Bush Democrats / Bush Dogs

Bush Democrats

Bob Fertik — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:52:46 -0400

While Democrats control the House of Representatives by 231-202, they cannot pass progressive bills on health care, the environment, jobs, justice, and impeachment - or even stop horrendous Republican bills on Iraq, torture, and warrantless wiretapping - because a few dozen "Bush Democrats" usually vote with George Bush.

One solution is to elect more Democrats to increase our majority so "Bush Democrats" matter less, and many netroots groups like Moveon.org, DailyKos.com, and Blue America are doing this brilliantly.

The other solution is to support progressive Democrats in primaries against "Bush Democrats," and that's why we launched this effort, drawing heavily on the excellent advice of Blue America's Howie Klein.

The main reason progressives have avoided primaries against Democratic incumbents is the fear that a divisive primary might help turn a "Bush Democratic" seat into a Republican seat. Realistically, there may be a few "Bush Democrats" who are uniquely able to win in Republican districts and therefore should not be challenged in a Democratic primary. But those are the exceptions, not the rule - especially in an election like 2008 where Democrats have a large lead due to widespread disgust with Bush and the entire Republican Party. We will not target incumbents who are truly exceptional.

While we focus on replacing incumbent Bush Democrats, there are two other situations in which progressive Democrats face Bush Democrats:

Open seats where progressive Democrats are running against Bush Democrats
Progressive Democratic incumbents who are being challenged by Bush Democrats

You can help all of our progressive Democratic candidates through our Actblue page:
http://www.actblue.com/page/bushdemocrats

1. Incumbent Bush Democrats who deserve primary challenges

Below is a list of Democrats who voted wrong on one or more crucial votes. Some are hard-core "Bush Democrats" while others simply join them from time to time.


Steny Hoyer

By publishing this list, we hope to accomplish several goals:

Persuade these Democrats to stop voting with Bush so we don't have to challenge them in a primary. Democrats who reverse their bad votes and genuinely embrace progressive positions will be ~~crossed off our list~~
Encourage progressive Democrats to run primaries against those who keep voting with Bush

This list began after 59 Bush Democrats voted against the McGovern Amendment on 5/10/2007 on the first key vote to end the war. Those 59 Bush Democrats voted for an endless occupation of Iraq despite overwhelming opposition from Democrats, Independents, and even many Republicans. The list has been modified since then to take account of other key votes since the original Iraq War vote on 10/10/02.

Key to Column Headings:

"B/R" ranks each district on a "Blue/Red" scale where 1=Strong Blue, 2=Leans Blue, 3=Tossup, 4=Leans Red, 5=Solid Red. In theory there is less "risk" in challenging an incumbent in a Blue district than a Red one, because the seat should stay Democratic regardless of who wins the primary. But each district and each race is unique, so that general theory may or may not apply.

"Incumbent" links to a page for each incumbent where you can discuss progressive Democrats who could challenge them in a primary, and other topics related to local political organizing.

"B/N" identifies Members who join the "Bluedog" (B) or "New Democrat/DLC" (N) caucuses. "Bluedogs" claim to support "fiscal responsibility," but these Bluedogs support a war that has already wasted an incredible $434 billion and driven budget deficits to record levels. "New Democrats/DLC" claim to support "national security" but the Iraq War has severely damaged our armed forces, undermined military recruitment, increased global terrorism, and alienated our allies. Those who play a leadership role with either group earn an asterisk (*).

"BDI" is the "Bush Democrat Index" which ranks all Democrats on their overall voting support for George Bush and the Republicans. It is the reverse of the Progressive Punch Index.

"Votes" identifies key votes where these Members voted wrong:

?: (Not in office when vote occurred)
A: Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq on 10/10/02 (bad=support)
B: Bankruptcy Bill on 5/14/05 (bad=support)
M: Military Commissions Act on 9/27/06 (bad=support)
I: Iraq Supplemental McGovern Amendment to end the war by 4/08 on 5/10/07 (bad=oppose)
R: Andrews Amendment to block Iraq/Afghan funds for military strike on Iran on 5/16/07 (bad=oppose)
X: Iraq Supplemental with unenforceable timetable on 7/12/07 (bad=oppose any timetable)
W: Warantless Wiretapping on 8/4/07 (bad=support)
C: Bi-Partisan Compact on Iraq to oppose any funding cuts 9/26/07 (bad=support)
P: "Protect America Act" letter co-signer 2/08 (P voted against Democratic alternative 3/14/08)
Q: Iraq $163B on 6/19/08
F: FISA wiretapping immunity on 6/20/08

"Primary Nominees" lists people whose names have been mentioned. If they are running and have a web site we link to their site. If we consider them priority candidates (whether or not they are running) we make them bold.

Dist	B/R	Incumbent	B/N	BDI	Votes	Primary Nominees
AL05	4	Bud Cramer	B	2	ABMIRWCPQF	retiring in 08
AL07		Artur Davis			MWBPKQF
AR01		Marion Berry	B		ABCKQF
AR02	1	Vic Snyder	N	49	IXWQF
AR04	1	Mike Ross	B*	26	ABMIWCPQF
AZ05	4	Harry Mitchell	b	59	?IRWQF
AZ08	3	Gabrielle Giffords	B	79	?IQF	Jeff Latas
CA18	3	Dennis Cardoza	B	46	?BIF
CA20	2	Jim Costa	B	50	?BIWCQF
CA28	1	Howard Berman		117	AIQF	Rep. Cindy Montanez Rep. Lloyd Levine Mike Stettler
CO02	1	Mark Udall		109	IQF	running for US Senate
CO03	4	John Salazar	B	56	?BMIRWQF
FL02	4	Allen Boyd	B*	6	ABMIRWCPQF	Rep. Al Lawson
FL03		Corrine Brown			KQF
FL16	4	Tim Mahoney	B	63	?IRQF
GA02	1	Sanford Bishop	B	27	ABMIRQF
GA08	5	Jim Marshall	B	9	?MIRXWQF	Robert Nowak Jack Ellis George Carswell
GA012	1	John Barrow	BN	12	?MIRXWPQF	Regina Thomas 7/15
GA013	1	David Scott	BN	52	?BMIRQF
IA03	3	Leonard Boswell	B	20	ABMIWPF	~~Ed Fallon~~ [Likely to retire after IA loses seat in 2010]
IL03	1	Daniel Lipinski		76	IWQF	~~Mark Pera~~
IL05		Rahm Emanuel	*		KQF
IL08	4	Melissa Bean	BN	37	?BMIRWPQF	~~Randi Scheuer~~
IN02	3	Joe Donnelly	B	29	?IRWQF
IN08	4	Brad Ellsworth	B	30	?IXWPQF
IN09	4	Baron Hill	B	32	A?IWQ	Gretchen Clearwater 5/6
KS02	4	Nancy Boyda	b	88	?IQF
KS03	3	Dennis Moore	BN*	47	ABMICPQF
KY06	3	Ben Chandler	BN	55	?BMIWQF	Sen. Ernesto Scorsone
LA03	3	Charlie Melancon	BN	15	?BMIRWPQF
LA06		Don Cazayoux			?QF
MD02	1	Dutch Ruppersberger		68	?BIQF
MD04	1	~~Al Wynn~~		94	AB	Donna Edwards
MD05	1	Steny Hoyer	*	83	ABIQF	Paul Pinsky
MN07	4	Collin Peterson	B	3	ABMIWQF
MO04	5	Ike Skelton		5	ABIQF
MS01		Travis Childers			?QF
MS04	5	Gene Taylor	B	1	ABMIXWCQF
NC02	2	Bob Etheridge	N	48	ABMIWQF
NC07	3	Mike McIntyre	BN	7	ABMIWQF
NC011	3	Heath Shuler	B	23	?IRWPQF	Sen. Martin Luther Nesbitt Rep. Susan C Fisher Rep. Ray Rapp
ND00	4	Earl Pomeroy	B	33	ABMIWPQF
NV01	1	Shelley Berkley	N	67	AIRQF
NY20		Kirsten Gillibrand	B		?QF
OH06	3	Charles Wilson	B	140	?IWQF
OH18	4	Zack Space	B	57	?IRWPQF
OK02	4	Dan Boren	B	4	?BMIRXWCPQF
PA04	3	Jason Altmire		25	?IRWQF
PA07		Joe Sestak			?KQF
PA10	5	Chris Carney	B	43	?IRXWPQF
PA11		Paul Kanjorski			AQF
PA12		John Murtha			AHRBKQF
PA13	1	Allyson Schwartz	N	145	?BIRQ	Chuck Pennacchio
PA17	5	Tim Holden	B	11	ABMIRXPQF	Sen. Michael O'Pake
SC05		John Spratt			AMBPKQF
SC06		Jim Clyburn	*		KQF
SD00	4	Stephanie Herseth Sandlin	BN*	36	?BMIRWCQF
TN04	3	Lincoln Davis	B	13	?BMIWCPQF
TN05	1	Jim Cooper	B	24	?BIWPQF
TN06	4	Bart Gordon	B	18	ABMIWQF
TN08	1	John Tanner	B	8	ABMIRWCPQF
TX09	1	Al Green		167	?BIF	Rep. Alma Allen Rep. Hubert Vo
TX15		Ruben Hinojosa			KQF
TX16		Silvestre Reyes			KQF
TX17	5	Chet Edwards		17	ABMIWQF
TX22	5	Nick Lampson	B	34	A?IRWCQF
TX23	3	Ciro Rodriguez		75	?IWQF
TX27	2	Solomon Ortiz		14	BIQF	Juan Garcia
TX28	1	Henry Cuellar	bN	19	?BMIRWQF
TX29	1	Gene Green		43	AIQF	Sen. Mario V. Gallegos
UT02	5	Jim Matheson	B	10	ABMIXWCPQF	Mayor Rocky Anderson
VA09	5	Rick Boucher		38	ABIQF
WA03		Brian Baird			CKQF	Cheryl Crist
WA06		Norm Dicks			AQF	Paul Richmond
WI03	2	Ron Kind	N*	66	ABIQF

2. Republican districts and open seats where progressive Democrats are running against Bush Democrats

3. Progressive Democratic incumbents who are being challenged by Bush Democrats

Dist	B/R	Progressive	Bush Democrat	Notes
TN-09	1	Steve Cohen	Nikki Tinker	Cohen is an outstanding progressive Freshman who won Harold Ford Jr.'s open seat in 2006 by beating cousin Joe Ford Jr. in the Democratic primary and brother Jake Ford in the general election. Religious right ministers want to defeat Cohen because he supported the Hate Crimes Bill H.R. 1592 and they are likely to support Nikki Tinker, Harold Ford Jr.'s former campaign manager, who came in 2nd to Cohen in the 2006 Democratic primary.

2008 Primary Challengers Wanted

Bob Fertik — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:05:05 -0400

Help us recruit Democratic primary challengers! Use our map or list

In 2006, we elected Democratic majorities to the Senate and House for one overriding reason: to end the Iraq War.

In May 2007, both the Senate and the House voted on amendments to end the Iraq War by setting a March 2008 deadline for removing combat troops. Those amendments would have passed if all Democrats had voted to end the Iraq War - but some pro-war "Bush Democrats" voted to continue the Iraq War forever.

As Democrats, we have every right to expect our Democratic Senators and Representatives to vote with us on the issues we care about deeply. And if they do not, we have every right to support candidates who agree with us in Democratic primaries against them.

There are two good reasons to support primary challengers. If we win, we get a better Member of Congress. But even if we lose, a competitive race often persuades the incumbent to change positions on the issue that fueled the primary. In 2006, two key anti-war challengers brought dramatic changes: both Jane Harman (CA-36) and Al Wynn (MD-4) voted for the war in 2002, but voted against the war in 2007 as a direct result of anti-war primary challenges by Marcy Winograd and Donna Edwards.

Of course, challenging an incumbent Senator or Representative is a huge effort. To run a competitive race requires finding an excellent candidate and a building a strong grassroots organization. Happily, the Internet lets us do both.

Use our map or list of Representatives who voted to fund the Iraq War forever. If you are represented by one of these "Bush Democrats," click on their dot and help us find a candidate to challenge them in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Together we can take back the Democratic Party from the "Bush Democrats" and end the war!

Update 1: Our benchmark votes are the Feingold-Reid Amendment (Senate 5/16/07) and the McGovern Amendment (House 5/10/07) because these are the "cleanest" votes on setting a deadline for Iraq. The later votes on the Supplemental (5/24) were more complicated and harder to use as a benchmark.

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

Democrats aiming for war in Iran

andyg — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:22:51 -0400

Now it's the Democrat's turn to start a war. Look at all of the congress-critters who have co-sponsored Senate resolution 580 and House resolution 362. Both of my senators are co-sponsors; one of them said he would "re-read" it after being confronted with the fact that an economic blockade is in fact an act of war. Clearly he signed on because AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) told him to (or else!). And both senators say they are "against" the Iraq war (even though they keep funding it). Congress supposedly went Democrat in 2006 because of opposition to the war, yet they also massively increased covert operations against Iran in preparation for war (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh). Please do everything you can to get this issue at the forefront of all issues, and lobby your representatives!

Our threats against Iran are a major cause of the spike in oil prices. An attack against Iran could easily trigger the closing of shipping lanes and a broader Middle East war. Shame on anyone who calls themselves an "anti-war Democrat" who would vote for this thing!

Why Do "Conservative" Democrats Support Warrantless Wiretapping?

Bob Fertik — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:24:38 -0400

I cannot for the life of me understand why any Democrat would vote for warrantless wiretapping.

I can easily understand why every Republican would. Republicans fully support the Bush Dictatorship in every way, including imperialism, torture, corruption, and warrantless wiretapping. If George Bush took the completely opposite positions (as he did before the 2000 election), they would support him too. They don't think and have no principles, they blindly follow their ~~Fuhrer~~ Leader.

But why would any Democrat - including our party leaders?

At the Presidential polling blog FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver analyzed 31 vulnerable House Democrats in conservative-leaning seats, and found 23 voted for warrantless wiretapping, while 8 voted against. Nate observes,

Did these Democrats vote for the FISA bill because they think it will help them to get re-elected? Or were they elected in 2006 because they were conservative enough Democrats to vote for this legislation in the first place?

But wait a minute!

Until George Bush stole the White House in 2000, "conservatives" stood for "freedom," the Constitution, smaller government and strict law enforcement.

Doesn't anyone remember Ronald Reagan, let alone Barry Goldwater? Is anyone familiar with Milton Friedman or the NRA or Ron Paul? (For the record, Ron Paul didn't vote. He has real principles, no?)

By each of these standards, opposing warrantless wiretapping is the "conservative" stance. And any Democrat running in a "conservative" district who wants "conservative" votes should oppose warrantlesss wiretapping, not support it!

The only possible arguments for supporting warrantless wiretapping are

absolute trust in and support for Republican dictatorship,
the belief that corporations should be completely unaccountable, and/or
the desire to give up all freedoms because there are terrorists who hate us.

Obviously the Republican Party now believes this. But do "conservatives"? Has George Bush not only redefined the meaning of "Republican," but also the meaning of "conservative"?

I'm sure if you went to an NRA meeting and asked members if they believe the government should have the power to listen to your phone calls and read your emails without a warrant issued by a judge, they would grab their biggest gun and point it at your Big Government head. (Interestingly, there is no mention of wiretapping - or even Big Government - on the NRA issues page, which proves that the NRA is simply a Republican front group, just like Ron Paul is a Republican hack.)

Surely Democrats in "conservative" districts understand the NRA mentality, whether they personally share it or not.

The bottom line is: we cannot begin to understand why "conservative" Democrats voted for warrantless wiretapping until we reject the idea that it was a "conservative" vote.

So if it wasn't a "conservative" vote, what was it? Here are the possibilities:

Stupidity
Corruption for telecom and corporate cash
Fear of attack ads by Republicans and/or their 527 allies
"Sistah Soulah" triangulation
Blind obedience to Steny Hoyer

1. Stupidity

Anyone familiar with the NRA mentality would realize that "conservatives" oppose warrantless wiretapping. But it's possible that "conservative" Democrats aren't familiar with the NRA mentality. In that case, the only word to describe them is stupid.

It's also possible that the Democrats who voted for the warrantless wiretapping bill think it is a good bill and don't understand they voted for warrantless wiretapping - that even if they wrote the strictest possible language, George Bush will simply ignore it and continue to wiretap anyone he pleases without a warrant. Again, if they believe that, the only word to describe them is stupid.

Finally, it's possible that Democrats support it because it's a "bi-partisan compromise," which is the Ultimate Good according to "High Broderism," the philosophy of Washington Press Corpse Dean David Broder. Any Member who listened to the passionate floor debate by Democratic opponents - or tallied their phone calls and emails - knows this was no compromise, just a Democratic sellout. So if they really believe this is a compromise, the only word to describe them is stupid.

2. Corruption for telecom and corporate cash

It takes a lot of money to win in a competitive district, and the telecom giants are rich and powerful companies that give away a lot of money. So it's easy to understand the desire of Democrats in these districts to try to get a chunk of telecom money. And there's a simple word for it: corruption.

3. Fear of attack ads by Republicans and/or their 527 allies

We know Republicans and their 527 allies will use any issue to attack Democrats, whether or not it bears any relationship to reality or truth. So it's easy to understand the desire of Democrats in these districts to avoid giving Republicans an issue to attack them with. Of course, Republicans tried to use this very issue in 2006, most notably in the CT05 race between incumbent Nancy Johnson (R) and challenger Chris Murphy (D). And who won? Murphy. Based on that experience, a rational politician would conclude that warrantless wiretapping ads don't work. But we all know that primitive emotions trump rational analysis every time. And there is no more primitive emotion than fear.

4. "Sister Soulah" triangulation

During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton proved he was not a "knee-jerk liberal" by going before Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition to attack hip hop MC Sister Souljah, who was quoted in the Washington Post saying "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" This was the quintessential act of "triangulation" - winning votes in the center by attacking the "far left."

Digby thinks Obama may be following this Clinton strategy, substituting Dirty F**ing Hippies (DFH's, a.k.a. progressive blog readers) for black radicals.

I am tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment, wherein Barack makes it clear to the Villagers that he is not one of the DFH's, despite all their ardent support. Nothing is more associated with us than this issue. It may even make sense on some sort of abstract level. He's obviously decided that he has to run to the right pretty hard to counteract that "most liberal Senator" label.

But while Digby floats this idea as a possibility, she doesn't buy it.

But, I actually have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats, who seem stuck in some 2004 time warp, fighting the battle of Fallujah with Don Rumsfeld. He may genuinely think the legislation is good or just be afraid that the Republicans will use it against him.

In other words, see stupidity and fear above.

5. Blind obedience to Steny Hoyer

While Nancy Pelosi is nominally the top Democrat in the House, "conservative" Democrats view Pelosi as too liberal for their taste, and line up behind Steny Hoyer instead.

Hoyer isn't actually a conservative on social issues; he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, pro-estate tax. But he is "conservative" on what Beltway insiders falsely call "national security" issues, which include Iraq, the Patriot Act, and wiretapping.

And he is also "conservative" on business issues, which allows him to raise large amounts of cash from business lobbyists on K Street. And he eagerly directs that cash to Democrats who will take it and vote for their interests, creating a positive feedback loop that draws "conservative" Democrats ever closer to Big Business.

On Capitol Hill, where campaign cash is God, this is considered "smart" politics. Outside the Beltway, this is considered bribery.

Oddly, we have just started a general election campaign where campaign finance is an important and interesting issue. The battle against corrupting campaign contributions, and for cleaner campaign finance, is central to the political identities of both McCain and Obama.

Moreover, Obama has revolutionized campaign funding through his brilliant Internet campaign, which has enlisted 1.5 million donors, 90% of whom have contributed small amounts under $200. Because he has been so successful at small-donor fundraising, Obama opted-out of public funding so he wouldn't be limited to $85 million, and instead could spend $300 million or more - without selling his political soul to big donors.

And that huge sum of money won't simply elect Obama as President - it will also allow him to run a 50-state campaign that sweeps Democrats into office at all levels. And where there are close races, he can target some of his cash to individual Democrats who need it.

Given this enormous Democratic cash advantage, why would Hoyer sell Democratic souls for corporate cash?

And why would Obama let him - even encourage him, as most bloggers believe he did?

At the end of this long blog, I remain as puzzled as when I began. None of this makes sense - either ideologically or politically.

Something is very wrong inside the Democratic Party. We need to figure out what it is, and we need to change it - before our "leaders" join with hard-core rightwing Republicans to create a neo-Fascist state.

BushDemocrat Endorsement #1: Regina Thomas GA12

Bob Fertik — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:32:55 -0400

I just got off the phone State Senator Regina Thomas, and I can't tell you how excited I am!

Thomas is running against BushDemocrat John Barrow in Georgia's 12th District in a primary on July 15, just 4 weeks away. Barrow voted with George Bush on every issue we track, including Iraq, Iran, habeas corpus, and wiretapping. His district is 45% black, yet he votes like a southern rightwing Republican.

Yesterday, Barrow voted to give Bush $163B more to occupy Iraq. Today, he voted to give Bush unlimited power to wiretap American citizens. But Georgia Democrats do not have to tolerate his rightwing votes. On July 15, they can replace Barrow with Regina Thomas.

I called Thomas for a statement about today's warrantless wiretapping vote, and I was thrilled to discover she is just as angry as we are. Here's what she said:

I was really appalled at the actions of Congress and especially my Congressman from the 12th District in Georgia, John Barrow, for voting in favor of the Bush-Republican surveillance bill that would make it very easy, without a warrant, to wiretap *any* American citizen.

In my opinion, this bill is smoke and mirrors with hidden agendas to allow the government or any other entity to use terrorism as a reason to put surveillance on anyone's telephone, to tape their conversations without any proof, without any investigation, just for them to say FISA gives me the right for you as a telecom company to spy on people.

This also violates the 4th Amendment right to privacy. And what is this country coming to?

Exactly - what is this country coming to?

Naturally, I was delighted to tell Thomas that she was the first candidate we endorsed for our "Bush Democrats" ActBlue page (http://www.actblue.com/page/bushdemocrats), and in our very first morning we raised over $800. Needless to say, she was most grateful for our support!

In an effort to control my enthusiasm, I asked Thomas about the depressing news that Barack Obama endorsed Barrow and recorded a radio ad, which caused outrage this week on many blogs. Thomas would have none of it. "That's the best thing that happened to me!" she countered. "People are angry about this! Here's a man who has not served his district, and Obama is messing in our local businesss. I'm getting emails from Illinois, Pennsylvania, even Taiwan! A man in his 80's with a small retirement was sending a check to Obama each month, and now he's sending it to me. The response is incredible," she said.

I asked if there were any polls. "We haven't had the money for a poll, but Barrow took a poll and he didn't like the results, because he got Obama to make the ad. He refuses to show up for debates, and is sending surrogates who look like me. But people aren't fooled, they see right through it. Why is he afraid to debate me?" she asked.

I asked if it was true that roughly 70% of the primary voters would be African-American. "That's true," she said. "And voters are very enthusiastic, honking when they drive by, yelling 'we're voting for you! We've got your back! But it's not just African-Americans, it's white voters too," she said.

I'm a white voter, and just from our brief call I can understand why Democrats of all backgrounds would be so excited about Thomas' campaign. If you share my enthusiasm and want to replace a BushDemocrat with an Aggressive Progressive, please contribute to Regina Thomas here:
http://www.actblue.com/page/bushdemocrats

Thank you!

Impeach Bush and Cheney

For Better Government — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:09:11 -0400

This is what I sent to Mr. Udall, in response to his communication informing me why he will NOT proceed with Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. My message was blocked. Great job, Udall. Thank for NOT listening. But oh, can you sh-mooze if you want money.

Read on Democrats.

Mr. Udall,

How about starting with dismantling the insane NCLB Act? That would be a good first step. We have "yahoos" and "cowards" in Congress.

Sorry, but we are just one of the over quarter million families who lost their job. We have been "Bush-wacked."
I am tired of platitudes from politicos who have the best health care, the best retirement system, can take campaign contributions with them, and get all the perks. Hey who goes to war? Certainly not the children of Congress.
I am disgusted not only with the Republicans, but also with the Democrats who refuse to take a stand and only offer platitudes.
Send me some money! I need money to pay bills.

I vote and in your district! Have never made more than $50,000. I have worked since I was 14 and now I am 62. My tax dollars are supporting "yahoos" and "bozos."

Why BlueDog Democrats Make Me Sick

Bob Fertik — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:38:56 -0500

Matt Stoller blogs about Democrat Bill Foster's special election campaign in IL-14 for the open seat vacated by Denny Hastert. For some unfathomable reason, Foster is embracing the Blue Dogs because he thinks they stand for "deficit reduction":

Paying down this debt must be the first order of business. I intend to work with the Blue Dog Democrats in congress -- a group dedicated to curing this by making the hard decisions necessary -- as well as any other groups that make deficit reduction their top priority. I'm sure that I'll be at odds with the Blue Dogs on more than a few issues - for example mortgage industry reform - but when it comes to deficit reduction, we all agree that we have to get our house in order.

Personally, I'm a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative - I don't want government at any level to waste a penny on anything.

And the most wasteful government expenditure in the history of the world is Iraq, which has cost $500 billion so far and will cost $3 trillion unless we bring our troops home.

Below are the 48 Blue Dogs. How many of them voted against the latest blank check for $70 Billion on 1/16/08? Exactly none.

Michael Arcuri NY24
Joe Baca CA43
John Barrow GA12
Melissa Bean IL08
Marion Berry AR01
Sanford Bishop GA02
Dan Boren OK02
Leonard Boswell IA03
Allen Boyd FL02
Dennis Cardoza CA18
Christopher Carney PA10
Ben Chandler KY06
Jim Cooper TN05
Jim Costa CA20
Bud Cramer AL05
Lincoln Davis TN04
Joe Donnelly IN02
Brad Ellsworth IN08
Gabrielle Giffords AZ08
Kirsten Gillibrand NY20
Bart Gordon TN06
Jane Harman CA36
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin SD00
Baron Hill IN09
Tim Holden PA17
Steve Israel NY02
Nick Lampson TX22
Tim Mahoney FL16
Jim Marshall GA08
Jim Matheson UT02
Mike McIntyre NC07
Charlie Melancon LA03
Michael Michaud ME02
Dennis Moore KS03
Patrick Murphy PA08
Collin Peterson MN07
Earl Pomeroy ND00
Mike Ross AR04
John Salazar CO03
Loretta Sanchez CA47
Adam Schiff CA29
David Scott GA13
Heath Shuler NC11
Zachary Space OH18
John Tanner TN08
Gene Taylor MS04
Mike Thompson CA01
Charles Wilson OH06

BlueDogs aren't fiscal conservatives - they are whores for the Military Industrial Complex.

And that's why they make me sick.

They're Scaring Us to Death

dlindorff — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:21:38 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

Well, now we know. Scientists have documented that the Bush/Cheney administration has been a greater threat to Americans’ health and safety than Osama Bin Laden and his terror band.

Specifically, The New York Times, in its science section today, reports that a new study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry has found that while the risk to Americans of dying at the hands of a terrorist was roughly equal to the chance of “drowning in a toilet,” the risk of cardiovascular disease among people who are frightened about the threat of terrorism is 300-500% higher than for people who are not worried.

What this means is that the Bush/Cheney administration, by constantly hyping the nation’s fears of terror through the use of everything from daily color-coded terror alerts, to absurd inspection procedures at airline terminals and parcel post restrictions, is actually scaring some of us to death.

And for what?

From the moment those planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon back in September 2001, Bush, Cheney and their allies—Republican and Democrat—in Congress and the media have been peppering us with warnings that the “bad guys” are out to kill us, to destroy our way of life, and to defeat America.

It has been a ludicrous idea from the start. The idea that small gang of guys from the Middle East could bring the mightiest nation that the world has ever known to its knees, or even significantly threaten the safety and security of the people of the United States is simply absurd and laughable. Why, even the detonation of a small smuggled nuclear device in or near an American city, should such a thing ever come to pass, would be less of a threat to the nation as a whole than the eruption of one of our many active volcanoes—say Mt. Rainier or Mt. Hood, or the Yellowstone caldera—or an 8 or 9-point earthquake in San Francisco or Los Angeles. And those natural disasters are probably more likely than the explosion of a terrorist nuke.

Yet Bush, Cheney and other charlatans like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and the former senator and now Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Rick Santorum continue to do the scare routine, warning that we are in grave danger—from Al Qaeda or Iran getting The Bomb, to Venezuela buying military aircraft from Brazil, to Cuba manufacturing dangerous biological weapons.

I have been stunned at the response of my fellow Americans to this blatant nonsense. Shortly after the Twin Towers went down, my local school district announced the cancellation for the entire year of all school trips! There was a fear among parents and members of the local school authorities that the buses carrying them to museums or the zoo might pose tempting targets for terrorists! Our kids were also treated to scary “intruder lockdowns” where they’d be locked with their teachers in their classrooms while local cops dressed in black SWAT gear and armed with assault rifles played army in the hallways looking for imaginary terrorists.

I’ve gone on plane flights where I’ve had to wait in line for an hour while Transportation Security Administration guards check the tiny shoes of six-month-old infants to make sure they weren’t shoe bombs, and have had to surrender countless bottles of mouthwash and drinking water and tubes of toothpaste, all suspected of being smuggled explosives. (I was also honored with an “S” mark on my boarding pass a couple of times, which meant I was pulled aside for special inspection for fear I might be a terrorist myself.)

All of this nonsense, however, is coming with a price. I can laugh because I know it’s nonsense. But some people aren’t laughing. They’re living in fear. And that fear is causing them to suffer cardiovascular disease, according to this new study.

Of course, that’s only the tip of the iceberg, really, when it comes to the cost of the Washington terror scam.

American businesses have spent literally tens of billions of dollars—maybe hundreds of billions of dollars—on security measures, fearing terror attacks on their installations, or on their communications, or on Wall Street. Thousands of foreign science students and scientists have been banned from the US—or even deported--for fear they might be terrorists in training. Municipalities and states have spent billions in taxpayer dollars on security that they simply don’t need. My little town of Upper Dublin, just north of Philadelphia, with just some 26,000 people, has its own police SWAT team, for Pete’s sake, complete with a large gray SWAT vehicle—a panel truck loaded with heavy combat firepower capable of repelling a small third-world army. I wonder how many teachers that money could have hired? Maybe they wouldn’t have had to let the elementary music program go down the tubes.

I haven't mentioned the whole $1-2 trillion War in Iraq, which was all the result of presidential and vice presidential scare mongering.

And of course, that’s just the financial cost of scare mongering. We’ve also given up most of our Bill or Rights, and even some more ancient rights, like the right of Habeas Corpus. And we’re about to give up our entire right to privacy if the government gets its way and introduces a national identity card. How far away are we from having to get injected with identity chips?

All this panic and fear, and yet we still sing this national anthem that calls America “the home of the brave”?

I don’t think so. "Home of the scared shitless" might be more appropriate.

The good news is that maybe this new report on the health threat posed by government scare mongering will cause people to do something about it. If there’s one thing Americans get worked up about, it’s threats to their health. Look how anxious people get about Bird Flu, West Nile Virus, Anthrax, Bubonic Plague, AIDS, etc. Maybe now that we’re learning that worrying about terror can kill us, we’ll demand that officials and politicians in Washington just shut the hell up about it.

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think about terrorists. The chances that I’m going to be the victim of a bombing, plane hijacking or mall attack is so minimal it can’t be measured.

I’m much more worried that the country that I grew up in has been hijacked by a bunch of power-mad war-mongers bent on destroying the Constitution and bringing to an end the free and free-wheeling society we’ve been building for over 200 years.

I hope that worrying doesn’t end up giving me a heart attack…
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Growing Fears of a US Attack on Iran, and an Easy Way to Stop It

dlindorff — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:03:08 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Even as one faction of the American government, the military and the corporatocracy grow collectively more alarmed about the possibility of a US attack on Iran, the Bush/Cheney administration and its allies seem increasingly moving towards just such a new war.

Okay, so Sen. James Webb (D-VA) and 29 other US Senators who oppose such a mad plan have done what? They've written a letter to the president telling him that he cannot attack Iran without express approval in advance from the Congress.

A letter! Boy, that'll stop him.
What's the matter with these people?

A few months back, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution authored by war cheerleader Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a "global terrorist organization." In President Bush's pathologically twisted view of his power, that resolution gave him all the go-ahead he needed, because Bush and his legal apologists claim that back on Sept. 18, 2001, Congress, in passing an Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, were actually declaring a War on Terror--a conflict without end and without borders. Under this crazy logic, any attack on a terrorist or terrorist organization is simply another battle in that "war."

If Sen. Webb and his colleagues really want to stop the president from further murderous madness, they need only revoke that 2001 AUMF. A simple resolution declaring it ended, and stating that the war on terror is not a war would do the trick.

Why hasn't the Congress done this?

Are they afraid the president will call them "soft on terror"?

No doubt he would, but I think most Americans have grown weary of Bush's name calling. People are pretty aware now that the raised and lowered colored alert flags, the periodic dire warnings of impending doom, all conveniently timed to coincide with moments when the president or his allies are facing legal or political difficulties, are just cheap scare politics.

Any member of Congress with a scintilla of courage could easily make that case to constituents.

People know this president is a whack job and that the vice president is a liar.

So why doesn't someone propose revoking the 2001 AUMF?

The aircraft carriers, loaded with Tomahawk missiles and the largest bomber fleet ever assembled, are in place. Stealth bombers are being retrofitted to carry a new 15-ton bomb. The army has built a base right near the Iranian border in Iraq. There was the bizarre case of the six missing nuclear missiles. The verbal threats against Iran are increasing. US special forces are reportedly already operating in Iran, encouraging and perhaps participating in acts of terror against the regime and its military forces there.

Oil prices are starting to rise to unseen levels as commodities traders bet on the impact of a closing of the Persian Gulf to oil traffic.

Time grows short to stop a catastrophe.

If Congress doesn't act soon to pull the legal rug out from under the president, we could well see a catastrophe. If the US does attack Iran, the global economy will go into a tailspin as oil soars past $200/barrel. The war in the Middle East would become a vast regional conflagration. US troops in Iraq, already thinly stretched, would come under attack from all sides. A draft would certainly be required.

And if the Iranians respond to a US attack with asymetrical warfare by attacking targets in the US, we could see military rule at home.

This is no time for members of Congress to write letters to the president. It's time for them to revoke the 2001 AUMF and to tell the president that an attack on Iran would be an impeachable offense.

In fact, why wait? It's time for them to impeach him now! This is just his latest crime in the making. And even threatening a war of aggression against a nation that doesn't pose an immediate threat is a violation of the UN Charter, a treaty that the US signed years ago and is bound by.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net