2008 House

No Surprise in the Senate Bailout Vote

dlindorff — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:30:41 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The US Senate did what the Founding Fathers expected it to do when
they devised the idea of an upper house of Congress. Playing the role
of Britain’s House of Lords to the House’s House of Commons, it ignored
the rabble (that’s us, the voters) and voted the opposite way of the
House of Representatives, which on Monday had voted down the Bush
Administration’s proposed $700-billion to $1-trillion give-away to Wall
Street financial companies.

The Senate vote in support of the measure, which went 74-25 (the
ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy missed the vote), reflects the fact that, first
of all, Senators, who run representing entire states, are very
difficult to unseat because of the huge cost of mounting a media
campaign against an incumbent, and second that two-thirds of them even
don’t face voters this November, (and one third not for another four
years).

The House, in contrast, which defeated a similar bill earlier in
the week by 228-205, while still largely an incumbent’s sinecure, is
still a place where every member faces the voters every two years.

So now the bill goes back to the House for a second round of voting
tomorrow, this time in a version devised in the Senate to try and
convince 12 of Monday’s nay voters to switch to yea. The sweeteners: a
rise in the size of bank deposits insured by the (already
over-stretched) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from the current
$100,000 to $250,000, and some $115 billion in new tax breaks, some for
business, and some for wealthy taxpayers (a raising of the threshold
for applying the alternative minimum tax).

In other words, the minimum cost of this bailout, has been raised
from the $700 billion that the House rejected last time to $815
billion! And it’s a fair bet that more sweeteners will be added once
the bill goes to the House floor. (It should be noted that neither of
the measures added in the Senate has anything to do with a rescue.
Moreover, the first, upping the FDIC insured deposit limit, is simply a
time-saver for the rich, who could have simply moved around money to
separate banks to accomplish the same thing, while the second only
succeeds in driving the US budget further into the hole.)

The pressures on House members from lobbyists, House leaders of
both parties, and from the White House, will be enormous. The question
is whether public pressure, which was unprecedented over the past week,
jamming the Capital switchboard and crashing the Capital website, will
be equally enormous.

If voters again flood their representatives with calls and emails
demanding that they not support this rip-off bill, it is still possible
that the bailout will die and Congress and the White House will have to
go back to square one to work out a more reasonable and fair way to
salvage the US financial system than simply putting the results of 15
or more years of reckless Wall Street greed all on the backs of average
taxpayers.

As I have written earlier, the proper way to go about this would be
for both the Senate and the House to schedule and hold hearings on the
crisis and on ways to develop a rescue of the economy and the financial
system. Such hearings should include testimony from the victims of Wall
Street’s misdeeds—the homeowners who are losing their houses, the small
businesses that can no longer borrow funds to finance expansion or to
meet short term cash needs, the retirees and workers who are seeing
their pensions pillaged. They should include testimony from the
hundreds of economists, including Nobel Laureates like Joseph Stiglitz,
who are warning that the bailout as currently designed will not work
and could make things worse. And they should grill executives of the
major financial institutions about how they drove things to this
perilous state.

Then they should craft a response that meets the needs of the
public, not just the bankers and their investors, that will help to
rebuild the economy and the financial system on a sounder footing, and
that will punish those who abused the system and who have brought it to
its knees.

The Senate vote (which included yes votes from both major party
presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, both the
beneficiaries of large campaign donations from Wall Street interests)
was a victory for those who caused this crisis, and who hope to receive
all the money being put on the table.

The House vote will be a test of whether the public still has any
power at all to have its interests considered in what is still referred
to as this American democracy.

The advocates of this ripoff, from the President on down, have been
using cheap scare-mongering to try to win the day, claiming that if a
bill isn’t passed immediately, the country will spiral into a
depression like the 1930s. This is ridiculous. The country has been in
a credit crisis for months, and if Congress spend another month or two
deliberating and devising a good bill, it would not put the country in
any greater danger of collapse than it is already in. In fact, this
rush to pass a bad bill is far more likely to lead to disaster.

So once again, whether or not you have called your US
representative, get on the phone and do it again. Demand that they vote
“No” and say if they do not, you will vote against them in November.
The numbers to call are: 202-225-3121, 202-224-3121 or 800-828-0498. If
you cannot get through, look up in your local phone book blue pages the
number of a local constituent office for your representative, and call
there. In fact, do that anyway, too. You can also send an email to your representative.

Today and tomorrow are the last chance to stop this travesty from happening. Act today, and don't forget to spread the word.
_____________
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

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36551';
digg_title = "No Surprise in the Senate Bailout Vote";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n The US Senate did what the Founding Fathers expected it to do when they devised the idea of an upper house of Congress. Playing the role of Britain’s House of Lords to the House’s House of Commons, it ignored the rabble (that’s us, the voters) and voted the opposite way of the House of Representatives, which on Monday had voted down the Bush Administration’s proposed $700-billion to $1-trillion give-away to Wall Street financial companies.\r\n\r\n The Senate vote in support of the measure, which went 74-25 (the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy missed the vote), reflects the fact that, first of all, Senators, who run representing entire states, are very difficult to unseat because of the huge cost of mounting a media campaign against an incumbent, and second that two-thirds of them even don’t face voters this November, (and one third not for another four years).\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

We Need to Demand Hearings!

dlindorff — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:03:19 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

With the Bush Administration, the two leading presidential
candidates, and the Congressional leadership, as well as a phalanx of
Wall Street lobbyists all pushing hard for a massive transfer of
taxpayer money to the coffers of banks and investment banks, the
American people need to demand a halt to this bums' rush to a bailout.

We've seen what happens when Congress forgoes the time-tested
process of deliberative and investigative hearings and simply takes a
floor vote on a Bush Administration-backed measure. First there was the
October 18, 2001 resolution for use of military force against Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. Because there were no hearings on that measure, its
loose, deliberately ambiguous wording has been used ever since by the
Bush/Cheney crew as authorization for their global so-called "War" on
Terror, including the claim that the president has the dictatorial
power ignore treaties, US law, and bills passed by the Congress.
Shortly thereafter, there was the Patriot Act, a compendium of
anti-Democratic measures that had failed to win passage in Congress
over the years which were cobbled together in the dead of night by
Bush/Cheney zealots and passed on a voice vote the next day by a
Congress too cowed to hold hearings on the measure. Then, in October
2002, there was the second authorization for use of military force
resolution, this time against Iraq, which has ended up miring the US in
a disastrous five-year-long war without end that has killed 4500
Americans, chewed up 40,000 more, and killed in excess of one million
innocent Iraqi civilians.

Had there been serious hearings on any of these three terrible
measures, there is a chance none of them would have passed, or that at
least, had they been passed, they would have been reworded to tie the
administration's hands. The first AUMF could have limited military
actions to attacking Al Qaeda. Period. The Patriot Act's constitutional
overrides could have been exposed early, and challenged. And the
administration's lies about the alleged threats posed by Iraq could
have been challenged in public by other witnesses, plus a clear
requirement could have been included that any attack on Iraq would need
UN authorization.

Now Congress is being pressured to pass an equally horrific bill
with no hearings. We know that 200 leading economists, including at
least three Nobel Laureates, one of them former World Bank economist
Joseph Stiglitz, are opposed to the bailout, saying throwing a trillion
dollars at Wall Street won't work and will be a waste of taxpayer money
or worse. We know that it fails to address the root problem--the
housing and mortgage crisis. We know that it could be a crippling blow
to the dollar. Yet without hearings to expose this giant scam, the only
ones getting through to members of Congress are Wall Street lobbyists,
their pockets stuffed with campaign cash.

Citizens can't even get past the Capitol switchboard, which is
jammed with angry callers trying to get through to their
representatives and senators.

The point that needs to be made is that there is no great urgency to
pass a bill. The administration's claim that the bottom will fall out
of the economy and that the country will be plunged into a depression
if the bill isn't passed immediately is nonsense. The Great Depression
took years to develop after the 1929 stock market crash.

The current market could collapse, and there'd be plenty of time to
act to revive the national economy. Meanwhile, the credit crisis, which
is serious, has been underway for months and months. It is not
something that came up last week and needs to be resolved tomorrow (as
if that were possible by the mere passing of a give-away bill). There
is plenty of time to hold the kind of hearings that will let members of
Congress, and the American public, learn about the causes of the
crisis, of its impacts, and about what the various strategies are that
might most effectively address it.

So the public demand should not be for passage of a "good" bailout
bill. It should be for a halt to this rush to passage of any bill. The
demand should be for "No Bill Without Hearings!"

So call Congress (202-225-3121, 202-224-3121 or 800-828-0498) and
tell your representative and your two senators that you don't want them
railroaded. Tell them you demand hearings before legislation. And tell
them, again, that you will vote against anyone who votes for the
current bailout for Wall Street. (Hint: If you can't get through, then
call one of their local offices, which are listed in the blue pages of
your phonebook, or go visit a local office.)

Don't forget to write letters, too, to your local paper demanding hearings and a reasoned response to the crisis, not a bailout.
_________________
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

Surprise! Congress Listened to the Voting Public!

dlindorff — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:43:24 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The most entertaining thing about this Wall Street crisis and the
refusal of the House of Representatives (not failure but refusal) to
pass a bailout bill negotiated by the Bush White House and the House
leadership is how shocked and upset those leaders and the pundit class
have been by the idea that members of Congress would actually heed the
wishes of their constituents!

The Founding Fathers always saw the lower house of Congress as
voice of the people—the elected body that, because its members had to
face the voters every two years, would be most responsive to public
sentiment.

Because of the power of money and the role of the corporate media
in filtering the information that voters get about what is actually
going on, that close connection between public and public servant in
the House has long ago broken down. This time, however, because the
crisis hit within five weeks of the national election, and because the
crisis involved something that everyone cares about—their money—it
worked.

The public is paying attention, and most of us got it. It was
obvious that Congress and the White House were out to screw us out of
our money in order to protect the millionaire and billionaire traders
and conmen who have been running the Wall Street casino for the last
decade and a half without any adult supervision.

Now that people are paying attention, it will be interesting to see
how these corrupt leaders, Democrat and Republican, will fashion that
bailout and get it passed. Once aroused from their TV-induced slumber,
the American public may not be willing to get rolled. If the anger
grows, and the calls and emails to Congress—which brought down the
Capitol website Monday and jammed the switchboard for several days
beginning last week—continue to flood in threatening an electoral
Armageddon for those who back a bailout, Congress may yet be unable to
pass a bill.

It doesn’t get any better than this.

Now let’s make something clear. The stock market crash that
happened on Monday was no crisis. The market can rise and fall with
little or no significant impact on the broader economy, or even on
those who have their retirement income invested in equities. While
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and House
leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Minority Leader John Boehner may
point frantically to the falling Dow as a dire warning to members of
Congress to take action, it is all just scaremongering.

The real issue is not the stock market—it’s the credit markets. And
these have been shut down to borrowers—both individuals and
corporates—for months. Which means that there is no sudden urgency to
pass a lousy, rip-off bailout bill in days without proper hearings and
investigations into what is really needed.

The Bush Administration’s whole idea here from the start was to use
scare-mongering and high-pressure tactics honed in the 2002 campaign to
gin up a war against Iraq to get a bill through Congress that would
make a virtual dictator out of the Treasury Secretary, and to siphon a
trillion dollars or more out of taxpayers’ accounts and into the
pockets of the already stunningly rich financial class. It was to be
one final wrecking ball by the Bush/Cheney gang launched at the
American economic and political system, allowing the people who have
run the country into the ground over the last eight years, and their
financial backers to walk away with all the cookies.

It could still happen if the public doesn’t stay fired up and
angry. But for now, it’s at least exciting and deeply satisfying to see
the Administration, and the cowards who run the so-called Democratic
opposition in Congress, scrambling frantically to come up with a scheme
to get this ripoff passed.

What should happen? Congressional Democrats should put a hold on any action until after Election Day, which after all is only five weeks off. They should say that the voters must be heard on this critical national issue of how to rescue the economy and fix the financial system. Hearings should be scheduled in the relevant committees—oversight, banking, securities regulation, housing, the elderly, health and human services, etc. (yes, Rep. Dennis Kucinich is right in observing that given that most bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical emergencies, if the US had national healthcare, we wouldn’t have the housing foreclosure crisis)—and a special prosecutor should be established to look into the corruption behind all the recent financial sector failures. The real victims of the deregulatory orgy need to be heard, as do some of the 200 economists (including at least three nobel laureates) who have opposed this bailout. Then when the true nature and extent of the crisis and its causes have been laid out in clear public view, along with some real solutions for real people, appropriate legislative reforms should be drawn up, debated and voted upon, to be finally enacted into law.

No rush to judgment! No short-circuiting of the critical process of hearings!

The economy will survive this process.

What we cannot survive is a continuation of secret government, backroom deals and trillion-dollar bailouts.

BACK TO THE PHONES!
_______________________
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

Weasel Watch

dlindorff — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:49:42 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

It is going to be entertaining, to say the least, to watch John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom endorsed the crooked, stacked rip-off bailout bill being scaremongered into law by the Bush Administration.

Now that it is clear that the American public overwhelmingly
recognizes this bill as a corrupt attempt to rob them and reward the
crooks and shysters on Wall Street, how will McCain and Obama weasel
out of their endorsement of the proposal?

They can certainly count their lucky stars that the vote was in the
House and not in the Senate, where they would have already had to take
a public stand up or down on the measure, but let's be clear--both men
have said they suppport the negotiated proposal that was put to the
House today, and which went down to a stinging defeat, 228-205, despite
the solid support of the House Democratic leadership.

Meanwhile, to see how your representative voted, click here. You'll know what do to...

The Power of "No"!

dlindorff — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:53:21 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The Congressional switchboard is jammed. You can get through, but it
takes a dedicated finger on the redial button of your phone. Operators
at the Capitol say it's been that way for a week now, as Americans
across the country have been flooding their Congressional delegations
with phone calls (and emails) urging them to vote "No" on the
Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.

That today is no exception, after Democratic Party leaders (and both
major party presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama)
bought into the plan after adding some window-dressing measures
designed to make it look more palatable. This shows that the public is
not fooled.

People see clearly that this is a trillion-dollar giveaway to the
very people who have been hollowing out and destroying the US economy
for over a decade or more by convincing both parties to let them do
whatever they want to get rich, free of any kind of significant
oversight or regulation.

As Nobelist economist Joseph Stiglitz has written
of this outrageous rip-off, there are four problems facing the
financial system, and the bailout proposal only addresses one--getting
the toxic mortgages off the banks' books and onto taxpayers' hands.
Left unsolved is the gaping hole in banks' balance sheets in the form
of loans made to people and companies which cannot be repaid, which
will mean they still won't start lending money again. Left unaddressed
too is the continuing collapse of housing prices, which will inevitably
lead to more bank collapses even after the bailout. Finally, Stiglitz
says there is the general loss of faith in the financial system--a
major crisis which the bailout will also not solve.

Stiglitz doesn't even address a fifth problem which is that this
trillion-plus-dollar boondoggle (and when you add in the bailouts of
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, the multiple mega-bank
failures and the pending auto-industry bailout, you're already talking
$1.5 trillion and counting), all of it with borrowed money, the stage
is being set for a collapse in the US dollar, with consequences that
will reverberate through the economy. Consider: if the dollar
collapses, as many experts say is almost inevitable with this kind of
huge addition to the national debt, oil prices (which are set in
dollars) will soar to compensate, the price of all the other goods that
Americans import--more than half of everything we use in daily life
thanks to the decimation of American manufacturing--will rise
dramatically, and ultimately, in an effort to stem the bleeding,
interest rates will have to be raised, thus bringing what's left of the
economy to a grinding halt.

All of this is readily predictable--and indeed a group of over 200 prominent economists has written Congress
joining Stiglitz in opposing the bailout plan--but that doesn't matter
to the proponents of the bailout in Washington. What they want is to
get past Election Day, and the bailout may do that, unless the public
gets really aroused.

The tsunami of calls and emails to Congress, and last week's
nationwide demonstrations against the bailout suggest that the public
is waking up to this looming disaster and to the fact that they are
being sold a bill of goods.

If you haven't made an effort to call your two senators and your
representative to demand that they vote "No" on this bailout, do it now
(the number is 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121), and don't give up when
you get a busy signal. That's a sign that you are not alone. Just keep
hitting "redial" until you get through. At that point, get the
operator, before switching you, to give you direct numbers for your
three members of Congress, so you can bypass the main switchboard
number after that.

Unlike the 2002 rush to war against Iraq, this latest bum's rush can still be stopped.
__________________

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 www.thiscantbehappening.net

Alan Grayson (FL-08) Promises Jail for War Profiteers

Bob Fertik — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:50:21 -0400

Alan Grayson is the Democratic candidate in FL-08 against Ric Keller, and he's promising real accountability for the war criminals inside and outside the Bush Administration.

Bush Exits with a Bang: Toxic Bailout and Two More Wars?

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:53:09 -0400

The Bush administration is heading us towards more disaster with its 'toxic debt' bailout and destabilization of Pakistan and Iran. We can't afford to go down this road again. In this short video, Heather Wokusch provides background, context and ideas for taking action.

Links for sources cited in this video:

Bailout:

Crisis talks over $700B 'toxic debt' rescue plan

Bush: "The American people have got to know that I made this decision along with a lot of experts because it was necessary to protect them."

Pakistan:

Washington is Risking War with Pakistan

The American War Moves to Pakistan

Iran:

Preparing The Battlefield July 07, 2008

Dutch intel: US to strike Iran in coming weeks September 1, 08

Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran September 11, 08

U.S. to sell IAF smart bombs for heavily fortified targets September 14, 08

Bush could still attack Iran Sept 17 08

Adam Sullivan Endorses Steve Harrison for Congress

Bob Fertik — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:35:18 -0400

Impeachment supporter Adam Sullivan challenged Jerrold Nadler in the Democratic primary in NY08, but was thrown off the ballot on a technicality. Today he endorsed Steve Harrison for Congress in NY13 over Mike McMahon, Rahm Emanuel's chosen candidate.

Entrenched, well-financed (DLC-type) Democrats say they believe that moderate or right-leaning Democrats are the best option for winning an expanded Democratic majority in congress. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. National polling shows that the People are far to the left of Congress on nearly every issue, in every state, almost without exception. Run a centrist, you get tepid turn-out at the polls. Combine that with GOP attack ads, and you get Harold Ford losing in Tennessee. Why is the Democratic party afraid to back progressive candidates?

In other words: Why is Jerrold Nadler backing McMahon, instead of Steve Harrison, for the Democratic party nomination in the 13th CD of New York?

I found myself talking about Harrison's primary challenge, and getting angrier and angrier. The problem with Congress is not that they won't impeach. The problem with Congress is damned near everything! McMahon is on the record as being pro-Iraq war and anti-choice. This is the guy the NY Dems want to run to capture a long-held GOP congressional seat? I know it's a fairly conservative district, but try polling them on what they think of McMahon's stance on the war. I doubt they'll be sympathetic. But because the Dems want someone in the seat who'll help them consolidate their power for some invisible long-term goal that helps the Party and not the people, they'll run a candidate who has little name recognition and dubious Democratic credentials. Even if he wins, what have progressives gained?

Why would Nadler endorse McMahon? Because he'll play ball, and because he seems to be able to raise money. Old-style, ugly politics-as-usual. Thanks, Jerry. Thanks a lot. What a progressive you are.

When I went to a Harrison fundraiser in June, I heard him speak about his commitment to working for people instead of for institutions. (Institutions like the Democratic Party, for instance!) It struck me that that was what we were doing, with our campaign. The people want this president held accountable, but the institutions which hold and consolidate power--corporations, political parties, etc.--feel that the cost was too high. The cost to THEM, mind you. The cost to the people and to the principles on which our nation was founded are not considered.

We need Harrison in Congress, and more like him. If the House and Senate are to do the People's business, then the seats must be occupied by true representatives and statesmen. If you feel that you have time and energy to work on a primary campaign this year, I would suggest this one. I have met Steve: he is intelligent, well-spoken, quick-witted and generous, in the broadest sense. Plus he is committed enough to be running for the second time: in 2006 he received 43% in the general. Against a then-very-popular incumbent, Vito Fosella, this is no small potatoes.

Some of you will prefer to pick other battles, I'm sure. Harrison's is not an impeachment fight like ours was. But as we take small steps toward a real and lasting progressive democracy, we will be aided by having true progressives in Washington, and representing New York. Also, this is one more way to show Jerry that he cannot take his constituents for granted. If McMahon loses in the primary, it will be largely because of New Yorkers in districts like Nadler's and Moloney's.

Food for thought, anyway. Feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree, and also what else you plan to do in these next crucial months. Frankly, I miss working more closely with all of you, and look forward to hearing about what you're doing.

Power to the People,
Adam

What Can Virgil Goode Do For You?

KFP — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:33:42 -0400

Virgil and Tom faced off for the first time on August 13th in a forum
that demonstrated the wide gap between the two of them - especially
when it comes to immigration policy. Virgil has repeatedly touted his
fence: "There's no way a 12 foot ladder will cross this fence."

A little help of some visual aids would be useful in understanding
Virgil's complex "3 tier" fence policy that was outlined in 5 parts?

A win for Perriello in my book. I can't wait for the next showdown between these two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMIeE7ZxDXE

AK00: Diane Benson Takes On Corrupt Republicans and Democrats

Bob Fertik — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:54:57 -0400

Guest blogged by Phil Munger:

In Alaska, the state tied most closely to corruption, two credible candidates have emerged to challenge the structural problems that led to so much unbridled fraud and naked venality. On the Right, current Governor Sarah Palin emerged two years ago, to challenge big oil's longtime dominance of the state's executive branch. On the Left, Diane Benson emerged around the same time to challenge both Alaska GOP Rep. Don Young for his seat in the U.S. Congress, and her own party, the Alaska Democrats.

Shortly after her U.S. Army Ranger son was grievously injured outside Baghdad in late 2005, Diane Benson discovered that the Alaska Democrats didn't contemplate putting up a credible challenge to Alaska Rep. Don Young in the 2006 race. After watching her son's recovery at or near Walter Reed Army Medical Center, near Young's DC office, seeing the neglect suffered by our wounded warriors, and experiencing Young's indifference to Alaska's wounded, Benson entered the race.

Defeating Alaska's most notable muckraker, Ray Metcalfe, in the 2006 primary, Benson crafted a grassroots general campaign that forced Young to make more public campaign appearances than any year since 1992. Benson attacked Young fearlessly, bringing to light Young's many contacts with and favors to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. She forced Young into more debates than he had ever done before. Outspent almost ten to one by Young, Benson garnered about 41% of the 2006 vote. All this before many of the more recent revelations about Young came to light. It was by far the closest threat Young had endured since 1992.

Alaska's Democratic Party gave Benson's 2006 campaign the least help possible, selling her outdated voter information at a high price, and only giving her about $10,000 so late in the campaign it made little or no difference. The closeness of her run to Young was a wake-up call to political opportunists, though.

The Chairman of the Alaska Democrats in 2006, Jake Metcalfe, who had deferred to DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel's advice then not to support Benson, resigned his chair in early August 2006, and filed for the House seat from Washington, DC, the next day. Benson had already filed for the 2008 race in late spring. In late fall, ex-Alaska state legislator, Ethan Berkowitz, filed for the seat.

Jake Metcalfe's campaign spun out in early May. Ethan Berkowitz's campaign has been very well funded, especially by a long list of DINOs, lobbyists, and such. Diane Benson's campaign has attracted the support of progressive organizations like the National Women's Political Caucus (and its Alaska chapter), the National Organization of Women, 21st Century Democrats, former Senator Max Cleland, and Emily's List. Why?

Diane Benson's platform is the most progressive of any major candidate in Alaska history. She seeks a comprehensive solution to the medical care crisis that would mandate care for everyone, as it strives toward a single payer model. Her campaign platform is the only one in Alaska to address the issue of poverty, a serious problem in parts of the state, both urban and rural.

Her approach toward education not only directly seeks to immediately dismantle No Child Left Behind, but hopes to revolutionize rural education and vocational education, and calls for long-term partnerships on educating comprehensively in the realm of renewable energy technologies, research and resources. She has stated that "Alaska could be Iceland on steroids!"

On Veterans' issues, on the wars, and on American foreign affairs and diplomacy, Diane Benson is not only quite progressive, her plans and platform are detailed, rational. She wants a safe, quickly staged withdrawal from Iraq, a sane effort in Afghanistan, and a far less confrontational American military stance, but one based upon real strength.

On women's issues, Diane Benson is one of the most dynamic candidates running for the U.S. House in the country. Her speech to the 2008 Alaska Democratic Party Convention was one of the most important speeches on women's issues in Alaska history. Her appearances at several candidate forums alongside the other primary challenger, Ethan Berkowitz, have shown her to be formidable, sometimes easily overshadowing Ethan Berkowitz in her knowledge and pragmatic solutions on issues and to problems. As the list of questionable contributors to Berkowitz's campaign seems to grow daily (see companion piece at DownWithTyranny), and as more GOP-tied crooks are indicted almost daily in Alaska, Diane Benson's strong commitment to campaign finance reform is gaining traction.

Here are some hallmarks of her 2006 and 2008 campaigns:

Diane Benson was the first to publicly detail the depth and breadth of Don Young's ties to Jack Abramoff.
Diane Benson was the first to publicly demand an investigation into Rep. Don Young's unconstitutional changes to the 2005 Omnibus Transportation Bill (Coconut Road).
Diane Benson was the first candidate in the USA to address the disparity in VA care between rural Native Americans and other rural Veterans.
Diane Benson, after publication of an article in the Anchorage Daily News, detailing Benson's long-time advocacy for and volunteer work with victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, turned the disclosure around, giving her campaign another area upon which to focus. Alaska's sexual violence against women is by far the worst in the USA, against Native Alaskan women, even worse. And it isn't getting better, but worse. Benson wants to fight for these women.
Diane Benson was the first 2008 Alaska candidate to openly endorse the Alaskans for Clean Elections ballot initiative.
Diane Benson has refused contributions from lobbyists and PACs which include lobbyists. As Howie Klein writes, they've found another candidate - Ethan Berkowitz - more than willing to take every dime they'll send him.
Diane Benson, time and time again, has held developers and potential developers to a high standard of accountability, questioning some proposals in greater detail than even the state's government itself.
Diane Benson, in her fight against the corrupt paradigm represented by Don Young, and in her present struggle against the old school DINO establishment, has shown herself to be one of the most noteworthy candidates in the United States. Just last week, The Nation's editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, recognized this in a detailed profile of the candidate.

Please join us in supporting Diane Benson here. The Alaska Democratic Party Primary is Tuesday, August 26.