I met Dave at Netroots Nation last July in Austin, Texas. Here is the first I saw of him:

Immediately after this episode, I ran outside to try to follow up on Mr. Ford’s absurd remarks. Dave Weintraub aka Dave From Queens beat me there. He was already peppering Mr. Ford with questions, and clearly making him uncomfortable. He even challenged Mr. Ford to debate him — an offer that was quickly refused. With camera in hand, Dave and I chased Harold Ford to the side of the convention center outside, where he waved and ducked into an SUV. Dave and I chatted for a bit, and exchanged contact information, promising to stay in touch.

About three months later I heard from Dave again. He had tickets to a Sarah Palin speech in Virginia Beach. He wanted me to go with him to record Palin supporters saying outrageous and offensive things. The plan was to pretend we were from a bible college and ask people provocative questions, catching everything with my flip cam. We would then distribute the video footage online, in an effort to discredit Palin supporters and convince moderates that they didn’t fit into the modern GOP mold. Since it was a last minute trip Dave was planning, I decided not to go. I wish I had. I didn’t end up having the chance to speak or work with Dave again.

Dave from Queens unexpectedly passed away on Saturday. The cause of death is still unclear. His funeral was yesterday, and information is available on this Daily Kos diary. I couldn’t attend, but my thoughts were there.

We need more people with the kind of raw unadulterated courage Dave displayed. In my minimal interactions with the man it was obvious to me that he possessed a special energy - some sort of laser-like determination to get to the bottom of things. His persistence was uncanny, and inspirational. In a world far too often characterized by apathy, timidity and inaction, Dave’s courage will be sorely missed.

Hey DC readers, looking for something to do this week?

Come check out Chris Hayes of The Nation speaking at DC Drinking Liberally, this Thursday, February 19.

The event begins at 6:30pm at Timberlake’s near the Dupont Circle Metro. Hope to see you there.

• Haim Watzman posted, The Election Results–First Thoughts (South Jerus):

“Whether Livni or Netanyahu forms a government, it will be a weak and divided one. New elections, within a year or two, seem a likely bet.

• Writing for LA Times, M.J. Rosenberg unravels the Israeli right. Yesterday at Talking Points Memo, M.J. imagined Livni Beating Netanyahu.

• Rosner was live-blogging on Jerus Post – nothing remarkable.

• In The Nation, Neve Gordan points to the dearth of peacemakers in Israel: it’s all up to Washington now.

• Emile Hokayem sees more of the same in the upcoming regime change: “Regardless of who heads it, the new Israeli government will invest much time and energy in countering the inflated Iranian threat.”

• Jeffrey Goldberg was reporting the latest exit polls and not saying much else exciting.

• Daled Amos writes about Avigdor Lieberman’s influence, mostly quoting Marc Lynch (like most bloggers out there pretending to have a grasp of Arab public opinion).

• Joe Klein blogs at TIME:

“I would say that this is an exciting election because of its closeness and uncertainty, but no one in Israel seems very excited. They are faced with familiar choices who have failed in the past–Netanyahu, Bara[ooops-c]k–or uncertain ones (Livni) or populist resentment (Lieberman).”

• Real Clear World live blog offers hour by hour analysis of yesterday’s competition. The latest interesting comment:

“One other factor in play: Apparently ballots from Israel’s frontline soldiers have not been part of the exit-poll data. How they voted may at the end tip the final count somewhat.”

With 99% of the vote in, maybe that’s irrelevant at this point.

• Steve Clemons’ article on HuffPo (”Give us Netanyahu. Please) is still getting a lot of play. Listen to Steve on Neil Conan’s Talk of the Nation (NPR).

• Stephen Walt (Foriegn Policy) asks,

“What do we do if the “two-state” solution collapses?”: “Lots of smart people have been focusing on the Israeli elections and trying to make sense of their immediate implications for the peace process…. I want to focus on a different issue, which is likely to be more important in the long run.

It’s this: what do we do if a “two-state solution” becomes impossible?

• Gideon Rahman at Financial Times writes,

The likeliest scenarios in descending order seem to be: 1) A Likud-led government led by Netanyahu and dependent on votes from Lieberman and the religious parties. The snag is that the religious parties loath the pork-eating Liebermanites - and may call down a thuderstorm on them. 2) A Livni-Lieberman-Labour coalition - but this is an uneasy ideological coalition. 3) A grand coalition bringing together Kadima, Likud and Labour. All of these options seem pretty unstable, so Israel may well have elections again quite soon. This, after all, is their fifth election inside ten years.

• Glenn Greenwald at Salon writes about his interview with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti.

I’m predicting another long day at the think tank - will keep you posted.

For the lead contenders in tomorrow’s Israeli elections, Barack Obama is on everybody’s minds. Who can work best with BHO? Who will challenge him? Who is Jerusalem’s junior senator from Illinois?

- Yossi Alpher discusses the present absence of Palestine in the Knesset elections.
- Steve Clemons exclaims, with a grain of salt, “Give us Bibi, Please.”
- Jonathan Cook points to Israel’s rightward shift, as many Palestinians plan to spend the day at home.
- Arik Ben-Zvi at TNR notes that Israel’s radical right is back with a vengence.
- Negotiator extraordinaire Aaron David Miller isn’t sure Israeli elections matter.

… will this cliffhanger be too close to call?

Here is his full speech from TED 2009:

Once again, Think Progress has the goods:

In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5).

Sadly, that trend looks likely to continue through the weekend. Hotline on Call has the scheduled guests for this weekend (I have the excluded shows which don’t have Members as guests this weekend):

SUNDAY SHOWS

Meet the Press hosts Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Washington Post’s Tom Ricks.

Face the Nation hosts Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and WH Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer.

Fox News Sunday hosts Summers and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

State of the Union hosts Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), SC Gov. Mark Sanford (R) and Jack Welch (see below for guests on SOTU’s Reliable Sources segment).

OTHER WEEKEND SHOWS:

Situation Room features Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT), RNC Chair Michael Steele, ex-U.S. Amb. to Israel Martin Indyk, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth (CNN, SAT, 6pm).

Newsmakers hosts Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). He will be questioned by Cook Political Report’s Jennifer Duffy and Politico’s Josh Kraushaar (C-SPAN, SUN, 10am/6pm).

So for the major weekend cable news shows, we’ll have six Republican appearances (Cornyn twice!), four Democrats and one Independent. And while two of the four Democrats are working against their party’s leadership, all of the Republicans are on the obstructionist bandwagon. For perspective, in the 111th Congress there are currently 311 Democrats and 219 Republicans.

Out of the 13 countries in Western Europe (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Swtizerland, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britian), the number that have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States :    13

That have a higher life expectancy than the US (for both men and women):     13

That have a lower murder rate:    13

That have a lower poverty rate:      11  

Hearing conservative politicians use Western Europe as a cautionary tale against developing social programs:      Priceless 

(cross-posted at Discipline for Justice)

Postscript: 

The US has an infant mortality rate of 6.8. The worst in Western Europe is Great Britian with 5.0.  The best is Sweden with 3.1.

The US has a life expectancy of 75 for men and 80 for women.  All of Western Europe falls between 76 and 79 for men and 81 and 84 for women.

The US has a murder rate of 42.8. The worst in Western Europe is Portugal with 23.3  The best is Switzerland with 9.2.

The two countries with more poverty than the US (12.0%) are Portgual (18.0%) and Spain (19.9%).

Edit: My original list actually contained 12 nations in Western Europe, and I left out Belgium altogether.  The numbers above now accurately reflect how the US compares to all 13 nations.

Yesterday, Health Care for America Now made a big push asking people to call their Senators in support of President Obama’s economic recovery plan. From the reports we’ve gotten back, it’s clear the phone lines are jammed up with callers, a good number of them Rush Limbaugh conservatives.

So, we’re taking the fight to the next level. We’ve put together an online letter writing tool to write your Senators. We’re going to print out any letters that you write and hand-deliver them to your Senators on Capitol Hill to make sure your voices are heard through the crowded phone lines.

Getting the message over to Congress is even more urgent today. We’ve heard that Senators are working on alternative plans to the President’s, plans that cut large chunks out of the economic recovery. Specifically, we’ve heard that money for major health care provisions is on the shopping block. These provisions are:

• Increased access to COBRA protections, allowing workers to retain their health insurance after losing their job.
• Safeguarding the Medicaid program for current beneficiaries by providing fiscal relief to temporarily assist states.
• Making important investments in health information technology and comparative effectiveness research.

All of these programs put money directly in the hands of the people, where they can spend it to stimulate the economy. They lessen the pressure on families who have lost their jobs so it’s easier for them to get back on their feet and find new jobs. These programs are not bailouts for big business or the rich, which is why conservatives are so opposed to the provisions.

Two-thirds of the Republicans in the House who voted against Obama’s plan voted for former President Bush’s bailout of Wall Street. It’s clear who conservatives in Congress want to help - and it’s not the little people.

So, take a moment and write a letter to your Senator in support of President Obama’s economic recovery plan and the health care provisions in it. We’ll hand-deliver your letters and make sure your Senators hear from you.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

It’s worth noting that the RNC had no choice but to appoint Michael Steele as chair of their party — Katon Dawson, the number two vote getter, had to quit his all-white country club before getting in the race. That wouldn’t have been a good look for the Republican party, especially in the current environment. Still, make no mistake: the selection of Steele as the figurehead of the GOP continues a tradition of appropriating the symbols of civil rights to pursue regressive policies. He’s another tool to perpetuate the white conservative establishment.

This clip illustrates how meaningless this symbolism is:

Brandon Friedman of VoteVets “weighs in” on the Afghanistan debate with “five myths” that “many progressives” hold about the pro-escalation crowd.

Except he doesn’t quote a single anti-escalation voice.

But we ain’t hard to find. We’re right here. We put some of the best anti-escalation writing in one place for your ease and convenience.

So bring it, Brandon. Don’t talk about “myths” like this was the clap. Respond to real arguments made by real people.

Quote one of us. Name one of us. And we’ll come back at you with point after point after point, and there are a lot of us, so if you want a debate then bring your A game. Because we are ready.

Or if you can’t be bothered to argue with the silly lefty bloggers, then take on Andrew Bacevich. Take on Bob Herbert. Take on Rachel Maddow.

A lot of people complimented Brandon for his civil tone. I do too. But we’re talking about war here. We’re talking about the security of our country and the lives of our men and women in uniform. The seriousness of the situation deserves a real debate conducted on honest terms.

If Brandon wants that debate, he can start by answering real questions:

* What are the goals of US involvement?
* What is the main objective of the military strategy?
* What would “victory” look like, and what allows US troops to leave?
* How will we pay for an escalation in Afghanistan?
* What diplomatic and non-military aid initiatives will the US pursue in the immediate future?
* What role does Pakistan (and other surrounding nations) play in this conflict and its solution?
* What kind of permanent presence in Afghanistan does the Obama Administration envision, and how does that benefit America and the region?
* What is the plan for de-escalating the US military presence?

***********************************************************

You want a takedown of the “myths”? Let it not be said that I shy from debate.

Myth #1: Those who support additional troops believe military force is the primary solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Who accused you of this? Quote someone and then we can talk about it.

As for “if we pump in the troops, then pave the roads and hand out the cash, it’ll be all good,” we’ve been through this before. Development is deeply flawed.

Myth #2: This escalation in Afghanistan is just like the unquestioning drive toward war in Iraq.

Some might say this, some don’t. Quote someone if you want to debate them. But at the end of the day, that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about whether escalation is or is not a sane policy.

Myth #3: Those who support an escalation in Afghanistan aren’t concerned with civilian casualties.

My charge for you is not that you aren’t concerned with civilian casualties, but that you’re assuming more troops will reduce, rather than increase, civilian casualties. And that’s supposedly because we’ll use air power less, right? But if more troops equals less casualties, then why have casualties gone up since we started pumping in more troops in 2007?

Myth #4: The Afghan people don’t want us in their country.

This is the only “myth” of Friedman’s that I take seriously. But not that seriously. Here’s how he starts:

Trust me:

Bad sign.

You’ll know when they don’t want us in their country.

Then he cites some ABC polling data that doesn’t prove his point and makes a logical leap to say that more troops will make us more popular - after we train their security forces, which will take “years.” How many years, Brandon? And why is that necessary again? And if we have to spend “years” occupying every country that might potentially serve as a terrorist training ground, then shouldn’t we gear up to occupy Pakistan and Somalia too? And how long will the Europeans stick around to help us out? Canada’s already out in 2011. It might get pretty lonely, building up that popularity over so many years.

Here’s how I know they don’t want us in their country. The Taliban is stronger than ever. Violence is worsening. Foreigners are assassinated on the streets of Kabul. Afghans are lining up to fight us because of Israel/Palestine. President Karzai says he doesn’t want escalation and has called for negotiations with the Taliban. Other Afghan leaders like RAWA and Malalai Joya say they want us out.

And now more troops, deployed with no real strategy, will make us more popular? That doesn’t make sense.

Myth #5: The Obama administration has set its Afghanistan policy in stone.

Come on, man. If we believed that, why would be doing this?

Let’s have an end to the “myths” and the talking points and the running to hide between Obama’s legs. Let’s have a real debate. We are right here ready and waiting.