Ever get frustrated when you can’t get a human when calling a company for customer service?

Here’s how!

“All Things Considered” just had E.J. Dionne and David Brooks, their regular commentators, discussing the Connecticut primary. Dionne says Lieberman’s Sunday speech about his position on the Iraq War, given a month earlier, might have won him the election. I agree.

He also said the GOP charge that the election proves there’s no room for moderates in the Democratic Party is absurd, unless you also agree that the defeat of the GOP incumbent Congressman Joe Schwarz in Michigan means there’s no room for moderates in the Republican Party.

Finally, he points out that calling someone a “moderate” who supports the radical notion of a pre-emptive war in Iraq is also ironic, and I would say, at best.

(The conversation will be available on NPR’s web site around 7:30 p.m.)

Last month I wrote about a Democratic, white, congressional candidate who was being criticized because he was competing in an historically black Brooklyn district. (The 11th district primary in New York is Sept. 12.) I raised the point about whether blacks office holders in Virginia’s General Assembly might agree to some redistricting that would make their seats less safe (but by no means make them underdogs) in exchange for making other seats that are now reliably Republican more competitive for Democrats.

In the current issue of Democratic Strategist, that topic is covered, with similar questions being asked.

Regardless of their race or the racial composition of their districts, far too many Democrats in the U.S. House are representing too-safe districts, a reality which prevents the party from maximizing its House seat share. The “unholy alliance” forged between Republicans and minority Democrats led to the election of more CBC and CHC members to Congress, but also more Republicans. As well, many white Democrats enjoy unusual electoral security. A new alliance between white and minority Democrats must be forged, with the goal of redrawing the 2012 maps to enable Democrats to recapture-or, if already recaptured, retain-a House majority.

…[I]n Georgia, for example, where the congressional delegation in 1990 had eight white Democrats, one black Democrat, and one Newt Gingrich, after redistricting, there were three black Democrats and eight Newt Gingrich clones. Since the white Dems had to pay close attention to their black constituents prior to redistricting, while the Gingrichites did not afterwards, are African-Americans better represented under this arrangement? Maybe, maybe not — it depends how important you think it is to have a person of the same race representing you in Washington, as opposed to someone who needs to pay attention to you.

…Rep. John Lewis, who holds that one Atlanta seat that has been African-American since Andrew Young won it in 1972, has been a leader in making the point that if Congress is led by a majority that is hostile to African-Americans, it really doesn’t matter if they have a handful more members of the minority caucus.

This is a discussion that needs to happen in Virginia. I don’t know that there are black districts that can be safely gerrymandered to protect both the incumbent and add a competitive district for another Democrat. But it’s worth a look. With the inordinate power the House Black Caucus seems to hold over the leadership, it will be a challenge to even bring up the question.

After a trip to the woodshed, I’ve learned that black members of the Virginia General Assembly have opposed “packed” minority districts as a dilution of minority voting rights. From a brief supporting a challenge to the state’s 2001 redistricting plan, the implication drawn (see comments) is that they (today, all are Democrats) would welcome redistricting that would dilute the number of black voters in their districts. If that implication is correct, it bodes well for the next redistricting, assuming Democrats have greater input into the process than they had in the last one and that redrawn districts would increase the chances of more Democrats being elected.

The lede says it all.

Moderate reformers across the Arab world say American support for Israel’s battle with Hezbollah has put them on the defensive, tarring them by association and boosting Islamist parties.

This is a must read with all the reasons Bush’s foreign policy is dead wrong.

So you think these 75,000 Palestinians don’t have a long-term view of the problem?

Israel’s military struck Lebanon’s largest Palestinian refugee camp Wednesday, killing at least two people and wounding five. Lebanese and Palestinian officials said an Israeli gunship shelled the Ein el-Hilweh camp, but Israel’s military said the attack was an airstrike that targeted a house used by Hezbollah guerrillas.

The camp is home to about 75,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants who were displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. (emphasis added)

Last week’s Mason-Dixon poll, which found weak support for higher transportation taxes, is a solid message from taxpayers and drivers, according to Del. Clay Athey, R-Front Royal.

“The people of Virginia believe that we have enough money to have a fine transportation system,” said Athey, one of the leaders of the House’s transportation efforts. “The message we’re getting [from voters] is ‘fix it with some innovative ideas.'”

GOP lawmakers held a retreat recently to talk strategy, and the end result is some decidedly new options when it comes to the state’s road problems.

Republicans are going to be “coming out with some innovative and creative ways to address the problem that doesn’t involve raising taxes,” said Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock.

It remains to be seen whether their ideas will be “innovative and creative.” But who wants to wager whether the Democrats have held a retreat to discuss transportation options in light of the effective road blocking by House Republicans and the recent Mason-Dixon poll.

I don’t make much of the anti-tax results of the poll. I think the anti-tax bias is more from the Democrats’ inability to outline the benefits of higher taxes. You can’t just say, “More money equals a faster commute.” People are more willing to volunteer, follow your lead or spend money — doesn’t matter what — when they have some specifics. You need to outline the specific projects and expected benefits.

But that would mean Democrats would need to sit around and strategize a bit. Or hold a retreat.

Don’t hold your breath.

There will be a battle on the news and talk programs over the next couple of days to spin the Lamont victory. Democrats already seem to fear saying what this is all about.

“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. “This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.”

The article from which the Emanuel quote comes is quite good. Kudos for New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney for limiting quotes in the article and not letting it degenerate into dueling talking points.

But to Emanuel’s statement, Lamont’s victory isn’t about one thing and solely a protest among voters who “hate” Bush. It was also about the war and a lot of what Bush stands for and what the Democrats don’t. They slowly are outlining alternative visions, but now stronger stands against Bush will be criticized not only by the GOP but by pundits in the media who will no doubt suggest that Democrats waited until they saw which way the wind was blowing in Connecticut before forcefully taking on Bush and his misguided foreign policy.

That’s unfair to many Democrats who have spoken out recently. But the reality is in the world of public opinion you still have to deal with the perception of mainstream media and anticipate how positions will be analyzed.

The greatest tragedy would be if Democrats start interpreting Lamont’s victory as a signal that they need to simple call for an immediate pullout in Iraq. That will be perceived as a McGovern moment that will harm the party in the long run. Rather, I hope the response goes something like this.

What Lamont’s victory tells us is that the country is ready for a more strategic and effective foreign policy that considers the long-range welfare of our country and the world. The U.S. can no longer base its decisions on Western movie mentality. We must export our ideas and values in a way that turns enemies into friends. George Bush and the Republicans’ approach has created more terrorists and made the world less safe. Democrats want to ensure that our children live in a safer world. We need to engage those who have opposed our policies and challenge our friends to work for peace and prosperity worldwide.

Lamont’s victory tells us that Americans want change. They want a government with a strong military defense that works in tandem with a strong diplomatic effort to win the war of ideas. We must create a strong defense that protects Americans from terrorist threats while we address the roots causes of terrorism. To do that we must be tough with our enemies and tough with our friends.

No one wants to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War, and the Republicans don’t seem to have a Plan B. Clearly, Connecticut voters said “staying the course” is not an option. They want change, not only in our foreign policy but in our financial priorities. We have problems at home that need out attention and cannot afford to waste our dollars fighting a civil war we created.

Let’s rebuild our military strength for the job of defending America. And let’s get on with making peace and security for our children a priority again.

UPDATE: Just after publishing this post I read this AP story. Sure enough the Dems position the victory as a repudiation of Bush instead of what they stand for.

“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else,” Reid and Schumer said. “The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

Meanwhile, the GOP’s Ken Mehlman used the opportunity to say what Democrats stand for.

“Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense, and for that, he was purged from his party. It is a sobering moment,” Ken Mehlman said.

The Republican National Committee chairman said Lieberman’s loss also is a “sign of what the Democratic Party has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism and a blame America first attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous.”

Oh Boy!

Thanks to Daily Kos for the photo.

Ney’s gone but the GOP can’t decide who’s on second.

With more evidence that the Democrats have a solid chance of gaining control at least one chamber this November, there are those who wonder how the Dems will blow it. Count me among them.

Dan Balz of The Washington Post had another of his excellent analysis pieces this weekend in which he laid out comprehensively the competing theories of what the “anti-war” movement could do to the Democrats’ November prospects.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said it is a mistake to contend, as the Republicans are doing, that the Democrats have been captured by left-wing, antiwar activists, saying the Connecticut race most of all reflects discontent with Bush rather than an ideological awakening. “This is really about Bush,” he said. “It’s deeper than an antiwar thing.”

Still, many party moderates say they see worrisome parallels to what happened to the Democrats during Vietnam, when they opposed an unpopular war but paid a price politically for years after because of a perception the party was too dovish on national security.

“Candidates know they cannot appease [antiwar] activists if they are going to run winning national campaigns,” said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. “It will intensify the tension inside the Democratic coalition as we head into two critical elections.”

But leaders of the net-roots activists, and some party strategists, argue that as antiwar sentiment spreads Democrats stand to gain politically by aggressively challenging Bush’s war policies. Parallels to Vietnam are inaccurate, they say, because of the nature of an Iraq war that has become a low-level sectarian civil war.

There are many of us who opposed the war from the beginning but who now recognize that a quick pullout and retreat to isolationism is not a viable option. If anything, we must be engaged. Only the U.S. has the power to broker a lasting peace in the Middle East. An equitable solution to the Palestinian question is the first step. The Democrats can tell a compelling story.

The Bush administration and its rubber stamp, Republican-controlled Congress has seriously jeopardized our future, both internationally and domestically. They have fueled the threat from extremist Islamists and limited the help we get from our allies. On Sept. 12, 2001, the world was our friend. Today, radical violence has spread, and we have become isolated from the world. As a country we are less safe today than ever before in our history.

We cannot stay the course. We need a new one.

Internationally, that new course will demand that we seek a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is the lynchpin to defusing the terrorists. Muslims want peace and prosperity. To undermine the terrorists, we must have a return to Israel’s 1967 borders and a free Palestinian state bolstered by international aid to rebuild their economy. An international force must be convened to enforce the peace in the short-term.

We must end the Israeli-Lebanese conflict and offer aid to both sides to rebuild their countries. We must provide unwavering support for the Lebanese Democracy in its fight against the Hezbollah. That requires first and foremost, that we talked to Lebanese prime minister, something President Bush has not done through the nearly four weeks of fighting.

Diplomacy begins by talking with your enemies, not just your friends. We must open a dialogue with Syria and Iran, something the Bush administration has refused to do. Instead it issues ultimatums. We must work to end Syria and Iran’s support of terrorists by offering economic incentives that will also encourage democratic elements within those countries. A strong international coalition must be formed to organize this effort. We should assure them that we will not attack their countries. If we believe in democratic ideals, we can work to encourage democratic forces within those countries to control their own destinies.

In Iraq, we must set firm deadlines for the Iraqi government to assume control of their country and for our forces to leave. Only Iraqis can end the civil war there. If necessary, we must explore allowing the country to be divided into Shiite, Sunni and Kurd autonomous entities.

We must demand that Saudi Arabia withdraw its tacit support for Islamic radicals in its own country and that the Saudi monarchy facilitate democracy. We must demand that Egypt end its persecution of democratic elements in the country.

We must engage China and Latin America in a way that fosters free and fair economies, the surest path to stable, responsible and democratic governments.

At home, we must develop an alternative energy policy that radically reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

And we must rebuild our military strength, decimated by the Iraqi War, to ensure it is fully capable of protecting our homeland.

While in complete control of the reins of power, Republicans have failed to make Americans safe and secure. It’s time to end their failures and vote for a new direction.