Harry Reid

Call Your Senators To Oppose Iraq Funds and Wiretap Immunity

Bob Fertik — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:09:03 -0400

The Senate will vote this week on two disastrous bills: $163B for the continued occupation of Iraq and immunity for George Bush and the telecoms who are illegally wiretapping our calls and emails.

On Tuesday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) launched a filibuster against the "Warrantless Wiretapping Immunity Act" with an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. Dodd is supported by Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Unfortunately it takes 41 votes for a successful filibuster, and we can only count on 30, based on a similar vote on 2/12/08. These Democrats voted wrong. Call them and tell them to join the Dodd Filibuster against telecom immunity.

Max	Baucus	MT	202-224-2651
Evan	Bayh	IN	202-224-5623
Thomas	Carper	DE	202-224-2441
Robert	Casey	PA	202-224-6324
Dianne	Feinstein	CA	202-224-3841
Daniel	Inouye	HI	202-224-3934
Tim	Johnson	SD	202-224-5842
Herb	Kohl	WI	202-224-5653
Mary	Landrieu	LA	202-224-5824
Joseph	Lieberman	CT	202-224-4041
Blanche	Lincoln	AR	202-224-4843
Claire	McCaskill	MO	202-224-6154
Barbara	Mikulski	MD	202-224-4654
Ben	Nelson	NE	202-224-6551
Bill	Nelson	FL	202-224-5274
Mark	Pryor	AR	202-224-2353
Jay	Rockefeller	WV	202-224-6472
Ken	Salazar	CO	202-224-5852
James	Webb	VA	202-224-4024
Sheldon	Whitehouse	RI	202-224-2921

Harry Reid, Resign

Bob Fertik — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:51:47 -0500

I don't know Harry Reid, but he used to strike me as an honest Democrat with at least some progressive leanings and a former boxer's willingness to fight.

But not any more. Reid's Senate has sold out Democratic principles on every issue from Iraq to energy to wiretapping.

Why has Reid betrayed us on wiretapping? There are three possibilities:

Reid personally supports Big Brother government
Reid sold his soul to the telecom giants for campaign cash to Democrats
Reid is being blackmailed with incriminating pictures or tapes

Of course, he won't tell us the truth either way. In fact, Reid won't even admit he's betraying us.

Reid's betrayal on wiretapping has pushed leading progressive bloggers over the edge. In a DailyKos poll, 91% disapprove of the way Reid is doing his job. Kos speaks for me:

In short, "holds" bottle up legislation if Republicans place them. Not so much if Democrats do.

And here I thought Reid was the Democratic majority leader. I'm done with him.

Dodd for majority leader!

Dodd would make a great majority leader, as would Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and a handful of other Democrats.

Harry Reid, please resign and make room for a real Democrat to serve as Majority Leader.

I Bet Pelosi $2300 She Can End the Iraq War

Bob Fertik — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:58:05 -0400

After nearly five disastrous years, Americans desperately want to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Our Democratic leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, say they passionately agree with us. So why can't they do it?

Their pathetic excuse is "we don't have 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster."

The American people don't buy this excuse, which is why Congressional approval ratings are down in the sewer. Americans know the majority party in Congress has the power to impose its will on a President if it wants. All Congress has to do is fully exercise the powers granted by Article I in the Constitution.

In the Senate, Harry Reid has various tools to overcome a filibuster. First he can make Republicans actually stand and talk until they drop. And if that doesn't work he can invoke Bill Frist's famous "nuclear option" to end filibusters altogether.

Nancy Pelosi is even more powerful because the House does not permit filibusters. Americans remember how Newt Gingrich forced President Clinton to give up health care reform and the rest of his popular agenda when his approval rating was consistently over 50%, at times over 70%. Certainly Nancy Pelosi can stop Mr. 30%'s deeply unpopular war.

The first power available to Pelosi is Spending Power. The occupation of Iraq costs $10 billion per month, and George Bush can't spend a penny of our tax dollars without Congressional approval. Americans know Pelosi could tell Bush she will not give him another dime except to safely redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and they would support her if she did.

So why hasn't Pelosi done this? When pressed by Wolf Blitzer, Pelosi said:

"I wish the speaker had all the power you just describe. I certainly could do that. That doesn't bar the minority from bringing up a funding resolution. They have their parliamentary prerogative as well."

What prerogative? As Speaker, Pelosi decides what comes up for a vote and what doesn't. The only tool available to the minority is a petition for a floor vote, which requires 218 signatures. When Pelosi fought for a combat deadline of March 31, 2008 this past March, her opponents only found 212 votes - 198 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Last week one pro-war Republican died.

And Pelosi has lots of ways to persuade the 14 Democrats to change their votes. She could steer defense contracts away from their districts so they have no political reason to support the war. She could cut off other pork like highway funds. She could cut off essential campaign funds from the DCCC. She could take away their committee assignments. If none of those punishments did the trick, she could even recruit and support primary challengers.

On a matter of such monumental importance, Newt Gingrich would have done these things in a heartbeat, as would all the former Speakers. While MSNBC's "Hardball" has been on TV for only 10 years, House Speakers have been playing hardball since 1789.

But for some inexplicable reason, Pelosi rejects the idea of using Spending Power to end the war. When pressed, Pelosi says she would never "cut funds for the troops," as if George Bush and the Pentagon would leave unpaid and unarmed soldiers on the battlefield. Of course that's insane; if no funds were in the pipeline, any commander - even George Bush - would have to redeploy the troops or face court-martial for dereliction of duty. And thanks to the $124 billion supplemental passed by Congress in March over Pelosi's objection, followed by $14 billion more in September, the Pentagon has more than it needs to run convoys to get all our troops from Iraq to Kuwait.

Pelosi's only reason for rejecting this strategy is fear that George Bush would use the "bully pulpit" to attack Democrats for "abandoning the troops." But since Bush has all the money he needs to get our troops out of Iraq - and it's his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to get it done - why should Democrats care for a second what Bush says?

Bush spent most of 2006 viciously accusing Democrats of wanting to "cut and run," yet Democrats won a sweeping victory which gave them control of the Senate and the House. Polls show opposition to the war - and its architect George Bush - growing with every passing day. If present trends continue, Democrats could gain up to 10 seats in the Senate, 30 seats in the House, and win the White House too - no matter what Bush says.

So Spending Power is all Pelosi needs to end the war. But if she is ultimately unwilling to use it, she could use another time-honored Constitutional power - Bargaining Power. Besides war funds, there are many other things Bush needs from Congress, and Pelosi could attach a troop withdrawal deadline to any or all of them.

Right now, Bush is desperate for Congress to pass a law to legalize warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, and to immunize bureaucrats and telephone companies who engaged in it while it was illegal. Why is Bush desperate? Because everyone in the administration who engaged in illegal wiretapping could go to prison, including both Bush and Cheney after they left office. Constitutional scholars like John Dean, Jonathan Turley, and Bruce Fein, as well as House Democrats like Jerrold Nadler, all agree on this point.

Personally, I believe everyone involved in illegal wiretapping should go to prison, including Bush and Cheney. "Accountability" is one of Pelosi's most-used words, and the administration's repeated violations cry out for Pelosi to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

But if Pelosi were to exercise her Bargaining Power with Bush by trading immunity on wiretapping for a firm deadline to redeploy our troops out of Iraq, I would set aside my insistence on prosecution for warrantless wiretapping and support the bargain for the sake of the troops.

So the bottom line is simple: between Spending Power and Bargaining Power, Nancy Pelosi has all the power she needs to end the Iraq War.

And to prove my point, I will bet a contribution of $2300 - the maximum allowed under the law - to Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat in Congress who can prove my argument wrong.

If you agree with my argument, I hope you will add your bet to mine below, for whatever amount you can afford.

Harry, Nancy, SAY It Ain't So!

thepen — Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:32 -0400

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/no_bush_surrender.php

WE'RE ASKING ALL OUR PARTICIPANTS TO TELL CONGRESS: DON'T SURRENDER TO BUSH ON IRAQ

Please call NOW toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 and ask for your own House member and Senators. And ALSO leave separate messages for both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at their leadership offices. They represent you too!

Drafting this alert has been an enormous challenge . . . to find a way to express our anger in a way that is still civil. Please, Lord, help us to express this in a way that will have a positive result.

We are hearing reports that the Democrats are preparing to unilaterally surrender to Bush on the Iraq supplemental, despite a solid majority of the American people in favor of at least some kind of restraints on a war president run amok. If this is a trial balloon, or in part even a Republican trick to try to demoralize us, it didn't work. We're not demoralized, we're just angry.

The inside the beltway genius pundits, the ones who thought the Iraq invasion and occupation was such a bully-bully party for the first couple disastrous years, pontificate that if the Democrats don't completely cave in on yet another mammoth emergency funding demand it would be political "suicide". Like we really need them to self-appoint themselves as our campaign managers. Meanwhile, the death and destruction in Iraq continues unabated.

And for what? The latest rumblings in Iraq are that the stinky, smelly oil production sharing agreement that was the end game of this entire monstrosity is generating increasing resistance in even the puppet Iraq government, the harder we try to force it down their throats. This is the only benchmark Bush has ever been interested in. And is there any doubt that even if they are able to force it through by our military presence, that it be nothing but a casus belli for all eternity?

Is there any doubt that the Iraqi people, if not the entire Muslim world, will resent for generations, with the most blind and unanimous hatred, the way their natural resources were looted from them by an invading imperial army? Is there any doubt that insurgent attacks will continue to increase exponentially, the Al Qaeda dream come true? Is there any doubt that any member of the Iraqi parliament who signs on to this does so at peril to his own life from his own people?

Is there any doubt that our only net spoils from this war will be magnified threats of terrorist attacks against our own homeland in revenge?

In 1919, the Chicago White Sox UNEXPECTEDLY lost the World Series. Their biggest star, Shoeless Joe Jackson, the number three lifetime batting average champion of all time, had admitted under oath to being part of a conspiracy to throw the series, but he was only convicted of not reporting the scandal. On leaving the courtroom, it is reported that a young fan plaintively begged him, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" Joe Jackson was banned from major league baseball and never played there again.

Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress. They have done little but surrender, capitulate, and surrender some more since the day we gave them those majorities. One of the things we have heard is that they will attach the forgotten minimum wage increase now to a new total surrender version of the Iraq Supplemental. Somebody please explain to us why with a majority in both houses of Congress they could not have put the minimum wage provision on the president's desk months ago.

Some say they will "seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict." There will be other opportunities for gratuitous grandstanding. But there will be few other opportunities for ending this insane occupation, short of impeachment (itself a necessity), UNLESS the Democrats stick to their guns just one time.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/no_bush_surrender.php

Wake up, America. We respectfully submit that if you are not angry by now, you are not paying attention. And we pray for you, that if you are motivated to express that anger to Congress, please do it in a way that cannot be construed as anything but a verbal expression of your policy position.

The Swiftboating of Governor Kathleen Sebelius

theBlueHighwayman — Fri, 11 May 2007 01:32:13 -0400

New sign on the Highways!

Dispatch from a Hotel in Normal, IL - 12:15A CST

Karl Rove and the gang are at it again, this time it is to destroy the Democratic Governor of Kansas. Her mortal sin was to tell the truth about the Kansas National Guard equipment.

Tony Snow, living up to his name, started the snowball rolling by stating "Governor Sebelius never requested anything from the Federal Government." Today that ball was picked up by none other than Sean Hannity. He interviewed two idiots from Pittsburgh, PA, who have a morning show on 104.7 FM (a Clearchannel station) and XM Radio named Quinn and Rose, and accused Howard Dean of orchestrating the Governor's statement for political gain.

The story goes like this:

Quinn and Rose say they have a "Confidential Source" who somehow managed to hear a conversation between the Senator and the Governor. It seems the Senator was displeased with Governor Sebelius's statements concerning the National Guard. In response she repents and claims that Howard Dean got her to do it. Presumably Howard Dean planned with Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy to use the tragedy in Kansas to launch a political attack against Bush concerning the National Guard issue.

Here is the interview on Sean Hannity (It's an MP3 file about 6 minutes long)
INTERVIEW

After listening to these morons I called the radio station in Pittsburgh and left a message for Quinn and Rose's producer Jay Bahanon who returned my call and said:

We do have a confidential source on our report about the conversation between the governor of Kansas and Senator Brownback. I'm not going to give you any names if that's what you want, that's not going to happen. But we do have a good credible source on it.

If you would like to contact Quinn and Rose:
quinn@warroom.com
rose@warroom.com

Let them know how appreciative you are that they are busy carrying out Rove's dirty work! While you're at it maybe Jay Bahanon, their producer, would like to hear from you: 412-920-2796

I also think it would be a great idea to contact Senator Brownback to let him know how disgusting it is for a Presidential Candidate to be involved in this sort of thing.

Washington Office:
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1604
Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-1265

Main District Office:
612 S. Kansas Ave
Topeka, KS 66603
Phone: (785) 233-2503
Fax: (785) 233-2616

If you'd like to contact Governor Kathleen Sebelius just to let her know she has your support and that this despicable lie will never stand.

Website: http://www.governor.ks.gov

Contact the Governor
Office of the Governor
Capitol, 300 SW 10th Ave., Ste. 212S
Topeka, KS 66612-1590

Voice 1-877-KSWORKS (1-877-579-6757)
Local 785-296-3232
For the Hearing Impaired 1-800-766-3777

It is truly pathetic how desperate the Republicans have gotten. Don't let them get away with these grotesque attacks on Democratic politicians. This will probably not play big in NYC but out in Kansas Governor Sebelius is going to have to deal with the Rove machine.

Update 1: Media Matters has a transcript of the Hannity show and full documentation on the national guard equipment shortage.

Update 2: On Thursday, the DNC's lawyer, Joseph Sandler, sent cease and desist letters to XM Radio and FreeRepublic.com adamantly denying Gov. Dean had any such conversation with Gov. Sebelius. The letter to XM Vice President Dara Altman demands they:

immediately cease and desist, and instruct Messrs. Quinn and Rose to cease and desist, from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and
immediately - on tomorrow morning's show or the next morning's show, at the latest - broadcast on the Quinn & Rose show an express retraction of these statements.

The letter to FreeRepublic's James Robinson demands they:

immediately cease and desist from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and
immediately post a retraction of these statements in a location on its web page a[t] least as prominent as that on which the story appeared.

Update 3: Several rightwing blogs jumped on the story. HotAir published flat denials from Dean, Sebelius, and Brownback. GatewayPundit published a denial from Brownback. Wizbang has not published the denials.

Feingold-Reid Bill To End War Formally Introduced

Bob Geiger — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:19:54 -0400

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), on behalf of cosponsor Harry Reid (D-NV) and many other Democratic supporters, went to the Senate floor yesterday and formally introduced the Feingold-Reid bill which, if George W. Bush vetoes the Iraq-withdrawal plan that will hit his desk in the coming weeks, will push the issue further by forcing a troop withdrawal by March of next year.

The bill would end funding specifically for the failed Iraq effort, forcing the president to redeploy American troops elsewhere where, according to Senator Feingold, they can actually begin to defend the country against terror threats.

“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”

And Feingold made clear on the Senate floor yesterday that Bush and the Republican Congress must understand that, by stranding U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely, they are expressly defying the will of the American people.

"The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress -- newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq -- to let the people's voices be heard," said Feingold on Tuesday. "And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same."

The Wisconsin Senator also spoke about how Congress using its "power of the purse" to end military deployments is hardly a precedent-setting event, as Republicans would suggest.

Feingold points out that in October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. He also made the embarrassing point that of the 76 Senators voting for that move during the Clinton administration, a large number of Republicans -- such as Senators Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, Lugar, McConnell, Specter, Stevens and Warner -- voted affirmatively and those same people are now coming forward to call a similar Congressional move something outrageous, if not unpatriotic.

"Did those eight Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia?" asked Feingold. "By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?"

Senate Majority Leader Reid has said that if Bush vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.

In other Feingold-Reid news, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), a guy who has long been known for standing up for Progressive causes and doing the right thing, agreed this week to cosponsor the war-ending legislation.

Here's our updated list of Senators on the record as saying they will ratchet the pressure up a few more notches on Bush and Congressional Republicans if Bush vetoes the supplemental bill as expected:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

"The President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end -- or even acknowledging when it might end. And, four years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission," said Feingold on Tuesday. "Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of 'Shia-on-Shia violence' or 'criminally motivated violence' in Iraq."

"Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Reid Highlights GOP's Bogus National-Security Cred

Bob Geiger — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:46:57 -0500

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the floor of the Senate on Monday and set the stage for a week that will see the Senate considering efforts to truly bolster national security and with little patience for the Republican stonewalling of security measures proposed by Democrats (and killed) in the last Congress.

"We will take steps to protect America from the greatest threat we face -- nuclear terrorism. We will enhance the security of our transportation system and our ports," said Reid on Monday. "We will provide America's first responders with the technology they need to communicate with each other during a crisis. In the process, we will make America more secure."

"Five and a half years after 9/11, we don't have a day to waste."

And Reid took a direct shot at Senate Republicans who somehow still manage to position themselves with a clueless corporate media as the party of national security, despite showing no leadership on the subject since September 11, 2001 and, in fact, overtly fighting investments in America's security infrastructure.

"For 6 years, this White House and past Congresses have talked a good game about protecting America, but while they were distracted and consumed with staying the course in Iraq, they failed to heed the lessons of September 11, 2001 -- that we must do more to protect and secure our communities from the real terrorist threat here at home," said the Senate Majority Leader.

Reid then pointed out in very specific terms what was proposed by Democrats in the last Congress, only to be shot down by Republicans -- and almost always on straight, party-line votes, with the GOP providing no alternative measures.

"In the last Congress, Democrats tried to move forward with tough and smart solutions to keep the homeland safe. Unfortunately, those of us who tried to follow the Commission's roadmap hit nothing but speed bumps.

"In 2005, we tried to increase funding for first responders by $1.6 billion. Our effort was rejected on a party-line vote.

"Days later, we tried to restore $1 billion to the COPS Program, so important for law enforcement throughout the country. We were rejected again along party lines.

"In July 2005, just days after the subway bombings in London, the Senate considered legislation that would have improved security on rails. Again, with a party-line vote, we went down.

"That same day, the Senate voted on legislation to allocate money to secure our ports. The measure fell along party lines.

"The end result of this obstruction: America today is not as safe as it can be, should be, or must be."

And Reid could have mentioned many more of these instances, including multiple attempts by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to get better communications equipment for first responders and a bill by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would have provided critical funding for air-cargo security screening.

True to what we've seen of a Republican administration filled with so many Chickenhawks, this shines a bright light on how the GOP talks tough on national security, but seldom backs up that rhetoric with action or deeds.

With 21 Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2008, this will be excellent and valid information to share with voters.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

GOP Stalls On Minimum Wage To Avoid Iraq Votes

Bob Geiger — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:41:02 -0500

The majority of Senate Republicans filibustering and delaying the passage of a new minimum wage law may be heartless, but they're not dumb. They know that bumping the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour is enormously popular with the American people and they're also aware that it passed by huge numbers in the House of Representatives, with 80 Republicans voting in favor of helping the working poor.

So why the stalling? Why put off the inevitable with over 100 nonsensical amendments, while already voting once against ending debate on a clean minimum wage bill?

Well, folks, it's kind of like the Seinfeld episode, where George Costanza knows his girlfriend is about to break up with him so he just ducks her -- breaks dates, pretends he's not home, doesn’t answer the phone, reasoning that if he can stall her by not being available, she can’t break up with him.

Except in this case, the Republicans figure that if they can keep the Senate occupied indefinitely with an open-and-shut thing like a minimum wage increase, they can avoid the thing they fear most -- having to vote on any of the myriad Iraq-war resolutions waiting in the wings.

"Tuesday, we'll have a vote and, you know, they may defeat cloture just like they did on the ethics thing," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), at a joint press conference with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on Friday. "They know that they're on the wrong side on this issue. And we're going to not let them forget it."

"If they defeat cloture on minimum wage, they think we're going to bring this right back? Oh, no we're not. We're going to move to another subject they don't like to talk about: escalation of the war in Iraq… they know when minimum wage is finished, we're going to Iraq."

Reid has the bipartisan Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution against the escalation of the Iraq war waiting in the wings and my bet is that, if Republicans filibuster -- vote against cloture -- on the minimum wage legislation on Tuesday, Reid will temporarily table that legislation, call the Republicans on their game and move on to the Iraq war.

Senate Democrats can then bring the minimum wage -- which now contains $8 billion in new tax breaks for small businesses -- right back after Iraq resolutions and ongoing funding for troops (already in Iraq) are handled.

"It took the House of Representatives four hours to increase the minimum wage with 80 Republicans supporting it," said Kennedy at the Friday news conference with Reid. "Why, Mr. Republican, will you not permit the Senate of the United States to increase the minimum wage, which has not been increased for 10 years for men and women who are at the lower end of the economic ladder, men and women of dignity who take a pride in their work, who are trying to provide for their family?"

And Kennedy, who has fought for years to get the minimum wage increased, agrees with Reid that stalling from the Republican side of the aisle has nothing to do with the wage bill itself and everything to do with their fear of having to take a stand on the war. According to Kennedy , any Republicans voting against the minimum wage increase on Tuesday will effectively be telling Americans that they don’t want to move on to Iraq votes, meaning that they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

"The vote will be, effectively, the vote on the war. And the American people will understand it. And there is nothing that Mitch McConnell can do about that," said Kennedy. "So make no mistake about it, Mr. Republicans, we're going to get -- under the leadership of Harry Reid, we're going to get a vote, one way or the other. The American people are entitled to it. Under the cloture, that'll be the vote. It'll be the vote on the war."

I believe what will take place is that the minimum wage vote will occur as scheduled and, if the Republicans block it again, Reid will set it aside, bring it back in a few weeks and jump immediately to Iraq. He said as much on Friday.

"I'll tell you one thing: There are 21 Republicans up for reelection this time. If they think this is going to be a soft vote for them, they've got another thing coming," said Reid. " So let them defeat cloture. I'll take that bill [minimum wage] off the floor in five seconds and we'll get to debating Iraq."

Meanwhile, Kennedy keeps plugging away while getting angry enough, as he did on Thursday night, to ask just what the hell Republicans have against working Americans.

"I've said on the floor of the United States Senate, and I still question our Republican leadership," said Kennedy. "What is it about hard-working people that the Republicans don't like? What is it, Mr. Republican, that you cannot stand about hard- working Americans at the lower end of the economic ladder?"

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Minimum Wage Front And Center In Senate

Bob Geiger — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:40:26 -0500

Almost two weeks after a bill to raise the Federal Minimum Wage easily passed the House of Representatives, the legislation has arrived on the Senate floor, with debate started yesterday and a vote expected by the end of the week.

The measure to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade has been a long slog for Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who brought the legislation to help the working poor before the previous, Republican-controlled Congress three times, only to see it shot down by the GOP on each occasion.

"After 10 long years without a raise, it’s long past time to share the wealth with America’s minimum wage workers," said Kennedy, in a speech last week. "I’m optimistic that my colleagues in the Senate will agree, and we can take prompt action next week to give working families the raise they deserve. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty."

The bill would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years, which is still less than the lowest allowable wage rate in states like California, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts -- you know, the blue states.

Senate Republicans facing reelection in 2008 realize they better have a damn good reason to vote against this increase and are trying to make a wage hike for workers more palatable for themselves by attaching add-on bills to give yet more tax breaks to business. And they were successful at getting Max Baucus (D-MT), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee to agree to add a bill providing more business tax breaks -- but they did that under the threat of a filibuster, which would then essentially require 60 votes to pass the minimum wage legislation, versus a simple 51-vote majority.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney comes down hard on that and urges the Senate to have the courage to pass a "clean" minimum wage bill.

"The Senate should pass a fair and clear-cut minimum wage increase for our nation’s working poor, with no special strings attached for business," said Sweeney in a statement yesterday. "We are urging Senators to vote 'yes' on a clean minimum wage bill in order to prevent even more business pay offs and anti-worker add-ons to what should be a straightforward piece of legislation."

Sweeney points out that it's also just a silly way for Republicans to kiss up to business as they have already been remarkably generous to the business community in the decade that has seen no salary increase for minimum-wage workers.

"There's no good reason to lard the Senate minimum wage bill with yet another round of unwarranted tax breaks for business," said Sweeney. "In the last 10 years, the Republican-led Congress provided corporations with $276 billion in tax cuts and provided small businesses with another $36 billion in dedicated tax breaks."

The AFL-CIO president also said that Senate Democrats must "squash the business lobby’s myth about how raising the minimum wage will hurt small business and cost our nation jobs," a call that Senator Kennedy has been heeding for years. Here's Kennedy:

"In the House debate last week, opponents again claimed that the small business community is vehemently opposed to an increase. They think small businesses will suffer or collapse even with our modest increase.

"That’s preposterous. A recent Gallup poll found that 86% of small business owners don’t think that the minimum wage affects their business—at all. In fact, small businesses have historically prospered after past increases. More than half the states have already acted to increase minimum wages above the federal level today, and these states are generating more small businesses than states with a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also compromised with Republicans in order to get the sweeping ethics legislation passed last week -- isn’t it amazing how much you have to compromise with the GOP to get an ethics bill passed? -- and has promised to bring a measure by Judd Gregg (R-NH) to give a line-item veto to the president to the floor for a vote this week.

The Senate's not about to give the line-item veto to the most incompetent president in U.S. history and it is my hope that Democrats will soundly reject the bill calling for more business tax cuts and pass a clean minimum wage bill to help the five million additional Americans who have slipped into poverty during the Bush years.

With the minimum wage at its lowest buying power in 50 years and with a presidential election and more huge Congressional elections coming in 2008, I say let the schmucks on the other side of the aisle filibuster or vote against it. Then we simply hang that giant rock around their necks for the next election and, being the majority party and all, simply keep bringing economic justice to the floor of the Senate until it passes.

Said Kennedy in the Senate yesterday: "Americans understand the issues of fairness. They understand the importance of work. Americans have believed, for a long period of time, if you work hard and play by the rules, you should not have to live in poverty in the United States of America."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

ARREST Bush's Escalation In Iraq With Your Voices

thepen — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:09:43 -0500

Support BINDING Legislation NOW To Stop The Escalation In Iraq

Please call your members of Congress tollfree right now at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803, and tell them to vote for S. 233/H. Res. 41.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/no_escalation2.php

A couple days ago we called for preemptive resolutions to oppose the unpopular Bush escalation proposed for Iraq. There are now at least two measures pending to do just that. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy has introduced S. 233 which would prohibit the White House from spending any federal funds on an increase of troop levels in Iraq without express Congressional consent. On the House side, Marty Meehan's H. Res. 41 would require a parallel authorization. All we have to do is speak out in sufficient numbers and these bills will become law. The overnight polls show that those numbers should definitely be there, if we can just inspire our friends and neighbors to take vocal action. Dennis Kucinich is also bringing forward a resolution to actually mandate a phased withdrawal and we will support that too when it is introduced.

With regards to the Kennedy bill, Harry Reid was quoted yesterday as saying he would "prefer" a non-binding resolution as way of sending a "message" to the president. Despite his recent letter advocating against the escalation, on the point of what actual action to take Harry Reid has it wrong. The only message non-binding resolutions would send is that Congress lacks the courage to confront the incorrigible bullies in the White House. We might as well set up a special conference room in the Capitol for public hand wringing. By defying absolutely the entire rest of the government not including his few remaining quislings, George Bush is deliberately FORCING a Constitutional crisis. We have no choice but to stand up to him directly and immediately.

There were many entirely false premises in Bush's awkward and uncomfortable speech last night. But central to it all was the assertion that the Iraqi people want us in their country to bring them our wonderful democratic system of government. That time is long past. Absolutely every poll there demonstrates they overwhelmingly want us to just leave. The entire world knows George Bush invaded Iraq for the SOLE purpose of stealing their oil resources. Talk about bringing our kind of government to Iraq, they are about to try to force through a new hurry-up hydrocarbon law to cut up and encumber their oil fields that nobody in the Iraqi Parliament there has even read yet. Isn't that the way they used to pass legislation here in our own country, in the middle of the night without even a fair read?

It's not just Democrats, there are many Republicans who increasingly alarmed by the new Bush lurch in the direction of sheer madness. Chuck Hagel was quoted as saying, "This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost." That's an understatement. Although all the pre-speech marketing was about some kind of temporary "surge," Bush used that word not one time in his prepared statement. Instead he painted a picture of at LEAST another year of ever increasing violence, backed up with barely veiled threats to wage full scale war on BOTH Iran and Syria. All those air craft carriers steaming to the Persian Gulf are not going there for R & R. They even have a shiny new naval commander installed in charge of Iraq now, to direct the launch of the cruise missiles.

The plain facts are these. The only reason why the Iraqi people endured the charade of purple finger elections was they thought if they indulged us in that we might actually leave. As fed up as the American public is with our military presence there, the Iraqi people are even more so. Bush has made an unholy alliance with a stooge (al Maliki) of some of the very Islamic militants (al Sadr) they have been rattling sabers at for the last four years. And when he warns that the Iraqi government will fall without being propped up by our uranium spitting gun ships, it is because it is too corrupt and infiltrated to survive on its own. As horrific as the casualties have been so far, under Bush they are just starting.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/no_escalation2.php

We must raise every possible voice to call for support of the S. 233 and H. Res 41 right now. These must pass by overwhelming margins. We have very little time. Bush did not even wait to make his announcement to start deploying the new troops. We have an outlaw administration bent on turning a disaster into an utter debacle. Bush must be stopped. And nothing can arrest him but your voices, to pressure your members of Congress to act against him without equivocation or fear.