Chicken Reform

I said it the other day, and I feel the need to repeat it: the public does not yet understand that the government is about to order people to buy health insurance, with their own money. Yes, the government is about to order people to cough up hundreds of dollars a month each.

When the Republicans start using their toxic message-machine magic on this, and the public starts to understand that they are being ordered by the government to cough up a huge amount of money every month, Democrats had better have good hiding places, because things are going to get really bad out there.

This is the kind of policy that results when "centrist" Democrats give in to to the demands of Republicans and big corporations and the top 1% of the wealthy. Instead of just taxing the wealthy and corporations at reasonable rates and using the money to provide We, the People with health care -- thereby vastly improving the economy for ... the wealthy and big corporations -- they instead come up with a scheme to order regular people to pay for health insurance because they don't already have it because they can't afford it. - Dave Johnson - Open Left

how hillary can win the democratic nomination

A Third Bush Term?

How Clinton or Obama could lose to these people is beyond me. But, of course the country I live in is not the country that others live in, obviously.

immigration and the border fence

hello SG readers. i was reluctant to post this for fear it had already been discussed but here goes anyway. in looking at the democratic candidates positions on immigration issues, i was surprised to see how many of them voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to cnnpolitics.com the following democratic candidates voted to authorize it: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, & Obama. (i won't even bother with the republicans.)

A wall is not the answer to immigration reform or keeping out terrorists. It can only mean a strain on budgets, the environment & ecosystem, local indian tribes, and families trying to make a better life for themselves. I found this article to be informative.

I like Obama & Edwards and was especially surprised that Obama voted for it. What is he thinking? I also found this site that shows a mixed record of voting on border control. I'm not up to speed on all of the details so any insight is appreciated.

A Figurative and Public Waterboarding of the Democrats

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting column today: What Happened to the Senate's 60 Vote requirement? That of course was my first instinct and was of course ready to voice my displeasure, but something really stinks about this. Greenwald says: Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

The Senate approved Mukasey Thursday night despite democratic criticism that he failed to take a principled stance or any stance for that matter on waterboarding. The vote went 53- 40 in favor. Six democrats voted for him and of course the moron "independent" Let's kill everyone Lieberman. All four Senate Democrats who are running for President did not vote because of campaign commitments I suppose. Thus, the democrats along with Bernie Sanders had 44 votes against Mukasey more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

Greenwald Continues: Over and over again this year, Republican filibusters were depicted (both by Senate Democrats and the media) as nothing more the routine need to obtain the "60 votes required" for passage of any measure in the Senate. That "requirement" was said to apply to everything, including immigration ("The Senate voted 52-44 for the DREAM Act, but 60 votes were required to end debate"); Iraq withdrawal timetables ("Support is expected to top 50 votes but fall short of the 60 required"); troop leave requirements ("Webb's Iraq bill inches closer to 60 . . . . Winning at least three of those Republicans over could give the Democrats the 60 votes they need"); and warrantless surveillance ("Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority").

It isn't true that there is a 60 vote requirement because Republicans are the only ones willing to impose and Democrats as something as grave as torture will not impose it. An attorney General who is "dead wrong on torture" and who won't even "tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress."

We are not a ruling party (the Democrats that is), we are not even an opposition party. Six years ago, as Greenwald says you couldn't be wrong on torture. Torture was just that - torture. Now, with the Iraq war funding bill on the horizon once again with the Democrats make the same argument. Sorry, here is a blank check because we need 60 votes to do anything.

We are either stuck with the warmongering Republicans or the vacillating spineless democrats. Who said Ralph Nader was wrong? Because I want to have that conversation again.

Donor Strike Against the Democratic Party

I received this email from democrats.com. It is a donor strike, not giving another cent until certain conditions apply. Here is the email in full, the donor strike and the petition. What do you think? I, for one cannot as a matter of conscience support a democratic party that is in name only (certainly with the exclusion of some very good party members) and caves every chance they have.

In 2006, the voters of America elected Democratic majorities to the Senate and House in order

to end the occupation of Iraq and restore the Constitution of the United States. We, the Netroots, helped elect Democratic majorities with large contributions of money, time, and passion.

Unfortunately Congressional Democrats have surrendered to George Bush and Dick Cheney on all of the issues we care about most: Iraq, Iran, warrantless wiretapping, torture, and habeas corpus.
We recognize that "Bush Democrats" are primarily to blame for Democratic failures, and we will

do whatever we can to change their minds - or replace them with true Democrats in 2008.

But we cannot wait until then to fix the urgent problems we face.
We will therefore begin a donor strike against the official fundraising committees for Senate Democrats (DSCC) and House Democrats (DCCC) until our core demands are met. We will instead contribute only to individual candidates who firmly support the values of the Democratic Party and the American people, as certified by BlueAmerica and Progressive Challenge 2008.

To: Senator Chuck Schumer, Chair, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Chair, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

I write to inform you that I am joining the Democratic Donor Strike against the DSCC and DCCC. While I continue to support the Democratic Party and will contribute to Democratic committees and candidates who are fighting for progressive causes, I will not support the DSCC or DCCC until the Democratic-controlled Congress accomplishes these four goals:

1. Restrict any new Iraq funds to a safe withdrawal of U.S. troops - the "Peace Pledge"adopted by 90 House Members;

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.

I understand that it takes a majority of votes to accomplish these goals, but I consider it the responsibility of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, as the Leaders of our Party, to deliver those votes.

If you want my help, I will be delighted to lobby my Senators and Representative to support whatever legislation you introduce to accomplish these goals, and to encourage all my friends and relatives to join me in this lobbying. All you have to do is lead the way.

Thank you for your attention to my urgent concerns about the crisis we face as a Nation.

Mario Cuomo on the Power to Declare War

Mario Cuomo is making the argument that Democrats are abdicating their responsibility in giving Bush the authority to declare war. Governor Cuomo is my modern day political hero, he is smarter than everyone else (including Clinton), more articulate than everyone else and respects the rule of law. Where have you gone Mario Cuomo? We need you more than ever.

Russ Feingold (Once Again) Stands Alone in the Senate

All along Senator Feingold from Wisconsin was my first choice to be the anti-war candidate for the Democrats in 2008. After the stellar 2006 election cycle Russ decided not to run much to the dismay of the left. Yesterday, however he renewed his stance as the only one in the Senate who is truly anti-war.

In a vote of 94-1 the Senate agreed to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq. Additionally, the administration has been given emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide new infusions of money for the occupation while the Congress works on appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and other agencies.

Translation: Under the guise of a stop-gap spending bill that is simply supposed to keep the government running until a long-delayed appropriations process is completed -- probably in November -- the Congress has just approved a massive increase in war funding.

The five senators who did not vote were Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Republicans John McCain and Sam Brownback.

In the House the measure passed 404-14 with many in the anti-war caucus casting nay votes including Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Feingold said of the measure:"I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2008 fiscal year without having enacted any of the appropriations bills for that year. I am even more disappointed that we voted on a continuing resolution that provides tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war in Iraq but does not include any language to bring that war to a close. We need to keep the federal government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be giving the President a blank check to continue a war that is hurting our national security."

Said Kucinich:"Each year this war is getting more and more costly --- both in the amount of money spent and in the number of lives lost. Now this Congress is providing more funds so the administration can continue down a path of destruction and chaos...the Democratic leadership in Congress needs to take a stand against this President and say they will not give him any more money. That is the only way to end this war and bring our troops home."

When you went to the polls in November, 2006 did you think this is what you were getting? Discouraged does not even begin to tell what I am feeling here on September 28, 2007.

Quote of the Day: Giving and Taking

This is from a piece at Slept on Magazine (a brilliant new website) called Giving and Taking. Read it - it is short, but provocative. It is a call to democrats who support the centrists and really any of the candidates who have sold out the people.

The misery sweeping across the American landscape may have begun with Ronald Reagan, but it was accelerated and codified by Bill Clinton. He sold out the poor and the working class. And Clinton did it deliberately to feed the pathological hunger he and his wife have for political power. It was the Clintons who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough. The Clintons argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, the Clintons argued, to take corporate money and use government to service the needs of the corporations. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton’s leadership, had virtual fund-raising parity with the Republicans. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal. - Chris Hedges-

What the Troop Draw Down is Really About

We will be at the same levels next summer we were a summer ago. It is a bait and switch and the Democrats twiddle their thumbs saying - "hey we just don't have the votes." He is the President, the Commander -in Chief. Although read this article that says it only takes 51 Senators to End this War. It is worth it.

See here the Center for American Progress' take on what the President said last night. It is actually a pre-rebuttal argument, but it gets the points right.

A Spy Chief is the New FISA Court

I have been devastated over the last couple of days (thus the reason for our absence) to realize our constitution has been shit on, not only by Bush and his neo-con crackerjack incompetents, but by Democrats too scared or too elitist to challenge Bush in any way.

For the first time in nearly four decades, a senior intelligence official — not a secretive federal court — will have a decisive voice in whether Americans' communications can be monitored when they talk to foreigners overseas.

The new bill gives National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joint authority to approve the monitoring of such calls and e-mails, rather than the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Before the passage of the law, the President was in violation of the constitution, today it is the law. This action is no less a violation of separation of powers as was the Iraq War authorization.

This means an intelligence official is now empowered to sort through the legalistic, secretive world of FISA, rather than a judge or the nation's highest law enforcement officer. McConnell was added to the legal decision-making after lawmakers argued that the attorney general shouldn't hold the power alone. The spy chief's experience is largely in military intelligence, not legal matters. Oh, should we be thrilled that it is not Gonzalez alone? Are we supposed to be happy it is two people in the Executive branch (virtually and figuratively) instead of a court of law set-up to do such monitoring.

Civil liberties groups and some Democrats call the bill a vast expansion of government power. In the past several days, officials who work for McConnell, the Justice Department and the Republican congressional leadership have argued vehemently that that isn't so. Where the hell are they? Where is the outrage?

Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies, which advocates for civil liberties, said the new law will potentially allow the government to intercept millions of Americans' calls and e-mails without warrants — as long as the NSA and other authorities have a foreign suspect in their sights. "This power that they have obtained is a dramatic expansion," she said.

The power may last longer than some people expect, Graves noted, thanks to a little-noticed provision of the bill. While the law expires in February unless Congress acts to extend it, any surveillance orders that are in place when it sunsets can last up to a full year, she said.
Without a repeal, lawmakers "weren't just giving them the power for six months. They were giving it to them for the rest of the administration," Graves said.

Make no mistake about it, this bill is a vast expansion of power. See talk left for more discussion and how a President with 25% approval rating can strong arm this Democratic Congress. I am disgusted.