Progressive v. Progressive

believe it or not, there's a country song out there, called "Taking my country back"
Its worth listening to, even if you don't like country music. Especially if you don't like country music, but if you want red staters to wake up... Now this reframes the debate, set to a country music tune. We have to reach these voters and this is a good start:
http://www.1010kxxt.com/audio/takinmycountryback.mp3

Off topic, but on SS: a clip of a speech by Barak Obama in this week's Washington Spectator:

-clip-

"Taking responsibility for oneself and showing individual initiative are American values we all share. Frankly, they are values we could stand to see more of in a culture where the buck is too often passed to the next guy. They are values we could use more of here in Washington too.

"But the irony of this all-out assault against every existing form of social insurance is that these safety nets are exactly what encourage each of us to be risk-takers and entrepreneurs who are free to pursue our individual ambitions. We get into a car knowing that if someone rear-ends us, they will have insurance to pay for the repairs. We buy a house knowing that our investment is protected by homeowners' insurance. We take a chance on start-ups and small businesses because we know that if they fail, there are protections available to cushion our fall. Corporations across America have limited liability for this very reason. Families should too—and that's why we need social insurance.

"This is how the market works. This is how America works. And if we want it to keep working, we need to develop new ways for all of us to share the new risks of a 21st-century economy, not destroy what we already have.

"The genius of Roosevelt was putting into practice the idea that America doesn't have to be a place where our individual aspirations are at war with our common good; it's a place where one makes the other possible. "

It's a members only site, but worth a read if you feel like subscribing.

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/index.cfm

Start Making Sense: How To Talk To America

By Lakshmi Chaudhry and George Lakoff and Van Jones and Adam Werbach and Wes Boyd,
AlterNet. Posted June 7, 2005.

Those who dwell in the nation's progressive oases must learn to communicate and connect with a much broader swath of Americans. Our panel of progressive thinkers tackles the problem.

continue~
http://www.alternet.org/sms/22162/

Interesting take on the debate, Carol.

BTW, Josh Marshall alerts us to a new frontal smearing-type campaign over social security beginning.

You know how these folks work--first thy try "educating" read "programming". Then if that doesn't work, they just begin the bludgeoning.

Casey - any details on that new smear campaign?

Good thoughts, Victoria.

I think the word "winning" brings up similar issues as the word "mastery" does. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, PE classes often practiced soemthing called "New Games"--these were games in which there were no winners or losers.. Cooperation was the goal--working together.

Then the inevitable backlash occurred. We decided we wanted competitive athletes--to develop talent, and to push some to excel, often over others.

In my field, "mastery" brings up the same kind of competitive concerns--in order to be a "master" does someone have to lose out? Is it inevitable that stratification and hierarchies will develop? A "star" system?

When we speak of "winning" in Iraq--are we talking about domination? Eradication? Mastery? Or are we talking about a win/win--for all sides. And how will that miracle be wrought?

Both Vic and Carol remind us of inmportant considerations:

that means shifting our focus from "Here's why it's wrong" to "Here's how we intend to fix it." Posted by Victoria Ellen at June 7, 2005 03:36 PM

"The genius of Roosevelt was putting into practice the idea that America doesn't have to be a place where our individual aspirations are at war with our common good; it's a place where one makes the other possible. " Posted by: Carol at June 7, 2005 10:21 PM

We must find our way to the generative possibilities; the path with many trails, a way through dichotomies that lead to separations and misunderstandings and power struggles.

The bad news is the only way through, is THROUGH.

The good news is--we don't have to go alone.

"winning"

A careful read of both threads pertinent to "progressives" and the war leads me to believe that what is desired by most is the most efficient way out, with the least death and damage. No one seems to agree on what that might be and that's understandable, when military experts don't either.

"progressive"

That is a term that I have seen more and more since "liberal" was defamed during the Reagan era and it appears to be so umbrella-ish as to encompass liberal Democrats, Greens, some Libertarians, pacifists and more. In my city that is certainly the case and I have seen people come almost to blows. So there will be disagreement about Iraq foreign policy, both philosophically and pragmatically.

I enjoyed reading through the responses tonight, after being away from the blog for a while because of work. I think we're making some progress at being able to buttress our arguments with facts and logic and I don't think we should avoid controversy.

I was always an antiwar Kerry person in a time of arguments about the IWR. It was always a challenge to explain that I agreed more with Kennedy but supported Kerry and felt his overall judgment and perspective allowed me to be a strong supporter, without having to explain or justify his IWR vote.

I strongly opposed both Gulf wars and can explain why when I need to and in the discussion on this site, and I enjoyed reading what people had to say on this topic. I think we should try not to take it very personally when people disagree with our positions but just consider all the angles. We have a long way to go in Iraq.

on the progressive divide:

I live in a very liberal town in MA. I considered myself pretty liberal until I moved here. But the local "progressives" have cornered the market on all things "liberal" and make regular liberals feel like conservatives. If you're not one of them - you pretty much don't count in local politics. This local progressive party has co-opted to language, just as the republicans have - leaving the vast middle group with no where to hang their hat.

I'm always interested in how the far left and the far right are not always so very far apart.

This kind of infighting is divisive and non-productive, and it will lead to a contiuing republican run federal government.

Carol,

I wonder if they know that is the way they are making people feel?

They're on a bit of a power trip right now (they own the town board since Nov.), so I'm not sure they care. Sounds like another administration I know!

Carol
That can be true about the far left and far right! Look at what just happened in France and Holland with the EU referendum - they voted "no" for different reasons and with the result that the vote went in the opposite direction that the medias and politicians campaigned for!

Tutterfly
It was interesting to find a whole 'nother section of posts about the "quagmire" in Iraq and I particularly enjoyed reading through your ideas, which made as much sense as anything! There is a book by Tariq Ali, I think, which talks about how no one has ever been able to successfully occupy Iraq.

In Bagdad alone, there are now over 900 mobile and over 200 permanent checkpoints - I wonder what it would be like not to be able to come and go without being stopped and searched? Last week it was revealed that a top Sunni from the Iraqi Governing Council had been detained for several weeks and chained to a large container. It didn't sound as though anyone realized who he was, for the longest time!

One problem I can see is that sensible answers that "progressives" could propose probably wouldn't be implemented with Halliburton in power. Halliburton's profits went up how many percent this year? (I heard it on radio & didn't jot it down but it was .. impressive).

Cheney was just in my city, raising money already for the coffers for 2006. I came home from work and our British intern from last summer has returned and is doing more fundraising work. He and his friend from here had been pulled over and stopped, to let Cheney's motorcade through. They whipped out a piece of paper and quickly wrote out a protest sign to hold up as the limo went by.

Bush & Blair are meeting today and we were just talking about how they can't agree on global warming (Bush doesn't believe it's affected by man), poverty in Africa ($600 million we're giving - that is what percentage of $87 billion and more for Iraq?!), and how both lied.

Wow - I have opinions on Iraq and am glad to see so much discussion on it. We should be thinking about it all the time. As far as solutions? I feel like I've been obsessed with this since Bush was even campaigning for 2000. I KNEW he'd find a way to go in there. But as far as answers?! I wish I knew! We did not need to go in there, it is tragic and the only way out is through but what does that mean? The scenario changes every day. Just read a few days ago in TruthOut that "experts" did not realize there was potential for "guerilla war" - after Vietnam, yet. Go figure.

"It doesn't matter if you win or lose. it's how you play the game." Of course Iraq is not a game. And if we don't "win" do we actually "lose"? I don't think that is the case. I believe we should approach our problem in Iraq NOT as a win or lose dichotomy. I agree that we need to propose a solution that helps us to "fix" the mess we are in. Earlier today I posted my perceptions and recommendations. I believe that developing an international effort comprised of Western, Asian and Muslim nations will allow a smoother recovery for the Iraqi people. When they try one of those tricks we explain that the problems are of their making and we are

We can easily convince people that the George Bush "go it alone" strategy has been a failure. The claim that there is a "coalition of the willing" has to be exposed for the charade that it really is. We can point out that there are more countries willing to help, but they have been turned away by Bu$hco. One thing that we have to do is not get distracted from our message. We have to stay on message, and when the repugs scream one of their lies, we ignore it, and stay on point. When they try one of those tricks we explain that the problems are of their making and we are here to clean up their mess.

Good news from Florida. Hopefully other "blue counties" in the state will also join us.

Council kills ballot machines

By JAMES MILLER
Staff Writer

Last update: June 07, 2005

DELAND -- County Council members didn't need a recount Monday, but they figured one day voters might.

At a special meeting, the council narrowly killed a contract that would have brought touch-screen voting machines to Volusia.

Intended to meet a state deadline for disabled-accessible voting, the touch screens vexed voters who want something the machines don't produce -- a paper ballot. But in trying to keep a lock on the ballot box, the council may have opened itself to a conflict with the state and disabled advocacy groups.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/03NewsHEAD01POL060705.htm

correction from post above:

"It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game." Of course Iraq is not a game. And if we don't "win" do we actually "lose"? I don't think that is the case. I believe we should approach our problem in Iraq NOT as a win or lose dichotomy. I agree that we need to propose a solution that helps us to "fix" the mess we are in. Earlier today I posted my perceptions and recommendations. I believe that developing an international effort comprised of Western, Asian and Muslim nations will allow a smoother recovery for the Iraqi people.

We can easily convince people that the George Bush "go it alone" strategy has been a failure. The claim that there is a "coalition of the willing" has to be exposed for the charade that it really is. We can point out that there are more countries willing to help, but they have been turned away by Bu$hco. One thing that we have to do is not get distracted from our message. We have to stay on message, and when the repugs scream one of their lies, we ignore it, and stay on point. When they try one of those tricks we explain that the problems are of their making and we are here to clean up their mess.

More news from my neck of the woods:

Harris to challenge Nelson

The Associated Press
Posted June 7, 2005, 3:17 PM EDT

TALLAHASSEE -- Republican U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, who was praised and vilified for her role as Florida's secretary of state in the 2000 presidential recount, said today she will run for the U.S. Senate next year against Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-bk-harris060705,0,2552558.story?coll=orl-home-headlines
____
So this may mean Jeb really isn't running for prez after all. I honestly never got the impression he wanted to. He has too many family probs. If he does, I suspect it'll be 2012, if they can keep the daughter clean that long. And honestly the wife comes across as a little weird. I think 2008 would be too soon for another Bush. Would look too much like a monarchy. But then again I could be wrong. I'm sure if they think he's their only shot, they will find ways to keep him in the limelight, like sending him as an ambassador on disaster missions, etc. Who knows.

Victoria Ellen...good question.

Mr. Howard Dean rallied the Progressive masses and almost won the nomination when he raged against the War Machine, and exposed the Bush Administration for what it was.
There was Public Support to end the Iraqi Occupation then, there is much more today.

The occupation of Iraq has progressed as analysts predicted before we went in (little resistance, then building insurgency) They predicted the US would be forced to choose between leaving Iraq as we did in Vietnam, or commit to spending 60-80 Billion per year maintaining defense forces indefinately.
There is no other avenue. There is no way to win an occupation with building insurgency unless you kill every insurgent, which would turn the world against the United States, and turn Americans into murderers. Iraqi's are defending their Land now, against invaders.

The invasion and Occupation of Iraq was based in deceit and lies and therefore immoral. Immoral acts leave only Havoc in their wake, no matter the intention to fix them later.

There is leaving iraq to settle their own conflicts. Many iraqis will die, the country may fall into civil war.

There is staying in iraq and Losing more Americans, create unsustainable levels of debt, at least 60 Billion per year. The potential of increasing to 100 Billion per year if the bush white house continues to mismanage the situation, not counting the foriegn policy damage this administration has caused.

Staying in Iraq will cause more trouble that leaving. We are angering entire cultures and nations. We are creating a generation of people that hate America, because all they have seen are cluster bombs from the sky, and lies from the White House.
This Administration made a Huge error invading Iraq, staying there will create the very terrorists this Government uses to cry wolf just before elections.

We need to leave on an managed schedule. We need to have massed peacefull assemblies and take this government to task for the lies and fraud committed before the world. We need to force this White House to act, one avenue is massive pressure on our representatives, senatorial and congressional. This is why the Constitution Exists.

We must set aside our politics and reach out to like minded Conservatives. There are goals and causes that Trump Political beliefs and leave only the Patriot. This is one of those Causes.

Toolmaker

Kit the Brit & I were just discussing some of the points made about Iraq. He maintains that "insurgents" have never been defeated by an Empire except once in Malaysia, and he claims that his grandfather led that charge (he's 19).

I asked why he thought that is (if it's true) and he said people rally round their country and they're on their home turf, don't like being occupied or "liberated." I love these kids! To think that Kit, Marc & my son Gabe could die for something like this - as I said before, "over my dead body."

On Call
I agree about a multinational coalition - a real one - not "coalition of the bribed" (which has been beset by constant "bailing" anyway). Take away the profit motive for Halliburton and their ilk and we would not be there. What they do has increased the potential for terrorism as much or more than any armies. W has never stopped linking the occupation of Iraq to the "war on terror" and you really cannot make a "war on terror" - it is a trick with words. Terrorists can be anywhere and do not have countries. The bit about nations that "sponsor terrorism" is not convincing.

The administration continually tries to revise history and the public has a short memory and attention span, but it's all on record. We need to go back and read what Clarke and Suskind and O'Neill said - how this was all plotted before hand, or read the 1997 Mission statement at http://www.newamericancentury.org. 9/11 was convenient as far as timing. When it happened my first thought was "oh no, who are we going to bomb now?" - knowing well that terrorism doesn't have a location & as many have pointed out, most of the attackers were Saudi.

Some say we shouldn't review whether we should have gone in or how it came to be because now that we're there, we're there. That's true, but the root causes continue to determine why it's difficult to get out.

We have to remember that after "shock and awe" (a name for bombing the Cradle of Civilization) we were told there were a few "remnants of the Taleban." Then Bush used the term "evildoers" for awhile and "haters" (these have Biblical nuances and maybe for a reason). Then we began to hear "insurgents" - foreign infiltrators? Sunni rebels? Ordinary Iraqis seeking vengeance after relatives were held, perhaps abused, in prisons without charges? Originally, it was not possible to demonstrate strong links between Saddamists and international terrorist groups. Now the waters have been muddied.

That's one reason we shouldn't have gone in and it's a reason it's almost impossible to give a good scenario for mostly pulling out or mostly staying. We are building 4 big bases there - they look to be permanent. Some say they're for occupying for a long time, others say they're to help the Iraqis maintain control and we start to pull out. Who really knows?!

One thing I remember - the first thing to be defended were the oil fields.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8123391/
Officials envision 21st century elections

Below is off of www.bradblog.com

New Report on Election Reform Dead on Arrival
'Election Center' Becomes Latest Election Reform Group to Have Sold Their Souls to Diebold
Credibility Matters

Something stinks to high heaven about these people and their new report. And not simply because they're based in Houston, TX, (though it certainly doesn't help their case) but the fact that they are directly funded by Voting Machine companies such as Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia immediately destroys any credibility they might have otherwise had when it comes to making decisions about our Electoral System in desperate need of reform.

ElectionCenter.org claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan, professional organization of Elections Workers. Today, they have released a new report [large PDF] with recommendations on how to improve America's Electoral System.

The AP covered the new report in a story yesterday which shines a fairly positive light on it yet manages to include a couple of paragraphs which jump out as huge red flags. Here's a couple of them from the AP story [emphasis added]...

In a new, sweeping report, state and local officials focus much of their attention on voters and poll workers rather than voting machines — the subject of so much debate ever since the 2000 presidential stalemate in Florida.
...
The report also urges state legislators to consider an “independently verifiable” record of each voter’s ballot from ATM-style touchscreen voting machines that could be electronic, video or some other form — pointedly downplaying a widespread push for paper receipts from touchscreens.
...
The Election Center has come in for criticism after reports that the nonprofit, nonpartisan group accepts contributions from voting machine manufacturers. Two members of the task force are former local election administrators who’ve formed their own election-related businesses.

So here we have yet another "nonprofit, nonpartisan" organization dedicated to Election issues, who have a clear conflict of interest due to their financial alliance with the Voting Machine Companies instead of the American Citizens whose interests they claim to represent.

Unlike the now-discredited "American Center for Voting Rights" , a phony front group founded by GOP operatives as a smokescreen for real Election Reform issues, Election Center has been around for a number of years. But their claims that their mission is to "improve service to voters, the public, the taxpayers and to government" is completely belied by the companies they keep...or that keep them...

A few Googles of the various election officials associated with this organization and their new report should answer any other questions you may have. These people (folks like Palm Beach's Theresa LePore and Los Angeles' Conny McCormack to name just a few) are certainly not in the business of fighting for the voters' best interests.

Suffice to say, if Election Center expects any recognition for their recommendations for Electoral Reform from the Election Reform community, perhaps they should have thought of that before selling that option off to Diebold and friends.

Read also at http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/ - a joint project out of Seattle & Mpls.

We need to leave on an managed schedule. We need to have massed peacefull assemblies and take this government to task for the lies and fraud committed before the world. We need to force this White House to act, one avenue is massive pressure on our representatives, senatorial and congressional. This is why the Constitution Exists.

We must set aside our politics and reach out to like minded Conservatives. There are goals and causes that Trump Political beliefs and leave only the Patriot. This is one of those Causes.

Posted by: Toolmaker at June 7, 2005 11:33 PM

I agree, Toolmaker. In thinking about what you said, this may well be the very thing that can bridge the gap between the polarized, and cause people to reach down deep for the Patriot. I think your observations are very astute, and very wise. We the people have things we can do now that could make a difference.

Carol:

Here's the story on Josh's site about the new astroturfing site getting ready to slime the social security issue.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

WHO IS PAYING FOR THE $150,000,000?

George Bush and Republican leaders have made phasing out Social Security through privatization and massive benefit cuts their top priority for 2005. Members of Congress are choosing sides over the next couple of weeks.

We need to make sure they choose correctly now--before a massive election-style campaign by George Bush and the Wall Street interests gets to them including what might be a $100 million TV ad campaign.

MoveOn PAC is collecting signatures to present to lawmakers. You can sign the petition now at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/socialsecurity/
___________
By the way, a Swedish peace Institute revealed today that this year's world military budget was
$1,000,000,000,000. That's over $250 for every person on the planet.

It's not at all surprising that discussion of the war brings out such strong emotions. People are dying, and everyone wants to stop it. We disagree on how best to do that.

I also don't like the word "winning" for the simple reason that this term suggests that there is an opponent that must be the loser. But who is the opponent that we wish to beat? The Iraqi insurgents? Will we only leave when we win, when we have beaten down every Iraqi who objects to the US occupation of their country and is willing to fight for that?

We are an astonishingly militaristic country. We see almost everything in terms of us vs them - from our aggressive foreign policy to our reality TV shows. There is us, and those like us, those on our team, and then there is the enemy. This whole war mindset has gripped the American consciousness at the expense of our domestic harmony and our international friendships. It's time for a different paradigm.

I would prefer to replace the word "win" with "resolve." We went into a country against international law and made a huge mess. We need to offer resources and assistance to resolve this mess.

The question should be "What is the best way to live up to our responsibilities and help the Iraqi people rebuild their country?"

I am enjoying reading all this, even on such a sombre topic, & off to bed. Voices of reason and Amy, an amazingly objective perspective considering that we live in the midst of this!
My son learned in a recent political science class of the strong resemblances between the US of A and Sparta! We do need a paradigm shift, and you know, a new paradigm usually comes from those not within the power centers (Thomas Kuhn).

Revealed: How Exxon Influenced Bush Re Kyoto Treaty Nonparticipation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1501644,00.html

As to how we help people better understand how progressive/liberals would rememdy the disaster in Iraq, I suggest that we be MORE POSITIVE in our predictions and plans than Bu$hco when assessing and predicting the outcome of the Iraqi situation. We have every reason to be more positive. 1. We would tell the truth. 2. It is absolutely impossible to do worse than Bu$hco 3. The world needs to believe that our solutions will be successful. 4. We are not asking Americans to sacrifice more than necessary to remedy the situation. Unlike Bu$hco, we will not allow war profiteers to pick the pockets of the American people and we will let the Iraqis decide for themselves what is best for Iraq. 5. Projecting hopefulness with truthfulness and realism will be a refreshing change for the American and world community. The whole world knows that Bush lied. If we tell people that progressives/liberals have no reason to lie (as our interests aren't driven by the Texas oil cartels) then a reassesment of leadership will inevitably follow. 6. We know that our approach will lower the terror risk to America. In the meanwhile the current policies increase our risks.

For these and other reasons, I believe that we can fix the problems and at the same time truthfully present a case for a safer America and a more stable Iraq. And isn't that what everybody wants? That is why I think we should present our plans with a more positive approach while warning people that our country's current approach is an umnitigated disaster.

We will help the Iraqi people best by leaving, and helping them rebuild their country from afar with humane aid, not weapons. They do not want western Democracy, any more than America wants a Constitution based on Religion. Foreign Policy must be based on respect of a Nation and people on their terms, not ours.

We need to realize, as a Nation, religious societies like those in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the middle east love their children no less than anyone else. They want the same any other human being wants; education, health care, and the freedom to live and worship as they see fit.
From this starting point, all things are possible.

Iraq has spent 5000 years building their society, and can be considered the cradle of civilization, eastern and western. Do we really understand what we are doing there to begin with?
Countless Americans died to build this country, the same may happen in Iraq. But it will be their choice, not ours.

Thanks, Victoria!

I really liked your points about the need to realize that we will not always be the underdog and that we will have to lead, and the need to get our message together.

Interesting story about the word "win" in regard to Iraq...

Back during the election here in Texas I was asked to give a speech to a group of 18 year olds undecided about their votes, but wanting to learn and participate in a discussion. Obviously, I was the pro-Kerry speaker. Knowing my audience, (Texans, most of whose parents were Republicans) I chose my words carefully. I never changed my values, or what John Kerry stood for, but I framed what I said specifically for a group of "red" students. A cousin from San Francisco wasn't thrilled with my speech. Specifically, I remember she had a problem with my saying it was "vital that we win in Iraq." Of course I didn't mean it in the same way necons say it– I basically meant “undo the damage that we ourselves have done.” But I hadn't even thought about it before then. I think the fact that my cousin and I (two strong liberals) were living in different areas of the country, and constantly with very different people, caused the sudden division over this word.

We will probably run into divisions like this as we try to unify our message, but I truly believe that if we start communicating now, we can overcome anything.

Posted by: oncall at June 8, 2005 01:26 AM

Exactly. I couldn’t agree more.

Another reason that we can best spread the truth with an optimistic message is that it seems no matter what, many people simply won’t believe something that they don’t want to believe. And people do not want to believe that they have elected a completely incompetent liar as their leader. Some people will just never accept that the US has done anything wrong, or that our government isn’t keeping our best interests in mind. .....UNLESS, we offer them a POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE.

That is, at the same time we present people with a case that breaks their faith in bush, we give them something new to believe in. We say:

The bad news is, our leaders are liars. BUT, the good news is... you CAN hold them accountable.

The bad news is, the US has abused it’s power. BUT, the good news is... if we decide to, we CAN change and use our power for GOOD.

Or during the election: The bad news is, bush is an incompetent bully. BUT, the good news is... there is a man who loves his country and is ready to lead it with integrity.

Things are bad, but we have the incredible power to fix them, and there are many good people ready to work for that!

....It’s the REALISTIC and OPTIMISTIC message of, “The glass is half empty, but we can fill it.” I think that should be the way in which we spread the message.

June 8, 2005
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

"They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science," said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 "Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program," a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

Posted by: Carol at June 7, 2005 10:50 PM

Interesting comment. I know what you mean.

I describe myself as a spiritual progressive - which in my case is meant to describe an adherence to a mature, transpersonal perspective on life, and an evolutionary approach to societal change. My highest priorities are that of always having one's feet on the ground, of incorporating the change first in myself that I'd like to see in the larger world, and being solution oriented.

But many progessives that I've encountered instead are more focused on pushing (in my view) an unrealistic, rigid, and frankly unpalatable, ideological agenda - much like the neocons. The conclusion that I've drawn from this last decade is that ideology, be it religious or political, is the root of most of the world's problems. If we're going to build winning coalitions going forward, in my view, it's going to come from embracing what I describe as the "human center" - those core values and experiences that good people instinctively grasp regardless of race, color, religion or economic status.

Poll finds dimmer view of Iraq war
52 percent say United States is no safer than before conflict

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
The Washington Post

Updated: 7:29 a.m. ET June 8, 2005

WASHINGTON - For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

Read more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8135134/

Report: Bush aide edited warming, emission link
White House official once worked for American Petroleum Institute

WASHINGTON - A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents.

The White House declined comment on the report.

Read more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646/

RNC'S FAMILY VALUES:

Porn star candidate to attend GOP dinner
Thursday, June 9, 2005 Posted: 7:26 AM EDT (1126 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The annual President's Dinner, a Republican Party fundraising event featuring President Bush, could get an extra dash of spice this year with porn actress and former California gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey planning to attend.

The porn industry and Republicans may seem like strange bedfellows, but Carey said she sees Tuesday night's dinner as a good opportunity to learn more about their policies and do some networking. She plans to run for lieutenant governor of California as an independent next year.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is co-hosting the dinner, had no qualms about Carey and her boss, adult film executive Mark Kulkis, attending.

"Their money was donated to the NRCC. The NRCC's job is to elect Republicans. We'll take that money and use it to elect more Republicans," Forti said.

And yet the RNC whines about Whoopie Goldberg and Hollywood's fundraising for Dems. Dean should be all over this story of hypocrisy especially the way Mehlman savaged JFK over Whoopie Goldberg' fundraising. The question should be framed whether porn stars represent James Dobson's Family Values.

Would like to see protestors outside this fundraiser with signs saying:
HEY DOBSON/DELAY DO PORN STARS REPRESENT YOUR VALUES?
Part of our taking politics to the street that oncall and I encouraged yesterday.

Frankly, I see little value in having Iraq remain a single country, nor do I see such sentiments in its citizenry. The only way for us to leave without precipitating a disastrous civil war, would be to allow a referendum vote on partitioning the country into three smaller countries...had we acted sooner, we could have enabled a constitution creating a federal state with limited powers over its three constituencies - that is no longer an option if we want to leave during the average septagenarian's life span.