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…

For fellow fans of The West Wing like myself, this election season seemed to draw a number of (intentional?) parallels with the show. From the unlikely successful candidacy of a young Congressman (Matt Santos or Barack Obama?) against a veteran Senator…

Katie Mounts and I published this article through MinutemanMedia.org a few weeks ago. Enjoy!

European Missile Defense is a Loser
By Katie Mounts and Travis Sharp
October 15, 2008

The Bush administration has tried for years to build support for a long-range missile defense system in Europe. White House officials claim that the system will protect America’s allies from an Iranian missile attack. Unfortunately, the proposed system is plagued with budgetary, technical, and political problems, and actually poses serious risks to American security.

The Pentagon organization responsible for missile defense, the Missile Defense Agency, estimates the European system will cost $4 billion over the next five years. There is reason to suspect that this estimate is grossly underestimated, however, due to the Agency’s method of building weapons.

This method is known as “spiral development,” a process where development and production unfold simultaneously. It is equivalent to Ford or Chevrolet assembling a new car and letting people drive it around town without first completing engineering blueprints or testing the design. This haphazard approach inevitably results in multiple changes during production. Each time the Pentagon goes back to the drawing board, it costs American taxpayers millions of dollars.

If the only problem with European missile defense was that it was experimental and expensive, perhaps it could still be acceptable. After all, no price is too high to pay in order to protect American lives and those of our allies. The Missile Defense Agency, however, has a very risky secret: The system is based on shaky technical assumptions and is not yet ready for real-life combat scenarios.

The system proposed for deployment in Europe, a two-stage interceptor, has never been tested. The Bush administration claims that since it is based on a three-stage design that previously has been tested (albeit in unrealistic conditions), there is nothing to worry about. Two stages are clearly less than three, so the European design has to work, right?

Not so fast. A 2007 report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the office that verifies the readiness of defense programs, concluded that the effectiveness of the two-stage interceptor “cannot be assumed,” and that at least three flight tests are necessary before the system is deployed.

Moreover, the system currently is unable to overcome decoys designed to distract radar systems such as balloons, debris, or other radar-absorbing materials. A 1999 National Intelligence Estimate determined that any country sophisticated enough to develop a ballistic missile would have the technical means to produce these decoys. In other words, the European missile defense system is unable to do what it was designed to do. This explains why Philip Coyle, former director of the Defense Test and Evaluation Agency, calls the system “a scarecrow defense.”

There are political consequences to building missile defense in Europe. Russia is opposed to the system, believing it is really aimed at Moscow and surrounds Russia with new American weapons and bases. While experts debate whether or not the system would threaten Russia’s nuclear arsenal, the threat of aggressive Russian action in its near-abroad is very real.

Former Russian President Vladimir Putin and current President Dmitri Medvedev have already threatened to respond to the placement of missile defense interceptors in Poland. If Russia’s recent actions in Georgia are any indication, these are not empty threats.

Ignoring Russian objections also may lead to an arms race, elements of which are already developing. Russia has now withdrawn or threatened to withdraw from two key treaties – the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – that have placed a ceiling on nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War.

In December 2009, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is set to expire. Unless a continuation or replacement to this treaty is negotiated soon, the United States could lose the ability to oversee and verify Russian disarmament activities.

Now is not the time for Russia and the United States to stop working together on issues like Iran, terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and energy. There is simply too much at stake in the months and years ahead.