive upstart nabs major endorsement
He might not be the leading fundraiser in the Democratic field, but progressive candidate (and NN10 attendee) David Segal claimed a big endorsement in his bid to topple better-funded candidates like Providence Mayor Kevin Cicilline and former state party chair William Lynch. Segal, a state legislator, earned the endorsement of the state teachers union. The union is on an endorsement kick, having given Lincoln Chafee their nod late last week.

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

GA-Gov: Deal internal poll claims a toss-up in runoff
It is still a couple of weeks until the gubernatorial runoff for the GOP in the Peach State, and last week's primary runner-up has a new poll out claiming that it is a coin flip (PDF file). The poll, taken for former Congressman Nathan Deal by McLaughlin, claims a one-point lead for Deal over primary frontrunner Karen Handel (39-38). The winner of the Handel-Deal runoff will battle with former Democratic Governor Roy Barnes in November.

KY-Gov (2011): Former Rand Paul manager teasing '11 ticket reveal
By the end of the week, we will know why former Rand Paul campaign manager David Adams parachuted out of the Paul campaign. A tweet from local political site Bluegrass Politics claims that Adams will unveil a candidate for the 2011 gubernatorial race. The GOP will be challenging incumbent Democratic Governor Steve Beshear, and Adams claims that the candidate he will be working with will have Tea Party support.

OK-Gov: General more competitive than primaries, according to new poll
There was some seriously interesting polling data emerging from the Sooner State over the weekend. Apparently, tomorrow's primaries are not going to be terribly competitive. As expected, Congresswoman Mary Fallin is cleaning house on the GOP side, with a 56-18 lead over state legislator Randy Brogdon. However, the Democratic side was expected to be a bit more competitive than it apparently will be: Attorney General Drew Edmondson has a 49-33 lead over Lt. Governor Jari Askins. Even more interesting, however, is that the general election is considerably closer than most folks would have wagered. Fallin leads Askins by just six points (46-40) and Edmondson by just eight points (47-39). Despite the deep-red profile of Oklahoma, this would be a pickup for the GOP, as Fallin would replace term-limited Democrat Brad Henry.

TN-Gov: Haslam has sizeable primary and general elex leads, says M-D
With about a week to go until their primary elections, Mason Dixon has waded into Tennessee, and they see good news for the uber-wealthy mayor of Knoxville, Republican Bill Haslam. The Mason Dixon poll has Haslam leading Congressman Zach Wamp by eleven points (36-25), with Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey trailing with 20% of the vote. Haslam also has a sizeable lead (49-31) over the sole Democrat in the running, Mike McWherter. All three Republicans hold leads over McWherter, although both Wamp (45-38) and Ramsey (43-38) are considerably weaker than Haslam.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

The House of Ras goes from the desert to the prairies to the sea with their trio of polling results. None of them would qualify as a surprise, though, as the continued rule of incumbents and quasi-incumbents carries the day. This is good news for two Republicans (Senator John McCain and Governor-turned-Senate candidate John Hoeven) and one Democrat (Governor Deval Patrick).

AZ-Sen (R): Sen. John McCain 54%, J.D. Hayworth 34%
MA-Gov: Gov. Deval Patrick (D) 38%, Charlie Baker (R) 34%, Tim Cahill (I) 17%
ND-Sen: John Hoeven (R) 69%, Tracy Potter (D) 22%

Wow.  

I hope you were inspired.

I hope you were engaged.

I suspect you're exhausted.

There are so many sub-conferences which take part in Netroots Nation.  Of course, there's the formal calendar with its keynote sessions, panel discussions, training sessions and caucuses.  There's the Exhibit Hall, an energetic world of its own.  There's the social calendar, too, but then there's what I'd call the interstitial conference -- all those little moments in between everything else where you run into an old online friend (or make a new friend), or meet someone who's running for office, or otherwise just plain happenstance at the conference.  

I can't possibly single out one moment -- big or tweet-level -- and that's not my job.  But I do think that more than any other conference we've run, this was a progressive conference more than it was a Democratic conference.  Yes, party leaders and office seekers were there, but this felt more like a conference about progressive ideas and building our progressive movement (and obtaining progressive policy victories) than it was about the electoral process.

Right now, there's something I'd like you to do, and it's absolutely essential for the enduring success of this conference.  You need to tell us what worked, and what didn't work.  We have received a great deal of positive feedback so far, but we need to keep listening.

As chairman of the board of directors for NN, I need to know what you think.  You are our stakeholders, our constituents, and your satisfaction is essential to our continued success.  There is no aspect of this conference which cannot be rethought, and no detail not worth mentioning.  And, obviously, we don't want to forget anything that worked out better than our wildest expectations, and want to capture as much of that now while it's still fresh in your minds.  Tell us what you loved, and what we need to do more -- because we didn't see everything, even all the good stuff.  So tell us stories about your Netroots Nation experience.

[To give you an idea -- from your feedback last year, we added karaoke this year.  We also made sure to put the exhibit hall front and center geographically, and to make sure the schedule was more endurable overall.]

We've got a few ways you can register this feedback.  First off, um, here.  I think you know how to do that.

Secondly, anything you tweet to #nn10, we're still watching.

And thirdly, if you'd like to keep it private, email me at adam [at] netrootsnation [dot] org or to executive director Raven Brooks at raven [at] netrootsnation [dot] org.  We will make sure every email gets to the appropriate person(s) on our staff, and that each receives a response.

Thanks again.  You each make our conference, and our movement, what it is.

[See, also, Nurse Kelley's diary on accessibility issues.  We are paying attention.]

The Palinization of the Republican Party proceeds apace and party insiders openly tremble as they should. And it's not only the Tea Party extremists. It's Sharron Angle hiding from the press. And Rand Paul doing the same. Or Meg Whitman ducking her own press conference. Or Chris Dudley ducking a debate.

And then there are the liars and cheats. Serial plagiarist Scott McInnis. And serial liar Mark Kirk, who also, understandably, literally runs from the press. And then there's Dudley's dishonesty, too.

Not only are Republican candidates hopelessly extreme and/or inept, they or their backers know that they're hopelessly extreme and/or inept. These people are attempting to follow the Bush model of avoiding mistakes while not letting voters know the truth about who and what they are or where they stand on the issues. It's politics by obfuscation and avoidance, a deliberate strategy of dishonesty, because they know that truth is their worst enemy. Traditional Republican avoidance of scientific facts, such as on evolution or climate change, has created an alternate universe. They depend on myths and lies because it's who they are, desperately hoping that the voters believe false narratives, don't pay attention to issues, and are motivated more by fear and idolatry than rationality.

As Steve Singiser has pointed out, this is an odd election year for polling. Generic ballots and approval ratings and direction of the nation polls don't look so great for Democrats. People are worried and restless. Recovering from the many Bush disasters has not been easy, and on some issues, the Democrats should have been more aggressive in pursuing substantive change. A lot of people aren't happy with the Democrats, and are seeking something different. But once the voters take a look at the different that is offered, the present approach of slow incremental progress doesn't look that bad. It could be better, and it should be better, but the offered alternative certainly isn't better. Not only is it worse, it's frightening, and at times disturbing. What's offered by the Republicans isn't progress, not even slow incremental progress. It's regression, rapid regression. In some cases, it's back to Medievalism regression.

The Democrats need to do a much better job of convincing voters that they stand for the people and for a better future. Being better than a train wreck isn't much of a standard, but for now the best thing the Democrats have going for them is the quality of the opposition. Or, more accurately, the lack of quality of the opposition. That could be enough. As the unhinged extremists increasingly come to dominate their own party, even many traditional hard right Republicans are just plain scared.

I'm going to address this one more time:

Democrats are likely to start the next Congress with a majority, even if they lose the election quite badly. With sufficient unity, they could change the rules before work begins again. But it'll be a pretty raw move: Neutering the opposition after the voters favored them at the polls is a bit hard to defend on principle, and it's even harder when the principle in question is that the Senate should be governed democratically.

[...]

My oft-expressed preference is for Republicans and Democrats to figure something out jointly and set it into motion such that it either phases in over the next few years or begins six years from now, when we don't know who'll be in control. But if that's not going to happen, then members of both parties have to be thinking: Do they really want to be the side the rules get changed on, rather than the side that changes the rules?

I think it's a fair-ish idea, considered in a vacuum, but I'm unwilling to be the only fair party at the table, and see very little advantage in dealing in good faith with the other party, considering that they would have forced us to the table on account of their dealing with us in such remarkably bad faith.

I'd also say that what we're fixing here is the Senate as an institution, and that doesn't belong to one party or the other. The Senate needs to be able to operate, regardless of who's running it. The country stands to benefit from this fix, and the question of which party the voters want to run a working Senate is a separate issue, and one they're perfectly familiar with deciding. If they don't like the way Democrats do it, they'll fix that. Casting the fate of the Senate rules to the wind doesn't promote small d democratic accountability.

From a more partisan perspective, I'd add that the rules need to be changed, and making the change requires some very heavy lifting. I think the benefit of having done that work ought rightly to go to the team that does the work. If the other team would like to have the benefit of that work, they can convince the American people to give it to them in the next election after this one. But for myself, I wouldn't give it away in a lottery.

Disclosure: I'm doing paid work as a Fellow for ProgressiveCongress.org in addressing the necessity of filibuster reform in the Senate. The Fellowship is being supported in part by CREDO Action and Blue America. You can help support this work -- at no cost to you -- by signing CREDO Action's petition and/or by donating at Blue America's ActBlue page.