Bush Democrats / Bush Dogs

Bush Democrats

admin — 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

admin — 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.

Of Blue Dogs and Pink Jellyfish

dlindorff — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:51:45 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

What’s the difference between a Blue Dog Democrat and a progressive
Democrat? One is a vertebrate with a spine and a willingness to bite.
The other is a jellyfish with no spine and no teeth.

This difference has been glaringly apparent in the current fight over health care reform.

The Blue Dogs in House and Senate have been giving the progressive
Democrats an object lesson in how a small group in Congress can get its
way. They have threatened to withhold their support for the Obama
Administration’s key policy objective of a health reform package, and
have managed, with just a handful of votes between them, to remove
almost all progressive content from that legislation by threatening to
walk if they don’t get their way.

Compare that to the progressives—a much larger faction within the
Democratic Party majority in both houses. There are plenty of articles
currently circulating in the media talking about progressive rage and
dissatisfaction, both among progressives at large, and among
progressives in Congress, over the bills that are emerging in
committees in both the House and Senate—bills that are gutting any
reference to a genuine so-called “public option” government insurance
plan that would actually compete with and challenge private insurance
companies, and that have studiously avoided having anything to do with
a single-payer approach, bills that call for actually cutting back on
Medicare, the wildly successful single-payer program that since 1965
has been providing health care for the elderly and the disabled. But
none of the dissatisfied progressive Democrats in Congress, and only a
few of the progressive political organizations operating outside of
Congress, have threatened to bolt and oppose the sell-out legislation
that is being produced in Congress, or to stop supporting those
Democrats in Congress who are caving in to the pressure from the health
industry lobbies. And certainly none of those progressive groups have
told the president that he will no longer have their support if he
doesn’t insist on a much bolder and progressive health reform bill.

Given the power that the small Blue Dog Democratic Caucus has
demonstrated by threatening to rebel and vote against a health reform
bill, just imagine the power that Progressive Caucus would have if it
were to collectively threaten a “No” vote. Just imagine the different
path that health reform legislation would be taking in Congress today
if progressive organizations like trade unions, netroots organizations,
and others were to tell President Obama that they would withhold their
backing in 2010 from any member of Congress who didn’t vote for a
single-payer plan, or that he could no longer count on their support in
2012 if he failed to push for single-payer today.

This is the lesson of the current disaster of health reform in
Congress, and it is just the latest chapter in the failed history of
progressive Democratic politics.

It’s fine to work to elect progressives to Congress, and to send a
Democrat, progressive or not, to the White House, given that there is
no chance for progressive change while Republicans are in charge, and
given the institutional obstacles and the fratricidal internal
conflicts that prevent the rise of a viable Third Party alternative,
but progressive voters and progressive organizations have forgotten the
lesson of the Civil Rights and Anti-Indochina War movements. That
lesson is that elections are only a small first step, and that only
mass movements operating outside of Washington and outside of electoral
politics—mass movements that threaten the Democrats who are currently
in power—can produce progressive change.

The power of the Blue Dogs in Congress is derived from the fact
that despite their small number, they are numerous enough that, if they
stick together, they can derail a progressive reform bill.

But imagine how much more powerful the progressive caucus in House and Senate would be if it took the same tack.

Progressives in Congress, if they developed spines and teeth and
ceased being jellyfish, could threaten to vote against every bill
offered by those same Blue Dogs, unless they supported real health
reform—that is, a single-payer plan such as the one being put forward
today by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). If they were backed up by
progressive grass roots organizations that let it be known that support
would end for any Democrat not backing single-payer reform, we could
have that reform.

Instead, we have jellyfish on the left, and both the president and
the Democrats in Congress, know that they can ignore the left, because
it will support them no matter what they do.

That is not to say that allthe Democrats in Congress are jellyfish--just most of them. Conyers, who showed jellyfish-like characteristics on the impeachment issue during the Bush/Cheney era, has been outspoken in his criticism of the Obama administration, and has offered a real single-payer alternative. And last week, at a gathering of Progressive Democrats of America in Washington, Conyers warned that Obama risks being a one-term president, saying to him, "Buddy, you are wrong on healthcare and it's going to cost you big time."

Still for the most part, progressives in Congress and at large across the country were quiet as Obama slimed single-payer and moved the debate to the right, only taking a stand at all on the already minimalist issue of whether there will be any kind of "public option" in the resulting legislation, however weak. And even there, few progressive members of Congress have actually vowed to vote down such a lame measure if there's no public option, or just a weak one.

Note: Today is the day that Congress will vote on Rep. Conyers’ single-payer bill (HR 676). For information on how to join in the fight for Single Payer, go to AfterDowningStreet.org or PNHP.org
_____________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest
book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2009). His work
is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Ask the BlueDogs: What PLANET Do You Live On?

Bob Fertik — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:08:01 -0400

BlueDog "Democrats" are waging a quiet but crucial battle to kill this year's global warming bill. Thanks to Republican opposition, we're already two decades behind in taking decisive action - and next year is an election year. President Obama wants action now, but he's being blocked by BlueDogs.

“New Dems are in a tough spot,” said one Blue Dog member, explaining that New Democrats are more likely to have an environmental constituency at odds with their business constituency. Blue Dogs, by comparison, have more freedom simply to vote no on climate change legislation.

So BlueDogs plan to simply vote NO - and do nothing about global warming?

Here's a simple question for all the BlueDogs: What planet do you live on??? Because the one we live on is in deep trouble.

Below is the current list of BlueDogs. Call them and post their replies below. Maybe if they hear from enough of us, they will realize they live on Earth - just like all the rest of us.

Altmire	Jason	PA04	202-225-2565
Arcuri	Michael	NY24	202-225-3665
Baca	Joe	CA43	202-225-6161
Barrow	John	GA12	202-225-2823
Bean	Melissa	IL08	202-225-3711
Berry	Marion	AR01	202-225-4076
Bishop	Sanford	GA02	202-225-3631
Boren	Dan	OK02	202-225-2701
Boswell	Leonard	IA03	202-225-3806
Boyd	Allen	FL02	202-225-5235
Bright	Bobby	AL02	202-225-2901
Cardoza	Dennis	CA18	202-225-6131
Carney	Christopher	PA10	202-225-3731
Chandler	Ben	KY06	202-225-4706
Childers	Travis	MS01	202-225-4306
Cooper	Jim	TN05	202-225-4311
Costa	Jim	CA20	202-225-3341
Cuellar	Henry	TX28	202-225-1640
Davis	Lincoln	TN04	202-225-6831
Donnelly	Joe	IN02	202-225-3915
Ellsworth	Brad	IN08	202-225-4636
Giffords	Gabrielle	AZ08	202-225-2542
Gordon	Bart	TN06	202-225-4231
Griffith	Parker	AL05	202-225-4801
Harman	Jane	CA36	202-225-8220
Herseth Sandlin	Stephanie	SD00	202-225-2801
Hill	Baron	IN09	202-225-5315
Holden	Tim	PA17	202-225-5546
Kratovil	Frank	MD01	202-225-5311
Marshall	Jim	GA08	202-225-6531
Matheson	Jim	UT02	202-225-3011
McIntyre	Mike	NC07	202-225-2731
Melancon	Charlie	LA03	202-225-4031
Michaud	Michael	ME02	202-225-6306
Minnick	Walt	ID01	202-225-6611
Mitchell	Harry	AZ05	202-225-2190
Moore	Dennis	KS03	202-225-2865
Murphy	Patrick	PA08	202-225-4276
Nye	Glenn	VA02	202-225-4215
Peterson	Collin	MN07	202-225-2165
Pomeroy	Earl	ND00	202-225-2611
Ross	Mike	AR04	202-225-3772
Salazar	John	CO03	202-225-4761
Sanchez	Loretta	CA47	202-225-2965
Schiff	Adam	CA29	202-225-4176
Scott	David	GA13	202-225-2939
Shuler	Heath	NC11	202-225-6401
Space	Zachary	OH18	202-225-6265
Tanner	John	TN08	202-225-4714
Taylor	Gene	MS04	202-225-5772
Thompson	Mike	CA01	202-225-3311
Wilson	Charles	OH06	202-225-5705

Update 1: dday nails it as always:

Whew, I wouldn't want those Blue Dogs to feel conflicted about voting against doing something about a boiling planet! Thank Jeebus they have some "freedom."

This Nation Needs a Fighter in the White House, not a Gabber and Glad-Hander

dlindorff — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:04:24 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

If the disaster of the so-called "stimulus" bill just passed by the
Senate doesn't convince President Obama and his advisers that the
strategy of "bipartisanship" that he has been espousing is a political
suicide, nothing will.

The Republican Party, with the willing help of conservative
Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Democratic turncoats like
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), has forced Obama to agree to a joke of a
stimulus package that is nearly half composed of tax breaks which will
do nothing to bolster the economy (since most of the money will end up
either paying down credit card debt or buying Chinese and Sri Lankan
imports) and that is stripped of $40 billion to help struggling state
and local governments.

Fresh from its rout in November, the GOP is, in fact, openly trying
to sabotage Obama's economic stimulus plan, because the last thing
Republicans want to see is an economy on the upturn in 2010 or 2012.

Meanwhile, Obama, who had the chance to add 2-4 Democratic senators
to the Senate by naming Republicans to his cabinet or to other key
administration positions, and having Democratic governors replace them
with progressive Democrats, has wasted several opportunities. When he
did name a Republican senator from a state with a Democratic
governor--Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, named to be Commerce Dept.
Secretary--he instead cut a pathetic deal to have the state's
Democratic governor name another Republican Senator to replace Judd.
Almost as bad, in New York, when he named Sen. Hillary Clinton to be
Secretary of State, he allowed New York's Democratic governor, David
Patterson, to name a conservative Democrat to replace her.

What is this guy trying to do? Obama is from Chicago, a town where
politics is a blood sport, and where as a young politician, he played
that game with brass knuckles himself. Now he's trying to be
everybody's best friend?

The result is he's being steamrollered.

So what should he do? Tell conservative Democrats in
Congress that if they want any of their pet bills or projects passed in
the next four years, they will pass a stimulus bill as he wants it
written, with limited tax breaks and with all the money he proposed for
states and localities. Republicans, meanwhile, should be told bluntly
that if they vote against the measure once it is reconciled in a
House-Senate conference, they get shorted on stimulus money in their
districts. Let them explain it to their constituents.

Hard ball.

That's how Republicans have played for the past eight years, and how
they've turned Congressional Democrats into a quivering mass of
gelatinous goop.

Obama won a landslide electoral victory and a big popular vote
majority. It wasn't his promise to be bi-partisan that gave him that
win. It was his promise to be a real leader.

Leaders have to be respected, and they get respect from the
opposition not by being courteous and by bending over, but by carrying
a big stick and using it occasionally. Those who fail to use that stick
end up getting whacked by one themselves, which is what happened to
Obama's two Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

The other thing Obama is going to have to recognize, and recognize
fast, is that his strength lies his progressive base. He has been
dissing that base since the minute he won the election. Progressives
have cut him a lot of slack--far more than he deserves--as he appointed
(mostly white male) Clinton hack after Clinton hack to his cabinet,
held over key (all white male) Bush appointees like Robert Gates as
Secretary of Defense and Gen. David Petraeus as head of Central Command
(CentCom), and backpedaled on key campaign promises like ending the war
in Iraq and winning passage of the Employee Free Choice labor rights
restoration bill.

With this odious betrayal of his base, he is losing support from the
very people who can sustain his presidency through four tough years of
struggle. Without them, he is doomed to a one-term failure of a
presidency.

Obama now faces three key tests. If he fails on any of them, I would argue that his presidency is finished before it starts.

* The first is the stimulus bill. If it passes largely in the Senate
version, it will be a waste of $820 billion, because so much of the
money will be blown on tax breaks and so little on real stimulus
spending that it won't do anything to break the fall of the collapsing
economy. Obama needs to get Democrats to report out of conference a
bill that is close to what the House passed last week, and then he
needs to use his "bully pulpit" and his power to punish those who vote
against the measure to win passage in both houses. If conservative
Democrats are worried about the costs, he should revoke Bush's tax cuts
and raise taxes on the rich immediately (he should do that anyhow and
call it a retroactive and long-overdue Bush war tax).

* The second test is ending the Iraq War. The latest reports are
that Obama is being sucker-punched by the war's leading generals,
primarily Gen. Petraeus and Iraq theater commander Gen. Ray Odierno,
into considering a longer pullout than 16 months, with both a 19-month
and a 23-month pullout being proposed for his consideration. Given that
there are also credible reports that these generals and lower-ranking
supporters are actively lobbying against a pullout--an act of
insubordination against a commander in chief that borders on treason
during wartime--Obama should fire these guys immediately and order a
prompt pullout. Even 16 months is far too long to maintain the
occupation. I'd suggest three months to get everyone home.

* Finally, Obama should recognize that the Afghanistan War is an
unwinnable disaster that long ago morphed from a police action
attempting to capture and destroy Al Qaeda's organization in that
country into a war against the country's indigenous political/military
force, the Taliban, which was never a threat to the US, and which
cannot be defeated, no matter how many resources the US throws into the
fight. He should call a halt to this fiasco before he owns it, order
UN-sponsored regional peace talks among the conflicting parties within
and around Afghanistan, and pull all US forces out of that nation as
fast as the planes can carry them.

At that point, Obama will have won the passionate support of his
base, and the grudging respect of conservatives in Congress. The
remaining years of his presidency will inevitably be full of conflict,
but he will be fighting his political battles from a position of
strength. This will allow him to campaign forcefully for progressive
House and Senate candidates in the 2010 off-year congressional
elections, when he could win more seats and stronger control in the
Senate.

Meanwhile, he should replace Gates at Defense, ideally with some
liberal Republican senator from a Democratic state (I'd suggest one of
the two women, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who represent the state
of Maine--a woman Secretary of Defense would be a great move), so that
another Democrat could be appointed to the Senate. He could do the same
thing with the Department of Health (another good place for a woman
senator from Maine!). That would give the Democrats 61 seats in the
Senate, assuming Al Franken finally gets named the winner in Minnesota.

The key thing is, no more nice guy. Obama needs to return to his
roots and start acting like the Chicago pol that he began as. It's what
his base wants, it's what the broad mass of the electorate wanted when
they voted for him, and it's what the country needs.
________________
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

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."