In 2004, both Bush and Kerry called it the gravest threat facing the United States. This year on the campaign trail, President-elect Obama and Sen. McCain voiced their serious concerns on the issue of nuclear terrorism.

Our research Center recently produced a policy brief: “Understanding and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism.”

Here’s a few key excerpts:

Since the creation of the atomic bomb, government officials, scientists, and concerned citizens have been aware that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of dangerous terrorist groups or rogue regimes. The rise of Al Qaeda and the events of September 11, however, brought the threat of nuclear terrorism into a whole new light for the United States. Suddenly, the detonation of a crude nuclear device in a major American metropolitan area no longer seemed like something out of a science fiction movie. Indeed, as President-Elect Barack Obama said during the 2008 presidential campaign, nuclear terrorism is “the gravest danger we face.”

[snip]

It is not the odds but the consequences of such an attack that propel nuclear terrorism to the top of the U.S. national security agenda. A March 2003 report by Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom found that if a ten-kiloton nuclear weapon, approximately the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, were detonated at Manhattan’s Grand Central Station in New York, it would instantly kill over 500,000 people, injure hundreds of thousands, and cause over $1 trillion in direct damages.

[snip]

If the United States and countries around the world are serious about preventing a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, efforts to contain the threat at its source need serious attention. According to the Partnership for a Secure America, the biggest problem is the lack of coordination on counter-nuclear terrorism efforts across federal agencies. Congress tried to remedy this shortcoming in 2007 with H.R. 1, the 9/11 Commission Act, which created a White House Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose to ignore the law and never filled the position. Failures in coordination are similarly reflected at the international level, where bilateral and multilateral engagement to prevent nuclear terrorism is equally fragmented.

Read the full report here.

I wanted the Democrats to win each Senate race. They did quite well overall in the states where we know the results. We still don’t know the results for Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia. Georgia may be determined fastest because there is a run-off election on December 2.

The media shows its lack of understanding of the US Senate with its obsessive focus on the question of whether the Democrats will have 60 votes counting the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. The media assumption is that 60 Senate seats lead to a filibuster proof Senate. Most of the media neither knows nor understands the way the Senate now works. Sixty Senate Democrats does not guarantee votes on major issues.

Senate Democrats rarely are unanimous, even though on most issues a substantial number vote together. They are mostly joined by the two Independents (Sanders of VT and Lieberman of CT). The consistent exception has been the Iraq war where Lieberman filibustered with the Republicans and blocked the Senate from voting on the merits of the issue numerous times.

Senate conservatives and reactionaries have mainly used the filibuster to block progressive change. Their use of the filibuster literally prevents an issue from being brought to a vote. Historically, its most notorious use prevented civil rights progress on basic issues such as anti-lynching, protection of voting rights, and outlawing racial discrimination. Its occassional use by liberals (rarely successful) does not justify it. The filibuster stands as the weapon of those determined to block necessary change with their fierce determination to prevent issues from being decided. It protects the status quo and privilege.

As the Republican party presidential election base narrows to southern and border states, southern, border, and small state Senators may resort to the filibuster as they did in the Bush years. In the 110th Congress (the one coming to an end), Republicans resorted to the filibuster 94 times, thereby setting a new and dubious record.

The way to overcome filibusters is to recognize that liberals and Democratic and Republican  moderates have to negotiate workable compromises to isolate the Republicans who say no to everything constructive. That is likely to be more possible in an Obama Administration that will stand for pragmatic problem-solving changes, in contrast to the Bush record of blocking solutions to pressing public problems.

On issues such as energy and health care, negotiations will have to occur both among Democrats and between Democrats and Republicans to get that desired result.

I want Begich, Franken, and Martin to win respectively in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia. They will add progressive voices to the Senate. The need to bring the small band of Democratic and Republican moderates along to join the liberals, and thwart the likely filibustering opposition of the Senate Republican leadership, continues.

The ability to negotiate successfully is at the heart of moving the progressive and Obama agenda through the Senate minefield.

This post originally appeared on Experience Advocacy on November 17, 2008.

John Isaacs, our executive director, is maintaining a list of who’s in and who’s out for key positions in the new Obama administration (No, we haven’t penciled Hillary in yet). Right now, there are only 8 positions filled (see below), but check back da…

Senator Lieberman clearly doesn’t believe in accepting political responsibility for his active support of Senator McCain for President. He wants the benefit of voting with the Democrats, while having actively opposed the Democratic Party nominee for President, now President-Elect Obama. Lieberman has no shame.

President-Elect Obama exercised graciousness when he said Lieberman should not be kicked out of the Democratic caucus. Obama is right. But that still means the Senate Democrats, as a caucus and a party, have a responsibility to deny Lieberman the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

Let me be clear. Lieberman is not being punished for votes cast as a legislator, such as his support for the Iraq war. That is between him and Connecticut voters. They have another issue with him. He has visited Connecticut for 8 days after his 2006 election and prior to November 4. His absence reflect his abandonment of Connecticut voters.

Majority Whip Durbin of Illinois and Senate Campaign Chairman Schumer of New York understand party responsibility. They are leading the effort behind the scenes to block Lieberman. The media should be asking each Democratic Senator, including the new ones, where do they stand on Lieberman’s Chairmanship.

Obama wisely said not to give Lieberman the severe decree of expulsion from the caucus. Durbin and Schumer expect Lieberman to accept responsibility for his actions. He won’t. Senate Democrats, therefore, need to act.

Even if the Democrats win the remaining undecided Senate races, Lieberman’s Chairmanship is not needed to reach 60 votes to end filibusters. Effective control of the Senate belongs to the Democrats even if they do not add another seat. Furthermore, Senate Democrats will not always be united. Any major issue will require negotiations with the small band of non-ideological Republican moderates.

What can Lieberman do? Break his pledge to the Connecticut voters and organize with the Republicans, join the Republicans, or resign from the Senate and allow a moderate Republican Governor to appoint a Republican to the Senate. A resignation would effectively end Lieberman’s public life. And it would not weaken Senate Democrats.

Senate Democrats have no excuses. They should strip Lieberman of his Chairmanship of the important Senate Committee on Homeland Security. The succeeding Chairman would either be Senator Akaka of Hawaii or Senator Carper of Delaware. Each is capable and progressive. There is every reason for the Senate to act within the next week.

This post originally appeared on Experience Advocacy.

If you’re anything like me, you’re so eager for the “change” that you’ve been refreshing your Washington Post homepage every hour to see if any updates have come from the Obama administration. We know it will come, but after only a week after the elect…