From a modern day perspective, the US airplane sprang up in the Wright Brother's bicycle shop, and came into its own over European battlefields a decade later. And that's reasonably accurate with one caveat: most of the iconic biplanes that dueled above the muddy trenches of WW1 weren't made in the USA. In 1914 the Europeans had already mass produced thousands of aircraft while only about a hundred hand-made prototypes existed in the US¹. American manpower made a big difference in the outcome of the war, but US airpower arrived too little and too late.

After the war domestic aircraft production continued to lag. Alarmed by the slow pace of progress and now well aware of the military and commercial potential of airplanes, the US government stepped in with the Kelly Air Mail Act of 1925 which allowed the US post office to hire private pilots to carry mail. It saved a ton of money and time: if the government had to design and build their own aircraft, it would take years before airmail was available. The true price, at least as far as taxpayers were concerned, would have been the development, acquisition, maintenance, and operating cost of the planes divided by the number of parcels/pounds delivered. By hiring private owners the cost was much lower and airmail service could begin immediately.    

US aircraft companies that had been struggling saw demand tick up. Just two years later Charles Lindbergh flew the Spirit of St Louis into the pages of history, and US aircraft manufacturing, aided by investment capital flowing from Wall Street to main street, exploded. The 1930s, a decade otherwise marked by mass unemployment and a slow faltering recovery, is considered the golden age of aviation. Aircraft design enjoyed the largest peace-time burst of progress in history and employed thousands of people. Howard Hughes and Amelia Earhart became household names. Mass production took hold, larger, reliable monoplanes with retractable landing gear and even pressurized cabins began rolling off assembly lines. And none too soon.

Without that golden age of innovation, America's influence in WW2, from the lend-lease of aircraft that served in the Battle of Britain to the D-day invasion, might have been reduced. How that would have affected the war is anyone's guess, but it's a good bet it would have lasted longer and millions more might have died. Instead, because of US air superiority, not only did the allies prevail faster, the spin offs in science, materials, electronics, and even progressive social changes like women in the workforce are today the stuff of legends.

No analogy is perfect, and I have grossly simplified this one despite suggestions from expert sources. But the similarities to NASA's proposed commercial crew program are striking. After the shuttle program ends, foreign manufacturers will once again be ahead of us and US astronauts will have to catch rides on Russian rockets. Just as the post office avoided enormous development costs and years of delay by capitalizing on domestic aircraft, NASA could get people and instruments to space way sooner using new spacecraft made by smaller emerging companies without paying the billions in development costs. Just as the US now leads the world in aerospace and employs hundreds of thousands of people who actually build things rather than trade paper for banks and insurance companies, the US space industry could lead in this field. And just as wealthy railroad barons and their army of political lackeys bitterly opposed competition and lobbied against the Kelly Act, powerful interests are working against commercial space: about 85% of NASA's current budget goes to the aerospace wing of the military-industrial complex and the defense industry is eager to keep that goose laying big fat golden eggs.

Something like the Kelly Act for the space-age will be up for a vote in September, along side legislation that would effectively kill it. The first bill in the Senate (S.3729) provides modest incentives to smaller, emerging spacecraft manufacturers who already have vehicles flying. The latter bill offered by the House (H. R. 5781) all but kills commercial space development in favor of a token version of George Bush's defunct Constellation program. HR 5781 as written would charge US taxpayers tens of billions for traditional aerospace contractors to develop new rockets that may not fly until 2020, if ever. I'll have some ideas about how to steer Congress in the right direction soon.

Ninety years ago, a young man named Harry T. Burn, at the insistence of his mother to “be a good boy,” changed his vote from “nay” to “yea,” and the generations-long struggle for women’s suffrage was at last won.

It is easy to catalog the progress of the last nine decades. Women can vote, own property, earn a paycheck and keep the money in their own bank accounts, go to college and play sports there, and yes, run for and hold elected office. Three of the last four Secretaries of State have been women. The Speaker of the House is a woman. Three of the nine Supreme Court justices are women. And let us not forget that a woman very nearly won the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

But -– and of course there is a but –- it is not enough. Because despite these achievements, control of our economy and our government still rests almost exclusively within the hands of men. For women to achieve full equality, they must have a real role in making the decisions that affect their lives. And that role requires real, and proportionate, representation -- something 90 years of struggle for equality has yet to achieve.

In the private sector, while women now comprise the majority of the labor force, they are still vastly outnumbered by men at the executive levels. As of 2009, only thirteen of the Fortune 500 companies were run by women. And those women CEOs make only 85 percent of what their male counterparts make.

In fact, a study by the non-profit research group Catalyst found that at the current rate, it will take another 40 years for women to achieve "parity with men in the corporate officer ranks."

Forty years.

Will it take that long for women to achieve pay equity as well? Maybe. The incremental progress toward pay equity has not come without legislation guaranteeing women the right to work and to earn the same wages as their male counterparts -- and even then, a significant pay gap still exists today. As does the forceful opposition to such legislation.

Despite protestations from those who scoff at evidence of this disparity, like the Chamber of Commerce -– who has, for decades, opposed every single piece of legislation intended to address this disparity, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act protecting pregnant women from discrimination, the Equal Pay Law, and the Paycheck Fairness Act -- the pay gap is real, and it is not merely the result of women choosing lower-paying jobs. It is a reflection of our deficiencies as a nation to recognize the obstacles and needs of half the labor force.

Just look at the utter failure of our country to address the reality of working mothers. Our country continues to treat working mothers as if they were an aberration, rather than the norm, and as such, any difficulties women encounter in trying to earn a living and care for their children is a problem for them to solve, a problem in which the government has no interest. Those women who "choose" to work and have families are left to their own devices, unworthy of the government's care or resources.  

But working mothers are, in fact, the norm: 80 percent of American women have children, and of those, 66 percent of them are employed, mostly in full-time jobs. A country that valued women, and mothers, would address the obstacles women face, rather than dismiss them as a consequence of women's choices, a consequence for which the solution is, according to the Chamber of Commerce, "choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home."

That's really no solution at all.

From the moment a woman enters the work force, she will earn less than her male counterpart -- and if she has children, as the majority of American women do, it will cost her. She will end up making significantly less than men, according to a recent report by The New York Times.

And it will cost her in other ways. Unlike 168 countries that provide some form of paid family leave, most of which offer a minimum of 14 weeks and as much as a full year, the United States has only the Family and Medical Leave Act, which applies only to companies with 50 or more employees, and which guarantees only 12 weeks of unpaid leave. For most American women, three months without a paycheck is simply not a possibility. And even then, women still face the very real threat of losing their jobs anyway if they actually exercise that right.

Once working mothers do go back to work, they face the enormous expense of childcare -- an expense that ranges from $3,016 a year to $13,480 a year -- or more. Without any aid from the government because, according to those like the Chamber of Commerce, the government and society in general should not have to concern itself with the "choices" women make to work and have children.

But in a nation in which women are so severely underrepresented in positions of power, is it any wonder that the "solution" offered them is simply to figure it out for themselves?

For all the progress women have made, they still comprise a mere 16 percent of Congress and 12 percent of governorships. That's not real representation; it's token representation. And token representation is not enough to implement real, systemic changes that are necessary to improving the lives of women, and therefore all Americans. Such under-representation is not without its consequences.  

During the debate about health care reform, for example, Republican Senator John Kyl argued against a requirement that insurers offer basic maternity coverage. Why? Because it didn’t affect him.

"I don't need maternity care," Kyl said. "So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the policy more expensive."

Senator Debbie Stabenow was quick to point out to him, “I think your mom probably did."

Yes, John Kyl’s mother -– and 80 percent of all American women. Yet when the government is run largely by men, who see no need for something as basic as maternity care, is it any wonder that our system still refuses to acknowledge the needs of half the population?

That's what you get with token representation: the government's blind eye to problems that disproportionately impact women -- but, in reality, impact everyone. Senator Kyl certainly isn't the first to argue against legislation to help women, on the grounds that since he doesn't need it, it doesn't matter.

The antidote is greater -- much greater -- representation, a critical mass of representation.

Critical mass is an idea that has moved from science and sociology to political science and into popular usage over the last 30 years. The concept is borrowed from nuclear physics: It refers to the quantity needed to start a chain reaction, an irreversible propulsion into a new situation or process.

...[O]nce women reached a critical mass in an organization, people would stop seeing them as women and start evaluating their work as managers. In short, they would be regarded equally.

The report by The White House Project, assessing women's level of involvement and progress throughout the public and private sectors, offered the example of the Supreme Court (before Elena Kagan became its newest justice):

• One woman is newsworthy -– she’s a first.
• Two is better –- but still an exception, not the rule.
• Three out of nine -– one in three -– stops being unusual.

We are a long way from women holding at least a third of the seats in Congress. It's no wonder, then, that legislation to address the needs of women is still the exception rather than the rule. It's no wonder, then, that too often, Congress dismisses as unnecessary programs to help women and their families -- programs that exist in every other industrialized nation in the world.

The answer, though, is not only to elect more women. There are now, as there have always been, women who work against the best interests of other women. Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzlies are merely the latest incarnation of the anti-women’s movement -- a movement to oppose real solutions for women, dressed up in a skirt and lipstick, as if to legitimize their efforts to block progress. Palin is really no different from Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who made a career out of telling women not to have careers, the woman who fought –- and continues to fight -– against equality for women.

More Sarah Palins and Phyllis Schlaflys and Mama Grizzlies are not the answer. Just as progressives work to elect more, better Democrats, so too do we need more, better women in politics, so that women are not just the exception, so that the obstacles women face are deemed significant enough to merit real solutions, so that the most basic needs of women cannot be dismissed as unnecessary just because men have no use for them.

Ninety years after that young Tennessee representative cast the deciding vote to enfranchise women, a battle was won. Women could, at long last, have a voice in the process of choosing their leaders. But the last 90 years have shown that it isn't enough. To create a nation that truly recognizes and values women and their contributions, women need to do more than just have a voice in the process of choosing leaders; they must have a voice in the process of leadership itself.

And that battle is far from over.

There is a clash of civilizations going on, and it has nothing to do with the Burlington Coat Factory Community Center. It's more fundamental than Christian vs. Muslim. It's reason vs. fear. Civilization vs. anarchy.

That clash is happening right here in America.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't believe that being a conservative equates with being evil. Over the course of our nation's history, many conservative figures have raised questions deserving of an answer. They framed their issues with ideas that were testable. They contributed to the national conversation in a meaningful, beneficial way. They acted not just out of raw self-interest, but with sincere desire to do what they believed best for our nation and its people.

After more than two centuries of trials both at home and abroad, we have results from those tests. Conservative economics haven't just brought on repeated failure here, they've done the same everywhere and in every time. Conservative social policies aimed at producing a country that's joined around a less diverse set of ideas haven't engendered strength through unity, but an inflexible fragility. Those questions have been asked and answered, but the results don't mean those who raised the conservative position were any less dedicated to discovering the truth and serving the nation.

Only that's not what's happening now. Those conservatives, the men and women who argued with reason and passion for the positions they believed best for our nation, have been replaced by something else altogether. The two sides in our national debate can no longer be characterized as simply "left" and "right."  In a remarkably short time, we've witnessed the overthrow of the right by something new... only it's not really new at all.

For a long time I viewed this new crew with something of the same assumption that Jesus made on the cross: "forgive them, because they don't know what they're doing." Surely those tearing at the foundations of science would not have done so if they recognized the real danger their actions represented. Surely those calling for defense of the Constitution through limits on the freedoms it enshrines didn't grasp the contradictory nature of their positions. Surely those working to wrest the last crumbs of control from the powerless and carry them back to the powerful were unaware of years spent and lives lost in obtaining even this modest share of equity.

I no longer believe this is true. When Rush Limbaugh blames the BP disaster on "eco-terrorists," I don't believe he really thinks this is in any sense factual. When Newt Gingrich compares Muslims to Nazis, I don't believe he does it out of ignorance. When Glenn Beck says that President Obama will force doctors to perform abortions and Michael Savage says that the president will disband the Marine Corps, it's not because they are badly informed. When Sen. Pearce insists that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the children of immigrants, when Fox news moves the beginning of Obama's presidency so that the disasters of the Bush years land on his plate, when those who were so shocked that Godwin's Law might have been dented in a blog post two years ago are now shouting "Hitler" on the floor of the House and Senate -- I don't think it's because they've been pushed there through no choice of their own. Death panels? Do you think the people making that claim really believed it? What about global warming being caused by sun spots? How about the threat of Muslim terror babies?

The question of protecting the nation or the principles on which it was built is no longer the focus of "conservative" arguments -- it's not even a side note -- because this group no longer makes any distinction between the common good and their own self interest. They have reached the conclusion that their success is worth any price, even if that price is fatal to the founding principles of the nation. They have no canon but victory, no concept of restraint.

It's not surprising that this generation of Republicans has made a hero out of Joeseph McCarthy. They admire the way in which he cowed his enemies and the way in which he distorted the meaning of liberty. They admire him because he generated fear.

The question of "have you no sense of decency" has been answered. They do not -- at least not one that rises above their hunger for power.

For the unobservant, what's happening this November is just another in two centuries of mid-term elections. The press is already dusting off their talks from past cycles, ready to note how the numbers of each party in the House and Senate have been altered. They expect to devote an hour -- maybe two -- to highlighting what these changes say about the popularity of the president. They may go so far as to discuss how the results affect the fate of some bit of legislation (but don't count on it). You can bet that have some absolutely spectacular new charts prepared to show poll results and the rearrangement of seats in the legislative chambers.

But the story in this cycle isn't just numbers. What's at stake this November isn't holding Democratic gains in the House and Senate. It's not protecting Barack Obama's mojo. It's not advancing a progressive legislative agenda.

What we're facing in a few short weeks is a critical test; one that I believe may do more to determine our future than any action inside our own borders for over a century. More important even than the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Because the ideas put forward by men like Glenn Beck are not "just like fascism," they simply are fascism. It's the idea that personality can outweigh facts, and that force can author "justice" as well as any law. It's the conviction that those with hard-won knowledge are dangerous, and need to be overruled by "common sense." It's the view that history has an unfortunate bias, one that can be adjusted with a careful "correction" of the textbooks. It's the doctrine that only a portion of the populace is Real Americans deserving of liberty, and the rest must be dealt with as enemies. Those poisonous thoughts are sickeningly familiar, and they have lost none of their vile potency in the last sixty years.  

Those that have taken the place of the traditional Republican Party (and the once reasonable politicians who have thrown over their long held ideals to grovel for these new masters) are not just battling with some aspects of science, they're waging war on reason. Not just tinkering with immigration policy, but sharply narrowing the meaning of the word "American." What's at stake isn't whether laws will be passed favorable to our positions, or whether laws will be passed that we don't like -- the real question is whether the United States will continue as a nation of laws.

We've been told, and polling data reflects, an "enthusiasm gap" between those who saw Barack Obama into office in 2008, and those who want to unseat him. Those massing on the right -- the birthers, Beckers, and baggers -- smell blood in the water. They've already seized the Republican Party and they mean to seize the nation. Somehow, for those not part of that movement, this election remains just another election. If that's going to change in the few short weeks that remain, it's going to have to be because some were willing to work, to raise the alarm, and to elevate what's at stake beyond a squabble between "left" vs. "right."

This was the week that President Barack Hussein Obama's secret Muslim past finally caught up with him. But with all of the Muslimy things he's done, the only real surprise was that it took as long as it did.

I mean, there were only so many Sundays that he could reasonably expect to hide his true faith on the golf course.

When you actually stop and think about it, Obama has nobody to blame but himself for the growing misperceptions about him. The fault certainly doesn't lie with the people feeding those misperceptions.

In fact, to say that it does would be downright un-American.

This evening's Rescue Rangers are claude, srkp23, grog, shayera, and watercarrier4diogenes, who's also scrounging around in the pockets of the Robes of Objectivity, looking for the Wand of 'Seriousness'(™Glennzilla), wondering if maybe Dumbledore took it with him...

The rescued diaries are:

• Yet another lesson in the long history of Indians in the US, from Ojibwa: Indians 101: The Third Seminole Indian War. (claude)
• Fire bad tree pretty analyzes the Australian Election Results: None of the above? (grog)
• davidseth muses: There's More To Being An Elder Than Being Old. (claude)
• Lightning Rod examines the perils of Agribusiness -- Eggs In One Basket. (grog)
• Keith Pickering reports on research that indicates Earth's plant life: dying on land, dying at sea, not a good sign. (watercarrier4diogenes)
• danps analyzes some news concerning the war on terror, so-called, and executive power, in America's Bad Reputation Gets a Little Worse. (srkp23)
• leftyparent examines the role of religious dogma in creating Five Themes of American Conventional Wisdom. (claude)
• A Siegel sets the record straight with this review of a misleading volume from the Energy Bookshelf: Power Hungry gushing of lies. (srkp23)
• The search for an addition to his "pack of 2" takes Dixiedemocrat through the Dog Days of Summer. Come along for the ride. (watercarrier4diogenes)
• There was a woman named Paula, and what a wonderful woman she was. murphy reminisces. (claude)

jotter has wrought his data-gathering majik in High Impact Diaries: August 20, 2010 while carolita has carefully collected and crafted Top Comments – 8-21-10 – Adaptability Edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

All week, we have been offering birthday wishes to various folks. Today, a tangent on that--happy 51st birthday to...Hawaii! The beautiful archipelago became our fiftieth state on August 21st of 1959, when President Eisenhower signed a proclamation that came on the heels of the passage of a statehood bill in Congress and the overwhelming support of Hawaiians in a statewide referendum.

So a hearty mahalo to the state of Hawaii for being a critical part of the American fabric. With that, onward to the (very full) weekend edition of the Wrap...

THE U.S. SENATE

AK-Sen: Hotline On Call focuses on the forgotten primary
With just three days until the next time Americans head to the polls, most of the attention has been focused on Florida and Arizona. Lost in the shuffle, meanwhile, is a race that got a lot of early hype and then faded into the ether: the Senate primary in Alaska between incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski and Mama Grizzly's preferred candidate, attorney Joe Miller. Hotline on Call looks at the race, and comes up with a pretty decent reason why it fell of the radar screens: it might not be all that competitive. Despite the support of the Palin and Tea Party express crowds, Miller does not appear to have made any headway in his battle against Murkowski.

FL-Sen: Greene's biz dirty laundry hits Florida newspaper
When you are running for office, in part, of imparting your business acumen on the swamp in Washington, stories like this on Election Eve are bound to be a little bit unhelpful:

"We thought it was super. Somebody was going to invest money into the stores, get supplies, get us everything we need to run a business," she said, referring to Greene, whose Sunshine Energy LLC acquired the lease to her gas station and others in September 2009. "In the beginning, it seemed like that was going to happen. Then suddenly, nothing."

By February, Rose was having problems with vendors, who refused to deliver beer or soda unless they were paid cash. Her store and others occasionally ran out of gas because of supply problems. Payroll hours were cut. She put buckets around the store whenever it rained because a leak in the roof was not fixed.

"It started spiraling down, getting worse and worse," Rose said.

The convenience stores in question were eventually seized by the local landlord, who claimed that Greene's company breached contract by not providing proper maintenance of the properties. Greene, not surprisingly, is vehemently protesting the seizures, in a matter that has now gone to the courts.

GA-Sen: Second poll confirms Isakson is no lock in the Peach State
Less than a week after Rasmussen, of all people, showed that Republican incumbent Johnny Isakson could be potentially vulnerable, their finding was echoed by Insider Advantage. The southern-based pollster has Isakson under 50%, with the Republican at 47% and Democratic nominee Michael Thurmond at 35%. In what could provide an intriguing twist, I-A has Libertarian candidate Chuck Donovan at 7% of the vote. This means, of course, that 2010 could mimic 2008, when GOP Senator was forced into a post-November runoff election before he finished off Democrat Jim Martin.

IL-Sen: GOP pollster first in some time to claim a Kirk lead
It has been a good long while since a pollster has put Republican Congressman Mark Kirk out front in his battle with Democrat Alexi Giannoulias (early June, to be exact). But a GOP-leaning pollster, We Ask America, is claiming just that, releasing a survey showing Kirk with a 39-33 lead over Giannoulias. The difference is a large lead for Kirk with Independents (other pollsters have shown this metric far closer), and the fact that W.A.A. claims that Kirk is claiming 12% of the Democratic vote.

LA-Sen: Vitter dominating GOP primary, still wigging out about it
Here are two pieces of news out of the Pelican State that seem to lack a bit of congruency. Item #1: incumbent Republican David Vitter is not reacting particularly well to the hard-hitting new ad from GOP challenger Chet Traylor. Indeed, his campaign is throwing out lawsuit threats against any state radio stations that agree to run the ad. Item #2: Traylor is apparently not a dire threat to Vitter. A new poll out from Clarus Research gives Vitter a little sixty-nine point advantage (74-5) over Traylor, with perennial candidate Nick Accardo at 3%.

The pollster also hit on the Democratic primaries and general election. Congressman Charlie Melancon has a clear lead in the Democratic Senate primary, with 43% of the vote (both of his challengers combined log in at 5%). In the general, Vitter maintains a solid-but-not-dominant lead over Melancon, leading the Democrat by a 48-36 margin.

NH-Sen: Hodes latest Democrat to call for Warren nomination
Another day, another prominent Democratic challenger calling on President Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren as the head of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This time around, it is New Hampshire's Paul Hodes, who wrote the following on Friday: "Middle class Americans need a tough fighter like Dr. Warren to hold the Wall Street banks and credit card companies accountable. She saw what an out-of-control Wall Street was doing to our economy, and has fought hard every step of the way to tip the scales away from special interests and back towards average hard-working Americans."

WA-Sen: SUSA poll claims modest post-primary lead for GOP's Rossi
This is a rather eye-popping result: the first post-primary poll for SurveyUSA shows Republican Dino Rossi having no trouble consolidating the GOP vote...and then some. Rossi, according to SUSA, holds a seven-point edge (52-45) over incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray. It does seem somewhat peculiar that Murray will not be able to even hold down the 46+% that she earned just this past Tuesday. Evidently, SUSA is forecasting a surge of GOP voters to the polls in November that simply won't be matched by the Democrats.

WV-Sen: Manchin has huge lead in Senate special election
Local pollster RL Repass looks ahead to November in the Mountain State, and finds that Democratic Governor Joe Manchin is going to ride his high popularity (65% job approval) into a new gig in Washington DC. The local pollster gives Manchin a twenty-two point lead over self-funding GOP businessman John Raese (54-32). Repass also looks ahead to 2012, and finds Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito and Democratic Secretary of State Natalie Tennant as the frontrunners to replace Manchin in the governor's mansion.

THE U.S. HOUSE

AZ-08: Kelly's final pre-primary gambit--dissing Mama Grizzly?
Wow...this is pretty damned interesting. Jesse Kelly, the twenty-something veteran who is running as the GOP teabagger alternative in the hot primary to challenge Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, took a pretty interesting swipe at Sarah Palin. Kelly knocked Palin (who he still says has his 2012 support, given the current field) for making politically safe endorsements (Carly Fiorina and Terry Branstad come immediately to mind), saying that voters want "political courage" right now. Kelly's establishment challenger, former state legislator Jonathan Paton, immediately wedded himself to Palin, lambasting Kelly for saying not-nice things about the self-appointed GOP kingmaker. In the strangest footnote to this quite-strange story, this may well be the only competitive race in the Union in which Palin has not offered an endorsement.

FL-22: Allen West's near-Macaca moment?
Memo to all Republican officeholders and office-seekers: those guys with video cameras at your events are called trackers. It is an accepted action in American politics. You do yourself absolutely no good wigging out about it. Just ask this dude. Allen West is the latest to step in. While his gaffe might not rise to George Allen level, it is pretty bad nonetheless. Noting the presence of a tracker for the Democrats, West jumped on the young man, saying the following:

"I know here today we have a representative from the Florida Democratic party and he is here to film me and his whole purpose of filming me is to take what I say and allow other people to distort it so they can misrepresent me. You know if we allow those Gestapo-type intimidation tactics to prevail in the United States of America what happens to our liberties, what happens to our freedoms?"

If saying that a tracker represents Gestapo tactics is a bit over-the-top, consider it even a bit more so when you consider that: (A) West's opponent, incumbent Democrat Ron Klein, is Jewish and (B) the tracker himself, who worked for the Florida Democratic Party, was the grandson of Holocaust survivors.

West might have other problems, however, like finding his district. An article in the Broward New Times two weeks ago noted that not only does West live in the adjoining 20th district, he recently held a town hall in the 19th district, and opened a campaign office in the...23rd district. He has, to his credit, opened some offices in the 22nd district in which he is running, as well.

IL-10/IL-11/IL-14: GOP takes two of three seats in GOP poll
In three potentially competitive seats, it looks like a net gain of one seat for the GOP, according to new polls out Friday from the GOP-friendly pollsters at We Ask America. The pollsters give the GOP two seats held by Democratic incumbents, claiming that Adam Kinzinger has an eye-popping twenty point edge in IL-11 (52-32) over Democratic freshman Debbie Halvorson, while GOP state legislator Randy Hultgren has a more modest seven point advantage over Bill Foster (44-37). The lone bright spot for the Dems: W.A.A. also looks at the open 10th district (vacated by GOP Senate nominee Mark Kirk), and finds that Democrat Dan Seals has a lead (43-40) over Republican Bob Dold.

NY-13: GOP field may splinter in McMahon seat
Democrat Michael McMahon is running for re-election in a potentially hostile district, but his GOP competitors are doing their best to pave his path to a second term. The latest move came from GOP challenger Michael Allegretti, who filed 5000 signatures to form a new party line for November. Dubbed the Taxpayer's Party, Allegretti seeks the ballot line because of a schism in the local Conservative Party, which endorsed Allegretti's GOP foe, Michael Grimm. What this means, if it goes through, is that both Grimm and Allegretti will be on the November ballot, no matter which of the two gentlemen survives next month's GOP primary. All hail intrasquad discord!

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

CA-Gov: Whitman has issues with her right flank as GOP confab opens
Apparently, $100+ million has not bought peace between GOP gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman and her right-wing base. As a semi-annual Republican convention looms this weekend, several delegates who represent the more conservative members of the caucus are quite vocal in their discontent with the nominee. Echoing a charge made by many progressives, the rightward base is nothing with contempt that the Meg Whitman of the general election sounds dramatically different than the Meg Whitman of the primary election. One noted derisively: "There's almost nothing left of primary Meg...As long as that's the case, she's not going to get Republican voters to turnout." At issue, in particular, are the issues of immigration and taxes.

FL-Gov (R): Frontrunners bludgeon each other all the way to the finish
It will be a miracle if either business magnate Rick Scott or state Attorney General Bill McCollum have favorabilities over 30% when their long and brutal primary finally lurches to a conclusion this week. New campaign finance documents report that Scott dumped eight figures into his flagging campaign in the last twelve days ($12 million in total). Meanwhile, Scott was waylaid by the revelation (conveniently dropped on Election Eve by Team McCollum) that he invoked his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination an eye-popping 75 times during a 2000 deposition. The deposition came in the midst of a massive Medicare fraud investigation that the government was undertaking against Scott's company, Columbia/HCA.

FL-Gov (D): Get me Buddy Chiles...stat!
Best political proclamation of the year comes from minor Democratic candidate Brian Moore, who is pretty likely to be on the unpleasant end of a landslide in the Democratic Primary, courtesy of state CFO Alex Sink. Moore assailed Sink's selection of former state legislator Rod Smith as her choice for LG, and issued a press release today saying that after his victory on Tuesday, he plans on calling up "Buddy Chiles" and offering the LG gig to him. Bud Chiles (who, as far as we know, has never been known as Buddy) is currently waging an Independent bid for Governor. The son of former Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles, his campaign made clear today that despite the overwhelming temptation, they'll stick with their own Indie bid for the office.

GA-Gov: Runoff highly possible in competitive guv's race
The new Insider Advantage poll out of Georgia referenced earlier vis-a-vis the Senate race has even more intriguing numbers for Governor. The poll gives Republican Nathan Deal a narrow lead of just four points over Democrat Roy Barnes (45-41). What's more, the poll gives Libertarian challenger John Monds 5% of the vote. If the undecideds break anywhere near evenly, it becomes very possible that this election will be forced into a post-November runoff. Another wildcard, of course, is the potentially ongoing investigations about ethical issues which helped to hasten Deal's resignation from the Congress. While Deal maintained that he resigned to focus on his gubernatorial campaign, he was under an ethics committee investigation, one that was rendered moot when he left office. There have been persistent rumors that a federal investigation into the affair is still rolling along.

MN-Gov: Indie candidate carves center (center-right?) path in 1st ad
Anyone wondering which of the major nominees was going to be impacted most heavily by Independence Party gubernatorial nominee Tom Horner is probably still wondering in the wake of the third party challenger's first ad. Horner carves a pretty post-partisan path, assailing both parties for looking too far to the ideological edges (using the fairly disturbing graphic of a man whose eyes...one red and one blue...look in polar opposite directions). However, Horner's radio advertising features his former boss, moderate GOP Senator Dave Durenberger. That might be a nod to moderate GOPers nonplussed by the ideological rigidity of their party's nominee, Tom Emmer.

OR-Gov: Kitzhaber catches break as leftish third party stands down
Democratic gubernatorial nominee (and former two-term Governor) John Kitzhaber has one less electoral headache to deal with, as the presumptive candidacy of left-leaning third-party challenger Jerry Wilson was denied by the party itself Thursday evening. Wilson, who drew 7% of the vote in a recent SUSA poll, lost his ballot line when the party elected not to fill their spot on the ballot for Governor (they did, however, choose to do so in several downballot races). There are a couple of competing theories as to why this happened: some question Wilson's plan to wage an internet-only campaign, while Wilson himself says he was told that the party was concerned that he might fail to reach the 1% of the vote standard, which would cost the party their guaranteed line on the ballot. Kitzhaber has had great luck with left-of-center Indie candidacies. Three weeks ago, the Pacific Green Party also declined to field a gubernatorial candidate.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

Given that the Ras-sies have "some dude" (much love to Swing State Project for that term) within sixteen points of Barbara Mikulski in Maryland, I think it is safe to say that the House of Ras hasn't lost their touch yet, despite having some numbers that have been mimicked by other pollsters in recent days. I'd also place bets that the Alabama Governor's race is closer than the betting line Rasmussen puts up to close out the week.

AL-Gov: Robert Bentley (R) 58%, Ron Sparks (D) 34%
AR-Gov: Gov. Mike Beebe (D) 53%, Jim Keet (R) 33%
AR-Sen: John Boozman (R) 65%, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) 27%
MD-Sen: Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) 55%, Eric Wargotz (R) 39%
WY-Gov: Matt Mead (R) 58%, Leslie Peterson (D) 24%

Who knew?

Republican Allen West is the Tea Party candidate for House in Florida’s 22nd district ... said:

[A]s I was driving up here today, I saw that bumper sticker that absolutely incenses me. It’s not the Obama bumper sticker. But it’s the bumper sticker that says, ‘Co-exist.’ And it has all the little religious symbols on it. And the reason why I get upset, and every time I see one of those bumper stickers, I look at the person inside that is driving. Because that person represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are. The liberties that we want to enjoy.”

West went on to call Islam a “very vile and very vicious enemy that we have allowed to come in this country because we ride around with bumper stickers that say co-exist.”

Before starting his much-deserved summer vacation, President Obama made four long-overdue recess appointments.

President Obama  made four recess appointments Thursday for nominees that have waited an average of 303 days for confirmation, the White House said.

"At a time when our nation faces so many pressing challenges, I urge members of the Senate to stop playing politics with our highly qualified nominees, and fulfill their responsibilities of advice and consent," Obama said in a statement announcing the appointments. "Until they do, I reserve the right to act within my authority to do what is best for the American people."

The most contentious of the appointments is Maria del Carmen Aponte, the administration's pick for ambassador to El Salvador.

Senate Republicans questioned her during a March confirmation hearing about a former romantic relationship with a Cuban national connected to Cuban intelligence.

I wonder how many past romantic relationships of men the Senate Republicans give a shit about. The other appointments he made yesterday include "Elisabeth Hagen as the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food safety, Winslow Sargeant as chief counsel for advocacy at the Small Business Administration, and Richard Sorian as assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services."

What's coming up on Sunday Kos ….

• Mark Sumner thinks that 2010 isn't just another mid-term election, it's the real "clash of civilizations" in Hannibal ad portas.
• While most of the attention on who will be in charge of Congress after November, Steve Singiser will shift gears and put the spotlight on what might be the most competitive and intriguing set of races on the calendar this fall—the three dozen gubernatorial battles where future balance of power might well be at stake.
• Joan McCarter will look into the nation's collective family tree, and expects to find a few "anchor babies" there.
• Ninety years after women finally won the right to vote, Kaili Joy Gray will speculate as to what the next 90 years will bring in women's struggle for equality.
• DarkSyde will examine the historical precedent for one smart government partnership that happened to serendipitously save the world as we know it.
• Laurence Lewis will wonder what kind of people would build a political movement based on bigotry.
• The brouhaha over the Cordoba House is not a spat over facts and rights. It's a debate about values. Dante Atkins will explore the dangers and opportunities underlying the situation.

Via Greg Sargent, here's Charles Krauthammer on August 13, arguing that government has the right -- through zoning laws -- to block development of the Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero (my emphasis):

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The problem, of course, is that because there are already several churches within one block of Ground Zero, the only way to zone out the proposed community center and mosque would be to specifically target one religion. And here's Krauthammer on August 20, changing his tune (also via Sargent):

No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so.

It's a small measure of progress, but lest I give Krauthammer too much credit, he's still wading into very murky constitutional territory, arguing that President Obama should encourage the developers into "accepting the New York governor's offer to help find another site."

The problem with that is obvious: a state should never get in the business of finding land for a religious institution. The First Amendment doesn't just protect from religious discrimination, it also protects from religious favoritism.

The GOP messaging continues to mimic the Onion in new and disturbing ways:

Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they would work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in "personal hygiene."

Paladino, a wealthy Buffalo real estate developer popular with many tea party activists, is competing for the Republican nomination with former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio. The primary is Sept. 14.

Paladino does not see this as punitive, however. Heck, no. He sees this as a voluntary endeavor, not a mandatory one. And he thinks that welfare recipients will be just flying out of the cities and towns of New York to head behind bars to learn an exciting new way of life.

One which includes such incentives as military conscription...lessons in hygeine...

[In the prison "domitories"], they would do work for the state - "military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service," he said - while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.

"Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes," Paladino said.

I always figured it was just a matter of time before the GOP would put their formal imprimatur on the general concept of debtor's prisons.

Amazingly, one of them found an even more offensive way to couch it.

Unlike the hysteria of the conservative movement, this thread joins the United States Constitution in expressing its support for the free exercise of religion.

• Ron Johnson, the Tea Party Republican challenging Senator Feingold in Wisconsin, blames climate change on sunspots. Yep. Sunspots.
• Netroots Nation 2011 starts June 16, 2011 in Minneapolis--and registration is already open! You don't want to be that eager Kossack looking to sign up at the last minute wondering if anyone has a registration to sell.
• And speaking of Netroots Nation: if you're out west, save the date of November 6. Netroots California is coming to San Francisco!
• For all you video game players out there: The first two chapters in the legendary Bioshock shooter series were biting social commentaries on the philosophies of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx, respectively. The third will take on a different political philosophy: American exceptionalism. Can't wait.
• This was diaried recently by Zain, but it deserves more emphasis. As the manufactured controversy surrounding the Cordoba House continues to rage, special attention should be paid to the words spoken by Imam Rauf, the cleric leading the effort, at the memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist brutally murdered in Pakistan by terrorist Islamists:

  We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

  If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one Mr. Pearl.

  And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

  It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values.

  As Jeffrey Goldberg points out, these aren't just nice, appeasing words to say. They could carry some consequences:

  There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a potentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, "I am a Jew," is placing his life in danger. Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism.

  If this Imam shouldn't build a Muslim community center, then...who should? And yet: instead of eagerly promoting this cleric--and promoting our national security in the process--the right wing has chosen to attack him and cast aspersions on all Muslim Americans in the process--all in the hopes of short-term political gain. Hmmm...where have we seen this before?

• Republican Meg Whitman, the billionaire CEO who is attempting to buy the Governorship of California and has already spent at least $113 million of her own money just to be at a dead heat in the polls with Democrat Jerry Brown, says that her administration would defend Proposition 8 in the appeals and Supreme Court process. Just one more reason she should never see the inside of the Governor's mansion.

Below the fold!

Comedy from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):

Asked by Politics Daily about comments his close friend and colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made about his move away from edgy past positions because "John's got a primary. He's got to focus on getting reelected," McCain responded, "Lindsey knows that I don't change in my positions.

"I have not changed in my positions. I know how popular it is for the Eastern press to paint me as having changed positions," he said. "That's not true. I know they're going to continue to say it. It's fundamentally false. Not only am I sure that they'll say it, you'll say it. You'll write it. And I've just grown to accept that."

Leaving aside the "Eastern press" phrasing that sounds straight out of 1912, who is he trying to kid? Depending on the year and the constituency McCain is pandering to, he has flip-flopped on Social Security privatization, torture, immigration reform, repealing Roe v. Wade, climate change legislation, the Bush tax cuts, offshore drilling, the estate tax, nuclear waste storage ... cripes, this guy even flip-flopped on the Confederate flag.

You make the call. Is the "Eastern press" painting a fundamentally false picture of McCain's record? Or is John McCain, who earlier this year said:

I never considered myself a maverick.

... lying through his teeth?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting what we've all been expecting out of the Catfood Commission--they're looking to Social Security cuts.

The panel is looking for a mix of ideas that could win support from both parties, including concessions from liberals who traditionally oppose benefit cuts and from Republicans who generally oppose higher taxes, according to one member of the commission and several people familiar with its deliberations.

In addition to raising the retirement age, which is now set to reach age 67 in 2027, specific cuts under consideration include lowering benefits for wealthier retires and trimming annual cost-of-living increases, perhaps only for wealthier retirees, people familiar with the talks said.

On the tax side, the leading idea is to increase the share of earned income that is subject to Social Security taxes, officials said. Under current law, income beyond $106,000 is exempt. Another idea is to increase the tax rate itself, said a Democrat on the commission.

Republicans on the commission, of course, oppose tax increases, and Democrats opposed to any cut in benefits. Meanwhile, the WSJ says, "the White House and the powerful senior group AARP appear open to a deal," quoting an AARP official.

"We're prepared to be quite supportive of a real engagement on the issue," said John Rother, director of public policy for AARP. Acting sooner allows for changes to be made gradually, he said, and will reassure younger workers that the program will be there for them. He dismisses those who said they can never support benefit cuts. "I know all these people personally and they'll say we have to be hard line now to influence the debate...I kind of take it with a grain of salt, these emphatic statements."

Perhaps AARP experienced some pushback from their membership as a result of that statement, because they issued another, fuller statement from Rother in the wake of the article.

“AARP has long said that addressing Social Security's long-term financing is important, but it must be done with the goal of achieving retirement security, not deficit reduction. Social Security hasn’t contributed a single dime to the current deficit. It is financed separately from the rest of the federal budget with contributions Americans make over a lifetime of hard work. Any attempts to cut Social Security benefits to reduce a deficit it didn’t cause would undermine retirement security and place an unfair burden on future generations.

“AARP renews its call on both parties to act in the coming few years to shore up the system’s long term ability to pay promised benefits to retirees, survivors, and those with disabilities. We should not wait for a crisis to develop to act – Americans should be confident that their earned benefits will be there for them when they need them...."

So AARP remains committed to working with the Commission to stave off a crisis. One hopes that they are as committed to protecting future generations of AARP members. And that the White House isn't going to follow what would be hugely unpopular recommendations from the deficit commission for Social Security cuts in order to build some sort of "credibility" or political consensus with Republicans.

In an address that could have been entitled "Come out, come out, whoever you are," President Obama this morning blasted the Citizens United ruling, explained what it meant to the American political system and called on the American people to bring Congress to heel to pass legislation that would expose corporate dollars feeding into the electoral system.

First, he gave us the lay of the land:

As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them. 

Then he explained the cause:

The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Corporations for Weaker Oversight.” 

And then he explained efforts to find a solution:

We tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in the past. 

And then laid the blame:

But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote. 
 
This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.

President Obama recalled for listeners the history of Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican, mind you) and his fight to keep corporations from undermining democracy, and then closed his address with a challenge--and an echo of his "Yes, we can" slogan that worked so well on the campaign trail:

This shouldn’t be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a democracy that works for ordinary Americans – a government of, by, and for the people. Let’s show the cynics and the special interests that we still can. 

The full transcript can be found at the White House website and beneath the fold.