Another Strike Against Potential Filibusters.

One more battle in the Congressional War on Obstructionism has been concluded. Mark Begich has officially defeated Alaskan senator Ted Stevens. The count of absentee and early ballots gave the Mayor of Anchorage a 1.2% lead over the incumbent. Stevens was the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, but saw his reputation shattered after being convicted on seven counts of corruption charges. Apparently he accepted money ($250K) in the form of personal gifts from VECO, an oil-services company. Even had he won the election, it's doubtful that he would have been allowed to occupy his seat. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was planning to call upon Stevens to resign. The GOP mercifully postponed an expulsion vote until after the results of the count.

With Begich joining the majority, the Democrats now number 58 within their caucus. His victory makes him the first Alaskan Democratic Congressman since Mike Gravel left the Senate in 1981. Interestingly, the last member of the House of Representatives to represent the party was Nick Begich (Mark's father) , who disappeared in a flight over Alaska in 1972. Begich will be the only legislator in the Upper House who does not have a college degree. He's got a history of barely squeezing into his elected positions. After running unsuccessfully to be the Anchorage Mayor twice, he found his third try charmed when he won by just eleven votes. He also benefited from a law passed during that cycle that allowed a candidate to win the mayoralty without a majority of the vote.

In other recent news, "Independent" legislator Joe Lieberman will remain with his former party, as he is being allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. A secret vote on his future weighed heavily in his favor (42-12). He reportedly appreciates the gesture as one of "reconciliation" rather than "retribution". Closer to the truth is the longshot chance that the Democrats may attain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if everything falls their way. The two remaining contests involve a hand recount of 2.9 million votes in Minnesota, where Norm Coleman (R) leads Al Franken (D) by a mere 215 votes, and a runoff in Georgia pitting incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) against Jim Martin (D).

My prediction prior to the election was that the Dems would end up with 57-58 seats in the Senate, and they have now reached that mark. What's particularly amusing is that several "conservatives" on talk radio were crowing about the Democratic "failure" to gain their objectives in Congress, despite the fact that they expanded their numbers in both houses. Despite the difficult odds, they now have a slim possibility of being able to defeat any GOP filibusters. I know that scares the hell out of the Republicans, but it would certainly prime the pumps of the Obama administration. It would mean, that instead of merely focusing on undoing the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration, the Dems could actually pursue a progressive agenda.

In order to force cloture (end discussion on a proposed bill for a vote), there needs to be 60 senators who want to move legislation forward. Perhaps the Democrats will be able to isolate a few Republican dissidents, and make deals that defeat filibusters. That techique gets its title from the Spanish word for "pirate" or "freebooter". It involves participating in an endless stream of debate in order to stall action on a bill. The last session of Congress saw the GOP minority employ this tactic more than any group of senators in US history. There is no doubt that it will continue to do anything it can to thwart the Democratic agenda. Besides going "nuclear" (changing the rules on the Senate floor), there are not going to be a lot of options to curb procedurally-enforced inaction.

War with Iran? Coming soon.

Nowadays it's not at all difficult to find something in the news to scare you. Recently it's that ever-intensifying drumbeat prodding our troops toward Iran. A year ago it was virtually unthinkable (to me) that Bush could garner support for a pre-emptive invasion on yet antother country. But alas, certain media outlets are starting to sound out the possibility. One of the things that makes this oh-so-possible is the strength of pro-Israel lobby (led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Our main "ally" in the region is blatant in their desire to see us bomb the hell out of the next nation in the "Axis of Evil". Anything that destabilizes their biggest military threat is welcome, as far as they are concerned.

Perhaps the most disconcerting prospect for an executive branch push-to-war is the potential appointment of Joe Lieberman (Senator from Connecticut) to the Attorney General's office. If you've been following his political carreer since he was the running mate of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign, you might actually think that his loss would be a mixed blessing for the Democrats. It is true that Lieberman has largely fallen out-of-touch with his former party mates, and has assumed the role of flack for Bush and Co. Unfortunately, Ned Lamont was unable to beat out the incumbent in the midterm general elections- so for the meantime the Democrats have formed an uneasy truce with Lieberman. The Senator still throws in with the boys-in-blue. But that could soon change.

As you are no doubt aware, the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate by a tally of 51-49. That means that if Lieberman were to accept Dubya's offer to officially join the dark side, the Republicans would regain control. Why is that? Because the governor of Connecticut (a Republican) would appoint a successor. Representation in the Senate would then be technically tied, but Dick Cheney would tip the scale over to the GOP. Would Lieberman do it? It's difficult to say. He is vocal about his desire to expand the war in the Middle East. His complete submission to the aims of AIPAC provides an additional glimpse into his true allegiances. Will he be content to sit on the sidelines and add his voice from Congress in support of the President? Or will he be seduced into the Bush Cabinet? We'll likely find out soon.

In the meantime we are going to be forced to listen to claims of WMDs and support for terrorists. The rhetoric is going to sound awfully familiar to what we heard in 2002. Some are going to naturally wonder how we ended up in the exact same place after spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a misguided war in Iraq. But there will also be an accompanying spike in "patriotic" support for Bush. We will once again be informed that we can disagree with politics, but we have to "support the troops". What's so ironic is that this admonishment does exactly what Ann Coulter always accuses the Democrats of doing- it hides policy behind unassailable frontmen. If we have to "support the troops", then how can we possibly hold Bush and the GOP responsible for their arguably criminal foreign policy? They have made valid criticism of their actions seem disloyal, and insensitive to the dangers of good old American boys who are willing to make the "ultimate sacrifice". The only check the Congress has on our warmongering President is to eliminate funding for the war. So what are "our representatives" supposed to do?

Take a good look at any of these new adverts sponsored by "Freedom's Watch". They are literally rolling out mutilated vets of the Iraqi War in order to elicit your sympathy, and make you less critical of their message and aims. Who are these folks? They are the neo-cons and other rightwing nuts that brought us into the mess in Iraq. They are the spiritual brothers of FoxNews, the American Enterprise Institute, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, etc. Their methods involve invoking the age-old shadows of invisible enemies to inspire the type of fear that will allow them to advance their agenda without having to answer for their activities. They get their talking points straight from Dick Cheney, and they have indelible connections to the defense industry. Is it any wonder that they are working to foment World War III?