This site will disappear effective July 31, 2007.

Join us for food, drinks, liberal talk, and fun.

Once the move is complete, I'll be rerouting the regular domain.

-Stu (aka The_Rat)

The vast majority of the American people want out. The only real thing there is substantive disagreement on is how quickly.

And opinion is even more united against the idea of pouring more gasoline on the fire, as suggested by John "Mad Bomber" McCain.

Frankly, it scares the hell out of me when Joe Biden is making more sense than Carl Levin or Harry Reid.

Stupid, stupid, stupid people. You're the majority, Democrats, and regardless of what the bobbleheads in Washington tell you, it's because the country wants to get the hell out of Iraq. Start acting like you understand why you got elected.

I've written in the past about the Iraq war, and have coined (or rather borrowed) the phrase Short Victorious War ^TM to describe the war, a reference to the Russo-Japanese War. This reference, from a quote from a corrupt official of a corrupt, crumbling Tsarist regime, is not accidental.

In a week that has seen the number of Americans killed in Iraq exceed the number of deaths during the 9/11 Terrorist attacks, and with the Bush/McCain/Lieberman troika eager to paint big targets put 20,000 more Americans on the firing lines, the number of comparisons to Vietnam by bloggers, politicians, are almost becoming a parody of themselves. While there are certainly reason to make these comparisons, I would liken Bush's current decision and situation to be that of the latter stages of the Russo-Japanese War. Accordingly, a short history of the Battle of Tsushima is very much in order.

The Russo-Japanese War began as a result of regional conflicts between Tsarist Russia over the Korean Peninsula, and over a port in what is now mainland China, Port Arthur. The details of this political background are not relevant to the discussion, other than Russian political pressure had originally taken the port away from the Japanese after Japan had won it in war against China, and then later Russia annexed the port as part of concessions from China.

Much like the months before Pearl Harbor saw fruitless negotiations that led to both sides preparing for war, the months prior to the start of the war (in February 1904), saw fruitless negotiations, which were broken off. Then on the night of February 9-10, 1904, the Japanese struck, on a Sunday morning, shortly after midnight, using torpedo boats to launch a sneak attack on the Russian Pacific Fleet, pride of the Tsar's navy, anchored at Port Arthur. It was the first in what would a string of ignominious defeats for the forces of the Tsar, at sea, and on land. While the combined might of the Russian Army was far larger than that of Japan, the Russians were limited to a single track, 5,000 mile railway to both reinforce and supply their armies in the Far East. The Japanese landed a large force near what is now Inchon, South Korea, and marched first northward through the Korean Peninsula, and then westward, to cut off Port Arthur (where the Russian Pacific Fleet was still under repair) before driving northward to drive the Russians from Manchuria.

Although a lengthy siege of Port Arthur disrupted Japanese plans for a speedy victory, an uninterrupted string of victories in Manchuria, and the sinking of the Russian Pacific Fleet with the fall of the port, meant that by April 1905, the land and naval war in Asia was all but over. Port Arthur was in Japanese hands, the Russian Pacific Fleet was sunk at anchor, and the Russian Army had all but been driven from Manchuria.

All that was left was a final naval battle, a last desperate roll of the dice by a Tsarist regime in the throes of the 1905 Russian Revolution, at the end of an epic journey, in a strait named after an obscure island named Tsushima.

The Tsushima campaign was the brainchild of a Russian naval captain, then the chief of the Tsar's Naval General Staff, Edouard Rozhdestvensky. Rightly recognizing that the Russian Pacific Fleet, half crippled, and isolated from resupply in Port Arthur, was probably too weak to break out of Port Arthur, and was doomed to death by siege if it remained, Rozhdestvensky recommended reinforcing the fleet. Barred from sending the Black Sea Fleet by treaty, it was quickly decided to send the Russian Baltic Fleet.

The decision may have been made rather quickly, but ultimately, a variety of delays meant that six long months elapsed from the start of the war before the fleet set sail. This was in part due to the desire to add a pair of newly commissioned ships to the fleet, and in part due to typical Tsarist inefficiency. The six months would be vital in neutralizing any strategic effect the fleet would have on the war.

Deciding to send the Russian Baltic Fleet was simple enough in theory, until one realized the distance involved (a 12,000 mile journey through the Atlantic around the Cape of Good Hope, across the Indian Ocean, and up the Asian Pacific coast to the Russian port of Vladivostok. Ultimately, the deciding factor, the thing that would weigh heaviest on the mind of Rozhdestvensky, who was rewarded for his plan with the thankless task of taking command, the thing that would haunt his every waking moment could be summed up in one word, COAL.

In an era where at-sea replenishment of fuel was a rarity, and where oil-fired ships were still a generation away, the Russians were limited by their lack of refueling stations along the 12,000 mile route. Much of the British Empire, so many of the island possessions acquired by the British in the 19th century, were the result of the need for coal for British vessels. Similarly, the French possessions ringing the portions of Africa left to them by the British served a similar function. But for landbound Russia, with no colonial overseas bases, and forbidden by International Law from taking on supplies in neutral ports, replenishment at sea, taking on coal at sea, and stacking coal in every available nook and cranny (including sleeping quarters, mess halls, in the lavatories, on the decks and in the passageways).

Needless to say, breathing coal dust and wearing a grimy mixture of coal dust and sweat for a 10 month period from August 1904 to May 1905 sent morale plummeting. Morale also wasn't helped when, off the coast of Madagascar, the Baltic Fleet learned that the port and fleet in Port Arthur they'd been sent to relieve had surrendered to the Japanese in December 1904. The fleet would wait off the coast of Madagascar for over a month, waiting for a decision from the Tsar on whether to proceed to the Pacific with the naval war all but lost.

Ultimately, the fleet continued on. In the first week of May, the Russian Baltic Fleet, rechristened the Second Pacific Squadron (the First Squadron was lining Port Arthur's seabed by this time), with the land war decided, with no clear purpose except a last sop to Tsar Nicholas II's pride, the ragtag, bedraggled fleet, it's equipment worse for the wear after a 12,000 mile journey, the morale of its sailors shattered, and its captain, Rozhdestvensky, a nervous wreck, would encounter a well-trained, superbly led and equipped Japanese fleet under Admiral Togo.

The battle itself, fought over the course of a 36 hour period, was antclimactic. For the loss for roughly 200 sailors, and superficial damage to a few ships, the Japanese sank or captured all but two ships of the Russian Baltic Fleet. Rozhdestvensky himself was severely wounded and taken prisoner. 7 Russian Battleships, numerous smaller ships and auxiliaries, were lost.

To sum up the effect of the battle, the battle of Tsushima, the decision to fight the battle at all, was the crowning mistake of a war filled with mistakes by the Russian High Command. While it might have been a good idea if done at wars beginning, by August 1904, when the fleet departed the Russian Baltic coast for the last time, Port Arthur was already under siege. By early January 1905, at anchor on the African East Coast, there was little reason to continue sending the fleet at all. The naval war in the Pacific had been lost, Port Arthur had fallen, and the war had been all but decided (only one major land battle, Mukden, was left to be fought). The reasons for sending the fleet had shifted from military to political. It became a matter of pride for the Tsarist regime. It was a last role of the dice, an attempt to roll a Hard Eight, which ultimately failed, and almost toppled the Tsar as a result.

The reason I tell a lengthy tale of Tsushima is simple. 20,000 men is not enough to shift the strategic balance in Iraq. This war, in the sense that Bush defines victory, is lost. Iraq is not, and will not be, in the short to medium term, a burgeoning democracy. There were no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The Lancet study indicates 600,000 Iraqis have died during the conflict, along with nearly 3000 Americans. The last time we boosted troop strength, the level of violence escalated.

In short, there is no sound, sensible strategic or tactical argument to be made in favor of extending our stay in Iraq, or continuing to shovel more troops into the abattoir the country has become. It would take 500,000 soldiers, at a cost roughly 4 times our current expenditure, to have any shot of pacifying the country. Neither is available, short of economic privations the President would be unwilling to order, and a return to the draft on a scale not seen since Vietnam.

It all comes down at this point, to a failed ruler's (Bush's) pride, aided by those members of the government (McCain, Lieberman, Cheney, et al) unwilling to deal with or acknowledge this simple reality.

The question then, if the "Escalation" or "Surge" is foolishly implemented at policy, is just how much we have to lose before this pride is satisfied. And all of that loss, ultimately, will be in vain.

So the question becomes, how many more men have to die before Bush's (and by extension McCain and Lieberman's) pride is satisfied?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do find it humorous that people who were in diapers at the time he took office are so quick to dismiss the notion that his pardon of Nixon, disliked as it was at the time, and still is amongst a large minority of people, was good for the country. (And yes, I know, that assertion alone will undoubtedly make this entry controversial).

I was ten years old at the time that Nixon resigned and Ford took office. It's one of the first political memories I have. Like most children those days, you couldn't help but see the images of Vietnam, and I remember the Watergate hearings mainly as an interruption to daytime TV during the summers of 1973. But I do remember Nixon resigning quite vividly. I remember the fall of Saigon, I remember the sense of national malaise during the time. I remember the two assassination attempts on Ford's life, and Patty Hearst's brouhaha with the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Frankly, it was an ugly, ugly time to be an American. I'm not sure that Gerald Ford was the ideal man for the time (he was essentially a caretaker), and I can tell you that Ford's pardon of Nixon definitely cost him the votes of two Goldwater Republicans in the Rat household in 1976 (my parents), but I have a hard time criticizing Gerald Ford, with the perspective of 30 years of history.

It is unfair, to hold Ford, a loyal Republican, responsible for the development of such creepy little gray men as Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, neither of which, in 1976, seemed all that dangerous, into the threats to American Democracy they now are (or in Rumsfeld's case, until recently were).

What I can say is that the inevitable civil and/or criminal trial of Richard Nixon would have divided the country in ways that could have been fatal to the Republic. Yes, it set a precedent, but frankly, the entire Nixon administration was one dangerous precedent after another. The question that must be asked was would the turmoil of a criminal trial have been worse to the country than any benefit derived. In general, I believe it was.

It may be noted that Gerald Ford was the last moderate Republican President. He pursued easing of tension with the Soviets. He worked to lay the groundwork for what eventually became the Camp David Peace Accords under Carter. He was pro-choice, and ultimately favored gay marriage in his later days.

And ultimately, he was faced with a tough decision, with no good outcome. I find it hard to judge him harshly for the decision he made, which was decidedly the lesser of two evils. Rest In Peace, old man. I'd trade you in a minute for any of the GOoPers who have resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue since.

December 11, 1006

Dear Fellow Democrats,

As we head into this holiday season we have much to be thankful for and a great two years ahead of us, filled with the potential to make an even bigger difference for our state and nation in the elections to come. However, even as we celebrate our victories there are others who continue to fight for basic individual rights and who will enter the New Year in a more precarious place.

The 1,600 workers of Raytheon in Tucson are on strike against the company over its failure to properly address employee medical costs. They are also fighting the company's insistence that all future workers be excluded from the current pension plan, despite the fact that the pension plan is heavily over-funded. Even as the company reported a 41% increase in earnings per share, the workers upon whose labor that success was built will be entering the holiday season living on food stamps and the small stipend which the strike fund can afford.

As Democrats, we have fought hard for healthcare and to protect people's ability to retire with a measure of security and dignity. That was at the heart of the dispute when we supported the miners that were affected by the ASARCO strike in Hayden and Winkelman last year. Now we have an opportunity and a calling to support this community of workers in Tucson and to help to make this a joyous holiday season for them and their families.

For that reason, the Democratic Party and the Young Democrats of Arizona are organizing a food and toy drive to show our support. We will be collecting nonperishable foods, filled holiday baskets, unwrapped gifts for children, teenagers and adults, plus school supplies and toiletries.

Please drop off your items between Dec. 12-19 to:

Arizona Democratic Headquarters @ 2910 N. Central Ave. Phoenix (M-F between 9:00am and 5:00pm)

Pima County Democratic Headquarters @ 4639 E. 1st Street, Tucson (M-F between 9:00am and 5:00pm)

Cochise County Democratic Headquarters @ 1010 E. Fry Blvd. Sierra Vista (drop off on Thursday Dec. 14 from 3pm-5pm, and Friday Dec. 15 9:00am-12n)

Coconino County Democratic Headquarters @ 5840 E. Waki Road, Flagstaff (M-F between 10:00am and 2:00pm)

Yavapai Democratic Headquarters @ 508 S. Montezuma St. Prescott, AZ
(M-F between 11:00am and 3:00pm)

I wish you all the best for the holidays and the New Year and look forward to working with you to bring some happiness and support to the workers and families of the International Association of Machinists, Local 933.

Sincerely,

Waid Sig

David Waid
Chairman
Arizona Democratic Party

As a pro-union, pro-labor guy, I've long believed that it is impossible to have a healthy progressive movement without having a healthy labor movement. Working people have always been the heart of the Democratic Party, and its no coincidence that the New Deal era saw reciprocal support between Democrats and Labor. It's also no coincidence that the Democratic Party began to flounder through much of the last three decades with the decline of labor unions in this country, and with elected Democrats reticence to support the labor movement. I'm heartened by the fact that this natural alliance is beginning to find its way back together, and I'm heartened by signs of growth.

Let's support these folks down in Tucson as best we can.

While the sexual harassment allegations levied against Bill O'Reilly by former Fox News producer Andrea Mackris might seem like fodder for a made-for-TV movie, some have decided to elevate the he-said/she-said back-and-forth to a more refined art form. Enter Igor Keller, a tenor saxophone player from Belltown, Washington, who has re-imagined the O'Reilly saga as a 31-part, concert-length baroque oratorio titled, rather theatrically, Mackris v. O'Reilly. Keller's opus doesn't cut any corners: The libretto opens with a reading of the original complaint filed by Mackris and runs through seven chorales, four recitatives, and numerous arias before the denouement, which features a dramatic reading of the settlement O'Reilly (played by Charles Robert Stephens, once hailed by the New York Times as a "baritone of smooth distinction") reached with Mackris.

Those who aren't quite sure they can stomach two hours of O'Reilly opera might be better advised to come in for the recitative and aria that comprise part 27, when the infamous loofah-as-falafel finally makes an appearance.

Of course, for those who aren't particularly big on Opera, there's always the Pygmalion to Keller's My Fair Lady.

McCain is in Iowa today (Wednesday), campaigning with GOP Congressmen Steve King and Tom Latham as well as Republican congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti. McCain spoke at a mid-day news conference in Des Moines, where McCain was asked what his reaction would be to a Democratic take-over of the Senate.

"I think I'd just commit suicide," McCain said, as the Republicans standing beside him burst into laughter. "I don't want to face that eventuality because I don't think it's going to happen...I think it's going to be tough, but I think we'll do o.k." A few moments later McCain turned to Congressman Latham and joked that Latham would probably commit suicide first, as polls suggest control of the House is likely to swing to Democrats in this year's election.

According to McCain, the current "tenor" of campaigns is too negative and he hopes the courts can help stop new groups called "527s" which are able to skirt campaign contribution limits. "The 527s are pernicious evil that needs to be eliminated," McCain said. "We have a Federal Elections Commission that will not enforce the law and they are an absolute national disgrace." McCain said.

(Emphasis Added).

Senator McCain, please reconsider this decision. You have so much to live for. We're worried about you.

And of course, this gives me a flimsy excuse to run a photo of one of my favorite love scenes...

John McCain, the maverick. Er, not so much.

Congratulations to Jon Tester, organic farmer and Democratic Senator Elect from the Great State of Montana, Claire McCaskill, former state auditor and Democratic Senator Elect from the Great State of Missouri, and most recently, Jim Webb, former Reagan Administration Secretary of the Navy (and decorated Marine), Democratic Senator Elect from the Commonwealth of Virgina for wrapping up the US Senate.

Damn, I'm proud to be in the same party as these people. :)

CNN had a tag team of Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs et al rattling off the results, and then rolled out the usual panel of talking heads. On the left, James Carville, who stopped having useful instincts about Democratic politics about the time he married Mary Matalin, Paul "Milquetose" Begala, JC "aka the entire Republican Congressional Black Caucus" Watts, and Bill "My Gambling Debts are Morally Superior to Your Gambling Debts" Bennett.

Frankly, it had to have been a rough night for JC Watts and Bill "What Happens In Vegas Stays In Vegas" Bennett. For Republicans, this was the electoral equivalent of going to your alma mater's homecoming game, and watching them get beat 70-0. In other words I was loving it, but Bill Bennett was looking at any moment like he was going to have a stroke on the set.

The most ridiculous spin of the night and frankly, Bennett was like a broken record, was trying to spin this complete thrashing of an election as a victory for "Conservative Democrats". Frankly, it was laughable last night, and it looks even more ridiculous 24 hours later.

I think John Aravosis at AmericaBlog summed it up quite well:

I don't think the election was a victory for conservative Democrats or liberal Democrats. It was a victory for Democrats across the board, and a repudiation of Republicans and conservativism.

Conservative Dems, like Bob Casey in PA, won. Conservative Dems like Harold Ford in TN lost. Liberal Dems like Sherrod Brown in OH won. Liberal Dems like Ned Lamont in CT lost. There was no absolute pattern, in my view, as to liberal Dems winning or losing or conservative Dems winning or losing. Democrats ran a variety of candidates, from left to right, and some won and some didn't. And that's the way it should be. I don't think you can win by only running conservative candidates (good luck in SF), or only running liberal candidates (good luck in much of the south). You need to run a bit of a rainbow, and that makes sense - America isn't left or right, at least not exclusively.

Having said that, think about Angie Paccione (D-CO), who got 43% of the vote in Colorado as compared to her Republican opponent, Marilyn Musgrave, who got 46%. Now, pay attention to who these two women are. Paccione is openly in favor of gay marriage. Musgrave is the religious right's top ally in the House, the author of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution. The race was in conservative Colorado. Yet, what happened? Paccione, the lady in favor of gay marriage, got seriously close to unseating Musgrave, the religious right bat from hell.

Let me repeat that. A Democrat openly in favor of gay marriage almost won in the heart of religious right America against the #1 religious right poster girl. That not only shows the diversity of Democratic candidates running, but it also shows the acceptance of diversity that exists even in the heart of conservative America. America is not black and white, red or blue. And I don't think our party should be either.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to push for Democrats to adopt positions that I hold dear. I will. And sometimes I'll agree with conservative Dems, and a lot of times I'll agree with liberal Dems. But my point is that Democrats won yesterday - not liberal Dems, not conservative Dems, but Dems.

The rather liberal Nancy Pelosi will be the next House Speaker. The rather conservative Harry Reid will be the next Senate Majority Leader. We are now a party that truly represents the diversity of America. And just as Harry Reid as Minority Leader is a mainstream Democrat, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker will be a mainstream Democrat. And let anyone, liberal or conservative, claim otherwise.

What happened last night, finally, after two cycles of inept Democratic campaigning, and six years of divide and conquer was inevitable. The Republicans alienated moderate voters in waves. They overreached badly (Social Security, Terry Schiavo). They governed ineptly (Katrina, Iraq). They were corrupt (Abramoff, Plamegate, MZM Scandal). They campaigned poorly (Allen, Burns, Bush, Rove) They covered up scandals that touched people in a personal way (Foley, Haggard, Michael J Fox and the stem-cell ad) And ultimately, the folly of the Rove appeal to the base strategy became apparent.

Neither party can afford to alienate either moderate or base voters. Democrats, in part, have been electorally inept for as long as they have because they had forgotten their base. Republicans, ironically, forgot moderates, and paid the price.

And that's the truth. Progressives won elections. Moderates won elections. And frankly, there's room for both in this party, and has to be for us all to succeed.

With any luck, the GOP will struggle long and hard to figure out what we've already learned.

Next, I'll talk more closely about Arizona.

And lastly, a huge hat tip to Claire McCaskill, James Webb, and John Tester for winning a trio of close elections and turning the Senate blue.

Mitchell Takes Out Hayworth

I've admired Harry Mitchell for a quarter of a century since my undergraduate days at Arizona State. He will be a great Congressman, who will do a far better job of representing that district than Hayworth did.

And just because I can, let's have that ridiculous fat guy in a tank picture, one last time.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight, JD. Never bring a tank when you need a whole armored division.

And don't worry, I'm sure there's room in Fargo, ND for a fat, stupid, bombastic sportscaster to mangle player names, confuse university nicknames, and generally lower the IQ of local newscasts by about 50 IQ points (no easy feat in itself).

Now that's worth drinking to. :)