John McCain and a host of other Republicans have refused to support the Jim Webb G.I. bill (s.22) that would grant members of the military, once they left the armed forces, the same benefits that were received by those who served during and after World War II. While Webb will try to add the bill to the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill, the Republicans tried a sneak attack by trying to get a weak version of the bill added to an unrelated bill about collective bargaining. The differences between Webb's bill and the weaker GOP bill as introduced by McCain's Senate lapdog, Lindsey Graham? Webb's bill allows full educational benefits after 36 months of service, while in the watered-down Graham bill it takes 12 years of service to get them. Webb's bill ties the value of the benefit to actual public institution tuition, while the Graham bill's benefit is maxed at $2000 and then indexed to inflation rather than actual educational costs. So the Democrats got 6 Republicans to join them to defeat the "save political face while pretending to offer a real alternative" amendment.

So what do veterans think? Well the Air Force Times has two veterans' groups supporting the Webb bill.

The GI Bill is a cost of war as much as any other expenditure,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans, founded in 2004. “Any member of Congress who votes for a $170 billion war bill and then votes against the GI Bill is nickel-and-diming our troops. Veterans of all generations will be outraged by that decision.”

Marty Conatser, national commander of the American Legion, said that when the Legion fought in 1944 for the original World War II GI Bill, “even some veterans’ groups complained that it would break the treasury.”

“Instead, the GI Bill transformed the economy and has been widely hailed as the greatest domestic legislation Congress has ever passed,” said Conatser, whose organization has 2.7 million members.

Stars and Stripes points out just how much "heftier" the Webb bill is for veterans:

Retired Army Col. Bob Norton, an education benefits expert with the Military Officers Association of America, said Graham’s bill does have some terrific features. But Norton said only the Webb bill delivers on both goals set for GI Bill reform by The Military Coalition, a consortium of service associations and veterans groups. First, it would raise benefits enough to cover at least the average cost of a public college education and has an effective mechanism to keep them there.

Second, it would allow Reserve and Guard members to earn the same GI Bill entitlement as active duty troops, depending on length of active duty service. The Graham/Burr/McCain bill has no such provision, Norton said.

So the military press tells us that the veterans need the benefits and see that the Webb bill is much preferable to the Republican alternative, yet McCain, Ted Stevens and most other Republicans are worried that the Webb bill is so generous that it will hurt "troop retention" and encourage them to leave.

Funny, but I thought the tragedy that is known as the War in Iraq was doing a fine job of that all by itself.

If you want to understand why Democrats often pursue a timid, fear-based strategy in their attempts to get elected, Glenn Hurowitz' Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party is an excellent starting point. From the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council to the early months of the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary season, Hurowitz gives a detailed look at the shortcomings of the typical Democratic strategy of playing a game stacked against them, the politics of fear.

In the preface, Hurowitz explains the frustrations he encountered while working for various state and national environmental organizations. It soon became clear that the main obstacle preventing Democrats from voting their conscience was fear.

When Democrats voted against us, it was rare to hear them say they disagreed with us on the merits. Instead, they’d tell us they were afraid: afraid that their constituents wouldn’t support a pro-environment position; afraid of defying President Bush and the Republican noise machine; or they’d even admit they were afraid of angering this or that corporate lobby and losing campaign contributions to the Republicans.

Hurowitz goes on to explain nearly all electoral problems faced by Democrats as symptoms of a deeper problem: a severe lack of courage.

The Washington Post-ABC news poll that was released this evening shows a post-North Carolina/Indiana bounce for Barack Obama, with him starting to solidify support now that he is the presumptive nominee. In the head-to-head match-up between him and John McCain, Obama leads 51-44. The poll also shows that Obama's support is more committed with 32 percent of McCain's support suggesting some possibility of changing their minds, while 26% say the same about their support for Obama.

There is also evidence in the poll that age is going to be a much bigger hindrance to McCain than being African-American is to Obama. When asked if they were "entirely or somewhat" comfortable with having an African-American as President, 88% were comfortable with the possibility, with 12% suggesting some discomfort. On the other side of the coin, when asked whether they were "entirely or somewhat" comfortable with a President who entered office at age 72, only 60% expressed comfort, and 24% had discomfort, with 15% of those having "extreme" discomfort. In terms of which candidate would you trust more to handle a series of issues, Obama beats McCain on every topic, except for the "campaign against terrorism." Otherwise Obama is more trusted to handle the economy, gas prices, immigration, health care and ethics. They are basically tied when it comes to handling the war in Iraq.

The other news that will help Obama in November is the entry into the Presidential race of former Republican Representative Bob Barr of Georgia. While Barr was considered extremely right-wing when he was in Congress, he has been outspoken against the Patriot Act, the FISA expansions and most of the invasions of privacy, even doing some work with the ACLU. He left the GOP for the Libertarian Party about 2 years ago, and while he will have to beat a half-hearted attempt at the nomination by Mike Gravel, he should be the party's nominee. And if Ron Paul's showing in recent Republican primaries is an indication, Bob Barr could tip the balance to the Democrats in certain swing states. In Pennsylvania Paul got 16% of the Republican primary tally — over 128,000 votes. Not only does that show disillusionment with McCain in that crucial state, but there is enough to drain actual votes from him via a Libertarian ticket headed by Barr. Paul has gotten between 4 and 6 percent in most other states, but even if that translates to 1 or 2 percent in a general election, it could be enough to tip a state like Virginia. In Nevada the GOP state convention was actually closed down when it became apparent that the majority of delegates would have gone to Paul, leading to incredible anger among many delegates and activists. Having Bob Barr on the ballot there could really tip the scales to Obama.

Despite this good news, this presidential campaign will still be very difficult for Obama. McCain is still the strongest candidate that the Republicans could have nominated. When asked which party is best equipped to handle the country's problems, the Democrats have a 21 point lead — but Obama's lead over McCain in the same poll is just seven points. Just making sure that most of the country understands that McCain means the same Republican policies that over 80% believe have us on the "wrong track," will be the central element of the Fall campaign.

When thinking about building public support for withdrawal from Iraq, voters fall into three groups: 1) people who favor withdrawal, 2) people who oppose or are ambivalent about withdrawal, but have negative feelings about the war, and 3) people who oppose withdrawal, and have positive feelings about the war. Many voters think the war is going poorly or dislike the war, but aren't convinced that withdrawal is the right solution. Consequently, we've seen many Democratic leaders equivocate on their opposition to the war.

Using the Pew July 2007 Political Survey data, we can view the proportion of the public that falls into each group:

One way to intensify pressure on elected officials to push for a speedy withdrawal is by increasing public support for withdrawal. We have the 54% who support withdrawal on our side, and will have the most difficult time convincing the 27% who both oppose withdrawal and believe that the war is going well (this group is mostly self-identified Republicans). So, in order to build public support for withdrawal, we need to persuade the 19% who currently oppose withdrawal but think the war is going poorly.

This approach raises a couple questions. If these 19% think the war is going poorly, which should imply that the United States isn't currently achieving its political objectives, why don't they want to withdraw? How can we convince this group to support withdrawal? Although we can't use this data to determine what causes people to "move" in favor of withdrawal, here's what I think is going on:

This group's reluctance to support withdrawal may be because their dislike for the war is complicated by Bush's rationales for staying in Iraq: that withdrawal would cause a civil war that would draw the entire region into conflict, and that withdrawal would make Iraq an Al Qaeda stronghold. These assumptions are often repeated uncritically in the media and are probably salient considerations for many people when they form their position on withdrawal.

It appears increasingly likely that the primary season will go all the way to the convention in late August (which, if history is any guide, will be really bad), leaving the Democratic party a scant two and a half months to go full-out hammering away at John McCain and the Republican party. Perhaps it's time to start redirecting our attention.

While the outcome of the primary is important, and there are real differences between Obama and Clinton, I'd like to see Democrats coming out hard against McCain. We've got money, media, and the Internet on our side (sometimes), so let's not use all of our firepower shooting at each other.

With that in mind, what kinds of attacks might work against John McCain? With only a short period of time between the end of the convention and Election Day, Democrats won't have the luxury of trying out many lines of attack and seeing what sticks - as they have been able to do during the primary. It is important that we are ready to go after McCain full-tilt on August 29th, and that we're going to battle with the right ammunition.

A few various lines of attack have been floating around the media and blogosphere lately. As a quick sample, here are a few:

• John McCain as old and unstable
• John McCain as angry, with a temper, a hothead
• John McCain as a war hawk who'll keep us in Iraq forever
• John McCain as confused and unprepared (can't tell the difference between Iran and Al-Qaeda for instance)
• John McCain as weak and unprepared on economic issues
• John McCain and his association with radical fundamentalist pastors like John Hagee
• John McCain as a flip-flopper or sellout

My personal favorites are McCain as old and unstable, a war hawk, and weak on the economy. But will these attacks stick?

Today at Take Back America a panel titled Immigrants and the Soul of America focused on the issue of illegal immigration. In the final analysis, the panel was a disappointment, and offered very little substantive information. Talk centered around ideals, morality, and self-improvement, preaching to the choir at the expense of conducting a more productive discussion.

Very quickly it became apparent that panel members unanimously agreed that the issue of immigration reform is best framed as a fight for the soul of America. Speakers related stories of unfair treatment of illegal immigrants, painting the issue as "the new civil rights frontier," a matter of "good people and bad laws, not bad people and good laws," and "a seige on the Latino Community." It was all lofty, and justified, but wholly inappropriate given the context.

Take Back America is a progressive event, which means it is not only acceptable, it is necessary, that speakers assume their audience stands on the same progressive platform. So why waste your hour and a half preaching to the choir? Yes, we all agree that there is need for humane reform of immigration laws. Yes, we recognize that civil rights are being violated in our current approach. But we didn't come here to have views reinforced. We came to seek out solutions.

We want tools to organize, we want refined arguments, we want information on initiatives, programs, coordinators. We want effective refutations of the arguments that opponents of humane immigration reform rely on. Instead, we got idealism, and the frame of "morality." It should be obvious to anyone who is paid to work on this issue, as all the panel members are, that progressives already have their fair share of idealism. It should be equally obvious that most, if not all, individuals who are willing to see immigration as an issue of human rights are already on our side.

In my view, there are two general categories of "anti-immigrant" voters; racists, and those who are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. Progressive activists citing verses from Leviticus will not change racist attitudes, and it will certainly not alleviate economic concerns. A focus on the "morality" of a humane stance is important, but, when we've gathered together folks who have demonstrated their willingness to volunteer time, sweat and intellect to help the cause, we shouldn't dwell on common ground. We should develop the tools we need to push ahead.

These professionals need to come packing precise knowledge on the obstacles; data, numbers, facts and effective talking points that can appeal to an opponent's self-interest. Economics is a perfect means of doing that. But during the entire hour and a half there was no mention of illegal immigration's effect on the economy, no mention of its perceived benefits or disadvantages. There was no mention of the possibility that the economic frame is the most compelling rebuttal to the racism-infused "rule of law" frame that anti-immigrant groups push.

When the people who are supposedly in the vanguard of a movement use their 1 and 1/2 hours in vain, it's no wonder more advances on this issue aren't being made. The real progress we seek on this particular issue won't come until we're organizing more intelligently, and, in addition to debating from the pulpit, we're debating from the pocketbook.

I could deal with ignoring campaign finance. I could somewhat deal with the turn around on immigration. But this time, Senator McCain has just ran his little train off the tracks.

McCain, the veteran POW who endured extreme torture during Vietnam, a staunch critic of utilizing torture — outspoken during his appearances with Mr. 30%, the debate on the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act, and even on the campaign trail — has unequivocally very equivocally stood his ground.

Two editors of The Seminal, Jason Rosenbaum and Alex Thurston, attended the National Park Service's hearing on plans for the National Mall Saturday morning. But first, a little background.

From the Issues and Objectives of Planning (pdf) document.

The purpose of the proposed plan for the National Mall is to prepare a 50-year comprehensive planning vision statement and environmental compliance document that can be supplemented by related technical manuals detailing how to achieve the vision goals. This will be a specialized multiyear and multidisciplinary planning effort.

Moving forward, they have released three draft plans for how to proceed. The three plans, aptly named Alternatives A, B and C, are available here, on pages 8, 10 and 12 respectively. Under events, Plan B specifically mentions the use of the mall as civic space:

The National Mall would continue to be the nation’s primary civic space. Multiple, desirable, hard-surfaced venues, staging areas, and related utilities would be provided to disperse use. An on-line permit application and scheduling system would be developed. Event regulations would seek to protect natural resources and views. Mandatory rest periods between events would help improve resource conditions.

I just received an email from the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition:

The Partnership for Civil Justice urges activists and organizations to attend the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) public hearing on demonstrations this Saturday, January 12 at 10 am.

The NPS has launched an initiative, much like that launched to exclude protests from New York City's Great Lawn, that will be used to further restrict or ban protest on the Mall from current levels. This is a component of a nationwide campaign of corporate-sponsored organizations working in partnership with government entities that claim that protests, rallies and demonstrations harm grass or "green space" or "natural resources" and must therefore be restricted or banned or shunted off to designated protest pits.

The National Mall has been associated for decades as the site for mass assembly protest and gatherings. On January 18, 2003, the ANSWER Coalition organized a demonstration of 500,000 prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Nation of Islam led the Million Man March in 1995 on the Mall. The National Organization for Women sponsored the March for Women's Lives bringing more than a million people to the Mall in 2004. A huge gathering for immigrant rights took place on the Mall in 2006 as part of a nation-wide outpouring. From the Bonus Marchers of the early 1930s, to Dr. King's Poor People's March of 1968, and the anti-war Moratorium of 1969, the Mall is the historic anchor for the exercise of free speech rights in the United States.

A few of us from The Seminal will be attending to express our opposition to the initiative. Mass protests and gatherings are one of the last tools left for a citizenry largely left out of the political process due to the inadequacies of the media and electoral process. We firmly believe that further limiting protests on the National Mall is a direct affront to our first amendment rights to peacefully gather and speak our minds. For the National Park Service to support such an initiative, under the guise of environmentalism, is a sham worthy of our collective disdain. If you are in the Washington, DC area and would like to attend, please join us Saturday morning at the public hearing.

For all you peace-lovers out there, I propose a simple act of love and charity during this Holiday season: tell your loved ones that you want nothing material for your given winter Holiday and ask them to make the same pledge. If you absolutely must buy presents, give them to our soldiers, the unfortunate victims in our current policy of violence. Further explication follows after the link below.

It began with the mailing list newsletter I received from the Olympia, Washington label Kill Rock Stars. In the midst of November, the normal list of new releases and tour dates started with this plea:

This holiday season do something to end the war in Iraq. I don't know what. I don't know how to end the war, but in my view we need to do something. This includes all of us. The we is key.

They pointed to inspiration from John Lennon's song "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" as well as recent protests in the Port of Olympia, Washington, where members of the Port Militarization Resistance were arrested for attempting to stop war ships from leaving the port.