Democrats-Senate

More Blood Money from Our Democratic Congress and Democratic Presidential Candidate

dlindorff — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:49:05 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended
benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional
Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving
the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the
Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost
of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and
supplies.

When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state
Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping
blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and
women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in
those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have
nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting
the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting
Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.

Iraq Vets, too, should not
overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their
tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left
stranded in battle zones overseas.

It didn’t have to be like this.

For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for
unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not
always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from
workers and the labor movement.

For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.

This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental
benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent
education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have
been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election
campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the
votes would have been there to override any Bush veto. Neither
measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to
a war-funding bill.

But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really
thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning
veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting
some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they
wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their
objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past
Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming
campaign.

Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all,
become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In
this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further
funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At
first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because
Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the
measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes
to pass a bill the second time around.

Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats
don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and
a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war
backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m
opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”

Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the
long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the
best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby
poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted
the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out
immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.”
(With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their
fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate
withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the
troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’
time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant
convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems.
They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling
alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up
whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be
easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged
withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.

Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and
devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they
could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though
the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.

And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a
$95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding
measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion
atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel.
They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him
to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they
know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in
the summer.

The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers
and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition
reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.

The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of
the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together
with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is
all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar
and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and
imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and
the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what
may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought
through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be
pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on
desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes
if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for
veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating
bills for their families at home.

Equally important, the $160 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the
half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for
a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other
than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who
control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement
funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal
school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop
alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global
warming.

The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless.
It is part of the problem. That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this
contemptible funding bill.
_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

Why Congressional Democrats Lose Every Fight

Bob Fertik — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:18:43 -0400

Matt Stoller has written an important post trying to figure out why Congressional Democrats lose every important fight.

As we map DC as a social network, we are beginning to understand that it is not the number of Democrats in office that moves legislative priorities, it is the density of the connections between progressive office-holders and their supporters relative to the density of the connections between conservatives and their supporters. Christunity at Swing State Project has an excellent diary, which shows that this Congress is actually more progressive than the 1992-1994 Congress Clinton had to work with. Yet, this Congress has done a whole lot less than they did to pass progressive legislation, probably because the conservative networks are far denser today. In 1993, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich organized a filibuster of Clinton's health care plan, along with the business right. Today, filibusters are so routine that the Senate has more than 70 bills pending that are held up by a Republican filibuster. The networks Gingrich used have solidified into almost uniform party unity, whereas on the progressive side there is very little holding Democrats together.

There's no question Democrats are more diverse and more divided than Republicans. And the reason is pretty simple: Republicans in Congress are all rich whites who want to keep their wealth away from the non-rich and/or non-white voters who elect Democrats.

Rich white Republicans in Congress don't need anyone to organize them, they easily organize themselves to protect their wealth.

Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, come from a wide range of backgrounds and have little in common, either ideologically or personally.

On important votes, they need to be "whipped" into line. And that's the job of the House Majority Leader, working with the Democratic Whip.

Unfortunately the present House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, is devoted to protecting the handful of rich whites who are elected as Democrats and join the BlueDogs or the DLC because they are just as terrified of non-rich and/or non-white voters as Republicans.

Democrats will never win any important fights unless they are willing to articulate progressive positions and dig in their heels over them. Otherwise Democrats will always be dragged to the right by Republicans who dig in their heels on every issue and vote in lockstep.

The place where progressive positions would normally originate is in the Progressive Caucus, which is much larger than the BlueDogs and the DLC. But they don't exercise their power because their leadership and their membership are simply too weak - not in numbers, but in determination.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer cut all funds for Iraq except to bring our troops safely home. But it didn't.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer instruct John Conyers to begin impeachment hearings. But it didn't.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Steny Hoyer resign as Majority Leader after repeatedly betraying Democratic on issues like warrantless wiretapping. But it didn't.

The Progressive Caucus could have insisted that Democrats apply the "majority of the majority" rule created by Tom DeLay which only allowed legislation to move if a majority of Republicans supported it. But it didn't.

So it's not sufficient to elect more Democrats, even progressive Democrats like the current members of the Progressive Caucus.

And it's not sufficient to elect reformist Democrats like Darcy Burner whose "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," while addressing many important issues, doesn't cut funds - the only action that will actually "End the War in Iraq."

The only way to move Congress to the left - and thereby make it possible for Democrats to win key battles - is:

1. to support "aggressive progressive" Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler who will fight for progressive causes even when those causes (like impeachment) are scorned on the editorial page of the Washington Post and on the front page of DailyKos.

2. to elect more "aggressive progressive" Democrats like Kucinich and Wexler.

Call Your Senators To Oppose Iraq Funds and Wiretap Immunity

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

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

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

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

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

DEMS UNITE!

redhed67 — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:18:17 -0400

Well, as we all know, election season is once again upon us. Our choices are, as always, a great source of controversy and strife among the American people. This is understandable as not every candidate fits our ideals of the perfect President.

However, I've noticed some very disturbing trends among voters and, most glaringly, the Democrats. Frankly, it's appalling. I can't get through a blog or a chat room without seeing Democrats at each other's throats, each bashing the views and private lives of one another's pick as the Dem candidate.

You know what, people?? Knock it off. I'm not particularly wild about Hillary nor Obama either, to be honest... but all have a common goal here. That goal is to do everything we can to keep the GOP out of the White House.

Haven't the GOP done enough damage already? For the past 7 years, we've been subjected to two recessions, the invasion of a sovereign country with no violent designs on us, over 935 lies from this administration ABOUT IRAQ ALONE, and the blatant trampling of our civil rights such as our privacy with the warrantless surveillance and with free speech with arrests of peacful protestors and even people whose only "crime" was merely wearing an anti-war or anti-Bush T-shirt.

John McCain has stated that he plans on continuing our occupation of Iraq. He has also stated that he not only wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but is already planning on attacking Iran, as he so playfully reiterated in his rousing rendition of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann" titled "Bomb Bomb Iran."

Obama and Hillary's ideas are really not so different from one another. They have similiar ideas on health care, Iraq, national security in general, etc. There are subtle nuances that make their plans slightly different but when it comes down to it, one is really just as good as the other.

It's bothersome that people are saying things like "Hillary is a warmonger"... or "Obama is a Muslim sympathizer." These same lines that Rightwingers were using against the two of them just a few short months ago and the Dems were scolding them for, the Dems are now using. I, personally, never chose a particular party with which to label myself. I consider myself an Independent even though I never formally even declared myself as such... and this is why. Both sides seem to go off the deep end when elections come up and I am so disappointed that Dems have allowed themselved to stoop to the level of "The Righties."

I don't like any party spreading lies and innuendo about any candidate, whether he or she be Republican or Democrat. It's juvenile and ignorant. I don't approve of McCain's policies but I'm not going to perpetuate the rumor that he committed treason while in the service. I have no proof that he did. On the same token, I won't perpetuate the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist sympathizer. We have more than ample evidence that he is not.

Let's think about that particular rumor for a moment. George W. Bush has been more in the pocket of Muslim terrorist sympathizers than anyone else. Despite the fact that the Saudis not only have an appalling track record on human rights but they're also funding terrorists and helping to fund the insurgency which is killing our soldiers... Bush calls them "friend." Not only that but he's also given them weapons which are in turn being used against our troops in Iraq.

Same with Pakistan who has openly harbored Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden for a couple of decades. Then there's Uzbekistan, a nation with a record of committing unspeakable atrocities against its citizens...again, Bush calls them "friend."

So to say anything about Obama is not only stupid but incredibly hypocritical if you're Bush supporter. If you're a Dem, it's insincere and ridiculous. We need to pull together in these elections this year and vote for whomever the Dem nominee turns out to be, even if we have to hold out collective noses to do it. I know I will. If a GOP president gets in again, I would hate to look back and know that my missing vote helped to get him in.

So come on... remember that common goal we have to do something good for this country and keep the GOP out.

VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!
_________________
Don't blame this mess on me... I'm an Independent!

Mitch McConnell's Memory Is Fading Fast

RDillon — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:15:23 -0400

I know Mitch McConnell is expecting a fight this fall, but he is already showing several symptoms of having taken too many shots to the head. (Besides the gnarly teeth). Yes, you can tell this is an election year for him, because all the sudden he can't remember what he's done, and remembers doing just the opposite.

Case in point, while purusing his website today, I came across this laughable entry of his "accomplishments":

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell offered the Republicans’ energy plan, the ‘American Energy Production Act S. 2958’ as an amendment to S. 2284 Wednesday, and made the following remarks on the Senate floor:

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=297360&start=1

A couple of paragraphs later he rants about the Democrats in the Congress:

“Two years ago, Democratic leaders told us that they had a ‘commonsense’ plan to lower gas prices. But since they took control of Congress, gas prices have risen by $1.29 per gallon, according to AAA.

“Apparently, the Democrats’ ‘commonsense’ plan is not working as intended. In fact, the general thrust of their plan is to increase taxes on energy companies – which would raise, not lower, gas prices.

You know Mitch, Democrats have only had Congress for over a year, and gas prices were spiraling out of control long before that!!

It gets worse however, this little snippet just about got my screen sprayed with hazelnut coffee:

“But Republicans do have a plan to reduce gas prices over the long term by increasing our supply of American energy and American jobs right here at home.

Now, thats really funny!! Has Mitch really forgotten all the jobs shipped overseas by this Republican Administration? Has he forgotten the root of the problem were bills like this:

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.

Vote to pass a bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies, reorganize the electricity system and make available approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would support the use of alternative energy and call for utilities to increase their dependence on renewable fuels.

Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2003; Bill HR 6 ; vote number 2003-317 on Jul 31, 2003

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Really Mitch, you let Dick Cheney get together with his energy executive buddies and write the Energy policy for this country. You rubber-stamp it through a partisan, cowardly Congress, and now you are crying because WE are paying high fuel costs?? I do believe the citizens of Kentucky pay for your fuel!!! Did you forget that??

And what of this glorious plan that the Republicans have unleashed to save us all so much money? MORE CORPORATE WELFARE!!!!:

Voted no on removing oil and gas exploration subsidies.

Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act

Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.

Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN); Bill H.R.6 ; vote number 2007-226 on Jun 21, 2007

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

Voting YES would amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

It would be a violation for any foreign state:

1. To limit the production or distribution of oil & natural gas;

2. To set or maintain the price of oil & natural gas; or

3. To otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil & natural gas;

4. When such collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil & natural gas in the US.

Reference: NOPEC Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act; Bill S.Amdt.1519 to H.R.6 ; vote number 2007-215 on Jun 19, 2007

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Their other solution? Drilling in ANWR:

Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR.

To remove the establishment of an oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. The original bill allows for an oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Voteing YES on this amendment would remove that section, hence barring leasing in ANWR.

Reference: Bar Oil and Gas Leasing amendment; Bill S Amdt 2358 to S 1932 ; vote number 2005-288 on Nov 3, 2005

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would strike a provision in the concurrent resolution that recognizes revenue from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amendment says: "To ensure that legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, other federal lands, and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling receives full consideration and debate in the Senate under regular order, rather than being fast-tracked under reconciliation procedures; to ensure that receipts from such drilling destined for the federal treasury are fairly shared with local jurisdictions; and does not occur unless prohibitions against the export of Alaskan oil are enacted."

Reference: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge anti-drilling Amendment; Bill S AMDT 168 to S.Con.Res. 18 ; vote number 2005-52 on Mar 16, 2005

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.

Boxer Amdt. No. 272.; To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. S Con Res 23 Budget resolution FY2004: Vote to pass an amendment that would strike (remove) language in the resolution that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. [Voting No favors drilling for oil in ANWR].

Reference: Bill SConRes 23 ; vote number 2003-59 on Mar 19, 2003

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323; To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security. Would allow gas and oil development in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the president certifies to Congress that production in the area is in the nation's security and economic interests (qwhich Prsident Bush would). If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. A yea vote for this bill was one in favor of drilling in the reserve. Three-fifths of the total Senate (60) is required to invoke cloture.

Reference: Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-71 on Apr 18, 2002

Oh wait, one more:

Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling.

Vote to preserve language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Framework that assumes $1.2 billion in revenue from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] in Alaska.

Reference: Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-58 on Apr 6, 2000

Does Mitch forget this also??:

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Finally, he seems to forget his voting record on renewable energy:

“In last year’s energy bill, we passed a number of provisions to reduce demand for oil, including increasing fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and increasing the use of alternative fuels.

Yes, McConnell has forgoten his stance on alternative energy:

Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).

Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day. Opponents of the amendment said, "It would be disruptive of jobs if you set a 78 mile per gallon CAFÉ standard for cars, a 185-percent increase; a 60 mile per gallon standard for trucks, light trucks, a 174-percent increase. [The unamended version] is more in keeping with President Kennedy's "man on the Moon" goal. [The amended version] is a "man or woman on Mars" goal, and maybe we will get there one day, but it is unrealistic today."

Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2005; Bill S.Amdt. 784 to H.R. 6 ; vote number 2005-140 on Jun 16, 2005

Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.

Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress.

Reference: Bill S.14 ; vote number 2003-212 on Jun 10, 2003

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.

In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV).
Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ; vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999

http://www.govote.com/International/Mitch_McConnell_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Yes, its an election year and Mitch, you better save some of those few remaining brain cells, (and teeth) for the fight ahead. Democrats are fired up this time around and we aren't conceding in Kentucky anymore!!

Greg Fischer and Heather Ryan are two Awesome Democrats who truly understand renewable energy and energy independence:

America is home to the world’s greatest innovators. Greg Fischer is a Kentucky entrepreneur – a job creator who’s used new ideas and bold solutions based on his Kentucky know-how to create answers and solve problems. By ending our dependence on foreign oil and generating a path to energy independence, Greg will invest in the resources we have right here in Kentucky to deliver clean energy solutions. A real pursuit of clean coal, as well as renewable energy alternatives like wind, solar, hydroelectric and biofuels will help create thousands of green collar jobs for decades to come – right here in Kentucky. In doing so, we’ll also combat global warming and transition to a cleaner, greener and brighter economy.

http://www.gregfischer.com/index.php/issues/energy/

Here is Heather Ryan in her own words about making progress on Energy Independence in Western Kentucky:

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

Support Fischer here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/wkyditchmitch

And Heather Ryan here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/americansforryan

Lets Ditch Mitch!!!!!

4000 US Dead in Iraq: Maybe What We Need is a National Spittoon

dlindorff — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:57:45 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Well, the toll of wasted American lives in Iraq has hit 4000. But hey, who’s counting?

Certainly not the folks in the White House and the Pentagon, and certainly not John McCain, the prospective Republican nominee for president, who thinks the war is going just dandy.

But it’s worth noting that about a year ago, around the time that Bush’s “surge” plan got implemented with the addition of some 30,000 additional troops to the Iraq theater, the number of dead was about 3000. So it’s fair to say that Bush’s “surge” policy—his “escalation of the war in order to end it” plan—has directly led to the deaths of 1000 more young American men and women.

And what has he achieved with this bonus sacrifice?

Yesterday, Iraqi fighters—reportedly most likely members of the Mahdi Brigades, who are Shia, and thus supposedly on “our” side—fired a number of rockets and mortars into the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, which is where the American government and military leadership in Iraq cowers behind blast walls and eats American food while Iraqis suffer and die in what’s left of their their destroyed and ravaged country. Bombers set off car bombs in several locations, killing dozens of people, and four more Americans were killed in ambushes.

Another day in Iraq.

“The surge is working,” says Bush and his lackey McCain, who made a quickie photo-op fly-in to Iraq just in time for the latest slaughter (and then showed his astonishing ignorance by saying the Iranians were backing and training Al Qaeda in Iraq).

If this is “working,” what would “not working” look like?

Well, if you’re wondering about that, just give it a few months and we’ll see. That’s when the troops that were added will be removed again, which means things will be back where they were when Bush felt the need to send in more reinforcements because things were going to hell.

Well you might ask, at huge cost in money and lives, what did this “surge” accomplish. Besides making sure that another 1000 soldiers would come home in boxes, and thousands more would come back maimed for life? It’s a good question.

What is presented as a government of Iraq has yet to really run the country, which is still the property of the US military. That “government” has yet to pass a law establishing control and distribution of the profits of the country’s main resource: oil. The Sunni forces, dubbed “The Awakening” by some PR whiz in the White House basement, have awakened to the fact that they are being used by the US, and are currently going out on strike from their US-financed butchery. Basra has long since been turned over to the armed gangs that grew up there under the British, who have pretty much packed up and gone home at this point.

At a cost of untold billions of dollars, and an extra 1000 American lives (and who knows how many Iraqi lives, which nobody has been counting since day one of this misbegotten invasion), all Bush managed to accomplish with his “surge” was to move the eventual day of reckoning back a year.

But then, that was the whole idea. I’m sure if he could get away with it, he’d keep those extra 30,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq right through next January, just to keep things tamped down until he leaves office and hands the whole mess off to his successor. Unfortunately for him and his mentor, Calamity-Dick Cheney, there is no way for the military to maintain that kind of troop level for another nine or 10 months, though. The troops are exhausted, their supplies are depleted, vehicles are being kept on the road by pirating parts from destroyed or broken ones, and there’s nobody in reserve back stateside to rotate over there. That has to be a big worry for GOP candidate McCain, whose oxymoronic (and moronic) Vietnam-era mantra of “peace with honor” and call for a permanent occupation of Iraq will look pretty unpalatable to voters if the violence in Baghdad starts returning to early 2007 levels. And it appears to be doing just that already even with the extra troops still in place.

Really, for that matter, we could say that all 4000 of those American dead (I’m being generous here, since many of the dead were immigrants, some illegal, who signed up with a promise of citizenship if they fought for Uncle Sam, who has been busy deporting their relatives once they died on the job), are wasted lives, because the Iraq that existed before May 19, 2003 really no longer exists. With an estimated one million Iraqi’s killed by the American-caused war and ensuing chaos, and another four million turned into refugees—this in a country of 24 million—with the country effectively divided into at least three irreconcilable parts, with Turkey invading and attacking the Kurdish north, and Iran bolstering the Shia majority, the land once known as Babylon is now a classic “failed state” held together only by the continued presence of the American military, whose very presence, ironically, is also the prime cause of all this misery and mayhem.

Bush talks of “victory” being possible. McCain talks of fighting on until “victory.” But neither man could tell us what “victory” would mean in Iraq.

So America will stumble onward, as the body count continues to rise. More wasted lives sent home in boxes or on hospital gurneys. More national treasure down the drain. Until we hit the next milestone: 5000 dead and six years of an endless, criminal war.

At some point, of course, all this will end, as it eventually ended in Indochina.

Then we can erect another war monument on the Washington Mall to this new list of wasted lives—the ones who Bush once famously said were “just numbers.” (That was back when the number was “just” 2500.)

Maybe this time around, we could have construct a spitting basin somewhere near the monument, with the names of Bush, Cheney and all the members of the Congress, Republican and Democrat, from 2002 through the end of the conflict, whenever that is, who voted to authorize, and then continued to fund this disastrous war, etched on its bottom. Instead of coming to look for the names of loved ones, or after doing so and making the ceremonial rubbing of the name onto a piece of paper, visitors could express their feelings towards the authors and enablers of this war at the national spittoon.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Howard Metzenbaum, RIP

Bob Fertik — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:37:12 -0400

Sadly, today we lost one of the best Senators in my lifetime: Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), who was a true Aggressive Progressive. From the Cleveland Plain-Dealer:

Metzenbaum was one of the Senate's wealthiest members, yet he prospered in politics for more than half a century as a champion of working men and women.

Metzenbaum's outlook was forged by the Depression, and his politics by Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. He remained an unreconstructed liberal Democrat to the end.

He achieved near-legendary status as a foe of big business, an advocate for consumer causes, and a tough infighter blocking scores of special interest bills. He believed he could have won a fourth consecutive term, but made way for a run by his son-in-law, lawyer Joel Hyatt, who lost the Senate seat to Republican Mike DeWine.

In his 80s, Metzenbaum stayed active, serving part-time as the president of the non-profit Consumer Federation of America, a lobbying and research organization.

We'll miss you, Senator!

Bush's Protect America Bill Bull

dlindorff — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:01:54 -0500

By Dave Lindorff,

President Bush has turned to the cheapest lies in an effort to protect himself from being exposed as a criminal in the ongoing campaign to have the National Security Agency spy at will on Americans.

Claiming—without a scintilla of evidence to back him up—that there are people planning a “much worse attack” than 9-11 on America, he says he must not only have free rein to unleash the NSA
spymasters on American telephone and internet communications, but also a grant of complete immunity from prosecution for such spying for the telecom industry.

The Senate, of course, with solid backing from Republicans and critical backing too from a significant number of treacherous Democrats (some of whom, like Intelligence Committee head Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have gotten significant donations from the telecom industry), has already given the president the bill he wants. It now is before the House, where some Democrats and a few Republicans who still remember there’s supposed to be a Bill of Rights, are resisting passage of the cynically named Protect America bill.

The obvious lie that the president is spreading is made evident by the fact that there is no heightened alert status—not at airports, not at the border, not at city police and fire departments.

But furthermore, if nothing were passed, it would have no impact at all on the NSA’s current spying and monitoring activities. If there really were evidence of some kind of attack in preparation, the NSA would already be monitoring it under existing authority, and would be able to continue that activity without a warrant at least until next September! And even if the authority to monitor without a warrant were not granted at that point, the administration has from now until then to obtain a warrant, which it could do anytime it wants to by going to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

So the president’s false drama of staying home from his trip to Africa is just a sham. There is no urgency to this at all.

Then there’s the whole insistence on retroactive telecom immunity. The White House claims that if immunity for past, current and future warrantless spying by the telecom industry on behalf of the NSA is not granted, it would deter the industry from cooperating with the NSA in the future.

That is yet another fraud. If the White House or NSA were to obtain a warrant for its spying, no telecom executive would or even could refuse to comply. It’s the warrantless spying that one or two phone companies, notably Quest, had objected to in the past. The answer is easy: the NSA should seek warrants for its spying. The only explanation for the administration’s refusal to seek warrants from a court that since 1978 has only rejected a handful of requests out of hundreds of thousands submitted to it, is that it knows its request would be rejected—and that should tell us all we need to know about what he is up to.

What is really clear is that the administration has done some things that it really does not want the public to know about. That is the reason it’s seeking retroactive immunity. What it fears is that class action lawsuits, some of which have already been filed, against the phone companies, will lead to discovery which would reveal who it was actually spying on over the last eight years (and this illegal spying program, we now know, began in early 2001, shortly after Bush and Cheney took office, and well before the 9-11 attacks).

The claim that such discovery could lead to release of information that could alert terrorists to the fact that they are being monitored is laughable. No federal judge would allow such a thing to happen. The federal government would only have to assert such a threat, and any judge in the federal court system would agree to review the evidence before releasing it in open court.

So what is it that the White House and the NSA have been up to all these years that Bush and Cheney are so frightened to have outed?

The answer seems painfully clear, especially given that we know the program began before Sept. 11, 2001—a period when Bush and Cheney were famously uninterested in investigating terrorism.

They had to have been spying on us—-most likely on the groups that had protested Bush’s election fraud, the Democratic opposition, possible leakers in his own administration, and then, in the wake of 9-11, the questioners of the official story of that tragic event, the growing anti-war movement, the impeachment movement, critical journalists, etc.—-in short, the same kinds of people that President Nixon, back in the 1970s, unleashed the NSA on, and which led to passage of the FISA law and the FISA court in the first place.

There is a growing shrillness to the president’s lies and to the administration’s efforts to get this protective legislation passed. With a Democratic blowout possible this November, he has to worry that all this nefarious activity could come pouring out next year, leaving both him and Vice President Cheney, by then out of office and without protection from prosecution, open to attack from both criminal prosecutors and citizen lawsuits for damages.

The House, which has been a shameless lapdog of the administration for the past year since the Democrats took control of that body, has a chance here to show it still has at least one vertebra left in its severely decalcified spine, It should refuse to pass any extension of NSA warrantless spying authority, and should refuse immunity for the telecom industry.

Let the president dangle in the wind on this one. Call your representative (202-225-3121) and let her or him know you want them to really protect America, by not passing the so-called Protect America bill!

________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative reporter and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Crime of the Century: Time for Congress to Stand Up

dlindorff — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:38:48 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

Who’s minding the store in Washington?

While President George W. Bush was standing before the members of Congress on January 28 laying out his plans, such as they are, for the final year of his second term in the White House, he was also seriously and perhaps fatally undermining the authority of Congress with a new signing statement, attached to the latest National Defense Authorization Act, in which he declared that he would simply violate or fail to comply with four provisions.

Let me say that again. The president states in writing that he is not going to obey and will not be bound by four parts of a law duly passed by the Congress.

Just so you know that we’re not talking about the naming of a bridge or a new ship, the four provisions of the act which the president is going to ignore are:

* the establishment of a commission to investigate contractor fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq
* the protection or whistleblowers who report contractor fraud from harassment or official retribution
* a requirement that US intelligence agencies respond to Congressional requests for documents
* a ban on funding for any permanent military bases in Iraq, and on any actions that would seek to give the US control over Iraq’s oil resources or oil money.

Now first of all, let’s see what the constitution has to say. Article I, the first actual statement about how our government works, which comes right after the preamble about “We the People,” states unambiguously:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

It goes on to state that:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration by two thirds of that House shall agree to apss the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law…If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it.”

Note that there is no asterisk or footnote saying anything about the president having the power to simply ignore those legislative powers or to violate them at will. If he does not veto the entire bill—and in this case he did not, he signed it—it becomes the Law of the Land.

Article I also defines the powers of the Congress expansively, stating that it has the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, ro call forth the militia, and

“to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Article II goes on to define the powers of the president. It states:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

It goes on to explicitly define and limit the president’s powers, specifically to being “commander in chief” of the armed forces (not of the country or of the government!), to the granting of reprieves and pardons (except in the case of impeachments), to making treaties (subject to Senate approval) and appointing officers to the cabinet and the courts (all subject to Senate approval).

That is it. There are no other presidential powers in the Constitution. Certainly there is no power granted to disobey or ignore Acts of Congress or to violate the law.

And yet here we have the president, at the start of his last year in office, announcing that he will not obey a law duly passed by the Congress that requires his administration to establish a commission to investigate the rampant corruption among private contractors operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, that he will not obey a law barring him from punishing whistleblowers who disclose such corruption, that he will not obey an order that his intelligence services must respond to requests from Congress for information (about such issues as torture of captives, or spying on American citizens, or destroying documents), and that he will not obey an order banning the establishment and construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and banning attempts to gain US control over Iraqi oil.

Logically one would expect members of Congress in both parties to be up in arms over this illegal and clearly unconstitutional defiance—the more so because both houses of Congress are in the hands of the Democratic Party.

But we have heard not a peep from the “people’s representatives” at this brazen abuse of power.

The reason: Congress is afraid of impeachment.

It is so afraid to confront this usurper president that, incredibly, its members, Republican and Democrat alike, seem happy to surrender not only their own power, but the power of the institution of Congress, to avoid doing what the Constitution calls upon them to do: to impeach a criminal in the White House who has abused his powers of office, who has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, and who has broken the law multiple times.

This is an appalling abrogation of responsibility on the part of our elected representatives in Washington, who also took oaths of office committing themselves to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

How can these hundreds of cowards and traitors in the Capitol, with straight faces, hold hand to heart and pledge allegiance, as they do at the start of every day in Congress? How can they with straight faces go before their constituents and pose as honorable men and women?

The Constitution is clear. It states that:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Please observe that the word is shall, not may.

Now although the evidence is overwhelming, one can nonetheless debate whether the president broke the law when he went to war in Iraq or whether he knowingly lied about the reasons for that war. One can debate whether he broke the law by personally authorizing torture of captives. One can even debate whether he broke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These are matters that require hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. But there is no need to hold hearings to decide whether the president has abused his power by declaring his intention to ignore laws passed by the Congress. This is an objective fact. A High Crime has been committed and openly confessed to by the President of the United States. Congress has only to vote on it as an impeachable act to restore its Constitutional authority, and to restore the damaged Constitution.

There is no question here of “diverting” Congress from its important duties. This need not be time-consuming business. Moreover, defending its authority from a usurper is surely the most important thing Congress can do. Neither is there any question of this being “divisive.” Every member of Congress should want to protect the Constitutional authority of the legislative branch from this fatal encroachment which, if unchallenged, renders Congress nothing but a talk shop no better than the local diner. Nor can there be any question about whether the votes are there or not, either to vote for an Article of Impeachment, or even to convict in the Senate. What member of Congress, of either party, would vote to approve and to sanction in perpetuity this or any president’s right to ignore the Constitution and willfully violate laws passed by the Congress—particularly given the likelihood that the next president could be a Democrat?

Here then, is an issue that Congress cannot ignore. Here is an issue that renders ludicrous House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that “impeachment is off the table.” Here is an issue that should inflame every American citizen. Here is an issue that should be put to every candidate for office, including those running for the office of president:

Is President Bush, and is every future president, a dictator, who personally determines what laws are to be obeyed and what laws are to be ignored? Or is the president bound, like the rest of us, by the rule of law and the Constitution?

The choice is now squarely before us all.
_____________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net where you may also order a signed hardcover copy of the impeachment book at an author's discount.

More Horsesh*t

Bob Fertik — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:02:07 -0500

So far 3,341 of you have joined our Democratic Donor Strike against the DSCC (Senate Democrats) and DCCC (House Democrats).

And it must be scaring the bejeezus out of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, because the DSCC just sent out an email from "virtual James Carville" to try to convince progressives that we should put aside our rage at Senate Democrats and give them our hard-earned money anyway.

From: James Carville info@dscc.org
Subject: More horses

Dear X,

I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I'm as frustrated as you are that more hasn't gotten done in this Congress. Like you, I want to see more progress on getting us out of this mess in Iraq, getting more folks health care, and kicking our oil habit.

I'll give the DSCC credit, this letter is punchy. And it's clever to have "virtual Carville" pretending to be on our side, feeling our pain.

Of course real Carville spends his time on TV selling Hillary Clinton and trashing her Democratic opponents. He never demands an exit from Iraq, universal health care, or "kicking our oil habit" because the Corporate Media would never let a Democrat say such anti-Corporate things. And if he tried to slip something past the Corporate Censors, Cheney's enforcer Mary Matalin would cut off his ~~dick~~ head when he got home.

But I want to be clear: That's not the fault of the horses we have. It's because we need more horses. Fifty-one Democrats in the Senate just isn't enough. Don't just take it from me. Stu Rothenberg is the gold standard of political analysts and he just said "Sixty seats is what it's about. And if the Democrats can get close to that, then they really can do things."

Stu Rothenberg's "gold" is painted Republican poop - just ask Kos, Stoller, Kos, or Stoller. Shame on "virtual Carville" for quoting him. But I digress.

Sure it would be nice to have more horses. But if those horses are trained by Carville, all we'll get is more horsesh*t.

Let's get this straight: we have all the horses we need right now to get out of Iraq and do a whole lot more.

We have a majority of the Senate, which means Majority Leader Harry Reid controls the Senate calendar and every bill that gets on that calendar or - equally important - doesn't get on that calendar.

Sure, Republicans can filibuster bills they don't like if they can get 40 votes. But it takes just one vote - Harry Reid's - to stop a bill Democrats don't like.

One vote - Harry Reid's - could stop all funding for Iraq, except what is needed to bring our troops safely home.

One vote - Harry Reid's - could stop the bill to allow warrantless wiretapping with retroactive telecom immunity.

One vote - Harry Reid's - could instruct the Democratic majority to send the Sargeant-at-Arms to arrest Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Joshua Bolten, and other former and current White House officials, for contempt of Congress in refusing to testify pursuant to subpoenas.

And on and on it goes.

If we had 60 Senate votes, Harry Reid's one vote would still decide whether to allow a vote to fund the Iraq Occupation or not. If we had 70 votes, 80 votes, 90 votes, or even 100 votes, Harry Reid would still control the calendar.

We're not stupid, and we're not sheep. We're not in the Senate so we don't know every arcane rule, but we have lawyers and we know history and we're watching every move they make - including Harry Reid's "midnight massacre" to confirm Waterboarding Mike Mukasey as Attorney General when all four anti-Mukasey Senators running for President were out of town.

The bottom line is simple: once you get past 50 in the Senate, values matter more than votes.

Our Democratic Donor Strike has four conditions:

1. Restrict any new Iraq funds to a safe withdrawal of U.S. troops - not another penny for occupation or the Bush-Maliki "enduring security guarantees"
2. Prohibit any use of funds to plan or execute a pre-emptive attack on Iran, and repeal the
post-9/11 Authorization of Use of Military Force that Bush and Cheney believe authorizes
them to attack Iran or any other country they please, as well as to wiretap all our calls
and emails without warrants

3. Fully restore the Constitution by strictly outlawing warrantless wiretapping and torture,
closing Guantanamo, and restoring habeas corpus

4. Complete the investigation of White House crimes by using "inherent contempt" to
compel testimony by current and former White House officials

If Harry Reid wants our money, he can stop hiding behind "virtual Carville" and just do it.

And while we're waiting for Godot, you can join our Democratic Donor Strike.