Olmert's Subtraction by Addition

As a result of the botched war against Hezbollah, Ehud Olmert's government has been listing like a wounded duck for months. Olmert had entered office with the promise of breaking through the the traditional Labor-Likud stalemate on the the Palestinian problem through the bold platform of unilateral withdrawa. He has been reduced to fighting for his political life.

It is therefore understandable that Olmert would seek to steady his faltering government by bringing in another party into the government to serve as ballast. And it is also no suprise that he has turned first to Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beteinu party, which can serve as a counterweight to his fractious Labor ally inside the coalition while keeping Bibi and Likud in the political wilderness.

Olmert sees Lieberman as simply another merchant at the Israeli political shuk. In this, he is deeply mistaken. Lieberman quite openly fancies himself as an petit Putin. After all, Lieberman launched Yisrael B'Teinu by railing against the "excesses" of Israel's law enforcement and indepedent judiciary. (Lieberman is the only politician in Israel whose main problem with the judiciary has nothing to do with its controversial forays into religion or national security, but rather for simply upholding its mandate to enforce Israel's criminal laws. Finally, the Israeli branch of the Russian mafia had a party concerned about its needs.)


It was not until the past election that Lieberman was able to broaden his appeal beyond the Russian community - redrawing Israel's borders to exclude much of its Arab population. In doing so, Lieberman took the Sharon/Olmert demographic argument, used to support unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, to a logical, if disturbing, extreme. The argument is seductive - if Israeli Arabs want to identify with the "Palestinian," let them be Palestinians.

Despite his stated position that the Arab majority areas of the Galilee should be excised from Israel, Lieberman opposes Olmert's plan to withdrawal from the West Bank. He rejects any tangible steps towards preserving a Jewish democracy. He is content to merely demagogue against Israeli Arabs as a means to increase his own power. Unlike Olmert, Lieberman is not interested in tangible steps to preserve a Jewish democracy - or democracy at all for that matter.

Which brings us to Lieberman's current pet issue - replacing Israel's fractious parlimentary system with a presidential system. It doesn't take any imagination to figure out who Lieberman envisions as the future Israeli presidente, unchecked by the inconveniences of parlimentary compromise - and if he got his way with additional "reforms", unshackled by an Israel's agressively indepedent judiciary.

Olmert believes he can "control" Lieberman, that if he buys enough time, he can find a way to move forward either with or without the cover of negotiations with the Palestinians. He may view this latest tactic as essential to moving forward against the greatest threat to Israeli democracy. But in doing so, he is exposing Israeli democracy to a threat that while less obvious, may no less dangerous.

The Rap on Conservative Judaism

In his farewell address at JTS, outgoing chancellor Ismar Schorsch stepped to the plate to deliver a blistering critique on the current state of Conservative Movement. Finally set free from the constraints of institutional politics, Schorsch was able to deliver some deeply needed constructive cricism to his movemnt.

“As opposed to the dense and demanding discourse of scholarship, students crave instant gratification. The way to the heart is not through the circuitous and arduous route of the mind but the rhythmic beat of the drums. …

“The primitiveness of rap and the consumerism of the mall threaten to trivialize the literary culture that is the pride of Judaism. Kitsch has become kosher. A synagogue out of sync is deemed bereft of spirituality. … Our addiction to instant gratification has stripped us of the patience to appreciate any discourse whose rhetoric is dense and demanding. Mindlessly, we grasp for the quick spiritual fix.”

So there you have it. According to the out going head of the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism the leading problem in movmementis...rap music. Which begs the question - where has Schorsch been for the last 30 years? Did he ever leave the confines of JTS? If he had actually spent time in the Conservative hinterland, he would have realized that the movement has produced a generation of somnulent suburban congregations. It is hemorraging members at the edges, while at the same time alienated what should be its next generation of lay leaders to the point that the most vibrant and dynamic communities practicing Conservative Judaism shun the label.


The greatest problem facing Conservative Judaism today is the same one it has struggled with for generations - the disconnect between the elite and mass Conservative Judaism. Elite, or Seminary Conservative Judaism is bosed on a conviction that the proper response to modernity is for Judaism to preserve binding halakha, but to craft a jurisprudence that is critically informed and flexible enough to adapt to modern social change. Mass Conservatism Judaism is based on the desire to attend a service that is mostly in Hebrew and sit next to one's spouse, and a rejection of Orthoodx and Reform Judaism as being either too traditional or not traditional enough (In other words, it is about going to shul 3 days a year, and avoiding corn syrup for 8 days a year, and feeling reassured that at least your rabbi and cantor keep Shabbat and kashrut).


Since Schorsch's diagnosis utterly fails to notice the debilitating ailment of Conservative Judaism, it is not surprising that his prescriptions are way off the mark as well.

In his remarks, the chancellor also lamented the loss of “great scholarship,” which he said has “ceased to energize [the movement] as it had in the past.”

“Once, the polarity of truth and faith at the seminary had made it home for the acme of 20th-century Jewish scholarship, a venue of ferment and fertility,” he said. “Faith once moved us to study our heritage deeply, which truth asked of us that we do it critically, in light of all that we know. Willful ignorance was never an acceptable recourse. The interaction set us apart as the vital center of modern Judaism. But no longer.”

Schorsch may be right that the level of scholarship of JTS has slipped from the Golden Age of Kaplan, Lieberman and Heschel. Improving the scholarship at JTS may be valuable on its own terms, but it does nothing to solve the crippling levels of Jewish illteracy found in most Conservative congregations. Its like arguing that the crisis in American education can be solved if only Harvard cracked down on grade inflation.


The first thing that Conservative Judaism needs to decide is whether it wants to be a mass movement like Reform Judaism or an elite movement like Modern Orthodoxy. There is no place in modern American religion for Conservative Judaism of the past 50 years; one with featured prayerbooks that deliberatley mistranslate prayers, responsa locked safely away at the Seminary, cantors who pray/peform for the congregation and rabbis who abstrusely sermonize rather than teach.


So if you want to be an elite movement, be elite. Feed your core, build from the inside out. Erase the line between clergy and laity by letting lay leaders daven and teach. Above all, do not water things down for the less committed at the expense of the passion of your core. If the moderately affiliated want to flock to less demanding forms of Judaism, let them go; but at least give them a real option. Even if this model was to be done in the most inclusive way possible (a la Hadar) it would still result in a smaller, leaner movement.


But if Conservative Judaism is set on remaining a mass movement, then in needs to start figuring out how to meet the needs of congregants at different levels of knowledge and observance. Right now, the movement takes a schizophrentic approach - at times congregants are assumed to be fully Jewishly literate (e.g. long stretches of old-school davening with explanation) and at times they are assumed to be not only Jewishly illiterate, but also child-like (responsive readings, rabbinic "conducting" of the service. Either you have the ability to read rabinnic sources in the original Hebrew or you can suffice with soundbites from the rabbi.


A Conservative Judaism serious about being a mass movement would stop confusing Hebrew semi-literacy with Hebrew illiteracy, and Hebrew illiteracy with illiteracy. The movement needs to get traditional rabbinnic commentary translated into English(ideally keeping the Hebrew text as well) and into the hands of Conservative Congregants. Certaintly nuances are lost in the translation, but that's what rabbis are for - to point out and explain those nuances. This is not brain science - Art Scroll figured this out years ago. If you a spritual seeker you can now find right-wing interpretations of much of the rabbinic tradition easily available while more nuanced and accurate translations are done ad hoc by Conservative rabbis and educators. If there is no room in the Conservative prayerbook for a full explanation of the structure and meaning of the service, then a companion guide should be created to fit in the pews of every Conservative shul.


Moreover, its a serious mass Conservative Judaism would acknowledge that it is more important to increase congregant observance than it is for every "synagogue-sponsored" event to meet the highest halakhic standards. For example, it is insane to limit a home Shabbat program to just those congregants who actually keep kashrut. Holding out for a seamless web of observance is denying the reality of mass Conservative Judaism


Is it possible for a renewed elite Conservative Judaism and a more populist mass Conservative Judaism? Yes, if, and only if, the movement adopts a multiple congregation synagogue model. Elite Conservative Judaism needs space for lay leaders to lead, to be a room full of passionate participants rather than bar-mitzvah guests; to have a fluid service rather than a permanent learner's service. But these traditional-egalitarian minyans need the institutional resources of synagogues, and the synagogues need their passion and knowledge. The most dynamic Conservative synagogues feed off the passion of in-house minyans. The easiest way to fuse these groups, to bring together core and periphery is music, percussive, melodic music. And so, what Schorsch disdains as a "quick spiritual fix" that threatens to destroy Conservative Judaism might just be the one thing that can save it..

Nixon 1968, Gore 2008 ??

The Bull Moose is once again commenting on the "Phoenix-like" rise of Al Gore as a presidential candidate. Here's the Moose in January, noting the parallels between a Gore run in 2008 and Nixon's successful comeback in 1968.

Nixon is back! Well not really, the Moose is referring to the comeback of Al Gore, the Democrat's version of the Phoenix-like Republican of '68. The remake of the former Veep is in overdrive. The lefties realize that Al is their true heart-throb.

No doubt, the Veep is reading Six Crises and consulting with the Old Nixon men. Like Tricky Dick, Al can wave the "Bloody Shirt" of a stolen election. And after eight years in the wilderness, Gore can mobilize the base because he has been "right" on everything dear to the left.

Let's put to the side the fact that Nixon was historically the worst threat to American democracy in the history of the nation and that Al Gore is genuinely decent man and public servant with an impeccable record.

The historical analogies between a Gore run in 2008 and Nixon's run in 1968 are striking:

(1) Minority party (GOP, Dems) reverses years of exile from the White House with a charismatic, moderate president (Ike, Clinton)

(2) Despite popularity of policies of outgoing president, less charsimatic VP (Nixon, Gore) stumbles against a young, inexperienced but up-beat challenger (Kennedy, Bush).

(3) Dramatic event rallies divided nation around incumbent party (Cuban Missle Crisis, 9/11)

(4) Majority adminsitration gets mired in war, corruption and overreaching of its cultural fringe.

(5) Former VP (Nixon, Gore) returns to public stage to rally demoralized party (post-Goldwater GOP, post-Kerry Dems) and present himself as both an stateman with experience and outsider who can clean up the mess of the majority party.

Wouldn't it be great if the parallels continued. A 2-term Gore presidency beginning in 2008 (which since Al Gore would never bug his opponent's phones would last its full 8 years)?

Anyway, the Moose is panicking a bit too much from Gore's rhetoric. After all, Nixon's actual policies while in office were surprinsingly moderate.

Purim Cabana

Almost a decade ago, I realized that the Purim story, which featured sex, violence and romance, was missing one thing - a cheezy soundtrack. In an effort to rectify that, I composed the following, which tells the story to the tune of Barry Manilow's immortal Copa Cabana. 9 years after I first published it in "Shabbat Shalom, Princeton", the Purim Cabana has achieved its own small bit of fame, even making it onto songsheets!

Her name was Vashti, she was his showgirl
She was the jewel in his crown, even though he got around
His royal highness, drunk at his party
Told her to bare it all, but she wouldn’t heed his call
Didn’t like what she said, honor cost her her head
The point of this all being that the king re-wed

Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
Monarchs weren’t much for decorum
Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
The king’s every passion was always the fashion
Back in Shushan, he axed his love

Her name was Esther, she was of our tribe
With help from Uncle Mordecai, she gave being queen a try
Went to the pageant, king looked her over
And Esther was so fair, that the others had no prayer
He told his chamberlain, no need to look again
And took her back to the palace, right there and then

Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
The king found someone to adore him
Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
Days full of bliss with a lovely Jewess
Back in Shushan, he fell in love.

His name was Haman, he was quite evil
He was the king’s right-hand man, and he hatched a deadly plan
Talked to the king, he won him over
There’s some people who won’t bow, must get rid of them right now
And went he sold his lie, planned to hang Mordecai
And drew lots for the day that we all would die

Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
We didn’t get much of a forum
Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
Haman’s evil scheming, soon could be leading
To Shushan, drenched in our blood.

Shushan on Puriim, Shushan on Purim...

Her uncle told her, she was our last chance
She would have to see the king, and tell him everything
But Achashverous, was no New-Ager
If his sceptre wasn’t out, she was through no doubt
But the king loved her so, to dinner he would go
And the tables would turn on Haman, now Ach was in the know

Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
Haman built gallows used for him
Back in Shushan, Shushan on Purim
Esther saved us all when she answered our call
Back in Shushan, Thank G-d for love.

Hag Sameyach!

We're In Time Magazine...What Does It Mean

Our little minyan, Kol HaKfar, was recently featured in Time Magazine, in a sidebar on home minyanim that accompanied its feature piece on the home church movement.

Zachary Thacher often spends Friday nights at home in his New York City apartment, but not because he's skipping out on Sabbath-eve prayer services. Thacher, 32, is the founder of Kol haKfar, an independent Jewish community that, like a growing number of similar groups around the country, meets in the homes of community participants. Thacher says he started his group--which now has a Friday-eve attendance of about 25--because "having a meaningful, personal service just didn't seem possible in the harsh lighting and monotonous, institutional vibe of a synagogue."

Like Kol haKfar, many of the new communities thriving in cities across the U.S. are run by volunteers--with a healthy representation in their 20s and 30s--and offer religious services organized almost exclusively by e-mail. The groups tend to avoid denominational classification. At Kol haKfar, for instance, some participants use Orthodox prayer books while others follow along using more liberal Reconstructionist texts.

In all fairness to the beleagured Conservative movement, it shuld be noted that the vast majority of us actually use the Conservative text, Sim Shalom. In in all honesty, our a capella, melodic, traditional egalitarian service is a Conservative Friday night service, or what what one should be. But outside of a very few special congregations, you'd be hard pressed to find the intimacy and spirit of our minyan inside the walls of a Conservative shul.

Draft Chad

After months of inaction, the Bush Administration, the UN and the rest of the international community) has begun to stir again on doing something to halt the Darfur genocide. A theoretical UN force now exists to be deployed, if everything goes according to plan, sometime before 2007.

Unfortunately, the very real forces of the Janjaweed are moving much faster than that. They've now extended their attacks on Darfur Africans across the border into Chad, striking at refugees who had fled from their earlier butchery.

The time has come to think outside the box on what can be done now to halt the genocide in Darfur. One option that needs to be seriously considered, is sending the government of Chad more than merely humanitarian assistance.

In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Stephen Biddle, addressing the rapdily worsening sectarian conflict in Iraq offers some valuable insights into conflicts similar the ongoing conflict in Darfur.

Communal civil wars, in contrast, feature opposing subnational groups divided along ethnic or sectarian lines; they are not about universal class interests or nationalist passions. In such situations, even the government is typically an instrument of one communal group, and its opponents champion the rights of their subgroup over those of others. These conflicts do not revolve around ideas, because no pool of uncommitted citizens is waiting to be swayed by ideology. (Albanian Kosovars, Bosnian Muslims, and Rwandan Tutsis knew whose side they were on.) The fight is about group survival, not about the superiority of one party's ideology or one side's ability to deliver better governance.

.....

Darfur is clearly best understood as a communal war. The original insurgency in Darfur was by black African tribes against the Arab-dominated Sudanese regime. The Sudanese government chose to respond by backing the Janjanweed's genocidal attacks on black African civilians. Similarly, the insurgents seeking to topple the Chad government, who the Sudanese government also supports, are disgruntled from being frozen out of power by the current dominant tribe in Chad.

Biddle offers the following advice regarding what the US should do in Iraq

The only way to break the logjam is to change the parties' relative comfort with the status quo by drastically raising the costs of their failure to negotiate. The U.S. presence now caps the war's intensity, and U.S. aid could give any side an enormous military advantage. Thus Washington should threaten to use its influence to alter the balance of power depending on the parties' behavior. By doing so, it could make stubbornness look worse than cooperation and compel all sides to compromise.

Clearly we have far less power and consequently far less influence in the Darfur conflict. But the basic principles set out by Biddle remain the same. It may very well be that cold, hard, realpolitik tactics are the only way to accomplish a humanitarian objective.

The government of Chad is by no means deserving of military support. It is a corrupt, unrepresenative regime that has been a long-time proxy state of Libya' Ghadaffi. Most recently, it breached an agreement with the World Bank to use revenues from a World Bank funded gas field for solely civilian development purposes, tapping into the funds for military uses. But it is also clearly the lesser of two evils.

However, it is a cold fact that most genocides in the past 50 years have been ended by forces that were all things considered were unworthy of support - the Croat army pursuing a pan-Croat agenda in Bosnia, the Tutsi insurgency that ultimately conducted reprisal attacks against Hutus in Rwanda, and the army of communist Vietnam in Cambodia

The Sudanese government made the decision to use genocide in its proxy war against the current Chad regime. Ringing declarations and limited boycotts have done little to convince the Sudanese government that its tactics are counter-productive. US military aid to Chad (or first the threat of such aid) may be precisely the blunt instrument needed to get their attention and send the message that genocide doesn't pay.

Don't Show Them The Money

The Israeli government has, after a great deal of waffling on the matter, decided that itwill not be turning over Palestinian customs revenue to a Hamas-led PA.

Critics of the move of course charge that Israel's decision to apply financial pressure on a Hamas-led PA is somehow an attack on Palestinian democracy. (You would be hard pressed, however, to find a single one of these critics who just dandy with the idea of Israel pressuring a Fatah-led Palestinian kleptocracy). Thus we have the first demonstration of the newly minted - 48% of the Palestinian popular vote vitiates all need for Hamas to act as a responsible state actor.

The biggest problem with Israel's move is that the Israeli government, par for the course, has failed to adequately articulate why it is withholding the money.

"It is clear that in the light of the Hamas majority in the parliament and the instructions to form a new government that were given to the head of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority is in practice becoming a terrorist authority," Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister, told his cabinet. "The state of Israel will not agree to this."

Its not clear from Olmert's statement, however, what exactly Israel wants to pressure Hamas to do. Revise its charter to remove passages calling for the elimination of Israel? Agree to abide by "existing peace agreements"? We've been down this road already before with Fatah during Oslo. Changing charters and pretty statements delivered in English are meaningless. Israel should be focusing first and foremost on what Hamas does. What Israel should announce is that any month a Kassam rocket is fired from Gaza into Israel or a sucide bomber murders Israeli civilians, the PA forfeits its customs revenue. Israel should adamently refuse to go down the path it did with Fatah - in which Fatah's excuses that it was "too weak" to stop terror attacks were taken (at least publicly) at face value. Fatah, at least could fall back on its universal record of incompetence in every other area of administering Palestinian life in support of its claims of trying, but failing to corral terror. Hamas may be fundamentalist and brutal, but as all the analysts of the Palestinian elections have told us, at least they're competant.

UNNECESSARY GRAVITAS

As Slate's media watchdog, it is Jack Shafer's job to police the press - to alert the cyberpublic to hype, artificial trends, statistical malfeasance and other ways in which those who have the primary soapboaxes distort our public discourse. In his latest column Shafer takes Nicholas Kristof, one of the regular columnists at the World's Greatest Newspaper to task for unfairly picking on Fox News Bloviator-in-Chief Bill O'Reilly. According to Shafer, Kristof's well has run dry, which is why he has taken to goading O'Reilly for choosing to use his uber-bully pulpit to fight on the front lines in the War Against Christmas while ignoring the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

Then, putting the non into non sequitur, Kristof challenged O'Reilly to use his media power to "stand up to genocide in Darfur" instead of contesting the nonexistent war on Christmas. "If you really want to defend traditional values, then come with me on a trip to Darfur," he wrote.

As Kristof readers know, he's such a frequent visitor to the Darfur slaughterhouse that he's purchased a time-share condominium there. I jest, of course, but there's something around the bend about Kristof's Darfur-instead-of-Christmas harping. Every journalist who chooses to report on Subject A receives critical mail and phone calls from folks who insist that the journalist should be reporting on Subject B if he thinks A is a problem. Kristof must think it's clever to stoop to a gambit that's beneath any self-respecting blogger.

Shafer, who feels free to jest about a little ethnic cleansing among Africans, is downright offended by Kristof's violation of the first law of punditry - thou shall not opine on the subject matter of other pundits. Really, who is anyone to judge whether Subject A is any worthier than Subject B? Shafer defends O'Reilly's divine right as a pundit to decide that Wal-Mart's phrasing of its holiday greetings is worth nightly moral outrage, but the greatest ongoing crime against humanity is worthy of nary a peep.

Shafer is also upset by Kristof's refusal to treat his columns as simply a day job. Poor Nick can't seem to keep mass slaughter in proper perspective. He just keeps returning to that depressing topic, column after column after column.

And so Shafer flags Kristof for unnecessary gravitas. Enough already with the genocide, Nick, Jack is bored. And while you're at it, can you get Thomas Friedman to stop it with his crusade for energy efficiency. No matter how many times he says "Manhattan Project" its not gonna happen. And could you get Bob Herbert to let go of the racism thing? After all, that whole Tulia story was a real drag to read about. I'm sure we can find someone to lighten up the page - how about the latest observations on how exurban consumer patterns define American politics from David Brooks or more musings on modern dating from Maureen Dowd. Please, if Americans wanted to deal with Darfur already, wouldn't they? I mean sure the situation is awful, and the world's response varies between malign neglect and token measures, but the last thing that's called for is journalistic gimmicks.

Oh, Nick, while your at it, why stop with O'Reilly? I'd like to chip in for a plane ticket for Jack Shafer to come along. (I'll even donate my old New Republics so he can catch up on his Marty Peretz columns!!) And if Jack can't fit such a trip to Nick's "time-share" into his busy schedule than I have a suggestion for him - stop writing hit pieces attacking the few decent pundits who are desperately trying to focus public discourse on the issues that truly matter. Otherwise, Slate is going to need a Media Watchdog watchdog.

Democrats Options In the National Security Debate

Karl Rove has pretty much set out what the GOP strategy for 2006 will be - a replay of 2002,

In essence, the GOP has a three pronged approach


(1) Since 9/11, the most pressing issue facing America is protection from terror. Democrats are mired in a "pre-9/11" mindset.

(2) Bush is an effective leader in the War on Terror, willing to make the tough choice necessary to keep America safe.

(3) A GOP Congress is necessary to assist Bush in fighting the War on Terror. Democrats would get in the way of Bush's efforts to keep America safe.


As of now, the Democrats do not appear to have anything resembling a coherent response to this plan. As I see it, these are the following responses they could take, but the party may be too fractured to adopt any of them.

(1) Try to Change the Subject to Domestic Issues

(2) Attack from the Left - Bush and the Right have overhyped the threat of a post 9/11 attack, overreached in Iraq, and are a danger to our civil liberties, etc...

(3) Flank from the Right - Bush has been too timid on Iran and in pursuit of Bin Laden in Pakistan, etc..

(4) The Sensible Center - This is the default wonky Democrat "good policy is good politics approach" - Democrats will be tough on Iran (but sure to consult with our allies) will look to reduce the U.S. footprint in Iraq (but will be responsible about not withdrawing too quickly).

(5) Redefine the Issue - Bush has made us less safe through incompetence and cronyism in the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA is a mess, chemical plants are exposed, the recommendations of the 9/11 commission haven't been implemented.

The Dems tried the Change the Subject approach in 2002 - it didn't work so well. Kerry's approach in 2004 resembled the Sensible Center, but his nuanced positions elicited yawns and were unable to compete with Bush's more simplistic, clearer message. Despite this, to the extent any national security message is delivered from the Dem establishment, it resembles this approach.

The netroots desperately wants the party to employ a full frontal Attack from the Left. While this approach at least provides clarity and theoretically could shift the terms of the debate somewhat, it reality it plays right into Rove's playbook. The netroots dramatically misreads that the average swing voter is far more concerned about preventing the next terror attack than warrantless wiretapping.

The much-maligned hawks would ideally like to employ the Flank from the Right strategy, but whatever the political upsides, it will likely lead to an internal mutiny from the party's core.

That's why I endorse the fifth approach - Redefining or Reframing the issue. While Democrats are not going to succesfully convince swing voters that the "War on Terror" is overhyped bunk, the GOP is vulnerable on the other two points - Bush's leadership and whether a GOP Congress is needed to support Bush

By reframing the issue around what Bush has failed to do since 9/11, the Democrats (1) plug into doubts about Bush's ability of a leader in the War on Terror that have been raised by Iraq and Katrina, (2) highlights the downside of a lacky GOP Congress unwilling to keep Bush honest;

For the approach to be as effective as positive, Democrats need to link the failure of Bush and the GOP Congress to act to the culture of corruption and cronyism that is rampant both in the Bush White House and Congress. Its obvious, for example, how GOP corruption has sabotaged efforts for reducing dependance on foreign oil - considering that oil lobbyists wrote the energy bill. Other examples of how lobbyist money has translated into GOP inertia on the 9/11 commission recommendations need to be unearthed and placed front and center in the fall.