The Progressive Electorate - Front Page

Women ROAR BACK against Stupak/Pitts! EPIC WIN!

MinistryOfTruth — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:27:23 GMT

Hell hath no fury like a nation of women scorned.

C Street Family members Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA16) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI1) had a plan to strip women of their right to make decisions about their own bodies, and they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those darned ~~kids~~ women!

If you were pissed when Joe Wilson shouted YOU LIE at President Obama I want you to channel that same sort of anger and aim it in support of Connie Saltonstall and Lois Herr as they take C Street head on.

Donate to Connie Saltonstall and Lois Herr here with ActBlue

More below the fold . . .
In less than 3 days Bart Stupak's new primary challenger Connie Saltonstall has outraised Stupak on ActBlue. A whole year of Stupak's ActBlue fundraising has been negated in 3 days! Keep it up and help Connie by throwing an anchor at Bart Stupak.

We're following Howard Dean's 50 state plan and proving that lots of small donations can take on even the most entrenched establishment tools like Stupak and Pitts.

Better yet, Joe Pitts, Stupak's Republican partner in undeclared gifts to Congressmen crime has his first serious election challenger in, well, ever. Lois Herr is going to give Pitts a run for his money this year, and if you like the idea of taking these C Streeters to the woodshed, show both these amazing women some love.

Money bomb to aisle C Street - ASAP! Help throw Stupak and Pitts an anchor and give some Love to two awesome women, Connie Saltonstall and Lois Herr!

You can follow Connie Saltonstall on Twitter @saltonstall2010

You can follow Lois Herr on Twitter @herr2010

Candidates like Connie Saltonstall and Lois Herr represent EXACTLY why PeanutButterPAC was formed. Competition is good for democracy, it is what the Democratic party needs most to push out clowns like Bart Stupak who think they can throw the whole Democratic platform under the bus, and the 50 state plan that was envisioned by Gov. Howard Dean, when executed properly, is what will help us force Republicans like Joe Pitts to actually run for election instead of hosting fundraisers for other C Streeters, teabaggers and other generic Republican wingnuts.

So here is what we need you to do. Go over to the ActBlue link above and show these two women some love. Give them some real support. After, that, if you can, become a member of PeanutButterPAC too, and help us TAKE ON THE SYSTEM, one working class fighter at a time.

Hear me ROAR! Help me ROAR! Roar louder! In numbers too loud to be ignored.

Cheers!

Capitol Hill News Open Thread

CA Berkeley WV — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:39:14 GMT

Good afternoon/evening, Progressive Electorate readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos.

This is an open source project, so feel free to add your own insights. Here's the news I found lurking around the Internets...
Well some of it was because I listen so CSPAN. A lot.

I do not have cable, as I often comment. It may be a good thing.

Read David here. Ever feel overwhelmed?

danps discusses the Women in Financial Reform.

We no longer have #1. Mexico does.

Maybe Rep. Joe Wilson knew that.

This will not help. No Joint Tax, just ass-u-me staffer is correct. Seriously?

The Senate will not honor International Women Day, Monday 8 March, on Thursday. Maybe never.

CBO score comes back so the GOP has to put out this.

When NPR did this story, it was all about the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, only.

For the Reid family this truly is the most important news of the day:

WaPo reports that Senator Reid's wife and daughter were hurt.

Good thoughts. And I pray. Don't know about you.

Screw rent! Ask Stupak if we should KILL our gays now or wait till later

MinistryOfTruth — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:36:27 GMT

Brought to you by PeanutButterPAC

I wonder if Fox News will pick up this diary?

While I am very interested in the question of "Who paid Bart Stupak's rent? " I would also like to know who was paying the rent of his roommates. Some of those roommates were . . .

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Rep Zach Wamp (R-TN)
Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA)

Who wants to bet Fox asks Doyle about this but not DeMint, who is the front man for their Tea Party astroturfed Corporatist movement.

But that is not the BIG QUESTION I want to ask Stupak and his Christian Mafia cult members. No, my question to them is . . .

"Should we kill our gays now, or wait until later?"

More below the fold . . .
NOTE: I mean no disrespect to Rachel Maddow with my title, and every bit of disrespect to Fox News that I can muster.

Many of you may remember the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill sponsored by the Ugandan chapter of the Christian Mafia/Family/C Street. Make no mistake, the American members of this fascist cult are just as complicit in these kind of acts as their foreign counterparts, in fact, they work together on these sorts of things.

You may also recall how President Obama spoke before the Family's "National Prayer Breakfast" and condemned the "odious" Ugandan kill the gays bill (hat tip to Dkos user TomP) . At that event, President Obama said . . .

(S)urely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it is here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda."

a slight editorial change was made by the diarist

The sad thing is that Obama didn't have to go all the way to The Family's covert little shindig to say this to them. President Obama could have just as easily told the Republican Senate caucus this, as nearly a quarter of their caucus are known Family members, and so is Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and, more loosely associated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In my opinion, The Family represents a clear and present danger to American democracy.

Therefore, as disgusted as I am with the Stupak/Pitts Amendment that restricts the rights of women to seek legal abortions for themselves, I think the mass murder or LGBT human beings for the crime of being out of step with Fundamentalist Christian views trumps the Stupak/Pitts debate by a mile or two.

Just think about it like this, the defenders of Corporate Personhood hardly believe in Female Personhood or LGBT personhood. It begs the question "Who would Jesus persecute?"

For a short list of current and past Family members of the C Street cult, we have this list from the original source, Jeff Sharlet.

It turns out that Elitist Corporatist Christian Cults have bipartisan support. Just one more reason why bipartisanship is another word for "they are BOTH screwing you"

Today's roll call is just as impressive: Men under the Family's religio-political counsel include, in addition to Ensign, Coburn and Pickering, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James Inhofe, R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there's Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf, R-Va., Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too. There's Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places, and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama's labor agenda. Sen. Pryor explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he'd learned through the Family: "Jesus didn't come to take sides. He came to take over." And by Jesus, the Family means the Family.
Via Jeff Sharlet at Salon.com

Bold text added by the diarist

And these are just the Cultist Free market Pharisees we know about! How many others are there in both parties who have yet to be discovered?

How many of these names are regular guests on Fox News? How many of these names have had a central role in attending tea parties and giving them legitamacy? Most importantly, how many of these names would, if given the chance, try to kill all of America's LGBT citizens?

Though the question of "Who paid Bart Stupak's rent?" ( or Jom DeMint's rent, or John Ensign's and so on ) is very important, the bigger question we should be asking is if members of The Family think whether America "Should we kill our gays now, or wait until later?"

We now know that there is a Ultra extremist Christian cult of free market bipartisan fascists embedded in both parties of our current political system. They have been around since the 1940's. They believe that the GreatDepression was a curse from God unleashed on America in retribution for electing that old socialist President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. They have been doing their damnedest to undo the same laws that ended the last great depression in order to create a new one, a new world where the super wealthy live by their own set of rules and the rest of us can eat sh!t. And thus, I swear with every fiber of my being to fight these monsters tooth and nail, and I hope you join me. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic I say in all honesty that we fight for our very future.

Shall we be a free people with liberty or the new serfs who live under an oligarchy? That is what I fight for.

But to those journalists and pundits who can gain access to these people whom I have named above and have an audience greater than mine, I plead to you, ask these Christian Mafia members this simple question.

"Should we kill our gays now, or wait till later?"

The fact that we even have to ask our "leaders" this question shows how farthey have strayed from the teachings of those whom they profess to love.

Their used to be a word for people like Bart Stupak and Jim DeMint. That word was "Pharisee"

Everlasting tyranny, just as CaligulaJesus never intended.

Join PeanutButterPAC and help working class people Fight Back!

You can follow me on @JesseLaGreca

Peace and love to all . . .

Crossposted at Daily Kos and Docudharma.com

Fox and Rachel Maddow just covered my article! WOW!

MinistryOfTruth — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:41:28 GMT

From Daily Kos, courtesy of Kossack AnotherMassachussetsLiberal HOLY CRAP! Ministry of Truth's diary made Fox News and TRMS!

Yell Louder just got NATIONAL COVERAGE!

WIN!

I would like to raise a toast to the Progressive Electorate. Let's hope for MORE and BETTER stuff like this in the future!
Here is the diary that was referenced, which was also posted here at PE Rachel Maddow: "Who really paid Bart Stupak's rent?" (UPDATEx2: Stupak gets a primary challenger!)

Now I just have to figure out how to top this!

Cheers

State of the Progressive Electorate

admin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:33:03 GMT

We've come a long way in the last two years when I was writing 90% of the posts and 100% of the comments.

Thanks to all of our fellow travelers which have been with us lurking, writing and participating in our growth through promoting our site.

As we've gotten daily contributors in the past year, I've been able to spend time on other projects. With a lot of hard work and a good bit of luck we have gotten fairly popular in the progressive blogosphere. We've gotten linked on a number of the more well known and established sites.

That being said, I'm also at a crossroads as we enter the thick of the 2010 elections. I have a full time job as an attorney and also work with local campaigns on a regular basis. But I also love what we do here and want this site to continue.

It's certainly not about the money, but it would make it easier if we could self sustain instead of my having to come out of pocket each month. If you have a business and two years in you aren't making some sort of a profit or at least a light at the end of the financial drain tunnel you would likely fold. That being said, I'm not necessarily looking at this as a business although I do need to make a decision. I've recently gotten some unique business propositions that I want to consider.

Some of the options I am considering are

1. Try and sell the domain to someone who will keep it going in the current platform

2. Leave the site as is and take a hiatus

3. Shut down the site

4. Find a way to generate enough revenue to afford to be able to stay active

I feel like I've been trying both 2 and 4 over the past few months with little success. That being said I need to seriously consider options 1 and 3.

Let's not make this a sky is falling diary. Please give me some constructive feedback and ideas.

The floor is now open.

Public option NOT like SCHIP and COBRA

deaniac83 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:14:05 GMT

Crossposted from The People's View.

I believe that it is right to demand an up or down vote on health reform. I strongly believe that in order to get health reform passed, the House should pass the Senate bill, and the Senate should pass by majority vote by the use of the budget reconciliation process, targeted changes to fix certain areas that are specific budgetary policies (amount of subsidies, putting all states on a level footing on Medicaid funding, and closing the Medicare Part D prescription coverage loophole).

However, there has been what I believe to be a misunderstanding among many who claim that a public option - a health insurance option run by the federal government to compete with the private insurers on the exchanges that the current health care proposal sets up - can also be passed with a simple majority vote via the budget reconciliation process. After all, SCHIP and COBRA were major changes to our health insurance system, and those were pushed through by reconciliation, right?
Here's how it breaks down. Budget reconciliation has to jump through the hoops of something called the Byrd rule in the Senate. The Byrd rule prohibits from consideration anything that does not either score against the budget or scores against the budget only as an incident of the non-budgetary parts of the provision under consideration. This second part is where the public option is likely to be ruled out of bounds. While the public option would have budgetary impact (positive budgetary impact that is, saving the federal government money), that impact is merely incidental to the policy of setting up a brand new federal program and setting up a part of the government to run a health insurance program. It just does not have a very good chance of fitting into reconciliation on its face.

Well what about SCHIP and COBRA, then? They set up brand new federal programs under reconciliation, right? Right? Wrong. That is not at all how SCHIP and COBRA were structured. Let's take them one by one.

SCHIP

SCHIP was passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It derived statutory authority from a well known existing law: the Social Security Act. Specifically, title XXI of the Social Security Act. There's no separate law titled the "State Children's Health Insurance Program." It is, in fact, title XXI of the current Social Security Act. SCHIP was also not designed as a brand new federal program, or, for that matter, add new people to any federal programs. It was designed as block grants from the federal government to the states. In fact, the New York Times published a report during the debates about it in 1997 making that very, very clear:

The legislation does not provide a formal entitlement, with as many individuals as qualify guaranteed benefits like those of Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Instead, it offers a specific sum of money in the form of block grants that states can apply for or not.

It turns out states like the money, and they do apply for the grants. What we call SCHIP was a pure spending matter, as far as the budget was concerned. It didn't set up any new programs; it didn't enroll anyone new into existing programs; it simply set up a grant program and Congress defined the terms of the grant. That was it.

Also, here's another thing to note. The Byrd rule is not self-enforcing.

The Byrd rule is not self-enforcing. A point of order must be raised at the appropriate time to enforce it. The Byrd rule can only be waived by a 3/5 (60) majority vote of the Senate.

You see, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which is what SCHIP was included in, passed through the Senate by unanimous consent in initial form on June 25, 1997, and the conference report with the House was passed in the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 85-15. Given its initial passage by unanimous consent, it is clear that no Senator raised an objection to the inclusion of SCHIP. Even if someone did, and the point of order had been sustained by the Chair (relying on the parliamentarian), the final vote of 85-15 smacks us of the reality that the votes to waive the Byrd rule existed, easily. That is not the case for the public option. You can be more than sure than Republicans and Joe Lieberman would raise objections, and 60 votes to waive the Byrd rule do not exist in the current Senate on this.

COBRA

COBRA is famous. Because if you lose your job, you can keep your health insurance through COBRA. But what a lot of people don't know is that COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. What, reconciliation? See I told you new benefits could be established through Budget reconciliation! Boo-yeah!

Not so fast. COBRA, in 1985 amended ERISA from 1974. As originally passed, it was purely budgetary tax policy in that it ended a tax exemption from employers unless the plans were allowed to be carried over after employees lose their job.

As originally enacted, Title X of the Act provided that a qualifying employer will not be permitted to take a tax deduction for its health insurance costs unless its health insurance plan allows employees of the employer and the employee's immediate family members who had been covered by a health care plan to maintain their coverage if a "qualifying event" causes them to lose coverage.

Tax policy is, of course, the perfect candidate for budget reconciliation. The way the federal government earns revenue (income or inlays) is taxes. Yup, perfectly budgetary, perfectly narrow, fits perfectly under reconciliation.

And how did the votes on COBRA go? In the Senate, its first version was passed by a vote of 93-6. The Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 78-1, and subsequently, agreed to the amendments of the House by a voice vote. Once again, from the numbers, it's clear that no one actually invoked the Byrd rule, and if a Senator did, enough votes existed to waive it even if the point of order was sustained. That, once again, is not the case for the public option.

So what happens when such an objection is raised in the current case of the public option (if it's offered on the Senate floor under reconciliation)? If I am right, and I think I am, and if the parliamentarian of the Senate says that the public option is out of bounds in reconciliation when a Republican or Conserva-Dem inevitably invokes the Byrd rule, one of the following will have to happen for it to pass:

It will need 60 votes to waive the Byrd rule and pass it through anyway, which we do not have.

In the second scenario, Vice President Biden, as the President of the Senate, ignores the advice of the parliamentarian and rules it allowable under reconciliation. Then a Republican would challenge that ruling, and we would need 50 votes to sustain the ruling. Now you will have an different situation altogether - 50 Democrats voting not for the public option but to essentially overrule the Senate parliamentarian. 60 votes to pass it through. That will never happen, and if it did, it will give Republicans their very first legitimate line of attack on health care: that the Democrats are playing hard and fast with the rules when the rules turn out to be problematic for them.

I am for the use of the Constitutional option where the Vice President uses his Constitutional power as the President of the Senate to strike as unconstitutional the filibuster altogether, but that is a very different matter than reconciliation (except to the extent that one can argue reconciliation will not be required for anything if the Senate were able to govern my simple majority rule), and as long as the rule remains in place, the parliamentarian ought to be able to call balls and strikes regardless of whom or what such rulings favor.

Well, what about a Medicare expansion? Does that fit in under reconciliation? It's certainly a better candidate than a brand new program. But once again, it is a change in incomes and outlays are a mere result of the non-budgetary provision: i.e. inclusion of additional people in the program. So I am not too sure about that one, but I don't think it will fly, either.

Self-plug: You can read this and other thoughts of mine on my blog, The People's View. You can also follow me on Twitter @thepeoplesview.

Does your representative show the military industrial complex enough love? (I'm naming names)

rossl — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:16:48 GMT

Today in America there is a big and under-reported issue. There are actually people out there, some of them unbelievably in Congress, crazy enough to challenge that great American institution, the military industrial complex. Who doesn't love Halliburton? Or Dick Cheney? Or the Iraq War? Or useless projects that do nothing more than enrich and empower an already powerful and rich elite?

I'll tell you who. 65 good for nothin' Congresspeople. They're the ones who today voted against a symbolic resolution to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

Now, cutting the snark, so many of the other 356 don't even have the gall to vote against a symbolic resolution to end a war! I understand that some people honestly support it, but when less than half of the country supports the war in Afghanistan, it's a bad sign that all of these Congresspeople still do:

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luj?n
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Olson
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

Now, here there is no differentiation from Republicans and Democrats (perhaps, fittingly). But if you go to this website, the names in italics are Republicans and the normal lettering is Democrats.

The people on the above list voted to continue the growth and proliferation of one of the most destructive forces in our nation today. Military contractors, war profiteers, corrupt political cronies, the worst of the worst lobbyists - all of these and more are what make up the military industrial complex. Until we end our modern day empire and stop spending more on our military by far than every other nation on earth, we will not rein in these problems, or probably any other major problem, for that matter.

And those brave representatives who were willing to go against the President, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, both parties' leadership in the House, and the military industrial complex were:

Baldwin
Campbell
Capuano
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller, George
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Paul
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
S?nchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Serrano
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Vel?zquez
Waters
Watson
Welch
Woolsey

Also worth listing are the 19 cosponsors, along with the original sponsor Dennis Kucinich:

Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/4/2010
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/9/2010
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 3/4/2010
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/4/2010
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/4/2010
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 3/4/2010
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 3/4/2010
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/4/2010
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/9/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/4/2010

One representative in particular that deserves the limelight for this (other than Dennis Kucinich, of course) is Patrick Kennedy, who was breathing fire and righteously condemning the press on the floor of the House for their terrible irresponsibility:

http://widget.newsinc.com/sing...

These people deserve praise for their decision to stand up for peace in Congress! Here's a tool from the House website to write to any representative that you wish to:

https://writerep.house.gov/wri...

If you want to write to yours (like mine, Democrat Allyson Schwartz of PA-13) for voting against this or if you want to praise a representative for supporting it, please do so!

And while you're at it, why not join me on March 20th at the peace march in Washington DC? I'll be with the World Can't Wait people, carrying an American flag with the stars in the shape of a peace sign...

FAIL: GOP offers Road Map to America's 3rd world Future

MinistryOfTruth — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:44:15 GMT

In what is described by TheWonkRoom over at thinkprogress.org as "a terrifyingly honest assessment of conservative priorities" the GOP "Road Map to America's Future" is exposed for what it is, socialism for the rich.

- Federal taxes would be lower for the richest 10 percent, and higher for all other income groups, than they would be if President Obama's proposals were enacted.
- The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would pay about $1,700 more, on average, than they would if President Obama's proposals were enacted.
- The richest one percent would pay about $211,300 less on average than they would if President Obama's proposals were enacted.
- The poorest 20 percent would pay 12.3 percent of their income more than what they would pay under the President's proposal, while the richest one percent would pay 15 percent of their income less than they would pay under the President's proposal.

More on this proposal by the party of Mr. Burns beolow the fold.
File this under: They can't be f$%king serious.

But they are.

Below is an artists depiction of how the new GOP "Roadmap for America's future" is designed to work. Guess which one the super rich get to use.

Once you peel back the layers of bullshit the Conservative movement is feeding working class American's in their screeching about SOCIALISM! you can begin to see what Conservatives really stand for, robbing the poor to pay for the rich. When rich people are asked to pay for poor people the cry of SOCIALISM! rings through the air. It is the knee jerk reaction Conservative will be giving from now on whenever Corporate proifts or the wealth of the already fabulously wealthy are threatened. Anything like that must, in the Conservative alternative reality, be socialism.

But a massive transfer of wealth from the majority of working class Americans to offset even more tax cuts for the rich is NOT socialism, it is "economic freedom" or something.

"Economic Freedom" the better to eat you with.

I call it what it is, Socialism for the Rich.

And I will call the Republican party what they are, The Party of Mr. Burns.

The plan relies on essentially privatizing Social Security and Medicare, while at the same time repealing the estate and corporate taxes and instituting a national sales tax (akin to a value-added-tax) of 8.5 percent. And while no marginal tax rates would be increased, according to a new report, the design of the plan and the taxes that Ryan leans on would shift the tax burden down the income scale, resulting in an overwhelming majority of Americans ultimately paying more in taxes than they do would under President Obama's plans.
TheWonkRoom

Bold text added by the diarist.

Once Social Security and Medicare are privatized, gutted and sold off to Corporate privae sector interests Wall Street will have even more of your money to gamble with, and that means that the next economic crash will dwarf the last one. If these measures pass the next economic crash will be the Great Depression 2.0 ( if this one is not it already ).

In the name of securing short term profits for their wealthy puppetmasters the Corporatist GOP is willing to risk destroying whatever social safety net is left in America, all while decrying "Socialism", but if it is socialism for the rich, well, that is just fine.

I would LOVE to have PeanutButterPAC run some ads in Republican districts detailing how bad this plan would be for working class Americans, but I can't do it all by myself, so I am encouraging you to Join PeanutButterPAC and help us kick wingnut posterior.

This "plan" is a road map to America's 3rd world future, a place where the rich are super rich and "Tough Shit" for the rest of us. Please share this with your wingnut friends, relatives and co-workers. Between voting against every idea the Dems offer no matter how beneficial it is to the American people and this EPIC FAIL of an "idea" the GOP just handed us a great way to expose who their true masters are.

The party of Mr. Burns has a vision for America's future, and it is this . . .

Don't be fooled, a vote for the Republican party is a vote for the next Great Depression.

PeanutButterPAC is going to fight like hell to make sure that doesn't happen.

Cheers

You can follow me on Twitter @JesseLaGreca

Capitol Hill News Open Thread

Casual Wednesday — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:44:01 GMT

Good afternoon, Progressive Electorate readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos.

This is an open source project, so feel free to add your own insights. Here's the news I found lurking around the Internets...
House Dems nix earmarks to private contractors

In a major move that both addresses some of the more blatant corruption in Congress and steals a Republican issue -- okay, Jeff Flake's issue -- the House Democratic caucus voted today to ban the practice of awarding earmarks to private companies.

House Democrats ban earmarks for private contractors
House Democratic leaders banned Wednesday the practice of doling out multimillion-dollar, no-bid contracts to private contractors, a move that will shake up the lobbying industry that has come to rely on securing these so-called earmarks for their corporate clients.
At a meeting of the Democratic caucus, leaders unveiled the new rule that forbids private contractors from receiving earmarks, part of the party's effort to reclaim the reform mantle that it used successfully in its 2006 midterm campaign to reclaim the majority.
~snip
House Republicans praised the Democrats for taking this key step but are considering swearing off the practice. "We're going to have to make a decision," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told his colleagues at a closed-door meeting Wednesday, according to one attendee. "Are we really willing to put it all on the line to win this thing?"

So what does this mean? As we have discussed before, earmarks represent just a tiny portion of the budget. Eliminating them entirely will do almost nothing to address the deficit and national debt.

The problem with earmarks is that they are essentially free money, from Congress' point of view, to spread around the district. Also known as distributive politics, or pork barreling, such grants directly from members help to secure members' reelections according to most theories. Now there is a big difference between making an earmark for a community swimming pool and making an earmark for a business in your district to produce a new weapons system.

There is also a problem when those same private contractors are major campaign contributors. That was the heart of the PMA scandal that involved seven House Democrats, including the late John Murtha. All seven were exonerated, but it really did not look good for the Democrats. Add to that the Ethics problems surrounding Charlie Rangel and Eric Massa and it is obvious that the caucus had to do something drastic.

So what about the fallout? The vote means that Democrats cannot request earmarks that would go to a specific private company to provide goods and services to the government. They can request earmarks for public entities such as cities and schools. Of course that money could still find its way to the private sector through subcontractors and this may make tracking the money flow even more difficult than it is now.

As for House Republicans, they are in a holding pattern for for the moment. According to the Post article, they will discuss the issue tomorrow. Regardless of the outcome, their actions will have little significance in the short run. They can certainly request earmarks for their favorite companies, but as long as the Democrats control the chamber and thus the Appropriations Committee, they probably will not get their earmarks. Of course, the dynamic changes when the Republicans retake the house.

Furthermore, neither party in the Senate has shown any particular inclination to take similar steps. All that means is that the lobbying effort for the earmarks shifts to that side of the Capitol. In any case, the House Democrats always have the option of blocking appropriations bills passed by the Senate.

****

Ralph Reed opts out

Yesterday I mentioned that Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition, was looking at a run for a safe Republican House seat in Georgia. It seems the rapture has been postponed for the moment.

Ralph Reed not running for Congress
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Ralph Reed has decided against a run for Congress. Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, who's political star faded after the extent of his ties to convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff were revealed in 2006, made the announcement this morning.
He does appear to be not only leaving the door open to another run for at some point, but he also appears to be trying to undergo something of a resurgence with the founding of another faith group, the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Reed was in Iowa yesterday speaking to the Iowa Christian Alliance talking about his fundraising goals and how to take back Iowa with a Christian resurgence.

Correction: the rapture has simply moved to the cornfields of Iowa. Heads up, Progressives. The fundies want to fight for Iowa. Get your Cheetos-eating, pajama-wearing butts to work out there.

****

Sometimes you can defeat a filibuster

Yesterday, the Senate voted 66-34 to invoke cloture on the Unemployment Extensions Bill, thus proving that the parties can work across the aisle and that the myth of 60 is alive and well.

Senate Clears Hurdle to Aiding Unemployed
The Senate on Tuesday cleared a hurdle to extending unemployment benefits and health-care subsidies for the jobless until year's end, the latest modest bipartisan success on jobs and the economy.
The vote was 66-34, with eight Republicans, including newly-elected Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joining the Democrats. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against the measure.
The House approved a similar measure last year, and a vote on final Senate passage of the bill, which requires only a simple majority, is expected as soon as Wednesday after Tuesday's procedural move to cut off debate.

Interestingly, Scott Brown said that he disagrees with the bill itself, he also wanted to avoid gridlock in the Senate. I wonder if this will ruin his GOP cred. Anyway, this is the same bill that Jim Bunning single-handedly held up last week.

The Follow up: The final bill passed today by a vote of 62-36.

****

Citizens United freakout

Often, the most interesting things that happen in Congress happen in the committees. To wit:

Campaign Finance Freak-Out
Is it hyperbole to describe people's reactions to a Supreme Court decision on campaign finance as "freaking out?"
Some senators at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning seemed to freak out at the very use of the term itself. And we're not even talking about the back-and-forth of late between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the White House.
~snip
Mr. Leahy took immediate umbrage - interrupting Mr. Smith in a loud bark, disagreeing with the characterization. "I think I understand it a heck of lot better than you," Mr. Leahy said. Describing the makeup of Vermont's "citizen legislators," Mr. Leahy said they were New England-style, far more taciturn people who don't "freak out."

The thing is, when 80 percent of the public opposes a Supreme Court ruling, "freak out" is probably not too strong of a word. In fairness, though, SCOTUS Blog suggests that the wording of the poll questions could be improved since most people polled know little about the effect of the ruling.

****

I'm going to pick a fight

The best thing about being a progressive if that we are typically on the right side of debates about racism, xenophobia, and all of those other nasty aspects of bigotry. So heading into an important election year, why not make the conversation about race?

Why Democrats should pick a fight on immigration
The great thing about racists is they'll always take the bait. You won't get far into an immigration-reform debate, for instance, before the GOP's more zealous legislators start doing things like criminalizing priests and calling Miami a "third world country." Which is why Democrats ought to be more eager to spend 2010 debating immigration.
~snip
Now, of course, Graham remains the lone Republican onboard and the congressional calendar remains clogged with the bipartisan blockades of 2009. It's hard to imagine where Democrats will wedge meaningful immigration reform in between health insurance, jobs and banking.
Nonetheless, reform advocates have run out of patience-and the White House is once again very publicly brainstorming the issue. The president met with Schumer and Graham Monday for what Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton described as "getting an update from them on efforts to create bipartisan immigration legislation."

But we knew this was coming, amirite? If you have about an hour and a half, check out the link and the video. It is well worth the time. Besides, I sat through it live.

****

Tickle Fight

Today, The Most Important News of the Day™ unapologetically ~~tickles~~ kicks a man when he is down.

Ex-Congressman Describes Tickle Fights With Aides
~snip
"Now they are saying I groped a male staffer," he told Mr. Beck. "Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him. I tickled him until he couldn't breathe, and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context."
Mr. Massa suggested he had been warned about how his conduct was being perceived.
"My chief of staff had a conniption and said: 'You can't live there; it's not Congressional,' " he said.

If you can't stand to watch an hour of Glenn Beck's idiocy (and I can't), the Huffington Post has helpfully posted a video containing all of the key points about tickling and arm twisting.

Perhaps thing would have gone better had both guys stayed focused on what Beck wanted out of Massa.

Massa flirts with the right, but Beck isn't tickled
Just seven minutes into Glenn Beck's hour-long interview of Eric Massa on Tuesday evening, things had already gone very wrong.
Conservatives had hopes that the now-former Democratic congressman from Upstate New York, who resigned abruptly under an ethics cloud, would deliver the goods about corruption and strong-arm tactics in the Obama White House and Congress. But instead, Massa served up an icky new confession.

With that, I bid you a good evening and I promise not to kick around any other former Congressmen this evening.

The Ohio Senate Candidates on Jobs

pistolSO — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:43:12 GMT

Cross-posted to Daily Kos and Peanut Butter PAC

This week, the five of us who helped found Peanut Butter PAC are focusing our attention on Jennifer Brunner in keeping with this week's unofficial theme. I hope to be able to get Brunner's position on the Patriot Act by this Friday. I have contacted her campaign about it and am still awaiting a reply. Since it is Wednesday and the middle of the work week, I figured it was a good day to tackle what each Ohio Senate Candidate plans on doing about the jobs problem. It should certainly be the number 1 priority for Democrats once health care reform is put to bed for this year.

I will start with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Her Jobs page is top under Issues.

Jobs are the number one issue in my campaign. But jobs can't be considered in a vacuum. Issues like health care and fair trade policies go hand in hand with developing a sustainable recovery in Ohio and stable communities for the years to come.
There is no silver bullet for creating new and better jobs. It will take cooperation among many levels of government, business and even advocacy groups to grow Ohio's economy again.

Brunner is correct in that health care reform done right would save jobs and even help create new ones as premiums would be brought under control, as insurance rate increases have hurt small businesses and have eaten into already flattened wages. Trade polices are also important to look at as NAFTA incentivized big corporations to move their factories to Mexico and left behind hard-working American workers for non-union Mexican workers. Brunner tend goes on to explain that Ohio's unemployment rate is at 10.9% and explains more about health care reform and starts on what is needed.

Now the "hue and cry" is that health care reform was not the issue President Obama and Congress should have tackled first (despite the fact that reigned in health care costs helps our economy)-but rather they should be turning away from health care reform and focusing on jobs. The focus was on jobs-first thing-with the stimulus package that bailed out banks and the out-of-balance budgets of the states and directed funds toward jobs in the states in health care, energy independence and education. But clearly, this hasn't been enough.
Others and I have suggested Congress take unspent bailout money and use it for infrastructure jobs in our states. Infrastructure building is one of the most direct ways to get people working again quickly, especially skilled workers in the building trades, which is often called the "tip of the spear" to jobs recovery in any area. My friends in the IBEW and many others like them could use that help, and our communities would benefit from it.

Brunner gets it on infrastructure spending, and I have quoted this part before. Sh also correctly asserts that the stimulus was primarily a jobs creation effort albeit one that was watered down with useless tax cuts. Brunner goes on and talks about unemployment benefits.

In Ohio and many other places in the U.S. we need some common sense solutions-like letting people work part time when they can find it but not cutting off their unemployment benefits. Few states allow this, so why not pick up this regulation from the states for now and get people working again, even if only part time?
Most people on unemployment are receiving just a portion of what they were earning. They still have their mortgages to pay, prescriptions to pay for, cars to fuel and repair, and kids' lunches to buy-so why not let them do it with reduced benefits? They would have longer to find a sustainable job for the same overall benefit cap while small businesses could safely begin to grow right now.
The wages they receive would most likely be substantially less anyway than their weekly benefit but if they could take the job, it could lead to a full-time position and they could still receive partial benefits while working without giving up their unemployment benefits completely.
The U.S. Department of Labor's website is clear that unemployment insurance programs (created in 1935 in response to the Great Depression) play a key role in helping businesses, communities and the nation's economy by providing temporary income support for laid off workers.

I do think after that little stunt that Jim Bunning pulled, we know that Republicans somehow think of unemployment as a disincentive to working rather than a means of support while families are looking for a new job. I am thankful that Brunner gets it that we want people to be able to continue to pay their mortgage and the rest of their bills.

Allowing those laid off workers to start working part time, for instance for up to 6 months, would be a good start. The USDOL's Trade Adjustment Assistance program that provides a variety of re-employment services and income support for jobs lost by increased imports or "shifts in production to foreign countries, due to trade and business tax policies" (better known as "outsourcing") sets a similar time frame.
I applaud some of the more long-term steps being proposed like:
1. Unfreezing the credit market for small businesses and manufacturers,
2. Helping small and mid-sized manufacturers (especially former auto suppliers and auto component manufacturers - Ohio's largest industry) retool for the clean energy economy,
3. Fostering entrepreneurialism and the creation of new jobs through business incubators like I've seen in Beachwood, Ohio,
4. Preparing our workforce for new jobs through tailored, regional workforce development programs to support high-growth industries, and
5. Enforcing trade laws to invest in domestic manufacturing and production, like Senator Sherrod Brown's Trade Enforcement Priorities Act, to give the federal government more authority to address trade barriers and require the U.S. Trade Representative (Ohio Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman's former job in the Bush administration) to analyze trade barriers that have the most adverse effect on U.S. exports and employment to crack down on the unfair practices that have killed American jobs and drained our country of our sources of prosperity.

All of those are good ideas, especially retooling for a clean energy economy, which echoes what many progressives call for and looking at the worst trade practices that are killing off American jobs. She also has a full section under Issues regarding Trade, but you get the idea with Brunner. She's through and solutions-oriented.

Next, we look at Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher and his take on Jobs. Fisher has a brief page on Jobs. Below is his opening statement:

My top priority is economic recovery for Ohio and the nation, and that means a relentless focus on saving and creating good-paying jobs. When I was asked by Ted Strickland to run as his Lieutenant Governor in 2006, Ohio was just beginning to feel the effects of the Bush Administration's misguided trade policies, failed economic program, and disastrous fiscal stewardship that ran up our national debt. Never in our lifetime have we seen such a catastrophic national economy.
I support common-sense economic principles: fiscal discipline, living within our means, rewarding hard work, investing in our people, and growing a strong middle class. In the Senate, I will fight to reduce the deficit and support pay-as-you-go budget rules to make sure Congress lives within its means. I also will fight to implement tax policies that reward work, support middle-class families, and encourage investment and job creation.

Despite these tough times, I continue to believe in the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit of America and the power of economic growth and fair competition to create shared prosperity. With the right policies in place, I am confident we can create good jobs and grow our economy in a way that benefits all Ohioans.

Let's see: somehow reducing the deficit creates jobs? It will help our bond rating, that's for sure. Cutting spending and letting infrastructure go certainly won't create jobs. He says strong middle class, well...that's good. How do you intend to keep the Middle class strong? The page then mentions Fisher as Director of Development but then fails to mention that Fisher quit the position just a month after President Obama took office when Ohio was still hemorrhaging jobs. That's Leadership for you. And people wonder why Fisher won't debate Brunner. That has to be a big reason why.

Lee believes we can and must make Ohio a hub of energy production, putting thousands of Ohioans to work creating sources of clean, renewable energy like wind turbines, solar panels and fuel cell-powered cars.

I somehow take it that Fisher would find the funding for this, and also minimie the bureaucracy when it comes to installing solar panels on one's roof as well? I think the focus on fuel cells for cars is unrealistic right now. Biodiesel is much more inplementable right now, not to mention that I know switchgrass ethanol is being worked on. The page then lacks to mention anything about trade or infrastructure. Fisher then mentions health care reform passing and then educational attainment and job training. He talks about trade but then doesn't give any specifics on his trade policies. And on energy, he doesn't mention nuclear at all, and then mentions "clean coal". Yeah, "clean coal" is like "jumbo shrimp", it's an oxymoron.

I saw in a post not too long ago that there were two other nobodies that popped into the Democratic race at the last moment. There's no mention of them on OpenCongress, and so I won't bother with them. If someone can even name these nobodies on the ballot, then I'll consider updating with their positions if they have a website.

Lastly, we have Rob Portman, the Republican. Portman currently polls ahead of either Brunner or Fisher, but it is only March and his lead isn't that much. On Portman's Issue page, Jobs is on the top. His Jobs tab talks about him visiting manufacturing plants and small business. Then he tells a whopper:

But Crown Battery's management - like many other small business owners - are fearful of the health proposals currently being debated in Washington that could raise small business taxes and force workers into government-run plans that do less and cost more.

The current Jobs Bills being passed and debated in Congress actually cut taxes for most small businesses. The 15 Billion dollar Jobs Bill was mostly tax cuts. So that's lie #1. The only plans that people are being forced into are the ones run by Wellpoint, Aetna, the Blue Crosses and all the other health insurers. So unless Uncle Sam is the one really running Wellpoint, that is a blatant lie. Furthermore, there is no government-run plan in the current Senate Bill or in the President's proposal. He could somehow be saying that 65 year olds or older shouldn't be on Medicare though. So is that it, Mr. Portman? You think seniors shouldn't be on Medicare? He then goes on to concern troll the Employee Free Choice Act, extols nuclear as an alternative fuel source(but silence about all others) and says cap-and-trade(and he calls it a "tax') would kill jobs. He then goes on further about job training and faith-based charities to help the less fortunate.

So there you have it. Brunner, Fisher or Portman. I think the choice is clear as to who is the best candidate on jobs, and that is Jennifer Brunner.

Markos Moulitsas: Healthcare Reform Is "A Great Accomplishment"

Curtis Abbey — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:05:08 GMT

Our blogfather Markos over at the DailyKos has finally weighed in on this healthcare reform bill and ideological purity from the left.

A little late but better than never. For the last 6 months at least I've been a little surprised that Markos hasn't spoken up more in support of healthcare reform. His book Taking on the System's main message was incremental progress. The idea that you get the best you can but you have to be in the game to play it. Or as The Rolling Stones said you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes you get

WHAT WE NEED. A Great Accomplishment.
This is the message we need to be running with, healthcare reform is a great accomplishment and we need to pass it and use it as a foundation for even greater things. Did you know there's a part of this bill that allows states to setup their own single-payer systems? That's where we need to take healthcare reform next, to California and Pennsylvania. PA is closer than CA, they've got a governor who will sign single-payer. It got to Schwarzenegger's desk twice and died.

RIP Granny D - NH Lady that walked 3,200 miles for Campaign Finance Reform Passes at 100

admin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:34:49 GMT

Granny D - Democratic Activist from NH has passed

Haddock gained national recognition when she walked across the country to call attention to the issue of campaign finance reform. The trip started in 1999 and ended in 2000.
"At 90 years old, I walked across the country -- 3,200 miles," she told News 9 in a January interview. "I walked every step."
Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas called her a "dedicated but soft-spoken person."
"She was a dedicated person in pursuit of all of her goals, not the least of which included her passion for campaign finance reform," Gatsas said. "My thoughts and prayers are with her family."
Haddock was the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2004, when she lost to incumbent Republican Sen. Judd Gregg. Haddock mustered 34 percent of the vote against Gregg. Her slogan during that race was "Run Granny Run."
"Doris 'Granny D' Haddock always stood for Granite State values," said state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley. "Her commitment to fair and open democracy should inspire us all to work even harder for reform. She will sorely be missed and always remain in our hearts."

Granny D was a Paul Bunyan like legend in Democratic politics the last ten years or so. She was someone who clearly made a difference and a lasting impression upon so many in New Hampshire and thankfully many other parts of the country. There will never be another Granny D, but she inspired many.

Capitol Hill News Open Thread

Casual Wednesday — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:51:41 GMT

This is an open source project, so feel free to add your own insights. Here's the news I found lurking around the Internets...
The best way to cover your tracks

Blackwater seems like it is in some kind of witness protection program. What is the defense contractor calling itself today? Who knows. If that is not bad enough, they seem to be in the middle creative government procurement contracts. Worst of all, they seem to have really irritated Clare McCaskill.

Army contractor's use of a cover name for Blackwater angers Sen. McCaskill
"The American people have a right to be outraged that we're playing this kind of game with contracting. It's wrong. It's flat wrong."
With those words, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) voiced her exasperation near the end of a three-hour Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about a contract to train Afghan National Army troops last year to use American weapons. One issue at the Feb. 24. hearing was that the $25 million contract, awarded in September 2008, was to a company called Paravant -- well known to those involved as a cover name for Blackwater (now Xe Services).
Another issue was that while the U.S. Army was paying for it, the contract was awarded to Paravant (Blackwater) by a Raytheon subsidiary called Raytheon Technical Services Co. RTSC holds a multibillion-dollar War Fighter Focus contract, primarily to train U.S. troops, but in this case the Army decided to use the company, through a separate task order under the War Fighter Focus contract, to hire Paravant.

(Bold is mine.)

The story goes on to say that Committee Chairman Carl Levin has contacted the Justice Department about Blackwater's use of a cover name on the contracts. Unfortunately, this point was not discussed at the hearing. The rest of this story is has some pretty damning stuff that makes one wonder why the government is still allowing Blackwater/Xe/Paravant anywhere close to a government operation.

A video of the full hearing is posted here.

****

Debts and Deficits in Washington and Athens

Greece has managed to run up a huge budget deficit, jeopardizing its place in the European Union. The United States has managed to do much the same thing. The difference is that the United States Congress has no institution to force/persuade them to cut spending and raise taxes when necessary. Well, there is the electorate, but just try pushing for a tax increase. Any candidate proposing such a thing would be looking up in envy at the Green Party candidate's 0.4 percent of the vote.

First the modern Greek tragedy:

Financial reform key as Obama meets with Greek leader
Washington (CNN) -- Global financial reform is expected to top the agenda Tuesday as President Obama huddles with Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, whose country is at the center of Europe's debt crisis.
The White House meeting marks the conclusion of a four-country financial relief tour for the beleaguered Greek leader. Beginning Friday, he visited Germany, France and Luxembourg seeking support for his government's new austerity measures to counteract skyrocketing budget deficits.
Greece had one of the worst budget deficits in the developed world last year, at 12.7 percent of gross domestic product, more than three times higher than previously declared due to accounting irregularities -- or what some call outright fraud.

The Greek public debt is 113 percent of the entire economy. In other words, if Greece were to simply use every scrap of wealth available to repay its debt, the country would be stripped of wealth and still owe money.

Now a scolding from -- of all people -- Dana Milbank who warns that the Greek problems foreshadow what could happen in the United States in a decade.

From Greece, an economic cautionary tale for the U.S.
To pull Greece back from the edge, Papandreou has promised to cut the deficit to 3 percent of GDP by 2012. For the U.S. government to make an equivalent cut, it would have to shut down the Pentagon and a few other agencies: the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, plus the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA -- and even then we'd come up a few dollars short.
With such a catastrophe now visible on the horizon, what are U.S. leaders discussing this week? Well, they're talking about a Republican National Committee fundraising document that portrays President Obama as the Joker, and the resignation of Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) amid allegations that he sexually harassed a male staffer, and Liz Cheney's accusation that terrorist sympathizers have turned the Department of Justice into the Department of Jihad.
When it appeared recently that budget hawks had enough votes to pass an independent debt commission to propose a solution, several Republican co-sponsors of the bill in the Senate switched sides and voted it down. President Obama named his own debt commission but then named as a commissioner union official Andy Stern -- an automatic vote against serious cuts to entitlements.

I haven't studied Milbank's claim seriously, but I do agree that the necessary cuts are simply not possible. Even an economic recovery in the next few years will be insufficient to cut the deficit and thus halt a growing debt. The harsh reality is that we might all have to pay more in taxes or give up some of our beloved government programs. We also need to let the Bush tax cuts expire and allow the tax on the wealthiest people inch up. It's not like there is any shortage of millionaires.

Number of millionaires in America increased 16 percent in 2009
A new study released by the research and consulting firm Spectrem Group finds that the number of millionaires in the United States increased by double digits the last year. According to Spectrem Group's data, "families with a net worth of at least $1 million, excluding primary residences, rose to 7.8 million in 2009," an increase of 16 percent:

You read that right. In the middle of a recession, the number of millionaires increased 16 percent.

But it's not all bad news. I promise. The Senate voted to let us know when we are all getting screwed.

Senate votes 100-0 to highlight spending
The Senate voted unanimously Tuesday to tell the public when it isn't paying for new spending or tax cuts.
In a rare 100-0 roll call vote, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) that would create a running tally on the secretary of the Senate's website of any new mandatory spending that isn't paid for through offsetting spending cuts or tax increases.
Under the pay-as-you-go, or pay-go, law passed last month with only Democratic votes, Congress is supposed to offset new spending or tax cuts so that it isn't adding to the country's record $12.4 trillion debt.

The only problem: the word "mandatory." That covers things like Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt. Things like military spending, NASA, the Department of Education, and earmarks are all discretionary spending. So, errr, yeah.

Meanwhile, Shadow President John McCain is defending a contract with only a single bidder that would fork over $35 billion to Boeing for some Air Force tankers. To be fair, the Air Force needs to replace tankers that have been around since Eisenhower was president. The consolation is that McCain promises to monitor the process very closely.

****

Ralph Reed for Congress?

So who would be the best person to send to Congress to help fix the financial boondoggle that the country is facing? Ralph Reed of course.

Ralph Reed plots his comeback
Ralph Reed, once left for dead politically, is trying to stage a comeback.
Reed, the 49-year-old former executive director of the Christian coalition, saw his meteoric rise take an even harder fall in 2006 after the extent of his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff were revealed. He saw sizable, early leads in the polls disintegrate in his bid for Georgia lieutenant governor, and he wound up losing in the GOP primary.
But in a changed environment, the first one favoring Republicans since 2006, Reed is plotting a bid for Congress. The Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody reports Reed will declare his candidacy tomorrow morning for retiring Georgia Congressman John Linder's seat. (Linder announced his retirement on Feb. 27. The seventh congressional district is a solidly Republican one. McCain won it with 60% of the vote; Bush did so with 70%.)

If you thought I was going to mention some brilliant financial mind, you must have some serious delusions about how Congressional elections work.

****

Health care tidbits

Are you looking for new reasons to dislike Blanche Lincoln, Bart Stupak, and Costa Rica? We have you covered in this health care trifecta.

Moderate Dem says opposes fast-track health bill
WASHINGTON -- A moderate Democrat insisted Tuesday she remained opposed to pushing a health care bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote, despite saying she wanted to see what was in the legislation.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who is facing a more liberal Democratic primary challenger as well as GOP opposition, said those comments didn't represent a change of heart on her stance against the controversial majority-vote procedure known as "reconciliation."

(Editor's note: Reconciliation is not "controversial." It has been an option in the budget process since the 1974 Budget Act.)

Stupak says abortion fight can be resolved
TAWAS CITY, Mich. - Prospects are good for resolving a dispute over abortion that has led some House Democrats to threaten to withhold support of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, a key Michigan Democrat said Monday.
Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure.

That would indicate that Stupak is on a quest to get wording to set a policy that is already in effect under the Hyde Amendment. Incidentally, the current rule for Medicaid do have exceptions for rape, incest and life endangerment.

Finally, this is probably the best reason to pass health care reform:

Limbaugh vows to flee the country if health care passes

He has threatened to move to Costa Rica. Maybe he should do a bit more research before he spouts off:

Public Health Care - Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS)
Costa Rica's public health insurance system, commonly known as the Caja, is available country-wide to all citizens and legal residents. There are ten major public hospitals - four in San Jose, including the Children's Hospital - affiliated with the Caja. For non-emergencies and everyday medical care, small clinics, known as EBAIS (pronounced ay-vy-ice), are located in almost every community.
The cost to affiliate with CCSS is approximately 10 to 11.5% of your income; alternatively, residents may become members via ARCR, which provides a streamlined and simple joining process.

#fail

Incidentally, there are laws and treaties concerning dumping toxic waste in other countries. Just sayin'.

****

Waxman-Markey

I'll admit to being a bit ignorant about the specifics and unintended consequences of the Waxman-Markey bill that narrowly passed the House last year. Maybe someone here can illuminate me as to whether or not it was a good idea. I use the word "was" with all due premeditation.

From Mother Jones...

Was Waxman-Markey A Waste of Energy?
In early March, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) dropped some surprising news: The effort to tackle global warming via a cap-and-trade scheme is officially "dead." Graham, John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will soon release details of an alternative plan for a bill to curb carbon emissions, which is expected to cobble together policy proposals from various lawmakers in the hopes of picking up a filibuster-proof 60 supporters. So, where does that leave the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation that squeaked through the House last summer by a single vote after months of convoluted dealmaking? No one really knows-and some House Democrats are none too happy about the Senate's change of direction.

One of the problems with democracy -- and one I would not give up for anything by the way -- is that it is nearly impossible to set meaningful holistic policies. We are finding the same problem with health care. Some legislators, who may or may not really represent the interest and will of their constituents are so caught up in party politics that the will of the party often trumps the will of the people. The other problem is that many members angle for regional interests at the expense of the good of the country. It's a bad system, but better than any other system that anyone has dreamed up (with the possible exception of a parliamentary system).

****

Wage Cut

The Most Important News of the Day? was actually from yesterday, but with the speed at which Congress moves, this could be the day's news anytime between now and Christmas.

From The Hill, which you should read if you care about what Congress is doing.

Dem lawmaker pushes for Congress's first pay cut since Depression
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) is raising the bar on freezing lawmaker salaries this week as she continues her push to garner support for her bill that would cut congressional pay by $8,700 next year on top of denying members their automatic cost-of-living increase.
With Congress's approval ratings spiraling downward, criticism of government bailouts running rampant and unemployment hovering at 10 percent, a cost-of-living pay increase for lawmakers has become largely unpopular, with many members proposing to follow what they did this year and freeze their own pay again in 2011.

It's populist. It would remind our lawmakers what American families are going through. But it would save $4.7 million, which is mostly symbolic, considering the debt stands at $12.4 trillion. Rep. Kirkpatrick does have 22 co-sponsors so far. The bill is now in the House Committee on House Administration and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Unfortunately, Rep. Kirkpatrick is not on either of those committees.

Normally, the call to action goes here. Anyone want to call a member of Congress and suggest they cut their own pay? Anyone?

Rachel Maddow: "Who really paid Bart Stupak's rent?" (UPDATEx2 Stupak gets a primary challenger!)

MinistryOfTruth — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:07:46 GMT

So it is March, and that means the Meta Pie fight season is now open.

But I have bigger fish to fry.

I have ZERO interest in punching hippies, nor do I care for berating Dems who are more moderate than myself (with some exceptions). I mean no offense to the parties involved, but if that is your thing, good luck to you. I have bigger rotten fish to fry.

Now, having gotten that off of my chest, where do I begin?

I guess you'll have to go below the fold to find out . . . .
First of all, Thank You to all of you who chose to support the new, groovy, Kossack founded PeanutButterPAC. We are on our way to achieving our first goal, which is to launch a money bomb for Jennifer Brunner, but we still have more work to do. That is why we need you to sign up as a member, tell your friends, and grab a mop. There is a LOT of work to do.

Now, on to the show . . . .

So, who WAS paying for that cheap C Street apartment that Bart Stupak (Chrsitian Mafia-MI) enjoyed for over the last decade?

MADDOW: In making a name for himself, though, Mr. Stupak has opened himself up to some questions about who he is and where he's coming from. Last night on this show, we talked about Bart Stupak's long-time Washington, D.C. residence. It's an 8,000 square foot, 12-bedroom mansion called C Street. C Street is reportedly run by a secretive religious group called The Fellowship or The Family.
And the members of Congress who live at C Street reportedly pay the paltry sum of $600 a month for rent-which is a sweetheart deal and is pretty clearly way below market value for that area. And that raises the question: who subsidizes the rent that Bart Stupak and those other congressmen pay-or paid?
Today, Mr. Stupak's office responded to our questions by informing us that Mr. Stupak moved out of C Street at the end of December. They provided us with a letter that he sent his constituents upon doing so. But they have, so far, declined to answer our questions about how much Mr. Stupak paid in rent, who he paid that rent to, and who subsidized his rent if anyone.
snip
Quoting from "The Dispatch": Richard Carver, the president of the Fellowship Foundation, said "his charitable organization does not own the C Street Center and has no control over its policy. He said he does not know who owns or runs the center. Quote, 'It is simply not a part of anything we do.'"
So, according to The Fellowship, they have nothing to do with C Street nothing. They don't even know who runs C Street.
Well, today, we were able to obtain what appears to be the official deed to the C Street house. It's a deed that is dated September 23rd, 2009. It's a deed that appears to change the ownership of the property from a group called Youth With A Mission to an organization called C Street Center Incorporated. Signing on behalf of C Street Center Incorporated is that group's secretary, Marty B. Sherman.
Who's Marty B. Sherman? Well, here's the 2008 tax filing of the Fellowship Foundation, again, or The Family. Right there listed on page seven, hey, wouldn't you know, Marty Sherman, associate.
So, The Family claims they have nothing to do with C Street and yet one of their associates is the person who's listed on the deed to C Street. The mystery deepens.
Now, you know, The Family is known to be a very secretive group. And one of the things we noted as being a little weird in our coverage of this last night was that Bart Stupak keeps going out of his way to say that he's never signed an oath of secrecy around C Street. And, indeed, in a letter to his constituents that his office he gave to us today, he reiterates, quote, "I have never been asked to sign a contract or oath of secrecy concerning C Street or its residents." Why does he keep bringing this up?
It turns that not that long ago, when talking about C Street to the press, Bart Stupak told "The Los Angeles Times" that he kind of did abide by a code of secrecy when it came to C Street and The Family. His quote to "The L.A. Times" when they asked him about C Street was this, quote, "We sort of don't talk to the press about the house."
The reason this is important is because Bart Stupak continues to deny having anything at all to do with a secretive religious group, The Family. But check this out. In 2002, when Bart Stupak was living at C Street-he's lived there for years-when he was living there in 2002, an associate of The Family described for the press the arrangement that The Family had with the members of Congress who have lived at that house.
And this is how The Family described it. Are you ready? Quote, "A lot of men don't have an extra $1,500 to rent an apartment. So, The Fellowship house does that for those who are part of The Fellowship." "The L.A. Times" noting that rent is $600 per month h for each resident.
So the questions remain tonight. Was Bart Stupak paying The Family rent to live at C Street? Was The Family subsidizing Mr. Stupak's rent which seems to have been well below market rate? Why would The Family be subsidizing Stupak's rent if he wasn't, as he says, a member of the group, when The Family admits that they subsidize rent for their members? And why exactly is The Family claiming to have no ties to the house when tax and property records indicate that it clearly does?
Bottom line here, as Bart Stupak tries to shut down health reform for an anti-abortion stunt that won't succeed but will make him famous, who's been paying Bart Stupak's rent in Washington all these years? Has he reported it? And why won't he answer questions about it?
CrooksandLiars.com

Bold text added by the diarist

Full transcript available at tv.msnbc.com/Rachel Maddow Show

So, my question to you as Democrats and left leaning independents is, who do you have a bigger beef with, Dennis Kucinich or Bart Stupak? Better yet, who is more likely to be your ally and who is more likely to be your enemy, Dennis Kucinich or Bart Stupak?

Personally, until Dennis Kucinich is exposed as a Sauron supporting Hobbit who believes in a Morgoth/Elendil demigod I am not too worried about Dennis Kucinich or Micahel Moore or Jane Hamsher. I understand that they would view you and I as allies. I understand that they will risk killing this bill because they want something better. I do not agree with that, but I understand their motivation.

Bart Stupak, on the other hand, like his C Street allies such as Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator James Inhofe and Representative Joe Pitts consider you their enemies. They do not want reforms for the insurance cartels to pass at all, and if it must, they wish to distort it in such a way that it fits their skewed, twisted world view, a world where Jesus is a Caligula like Tyrant who believe in free markets, world domination and death to all gays. These are NOT your allies, and when you are not fightging them head on you are merely wasting your time fighting among your own allies.

Whether you agree with the tactics employed by those who fight for the same goals you wish to achieve yourself (i.e. The Best Legislation possible) is ireelevant. What is relevant is who you are fighting and why. In my opinion, to be honest, I have no time to waste in fighting those who consider myself their ally. Everytime we do that a Bush war criminal gets their wings.

So who was paying for Bart Stupak's rent? Who gave him the idea to try to kill Health Care Reform by turning it into a pie fight over women's reproductive rights? Who does not want any reform to happen at all unless it benefits the twisted JesusCaligula as a Free Market loving derivatives trader cult? Is it Dennis Kucinich? Micheal Moore? Jane Hamsher? Or is it the bipartisan Corporatist-religio cult that envisions a world where Mary Magdelene is not your peer but your vassal?

The first thing that the enemies of Corporatists must learn is to know thyself.

The next thing that the enemies of Corporatists must learn is to know thine enemy.

And after that, the enemies of Corporatists must learn how to organize. Organize, organize, organize.

Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) (202) 225-7742
Jerry Costello (D-IL) (202) 225-5661
James Oberstar (D-MN) (202) 225-6211
Steve Driehaus (D-OH) (202) 225-2216
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) (202) 225-4146
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) (202) 225-6511
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA) (202) 225-5406
Joe Donnelly (D-IN) (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) (202) 225-4636
Dan Lipinski (D-IL) (202) 225-5701
Charlie Wilson (D-OH) (202) 225-5705
Call them and ask them if they are part of Stupak's dirty dozen, since, once again, this isn't from Stupak. Stupak hasn't yet named his cohorts, so we're trying to figure it out on our own. And call Stupak and tell him to give us the names. Read him these names if you want and ask him to confirm or deny.
Hat Tip to deaniac83 and itskevin for this list

I have no time for Pie Fights. I know who the probelm is, and it is NOT the enemies of Corporate Conservatives, it is their friends and allies. That is who I will fight.

UPDATE: Stupak gets a primary challenger!

Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix said today she plans to run against Stupak for the Democratic nomination of Michigan's First Congressional District. Stupak, a former state trooper who calls Menominee home, has held the seat since 1993.
snip
Saltonstall, whose supporters are trying to collect the 1,000 signatures needed to put her name on the August primary ballot, said Stupak has let the district down.
"Bart Stupak has threatened to block health care reform unless the amendment that bears his name is included in the final bill," she said. "I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible."
freep.com

hat tip to Dkos user angry liberaltarian for the linky goodness.

Cheers to Connie Saltonstall for taking Stupak on. I will try to learn more about Saltonstall and update accordingly, and I will see if PeanutButterPAC can do anything to help knock off Bart C Street Stupak.

UPDATE x2

Contact info: Connie Saltonstall

I found this on michigandems.com. The phone number goes straight to Connie herself! Wish her good luck.

I have already asked if Connie would support a Public Option and her answer is YES!

Further, even if Saltonstall's candidacy is a long shot, I think it is worth supporting her just to put some heat on these C Streeters and their cronies. This is what ACCOUNTABILITY looks like. Give Connie a call and show her some support!

Campaign Office
11362 Boyne City Rd
Charlevoix MI, 49720
Phone: (231) 547-2138

Cheers!

Peace.

You can follow me on Twitter @JesseLaGreca

Crossposted at ProgressiveElectorate.com

Bipartisan Protest of John Boehner and Parker Griffith (AL-05) Fundraiser

admin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:13:47 GMT

Tonight the man with the Tan joined the Congressman in no man's land for a GOP fundraiser in Huntsville, AL. Griffith had to sneak into the Fundraiser tonight

Parker Griffith, as you might recall, is the former Howard Dean supporter and Congressman who switched to the GOP in hopes of boosting his re-election chances.

Forces aligned as the good side joined the dark side for a bipartisan protest of tonights Boehner/Griffith $100 a head fundraiser in Huntsville. See Left in Alabama (Progressive Democratic Blog) and Flashpoint (Alabama Republican Blog)

Here's one of what were we hope many great signs from tonight's protest

Here's what our friends at Left in Alabama said about the event

Parker Griffith has accomplished the impossible. He's brought together people of all political stripes, united only in the belief that he is not the right person to represent North Alabama in Congress.
The full press release below the fold, but groups from across the political spectrum will be protesting at the $100 per couple fundraiser House Minority Leader John Boehner is hosting for Griffith Monday evening at the Space & Rocket Center Marriott in Huntsville. I strongly encourage you to make a sign and join us to express your displeasure with Griffith's special brand of non-representation, for example:
* The Speaker of the House needs mental counseling
* Committees? I don't need these committees
* Obama and Pelosi are on an ego trip.
North Alabama literally can't afford 2 more years of this guy! He's so bad the city of Huntsville was moved to hire former Congressman Bud Cramer to try to patch things over in Congress and save local federal programs.
Griffith is everybody's problem. Sure, I won't agree with everyone at this protest on every single thing -- maybe not on most things. But we all agree that Griffith has got to go, and for now that one common purpose will let us stand on the same sidewalk in near perfect harmony. Some of these folks may be less than perfectly tolerant, but the Alabama A&M Student Democrats will be there, so for an hour or so the Tea Party crowd will find common cause with young African Americans. And the increased tolerance may even flourish, because it's a good deal harder to villify someone after you've looked them in the eye and exchanged war stories with them.
Activists on both sides tend to be folks who are paying more than the average amount of attention to government; it's telling that, across the spectrum, people following politics agree that Parker Griffith is doing a terrible job for his constituents.

Wonder if Boehner and Griffith got any time in on the links today

Flashpoint had this to say in anticipation of the protest

Congressman Parker Griffith has done the unthinkable. He has brought together polar opposites and given them a common cause: opposing Congressman Parker Griffith. His fundraiser with House Minority Leader John Boehner this coming Monday has brought together conservatives, liberals, tea partiers, and labor unions in protest. For example, two of the individuals opposed to the fundraiser are Linda Haynes and Hugh McInnish. Haynes is a self described socialist and organizer of the North Alabama Peace Network and North Alabama Health Care for All (among other such groups). McInnish is a former Republican congressional candidate, member of the county Republican Executive Committee, and runs the conservative websites SuppressedNews.com and CurbAEA.com. If Griffith can get people like Haynes and McInnish to agree on anything then he ought to be in the Middle East negotiating peace with the Israelis and Palestinians!

Unfortunately, I was not able to make the drive to Huntsville tonight. I got tied up at the office. But we are looking at what will be another intense Republican primary. I think there is a great chance that Parker Griffith is defeated before we get a chance to knock him out in November.

On the Democratic side we have what appear to be three great candidates in former Howell Heflin Chief of Staff and Lobbyist Steve Raby, attorney and grandson of former Alabama Senator John Sparkman Taz Sheppard and newcomer Mitchell Howie (who is the grandson of a beloved Huntsville doctor).

We've added the AL-05 Dem Nominee Fund to the Progressive Electorate Act Blue page . If the Republican nominee is Griffith he has millions of his own money to donate. If Mo Brooks, the preferred conservative and Tea Party candidate,is the Republican nominee expect this to be a tough fight we can win.

Capitol Hill News Open Thread

CA Berkeley WV — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:42:56 GMT

Help me out. Add some news...
Serious scheduling conflict today. Sorry.

David has a few ideas not posted here yet. About process.

Don't forget that the Congress set up the Congressional Oversight Panel. The last hearing was 4 March with Assistant Treasury Secretary Herbert M. Allison, Jr. and Citigroup Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit testifying. I am a big fan of Prof. Warren. Rep. Jeb Hensalring R-TX quit because there was going to be more to oversee.

On the general topic of the economy, Simon Johnson is worth the read today.

The editor of my local paper thinks they are smarter the Sen. Byrd on Senate procedure. They used to think he as standing tall. What a difference two days make. Hah!

In The Most Importatn News of the Day ^TM. former Rep. Massa is sucking all the air, even in the #NetherRegionsofGlenbeckistan.

My new job KICKS A$$ and I am here to help YOU

MinistryOfTruth — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:10:55 GMT

FULL DISCLOSURE: My name is Jesse LaGreca and I am now a paid employee of PeanutButterPAC.

PeanutButterPAC is a new Progressive political action committee that was founded by 5 liberal bloggers (Kossacks AnotherMassachussetsLiberal, SomethingTheDogSaid, Spedwybabs, PistolSO and myself). We are talking real grassroots here, none of that Corporate astroturfed malarkey.

Our first goal is to organize a money bomb for Jennifer Brunner, a very progressive candidate in the Ohio Senate race.

I want change we can believe in, but I understand the more important quote "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Join PeanutButterPAC and support Howard Dean's 50 State strategy.

More below the fold . . . .
Our goal is to adopt and enhance Howard Dean's 50 state strategy by supporting Progressive candidates in districts nationwide. Small dollar donations will be used to support candidates and push progressive causes, among other activities.

Over the weekend, Kos summed up best how I think PBPAC can be very influential in the primary elections that decide which Democrats run in general elections, and which do not . . .

Accountability: Progressives don't have the money to compete against moneyed corporatist interests, and that disparity will only worsen with Citizens United allowing corporations to directly engage in political campaigns with virtually no restrictions. So if we can't buy politicians like the lobbyists and Wal-Mart have, then how can we hold them accountable to the voters? By playing in primaries.
We have to put the fear of god into elected Democrats, making them think twice before straying too far from the party's core principles. Currently, there is no retribution for disloyalty. Heck, Joe Lieberman got a standing ovation and a kiss from Blanche Lincoln when he came back to Congress in 2009 -- after he spent all of 2008 campaigning with John McCain and keynoting the Republican National Convention.
Take out Lincoln, and Democrats will begin to understand that there could be hell to pay for abandoning those core principles. They'll learn that their party's establishment, so eager to protect incumbents at all costs, won't be able to prop them up. They'll learn what former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine learned -- that Obama himself can't rescue them in time of electoral distress (a lesson also learned by Creigh Deeds in Virginia). They'll learn that if they choose their corporate benefactors over their constituents, someone will fight to hold them accountable.
Incumbents value reelection above all else. Their behavior will have to change if they want to avoid primary challenges.

But primaries aren't the only game in town. PBPAC will build upon Howard Dean's 50 State strategy. It is not enough to just fight in primaries ( not as though kos is proposing that ) we also have to force the GOP to work to keep districts that they thought were wrapped up. By doing this we force them to defend many places, and that hurts there strategy for winning nationally. Sun Tzu states in "The Art Of War" that . . .

Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack

In a post Citizens United world where corporations can make unlimited donations many on the left have felt daunted, facing seemingly insurmountable odds. The only way to counter Citizens United is to organize. Organize, organize, organize. A single progressive activist who is supporting a progressive candidate in a low profile district faces a huge challenge. An army of progressive activists who are organized is a force that must be reckoned with.

PeanutButterPAC.org is an ideologically oriented political action committee favoring progressive politics, truly a people-powered public policy PAC. Think of it as a method of making a big difference for just a little money - year round, small dollar weekly donations, in sufficient numbers, can make a big difference. There are three categories of weekly donations to the PAC:
$2 Tuesdays
$3 Thursdays
$5 Fridays
PAC members are asked to make a small sacrifice in their daily lives and send the money in as a donation. Maybe you like to buy coffee on the way to work, or you're an an office worker who buys lunch every day in the office cafeteria, or a smoker who thinks one pack less per week would be a good thing. We ask that you sacrifice one day's worth of this money (e.g. pack a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, hence the name of the PAC) and donate it. Once you're a member, you'll be able to nominate progressive politicians you like into the candidate pool, write blog entries promoting them into the PAC award system, and you'll be able to vote for other candidates as well.
Every week there will be two polls on the day for the donation category: one poll will choose an award winner for that week and the other will set the following week's slate of candidates from the candidate pool. The software will track how much is donated to whom (and for which race) to keep the PAC within FEC guidelines, and a reporting interface will produce a file for FEC reporting. A 15% tip on all donations will cover administrative expenses: salary for the administrator, server and software infrastructure, credit card merchant account expenses, advertising expense and various office expenses. All will be tracked with Quickbooks and reported appropriately, and the books will be open to examination by any member at any time.

PeanutButterPAC.org about page

$10 donations are the MAXIMUM weekly that members can make. We will NOT accept corporate donations.

As of now there are only two paid employees of PeanutButterPAC, myself and John Tehan aka AnotherMassachusettsLiberal. John Tehan is our President and Treasurer as well as our founding member. I will be writing and conducting opposition research on PBPAC's behalf among other projects, but I consider myself something more of a community organizer (heh). Neither John or I have received any compensation for our work yet, but our compensation will be made public to any paying member of PBPAC.

Eventually I would like to hire slinkerwink, nyceve, TomP and other effective writers as well as researchers. I'd like to set up college scholarships and other programs and contribute to good charities, but in the end this is not MY PAC, this is OUR PAC, and anyone who wants their progressive, liberal and independent voice to be heard is welcome to join up.

Of course, Yelling Louder is optional.

My job, frankly, kicks ass, and I am here to help YOU with any of your questions regarding PBPAC.

This is PeanutButter jelly time, and I am the baseball bat.

The netroots has helped me before in my time of need. I will not forget that. As I become more self sufficient I will be making donations to charities supported by PeanutButterPAC ( such as NFTT and the Haiti relief effort ) in order to show my appreciation to those who supported me in my time of need, but I will not stop there. I will make it one of my goals to ensure that PeanutButterPAC works to support good charities that can make a real difference in the lives of people who need real help. Karma is a boomerang. I will never forget that.

Now I am asking YOU to organize, to get involved and to be the ones we have been waiting for. A few hundred people working together can make a HUGE difference. A few thoudand people working together can change the world.

Do it for Teddy

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Join PeanutButterPAC

Follow me on Twitter @JesseLaGreca

Crossposted at

Sarah Palin Admits To Sneaking Into Canada For Healthcare!

Curtis Abbey — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:28:09 GMT

Palin Crossed Border for Canadian Healthcare

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

Yes ma'am it is! I can hear Alanis Morisette now. When talk shit about universal healthcare for everyone else, but you loves some for yourself, yes it's ironic.

How can this woman be a voice of the conservative movement on socialism or healthcare when she broke the law to get a piece of socialism for herself? It is illegal for Americans to go over and poach the Canadian system isn't it?

Is this a double whammy for her conservative credentials? She can't talk now about healthcare reform or socialism. And her closed borders wing can't be too happy about finding out that she crashed the border to take advantage of another country's social safety net.

Here's the original article

Many in attendance said seeing Palin was like catching a glimpse of a celebrity.
Stephanie Hansen, 18, who wore a pin with Palin's face, could barely contain her excitement. She gushed that she felt out of place among the much older audience.
"I love it, I'm really glad that I came. It was really enlightening."
She admitted she didn't know a lot about Palin's politics, but said she loves her nonetheless.
"I admire how she can have a family and still be able to work as much as she does and everything she does."

Ugh.

She was asked by Senator Pamela Wallin to show her palms after the speech and referenced a passage in the bible that says people's names are engraved on God's hands, saying "if it was good enough for God, it's good enough for me."

What a bizarre passage that is. Did God also have the directions to a Canadian clinic on his hand?

Follow the Lead in Arkansas - Help us Make A Difference

admin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:42:49 GMT

We've had a great week in the insurgency of Bill Halter in Arkansas. Tons of money has been raised. How sweet it is!!!

But let's make sure we are covering other races where we can elect Better Democrats.

If the DNC and the DCCC is not going to take on a 50 State strategy then it's our responsibility. Just because we don't have Howard Dean doesn't mean that we can't make a difference..

Over at the Progressive Electorate we've listed a number of candidates on our Act Blue page who need our assistance. Take a look at some of these folks where we can make a significant difference. Races where 50 $10 contributions can buy a ton of signs, races where 100 $25 contributions can get some polling, races where 1000 $5 contributions can buy significant media time.
1. I've been helping my friend Shelia Smoot in her race for the Alabama 7th Congressional District Race. This race is important because it's the only guaranteed Democratic seat in the state. Since 2002 we've had Congressman Artur Davis (now running for Governor) who has been a disappointment to many for his votes for the Bankruptcy Prevention and Abuse Act and against both Hate Crimes and the Health Care Bill. This year we have a chance to have a more progressive member of Congress. Shelia is a fighter for her people and someone that I know will have our ear.

The candidate leading fundraising is a corporate lawyer who formerly worked on Wall Street by the name of Terri Sewell. We don't need another person in this seat who will vote with the Republicans. This is a poor District where folks need infrastructure. My friend Shelia Smoot has built schools and fire stations and public housing as a public official.

We hope you help us in our race.

Here's a video of Shelia speaking at an event last year

2. We are also supporting Jennifer Brunner in Ohio Senate race. I know very little about this race, but my friends tell me that Brunner is the most progressive in this race. Help her if you can.

3. We are supporting Grier Raggio in Texas-32 who is taking on Pete Sessions in TX-32. That's a race where we can make a difference. Texas and Alabama are going to get ignored by the national pundits, but we've got to do what we can to make a difference.

I'll stick around if you have any questions about Shelia or any of these other candidates. Feel friend to jump in and offer us some insight.

Coffee Party And Mid-Missourians

mr_reed_45 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:36:07 GMT

Mid-Missouri kicked off they're piece of the Coffee Party movement with a small meet and greet at Underground Cafe in downtown Columbia. I tempered my expectations as far as turn out but was actually pleasantly surprised at the amount of people we had show up to talk. This little gathering was put together on a Wednesday I believe it was, just basically by networking through Facebook or Twitter, and we was able to get 15-20 people together to talk on a Saturday morning, on just a couple days notice. So, I will chalk that up as a small success in itself. While we are still in the developmental stages, everyone seemed to come to the table with something to offer as far as how to build this even bigger. The most important thing I think stood out to me was the different points of view represented at that table. It wasn't a group of Progressives/Liberals sitting around bashing the other side. In all honesty, that side of the coin probably only came up 3 or 4 times, and it wasn't to bash, it was to figure out how to incorporate those in the middle. It was funny, we had one person apologize to us for voting for Mitch McConnell while she was a resident of Kentucky. That got a pretty good chuckle from the group. But, here are just a few points I took away from it, and how I think we can continue to grow this movement.

1 - We need to reach out and react to those in the center more. I kept using my own dad as an example. A person who voted for George W. Bush both times, but also voted for Bill Clinton as well. Those voters are lost right now and are disillusioned with the whole process. The way I see it, and judging by the initial success of this movement, that's where alot of people are coming in from, the center. They realize they are not left in they're views like us Progressives, but they know they are not on the right with the Tea Party type. People like my dad fit this bill. Basically, my thoughts are, this cannot be a Progressive movement, we have to use reason and civility to draw those in the center in and move it forward. Those people are in flux right now.

2 - We are not an going to compete with the Tea Party in a war of words. Face it, we are not going to win that one. People want civility, people want to sit down and discuss the issues, not be around hundreds of people waving guns and shouting down anyone with a contrasting view. That's not the way it works. We realize we are probably the least sexy of the two choices, meaning, we are probably not going to do real well getting media coverage (crazy sells stories), but I think that is a good thing. Like I said, my focus is on letting the Tea Party types alienate themselves, while we work on reaching out to those in the middle who want to share a civil dialogue and listen as well.

3 - We came up with the idea of trying to bring at least 2 people to the next meeting we have. These 2 people have to be someone of a different point of view, but can sit down and discuss issues in a civil manner in a group setting. Quite a few people seemed pretty excited by this, me on the other hand, a quick search of my internal Rolodex turned up about 1 or 2 names of people I think would be beneficial to the cause as an opposing but reasonable voice. So yeah, still thinking on that one.

4 - Like I said, still in the initial stages, we are small, but explored ways to grow and grow out of coffee shops. We decided while we are still young in the process, to NOT seek media attention just yet and to keep our meets to coffee shops for now. Though we did discuss ways to get something going on, on a more state wide level, maybe one day having a Coffee Party meet on the steps of the Capital in Jefferson City. Another side issue of discussion was an item that could bring people together to speak. Something everyone can relate to. My first thought was, a water-cooler, like you would see at work or in an office. Think about it. When you think of a water-cooler, you think of it sitting in an office somewhere and maybe a group of 2 or 3 people gathered around it talking about a ball game, or they're kids, or something they saw on t.v the night before. Everyday people, maybe wearing a tie, maybe pushing a broom, gathered around the water-cooler discussing things in a civil manner. Just an idea.

5 - Senator Jim Bunning was a topic for a bit. I told them the feedback I got off of most people regarding the Bunning thing was, they agreed with WHY he did it, but not WHEN he did it, and that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you HAVE too. And I can agree with that.

For me, like I said, the bottom line is not becoming the Tea Party and attracting the center back to the table, as well as the Republicans that voted for Obama. It is obvious, we are not the Tea Party, nor do we have any interest in becoming the left version of the Tea Party. This is also a philosophy I have started to incorporate into my personal life as well, to let them alienate themselves. I have something to offer and can justify my positions. When asked to justify they positions and reasoning, I am met with a barrage of personal attacks. So, I am done. I will move on to people that have an interest.

One point I have tried to stress is the fact I think we have become to complacent over the past year and a half. Were behind keyboards and not out on the lines. I worked 6 -3 during the campaign of 2008, would come home long enough to maybe grab a sandwich, and someday's, would go and walk a few miles knocking on doors, talking to people until the street lights came on. When I say it feels like 2008 all over again, I mean it. 2008 we was inspired and it has tailed off. We made connections then and we need to make them all over again. So, we are just as guilty as the other side.

Finally, you know your making progress and putting out a product people want to buy when a month into your efforts, the other side smear machine kicks into high gear urging followers to "disrupt" your meetings and sending out memos saying the originator of this movement is a "secret Obama operative". Well, I too was one of those "secret Obama operatives". One of quite a few if I remember right. And guess what, I did it for FREE, not for face time or a book deal. And I am gladly doing it again. Its what we in the real world call, VOLUNTEERING.

Here's to hoping you can join in the movement as well and come back to the table for open, civil dialogue. MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE. Have a good one guys.

Here's are some links where you can learn more, and I hope you do.

http://coffeepartyusa.com/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/coffeeparty?ref=ts