Below, Clara ponders the fate of moderate Republicans, using Governor Schwarzenegger and his new universal health plan as a way in. I think Arnold's the best place to start such a discussion, because he's the only national player in the GOP that, in my opinion, embraces moderation with any authenticity.

Clara argues that the progressive sweep in the 2006 elections should signal a change in fortunes for progressive Republicans. I'm dubious. First off, I don't think America is any more progressive than it was five years ago; I think midterm voters were weary of George Bush's mishandling of Iraq and the Republican Congress' mishandling of its ethical responsibilities, and voted for change. A lot of Republican voters who stayed home and a lot of swing voters who enthusiastically voted Democratic could easily revert to their normal states.

The second reason is that most moderate Republicans, unlike Arnold, don't seem to see any value in embracing their own progressivism, such as it is. In reality, we're discussing John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney here. (Let's pause to note that these three aren't the GOP's real moderates: that would be folks like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and the ousted Lincoln Chafee.) Look at their recent actions: John McCain has embraced the leading figures of the Religious Right and denounced his previous support of Roe v. Wade. Mitt Romney is opposing gay marriage even though he's been very accepting -- and even supportive -- of gays in the past, and has just declared his support for President Bush's surge, citing the advice of "Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground." That's funny, because the Generals, military experts and troops on the ground all think a surge is a bad idea. Romney's statement probably should have read, "Look, I've had my disagreements with George Bush in the past, but now that I'm running for President, I stand with him. I'm a real Republican, okay? I'm willing to support the escalation of an already disastrous war to prove it." These actions speak for themselves: Republicans believe they have to move rightward to win.

As for Giuliani, he's got a record he can't really back away from. He's long been pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control, and pro-immigrant rights. Sure, he's tough on crime and would inspire all the right emotions on national security, but a Baptist minister once called Giuliani (what with his earlier marriage to his second cousin, his cross dressing, etc.) an "insult to the pro-Christian agenda." It's a much tougher road to hoe when you're a moderate Republican with an interest in actually getting elected as a moderate -- and an interest in actually being yourself.

Today's Washington Post has a nice profile of Adam Tiffen, a National Guard lieutenant whose powerful blog posts are gaining him national attention.

I interviewed Tiffen last month for our latest issue, after Garry Trudeau picked up one of Tiffen's blog posts for his new project, The Sandbox, a best-of showing of military blog posts (what Trudeau calls the first "GWOT literary magazine").

Tiffen's posts are raw, honest and gripping and it wasn't long before The Sandbox's editor, David Stanford, asked for more. And Trudeau has even included quotes from Tiffen's posts in recent strips.

In 2005, while stationed outside Baghdad, Tiffen started his blog, The Replacements, for family and friends. He then gained a loyal readership of strangers who came to rely on his posts, and worried if he would miss a day. He wrote in detail about what we at home can barely imagine: details of the soldier's "human experience," the emotions, the textures, the visceral moments that troops experience each day.

As for now, Tiffen is still adjusting to being back home, and likely his newfound fame. He remains in the Guard and sees his men every month, which helps, he told me. When he was in Iraq he thought we were making progress, he tells the Post. But now he's not so sure. "Something has to change," he says. "I really don't know what it is. Maybe putting 30,000 more troops in will help. I don't know. I don't think anybody knows."

What's a little groping? Arnold looks better and better, first proposing (sort of) universal health care and then pushing for California's "petroleum refiners and gasoline sellers to cut by 10 percent the emissions of heat-trapping gases associated with the production and use of their products."

Ok, so there are some flaws. Some Dems charge that he's going to fund his health care proposal by cutting welfare. And his ethanol plan...depends on well, ethanol, which isn't that efficient or climate friendly, when you factor in the fertilizer to grow and refining and all, and also is being pushed by mega-corn producers like Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, etc., who abuse lobby laws, destroy family farms, encourage know the drill.

These are real concerns, and the devil is in the details. On ethanol it is encouraging that Arnold has signaled a need to find sources of the alternative fuel other than corn—like switchgrass or woodchips—a proposal that is possible here in California because we grow a lot of things, but corn...not so much. Since health-care costs are one of the things pushing families into poverty and keeping them there, it is theoretically possible that time limits on welfare could be structured in such a way to at least see if removing the dread of doctors bills would change the overall equation. (I'm not holding my breath, just saying.)

But, for a moment, let us put the specifics aside. Arnold is sending up two huge flares, SOSes on behalf of the climate and low-income—hell almost all—people who do/might/will need medical attention. He's a Republican, California is the 5th largest economy in the world—this could signal big changes.

And it makes me wonder about political futures, not so much Arnold's—he seems resigned to the fact that as an immigrant he can't run for Prez without a Constitutional Amendment. But for other moderate Republicans. A few months ago, I got into a fun debate with my friend Ken Kurson, who's a writer for Esquire and elsewhere, and the "collaborator" (I'm quoting Amazon here) of Rudy Giuliani's bio: Leadership. I was arguing that Rudy or other socially moderate GOPers could never pass through the primary; that they couldn't square the base. Ken pointed out that Rudy's polling numbers looked good among the base, even when reminded of Rudy's social liberalism (or, dare I say, his marital infidelity.) And those numbers, for Rudy and other lib-Reps have gotten even better.

Now it is my contention that McCain is likely to be knocked out for health/age reasons. But if the 2006 election heralded a "Progressive Revolution"—is there any reason to think that that revolution won't help Republican progressives? There's a long history of this being the case. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt...OK, so that's like a million years ago, we might as well be talking about the Whigs, but "This Week in Arnold" makes me wonder if a Progressive Republican (dare I say ) Surge, is not possible again.

(The groping, though, that's really bad.)

. . .one Adam Kropiewnicki, whose plight was immortalized deep inside an LA Times story about the emptying of a shelter for the NYC homeless in rural New York. Kropiewnicki, 61, was

a wordless, sweet-tempered Polish man known locally as "the Walker." Every morning for seven years, he set out on foot looking for work as a day laborer. But not until last fall did anyone call an interpreter to the site to speak to him in Polish, said Courtney Denniston, 27, a case manager supervisor.

"The first words out of his mouth were: 'Home. I just want to go home,' " Denniston said. He had come to the U.S. illegally to work as an asbestos handler, but when he lost the job, he had no money to fly home. He had a wife and children in Warsaw.

Volunteers of America, the nonprofit contracted by the city to run Camp LaGuardia, bought Kropiewnicki a one-way ticket to Poland. Staff members asked him to be ready at 2 p.m. on the day of the flight, but he was packed and sitting outside with his suitcases, beaming, at 8 a.m. Denniston loves to tell that story. "He had been waiting seven years for someone to ask him what he wanted," she said.

A Philadelphia retailer has settled a $375,000 federal lawsuit brought by former employee LaShonda Burns. Burns was fired from her assistant manager position in a Florida store in 2004 after she complained of employment discrimination against pregnant job applicants. The company, said Burns, would not hire applicants who revealed that they were pregnant, or who were visibly pregnant. Burns herself was pregnant at the time she was dismissed. Burns filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The company must pay Burns $50,000 in back pay, $130,000 for her attorney's fees, and $135,000 for compensatory and punitive damages.

And who is this company? Mothers Work, which sells maternity clothing.

In August of this past year, Congress ordered the creation of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a document that synthesizes the very best information held by all 16 of America's spy agencies. With opinion against the war at an all-time high, definitive information from the intelligence community about the Bush Administration's failures in Iraq would strengthen the case for withdrawal.

The NIE, not surprisingly, never happened. Six and a half months later, intelligence czar John Negroponte's office is saying that the NIE is "well under development" and will be released at the end of this month. Some are arguing that the timing is suspicious, and that the NIE was effectively held hostage while the Bush Administration decided what to do with the mess in Iraq. And now that Bush has decided on sending 20,000 more troops and will make his case to the nation tomorrow night (in what some are calling the biggest speech of his presidency), it's safe to finally release the info. It's easier, after all, to convince the country when it doesn't know the facts.

And that's why this situation reminds so many of the pre-war experience with the NIE.

Ollie North said on Fox News yesterday that in a recent trip to Iraq, "not one" service member he interviewed said that the solution in Iraq is more American boots on the ground, and that "nearly all" suggested "just the opposite." See video at Think Progress. An American public already doubting President Bush's plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq -- 3/4ths disapprove of the President's decision making, and half say we've lost regardless of how many troops we send -- has reason to doubt it further.

I brought up the question of whether or not the troops support the war in a blog post last month because a day after the press reported new SecDef Robert Gates was hearing from senior commanders in Iraq that additional troops would exacerbate problems and lead to more deaths, the Pentagon staged a photo op in which Gates had breakfast with a group of rank-and-file soldiers that seemed, to a man and woman, to support more troops. Odd, I wrote, that polling says 72 percent of troops in Iraq want to withdraw in a year and 29 percent want to withdraw immediately, and yet Bob Gates manages to break bread (or eggs, as the case may be) with a group that is uniformly in favor of more fighting. It would be nice to hear from the troops directly, but they can't post on liberal blogs like ours because the military prohibits the troops from reading them. Not explicitly of course, but by engineering filters to block liberal sites and allow conservative ones.

Mother Jones has covered dissention within the military extensively. In October 2004, we published "Breaking Ranks," about troops who were speaking out against the war and even a few who were refusing to fight. At that time we also published "Warriors Against War," a list of veterans groups, officers, diplomats and others involved in the armed forces that opposed the Iraq War. And in fall of 2005, we published "Memory's Revenge," an essay that told of Vietnam veterans who have reflected on their wartime experiences and are now discouraging young men and women from enlisting to fight in Iraq.

It's probably no surprise that San Franciscans hate Bush. But Madam Speaker's constituents are going a step further, using their bodies to broadcast their views as the new Congress convenes. Last Saturday, more than one thousand San Franciscans took to the chilly California beach, laying themselves out in 100-foot letters spelling the word "impeach."


Sorry, make that "IMPEACH!"

Many protesters held signs, asking for "troops home by Christmas 2007," while others simply flashed the classic two-finger peace sign. "I hope Nancy Pelosi is listening today," said one participant.

Unfortunately, listening doesn't necessarily mean action. Pelosi has said several times publicly that impeachment is "off the table."

Looks like she will have her hands full dealing with her constituents as she navigates more moderate waters as a leader in the Beltway.

—Jen Phillips

Congress on 9/11

Pelosi's proposals for increased secruity by implimenting the remaining 911 Commission proposals are beside the point. The Commission itself avoided asking any really hard questions, like, for instance, putting Bush under oath and getting him to tell what happened that day. It even contributed to the administration's overall obfuscation by hiding its own staff study of the inadequate FAA response to numerous pre-attack warnings, then finally releasing them -- after the presidential election. The Congress never has exercised any oversight to speak of over the FAA, and that includes under both Democratic and Republican leadership. For more than a decade the FAA ignored warnings by its own staff and the Congress could have cared less -- quite possibly because of close ties to the industry by former members such as George Mitchell. Tom Daschle's wife was an airline lobbyist when he was Majority leader of the Senate.

The Members of the Family Steering Committee for the 911 Independent Commission issued a set of ratings and questions after the commission shut down. They remain unanswered. Compiled by Jersey Girls Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, they include such things as how come after Bush was told by the White House situation room a commercial airliner had hit the World Trade Towers, he continued with his classroom visit to the Florida elementary school? And after Bush got warnings of an attack from 11 different nations, what did he do to defend this country? There are more than 20 pages of questions from the families. You can read them here [pdf].

The clear action here is for Congress to reopen the investigation into 911 that had been begun by former Florida Senator Bob Graham's joint intelligence inquiry. The report of that investigation raised questions about -- among other things -- the disastrous role played by the FBI in all this.The Congress formed the commission to carry on the inquiries launched by Graham. Instead of doing so, the commission conducted sets of hearings in which each member got to compliment people like Donald Rumsfeld, who appears to have been absent or out of the loop on 911, Robert Mueler of the FBI, whose San Diego office oversaw an informant who rented rooms to two hijackers and never told anybody about it, and Condi Rice, who had been presented with various warnings but claimed she knew nothing. And then there was Dick Cheney, who in flagrant vioilation of the Constitution was running the country on 911 because Bush was out of contact. What did he do and why did he do it? The Congress doesn't know and to date has been unwilling to find out.

Hopefully no one. As we move toward $3/gallon, at the Detroit Auto Show yesterday General Motors unveiled the Chevrolet Volt, a commuter concept car with the curves of Corvette and the credo of a Prius. GM boasts that the Volt's hybrid-electric battery will be able to plug into the electrical grid. When charged, the car can run independent of its fuel engine, only needing to draw on petrol if traveling 40 miles or more.

Not bad, but efficiency enthusiasts may be skeptical. Many are still smarting over GM's forced-recall and demolition of its first fleet of electric cars. The ill-fated life of that model, the EV-1—including the manner in which the State of California's Air Resource Board caved to automakers instead of standing by its zero-emissions mandate—is well documented in Who Killed the Electric Car?.

The Volt "is not a public relations ploy," GM's vice-president told the New York Times. "We are dead serious about taking this technology into high-volume production."

But GM is vague about the car's future, including a not-so speedy release date. GM says the lithium battery it envisions still needs to be invented. Godspeed if GM is to get out the Volt in time to compete with Toyota, which has already announced that it's readying a hybrid of its own. In any event, you need not wait for a concept car to improve your gas mileage. Check out our latest issue for some fuel-saving tips from Wayne Gerdes, the World's Most Efficient Driver.

—Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell