Daily Blog

Dems Hug Lobbyists

    Last Fall, during the election, I mused numerous times about the worrisome phenomena of Democrats hugging corporate lobbyists (for example, here). Yeah, I know, this isn't new. The point was that if Democrats wanted to take power and really be different, they needed to reject those kind of relationships.

    Well, The Politico has a story which is not a good sign:

The top Democrats on the 20 most business-related congressional committees hauled in nearly $240,000 from the 35 most active corporate political action committees in the first couple of months of the year, according to an analysis by The Politico.

Their Republican counterparts -- the committees' ranking members -- received $182,200 from the same industry committees.

The giving trend reflects a simple reality: Democrats are resetting congressional legislative priorities, threatening some industries and boosting others. Previous Republican chairmen, for instance, were content to largely protect the energy industry; the new Democratic hierarchy wants to remake it. Companies from both sides of that equation are now trying to make sure they can get a hearing with the new agenda-setters.

    Read the rest here. This is a far more important aspect of our politics than who happens to be leading in the polls.

The Problem With Obama

    I've not been drinking the Obama kool-aid. And here are two reasons why. First, it was the well-publicized unwillingness to state clearly that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. Like the junior senator from New York, Obama subsequently issued a second statement saying he did not think homosexuality was immoral. But, you have to wonder, for a guy who is claiming to be about unity, about a fresh voice--why was it so difficult to get it right the first time.

    Then, comes this: in reaction to an L.A. Times story claiming that he had prayed at a mosque, Obama's campaign issued this statement:

"Barack Obama is not and has never been a Muslim," the campaign stressed. "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."

    Why is he so defensive? Why wouldn't a statement from the candidate who claims to be a new voice of tolerance and not of politics as usual, at the very least say: there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Muslim. Seems odd to me.

U.S. Not Credible on Iran--More

    Yesterday, I wrote about doubts international diplomats have about the charges the U.S. is leveling against Iran. The posting yesterday referred to a piece in the Los Angeles Times. Today, The NYTimes mimics the theme. Hey, I'm not complaining--if we can get the mainstream media to not roll over whenever the president makes claims about Iran a la the lies around Iraq, maybe we can avoid another fiasco.

    The piece today relates to a raid that got much attention and was used by the Administration to fuel more saber-rattling against Iran:

A raid on a Shiite weapons cache in the southern city of Hilla one week ago is providing what American officials call the best evidence yet that the deadliest roadside bombs in Iraq are manufactured in Iran, but critics contend that the forensic case remains circumstantial and inferential.

The new evidence includes infrared sensors, electronic triggering devices and information about plastic explosives used in bombs that the Americans say lead back to Iran. The explosive material, triggering devices, other components and the method of assembly all produce weapons with an Iranian signature that has never been found outside Iraq or southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is believed to have used weapons supplied by Iran, the Americans say.

But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iraq or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible.

    The rest of the piece is here. This is the old story of the boy who cried wolf: anything the U.S. says now in terms of claims about Iran will be--and should be--viewed skeptically because of this Administration's fabrications about the Iraq war.

    Here's something I noticed, whether sinister or not: the headline of the print version of the Times
says, "U.S. Says Raid in Iraq Supports Claim on Iran, but Doubt Persists." But, the web version of the article drops the last three words, removing, at least from the headline, words that would cast more doubt on the claim.

Bush Is Over

    I don't need to say much more. Check out this website:

http://www.bushisover.org/gallery.htm

Dems Gearing Up for 2008 House Races

    Congressional Quarterly has a story on the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee's "Frontline" program: the Democrats who are deemed most vulnerable in 2008 and, thus, get special early attention. I noticed, in particular, that Melissa Bean is on the list. Readers of this blog will note that I am not a fan of Bean since she was one of the CAFTA 15--the Democrats who rolled over for corporate interests and voted for the so-called "free trade" deal. Maybe Bean, having just squeaked through, will get with the program and note that voters elected many new Democrats who ran on platforms explicitly opposing so-called "free trade" deals like CAFTA.

    The drumroll, please (The candidate who carried each district in the 2004 presidential election — either President Bush for the Republicans or Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for the Democrats — is in parentheses at the end of each entry.)

Democrats who unseated Republican incumbents

Jason Altmire, who defeated Melissa A. Hart in Pennsylvania’s 4th District with 52 percent of the vote. (Bush)

Christopher Carney, who defeated Don Sherwood with 53 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania’s 10th District. (Bush)

Joe Courtney, who defeated Rob Simmons in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District with 50 percent of the vote. (Kerry)

Joe Donnelly, who beat Chris Chocola with 54 percent of the vote in Indiana’s 2nd District. (Bush)

Brad Ellsworth defeated John Hostettler with 61 percent of the vote in Indiana’s 8th District. (Bush)

Kirsten Gillibrand, who defeated John E. Sweeney with 53 percent of the vote in New York’s 20th District. (Bush)

John Hall, who defeated Sue W. Kelly in New York’s 19th District with 51 percent of the vote. (Bush)

Baron P. Hill, who defeated Mike Sodrel with 50 percent of the vote in Indiana’s 9th District seat. Sodrel had unseated three-term incumbent Hill in the 2004 election. (Bush)

Paul W. Hodes, who defeated for Charles Bass with 53 percent of the vote in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District. (Kerry)

Ron Klein, who defeated E. Clay Shaw Jr. in Florida’s 22nd District with 51 percent of the vote. (Kerry)

Jerry McNerney, who defeated Richard W. Pombo with 53 percent of the vote in California’s 11th District. (Bush)

Harry E. Mitchell, who defeated J.D. Hayworth with 50 percent of the vote in Arizona’s 5th Congressional District. (Bush)

Christopher S. Murphy, who defeated Nancy L. Johnson with 56 percent of the vote in Connecticut’s 5th Congressional District. (Kerry)

Patrick J. Murphy, who defeated Michael G. Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District with 50 percent of the vote. (Kerry)

Ciro D. Rodriguez, who defeated Henry Bonilla with 54 percent of the vote in the 23rd District of Texas. Rodriguez, who first won a House seat in a 1997 special election, was unseated by Democrat Henry Cuellar in the 2004 primary in the neighboring 28th District. (Bush)

Heath Shuler, who defeated Charles H. Taylor with 54 percent of the vote for North Carolina’s 11th District. (Bush)

Tim Walz, who defeated Gil Gutknecht with 53 percent of the vote for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District. (Bush)

John Yarmuth, who defeated Anne M. Northup with 51 percent of the vote for Kentucky’s 3rd District seat. (Kerry)

Democrats who took over seats left open by Republicans who retired, resigned or ran for other offices

Michael Arcuri of New York’s 24th District, who defeated Republican Ray Meier with 54 percent of the vote for the seat of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, who retired. (Bush)

Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona’s 8th District who defeated Republican Randy Graf with 54 percent of the vote for the seat of Rep. Jim Kolbe, who retired. (Bush)

Steve Kagen of Wisconsin’s 8th District, who defeated Republican John Gard for with 51 percent of the vote for the seat of Rep. Mark Green, who ran unsuccessfully for governor. (Bush)

Nick Lampson of the 22nd District of Texas, who defeated Republican Shelley Sekula-Gibbs with 52 percent of the vote for the seat previously held by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who resigned June 9. Lampson, first elected to the House in 1996, rebounded after losing to Republican Ted Poe in the 2nd District in 2004. (Bush)

Tim Mahoney of Florida’s 16th District, who defeated Republican Joe Negron with 50 percent of the vote to succeed Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned Sept. 29 amid a congressional page scandal. Though Foley’s name remained on the ballot under state law, the votes cast on the Republican line were accorded to Negron. (Bush)

Zack Space of Ohio’s 18th District who defeated Republican Joy Padgett with 62 percent of the vote to succeed Rep. Bob Ney, who resigned Nov. 3 after pleading guilty to corruption charges in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Ney, renominated in May 2006, quit the race in August and was replaced on the ballot by Padgett. (Bush)

Re-elected Democratic incumbents

John Barrow, who was elected to a second term representing Georgia’s 12th District with 50 percent of the vote and a lead of just more than 1,000 votes over Republican Max Burns. Barrow had unseated one-term Rep. Burns in the 2004 election. (Kerry)

Melissa Bean, who was elected to a second term representing Illinois’ 8th District with 51 percent of the vote over Republican David McSweeney. (Bush)

Leonard L. Boswell, who was elected to a sixth term representing the 3rd District of Iowa with 52 percent of the vote over Republican Jeff Lamberti. (Bush)

Chet Edwards, who was elected to a ninth term with 58 percent of the vote over Van Taylor in the 17th District of Texas. (Bush) ppp Jim Marshall , who won a third House term in Georgia’s 8th District, defeating Republican former Rep. Mac Collins with 51 percent of the vote. (Bush)

    You can read the whole article here.

Taking All The Credit

    One thing that is now clear is that Barack Obama's charmed life is coming to an end. The press basically gave him a free ride until now...but check out this story in the L.A.Times--and expect to see more in the future:

The drama began with a tiny ad in a local newspaper — a notice that asbestos was about to be removed from the management office at Altgeld Gardens, the all-black public housing complex where young Barack Obama worked as a community organizer.

"You think it's in our apartments?" a worried mother asked.

"I don't know," Obama replied. "But we can find out."

What followed, Obama says in a memoir, was a life-altering experience, an early taste of his ability to motivate the powerless and work the levers of government. As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. pppppp But others tell the story much differently.

They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance." Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known, pre-existing group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.

    The rest of the story is here.

The Media Decides

    I think this has been commented on here and there but it's worth amplifying. The mainstream media is already beginning to play its role: deciding who is a "credible" candidate in the 2008 races and who is not. The coverage for some candidates is far more prominent than others--almost regardless of their positions.

    I'll actually start with Republicans. Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Duncan Hunter announced that they are running for president--except you really wouldn't know they were running unless you found the small mentions in the back pages of The New York Times. This is true of the other main papers. Yet, the mainstream media is awash in stories about John McCain--even though I think he is tanking very quickly with his embrace of the Iraq escalation plan, which is hated even by large number of Republicans. My point is this: why shouldn't the voters actually get a full, broad range of coverage about the positions of Brownback and Hunter? I shudder to think of a country under the leadership of either one--but it's the voters who should decide that. And that's hard when they are marginalized.

    The same is true of the Democrats. Dennis Kucinich is running--though you'd barely know it. The entire focus has become celebrity-driven: the "rock stars" dominate...need I mention those names. Sad state of affairs again when it comes to full public debate about issues.

Why Were Democrats Applauding?

    It’s too easy to pound on the president’s State of The Union address. I’ll leave that to the red-meat crowd. What annoyed the crap out of me was watching the Democrats. I’m not referring to the perpetual suck-ups like Reps. Eliot Engel and Loretta Sanchez, two of the many Democrats I spotted jostling for position to shake the president’s hand (what is it with the air in Washington, D.C. that makes people want to cozy up to a politician who two-thirds of the voters detest?). I’m talking about the vast numbers of Democrats, sometimes the entire caucus, who applauded, sometimes as part of standing ovations, for speech lines that deserved stony silence.

    Let’s look at just a few. “First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause, including large numbers of Democrats going wild) We can do so without raising taxes (Applause, including large numbers of Democrats).” And, then, moments later: “In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause, including many Democrats).”

    First of all, balancing the budget is not, and should not be, the first priority at a time when, for example, 48 million Americans have no health care. The trade deficit—as distinguished from the fiscal deficit—is a much bigger issue: and, yet, the president said zero, nada, nothing about the trade deficit and how to grapple with a growing threat (I would have said: let the dollar fall more…which would make it a bit more expensive for tourists but mostly agitate powerful corporations like Wal-Mart who depend on a strong dollar to make imports cheaper and keep labor costs abroad nice and low).

    Second, even if you believed that balancing the federal budget was the first priority, it is incomprehensible that Democrats would loudly approve of a line about not raising taxes. That’s simply a lie—if our party has any intention of pursuing a sane domestic agenda. When I wrote about a future Democratic agenda, I argued that it would be nothing short of criminal, given what we need to do in the country, if the Democrats did not push for hiking taxes on the top 1 percent of income earner—those who pull in at least $1.3 million a year—who will pocket more than $347 billion in the next four years if Bush’s tax cuts are allowed to continue. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, if you want to close the deficit, go where the money is.

    The Democratic Party I want, and I believe our country needs, is a party that has to stop pandering to people on the question of taxes. Taxes are a membership fee we pay for schools, roads, safe food, a clean environment and a whole host of things that make our daily lives so much better than many other people around the world. Yes, the average person fears that their taxes will go up simply because they are being squeezed from every direction. But, it’s pretty simple to say: we want to pay for health care for every American by asking those who already have yachts, private planes and mansions to pay a little more to make sure our country stays strong.

    And, of course, there is Iraq: “On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause, with many Democrats going wild.)” There will be no victory in Iraq. We destroyed a country, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, Americans and Iraqis. We will have squandered at least one trillion dollars—perhaps as much as two trillions dollars.

    But, our party, as on taxes, is still caught in a trap. Democrats cheer the words promising “victory” because they don’t have the spine—and, frankly, the moral compass—to admit that Iraq is a defeat. Period. A defeat not just because of the human and economic losses but because what our government has done in Iraq is an obscene shredding of the very values that we would like the rest of the world to believe we stand for. Where is the courageous Democrat, not out of audacity or hope or some other empty sloganeering, who can stand before the country and call Iraq a defeat—and, thereby, start the healing, not just here but around the world?

    As an amusing aside: When Bush congratulated the new majority party in Congress, he did so using the typical Republican reference to the opposition party: “Democrat majority.” And the official White House transcript keeps that language. But, CBS and CNN’s version of the transcript of the speech (I didn’t check other sources because of time) changed the words to “Democratic majority,”—the correct name of the Democratic Party but not what the president said.

    If the president won’t even give you the respect to use the correct name of your party, why would you respect his office by clapping for him, particularly when he’s dead wrong?

Ford Prolonged Our Nightmare

    One of the most common themes we are now asked to accept, as part of the hagiography surrounding the death of Gerald Ford, is that Ford ended our "long national nightmare" by pardoning Richard Nixon over his crimes in "Watergate" and that such an act remains a positive part of his legacy. In the debate over whether the pardon should have been granted, the focus has typically been on the dynamic at the time and what would be gained by putting the disgraced president and the nation through a criminal proceeding.

    Here's another way of seeing it: by pardoning Nixon, Ford actually prolonged our national nightmare and, along with others, paved our nation's march forward that has culminated in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Iraq War. We can only heal our nation now with the impeachment and trial of the current president and vice president. Richard Nixon broke the law.

    Each of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July 1974, ended with this sentence: "In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

    Contrary to his trust as President. Subversive of constitutional government. Great prejudice to the cause of law and justice. Manifest injury to the people of the United States.

    Not to mention illegal conduct of the war in Cambodia. One of the two articles of impeachment that was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee was Article V that charged Nixon with violating his oath as Commander in Chief when he "authorized, ordered, and ratified the concealment from the Congress of false and misleading statements concerning the existence, scope and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war, to make appropriations and to raise and support armies, and by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office."

    Doesn't this all sound familiar?

    Nixon escaped trial and conviction by resigning from office. But, Ford's pardon, then, left Nixon unaccountable for the crimes he committed against the people of our country, and the conduct of an illegal war against the people of Cambodia. I would venture to guess that an actual trial in a court outside the Congress would have spread broadly beyond the approved Articles of Impeachment and incorporated the illegal war that Nixon (and his sidekick in crime, Henry Kissinger) conducted without the consent of the peoples' elected representatives.

    We needed a trial of Richard Nixon so that the people could clearly see the abuse of power. We needed a trial because the people needed to witness, in excruciating detail, the abuse of power that went far beyond a political break-in and cover-up. Nixon's abuse of power reverberated around the globe, particularly in illustrating how our country too often treats nations who don't particularly agree with our national global aims or do not want to heel to our "strategic" interests. The trial and conviction of Nixon in a court of law might have made quite clear to the nation how our country's leader behave in the name of the people and also sent a message to the world that our democracy means something because we hold lawbreakers accountable, no matter who they are.

    Gerald Ford may have been a regular guy. He may have been a really nice guy. I can't tell you that because I never met him. But, respecting the personal grief felt by his family at his passing, we shouldn't obscure the truth that he did damage to the rule of law--damage that we are still paying for.

    Which brings us to our current situation. I think it is a fair argument to make that had Nixon been convicted and served a prison term--as he should have--the Iraq war might never have happened--and hundreds of thousands of people would not have died, we would not have squandered as much as $2 trillion on an insane war and we would not have opened up a huge rift in our relations around the world. Is it not likely and plausible that, with the precedent of a Nixon conviction and imprisonment very much branded in the consciousness of our elected leaders, the current president and vice president (particularly the latter who worked in the Ford presidency) might have paused for a moment, in their improper, fallacious and illegal pursuit of an immoral war and the evisceration of our civil liberties, to ponder whether they were committing acts that might land them in jail? Given the individuals, I'll concede that perhaps nothing would have deterred them from committing impeachable offenses, that in the words of the House, were "subversive of constitutional government," caused "great prejudice to the cause of law and justice" and brought "manifest injury to the people of the United States."

   

We can undo some of the damage that the Nixon pardon caused. And that task must be taken up by the incoming Democratic majority. Incoming Speaker Pelosi and incoming Majority Leader Reid, if you continue to refuse to hold the current Administration accountable, as set forth in our Constitution, for the breaking of our laws and the violation of their sworn oaths, you will only be prolonging our national nightmare for years and possible generations to come. Future presidents will not hesitate to repeat the behavior of the Nixon and Bush Administrations because they will see our track record--our unwillingness to hold our elected leaders accountable for laws they violate. Based on lies that they will cloak in their own justification and without the proper Constitutional authority, future presidents will embark on wars that will kill countless more young men and women.

The Donald on Bush

    I am no fan of Donald Trump. I think he is a blowhard, real estate leech. But, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. You may have already seen his comments in Maureen Dowd's column today. On the Bush twins, he says:

“When you’re a president who has destroyed the lives of probably a million people, our soldiers and Iraqis who are maimed and killed — you see children going into school in Baghdad with no arms and legs — I don’t think Bush’s kids should be having lots of fun in Argentina,” he says.

    And a bit more on Bush and others:

“No matter how long we stay in Iraq, no matter how many soldiers we send, the day we leave, the meanest, most vicious, most brilliant man in the country, a man who makes Saddam Hussein look like a baby, will take over and spit on the American flag,” he says. “Bush will go down as the worst and by far the dumbest president in history.”

Colin Powell, he considers irredeemable as well: “He’s speaking up now, but he’s no longer relevant. I call him a pathetic and sad figure.”