The chairman of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk, went on the Late Show with David Letterman last night to promote the Tesla Model S, another in his company's line very cool-looking, very electric, very expensive cars. The Model S is slated to be sold in two years for around $49,900.

From Tesla's site:

With a range up to 300 miles and 45-minute QuickCharge, the Model S can carry five adults and two children in quiet comfort - and you can charge it from any outlet, without ever stopping for gas.

Dave, an automotive buff, asks great questions even about environmental issues -- like is an electric car really any better if coal is being used to generate some of the electricity?

Here, Dave interviews Elon Musk, chairman of Tesla Motors:

Here, the car rolls out onto the set and Dave does a really weird thing:

And here are some Tesla Model S:

I will be at the CDC in Atlanta tomorrow, Thursday April 30th at 8:30am shooting a story about the flu outbreak for the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. What questions would you like answered?

We keep hearing it.

"Ever since 9/11, George Bush kept us safe."

It's sort of non-stop, whether from Dick Cheney rising from his dark hole to justify the torture he oversaw, or Republicans in Congress, or GOP pundits, it's always the same.

"Ever since 9/11, George Bush kept us safe," they crow. "There have been no attacks on U.S. soil."

It's all part of the attempt to cleanse George Bush's legacy, and the legacy and conscience of those who enabled him for eight years.

"Ever since 9/11, George Bush kept us safe."

It's a fruitless effort, of course. History doesn't listen to talking heads. It digs into what actually happened. Yet on the Apologists go, pounding their flim-flam into the heads of anyone who needs desperately to hear it.

"Ever since 9/11, George Bush kept us safe, and there were no attacks on U.S. soil."

Calling it a lie, though, is an insult to lies. Far worse, it's an insult to those who died.

The words, "Ever since 9/11..." should be enough to stop the con game right there. The mere thought of "9/11" will forever raise a visceral, sickening gut reaction drilled deep into the psyche of Americans.

And it happened on George Bush's protective watch. And it happened even though he was warned about it. Warned with specifics - "Bid Laden Determined to Attack in U.S." is how his Presidential Daily Briefing was headlined. It even explained the use of flying airplanes into buildings. And George Bush ignored it. And the result was the first successful attack on U.S. soil by a foreign enemy in the history of America. And George Bush kept reading, "My Pet Goat."

Meanwhile, 3,000 people died, and America has ceased to feel safe ever since. On George Bush's watch.

To suggest that "George Bush kept us safe ever since 9/11" is not ignoring the elephant in the room, it's ignoring the elephant that rampaged through your house, killed your family and has its giant foot on your head, as you lay prostrate on the ground.

To suggest that "George Bush kept us safe ever since 9/11" is like a football team celebrating a defeat because it won the game since halftime.

It's that one word, "since," which gives lie to the safety that the George Bush Republican Apologists are trying to push. They don't want you to think about the word, "since," because it conjures up too much horror how unsafe George Bush kept America on 9/11. They want you to forget the 3,000 deaths that actually did occur. On their watch. Even though they were warned. It's a despicable act of cowardice.

But it doesn't stop there. Because there's the rest of their razzle-dazzle, attempting to scam America that it's safe because there have been no successful attacks on its soil in the last seven years.

Never mind, of course, that there hadn't been any successful attacks on its soil in the previous 225 years, before George Bush ignored his PDB. Small matter.

It's a shameful, craven deceit. There are many reasons there have been no attacks on U.S. soil ever since George Bush overlooked the disastrous attack where 3,000 died. One is that those who attacked achieved their goal. Another is because by going to war in Iraq with no justification, George Bush gave terrorists a better, easier target.

There have been 4,262 Americans who have died in Iraq. And over 148,000 wounded. An 673 more Americans have died in Afghanistan. All "since 9/11."

While it's convenient to say that these casualties have not occurred on American soil, they have occurred on American citizens. The result of a war that was unprovoked and lied into.

Further, this unjustified war, the illegal detentions at Gitmo, the acts of torture have all diminished America's standing in the world and made it an even bigger recruitment tool for terrorists and a cause for hatred in the Middle East. All of which came into being "since 9/11." All of which have made America far less safe that it was before.

But mostly, bombs are not the only measuring stick for safety. Because illegally wiretapping innocent American citizens and illegally reading private email does not keep Americans safe, as Americans. It removes their constitutional civil liberties, which by definition makes them very unsafe.

And none addresses the collapse of the American economy. And if keeping America safe is the measuring stick, then you must look at all of America - and by no standards has the greatest American disaster since the Depression, under George Bush's watch since 9/11, kept America safe. It might not be the angle from which the Apologists want Americans to consider their safety, but if your livelihood, home, healthcare and future have all disappeared, then you are profoundly unsafe. It is small comfort to tell someone you kept them safe from not being shot when instead they were bludgeoned to death.

And lest one think mentioning the economy is merely a liberal ploy to divert attention from true national safety - trying telling that to the Pentagon.

Because only weeks ago, the Pentagon sponsored an actual war game with the military and U.S. intelligence community observing how enemies could attack the American economy and "shift the balance of power" between nations.

"In the end, there was sobering news for the United States," Politico reported, "- the savviest economic warrior proved to be China," which strengthened itself most. And though the U.S. remained the largest economy, it "significantly degraded its standing."

Yet on it goes. "Ever since 9/11, George Bush kept us safe," these Republicans Apologists cry, hoping you won't notice the earth caving in around.

Hoping you won't remember 9/11.

George Bush did not keep America safe on 9/11.

And ever since 9/11, George Bush did not keep us safe either. He took a metal pipe and pounded the nation to near death. It is only through its strength and will to live that America is surviving.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced legislation in the Senate Thursday which would allow homeowners in bankruptcy to renegotiate -- or cramdown -- mortgages with banks. His corresponding amendment to the House-passed bankruptcy reform bill is scheduled to be voted on at 2:30. (Read the whole thing.)

The measure is widely expected to fail, as crucial Democratic senators, whose votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, have publicly declared their opposition.

Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Jon Tester have indicated they plan to vote against the amendment. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who supported the bill last time around, expressed reluctance to back it this time. The banking industry has lobbied relentlessly against the reform.

On Monday night, Durbin concluded that the banks "frankly own the place."

The place came (relatively) cheap.

The banking and real estate industry has funneled roughly $2,000,000 into Landrieu's campaign coffers over her 12-year career, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Bayh has taken in about $3.5 million. The financial sector is Nelson's biggest backer; he's taken $1.4 million from banks and real estate interests and another $1.2 million from insurance firms. Tester has fielded roughly half a million in his two years in office.

That's about nine million dollars -- far, far less than one percent of the amount taxpayers have spent to bail out the financial industry.

The opponents of the bill all say that industry influence is not the reason they'll vote against the measure. Rather, they claim genuine policy disagreements: concerns it could raise interest rates or increase defaults, for instance.

But Durbin's amendment is very narrowly tailored and would only allow mortgages signed before Jan. 1 to be modified -- meaning that interest rates on future loans should be unaffected.

We'll be watching the roll call and will post the rest of the no votes along with their take from the financial industry.

Durbin's office has also calculated, relying on data from the Center for Responsible Lending and Moody's, how many homes his bill would save and how much home equity it would preserve by preventing foreclosures, which damage entire neighborhoods.

Landrieu's Louisiana could see 12,651 homes and $500 million of equity preserved. Tester's Montana: 2,815 and $40 million. Nelson's Nebraska: 3,763 and $140 million. Bayh's Indiana: 27,960 homes and $590 million.

Across the United States, the measure is estimated to prevent 1.69 million foreclosures and preserve $300 billion in home equity.

A couple of very interesting developments in the ongoing saga of the most vulnerable Senate incumbent in 2010 -- Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

As you probably know, with all independent polling showing Bunning getting routed in next year's general election, Republican leaders -- led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- have been working  especially hard to dry-up Bunning's fundraising as well as looking for some primary opposition in hopes of pushing Bunning out of the race. So far, it isn't working as Bunning only seems to be digging in his heels.

Complicating the GOP's problem is the fact that they want rising star Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) to run for Bunning's seat. But Grayson -- a long-time Bunning ally -- has made clear that he would not run against Bunning in a primary, but would consider a bid if Bunning were to withdraw. Despite amazingly anemic fundraising, Bunning has made clear he's not going anywhere and has even threatened to retaliate (and here) against the GOP if they try to force him out. Meanwhile, the Kentucky electorate continues to flee the Republican Party in droves.

Given this drama, the developments of the past 48 hours is quite noteworthy, offering some hints that the GOP has effectively given-up any hopes of forcing Bunning out of the race, will likely continue to encourage donors to avoid helping Bunning, and even appear to be giving-up entirely, at this stage, of even holding on to this seat altogether.

First, the ever-brutally honest Bunning now believes that he'll have no serious primary opponent after all, quite a reversal from just a month ago:

Sen. Jim Bunning said yesterday that he does not expect to face a significant Republican challenger in his re-election campaign next year.

"I don't expect a David Williams or an Ed Whitfield or any substantial Republican to file in a primary," Bunning said in a telephone conference call with reporters.

Second, despite handing out more than $100,000 from his PAC, McConnell gave Bunning nothing:

Mitch McConnell’s most recent campaign finance reports show him pumping money into the coffers of almost every Republican incumbent running for reelection in 2010, including some who don’t exactly need the cash.

But one senator who could use the help didn’t get it: Jim Bunning, McConnell’s home-state colleague from Kentucky.

In the first quarter of 2009, McConnell’s Bluegrass political action committee gave $105,000 to 10 incumbent Republican senators and one new Senate GOP candidate and donated another $5,000 to James Tedisco, the unsuccessful Republican candidate for the special election in New York’s 20th Congressional District. The Senate minority leader also shelled out another $5,000 to help Republican Norm Coleman in his legal fight with Al Franken, and he sent $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $5,000 to the Republican Party of Kentucky.

He gave $10,000 to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who already has more than $13.5 million in cash on hand, and $10,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who’s sitting on $3.6 million in cash on hand.

Bunning has less than $400,000 in cash on hand, and none of it came from McConnell this quarter.

Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, calls the shutout “the clearest sign yet ... that Mitch McConnell doesn’t want [Bunning] to be a candidate.”

Finally, according to the latest Wall Street Journal op-ed by the right-wing Fred Barnes, GOP sources are telling him that Bunning is "a certain loser" next year:

In Kentucky, two-term Sen. Jim Bunning is a certain loser in 2010, according to GOP leaders in Washington. They want him to defer to Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a rising star in Kentucky politics. But Mr. Bunning told me he is running. Mr. Grayson has said he won't run unless Mr. Bunning retires. This is not a happy circumstance for Republicans, who can't afford to lose Kentucky.

Given that the GOP will, for the third straight election cycle, find itself on the defensive in desperately trying to hold on to numerous seats in 2010 (KY, MO, NH, OH, FL, NC, and LA), there's some reason to believe that their electoral triage has convinced them to effectively concede Bunning's seat now and instead focus their money and energies in other races where they have a chance to keep Senate Democrats from holding as many as 64 or 65 seats next year.

Amazingly, prospects continue to deteriorate for the GOP. It's hard to believe that things can get any worse for them. But it is.

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "KY-SEN: Signs That GOP Is Giving-Up On Holding Bunning's Seat."

Senator Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party was supposed to ease his path towards reelection in 2010. But in an internal memo to Pennsylvania members, SEIU chief Andy Stern let it be known, rather clearly, that the newly-minted Democrat shouldn't expect labor's support without substantive changes in his approach to their issues.

"We applaud the Senator on showing the political courage we know it took to change parties--and to move to a place we believe is more closely aligned with his personal convictions. But SEIU has always been an organization that supports candidates and elected officials based on their commitment to working families, not their party labels.

The issues that face working people in Pennsylvania have not changed, and the support we need from our representatives in Congress hasn't changed, either.

We know there have been contradictory and confusing reports about what Senator Specter's decision means for the priorities of working families in our state. In a word: our fight for Employee Free Choice and quality, affordable healthcare continues, as strong as ever."

Stern's letter follows the line of thinking I've been hearing from labor sources since Specter defected. While hopeful that a change in political party scenery will -- as Obama put it Wednesday night -- "liberate" the Pennsylvania Democrat to vote his conscience, there is still skepticism that Specter will switch his vote on, among other items, the Employee Free Choice Act. Indeed, the most optimistic scenario seems to be that a compromise bill will be produced that Specter -- and some of the recalcitrant Democrats -- will support, giving the caucus the 60 votes needed to cut off a filibuster.

In becoming a Democrat, however, Specter also changed the type of pressure points that could be used to influence his vote. In the memo, Stern notes that the SEIU and the two labor federations (AFL-CIO and Change to Win) have "generated over 50,000 calls to Specter's offices," "produced over 50,000 total handwritten letters to Specter's offices," and "held hundreds of protests, rallies and house meetings across the state" since the Senator announced he would not support EFCA.

"And we will continue to do so," reads the memo, "until Sen. Specter supports the principles of the Employee Free Choice Act."

Along these lines, on Thursday morning, Pennsylvania members of the SEIU were blasted with an email from the national affiliate declaring that "Arlen Specter needs to hear from you now."

"Pennsylvania's working families need his support on the Employee Free Choice Act and Health Care Reform," read the email. "I'm going to one of his offices tomorrow with some of our SEIU members and we'll make sure he hears from you."

Watch live coverage of Barack Obama speaking about the state of the U.S. auto industry.