Just a brief post, I want to let you guys know there is a great online polling site for political races in 2006. I like the setup of the site, and they get a poll each month for each governor and senator, for the most part. Check it out, you can see the rises and falls of each person, with a little explanation. [Link]

We're no longer flawless

Condoleezza Rice visited Britain today, and admitted that the US has made “thousands” of errors in Iraq. She still clings to the idea that it was a good move in theory, because Saddam Hussein was a threat. She didn’t use the lie that somehow the US was threatened, or that Al Qaeda had something to do with it. It’s a first step, I suppose, towards admitting that the war was a horrible idea with horrible consequences. We rocked a stable part of the Middle East, created instability, and killed more than Saddam could have dreamed of killing in three years. I’m not expecting this confession from Rice, but at least they’re talking.

The State of the Lieberman Campaign

Tonight I got to attend the Jefferson Jackson Baily dinner in Hartford, CT. This was a huge meeting of CT dems, and had speeches by Senator Dodd, Lieberman, and Obama. There were only Democrats (I went with Diane Farrell’s CT-4 campaign), which included Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, with their teams.

First, Senator Dodd had a fiery and excellent speech. He then introduced Joe Lieberman. Here is the amazing part. In a room full of Democrats, Joe Lieberman GOT BOOED when he took the stage. He had a dry speech that included everything but passion. He had to “shush” the crowd four times, but most people still talked amongst themselves. It was amazing, and I almost felt bad for him for a moment. Then I remembered his unrelenting support of a war that killed twice as many Americans as the occupancy in the room. Regardless, I was inspired by the support among influential Democrats. If any were Lamont supporters, you’d expect them to be closet supporters, hoping to keep the cash flow from Lieberman into their campaigns. But there was a vocal opposition to Joe Lieberman, and I was happy for it.

To close, Senator Obama showed us how to give a great speech. He spoke of the Democrat’s great history, and their current support for all that is holy (jobs, equality, social security, national security, health care, I’m preaching to the choir here). He included strong support for Lieberman, but I can’t expect a different reaction.

Moral of the story; the Lamont campaign is no fringe movement. This is a large movement that has support even from the rich and entrenched CT Democratic Party leaders.

Fuel Efficiency

CAFE standards for light trucks were raised yesterday by the Bush administration. Oddly, this is good policy, although the changes were minimal, and don’t take effect until 2011. The important and shocking feature to me though is that cars like the Hummer, and Ford Excursion (cars exceeding 8000 pounds) will be regulated under CAFE standards.

MyDD also ran a piece on Brazil, which recently completed a switch of its entire oil industry to sugar-cane ethanol. This was a process beginning with the 1970s oil crisis, which resulted in cheaper, natural fuel. Scott Shields cites our massive, influential oil industry for America’s lack of advancement, as well as the greater expense of corn, compared to Brazil’s sugar cane. But, like Shields, I believe the richest nation in the world could take some initiative here and decrease our dependence. Truth is though, Republicans can’t, and Democrats will.

National Security and Energy Independence

The Democrats, led by Sen. Minority leader Harry Reid, revealed an impressive Democratic strategy on national security. There were five keys points.

The first was reforming the military, which includes proper equipment, stronger national guard, quality health care for troops, and maintaining Democrat-led pay raises.

Second, fighting terrorism, which includes eliminating Osama Bin Laden, finishing the war in Afghanistan, doubling our special forces and spies, and securing nuclear material worldwide by 2010. I especially like the special forces point, because that shows a shift away from massive infantry and worldwide bases, toward specialized tactical forces that can combat terrorists. The traditional military was designed to fight armies, destroy nations, and occupy them.

Third, the Democrats want to improve national security by implementing all recommendations made by the 9/11 commission immediately (Its already been 2 years since its release), screen 100% of our incoming cargo containers, not sell our security to foreign entities (this would seem obvious, but they're cashing in on the Dubai debacle), and improve training and equipment for police, fire, and medical agencies, so they can be better prepared for natural or biological disasters.

Fourth, the plan highlights Iraq. This involves handing over most of the governmental roles to the Iraqis in 2006. I suppose this is the next best thing to a complete withdrawal, and is probably written in this language to prevent criticism on quick removal. Also, it wants to hold those accountable for pre-war misinformation.

Lastly, and my favorite tenant of their national security plan, is energy independence. They want to achieve this by 2020 (impressive, given the 6 years of setbacks by Republican controlled government). To do this, they will embrace alternative fuels, ethanol in gasoline, hybrid cars, and energy efficiency. I'd like to have seen more funding for mass-transit, not to mention making it less than $23 to go to the city and back on Metro-North.

This represents a great move by the Democrats. The only thing that I don't like is that they don't mention massive military spending is not necessary to accomplish this. I would vote for almost anyone who would cut our massive military budget, Democrat or Republican. This plan does insinuate that they would decrease the budget a lot, but at least a little, from the horrible $547 billion from 2007. This is a blow to Republicans, who will regardless continue to say the Democrats have no plan. Also, the makes the Democrat's plan party-wide, not just the liberal plan that most Democrats support. This was the right move for the Democrats to make.