Rebecca Lefton has an important post, “BP Disaster Is Cheney’s Katrina” up at the Center for American Progress web pages. Lefton, researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress, provides a timeline, which provides a convincing rebuttal to the GOP meme that the BP spill is “Obama’s Katrina.” Says Lefton:

BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is without a doubt former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Katrina. President George W. Bush and Cheney consistently catered to Big Oil and other special interests to undercut renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives that would set the United States on a more secure clean energy path.
Oil companies raked in record profits while benefitting from policies they wrote for themselves. These energy policies did nothing for our national security and left consumers to pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills, which rose more than $1,100 during the Bush administration.

Lefton provides a chart indicating that “Big Five” oil company profits, as well as consumer gas prices, doubled during the Bush Administration, and she provides a year-by-year breakdown of Bush-Cheney giveaways to Big Oil, including:

2001 – …President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney–who gave up his title as CEO of oil and gas company Halliburton to take on his new role–with developing a new energy policy swiftly after taking office. But Cheney’s relationship with Halliburton did not end. Cheney was kept on the company’s payroll after retirement and retained around 430,000 shares of Halliburton stock.
The task force report was based on recommendations provided to Cheney from coal, oil, and nuclear companies and related trade groups–many of which were major contributors to Bush’s presidential campaign and to the Republican Party. Oil companies–including BP, the National Mining Association, and the American Petroleum Institute–secretly met with the Cheney and his staff as part of a task force to develop the country’s energy policy.

That was year one. For year two,

Bush released the fiscal year 2002 budget on April 9 that included steep cuts for clean energy research and development: “Solar and renewable energy R&D would drop by more than a third; nuclear energy R&D would be almost halved; and energy conservation R&D would fall by nearly 25 percent.”

R & D funding for biomass, geothermal, and solar energy programs was further reduced by Bush-Cheney for FY 2003 and the Republican -controlled congress provided multi-billion dollar tax breaks for dirty energy, as well as subsidies and loan guarantees. On August 8, 2005, Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which “closely resembled Cheney’s 2001 plan and gave $27 billion to coal, oil and gas, and nuclear, and only $6.4 billion for renewable energy.” Also in that year,

…The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service–the agency responsible for managing oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and collecting royalties from companies–decided in 2005 that oil companies, rather than the government, were in the best position to determining their operations’ environmental impacts. This meant that there was no longer any need for an environmental impact analysis for deepwater drilling, though an earlier draft stated that such drilling experience was limited. In fact, MMS “repeatedly ignored warnings from government scientists about environmental risks in its push to approve energy exploration activities quickly, according to numerous documents and interviews.” And an interior general analysis even found that between 2005 and 2007 MMS officials let the oil industry to fill out their own inspection reports.

The Bush-Cheney pattern of cuts in funding for renewable energy R & D, coupled with subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil continued throughout their administration, culminating in their 2008 lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico and offshore of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. As Lefton notes, “Bush then called on Congress to lift its own annual ban on drilling, as John McCain embraced “drill, baby, drill” that year.”
Bush’s Bungling mismanagement of the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort was the critical turning point for public opinion towards his administration. But, affirming observations made by TDS Co-Editor William Galston back in early May, Lefton makes a compelling case that the BP disaster in the Gulf should forevermore be known as “Cheney’s Katrina.”

I didn’t actually go to Alabama last night, but I felt like it after staring at county returns half the night trying to understand the capricious will of that state’s electorate–or rather the 30% or so of them who voted in statewide primaries.
The shocker of the evening, of course, was Ron Sparks’ landslide 62-38 victory over Artur Davis in the Democratic gubernatorial race. Davis was the prohibitive front-runner for many months, and though there was sparse public polling in the race, he did have an 8-point lead in an R2K/DKos poll done less than two weeks out.
Now some people will look at the phenomenom of a black candidate unexpectedly losing a primary in Alabama and assume it’s all about race. And some progressives who think Artur Davis is a sell-out pseudo-Republican will assume it’s all about ideology. But I think Davis simply deployed a mistaken strategy, and that Sparks ran a smart campaign. Davis clearly tried to position himself for a general election far too early, and in keeping his distance from traditional Democratic groups, he managed to convey the sense that he wasn’t interested in their votes any more than in their public support. In a low-turnout primary, that was fatal.
It also shouldn’t be completely ignored that in an otherwise largely issues-free environment, Sparks had an issue–support for greatly expanded and regulated public gaming–that’s a proven vote-winner among Alabama Democrats.
In any event, Davis managed to lose upwards of half the African-American vote–which is why you can’t chalk up his defeat to some sort of southern-fried Bradley Effect–while getting crushed in heavily-white northern Alabama. It was truly shocking to see the first viable African-American statewide candidate in Alabama lose majority-black counties in his own congressional district like Dallas (Selma), Hale, Marengo, Perry and Wilcox. But it’s possible to over-interpret this election: with the exception of Mobile, Artur Davis didn’t do well much of anywhere. And so, ironically, Ron Sparks enters the general election with the kind of biracial coalition behind him that Davis sought to create, in all the wrong ways.
The Republican gubernatorial primary is going to a recount because only 208 votes separate the second- and third-place finishers, Dr. Robert Bentley and Tim James. Bentley’s performance was nearly as surprising as that of Sparks; he was in single digits in the R2K/DKos poll, while James spent $4.4 million–nearly half of that his own money–and made his constant feuding with Bradley Byrne the central focus of the entire race. And it appears Bentley’s impressive showing was at least partly attributable to voters tired of the Byrne-James slugfest.
Meanwhile, Parker Griffith became the latest and no-so-greatest of party-switchers to go down to ignominous defeat, in his case losing a multi-candidate Republican primary without even making it to a runoff. At the end of a long evening, his fate brought a smile to the face of even the weariest of Democrats.

I try not to react–much less overreact–to every sparrow that falls to the ground from the Gods of Public Opinion, but there is a survey just out today that is really interesting.
From PPP, it represents the first publicly released data from the Iowa Republican gubernatorial contest in many months. As expected, former Gov. Terry Branstad is leading Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts. But unexpectedly, Brantstad is under 50%, and leads Vander Plaats 46-31, with Roberts receiving 13%.
Dean Debnam of PPP had this to say:

It’s going to be very interesting to see if Terry Branstad is the next victim of the Tea Party movement. He’s still ahead but the momentum seems to be on Vander Plaats’ side.

In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira reports that U.S. public opinion overwhelmingly favors repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” policy. As Teixeira explains:

The House voted last Thursday in favor of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and final repeal of this noxious policy is surely very close. Gay men and women will at last be able to serve openly in the U.S. military, a move that has strong backing from the American public.
Consider this result from a recent (May 3-6) Gallup poll on the issue. An overwhelming 70-25 majority of respondents said they were in favor of “allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military.”

And if a 70 percent majority isn’t quite enough,

Lest that crushing majority be thought a fluke, consider this result from an even more recent (May 21-23) CNN poll. The public, by an even larger 78-20 margin, said in that poll that “people who are openly gay or homosexual” should be allowed to serve in the military.

Teixeira concludes that “in this particular instance lawmakers are thoroughly in tune with progressive public opinion” — a welcome development for all Americans who oppose bigotry and believe that the women and men who serve in our armed services should not be subjected to discrimination and harassment in the military because of their sexual orientation.

Today is primary day in Alabama, Mississippi and New Mexico. Mississippi’s contests of national significance are pretty much limited to the Republican primaries to choose opponents for U.S. House members Travis Childers and Gene Taylor. New Mexico’s Republicans do have a gubernatorial primary in which county D.A. Susana Martinez is favored over self-funding former state party chair Allen Weh. The winner will face popular Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.
But most of the national focus tonight will probably be on Alabama, which has competitive gubernatorial primaries in both parties, several interesting congressional races, and even a couple of downballot constitutional officer races that have demanded out-of-state attention.
I’ve done a long write-up of the Alabama landscape over at FiveThirtyEight, and you can check it out there if you are interested.
But suffice it to say that there’s quite a constrast between the over-the-top nature of the campaign–particular in the highly competitive multi-candidate Republican gubernatorial primary–and the interest-level of the electorate. It’s revealing that the big moment of excitement was probably the viral rumor that candidate Tim James (an Auburn grad whose father, former governor Fob James, was an all-American football player at Auburn) was threatening to fire or cut the salary of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. When James put out the fire by donning a “Saban Rules” hat at a campaign event, public interest in the race seemed to subside.
Early reports are that voting in Alabama is very light, with some speculation that holding a statewide primary the day after a major holiday weekend might not be the best way to encourage maximum participation.
It’s hard to say who will benefit from low turnout, other than very well known candidates and ideologues. Low turnout is probably good for Judge Roy Moore in the governor’s race; his core vote will show up. Depending on the patterns, it could also represent good news for underdog Ron Sparks in the Democratic gubernatorial primary; very poor African-American turnout is congressman Artur Davis’ potential achilles heel.
Still, the betting going into this election is that Davis will win the Democratic nomination, with Republicans Bradley Byrne and Tim James extending their nasty and expensive grudge match into a six-week runoff campaign.

Well, if you only read one Memorial Day tribute, make it James Grady’s Politics Daily post “Pvt. Mike Mansfield: Just One Marine in Arlington Cemetery.” Grady has written a classic tribute to an American veteran, a veteran who also happened to be the longest serving majority leader of the U.S. Senate and an Ambassador to Japan, although none of that is on his tombstone, a simple slab in Arlington National Cemetery, which reads:

Michael
Joseph
Mansfield
Pvt
US Marine Corps
March 16 1903
Oct 5 2001

Grady does a beautiful job of putting the extraordinary humility and integrity of Mansfield — who never had a press secretary — in perspective, in stark contrast to the media-hound politicians of today.
To compress Grady’s moving account, Mansfield was a mine worker who wanted to be a public school teacher, but was prevented from doing so by the Ku Klux Klan, which wasn’t allowing Irish Catholics to become teachers at the time. So Mansfield figured out how to become a college professor, and then a congressman, who overcame McCarthy era smears and rose to majority leader of the U.S. Senate, the one who engineered the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And, as Grady explains, he did it “without backstabbing, name-calling, or self-congratulation.” Grady shares an anecdote to illustrate Mansfield’s style:

After a September 1962 congressional leadership breakfast at the White House, parading outside to the microphones for a classic meet the press/get some glory moment came Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Sens. Hubert H. Humphrey and George Smathers, plus Speaker John McCormack, Reps. Carl Albert and Hale Boggs. Mike dodged that photo op. A candid photo caught his back as he hurried away. President John F. Kennedy heard about the incident, had that picture blown up, autographed it: “To Mike, who knows when to stay and when to go.”
Name one politician today who would pass up a chance to blather on TV.

Grady also tells of Mansfield’s uncompromising stand for gun control, even as a senator from Montana and his equally-principled stance against the Vietnam War as a former U.S. Marine. Grady explains how Mansfield refused to allow an emotionally-shattered fellow Senator to quit after his wife and child were killed in a car crash, a Senator who now holds the office of Vice President of the United States.
Today’s Democrats should read Grady’s remembrance of Mike Mansfiled with both pride and an earnest determination to emulate his character. Pvt. Mike Mansfield, Democrat.

So if you’ve made it this far through the various recreational activities of this Memorial Day weekend without spending a few moments thinking about the holiday, now’s a good time for some traditional, and perhaps untraditional meditations.
By all means, say a prayer (or simply have a moment of silence) for those Americans who gave up their lives for the blessings of peaceful life we enjoy–blessings which many of them, because they were so very young, scarcely enjoyed themselves.
But also say a word of thanks for all those who have put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf. Modern war is all too often a very random affair in which events over which no combatant has a bit of control, from the direction of a bullet or an explosion, to the wisdom or stupidity of military leaders and politicians, can make the difference between a life cut short and a life lived in gratitude for survival.
And finally, give a moment’s thought to the civilian victims of warfare, for which we do not have any particular day of remembrance. Their numbers are vast, and usually their innocence, if possible, exceeds even that of the fresh-faced young men and women who risk and lose their lives in uniformed service. War is an always-terrible if occasionally necessary thing, and those of us who have managed to escape its horrors owe those who didn’t some homage today–and every day when we reflect on life’s deeper realities.

J. Taylor Rushing reports at The Hill that “Senate Democrats plan on using recess to win back seniors.” It’s an understandable strategy, given both the high proportion of mid term voters who are over 60 (29 percent in 2006) and lingering skepticism among seniors about the Democratic health care reforms. Rushing explains:

…Senate Democratic leaders want members to hold town hall forums at senior centers to promote how the recent Wall Street reform bill “will protect seniors from predatory lending programs and safeguard their retirement savings,” and to spread the word that the healthcare bill is bringing immediate benefits.
“Health insurance reform, particularly as it relates to seniors, is one of the most important things for senators to discuss when they are home for recess,” reads a packet distributed to Democratic members. “In order to get the message out ahead of talk of health reform repeal, senators should talk with seniors about the benefits they are going to see immediately and those they will be seeing over the coming months and years.”
…Elderly voters have been the most skeptical group on the healthcare reform bill. A Kaiser Foundation poll discovered that the 65-and-older age group was the most sizable age group that believes they will be “worse off” with the bill. Forty-seven percent of seniors gave that answer, compared with only 28 percent of respondents below 65 years old. The same poll found that 56 percent of the 65-plus age group was unfamiliar with the bill and its benefits.

Dems will be reminding seniors that ‘donut hole’ payments will be mailed to seniors beginning in June, to help offset a ‘medicine reimbursement gap’ many seniors are expecting. “…$250 rebate checks are on the way to cover medication expenses, and a 50 percent drug discount starts next year.” In addition, co-payments for preventive care procedures, including check-ups and mamograms will be eliminated. To help check American Medical Association attacks against the HCR reform legislation, House Democrats just passed a ‘Doc Fix’ bill, which provides a 2.2 percent pay raise this year for physicians, followed by a one percent hike next year, and the Senate will take up the legislation after the recess.
Another Kaiser poll indicates that Dems have much to gain by clarifying the benefits of HCR to the public, as TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira reports:

…There are a wide variety of changes that will take effect this year as a result of the law. Kaiser tested favorability to 11 of these changes, including “allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26” (74 percent favorable), “providing tax credits to businesses with fewer than 25 workers that provide health insurance to their employees” (86 percent favorable), and “making it harder for insurance companies to drop someone’s coverage when that person has a major health problem” (81 percent favorable). The average across the 11 changes was 73 percent favorable, with no change lower than 57 percent favorable.

Rushing notes that the Republicans also have a recess packet for their candidates:

The Senate Republican packet is only a single page, focusing solely on “Jobs — Debt — Terror” and urging GOP senators to spread word that Democratic congressional leaders are focused on “Too many taxes… Too much debt… Too much spending… And too many Washington takeovers.” The GOP packet also zeroes in on healthcare, calling it “Exhibit A” of a “Runaway Washington Government.”

It’s clear Dems must promote the hard-won short-term benefits of HCR for seniors, in particular. But it’s equally-important for Dems, to not focus all of their energies on being defensive, and to vigorously attack the GOP, which has failed to support any legislation that benefits seniors, obstructed pension reform and wants to weaken Social Security. There are many seniors who won’t vote Democratic in November, but who might stay at home when reminded that Republicans offer seniors nothing but tax cuts and reduced services.