Karma update: Latest poll from the Florida senate race. Nelson 60%, Harris 25%.

That Marine’s lawsuit against Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for defamation isn’t likely to make it very far. That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.

Bush fixin’ to support Lieberman? More shortly.

In this morning’s press briefing, Tony Snow said President Bush would not endorse Alan Schlesinger (R-CT) the Republican nominee in the race.

Update: Here’s a transcript of the exchange.

The GOP-sponsored Green Party candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate race is confident he’ll come up with the money to fight a Democratic lawsuit, because “This is America, money is like air.”

One of the main factors in the Lieberman-Lamont race is the absence of a serious GOP challenger on the ballot; besides having little funds or name recognition, Alan Schlesinger has the liability of being known mostly for his gambling exploits.

The race would change overnight if Schlesinger would only step aside. And to heighten the pressure, businessman and Republican Jack Orchulli told Greg Sargent this afternoon that he’d spend at least $1.5 million of his own money in the race if that happened.

Sen. George Allen (R-VA) singles out Indian-American Webb volunteer S.R. Sidarth at a campaign event, calls him “Macaca” and ‘welcomes’ him to America. “Lets give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” said Allen.

Bush Administration official Karen Czarnecki moonlights as a “conservative pundit.” And the PBS show she appears on can’t see what the problem is.

So what did Sen. Allen mean by calling that kid a ‘Macaca’? A blogger does some research.

From TPM Reader DN …

Josh,

No need to respond to this email, but I have a suggestion for a worthwhile blog post.

I’m a white, southern male, jwho graduated from [XXXXXXXX] in 1999. I was a varsity athlete, a history major and considered myself a moderate in both temperament and ideology. I even identified with certain aspects of “conservatism” and was eager to criticize the worst elements of both parties, etc. etc.

When I found your site, you had a similar sort of “New Democrat” approach. You talked a lot about ideas and while you were certainly a Democrat, but not in a partisan or overly ideological way. I think we would agree that ideas matter, both parties overreach, had problems with trial lawyers and unions, etc.

What I first loved about your site is gone, however, but I don’t blame you. I blame Bush et al. And that’s a shame. I feel like I lost a real part of me is gone, taken by Bush and the greater Republican movement. That all of our efforts must focus on opposing each and every assertion made by this group; detailing, chronicling and exposing every lie, fallacy, and evil act. Clearly, you too realize this is the only reasonable tactic for us to pursue.

The era of ideas, debate, and moderation is gone (for now), not by our choice, but by theirs. That is Lieberman’s problem and an ever shrinking number of holdouts. I really am angry about the loss of a worldview and approach that I valued. Your site’s transition is one small bit of evidence of that loss.

I’d love to hear your view of the evolution of your approach to your politics, your writing, and your profession.

All the best,

DN

PS. I don’t view your site’s metamorphosis as “bad,” but as a necessary move in a broad effort.

I have mixed feelings about what DN has to say. But I do recognize a lot in it I identify with. TPM has always been pretty aggressive and pugilistic in its politics. The site, after all, started during the 2000 recount, the founding political bad act from which, you might say, everything else followed. And some of the difference in the site isn’t because of changes in my politics or changing political times. Some comes from a difference in what I do. I now publish three or four sites, depending on how you count them. So I don’t have as much time as I used to for writing at length. That’s something I regret and it’s something I plan to change over the next few months. But that’s another matter I’ll get to later.

With all those caveats though, there is a difference. And I think at some level or another, it’s one almost everyone in the center-left can relate to, at least at some level. For my part, I don’t feel my politics have changed much over the past half dozen years, if by that we mean my basic political orientation, policies I believe in and don’t, basic understanding of how the world works and so forth. Many people who read my site are much more to the left politically than I am. And occasionally, some issue will come up where that fact suddenly becomes evident, often to people’s surprise and sometimes anger.

I was going to start by saying that what’s changed for me is that the country I know and value is under attack. But that’s not quite it.

I live in Manhattan and have a certain perspective on the country. Folks in Oklahoma or evangelicals in South Carolina have a different one. And that’s fine. It’s their country too. What I think is that a certain political movement has taken over the country — call it movement conservatism in its late, degraded form — and wants to govern it by all or nothing rules.

The Bush presidency is in so many respects an example or embodiment of this. The president twice took the presidency with a divided electorate — first a minority president, then a 51% president. And he proceeded to govern as though he had a mandate to completely remake it, often in what appeared to be profoundly destructive ways geared to short-term political benefit and intended to consolidate power. The folks who’ve made efforts toward bipartisan compromise have again and again, in this era, been played for chumps. And that’s one of the reasons President Bush has had a much harder time in his second term (one among many): he made it too clear too many times that he’ll take anyone who’ll give him an inch or lend him a hand and use them up and toss them when he’s done.

Our policies abroad are a whole other matter. They’re related to what I’ve described above, part of the same story. But there’s more there. President Bush and his acolytes and enablers deserve all the blame in the world. But it’s not sufficient. As Americans I think we need to grapple with what’s happened. And it goes beyond President Bush. He did after all win reelection. He marginally expanded his congressional majorities. In the rough and tumble of the political moment, the fight needs to be taken to the president and his party. But we also need a more probing consideration of the forces that have made all this possible.

In any case, this is all a way of saying that in this all-or-nothing crisis the country has been passing through, I think it’s made sense to line up with those who say, No. I guess I’m one of those partisanized moderates Kevin Drum has spoken of (not sure that’s precisely the phrase he used.) That leads to a certain loss of nuance sometimes in commentary and a loss in the variegation of our politics generally. As a writer, often it’s less satisfying.

But I cannot see looking back on all this, the threat the country is under, and saying, I stood aloof.

The pro-Joe alternative reality, brought to us by TPM Reader NJ …

Dear Mr Marshall,

So, you have always had a soft spot for Joe Liberman. You actually liked him You were ambivalent as to who won the primary. But now . that this good and decent man refuses to be cast aside as the result of a scurrilous, sickening, bigoted, racist attack —– voila, you have changed your mind . He now deserves your f–ck you epithet . You are now free to endorse and spew the vitriol of the lunatics who wiil destroy our party.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

NJ

I think I’ve probably said about as much as I want to about this race at the moment. But I’m still amazed at how far a lot of people manage to get wrapped up in this Joe martyrdom, Saint Joseph routine.

There were some harsh things said in this campaign — not all on one side, mind you. But as hard-fought political campaigns go, it doesn’t strike me as that bare-knuckled. And bundled up in this outrage there does seem to reside a basic feeling that Lieberman was wronged, violated in some deep way.

I just don’t see that.

Turnover in office and accountability are good things in a democracy. Lieberman doggedly supported what has become a very unpopular policy. Democrats in his state disagreed. So when they got their 6 year bite at the apple, they fired him.

That’s a very good thing.

Whether it was wise with respect to this particular issue I’ll leave to another discussion. But on simple accountability and engaged politics terms we need more of that, not less. And it’s certainly not something shameful.