LACK OF PROGRESS IN CONGRESS CAN'T ALL BE BLAMED ON LIEBERMAN... THE SENATE IS FILLED WITH BAD ACTORS... AND SO IS THE HOUSE

For the last few days we've been trying to point out how the roots of the reactionary Supreme Court decisions of the past 2 weeks are the fault of the senators who blithely confirmed Bush's horrendous nominees, John Roberts and Sam Alito, two of the worst far right extremist activists ever nominated for the high court. Republicans who pose as "moderates" and "independent voices" for the actual moderates back home-- rubber stamp trash like Norm Coleman (MN), Gordon Smith (OR), Susan Collins (ME), John Sununu (NH), John Warner (VA), Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (NM)-- not only enthusiastically voted for Roberts and Alito, neither of whom hid his fascistic judicial approach-- but they voted for all Bush's extremist judicial appointments-- hundreds and hundreds of them.

And it isn't only faux moderate Republicans. There are plenty of Democrats perfectly comfortable supporting agendas and policies designed to bolster corporate profits at the expense of even the most basic interests and even rights of workers, consumers and ordinary Americans. As I mentioned last night in my review of Sicko, one of my favorite scenes was where Michael Moore explains how the French government is motivated by self-preservation to do what French voters want. In France the government is afraid of the voters; in the U.S. the voters are afraid of the government. We need to change that. Last year I could hardly believe that Nebraska Democrats didn't even bother to challenge Ben Nelson, who votes more frequently with Republicans on substantive matters than with Democrats. This year, it appears that neither Max Baucus (MT) nor Mary Landrieu (LA) will have a primary opponent, although their voting records are so consistently horrible that neither has earned the vote of a single Democrat or moderate. I could almost say the same for Mark Pryor (AR) but, as terrible as he is-- and he is-- Baucus and Landrieu are far worse. In terms of voting records, all three-- plus Nelson-- actually do make Lieberman appear to almost be a moderate-- although Lieberman, of course, has other issues aside from just his voting record.

In the light of this-- and, more important, in the light of cascading poll numbers for congressional approval-- on Friday Speaker Pelosi went on the record to blame the lack of accomplishment on the Senate. She has a good case, although the House has been far from the model of good government democracy, not just in terms of Iraq-- the reason for the dismal polling-- but even on issues of basic fairness. Still, overall, Pelosi is correct: premeditated obstructionism in the Senate has kept Congress from moving forward with the agenda the voters endorsed last November.

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate."

Immigration has joined Iraq, stem cell research, Medicare drug pricing, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and other promises in the dustbin of the current Congress. Heading into a July Fourth recess after a bruising failure on immigration, Congress has a public approval rating in the mid-20s, lower than Bush's and no better than Republicans' ratings on the eve of their catastrophic election defeat in November, when the GOP lost control of the Senate and the House.

So little has been achieved that Reid threatened to hold the Senate in session during the August recess, the congressional equivalent of torture.

..."It's becoming very concerning to many of us that we've got a 49-49 stalemate in the Senate, and we are beginning to look to the American people like we're ineffective," said one California House Democrat who did not want to speak for attribution. "No matter what we do on the House side, we can't get things through the Senate."

To be sure, Democrats have passed a minimum-wage increase and a budget. But they are far short in either body of the two-thirds majorities they need to overcome a slew of Bush veto threats in looming battles over spending and taxes.

House Republican leaders crowed Friday about "a string of broken promises" by Democrats. The same Republicans who had let spending earmarks for members' pet projects spin completely out of control during their reign are now making their stand on earmark reform-- their stated reason for blocking the lobbying bill.

Some Republicans, however, are not so sure that waging partisan battles while waiting for the next election is necessarily a recipe for success.

A blowout in the elections in 2008-- with a Democratic president, well-earned massive Republican losses in the Senate and House-- would go a long way towards convincing "the government" to fear the people, although the massive Republican losses in Congress should be preceded and accompanied by challenges to reactionary Democratic incumbents like Al Wynn (MD), John Barrow (GA), David Scott (GA), and Dan Lipinski (IL).

In fact, House Democrats in blue districts who have reactionary voting records have all earned primaries. I'm not even talking about Dixiecrat monstrosities like Jim Marshall (GA), Gene Taylor (MS), Dan Boren (OK), Bud Cramer (AL), and Allen Boyd (FL), all of whom are in naturally Republican districts. I'm talking about a long list of Democrats in relatively safe Democratic seats who on a very consistent basis vote with Bush and the Republicans. They don't deserve any support or sympathy. The following reactionary Democrats vote with Republicans are crucial issues and are in safe or leaning Democratic districts. (I'm not even including toss-up districts.)

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Tanner (TN-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Marion Berry (AR-01)
Mike Ross (AR-04)
Jim Cooper (TN-04)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
David Scott (GA-13)
Silvestre Reyes (TX-16)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Vic Snyder (AR-02)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Artur Davis (AL-07)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Al Wynn (MD-04)
Other Democrats in safe-- not even leaning-- blue seats who tend to vote with the Republicans far too much include John Murtha (PA), Bob Andrews (NJ), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Jim Moran (VA), Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Shelley Berkley (NV), Joe Baca (CA), Mike McNulty (NY), Bill Pascrell (NJ), and, of course, Ellen Tauscher (CA).

The newly elected Democrats who have accumulated the most reactionary voting records-- and should under no circumstances be supported by progressives-- are, in order from truly horrendous to just unacceptable-- Rahm Emanuel's Heath Shuler (NC), Joe Donnelly (IN), Jason Altmire (PA), Baron Hill (IN), Nick Lampson (TX), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Chris Carney (PA), Zach Space (OH) and Tim Mahoney (FL). Freshmen on the watch list are Patrick Murphy (PA), Harry Mitchell (AZ), and Ciro Rodriguez (TX).

And as long as we're looking at freshmen, let me add that the newly elected members with the most sterling voting records, newly elected members we should all be proud of and support in whatever ways we can are (in order of stupendous to merely great) are: Keith Ellison (MN), Mazie Hirono (HI), Yvette Clarke (NY), Hank Johnson (GA), Peter Welch (VT), Paul Hodes (NH), John Sarbanes (MD), Betty Sutton (OH), Dave Loebsack (IA), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Steve Cohen (TN), and Kathy Castor (FL).

And since we started talking about the Senate, the freshmen there with the consistently best records are Ben Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA-- a shock, since I expected far worse from him), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Bernie Sanders (VT). At the bottom of the barrel we find high hopes dashed by Claire McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT).