Open Left Bush Dog and FISA capitulation supporter Brian Baird is one of the few Bush Dogs still susceptible to a primary challenge this late in the season.  Washington's primary is Tuesday August 19.

This morning Brian Baird's primary challenger, progressive community activist Cheryl Crist, was interviewed on Thom Hartmann's radio show.  The online poll -- Baird v. Crist -- is getting overwhelmingly favorable results for Crist -- 85% to 15%.

Cast your vote now, and follow me below the fold for more on why Progressives need to  unite behind Crist now.

As of 10:30pm Wednesday July 9, 2008.

In November we will have our Democratic majorities in Congress, so the game now is Better Democrats.

We're disappointed about FISA, but let's not just complain; let's act. Protecting the Constitution from these FISA assaults requires primary challenges to take out the Bush Dogs in blue and purple districts that would support more progressive representatives.

There are only so many Bush Dogs, and some are in red districts where we can't do better.  For others, the primary date has already passed.  That leaves just a few leverage points.  One of them is WA-03's Brian Baird, the infamous and unrepentant surge supporter, who just this week voted against the Constitution by supporting the FISA compromise and telecom amnesty.

Now that Baird has confirmed his Bush Dog status by voting for telecom immunity, this race is getting a lot more attention.  After the jump, what to do and why.

Cross-posted on Open Left.

In prior diaries, I introduced Cheryl Crist, weighed the risks of her primary challenge to pro-war Democrat Brian Baird, and considered whether Baird was worth challenging.  

In each instance, the comments have weighed heavily in favor of adding a dedicated and experienced progressive peace activist to Congress, but wondered whether Cheryl Crist was a "credible" candidate?

What makes a candidate "credible," and does Cheryl Crist measure up?  I will propose a counter-intuitive definition.

Bill Foster's victory yesterday in Hastert's red district is a reminder that a Peace Activist like Cheryl Crist could carry a purple district like WA-03 this year -- so the question is, should that happen?

My previous diaries on WA-03 introduced Cheryl Crist, who is Brian Baird's primary challenger, and explored whether a primary challenge was too risky in WA-03.  

I concluded that Cheryl would be a good congressperson and that WA-03 is not about to turn red.  Most of the commenters agreed.

Today we'll look at the next biggest question people raise about the race: Is Brian Baird bad enough to justify the risk and trouble of replacing him, or is he basically a good representative who made one mistake (although it was one whopping huge mistake)?

In a prior diary, I profiled Cheryl Crist, a peace activist who has launched a primary challenge against pro-war Democrat Brian Baird in Washington's third Congressional District.  Since then, Baird continues to be dogged by critics in his district angry at his pro-war vote, and Cheryl Crist is getting traction.

As usual, Emmett at Olympia Time puts his finger on the key question:

I'm just saying, defeating Baird in the primary could end up handing the district over.

Might a purple district like WA-03 go red?  I went for the facts on this one.  Here's what I found...

Five months ago, MoveOn ran an ad against WA-03 Democrat Brian Baird for supporting the Surge. Kos himself called for a challenger to Baird in the Democratic primary.  Kagro X piled on the following week when the pro-war advocacy group Freedom's Watch started using Baird's war position to flog Democrats.  

But only one Democrat has stepped up to the challenge: Cheryl Crist.

I met Cheryl last weekend at Camp Wellstone.  Cheryl has people-powered-politics written all over her, and she's a good campaigner.  Here's why I think the netroots should seriously consider supporting her (after the fold...)

There's no shortage of articles complaining about US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' refusal to participate in oral argument.  The Washington Post complained about it in 2004, and McClatchey did a damning quantitative analysis last spring.  

But nothing compares to this week's USA Today Assault on Thomas's silence, which is noteworthy not only for its bluntness, but also because the attack was entirely unnecessary to the article, and in fact was literally tacked on to the end.  More below the fold...

The Higazy case has been diaried here, and blogged here, and even described in the Washington Post, but a critical aspect has been inadequately studied: Why is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals trying to suppress a story embarrassing to the Bush administration, and by what authority?  

I will argue that neither national security nor the "sealing" of the case can explain or justify what the Second Circuit did.

The facts are simple: the FBI allegedly coerced a confession from an innocent Egyptian student by threatening to have the student's family tortured.  But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, after recognizing that the student had asserted a valid 5th Amendment claim, withdrew its opinion and substituted a new version that did not describe what the FBI actually did...

We spend so much energy watching the propaganda spewed by Fox News that we don't always notice it coming from places like CNN, which appear mainstream only by comparison to Fox, and really are not mainstream at all.  Here is a good example:

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy, it seems the entire world is focused on the USA's lax gun laws.  You can read headlines from international papers like, "Massacre Sparks Foreign Criticism of US Gun Culture" (from a Reuters article picked up by many foreign papers, including the Malaysia Star).  The Australian talks about the "desensitizing standards of routine American gun violence."  Even Forbes concedes, "US Gun Laws Criticized Abroad."

Here is how the same event looks through CNN's eyes:

In Orrin Hatch's dark shadow lurks another spider nearly as poisonous: Utah's junior Senator Bob Bennett.  Bob Bennett deserves more attention, and a serious challenge if he attempts reelection.  

The reason I'm blogging this is because last Friday Bennett opened his mouth on Iraq.  

But before we start quoting him, some background:  Bob Bennett was elected to the Senate in '92, '98, and '04.  He will be 77-years old in November of 2010.  According to VoteSmart, Bennett gets zeros from NARAL, ASPCA, NEA, NOW, Children's Defense Fund, American Wilderness Coalition, League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, Human Rights Campaign, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and he gets 100% from the Chamber of Commerce, every year.  He's no moderate.

And he is a trouble-maker: This week Adam B noted that the Salt Lake Tribune caught Bennett trying to "foil" the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity bill.

So, it's no surprise...

Most people I know fill their lives with tiny gestures toward improving the world -- they recycle, eat organic, buy local, support fair trade, and bring their own bags to the supermarket.  

Unfortunately, these are the good intentions that pave the road to hell.  The road to heaven is a good deal more rigorous.

Below the fold, I will describe why the focus on tending one's own garden is wrong, what expenditures of our life-energy would in fact be significant, and how we can successfully encourage our well-intentioned friends to face the less comfortable and more difficult task of making a real difference.

Painful though it be to assign second priority to desperately needed substantive legislation like fixing the minimum wage and restoring environmental regulation, the Democrats’ first priority must be restoring the rules of the game.  That’s right: two-thirds of the Democrats’ energy should be devoted to procedure, not substance.  Here’s why:

Imagine a football game in which one team scores repeatedly by running out of bounds, clipping, holding, face-masking, and refusing to turn over the ball after fourth down – moreover, they also bribe, impersonate, threaten, and eliminate referees.

Upon somehow gaining possession of the ball, the opposing team must not simply play with competence and integrity.  First, the rules must be restored, or else the brawl will continue, and there will be no game. That means Democrats must reestablish the core elements of democracy:  information must be accurate, corruption must be prevented, and elections must be fair.  

Once these foundation stones are in place, we will be able to make gains that will not be quickly eroded by a renewal of foul play.  Below the fold: specific implications.