If you think President Obama was too vague on energy policy issues last night, take a look (via Andrew Revkin) at Jimmy Carter's address to the nation on energy issues -- a speech that was chock full of specific policy proposals. Thirty-one years later, the only real downside is that virtually none of those proposals were ever adopted. For example:

I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977. Never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation.

That was a nice goal, but in 1977 we imported 8.8 million barrels per day and in 2006 (before the recession and high prices reduced demand) we imported 13.7 million barrels per day.

My point here isn't to trash Jimmy Carter; rather, it's to make the case against trashing President Obama for not getting into the nitty-gritty details of energy policy reform during his speech last night.

The most obvious point is that his speech was primarily focused on the national response to the immediate issue at hand: BP's disastrous oil spill in the Gulf. At least in my view, the fact that he chose to spend a good chunk of the speech (860 of just under 2,700 words) arguing that the spill underscores the need for energy reform speaks to his genuine support for reform.

Moreover, I think he made several very important points on energy policy.

1. Obama gave the House credit for passing "a comprehensive energy and climate bill" and said that the House's bill reflected the principles that he campaigned on.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence.  Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

2. Obama said that the time to act is now, and that any legislation must "tackle our addiction to fossil fuels."

The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.  Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny. ...there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now.  I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy -– because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.  So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party -– as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels.

3. Obama argued that energy reform will provide a boost to our economy:

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us.  As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition.  Only if we seize the moment.  And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.

4. Finally, President Obama explained the basic ideas behind peak oil in the plain, easy-to-understand English:

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling.  But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk.  After all, oil is a finite resource.  We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.  And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. 
 
For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered.  For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.  And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.  Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

That is about as clear and concise an explanation I've seen of why dependence on oil is going to be increasingly risky and expensive. True, it didn't cover climate change, but there's more than one reason why oil is a bad idea, and in the context of a speech about an offshore drilling disaster, this was a very important point to make.

It's true, President Obama did not get into the details of procedural issues like whether and when the Senate should vote. But one of the things we learned from the health care debate is that dwelling on procedure turns off the public. And he wasn't as detailed on policy proposals as Jimmy Carter was in 1979. But Jimmy Carter's approach didn't manage to solve our energy problems, no matter how well-intentioned he may have been.

I think the way to look at last night's speech is that it wasn't part of an end-game strategy, it was part of the beginning of a major push on energy issues. Last night, Organizing for America sent out its second e-mail of the week focused on building support for clean energy reform, and President Obama has repeatedly discussed the need for reform since his speech at Carnegie Mellon two weeks ago.

If the White House weren't serious on moving forward with legislation, it's hard to see why they'd be doing these things. So while last night's speech might not have included everything we'd want to see in a final energy reform bill, let's remember that the address really wasn't primarily about energy reform, and it's not the final product. There's plenty of room for debate on the substance of what energy reform should be -- just as there was with health care reform -- but it seems pretty clear that at the very least, the administration is committed to moving forward, and that's a good thing.

NYT:

WASHINGTON — The White House and BP tentatively agreed that the oil  giant will create a $20 billion fund to pay claims for the worst oil spill in American history, to be independently run by the mediator who oversaw the 9/11 victims compensation fund, Kenneth Feinberg, according to two people familiar with the deliberations.

The agreement was not final and was still being negotiated when President Obama and his top advisers met this morning with BP’s top executives and lawyers. Its preliminary terms would give BP several years to deposit the full amount into the fund so it could better manage cash flow, maintain its financial viability and not scare off investors.

The talks have been complicated by the fact that BP’s ultimate liabilities for the cleanup and lost business are unknowable since the two-month-old leak of its well in the Gulf of Mexico could well be spewing some oil for months more. To date, BP has spent more than $1 billion on containment, cleanup and claims from the Coast Guard, fishermen, oil workers and other businesses from Louisiana to Florida.

According to the Times, the negotiation is still ongoing, and there are obviously many more details we need to know, but here's a couple of initial observations/questions:

1. What happens if $20 billion is not enough? Despite hopes that we will contain 90 percent of the leak in the next couple of weeks, the well is still leaking, and there's no guarantee that things won't get worse before they get better, nor is there a guarantee on how long it will be leaking. (According to Chuck Todd, this issue remains the subject of negotiations between the adminstration and BP.)

2. Why does BP need several years to deposit funds? BP's combined profits over the last four years exceed $80 billion.

3. Will this fund also cover cleanup costs, or is it solely for economic damage claims?

4. Will people who apply for compensation through the fund be required to relinquish their right to pursue claims in court?

5. Once out of the political crosshairs, could BP weasel out of its obligations, either by declaring bankruptcy or simply refusing to pay?

Probably the bottom-line question will be this: Who benefits the most from this fund? Will it be people who were damaged by BP's recklessness? Or will it be BP and its investors, by giving the company a degree of certainty about their future?

Some people may argue that it is a win-win, but if that's the case, what is the explanation for giving BP a "win" after inflicting so much damage in the Gulf of Mexico?

Update 1: Upon reflection on my "win-win" question posed above, the important thing is that BP face some sort of major punitive action for its recklessness, but it doesn't necessarily need to be part of this particular fund. The reason why I think it's important to punish BP is simple: if spills like this become "manageable operating expenses" for big oil companies, we're going to see more and more of them. So while it's important to seek compensation for damages, it's also important to punish BP -- otherwise we're never going to see the end of these types of disasters.

Join the discussion in Drdemocrat's recommended diary, BREAKING:  BP agrees to put $20 billion in ESCROW!

Reid has withdrawn cloture on the jobs/tax extenders/unemployment extension bill, signalling that he doesn't have the votes to pass it.

The $140 billion measure looks increasingly unlikely to pass — leaving thousands losing unemployment benefits every week — due to intransigence from both Democrats and Republicans. Yesterday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told reporters that he does not support the deficit spending. “Borrowing and deficit spending at the point of a crisis is one thing, but when you’re in recovery, borrowing and deficit spending is another thing. Borrowing during a recovery is risky because it may slow down the recovery,” he told The Hill. “If everything is an emergency then nothing is.”

Millions of people losing their sole source of income, and ten of thousands more likely to lose their jobs if this aid isn't passed isn't an emergency for Ben Nelson. The unemployed folks in Nebraska would probably disagree, and I hope he hears from them today.

Reid held instead a budget point of order vote this morning to try to go forward by waiving paygo. That vote lost 45-52, with Bayh, Begich, Feingold, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, McCaskill, Menendez, both Nelsons, Pryor, and Webb voting with Republicans.

Reid is searching for alternatives to scale back the bill to try to get Dems and those "moderate" Republicans back.

Now, Obama's Democratic allies have been forced back to the drawing board in their efforts to pass the measure, which also would protect doctors from a looming cut in Medicare payments and raise taxes on investment fund managers. A new, scaled back version of the measure is likely to be revealed Wednesday afternoon.

Just on Saturday, Obama made a plea for the measure, including $24 billion in aid to cash-strapped state governments to help avoid tens of thousands of layoffs and ensure the economy doesn't slip back into a recession.

To try to revive the bill, top Democrats are expected to roll back last year's $25 a week increase in unemployment checks and give doctors just a short reprieve from scheduled cuts in their Medicare payments instead of relief until the end of next year. Democratic leaders promise to restore the $24 billion in state aid that was struck by Wednesday's vote.

So the emergency continues for the nation's unemployed, thanks to the deficit peacocks.

ProPublica notes the latest numbers from Louisiana state officials on health complaints related to exposure to materials connected with BP's oil spill, including the cleanup. In total, Louisiana reports 109 complaints, 74 of which came from workers and 35 of which came from residents.

According to the report, headache, nauseau, and throat irritation were the most common complaints. While about half of residents merely called poison control center, most of the workers visited the emergency room (55 of 74), a health clinic or doctor's office (10), or were hospitalized (9). Also according to the report, most of the hospital stays were short.

The large majority of workers said they were exposed to either emulsified oil mixed with dispersant or odor and fumes from the spill. BP has denied any connection between the spill and the illnesses, saying that the workers were simply falling ill due to "food poisoning."

All I can say about this is, Harry Reid must have been really good in a past life:

Here's another one that could be tough for Sharron Angle to explain away: In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if "this Congress keeps going the way it is."

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

... which is about 17 more words then Sharron Angle uttered during her first encounter with the Washington media:

And for those of you tapping on your speakers, stop ... Angle only says one word ("yes" at the 51 second mark) in the face of multiple questions from reporters.

It's going to be hard for Angle to lead the revolution if she won't talk ... on the other hand, getting elected will be impossible if she does.  

Pat Robertson is still an asshole:

TERRY MEEUWSEN (co-host): Pat, this is from Anne who says, "My husband has always been a flirt and loves to talk with other women he finds attractive. He says he would never cheat on me but his actions are starting to get to me. What should I do?

ROBERTSON: Anne, first thing is you need to make yourself as attractive as possible and don't hassle him about it. And why is he doing this? Well, he's doing it because he wants affirmation that he is still a man, that he is attractive -- and he gets an affirmation of himself. That means he's got an inferiority complex that's coming out. And he's not gonna cheat on you. He's just playing.

But you need to not drive him away or start hassling and hounding on him, but make yourself as beautiful as you can, as fun as you can, and say let's go out here, let's go there, let's go to the other thing.

See, Anne, that's your problem. You're an ugly nag, which is why your husband has an inferiority complex, which is why he needs to flirt with other women to give you an inferiority complex. If you'd just put on something sexy, stop being such a bitch, and take him out to dinner, he wouldn't have to make you feel like crap play like this. And if he flirts with the waitress, for god's sake, don't hassle him. That'll just make him have to grab her ass. So he can feel like a man.

Ryan Grim notes that legal responsibility for the Gulf oil disaster falls on four corporations: BP, Transocean, MOEX Offshore and Anadarko Corporation. They were asked to testify before the Senate today. The CEOs of two of them said they have scheduling conflicts.

Anadarko CEO James T. Hackett, however, does have time this week to be in Houston to accept Oil and Gas Investor's Executive of the Year award, handed out Tuesday.

"Last year this leading Houston-based company generated a 68 percent return to shareholders, while cutting costs and spending during the downturn," reads the announcement of Hackett's award. Cost cutting may have led to significant shareholder returns, but it also is believed to have contributed to the fatal explosion and blowout of the well.

And that pretty well sums up the industry. The man who runs one of the companies that helped cause the worst environmental disaster in American history is being rewarded by his industry. As its Executive of the Year. For the very same cost-cutting that likely caused the disaster. They are what they are.

What does a world dominated by a nuclear armed superpower beholden to religious fundamentalists need right now? How about two fundie nuclear states:

A senior official of the Russian Orthodox Church called for the end to the "monopoly of Darwinism" in Russian schools during a recent talk in Moscow, according to Reuters (June 9, 2010). "Darwin's theory remains a theory," Hilarion Alfeyev, the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, was quoted as saying. "This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."

In the House, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010

House Meets At... 10:00 a.m.: Legislative Business
First Vote Predicted... 1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Last Vote Predicted... 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.

"One Minutes" (15 per side)

Continue Consideration of H.R. 5297 - Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010 (Rep. Frank – Financial Services)

Suspensions (9 Bills)

1. H.R. 4451 - Collinsville Renewable Energy Promotion Act (Rep. Murphy (CT) - Energy and Commerce)
2. H.Con.Res. 242 - Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 101st anniversary (Rep. Al Green - Judiciary)
3. H.Res. 1422 - Honoring the Department of Justice on the occasion of its 140th anniversary (Rep. Sensenbrenner - Judiciary)
4. H.R. 2142 - Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act (Rep. Cuellar - Oversight and Government Reform)
5. H.Res. 879 - Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week (Rep. Minnick - Oversight and Government Reform)
6. H.Res. 1357 - Commending and congratulating the Hollywood Walk of Fame on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (Rep. Watson - Oversight and Government Reform)
7. H.Res. 1429 - Celebrating the symbol of the United States flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day (Rep. Latta - Oversight and Government Reform)
8. H.J.Res. 86 - Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War and reaffirming the United States-Korea alliance (Rep. Rangel - Foreign Affairs)
9. H.Con.Res. 286 - Recognizing the 235th birthday of the United States Army (Rep. Edwards (TX) - Armed Services)

Postponed Suspension Vote (1 Bill)

1. H.Res. 1414 - Congratulating Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men-Englewood Campus for achieving a 100 percent college acceptance rate for all 107 members of its first graduating class of 2010 (Rep. Rush - Education and Labor)

• Conference Reports may be brought up at any time.
• Motions to go to Conference should they become available.
• Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 9:30am

Following any Leader remarks, the will be a period of morning business for 1 hour with senator permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the Majority will control the final 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the House Message on HR4213, Tax Extenders. Around 10:40am, the Senate will proceed to vote on the Baucus motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Baucus amendment #4301 (perfecting substitute).

Additional votes are expected to occur throughout the afternoon in relation to amendments to the Tax Extenders legislation.

Not much to add today. The House continues its work on the combined small business measure (see yesterday's installment for more on that process). The Senate continues... still... on tax extenders, with a cloture vote scheduled for today, and the Medicare "doc fix" the next item on the chopping block if cloture fails. Not a straight-up drop like the COBRA extension, but cutting back the extension from 19 months (as it is in the House bill) to one year. And we all know nothing promotes cooperation on cloture like signaling ahead of time what concessions you're willing to make when it fails.

Today's committee schedule appears below the fold, in convenient Google Calendar format. That means, by the way, that you can add the whole thing, or just particular items of interest from it, to your own Google Calendar. Woohoo!

And as a reminder, the conference committee on the Wall Street reform bill continues at 11 am today, and will again be broadcast/webcast. You can watch the Sunlight Foundation's annotated feed, or the House Financial Services committee webcast to follow the action.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

A Friendly Chat Over Beers: Summer, 2011

 "I'm so mad at my senators. They never listen, they vote the wrong way and they're always saying something stupid. Grrr! Who're your senators?"
 "Lindsay Graham and Alvin Greene."
 "Wait---Greene is a senator???"
 "You didn’t hear how he beat Jim DeMint by 30 points last November?"
 "How the hell did that happen?"
 "No one knows! It just...happened. They did a bunch of investigations and DeMint insisted on a full recount---which they did---but it turned out to be his Waterloo. So now we've got...Senator Greene."
 "I'm so sorry to hear you've got someone so unfit for office representing your state."
 "Are you kidding? He's the best senator South Carolina's had in generations!"
 "What???"
 "He's incredible. For starters, he only says two words: yes and no. No mealy-mouthed bullshit, no spin, no 'esteemed colleague' this and 'point of order' that. Just yes or no. Would you like to join me in a cloture vote? 'Yes.' Would you care to resume deep-well oil drilling? 'No.' That kind of certainty's why he's got a seventy percent approval rating. And South Carolina's doin' great, thanks to My Pal Al."
 "Wow."
 "And if you visit his office, you get to play Wii, you can surf porn, there's huge bowls of Cheetos and TV screens tuned to the Game Show Network, ESPN, Comedy Central, Animal Planet and TV Land. When he's not on the Senate floor, he's plopped down in his beanbag chair shootin' the shit with anyone who cares to join him. We love the guy! He's one of us!"
 "I'm jealous. So have you joined his reelection campaign?"
 "What reelection campaign? We don’t need no stinkin' reelection campaign! His opponents will spend millions to beat him and he'll just sit back, do absolutely nothing, and then the Greene Machine will stomp 'em into the ground by getting 110 percent of the vote."
"Goodness."
"Sorry to hear that your senators suck, though. That's rough."
[Sigh]  "Thanks."

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Wednesday oil spill edition.

NY Times:

Fifty-six days, millions of gallons of oil  and countless hours of cable television second-guessing later, President Obama finally addressed the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday night to declare war.

His enemies were oil industry lobbyists and corrupt regulators, foreign energy suppliers and conservative policy makers, and a stubborn gushing well at the bottom of the sea. And ultimately, he was fighting his own powerlessness, as a president castigated for failing to stop the nation’s worst-ever oil spill tried to turn disaster into opportunity.

Maureen Dowd:

Once more on Tuesday night, we were back to back-against-the-wall time. The president went for his fourth-quarter, Michael Jordan, down-to-the-wire, thrill shot in the Oval Office, his first such dramatic address to a nation sick about the slick.

You know the president is drowning — in oil this time — when he uses the Oval Office. And do words really matter when the picture of oil gushing out of the well continues to fill the screen?

Susan Page:

For President Obama, the Oval Office address Tuesday night was about more than the oil spill.

His ability to project more command, competency and compassion in response to the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico— and the eventual success of the administration's actions — will have repercussions for his ability to do anything else, from pushing legislation on energy and jobs to holding down Democratic losses in the midterm elections.

EJ Dionne:

The two philosophical points he made will, I suspect, be heard again and again this campaign year. When he criticized the mess at the Minerals Management Service, he said this: "Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility -- a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations."

This is an argument that needs to be pressed with some consistency. Democratic capitalism works because of the "democratic" part -- the use of government to achieve things capitalism can’t achieve on its own. There are some values the market doesn’t take into account and some valuable goods -- the environment in the gulf, for example -- that the market doesn’t price correctly, if at all.

Katrina vanden Heuvel:

Yet what's happening on the left isn't the equivalent of the anti-incumbent anger on the right. Most progressives support Obama and want his agenda to succeed. And although Pelosi may have been bushwacked by a disability-rights group last week, she was celebrated by most of the conference attendees for her ability to forge a majority for hard votes.

At the same time, progressives have come to a realization. What we see, some 500 days into the Obama administration, is a president obstructed by a partisan Republican opposition, powerful entrenched corporate interests, and a minority of corrupt or conservative Democrats. The thinking is that if progressives organize independently and forge smart coalitions, building a mass movement for reform with a moral compass that can transcend left-right divisions, we may be able to push Obama beyond the limits of his own politics, overcome the timid incrementalism of the establishment Democratic Party and counter the forces of money and power that are true obstacles to change. As Arianna Huffington has said, "Hope is not enough. . . . We need a 'Hope 2.0' that depends not on what President Obama or other politicians say or do but on what we as progressives do."

Local opinion (Colorado):  

It seems like everyone has their own idea about what should be done to fix the oil spill, and everyone has an opinion about how it's being handled so far.

Most people KJCT News 8 spoke with say they think the president is handling the situation about as best as he can. But almost everyone says the address should have happened much sooner.

Local opinion (Florida):

"We should have been fighting this thing 10 fold 3 months ago. The National Guard should have been called out months ago. The things that aren't working the booms should have been changed. The technology, he says he has called on all these scientists, good I'm glad, but it doesn't seem like there is a lot of teamwork," one man said.

Local opinion (Louisiana):

We went through Katrina. That was fine. We rebuilt," he said. "Now this -- this is not natural and it was done by BP."

Cepriano said he was unhappy with the government response, regardless of the president's tougher tone.

"Nothing's organized. None whatsoever ... they've got this really messed up," he said.

Obama delivered the speech after a tour of the Gulf Coast. An AP-GfK opinion polled showed 48 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the crisis, up 15 percentage points from a month ago. The spill is into its eight week.

Added for a lighter touch:  Jonathan Bines:

Patient is a 66 year old Caucasian male, physically healthy, who presented at our initial consultation complaining of severe anxiety, insomnia, and panic attacks related to his belief that unnamed government officials were conspiring to form "death panels" with the intent of murdering not only patient, but patient's grandmother as well (Patient's grandmother is deceased).

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are dopper0189, HoosierDeb, ItsJessMe, Louisiana 1976, mem from somerville and sunspark says, with ybruti editing. Please let the diarists know their work was read by recommending, tipping or commenting.

• Something the Dog Said brings us up to speed in No Accountability For Rendition In US, But Maybe In Canada on how our northern neighbor is approaching the lingering repercussions of our policies on torture. (HoosierDeb)
• rb137 urges us in Daily Kos EcoJustice: Action -- Help create conflict-free green technology to keep up the pressure to preserve a provision in the Senate Financial Overhaul Bill requiring companies that use targeted metals to report annually where they buy them. (ItsJessMe)
• RLMiller analyzes the Practical Energy and Climate Plan bill, S. 3464, recently proposed by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), in Of Pole Signs, Coal Plants, and Impractical Energy Plans. (ItsJessMe)
• TimOBrien wants to put the blame where it really belongs and tells Why the Wall Street crowd wants to blame you for the recession. (mem from somerville)
• With the release of Glenn "Look at me, I'm Important!" Beck's newest tome, CrazyHorse takes a moment to examine the link between The Overton Window and the New Right. (sunspark says)
• angry marmot, feeling subdued by pundits and bloggers arguing over issues like Obama's presidency and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, wonders what keeps a nation united, in Musings on "One Nation". (dopper0189)
• justdafacts has the latest on Maryland Governor Bob Erlich's questionable donations and whether or not he will return them in Md Dems tell Bob Ehrlich “Give Back Fabian’s Dirty Money”. (Purple Priestess, with HoosierDeb and Got A Grip riding shotgun)
• Mike Stark discusses his own experience with politicians assaulting inquisitive members of the press in Etheridge, me and the Hill. (sunspark says)
• ashowboat educates the community on Air Pollution 102 - All About Ozone. (ItsJessMe)

sardonyx has (NOT jotter's) High Impact Diaries: June 14, 2010.

brillig has Top Comments - Strawberry Edition.

Feel free to suggest your own favorite diaries of the day, and use this as an open thread.

As we reach the midpoint of this month, the Wrap is as jam-packed as I can ever remember it. How the heck did all this happen on a Tuesday, for crying out loud?!?!

It is internal poll-fest here on the Wrap today, and the fact that they are virtually all Republican internal polls is telling in and of itself. A couple of surprise endorsements/non-endorsements also made the cut today, and the Meg Whitman tote board is spinning yet again (nine figures is just around the corner.

All this, and a heckuva lot more, on the Tuesday edition of the Wrap.

THE U.S. SENATE

CA-Sen: RW pollster says Senate race is all knotted up
New numbers out of the Golden State today, but with a big-ass caveat atttached to them: the new poll emanates from right-wing media outlet Pajamas Media, and their pollster-of-choice (Cross Target). They have incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer and GOP nominee Carly Fiorina all knotted up at 47% each. Remember, however, that this was the same pollster that had Scott Brown leading by double digits in both of their forays into Massachusetts this winter (Brown wound up winning by just under 5% of the vote).

FL-Sen: Crist's latest policy reversal--Cuba
Charlie Crist's declarations of independence continue unabated, with the local hot-button issue of Cuba the latest source for a policy shift from the state's Republican-turned-Independent Governor. Crist, once an advocate for placing financial disincentives on companies offering travel to Cuba, has backed off of that stance, vocally supporting the Obama administration's decision to lift travel restrictions to the island. It might assist his bottom line, as well, since several potentially lucrative donors support the easing of the travel ban.

LA-Sen: Dueling Senate polls in the Pelican State post-BP
Depending on which pollster you are buying stock in, there has either been a pretty substantial shift in the Louisiana Senate race, or no shift at all, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon incident. A new poll from Republican-affiliated Magellan Strategies has incumbent Republican David Vitter leading Democratic challenger Charlie Melancon by twenty points (51-31). Meanwhile, a new poll from PPP (teased for tomorrow but given exclusively in advance to Roll Call) showed the race considerably closer, with Vitter only leading the Democrat by nine (46-37). The PPP poll also shows that recent events have apparently taken a huge chunk out of Vitter's approval ratings, as he has dropped to a very middling 45-43 spread.

NV-Sen: Angle evades press as ideological past continues to be unearthed
Sharron Angle, the newly minted Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate continues to make jaws drop from coast-to-coast. Her affiliation with the far-right Independent American Party gets explored today by TPMDC, who notes that several members cite that she only left the fringe party out of political expediency, because the Republican Party line was a safer bet. Angle came to DC today, and promptly ducked the press. In a sign of supreme confidence, NRSC head John Cornyn actually said today that it will be "a few weeks" until the GOP nominee will be ready to face the press corps.

NC-Sen: MoveOn involves itself in competitive Dem runoff election
MoveOn is moving in to the Tar Heel State, offering its take on which candidate should emerge from next week's runoffs as the Democratic nominee to challenge Republican Richard Burr. The progressive organization chose to endorse Secretary of State Elaine Marshall over former state legislator Cal Cunningham. This puts MoveOn at odds with the national Democrats, whose preference for Cunningham dates back to their recruitment of him after Marshall had already entered the race.

SC-Sen: C.R.E.W. smells a rat in Greene races, as well as others
The latest twist in the Alvin Greene primary victory saga came from Washington, rather than the Palmetto State. It was in DC that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called for both a federal and state investigation into last week's Democratic primary. The organization called for both a statewide investigation (to look at whether Greene and others were induced by outside forces to run for office) and an FEC investigation (into several instances of failure to report by these shadowy SC candidates). An executive committee of the South Carolina Democratic Party will meet later in the week to determine whether or not to vacate the election, as has been requested by Victor Rawl, the man who was defeated in last week's primary.

THE U.S. HOUSE

KY-06: GOP internal says add this race to the target lists
Remembering, of course, the usual caveats about internal polling, we present new numbers in an intriguing race: the battle in nominally conservative KY-06 between third-term Democratic incumbent Ben Chandler and well-funded GOP newcomer Andy Barr. According to an internal poll for Barr, it is a seven-point race (subscription only). This could, of course, be believable: this is, after all, a McCain-carried district, and Barr has raised a fair amount of cash. The poll is a little dusty, though: it was conducted last month, in the wake of Barr's primary election victory. Therefore, the afterglow of the primary win might be skewing the numbers, as well.

LA-02: Potentially strong Cao opponent makes it official
His entrance into the race is no surprise, and yet it should make Republican incumbent Anh "Joseph" Cao at least a little nervous. State Representative Cedric Richmond, who narrowly missed making the runoff here in 2008, made a formal announcement on Monday that he will seek the seat again, ripping Cao in his announcement speech. State legislator Juan LaFonta is already in the field, as state Senator Karen Carter Peterson is also eyeing the race.

MS-01: Childers trails in re-election bid, according to GOP internal
Republican internal polling has identified another imperiled Democratic incumbent, although this one is not liable to be much of a surprise. A poll for GOP nominee Alan Nunnelee claims that the challenger now has an eight-point lead (50-42) over Democratic incumbent Travis Childers. The pollster claims that this is a major reversal from March, when Childers led by nine points.

NC-08: Kissell leads either Republican, but margin varies widely
It is the longest of longshots, but Democratic freshman Larry Kissell has to be rooting hard for tea party acolyte Tim D'Annunzio in next week's runoff elections. The reason? A new poll out today from PPP, which shows a double-digit performance gap between former broadcaster Harold Johnson and D'Annunzio. The controversial D'Annunzio gets blasted by Kissell (48-26), while Johnson lies very much within striking range, trailing Kissell by six points (41-35). Interestingly, Kissell's margin expands when progressive Independent candidate Wendell Fant is factored in (40-30-14), although Tom Jensen of PPP posits (correctly, I would speculate) that Fant stealing more GOP votes is a function of him being a relative unknown. Kissell, for what it's worth, has seen his approval crater with Democrats in the wake of his hostility towards health care reform. Did it earn him any goodwill from Republicans? Nah...his approvals dropped double digits with them, as well. Another lesson for recalcitrant Dems, to be sure.

OK-02: Boren posts huge lead in internal primary polling
In a rather obvious exercise of innoculation, conservative Democrat Dan Boren is eager to rebut any notion that he is endangered by the primary challenge to his left coming from state Senator Jim Wilson. He released an internal poll from Myers Research showing him leading Wilson by a 68-24 margin. Boren's HCR vote was an instrumental factor in earning a challenge from Wilson, who filed just before the deadline last week. The primary will be held on July 27th, affording Wilson precious little time to bridge the gap.

OR-01: Another potential GOP target? Internal poll says "Yes"
Personally, I have a harder time buying this one than the one in Kentucky. That said, a new internal poll for newly minted GOP nominee Rob Cornilles says that the challenger is only six points behind longtime Democratic incumbent David Wu in this suburban district (46-40). Cornilles survived a teabagging in last month's primary, coming in well under 50% of the primary vote despite an extremely well-funded effort.

VA-05: McKelvey to cause Hurt some pain--stays on sidelines
Last week, the Wrap reported that Republican nominee Rob Hurt was circling the conservative wagons in an effort to stave off right-wing opposition in his bid to knock off Democratic freshman Tom Perriello. His efforts hit a snag, as both the local Tea Party group, as well as primary runner-up Jim McKelvey, refused to endorse the Republican nominee.

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

CA-Gov: Meg Whitman--paragon of fiscal discipline
When Meg Whitman campaigns on cutting spending, someone might want to tell her that having spent about six bucks per registered voter...by the middle of freaking JUNE, ain't exactly the model of fiscal discipline. Disclosure forms show that Whitman, the GOP nominee for Governor, cut herself another eight-figure check, and has now self-financed her bid for higher office to the tune of...wait for it...$91 million.

In other CA-Gov news, for what it is worth, that right-wing CrossTarget/Pajamas Media poll alluded to earlier in the Wrap also looked at the gubernatorial race, and found Whitman trailing Democratic nominee Jerry Brown. The poll showed Brown leading Whitman 46-43. Given how optimistic CT/PM were in their assessment of the MA-Senate race in January (these were the guys that had Scott Brown up 15 points), Brown has to feel reasonably good about these numbers.

FL-Gov: McCollum internal shows him...in a mediocre position
How the mighty have fallen: one-time gubernatorial frontrunner Bill McCollum, the Republican Attorney General of Florida, now can only produce an internal poll showing him tied with newcomer Rick Scott. The poll shows McCollum deadlocked with the health care magnate, with each man drawing 40% of the vote.

OR-Gov: Is history on Kitzhaber's side? Yes, says UM study
This item is not so much a breaking news item, but it is interesting nonetheless. The University of Minnesota went back a half-century, and looked at former Governors seeking a return to office, just as Democrat John Kitzhaber is attempting to do in Oregon this year. The verdict? Not too bad, actually. Such candidates have been successful 63% of the time, according to the study. The drawback? Only one such case has occurred since 2000, when Tony Knowles' Democratic comeback bid was derailed by Sarah Palin.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

Ras drops a bit on the volume today, but not on the ideological bent.

All together now: Republicans good...across the board.

CO-Gov: Scott McInnis (R) 46%, John Hickenlooper (D) 41%
CO-Gov: John Hickenlooper (D) 41%, Dan Maes (R) 41%
SC-Sen: Sen. Jim DeMint (R) 58%, Alvin Greene (D) 21%
SD-Gov: Dennis Daugaard (R) 52%, Scott Heidepriem (D) 36%

For those into the arena of public opinion data, Tuesday has been, by and large, a veritable buffet of suck for the Democrats concerned about their Congressional majority.

But, late in the day, another poll surfaced with a diametrically opposed forecast for the Blue team. The AP-GfK poll was released late in the day, and showed a sizeable edge for Democrats on the question of who voters wanted to see in control of Congress. The survey (PDF file) showed Democrats with a seven-point edge on the issue of Congressional control (46-39). This was actually an improvement for Dems, who trailed on this question with AP/GfK as recently as mid-April.

The AP/GfK was the lone ray of sunshine in what was otherwise an extraordinarily cloudy polling day for Democrats.

Gallup came out this morning with their weekly snapshot of the generic Congressional ballot. In bad news for Democrats, the parity that they saw in last week's incarnation of their Congressional tracking poll appears to be offically gone:

Now, Gallup's numbers have ping-ponged dramatically in the last two weeks after being relatively stable for most of the year. Furthermore, one of our community members, in a post earlier today, thinks that there might be something hinky in the crosstabs of this particular survey.

All of which would provide some small measure of comfort, if it weren't for the fact that another respected poll came out Tuesday, one which provided painful confirmation of the Gallup numbers:

The results are a wake-up call for Democrats whose loses in the House could well exceed 30 seats. In the named-congressional ballot in the 60 Democratic districts, Democrats trail their Republican opponent, 42 to 47 percent, with only a third saying they want to vote to-relect their member. In the top tier of 30 most competitive seats, the Democratic candidate trails by 9 points (39 to 48 percent) and by 2 points in the next tier of 30 seats (45 to 47 percent). On the other hand, the Republican candidates are running well ahead in their most competitive seats ( 53 to 37 percent).

What should stop the heart of Democratic political officials, at least for the moment, is that the list (PDF file) of 10 Republican districts polled includes some districts that Democratic pickups seemed assured (DE-AL, IL-10, LA-02), and another seven that were perceived as legitimate pickup opportunities. To put it another way, there were no "reaches" on that list.

The fact that the GOP performance in those 10 districts is R+16 (albeit with a fairly high margin of error) should worry Democrats. Remember too, they are down nine points in the 30 most vulnerable seats for Democrats, and even trail in that second-tier of seats (which contained some races--WI-07, VA-09, NY-25--that seemed like real longshots).

Part of the problem is the issue of terrain. John McCain carried 17 of the 30 Tier I Democratic seats in the survey, some by wide margins. Even in the so-called Tier II GOP pickup opportunities, President Obama fell short in 16 of them. This explains why it is not necessarily an indicator of an outlier that the sample (PDF file) for the survey leaned both conservative and Republican.

This poll underscores that even if the Democrats improve their standing with voters before the fall, they are fighting on turf that is predisposed to favor the other side. This is the completely predictable consequence of winning two wave elections in a row. The GOP is fighting a lot of these battles on nominally favorable ground.

However, it is worth noting that PA-12 was a McCain district that went Democratic earlier this year, and they did so by a surprisingly wide margin. Campaigns matter, and so do candidates. The GOP has shot their own prospects in the foot around the country by nominating less electable candidates in primaries. That might prove to be a small measure of salvation for the Democrats come fall, and could go a long way toward reducing a tsunami into a violent, but survivable, wave.

How badly?  Just a taste of what happened to Albert Holland on Florida's death row:

Between April 2003 and January 2006, [court-appointed attorney] Collins communicated with Holland only three times—each time by letter.

Holland, unhappy with this lack of communication, twice wrote to the Florida Supreme Court, asking it to remove Collins from his case. In the second letter, filed on June 17, 2004, he said that he and Collins had experienced “a complete breakdown in communication.” Holland informed the court that Collins had “not kept [him] updated on the status of [his] capital case” and that Holland had “not seen or spoken to” Collins “since April 2003.” He wrote, “Mr. Collins has abandoned [me]” and said, “[I have] no idea what is going on with [my] capital case on appeal.” He added that “Collins has never made any reasonable effort to establish any relationship of trust or confidence with [me],” and stated that he “does not trust” or have “any confidence in Mr. Collin’s ability to represent [him]." Holland concluded by asking that Collins be “dismissed (removed) off his capital case” or that he be given a hearing in order to demonstrate Collins’ deficiencies. ...

During this same period Holland wrote various letters to the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court. In the last of these he wrote, “[I]f I had a competent, conflict-free, postconviction, appellate attorney representing me, I would not have to write you this letter. I’m not trying to get on your nerves. I just would like to know exactly what is happening with my case on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.” During that same time period, Holland also filed a complaint against Collins with the Florida Bar Association, but the complaint was denied.

Collins argued Holland’s appeal before the Florida Supreme Court on February 10, 2005. Shortly thereafter, Holland wrote to Collins emphasizing the importance of filing a timely petition for habeas corpus in federal court once the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling.

Quick interruption here for context: there are two ways you get to appeal a state criminal conviction -- first, through the state's  legal appeals process, and then through the federal courts through seeking a writ of habeas corpus.  The timing for that second process is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a bill which strictly confines the ability to seek the writ.  Back to the Court's opinion:

Specifically, on March 3, 2005, Holland wrote:

“Dear Mr. Collins, P. A.:

    “How are you? Fine I hope.

    “I write this letter to ask that you please write me back, as soon as possible to let me know what the status of my case is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida.

    “If the Florida Supreme Court denies my [postconviction] and State Habeas Corpus appeals, please file my 28 U. S. C. 2254 writ of Habeas Corpus petition, before my deadline to file it runs out (expires).

    “Thank you very much.

    “Please have a nice day.”

Collins did not answer this letter.

[I'm skipping a bunch of letters and non-accepted collect phone calls.  (Yes, collect calls.  Remember those?)]  So in November 2005, the Supreme Court of Florida denied his appeal, and three weeks later the Court issued its mandate, the formal device through which the decision is made final.  At that point, Collins had twelve days left to file Holland's habeas action.  He didn't.

Four weeks after that, Holland still didn't know the Florida Supreme Court had ruled against him, and he wrote Collins again asking him for a case status.  Did Collins respond?  Of course not.  And then nine days later, Holland found out via his prison library that the decision was issued, realized the deadline had passed, and the very next day wrote his own habeas petition and mailed it to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
::
::
The question before the Supreme Court of the United States was whether the deadline for filing Holland's habeas petition could be "equitably tolled" -- i.e., stalled by the courts based on the unfairness of what his lawyer did.  In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court agreed on Monday that an attorney could indeed harm his client so badly that the client's time to seek habeas must be extended as a matter of fairness:

We have previously held that “a garden variety claim of excusable neglect,”  such as a simple “miscalculation” that leads a lawyer to miss a filing deadline does not warrant equitable tolling. But the case before us does not involve, and we are not considering, a “garden variety claim” of attorney negligence. Rather, the facts of this case present far more serious instances of attorney misconduct. And, as we have said, although the circumstances of a case must be “extraordinary” before equitable tolling can be applied, we hold that such circumstances are not limited to those that satisfy the test that the Court of Appeals used in this case....

Here, Collins failed to file Holland’s federal petition on time despite Holland’s many letters that repeatedly emphasized the importance of his doing so. Collins apparently did not do the research necessary to find out the proper filing date, despite Holland’s letters that went so far as to identify the applicable legal rules. Collins failed to inform Holland in a timely manner about the crucial fact that the Florida Supreme Court had decided his case, again despite Holland’s many pleas for that information. And Collins failed to communicate with his client over a period of years, despite various pleas from Holland that Collins respond to his letters.

A group of teachers of legal ethics tells us that these various failures violated fundamental canons of professional responsibility, which require attorneys to perform reasonably competent legal work, to communicate with their clients, to implement clients’ reasonable requests, to keep their clients informed of key developments in their cases, and never to abandon a client.

And, so, the Court remanded the case below to confirm -- through an evidentiary hearing or some other mechanism -- that "extraordinary circumstances" indeed existed for Holland.

Justice Alito concurred separately from the other six justices in the majority, wanting the Court to explain better for future litigants what constituted the "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to allow for equitable tolling.  

Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, among other things saying that the client is responsible for his attorney's misdeeds:

To be sure, the rule that an attorney’s acts and oversights are attributable to the client is relaxed where the client has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures that fall below the standard set forth in Strickland  v. Washington are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force. Thus, when a state habeas petitioner’s appeal is filed too late because of attorney error, the petitioner is out of luck—no less than if he had proceeded pro se and neglected to file the appeal himself.

...The Court’s impulse to intervene when a litigant’s lawyer has made mistakes is understandable; the temptation to tinker with technical rules to achieve what appears a just result is often strong, especially when the client faces a capital sentence. But the Constitution does not empower federal courts to rewrite, in the name of equity, rules that Congress has made. Endowing unelected judges with that power is irreconcilable with our system, for it “would literally place the whole rights and property of the community under the arbitrary will of the judge,” arming him with “a despotic and sovereign authority."  

Justice Thomas actually didn't go as far as Justice Scalia would -- Justice Scalia would find no equitable tolling under AEDPA ever; Justice Thomas would only go far as to say it wasn't justified here.  But both of them were willing to crap on law professors along the way, with Justice Scalia writing:

The only thing the Court offers that approaches substantive instruction is its implicit approval of “fundamental canons of professional responsibility,” articulated by an ad hoc group of legal-ethicist amici consisting mainly of professors of that least analytically rigorous and hence most subjective of law-school subjects, legal ethics.

Thankfully, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor and the Chief Justice saw things otherwise.  But still, I want to pause here because it's not all hunky-dory on death row.  (First of all, it's death row.)  Holland has a chance for relief here because of his own diligence in understanding the applicable rules and his beseeching his attorney to remain heedful of them.  Most prisoners don't acquire the legal knowledge to act in the extraordinarily vigilant way Holland did, and they may remain out in the legal cold -- at the mercy of inattentive counsel who don't have (literally) their lives at stake.

Yesterday's Times story about the "$1 trillion" in wealth "discovered" in Afghanistan is being called to account from multiple quarters on multiple fronts. Questions of accuracy and timing bounced around the web yesterday as the article racked up the most comments this year. Mining experts and geologists questioned claims that the wealth could be exploited anytime soon. Political observers around the world questioned motives.

Marc Armbinder at The Atlantic:

The way in which the story was presented -- with on-the-record quotations from the Commander in Chief of CENTCOM, no less -- and the weird promotion of a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense to Undersecretary of Defense suggest a broad and deliberate information operation designed to influence public opinion on the course of the war.

As was pointed out on the front page yesterday, the idea that there was vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan was known by the government for years. The article was presented, however, as if the United States struck "gold in them thar hills." Kate Drummond at Wired:

But the military (and observers of the military) have known about Afghanistan’s mineral riches for years. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Navy concluded in a 2007 report that “Afghanistan has significant amounts of undiscovered nonfuel mineral resources,” including ”large quantities of accessible iron and copper [and] abundant deposits of colored stones and gemstones, including emerald, ruby [and] sapphire.”

Not to mention that the $1 trillion figure is — at best — a guesstimate. None of the earlier U.S military reports on Afghan’s mineral riches cite that amount.

Keep in mind that the article in question cites the proverbial "internal Pentagon memo" skillfully obtained, apparently. Generals and civilian officials from the Pentagon are willing to be quoted about the memo, with Petraeus saying, "There is stunning potential here." And then, of course, the international bogeyman:

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Thomas Ricks linked to what was perhaps the best rebuttal of the Times article, Blake Hounshell's piece at Foreign Policy:

But I'm (a) skeptical of that $1 trillion figure; (b) skeptical of the timing of this story, given the bad news cycle, and (c) skeptical that Afghanistan can really figure out a way to develop these resources in a useful way. It's also worth noting, as Risen does, that it will take years to get any of this stuff out of the ground, not to mention enormous capital investment.

British Geological Survey economic geologist Antony Benham, who has worked and surveyed in Afghanistan for years, says "Of course, the security situation has made it very difficult for any mining company to get involved, and so there's not really any mining industry at present-and very little infrastructure, either."

If only they had security, right?

Now for my obligatory quote:

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.