Unusually partisan title, perhaps, but this is an unusual election. In 2004, America went to the polls before the pure incompetence of this administration was laid bare for everyone to see. After Katrina, the surging violence in Iraq, and numerous debacles big and small, even the least politically savvy America realizes that this administration and this Congress are a complete and utter disaster.

Oversight is one of the fundamental requirements for our government to work. This Congress has failed in that duty, and so it’s up to us to put people into office that will challenge the Administration and force them to hear other voices, to provide a forum for military commanders to legally offer public comment, and to force the administration to make changes that will serve the country better.

In 2 years, you will have an option to consider again whether you want to vote for a Democrat, but this year, this time, there’s really only one viable choice. I usually don’t try to engage in this sort of partisan demagoguery, but as long as Republican candidates need the machine built by the current Republican party leadership to raise funds, they will not and can not be an effective oversight branch.

Whatever you do, and whoever you vote for:

GO VOTE!!

Update: I was disappointed that they didn’t have any stickers to give out at my polling place, so here’s a virtual one “borrowed” from Atrios.

This Tuesday is the primary in Connecticut, where we finally get to see how Democrats in CT will vote on the CT Senator race between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. Most of you know that Heidi and I are supporting Ned Lamont in this race.

Some of you that live in CT and are registered Democrat or unaffiliated got postcards from me about the Ned Lamont campaign. I forgot to mention that if you're unaffiliated, you must switch your party registration to Democrat in order to vote in the primary Tuesday. You can do this Monday if you're interested in voting. Changing from unaffiliated to any party works instantly.

A quick summary of why we're voting for Ned Lamont:

• Ned Lamont won't say this: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." I find that statement insulting to the very nature of American democracy and deeply offensive. Joe Lieberman actually said that and has never taken it back.
• Ned is a businessman and understands how social programs such as universal healthcare actually helps businesses grow. (Ask GM or even your own HR people how much healthcare costs the company).
• Lamont has argued and campaigned for more transparency in politics. Lieberman has been for the Cheney energy bill, for Justice Alito who advocates for fewer limits on Presidential power, and has never (well, until this past week when it was politically advantageous) stood up and advocated investigations or hearings on any of the myriad of issues and scandals that have come up around the White House.
• Ned Lamont has a good, progressive approach to government: he believes that earmarks are a bad way to allocate federal resources, that the government should stay out of the private lives of citizens as much as possible, and believes energy policy is a national security issue.

Those are the top issues for me. If you believe they focus around the President, they do. These positions all express a philosophy of governance, that somehow the President is more important than the other branches, about how minority and majority parties should behave in Congress, and of simply providing a false definition of bipartisanship that has nothing to do with compromise.

You can find out more about Ned Lamont at his web site or you can check out some of his appearances. Videos are available around the web, but here's a few to help you out.

This is his recent appearance on the Colbert Report:

If you want more, here's the Stephen Colbert explaining why this race matters to so many of us in CT:

If you have any questions about the campaign or have any concerns, get in touch with me or with the Lamont campaign. They have a good web site, and all of the CT political blogs listed in the blogroll are covering the race (some are supporters, some are bipartisan blogs with both sides represented). Whatever you do, and whoever you decide to support, if you're a registered Democrat Get Out and Vote on Tuesday!

… or are the Knick fans a little, um, I think the word is, pissed at Isaiah Thomas?

Is it possible to be disappointed in a speech that you had low expectations for?

I had a much better reaction written which was then lost in a tragic browser mishap (my PowerBook is in the shop, typing this on my work laptop, a PC that I’m not used to). Here’s what I remember.

The speech was very blah overall. It was not bold, not especially ambitious, and very partisan. It even lacked the touching photo ops and visual imagery of speeches past. No Iraqis in the audience hugging the mother of a soldier and the like. Not that I like that sort of cheap emotional tug, but at least it gives the speech some weight.

Did you notice the sheer number of straw men in the speech? Who are these isolationists? Do you know people that truly advocate no trade or forward diplomacy? And these human-animal hybrid scientists? Who are these people and are they common enough that they deserve special mention during the State of the Union speech? They were weird points of emphasis, like when he used to call out those that believed that Arabs were incapable of forming a democracy.

I was surprised at the strong defense of the NSA program in the middle of the speech. I had a set of links that I had prepared for that topic as well, but based on the pre-speech reporting, I chose to focus instead on healthcare. I’ll include those links at the bottom of this post.

Health insurance wasn’t much of an emphasis in the speech but we’ll see if he spends more time on it over the coming weeks and months.

The President continued to make bold, misleading assertions in this speech. His claim that previous Presidents had authorized the type of domestic spying he’s getting heat for is misleading at best. He failed to mention that it was legal under previous presidents. The law was amended during Clinton’s presidency by a Republican Congress. I don’t feel like I need to agree with him on everything… but at least be straight with the American people. That’s all I want.

The Democratic response was more direct and blunt than any I remember. I really appreciated Gov. Kaine crticizing the President where he and the Democratic party disagree. I don’t remember the response last year, but I remember the Daschle/Pelosi responses that were too polite and too respectful. The Democratic party owes it to the American people to call a spade a spade. If the President misleads the American people and the press isn’t going to call him out, we have to rely on the minority party. This was the best balance of respect and honesty that I’ve seen in a while from the Democratic party. In fact, aside from Kaine’s obvious nervousness, the response was excellent.

I’d be happy to hear what you thought. Feel free to respond below.

Oh, by the way, what was up with the whole Cindy Sheehan thing? Prior to the speech, CNN.com was leading with the story that she was going to be attending. Then, right as Bush was walking in, the announcer on the TV said she was arrested by House police. Details are unclear, but it seems like she was arrested for a t-shirt. On the day that Coretta Scott King died, too…

A transcript of the speech can be found at the Washington Post.

NSA Wiretapping links

• Phillip Carter goes over the Bush response to the NSA program.
• Atrios pointed out that the administration opposed the type of FISA changes that would’ve made the domestic spying easier to do. That’s inconsistent…

I’ve been collecting links for the past week or so to build out some background reading for tonight’s State of the Union address. There is going to be a lot of the typical pomp and circumstance that surrounds the address, including the staged touching moments and political pandering (Justice Alito, anyone?). The President faces a number of political challenges so, like the 2005 address where he unveiled his Social Security non-plan/idea, this year he looks to focus on ambitious domestic initiatives to take focus off his other failures. So, it will be tax cuts, energy policy, and a healthcare/health insurance initiative tonight.
(Click here to read the rest of this post)