Over at Left in the West, Matt Singer evaluates Tester's prospects against Burns by saying, "The newly minted Senate President is a badass...The man has 7-fingers and a real chance to win."

Kos's post titled, "Montana on the road to swing state" has this to say:

"Proud young Americans, you are in for a con job from Washington that you can't even imagine."
-- Former Republican Congressman and ultra-conservative talk show host Joe Scarborough

During the past two days, President Bush has been using an economic "forum" to push his second term agenda, most prominently Social Security privatization. We at the DCCC have been developing our own resource center on Social Security privatization, which you can find at:

http://www.PrivatizeThis.com

There you'll find, first and foremost, a new DCCC Video - watch it now!

The Social Security Crapshoot

You will also find a page dedicated to research and articles from independent organizations and media outlets. Help us get the word out by visiting the site and using our user-friendly tools to send the truth onto your friends!

http://www.PrivatizeThis.com

DeLay Gets Punk'd

Late last week Tom DeLay and his indicted cohorts got some bad news:

Company agrees to cooperate with investigation [AP]

"A company that made a $50,000 contribution to a Republican political action committee has agreed to cooperate with a state investigation into possible illegal campaign contributions in exchange for the dismissal of charges against it, according to a motion approved by a judge Thursday.

"Diversified Collections Services, Inc. was one of eight corporations accused of giving a total of $190,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority during the 2002 legislative campaign. The use of corporate money for political purposes is illegal in Texas.

"Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said in the motion to dismiss that the company agreed to cooperate with the state 'in its prosecution of any other indicted person for any offense related to the corporate contribution.'

"Three associates of Republican U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay also have been indicted in the ongoing investigation.

"Diversified Collections also agreed to develop internal policies to prevent making illegal corporate political contributions."

But here's the funny part. Really funny. The news came just days after the company got their payback:

"When Reps. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. , teamed up in September to get the House to pass an amendment blocking the use of private companies to collect back taxes from delinquent taxpayers, it seemed the Bush administration plan might be doomed for at least a year.

"But in the final hours of drafting a 3,300-page spending bill last month, House and Senate negotiators eliminated Capito's and Van Hollen's handiwork, clearing the way for the Internal Revenue Service to hire commercial debt collectors. These private agents could keep as much as 25 percent of the amounts they recovered.

"While the Bush administration has strongly supported the initiative as a way to increase revenue collections amid growing deficits, critics contend it could lead to harassment of taxpayers and breaches of privacy. Labor groups representing federal workers also oppose the change. But it has the backing of the debt-collection industry, which has contributed heavily to GOP organizations and causes since Bush became president.

One company that lobbied for the change is Union City-based Diversified Collection Services Inc., one of eight companies indicted in September by a Texas grand jury, along with three Republican fund-raisers for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on charges of alleged money laundering and illegal corporate campaign contributions."

In fact, it appears that the company turned on DeLay less than 24 hours after Bush signed that bill into law.

Never hustle a hustler!

Also of note, an independent website called Raw Story appears to have gotten a hold of the letter DeLay sent to Rules Committee Chairman Dreier asking him to change the ethics rules, which has a largely overlooked section suggesting legal action against the watchdog groups that helped with the complaint. The watchdog groups also had a pretty good laugh:

"CREW's Executive Director Melanie Sloan scoffed at the complaint, which was aired Wednesday by The Brad Blog.

"'As far as I know they don't have a jail,' Sloan told RAW STORY Wednesday. 'That's not to say you couldn't fashion a cell. But it would be, I would think, international news really, if they put someone in jail in the basement of the Capitol.'

"'It's my fantasy if they would do that,' she laughed. 'And I think the courts would have me out of there in an hour.'"

"The Majority Leader's and the Rules Committee offices did not return requests for comment.

"In the letter, Bethune also notes CREW's 'agenda of counterbalance[ing] the conservative legal watchdog groups.' Curiously, one of the most notable conservative judicial groups, Judicial Watch, actually agrees with Sloan.

"Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton said the complaint would never succeed, seeing it as a desperate attempt for DeLay to save face. The group, which by and large supports a Republican agenda, has been critical of DeLay's attempts to insulate himself from ethics charges.

"'It's just not serious,' Fitton said. 'They don't have any jurisdiction. This is a man who was admonished three times for ethics violations and this is his flailing about - it's not terribly becoming.'

"'It was Tom DeLay who was admonished on three separate instances on three separate issues,' he added. 'It's really a silly response to a serious issue.'"

Tom DeLay, laughing stock.

The Truth About Social Security

Rep. Robert Matsui of California is not only the current chair of the DCCC, he is the ranking member on the Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security.

Wearing that hat, Rep. Matsui penned this op-ed in Roll Call recently:

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

Social Security Needs to Be Stabilized for Future

Social Security has revolutionized how America's workers prepare for their retirement. It operates as both retirement security and social insurance, offering a lifetime, inflation-protected benefit for senior citizens, disabled workers and widows. It has saved millions from poverty, reducing the number of seniors living at or below the poverty line from 50 percent to less than 10 percent today. Since its inception in 1935, this New Deal has been a good deal for hundreds of millions of Americans.

Today, we find ourselves being asked if Social Security is still a good deal for Americans. The answer is a resounding yes. Together, pensions, personal savings and Social Security make up the three key components of American retirement portfolios; however, it is only Social Security that ensures our workers have retirement security. Today, only 41 percent of retirees have an employer-sponsored pension - and less than one in five low-income workers receive a pension. While 60 percent of retirees receive income from assets, this income tends to be very modest - less than $2,000 a year for the median retiree.

We should certainly increase incentives for individuals to save and for employers to offer pensions, but we must also acknowledge that Social Security remains the cornerstone of retirement security for most Americans.

As such, its long-term financial solvency must be closely monitored - and it is. According to the Social Security actuaries, the trust funds currently carry enough reserves to pay full benefits to all who are eligible through 2042. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the trust funds are even stronger than that, carrying enough in reserves to pay full benefits through 2052. At that time, the trust funds will still have enough in revenue to pay 73 to 81 percent of benefits, according to the actuaries and CBO respectively.

Critics of Social Security point to these dates and sound the alarm bells. Yes, Social Security needs to be shored up, and the sooner we do so, the easier this task will be. But, Social Security is not facing an immediate financial crisis. Efforts by critics to paint it as such are patently false, as are arguments that privatization "strengthens" Social Security.

Let's be very clear: Privatization proponents do not support private accounts in addition to Social Security. They support private accounts instead of Social Security. And, replacing Social Security with private accounts does not improve the solvency of Social Security - it significantly worsens it, eroding the foundation of the system and jeopardizing guaranteed retirement benefits for seniors, disabled workers and survivors.

The president has suggested that a plan put forth in 2001 by his handpicked Social Security commission would be a "good blueprint" for reform. Under this plan, one-third of a worker's contributions to Social Security would be diverted from the trust funds into private accounts. As a result of this plan, the trust funds would lose almost $2 trillion in the first 10 years alone.

This diversion weakens the trust funds so significantly that the date by which they are no longer able to pay full benefits is moved up by more than two decades - 21 years - from 2042 to 2021. Expediting insolvency is an odd way of shoring up Social Security.

Worse yet, these losses will not stop after the first decade. These so-called "transition costs" continue for 50-60 years. Although the plan claims it will find additional money to put into the trust funds so current beneficiaries can continue to be paid, it resorts to accounting gimmicks to hide trust fund deficits. For example, the plan relies heavily upon deficit financing - more than $200 billion a year until 2054. But, it never tells us where this money comes from or how we pay it back. Borrowing of this magnitude would mean that our national debt will rise to unprecedented levels. This new debt alone - debt in addition to what is already projected under current law - would grow to equal 24 percent of gross domestic product.

These staggering "transition costs" will force substantial benefit cuts. Private accounts are touted as voluntary - if you want to remain in traditional Social Security, proponents claim you will be free to do so. However, even those who opt not to participate in a privatized system will see benefit cuts. For example, if you are in your late 20s today, when you retire at age 65 in 2042 your benefits will be 25 percent less than they would have been under today's Social Security system.

Further, these benefit cuts won't just apply to retirees - disability and survivors' benefits are cut as well. Today, almost 30 percent of Social Security beneficiaries - approximately 14.1 million people - receive either disability or survivors' benefits. All of these beneficiaries - who range from severely disabled workers to children who have lost a parent - would see the same cuts as retirees.

Although this commission plan is viewed as a starting point for privatization, the president has yet to endorse or propose any specific legislation.

To date, President Bush has offered the American people only generalities, a set of principles loosely outlining his vision for reform. Unfortunately, principles are not the same as policy. The benefits and drawbacks of President Bush?s plans for privatization, and their impact on our seniors, cannot be fully measured absent a specific, detailed proposal.

If the president and leaders of his party are serious about Social Security reform, I urge them to come forward with a concrete legislative proposal. Its costs must be fully accounted for in his fiscal 2006 budget, so the fiscal impact of privatization can be made plain for all Americans to see. Once the facts - and the benefit cuts - are unveiled, workers and retirees alike can decide for themselves whether privatization enhances their retirement options - or whether the administration is trying to replace the New Deal with a raw one.

It Never Ends From the Texas GOP...

While the Texas redistricting was a sham that both undermined democracy nationally and foisted several more Tom DeLay "automatons" onto the United States Congress, the precursor of that effort - the apparently illegal engineering of the Texas State House elections - will have even more longstanding and direct implications for Texans themselves.

At this very moment, in fact, the very same Tom DeLay puppets brought in by DeLay's dubious corporate fundraising prowess are bringing his philosophy of partisanship at all costs to the local level. You see, Democrats actually made gains in this bastion of ultra-conservatism, and the GOP just can't have that. That's why the Republicans are currently contesting three different Democratic victories, re-hiring their chief election lawyer and mudslinger to make their case and hurl around unfounded allegations of voting irregularities. In at least one case, where Democrat Hubert Vo pulled off a heroic campaign to unseat 22-year GOP veteran Talmadge Heflin, the Speaker of the Texas House - himself possibly in Grand Jury hot water - is abusing his power to throw aside the will of the people and turn the election over to his cronies in the state House. A committee is currently "evaluating" the election, and may decide to simply call for a new election, or - get this - simply declare their fellow Republican the winner.

In light of all this, in addition to DeLay and Bush's retention of power, it's probably worth revisiting the roots of the modern-day Texas Republican Party. Blogger and commentator Kevin Drum, who now writes for Washington Monthly, took a look at the Republican Party platform for 2000 and summarized some of what he found:

The Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide the constitutionality of laws regarding abortion, religion, or anything else related to the Bill of Rights. In these areas, Congress should be allowed to pass any laws it wishes.

We should completely do away with separation of church and state.

Gay sex should be a criminal offense.

All abortion of all kinds should be permanently outlawed by constitutional amendment.

Gays should be treated like child molesters and should not be allowed to visit children unsupervised.

The Biblical story of creation should be taught in science classes.

Social Security should be abolished.

The federal income tax should be abolished.

The federal minimum wage should be abolished.

The EPA, HUD, HHS, the Department of Education, and several other federal agencies should be eliminated. Since these departments supervise all federal welfare programs for the poor and sick, they are presumably advocating the complete abolishment of the federal welfare state.

Get the United States out of the UN.

Remember this next time you're tempted to give George Bush or Tom DeLay the benefit of the doubt...

News From the Blog

Skelton to Bush
Even DeLay's legal defense fund can't play it straight.

Sour Grapes in IL-08
Evidence piles up that Rumsfeld was aware of systematic prisoner abuse for months.

Have Fun in Court
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne discusses the possibilities for bipartisanship.

Disco Stu
Two new polls show little support for Bush's grand designs.

It's Hard Work
The Washington Post discovers the White House spying on Nuclear Watchdog.

Follow Up on "Getalongism"
A rundown of issues, and the possibilities for working with Republicans.

Whiny Republicans
DeLay's indicted cronies moan about corporation cooperating with the investigation.

Letter from David Brock to Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly
The O'Reilly Factor
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

In May of this year, I asked that you allow me to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss your attacks on philanthropist George Soros. Your producer denied my request, saying you were no longer discussing the topic. Yet in subsequent weeks, you continued to discuss Mr. Soros on your radio and television programs. Despite my offer to discuss Soros, you still did not invite me on -- even complaining during your June 1 Radio Factor, "I mean, we really can't get anybody in here [to defend Soros] that's not a raving, raving Far-Left person, and why we would want to do that, I don't know."

In recent months, you have repeatedly attacked me and my organization, Media Matters for America:

• On the June 28 O'Reilly Factor, you referred to Media Matters as a "Far Left website";
• On the August 5 Radio Factor, you likened Media Matters to Mao Zedong;
• On the August 5 O'Reilly Factor, you claimed your critics are "hiding"; in response, I reiterated my willingness to appear on your television show;
• During your August 7 debate with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on CNBC, you compared Media Matters to the Ku Klux Klan and Fidel Castro;
• On August 13, Media Matters noted your recent attacks on us, and wondered how long it would be before you compared us to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. It took less than a month: On the September 14 Radio Factor, you referred to comments I made as "Joseph Goebbels Nazi stuff";
• On the December 9 Radio Factor, you called Media Matters "the most vile, despicable human beings in the country";
• On the December 14 Radio Factor, you called Media Matters "sneaky"; accused us of "tak[ing] things out of context"; called us a "Far Left, deceitful, disgusting website"; and called us "character assassins" and "despicable weasels."

As you can see, Mr. O'Reilly, you have repeatedly and personally attacked me, Media Matters for America, and my fine staff, calling us "vile," "despicable," and "weasels," and comparing us to the Ku Klux Klan, Castro, Mao, and the Nazis. And you have refused my repeated requests to appear on your broadcast.

You once offered your viewers your definition of the word "coward." On the January 5, 2004, O'Reilly Factor, you declared: "If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward."

Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you have attacked me publicly on numerous occasions, and you refuse to face me. You, sir, are a coward -- by your own definition of the term. You are "hiding under your desk" (to paraphrase your August 26, 2003, claim about a "coward" who declined to appear on your show) rather than allowing me on your program to discuss your insults. You are "gutless," to borrow the phrase you used on January 10, 2003, and February 8, 2001, to describe people who would not appear on your program. I attach additional examples of your pejorative descriptions of those who decline invitations to appear on your broadcast.

Your frequent complaint that your words are taken out of context appears to have spurred your recent assault on my organization. While reasonable people can disagree about conclusions we, or you, have drawn about your comments, you are simply wrong to say that we took you out of context. I remain willing and eager to appear on either your television or radio program to discuss your contention that my organization has taken your comments out of context.

Should you continue to refuse this offer, it is only reasonable that the American people will conclude that you are not only -- as you would put it -- a "coward," but a hypocrite as well.

Sincerely,

David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America

Highlights from Bill O'Reilly's comments about people who refuse to appear on his program

O'Reilly frequently calls people "cowards":

The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/04:

O'REILLY: [reading a critical review] John Wright, The Herald Journal, Logan, Utah: "I graduated from one of the best journalism schools in the country, the University of Florida. You, Bill, are not a journalist. You spew propaganda. For example, you said the journalism professors from Rutgers and Lehigh were cowards because they would not come on The Factor. That's not true. Maybe they simply didn't want to appear."

Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Wright. If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward. Wise up, sir.

The O'Reilly Factor, 12/19/03:

O'REILLY: We asked them both [Rutgers professor Steven] Miller and [Lehigh professor Jack] Lule to appear on The Factor, but they are too frightened.

[...]

O'REILLY: But, Professor [Victor] Navasky, what you're missing is -- you're missing that Lule and Miller and all of these other cowards who make these erroneous statements and won't back them up by coming in here and talking about them are basically telling their students in big schools -- Rutgers is a big school, all right -- that the FOX News Channel is not worthy, it's not journalism, it's garbage and ignore it. And that, sir, is dishonest and doesn't serve the student well.

NAVASKY: OK. First of all, I don't know that you know that they're cowards, and secondly --

O'REILLY: Yes, we know. We gave them --

NAVASKY: And secondly --

O'REILLY: We gave them any time they could appear.

The O'Reilly Factor, 8/26/03:

O'REILLY: I mean, this Dan Golden was a coward. We tried to get him on. He hid under his desk.

The O'Reilly Factor, 4/24/03:

O'REILLY: You know, I am so angry. I am so angry, Niger [Innis]. I mean I'm almost at the verge -- if [Brooklyn District Attorney Charles] Hynes were here --

INNIS: Well, you should be.

O'REILLY: And he's a coward. He's a coward because we gave him months. This story was on the board before the war, Niger. All right. We bumped it because of the war. We gave Hynes months to come up with his side of the story, explain it to us, tell us what happened, why he did it, and, you know, he gave us the finger. That's what he did.

O'Reilly calls people "gutless":

The O'Reilly Factor, 1/10/03:

O'REILLY: He may have? That's not his prerogative. We have to demand, Mr. [Silver Lake High School alumnus Dan] Sullivan, you at Harvard, me here on The Factor, and everybody in the state of Massachusetts and around the country that these principals uphold principles and not run and hide.

Look, this guy [Silver Lake High School principal Richard Kelley] could be sitting where you're sitting, Mr. Sullivan. He could be in your chair. He's gutless.

The O'Reilly Factor, 2/8/01:

O'REILLY: [Congressman Henry] Waxman wouldn't come on this program, by the way. He's gutless.

Posted to the web on Thursday December 16, 2004 at 3:15 PM EST

Subscribe to our newsletters to receive items via e-mail

A homeless woman lying on the ramp of an upper East Side parking garage was crushed to death early yesterday when she was run over by a mammoth sport utility vehicle, police said.

The driver, real estate executive Anthony Bergamo, told investigators he did not see the woman from his driver's seat.

Bergamo was driving a 5,770-pound Ford Expedition.

Medics pronounced the unidentified woman dead at the scene.

An autopsy determined that she died of crushing injuries to her chest, said a spokeswoman for the city medical examiner.

The death was ruled accidental and Bergamo, 54, who manages the Milford Plaza hotel in Times Square for its owner, real estate magnate Howard Milstein, was not charged.

Rescue workers were combing through the World Trade Center rubble around the clock when Mr. Kerik called Anthony Bergamo, a well-connected vice chairman of the Milstein family real estate company and a police buff, and asked for help finding a place for the workers to rest during breaks, the executive said.

The family owned Liberty View, a 28-story yellow brick tower two blocks southwest of the trade center at the corner of West Street and Third Place.

According to the executive, who knows Mr. Bergamo, the vice chairman arranged for Mr. Kerik to have the use of an apartment there. Several apartments in the buildings had been used by rescue workers on breaks, and by Red Cross staff who were treating them, in the months after 9/11, according to a real estate executive.

"LIMBAUGH: Miss Plastic Surgery. (chuckle) And – I’d – I’d – I – I don’t – I don’t know what the winner – I – and, oh, I didn’t print out both pages, so I don’t know what the – I don’t know what the winner gets. Probably a certificate to go to San Francisco to have an add-a-dick-to-me operation. "

Information regarding the details of what was actually said (or depicted) during the allegedly indecent, profane or obscene broadcast. There is flexibility on how a complainant may provide this information. The complainant may submit a significant excerpt of the program describing what was actually said (or depicted) or a full or partial recording (e.g., tape) or transcript of the material.

In whatever form the complainant decides to provide the information, it must be sufficiently detailed so the FCC can determine the words and language actually used during the broadcast and the context of those words or language. Subject matter alone is not a determining factor of whether material is obscene, profane, or indecent. For example, stating only that the broadcast station “discussed sex” or had a “disgusting discussion of sex” during a program is not sufficient. Moreover, the FCC must know the context when analyzing whether specific, isolated words are indecent or profane. The FCC does not require complainants to provide recordings or transcripts in support of their complaints. Consequently, failure to provide a recording or transcript of a broadcast, in and of itself, will not lead to automatic dismissal or denial of a complaint.


The date and time of the broadcast. Under federal law, if the FCC assesses a monetary forfeiture against a broadcast station for violation of a rule, it must specify the date the violation occurred. Accordingly, it is important that complainants provide the date the material in question was broadcast. A broadcaster’s right to air indecent or profane speech is protected between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Consequently, the FCC must know the time of day that the material was broadcast.

Simon Rosenberg for DNC Chair

One of the most compelling things Simon Rosenberg ever told me was how much he doesn't like unity. Unity is bad, he said, because it's brittle. He prefers dynamism, vibrancy, debate, and wants to see our party as a true party of ideas, replete with healthy arguments. And I've seen him walk the walk. There's fighting passion around Simon, anger, and argument. It's not unity that Simon prizes, which is another word for top-down control. It's professionalism, and winning.

I have known Simon Rosenberg of NDN for less than nine months (I do consulting work for his organization), but he is to me the clear choice for DNC Chair. Simon is a blunt, hypercompetitive, disciplined and strategically minded political operative with that rare gift of appreciating political creativity. His roots are New Democrat, but he has long since abandoned their silly unproductive attitude towards politics, and embraced the netroots vision years ago. The Hispanic project, a groundbreaking media campaign in Spanish and English targeted at Hispanics in swing states, was a clear indication that he doesn't let constituencies fall through the cracks, and approaches old politics with a new mindset. He is a terrific listener, and a guy who can build this party into a modern political machine.

The issue for me in DNC Party Chair is and always has been strategy. The corporate culture of the left is one where strategy is submerged under a large soup of cronyism and dead methods. I have heard this from all quarters, and I believe it is true of the blogs (there's little cronyism among blogs, but a lot of amateurishness of which I can amply claim my share) as well as the state parties (though the state parties are truly neglected). We aren't connected as a party, and the atomization of our culture and message is the obvious result. Simon is a bridge-builder with a strategic mindset. He helped pull together the Phoenix Group, the answer to the vast left-wing conspiracy that will fund our new civil society. He posts on blogs, unlike almost every other political operative out there. He cares what people say, not because he's nice, but because it's stupid not to. People matter in politics, message matters in politics, infrastructure matters in politics - Simon gets this.

I urge you to read his visionfor the party. I believe that Dean would be an excellent choice, and shares many of these traits with Simon. What distinguishes Simon is that he is just a party builder, not a politician. That's important. Dean will lose much of his power if he has to back the message of Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid - and progressives will lose our best voice. And make no mistake, that's what Dean as DNC Chair will be. On message. I believe Dean would be a great President, and should run in 2008. I also believe that DFA needs to continue as a vessel for new entrants to the party. We need our Ken Mehlman, our guy to overhaul the professionalism and morale of the party. Simon can do this - his experience with TV is a boon for his candidacy (NDN has consistently done the best political ads of any group save perhaps Swift Boats); TV still matters, and it is the combination of the net, TV, and organizing that will lead to a progressive resurgence.

To some extent, my choice is colored by my view of the DNC as a vessel for coordinating and institutional bridge-building, not a message machine. I think that message can come from other areas, which is certainly how the right-wing does it. But most of it is due to Simon, who respects dissent, has a vision for the party itself, and values professionalism and reform. I can't say enough good things about Simon Rosenberg. Regardless of whether you support him, I hope that you really take the time to understand his arguments about where the party needs to go, because they are important. The right-wing is winning because of the power of their message and apparatus. We need someone who understands this, sees the potential way to combat it, and can play a holding pattern while the left gradually builds its own set of institutions.

Simon can do this.