Democrats-House

Check Out Alan Grayson's new ad! (D-FL CD08)

ddeclue — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:59:04 -0400

Fellow Democrats:

Just in case you haven’t seen Alan’s new ad on TV yet, you can check it out on-line at the DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/25/155020/561/340/556978

I actually saw it for the first time on TV the other night and I thought it was really an eye-catching ad in which Alan talks about just how much money has gone missing in Iraq and how he has been working to recover tax dollars through his whistleblower lawsuits for waste fraud and abuse. I thought the ad had a lot of energy and avoided the usual political clichés that voters tune out.

Please be sure to leave a comment and please be sure to tell your friends.

Thanks,

Doug D.

Impeachment Hearings: A Win is a Win

dlindorff — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:13:57 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

There are two ways to view the news that the House Judiciary
Committee will be holding a hearing on impeachable crimes by President
George W. Bush.

One view would be that this is all a charade and that after all, it
will not be a real impeachment hearing, but rather, simply a hearing
into the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration. As committee
Chair Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) put it, “We’re not doing impeachment,
but he [Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who introduced 36 articles of impeachment]
can talk about it.” Viewed that way, this is not such a big deal. Rep.
Kucinich gets to make his case that the president is committing high
crimes and misdemeanors and abuses of power and war crimes, but then
Congressional Democrats will continue to ignore all the crimes as it
has done since taking control of Congress in November 2006.

But a second way to view this is as a significant victory over the
quisling Congressional leadership, which has been ducking its
responsibility to defend the Constitution and to stand up for the rule
of law not just since November 2006, but since the inception of the
Bush/Cheney presidency.

I go for the second interpretation of events. It is clear, as was
beautifully laid out in an article published by Glenn Greenwald in
Salon magazine on July 15, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and
the rest of the Democratic Party leadership both in Congress and in the
party organization, have been blocking any action on impeachment for
fear of having their own complicity in Bush's and Cheney's crimes
revealed. As Greenwald notes, the Washington Post has
reported that Pelosi, along with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep.
Jane Harman (D-CA) were briefed on the administration's use of torture
and not only didn't object, but actively encouraged it. Rockefeller and
Harman, who at the time were minority leaders of the Senate and House
Intelligence Committees at the time, were also briefed about Bush's
order to the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless spying on
Americans. They didn't object or publicly expose this blatant violation
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment.
And of course, many, if not most of the House and Senate Democratic
leadership as well as many of the rank-and-file members of the party in
both houses backed Bush's illegal war on Iraq, and his USA PATRIOT Act.

No wonder Pelosi, even before winning control of Congress and being
elected Speaker, made it clear that under her "leadership" (if it can
be called that), impeachment of either Bush or Cheney would be "off the
table."

Looked at in this light, the fact that the House just voted 251-166
to send Kucinich's 36 articles of impeachment to the Judiciary
Committee for a hearing, that Pelosi has had to buckle, and that
Conyers has agreed to hold even an "informational" hearing on
impeachment, at which Kucinich, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), and other
impeachment advocates in the House will be able to present their case
about the president's crimes and abuses of power, constitutes a major
victory of principle over cowardice, of integrity over complicity, of
the Constitution over creeping fascism. (24 Republicans joined in
voting to send the articles to the committee.)

The fact is that public demands to hold this criminal administration
accountable for its crimes against the Constitution, the American
people and the global community, have been mounting and have reached a
point that the Democratic leadership, as terrified as it is of
impeachment and of the accompanying airing of its own complicity in
those crimes, has been forced to allow an airing of those crimes.

Now I don't expect Rep. Kucinich to bite the hand that feeds him. He
will not present the impeachment case in a way that criticizes those
leaders. Indeed, he has publicly thanked both Pelosi and Conyers for
allowing a hearing on impeachment. But it would be surprising if
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee didn't make those points.
And that's good. Even if real impeachment hearings never actually come
to pass, we will be treated, finally, to a public airing of not just
the president's and vice president's crimes, but of the Democratic
Party leadership's participation in them.

The challenge now will be for the American people and for the
wide-spread and decentralized impeachment movement, and all
progressive, anti-war and civil liberties organizations, to press
Conyers and the Judiciary Committee to take it to the next level. If
Kucinich, Wexler and others do their job, and if we all demand that the
corporate media report on the hearings, Americans will finally know the
extent of this administration's crimes against the Constitution, and
the nature of the threat it poses to democracy and freedom in America.
At that point it will be time to demand that the Judiciary Committee
move to constitute itself as a formal Impeachment Committee, with full
power to subpoena and demand the appearance of witnesses in a real
impeachment hearing.

The hour is getting late, but there is still time to bring this criminal administration to justice.

American voters may forgive leaders like Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller
and others for failing to stand up to Bush and Cheney if their names
get dragged through the mud of an impeachment hearing, but the American
people will never forgive them or the rest of the Congress if it allows
these two men to leave office next January without tar and feathers on
their backs and a federal grand jury on their cases.

Call your representative today and every day (at 202-224-3121) and demand that he or she co-sponsor some or all of Rep. Kucinich's 36 bills of impeachment, and join the call for real impeachment hearings. Send them an email. And sign the petition calling for impeachment hearings.

We are witnessing a backdown by the House leadership. It's time to push harder. Impeachment hearings, and impeachment itself, can happen!
____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback). His work is available at ThisCantBeHappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34806';
digg_title = "Impeachment Hearings: A Win is a Win";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n There are two ways to view the news that the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on impeachable crimes by President George W. Bush.\r\n\r\n One view would be that this is all a charade and that after all, it will not be a real impeachment hearing, but rather, simply a hearing into the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration. As committee Chair Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) put it, “We’re not doing impeachment, but he [Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who introduced 36 articles of impeachment] can talk about it.” Viewed that way, this is not such a big deal. Rep. Kucinich gets to make his case that the president is committing high crimes and misdemeanors and abuses of power and war crimes, but then Congressional Democrats will continue to ignore all the crimes as it has done since taking control of Congress in November 2006.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

More Blood Money from Our Democratic Congress and Democratic Presidential Candidate

dlindorff — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:49:05 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended
benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional
Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving
the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the
Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost
of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and
supplies.

When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state
Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping
blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and
women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in
those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have
nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting
the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting
Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.

Iraq Vets, too, should not
overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their
tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left
stranded in battle zones overseas.

It didn’t have to be like this.

For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for
unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not
always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from
workers and the labor movement.

For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.

This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental
benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent
education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have
been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election
campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the
votes would have been there to override any Bush veto. Neither
measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to
a war-funding bill.

But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really
thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning
veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting
some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they
wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their
objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past
Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming
campaign.

Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all,
become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In
this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further
funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At
first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because
Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the
measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes
to pass a bill the second time around.

Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats
don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and
a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war
backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m
opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”

Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the
long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the
best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby
poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted
the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out
immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.”
(With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their
fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate
withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the
troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’
time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant
convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems.
They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling
alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up
whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be
easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged
withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.

Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and
devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they
could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though
the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.

And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a
$95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding
measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion
atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel.
They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him
to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they
know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in
the summer.

The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers
and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition
reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.

The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of
the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together
with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is
all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar
and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and
imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and
the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what
may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought
through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be
pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on
desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes
if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for
veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating
bills for their families at home.

Equally important, the $160 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the
half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for
a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other
than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who
control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement
funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal
school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop
alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global
warming.

The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless.
It is part of the problem. That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this
contemptible funding bill.
_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

Why Congressional Democrats Lose Every Fight

Bob Fertik — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:18:43 -0400

Matt Stoller has written an important post trying to figure out why Congressional Democrats lose every important fight.

As we map DC as a social network, we are beginning to understand that it is not the number of Democrats in office that moves legislative priorities, it is the density of the connections between progressive office-holders and their supporters relative to the density of the connections between conservatives and their supporters. Christunity at Swing State Project has an excellent diary, which shows that this Congress is actually more progressive than the 1992-1994 Congress Clinton had to work with. Yet, this Congress has done a whole lot less than they did to pass progressive legislation, probably because the conservative networks are far denser today. In 1993, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich organized a filibuster of Clinton's health care plan, along with the business right. Today, filibusters are so routine that the Senate has more than 70 bills pending that are held up by a Republican filibuster. The networks Gingrich used have solidified into almost uniform party unity, whereas on the progressive side there is very little holding Democrats together.

There's no question Democrats are more diverse and more divided than Republicans. And the reason is pretty simple: Republicans in Congress are all rich whites who want to keep their wealth away from the non-rich and/or non-white voters who elect Democrats.

Rich white Republicans in Congress don't need anyone to organize them, they easily organize themselves to protect their wealth.

Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, come from a wide range of backgrounds and have little in common, either ideologically or personally.

On important votes, they need to be "whipped" into line. And that's the job of the House Majority Leader, working with the Democratic Whip.

Unfortunately the present House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, is devoted to protecting the handful of rich whites who are elected as Democrats and join the BlueDogs or the DLC because they are just as terrified of non-rich and/or non-white voters as Republicans.

Democrats will never win any important fights unless they are willing to articulate progressive positions and dig in their heels over them. Otherwise Democrats will always be dragged to the right by Republicans who dig in their heels on every issue and vote in lockstep.

The place where progressive positions would normally originate is in the Progressive Caucus, which is much larger than the BlueDogs and the DLC. But they don't exercise their power because their leadership and their membership are simply too weak - not in numbers, but in determination.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer cut all funds for Iraq except to bring our troops safely home. But it didn't.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer instruct John Conyers to begin impeachment hearings. But it didn't.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Steny Hoyer resign as Majority Leader after repeatedly betraying Democratic on issues like warrantless wiretapping. But it didn't.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Democrats apply the "majority of the majority" rule created by Tom DeLay which only allowed legislation to move if a majority of Republicans supported it. But it didn't.

So it's not sufficient to elect more Democrats, even progressive Democrats like the current members of the Progressive Caucus.

And it's not sufficient to elect reformist Democrats like Darcy Burner whose "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," while addressing many important issues, doesn't cut funds - the only action that will actually "End the War in Iraq."

The only way to move Congress to the left - and thereby make it possible for Democrats to win key battles - is:

1. to support "aggressive progressive" Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler who will fight for progressive causes even when those causes (like impeachment) are scorned on the editorial page of the Washington Post and on the front page of DailyKos.

2. to elect more "aggressive progressive" Democrats like Kucinich and Wexler.

Democratic Votes on Iraq & FISA

Bob Fertik — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:56:43 -0400

Good on Iraq & FISA

Abercrombie	Neil	HI01
Allen	Thomas	ME01
Andrews	Robert	NJ01
Baldwin	Tammy	WI02
Becerra	Xavier	CA31
Blumenauer	Earl	OR03
Brady	Robert	PA01
Braley	Bruce	IA01
Capps	Lois	CA23
Capuano	Michael	MA08
Carnahan	Russ	MO03
Carson	Andre	IN07
Clarke	Yvette	NY11
Clay	Lacy	MO01
Cohen	Steve	TN09
Conyers	John	MI14
Costello	Jerry	IL12
Courtney	Joe	CT02
Cummings	Elijah	MD07
Davis	Danny	IL07
DeFazio	Peter	OR04
DeGette	Diana	CO01
Delahunt	William	MA10
DeLauro	Rosa	CT03
Dingell	John	MI15
Doggett	Lloyd	TX25
Doyle	Michael	PA14
Edwards	Donna	MD04
Ellison	Keith	MN05
Eshoo	Anna	CA14
Farr	Sam	CA17
Fattah	Chaka	PA02
Filner	Bob	CA51
Frank	Barney	MA04
Grijalva	Raul	AZ07
Hall	John	NY19
Hare	Phil	IL17
Hinchey	Maurice	NY22
Hirono	Mazie	HI02
Hodes	Paul	NH02
Holt	Rush	NJ12
Honda	Michael	CA15
Hooley	Darlene	OR05
Inslee	Jay	WA01
Israel	Steve	NY02
Jackson	Jesse	IL02
Jackson-Lee	Sheila	TX18
Jefferson	William	LA02
Johnson	Hank	GA04
Johnson	E. B.	TX30
Jones	Stephanie	OH11
Kagen	Steve	WI08
Kaptur	Marcy	OH09
Kennedy	Patrick	RI01
Kilpatrick	Carolyn	MI13
Kucinich	Dennis	OH10
Larson	John	CT01
Lee	Barbara	CA09
Lewis	John	GA05
Loebsack	David	IA02
Lofgren	Zoe	CA16
Lynch	Stephen	MA09
Maloney	Carolyn	NY14
Markey	Edward	MA07
Matsui	Doris	CA05
McCollum	Betty	MN04
McDermott	Jim	WA07
McGovern	James	MA03
McNulty	Michael	NY21
Meek	Kendrick	FL17
Michaud	Michael	ME02
Miller	George	CA07
Miller	Brad	NC13
Moore	Gwen	WI04
Moran	James	VA08
Murphy	Christopher	CT05
Nadler	Jerrold	NY08
Napolitano	Grace	CA38
Neal	Richard	MA02
Oberstar	James	MN08
Obey	David	WI07
Olver	John	MA01
Pallone	Frank	NJ06
Pascrell	Bill	NJ08
Pastor	Ed	AZ04
Payne	Donald	NJ10
Price	David	NC04
Rangel	Charles	NY15
Rothman	Steven	NJ09
Roybal-Allard	Lucille	CA34
Sanchez	Loretta	CA47
Sánchez	Linda	CA39
Sarbanes	John	MD03
Schakowsky	Janice	IL09
Scott	Bobby	VA03
Serrano	Jose	NY16
Shea-Porter	Carol	NH01
Slaughter	Louise	NY28
Solis	Hilda	CA32
Speier	Jackie	CA12
Sutton	Betty	OH13
Thompson	Mike	CA01
Tierney	John	MA06
Towns	Edolphus	NY10
Tsongas	Nikki	MA05
Udall	Tom	NM03
Van Hollen	Chris	MD08
Velázquez	Nydia	NY12
Wasserman Schultz	Debbie	FL20
Waters	Maxine	CA35
Watson	Diane	CA33
Watt	Melvin	NC12
Waxman	Henry	CA30
Weiner	Anthony	NY09
Welch	Peter	VT00
Wexler	Robert	FL19
Woolsey	Lynn	CA06
Wu	David	OR01

Good on Iraq, Bad on FISA

Ackerman	Gary	NY05
Arcuri	Michael	NY24
Baca	Joe	CA43
Bishop	Timothy	NY01
Boswell	Leonard	IA03
Butterfield	G.K.	NC01
Cardoza	Dennis	CA18
Castor	Kathy	FL11
Cleaver	Emanuel	MO05
Crowley	Joseph	NY07
Engel	Eliot	NY17
Green	Al	TX09
Gutierrez	Luis	IL04
Harman	Jane	CA36
Hastings	Alcee	FL23
Higgins	Brian	NY27
Kildee	Dale	MI05
Klein	Ron	FL22
Langevin	James	RI02
Lowey	Nita	NY18
McCarthy	Carolyn	NY04
McNerney	Jerry	CA11
Meeks	Gregory	NY06
Murphy	Patrick	PA08
Pelosi	Nancy	CA08
Perlmutter	Ed	CO07
Rahall	Nick	WV03
Richardson	Laura	CA37
Schiff	Adam	CA29
Sherman	Brad	CA27
Sires	Albio	NJ13
Smith	Adam	WA09
Stupak	Bart	MI01
Tauscher	Ellen	CA10
Thompson	Bennie	MS02
Yarmuth	John	KY03

Good on FISA, Bad on Iraq

Davis	Susan	CA53
Foster	Bill	IL14
Gonzalez	Charles	TX20
Hill	Baron	IN09
Larsen	Rick	WA02
Levin	Sander	MI12
Mollohan	Alan	WV01
Ryan	Tim	OH17
Schwartz	Allyson	PA13
Walz	Timothy	MN01

Bad on Iraq & FISA

Altmire	Jason	PA04
Baird	Brian	WA03
Barrow	John	GA12
Bean	Melissa	IL08
Berkley	Shelley	NV01
Berman	Howard	CA28
Berry	Marion	AR01
Bishop	Sanford	GA02
Boren	Dan	OK02
Boucher	Rick	VA09
Boyd	Allen	FL02
Boyda	Nancy	KS02
Brown	Corrine	FL03
Carney	Christopher	PA10
Cazayoux	Don	LA06
Chandler	Ben	KY06
Childers	Travis	MS01
Clyburn	James	SC06
Cooper	Jim	TN05
Costa	Jim	CA20
Cramer	Bud	AL05
Cuellar	Henry	TX28
Davis	Artur	AL07
Davis	Lincoln	TN04
Dicks	Norman	WA06
Donnelly	Joe	IN02
Edwards	Chet	TX17
Ellsworth	Brad	IN08
Emanuel	Rahm	IL05
Etheridge	Bob	NC02
Giffords	Gabrielle	AZ08
Gillibrand	Kirsten	NY20
Gordon	Bart	TN06
Green	Gene	TX29
Herseth Sandlin	Stephanie	SD00
Hinojosa	Rubén	TX15
Holden	Tim	PA17
Hoyer	Steny	MD05
Kanjorski	Paul	PA11
Kind	Ron	WI03
Lampson	Nick	TX22
Lipinski	Daniel	IL03
Mahoney	Tim	FL16
Marshall	Jim	GA08
Matheson	Jim	UT02
McIntyre	Mike	NC07
Melancon	Charlie	LA03
Mitchell	Harry	AZ05
Moore	Dennis	KS03
Murtha	John	PA12
Ortiz	Solomon	TX27
Peterson	Collin	MN07
Pomeroy	Earl	ND00
Reyes	Silvestre	TX16
Rodriguez	Ciro	TX23
Ross	Mike	AR04
Ruppersberger	Dutch	MD02
Salazar	John	CO03
Scott	David	GA13
Sestak	Joe	PA07
Shuler	Heath	NC11
Skelton	Ike	MO04
Snyder	Vic	AR02
Space	Zachary	OH18
Spratt	John	SC05
Tanner	John	TN08
Taylor	Gene	MS04
Udall	Mark	CO02
Wilson	Charles	OH06

Iraq $165B Vote

Nate Jones — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:16:37 -0400

I called Rep. Mark Udall's line this morning and got the voice mail. I hit the points mentioned in the email. I also added my take on this continued occupation, and that is that we are treating the Iraqis like children who can't solve their problems on their own. We act like the all-knowing parent who is really just a control freak.

DEMS UNITE!

redhed67 — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:18:17 -0400

Well, as we all know, election season is once again upon us. Our choices are, as always, a great source of controversy and strife among the American people. This is understandable as not every candidate fits our ideals of the perfect President.

However, I've noticed some very disturbing trends among voters and, most glaringly, the Democrats. Frankly, it's appalling. I can't get through a blog or a chat room without seeing Democrats at each other's throats, each bashing the views and private lives of one another's pick as the Dem candidate.

You know what, people?? Knock it off. I'm not particularly wild about Hillary nor Obama either, to be honest... but all have a common goal here. That goal is to do everything we can to keep the GOP out of the White House.

Haven't the GOP done enough damage already? For the past 7 years, we've been subjected to two recessions, the invasion of a sovereign country with no violent designs on us, over 935 lies from this administration ABOUT IRAQ ALONE, and the blatant trampling of our civil rights such as our privacy with the warrantless surveillance and with free speech with arrests of peacful protestors and even people whose only "crime" was merely wearing an anti-war or anti-Bush T-shirt.

John McCain has stated that he plans on continuing our occupation of Iraq. He has also stated that he not only wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but is already planning on attacking Iran, as he so playfully reiterated in his rousing rendition of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann" titled "Bomb Bomb Iran."

Obama and Hillary's ideas are really not so different from one another. They have similiar ideas on health care, Iraq, national security in general, etc. There are subtle nuances that make their plans slightly different but when it comes down to it, one is really just as good as the other.

It's bothersome that people are saying things like "Hillary is a warmonger"... or "Obama is a Muslim sympathizer." These same lines that Rightwingers were using against the two of them just a few short months ago and the Dems were scolding them for, the Dems are now using. I, personally, never chose a particular party with which to label myself. I consider myself an Independent even though I never formally even declared myself as such... and this is why. Both sides seem to go off the deep end when elections come up and I am so disappointed that Dems have allowed themselved to stoop to the level of "The Righties."

I don't like any party spreading lies and innuendo about any candidate, whether he or she be Republican or Democrat. It's juvenile and ignorant. I don't approve of McCain's policies but I'm not going to perpetuate the rumor that he committed treason while in the service. I have no proof that he did. On the same token, I won't perpetuate the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist sympathizer. We have more than ample evidence that he is not.

Let's think about that particular rumor for a moment. George W. Bush has been more in the pocket of Muslim terrorist sympathizers than anyone else. Despite the fact that the Saudis not only have an appalling track record on human rights but they're also funding terrorists and helping to fund the insurgency which is killing our soldiers... Bush calls them "friend." Not only that but he's also given them weapons which are in turn being used against our troops in Iraq.

Same with Pakistan who has openly harbored Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden for a couple of decades. Then there's Uzbekistan, a nation with a record of committing unspeakable atrocities against its citizens...again, Bush calls them "friend."

So to say anything about Obama is not only stupid but incredibly hypocritical if you're Bush supporter. If you're a Dem, it's insincere and ridiculous. We need to pull together in these elections this year and vote for whomever the Dem nominee turns out to be, even if we have to hold out collective noses to do it. I know I will. If a GOP president gets in again, I would hate to look back and know that my missing vote helped to get him in.

So come on... remember that common goal we have to do something good for this country and keep the GOP out.

VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!
_________________
Don't blame this mess on me... I'm an Independent!

Progressives Block Pelosi's Blank Check for Iraq

Bob Fertik — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:15:54 -0400

According to the article below, the House Progressive Caucus is refusing to go along with Speaker Pelosi's plan to give Bush a $178 blank check for Iraq.

"People shouldn't have to choose between voting for food stamps for hungry people and for an occupation that is keeping our young men and women in harm's way," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Pelosi is trying to bribe progressive Democrats by packaging the blank check with "unemployment benefits, increased food stamps spending, more money for wildfire protection and new funds for federal infrastructure projects."

Of course it's absurd for progressive Democrats to trade a blank check for Iraq for basic safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. Do Democratic leaders plan to let poor Americans starve unless progressives fund a disastrous occupation that 2/3 of Americans oppose?

Pelosi's speakership has gone from tragedy to farce. If I were Barbara Lee, I'd be organizing the Progressive Caucus to dump Pelosi and make Lee the Speaker.

Pelosi's Iraq Plan Starting to Take Shape
By: Jennifer Bendery and Ashley Roque Roll Call Staff and CongressNow Staff
Apr. 24, 2008 1:45 PM

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is "leaning toward" a three-pronged strategy to move the contentious Iraq War supplemental bill in the coming week or so.

That still-developing strategy involves advancing three separate legislative vehicles: one to exclusively provide emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; another aimed at stimulating the economy through a mix of domestic spending measures; and potentially, a third that would advance some sort of language on troop withdrawals.

From there, Pelosi is hoping to work out a deal with Senate leaders and the White House that would involve passing a supplemental bill with only a handful of domestic spending items in it.

A senior House Democratic aide confirmed Thursday that this is "loosely" the plan being crafted behind closed doors between Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

Such a strategy would at least theoretically address the conundrum faced by House leaders: how to pass a war spending bill when anti-war Democrats oppose any new funds without a change in Iraq policy. Further complicating matters, fiscally conservative Democrats could oppose a supplemental that is too heavily laden with domestic spending items and does not have to abide by pay-as-you-go budget rules.

Another problem is that the bill will ultimately require the support of some Republicans in order to make it to the president's desk. President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that costs more than the $108 billion request for emergency war funding.

For weeks, House and Senate Democrats have been crafting a war bill that would cover not only war costs, but possibly offer an extension of unemployment benefits, increased food stamps spending, more money for wildfire protection and new funds for federal infrastructure projects.

Although Democratic leaders had eyed the joint bill as a way to pick up votes on the controversial spending bill, pressure has been mounting for them to separate the initiatives.

Members of the anti-war Out of Iraq Caucus sat down with Pelosi on Wednesday night to urge her to separate domestic dollars from the war-spending bill, the senior aide confirmed. They did not want to be seen as having to support the war in order to endorse popular domestic spending items.

Furthermore, the caucus endorsed a letter sent to Pelosi with House Republicans pledging to oppose a pork-laden supplemental.

"People shouldn't have to choose between voting for food stamps for hungry people and for an occupation that is keeping our young men and women in harm's way," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

"The only money we should give for this president is for the protection of our troops and to provide for a safe and responsible redeployment."

Lee acknowledged that the forthcoming spending bill may be the only spending legislation passed this year, but said she is "firmly grounded" to having the measures separated.

GOP Members, meanwhile, are opposing any add-ons to the bill because they worry it could slow down getting money to troops. Republicans, however, say they will not oppose the bill if it includes additional fiscal 2009 war spending that is currently pegged at $70 billion.

Over in the Senate, Democrats are in a position where they must have GOP approval or face a filibuster - in which case the majority would likely fail to garner the 60 votes needed to advance discussion on the bill.

Pelosi is in a bind because she cannot get 218 Democrats to give Bush a blank check for Iraq.

The article below was written earlier:

Anti-war House Democrats raised their voices Wednesday against a plan to include domestic spending in a war-funding bill, adding another difficult calculus as Democratic leaders try to assemble a spending package.

Leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, which has more than 70 members, warned that they don't want party leaders to add domestic funding or any economic stimulus provisions to the bill, even though they support the non-war-related initiatives.

"We don't want the supplemental and economic stimulus linked in any way," said Maxine Waters, D-Calif., an anti-war leader.

That wish was at odds with comments by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, DMd., who indicated that the supplemental spending plan would almost certainly include funding for domestic programs. Hoyer said Democrats will not be deterred by President Bush's threat to veto any bill that exceeds the $108.1 billion he has requested to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of the fiscal year.

"I'm sure it will, contrary to the administration sending its tablets down from the mount," Hoyer told reporters when asked whether the cost of the supplemental would exceed the president's top line. "We're going to pass a supplemental that we believe is necessary and required by the facts as we see them in this country and abroad."

A House Democratic aide said Wednesday night that leaders are close to agreeing on a plan that would limit the amount of domestic funding added to the bill. They also are strongly considering adding a package of education benefits for veterans, a limited extension of unemployment insurance and language blocking Bush administration rules designed to reduce federal Medicaid costs. The Medicaid language would mirror a bill (HR 5613) passed by the House 349-62 on Wednesday. All three potential policy additions have at least some bipartisan support.

House Democrats have been trying to limit what might be added to the supplemental to prevent Republicans and the White House from accusing them of including unnecessary spending in a war funding bill. The aide said the Appropriations Committee has been going over the domestic funding to make sure the items can be defended as meeting urgent needs.

Senate appropriators have shown more interest in adding funding and do not appear as concerned about the administration's threat to veto the war spending bill if it includes added domestic funding.

But the stance of the Out of Iraq Caucus illustrates the problems even limited additions could cause.

Waters, fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey and other war opponents said they want any legislation dealing with the struggling economy to be voted on separately. In addition, they said they planned to tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they want to offer a floor amendment to the supplemental that would call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

House defense appropriators, in their recommendations to leadership, have focused on three war-policy provisions that they hope will be included in the bill: a timeline for withdrawing troops; expansion of torture prohibitions to cover all government agencies, including the CIA; and mandated rest time at home for soldiers equal to the length of their overseas deployments.

Members of the Out of Iraq Caucus said they will support only funding that goes solely to protecting troops and redeploying them from Iraq.

Bush and House Republicans oppose any funding restrictions, meaning Democrats cannot afford to lose many votes from their own ranks if they want to include any war-policy restrictions in the bill. If adding domestic and economic recovery provisions won't attract votes from the strongest war critics, most of whom say they will only support a bill that directly leads to troops leaving Iraq, House leaders will be in a difficult spot.

"They want to do what's convenient for them," Waters said of leadership. "That's not my problem."

A floor vote on the war bill will likely be held late next week, but a final decision has not been made, said a senior House Democratic aide.

Democratic leaders have been wrestling with how much to add to the war funding bill. It has become an attractive vehicle for adding domestic spending, because it's considered one of the few must-pass bills during this election year.

The bill also may represent the best leverage Democrats have to get the president to accept such programs as increased unemployment insurance and infrastructure funding that they argue are needed to help the unemployed and create jobs during the economic downturn.

Hoyer said the supplemental is not necessarily being viewed as the vehicle for a second stimulus package, but he acknowledged it may contain funding that could be characterized as stimulative.

Democrats have yet to define what should be in a second stimulus package, leaving it unclear what items they could add to the war bill and what they will hold back.

On Wednesday, Pelosi wrote Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, to suggest Democrats and Republicans get together and decide what policies are needed to help the economy, as they did in January. Her letter came in response to Boehner's request that she outline exactly what Democrats want resolved before they will schedule a vote on the Colombia free-trade pact they indefinitely delayed earlier this month.

"As I said to the president, until we pass a legislative package for jobs and economic growth here at home, it will be extremely difficult to approve any trade legislation," Pelosi wrote.

Republicans have urged waiting until the stimulus package enacted in February ( PL 110-185 ) has time to affect the economy - tax rebates will be sent out starting next month - before deciding whether a second package is needed. The White House and its GOP allies on the Hill also remain angry at Pelosi's move against the trade bill and are in no mood to deal while that issue remains unresolved.

The administration reiterated that the president is ready for a fight on the supplemental.

"Majority Leader Steny Hoyer may have said today that he is sure that the cost of an upcoming war supplemental bill will exceed the president's request for $108 billion," White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said in a statement. "I would like to make clear that I am sure the president will veto it."

Liriel Higa, Josh Rogin and Chuck Conlon contributed to this report.

4000 US Dead in Iraq: Maybe What We Need is a National Spittoon

dlindorff — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:57:45 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Well, the toll of wasted American lives in Iraq has hit 4000. But hey, who’s counting?

Certainly not the folks in the White House and the Pentagon, and certainly not John McCain, the prospective Republican nominee for president, who thinks the war is going just dandy.

But it’s worth noting that about a year ago, around the time that Bush’s “surge” plan got implemented with the addition of some 30,000 additional troops to the Iraq theater, the number of dead was about 3000. So it’s fair to say that Bush’s “surge” policy—his “escalation of the war in order to end it” plan—has directly led to the deaths of 1000 more young American men and women.

And what has he achieved with this bonus sacrifice?

Yesterday, Iraqi fighters—reportedly most likely members of the Mahdi Brigades, who are Shia, and thus supposedly on “our” side—fired a number of rockets and mortars into the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, which is where the American government and military leadership in Iraq cowers behind blast walls and eats American food while Iraqis suffer and die in what’s left of their their destroyed and ravaged country. Bombers set off car bombs in several locations, killing dozens of people, and four more Americans were killed in ambushes.

Another day in Iraq.

“The surge is working,” says Bush and his lackey McCain, who made a quickie photo-op fly-in to Iraq just in time for the latest slaughter (and then showed his astonishing ignorance by saying the Iranians were backing and training Al Qaeda in Iraq).

If this is “working,” what would “not working” look like?

Well, if you’re wondering about that, just give it a few months and we’ll see. That’s when the troops that were added will be removed again, which means things will be back where they were when Bush felt the need to send in more reinforcements because things were going to hell.

Well you might ask, at huge cost in money and lives, what did this “surge” accomplish. Besides making sure that another 1000 soldiers would come home in boxes, and thousands more would come back maimed for life? It’s a good question.

What is presented as a government of Iraq has yet to really run the country, which is still the property of the US military. That “government” has yet to pass a law establishing control and distribution of the profits of the country’s main resource: oil. The Sunni forces, dubbed “The Awakening” by some PR whiz in the White House basement, have awakened to the fact that they are being used by the US, and are currently going out on strike from their US-financed butchery. Basra has long since been turned over to the armed gangs that grew up there under the British, who have pretty much packed up and gone home at this point.

At a cost of untold billions of dollars, and an extra 1000 American lives (and who knows how many Iraqi lives, which nobody has been counting since day one of this misbegotten invasion), all Bush managed to accomplish with his “surge” was to move the eventual day of reckoning back a year.

But then, that was the whole idea. I’m sure if he could get away with it, he’d keep those extra 30,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq right through next January, just to keep things tamped down until he leaves office and hands the whole mess off to his successor. Unfortunately for him and his mentor, Calamity-Dick Cheney, there is no way for the military to maintain that kind of troop level for another nine or 10 months, though. The troops are exhausted, their supplies are depleted, vehicles are being kept on the road by pirating parts from destroyed or broken ones, and there’s nobody in reserve back stateside to rotate over there. That has to be a big worry for GOP candidate McCain, whose oxymoronic (and moronic) Vietnam-era mantra of “peace with honor” and call for a permanent occupation of Iraq will look pretty unpalatable to voters if the violence in Baghdad starts returning to early 2007 levels. And it appears to be doing just that already even with the extra troops still in place.

Really, for that matter, we could say that all 4000 of those American dead (I’m being generous here, since many of the dead were immigrants, some illegal, who signed up with a promise of citizenship if they fought for Uncle Sam, who has been busy deporting their relatives once they died on the job), are wasted lives, because the Iraq that existed before May 19, 2003 really no longer exists. With an estimated one million Iraqi’s killed by the American-caused war and ensuing chaos, and another four million turned into refugees—this in a country of 24 million—with the country effectively divided into at least three irreconcilable parts, with Turkey invading and attacking the Kurdish north, and Iran bolstering the Shia majority, the land once known as Babylon is now a classic “failed state” held together only by the continued presence of the American military, whose very presence, ironically, is also the prime cause of all this misery and mayhem.

Bush talks of “victory” being possible. McCain talks of fighting on until “victory.” But neither man could tell us what “victory” would mean in Iraq.

So America will stumble onward, as the body count continues to rise. More wasted lives sent home in boxes or on hospital gurneys. More national treasure down the drain. Until we hit the next milestone: 5000 dead and six years of an endless, criminal war.

At some point, of course, all this will end, as it eventually ended in Indochina.

Then we can erect another war monument on the Washington Mall to this new list of wasted lives—the ones who Bush once famously said were “just numbers.” (That was back when the number was “just” 2500.)

Maybe this time around, we could have construct a spitting basin somewhere near the monument, with the names of Bush, Cheney and all the members of the Congress, Republican and Democrat, from 2002 through the end of the conflict, whenever that is, who voted to authorize, and then continued to fund this disastrous war, etched on its bottom. Instead of coming to look for the names of loved ones, or after doing so and making the ceremonial rubbing of the name onto a piece of paper, visitors could express their feelings towards the authors and enablers of this war at the national spittoon.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Victory on Wiretapping!

Bob Fertik — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:15:46 -0400

Thanks to your emails (over 58,000!) and calls, House Democrats once again stood up to Bush!

House Democrats stood up to endless televised rants by Bush, lying TV ads against key freshmen, and bullshit news articles and editorials throughout the Corporate Media.

Instead, Democrats carefully wrote a bill that will let telecom giants try to defend themselves against lawsuits by giving judges the power to review White House secrets.

Of course the battle isn't over. The House bill goes back to the Senate, where Jello Jay Rockefeller will once again try to gut the bill, and then to a conference committee full of BushDemocrats. But if House Democrats remain resolute and united - and we in the Netroots keep up the pressure - we can win this battle.

The key to victory in the House was genuine teamwork by Democrats!

The bill was co-sponsored by House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers and House Intelligence chair Sylvester Reyes, who presented a united front - unlike the Senate, where Intelligence chair Jay Rockefeller sabotaged Judiciary chair Pat Leahy. And the complex legislative process was carefully managed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Also, as mcjoan writes,

Particularly deserving of thanks, though, are those Freshman Dems who would not be intimidated by everything being thrown at them by the Republicans--the robocalls to their constituents saying they were with the terrorists, the deceitful and inflammatory Defense of Democracy's crazy television ads. Particularly of note are Mike Arcuri who managed the Rule on this vote, and Nancy Boyda, Carol Shea-Porter and others who stood on the floor during these debates and strongly stood up for our civil liberties. You can show your support for them here.

21 BushDemocrats tried to sabotage the effort, but Jane and Christy at FireDogLake launched a counterattack by raising money for ads against them. In the end, all but 6 BushDemocrats (Dan Boren-OK, Chris Carney-PA, Jim Cooper-TN, Tim Holden-PA, Nick Lampson-TX, and Heath Shuler-NC) tucked their tails between their legs and voted with the real Democrats. A key vote was Leonard Boswell (IA), whose deathbed conversion was motivated by primary challenger Ed Fallon.

Glenn Greenwald is right on target as always:

"It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.