Streams Of Consciousness, Dec. 2

Wonderers are wondering how the incredibly popular and respected Donna Edwards missed out on being elected chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus last night. More than a few sources have told me that even after Donna's idea for swapping out the co-chair structure for a single chairmanwoman was voted down, Donna was still in the running-- along with the two eventual winners, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). What did her candidacy in, oddly enough, was the aggressive advocacy by the very much disliked and ineffective outgoing co-chair, Lynn Woolsey. "Her leadership style," she told caucus members all week, "will be just like mine." That was enough to bring in a couple dozen CPC members who normally don't vote in these kinds of caucus meetings and who aren't aware that Donna is nothing like the demented and confused Woolsey (who was originally pushed into Congress by the Petaluma City Council so they could get rid of her).

Her whispering about how the extremely well-liked and admired Grijalva was "impossible to work with," wound up hurting Donna by being associated, albeit unfairly, with Woolsey. The Caucus then went on to elect Hank Johnson (D-GA) whip and 5 vice-Chair/liasons-- Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus), William Lacey Clay (Hispanic & Native American Caucuses), Chellie Pingree (Women's Caucus), Judy Chu (Asian and Pacific American Caucus), and Tammy Baldwin (LGBT Caucus). Grijalva and Ellison issued the following joint statement after their election:

“We are honored to have the opportunity to serve as co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for the 112th Congress.  We will work tirelessly to project a progressive vision for America, and to advocate that vision to the American public.  Working families deserve a commitment from Congress to look out for their interests every day, and the Progressive Caucus will be on the front lines to honor that commitment.
 
The 112th Congress will present many challenges and opportunities for this country. As co-chairs, we will advocate for America’s working families and strive to ensure middle class prosperity for generations to come. We will work with President Obama to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and to make peace the guiding principle of our foreign policy. We will be the first to reject and defeat Republican attempts to eliminate benefits for unemployed Americans even as they call for another billionaire bailout. We will continue to work with the broader progressive community to ensure that every American who wants to work can find a good-paying job to support their family. These and other fights will take time and dedication, and we welcome the opportunity to lead the way.
 
With Republicans promising to scrooge the country out of a secure retirement, our commitment to protect the American middle class will be more important than ever. The American people need effective advocates-- in and outside of Washington-- to restore their faith in their government’s ability and willingness to do the right thing. Over the next two years, Republicans are going to push as hard as they can to cut programs that the American people depend on, like Social Security, and the Progressive Caucus will be out in front reminding them that Congress works for all of the American people, not just the top tax bracket. We stand ready to take on these important fights, and intend to win them decisively. America deserves no less.”

I saw some interesting responses from Democratic insiders over the 234-188 passage of the middle class tax cuts extension today. (We'll have an analysis of this vote up at 6AM.) One congressional buddy of mine told me he thinks if the vote had been taken before the midterms many Democrats who were defeated could have run on it and kept their seats. The Blue Dogs who told Hoyer they would lose if it was voted on before the midterms lost anyway, over two dozen of the most worthless and scummiest of them-- many of whom voted against the middle class tax cuts anyway today.

Obama, who Matt Bai reported today in the NY Times privately considers himself a Blue Dog, had an absolutely dreadful reaction to the passage of the bill. My friend Brad Reed from Crooks and Liars, in a fit of rage, e-mailed me a simple statement Obama should have made after the vote: "The House has already passed an extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans. This is an urgent matter for many families and deserves an up-or-down vote. If the Republicans want to filibuster this bill and raise taxes on the entire country just so Paris Hilton can afford a new pool, that's their business. But I'm not working for Paris Hilton. I'm working for 98% of the country." It could have been tweaked a bit, but you get the idea. Instead this is the statement Obama issued, completely stabbing Pelosi and the House Democrats in the back:

“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension. But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward. Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon. The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”

Another in a long series of botched "negotiations" from an inept political department in the White House.

Roll Call ran this today: "While the White House and Republicans have all but agreed to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts for several years, House and Senate Democrats are still resisting that arrangement. Additionally, while those broad parameters may be settled, what other pieces of the puzzle will be included-- such as unemployment insurance or a set of tax cuts included in last year’s stimulus bill-- have yet to be determined." Like I said this morning, this wimp we put in the White House is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.

Meanwhile the DCCC was somewhat more proactive than the White House. When Obama ran in 2008, he beat McCain in Dave Reichert's suburban Seattle district 57-42%, one of his top performances in a Republican-held congressional district anywhere. Reichert scraped by with 53%. This year, even with the GOP tidal wave, he only scored the same shaky 53% against a political novice Suzan DelBene. Today he voted against extending middle class tax cuts. This is, in part, what the DCCC sent out to media in his district:

Even as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to afford gas, groceries, and housing, today Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans voted to give 98 percent of middle class families the one thing they need the least right now-- a hike in their taxes.
 
Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans’ vote against middle class tax relief comes weeks after Republican Leader John Boehner said he would support extending tax relief only to the middle class. Yet, rather than provide tax relief that will help struggling families make ends meet and small businesses to hire more workers, Representative Dave Reichert is holding these tax cuts hostage to provide tax breaks to millionaires.
 
“Instead of giving immediate tax relief to 98 percent of middle class families and small businesses who need it the most, Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans are fighting to give tax breaks to those who need them the least,” said Ryan Rudominer of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It’s outrageous that Representative Dave Reichert would vote to raise taxes on 98 percent of Americans during these tough times instead of doing everything possible to help families make ends meet and businesses to create more jobs.”

The measure includes:

o   A permanent extension of the 10%, 25% and 28% rate brackets. It also permanently extends the 33% rate bracket to the extent that this bracket applies to income of $200,000 or less for single filers ($250,000 or less for joint filers). 

o   A two-year extension of alternative minimum tax relief to protect more than 25 million families from the AMT. 

 o   A permanent reduction in capital gains and dividend tax relief for middle-class taxpayers.

 o   A permanent marriage penalty relief for middle-class taxpayers.
 
 o   A permanent extension of small business expensing amounts, to ensure that small business taxpayers be allowed to quickly recover the cost of certain capital expenses.

The DCCC sent similar press releases out to the media in districts that include Republican leaders like Boehner, Pence, Sessions and Cantor, as well as to districts where Obama did well in 2008, like those represented by Judy Biggert (IL-13), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Paul Ryan (WI-01), Aaron Schock (IL-18), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Leonard Lance (NJ-07) and several others.

Of course they didn't send similar press releases to media in eastern Oklahoma, where Dan Boren crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against these tax cuts, nor in western Minnesota, where another Blue Dog, Collin Peterson, did exactly the same thing. And California conservatives who voted against middle class tax cuts, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson were spared as well. There's never any price to pay for these kinds of outrageous votes within the caucus. Ironic how the DCCC just spent $1,031,192.02 in Independent Expenditures saving McNerney, in a district where Democrats and left-leaning independents stayed away from the polls in droves because of his conservative voting record-- a conservative voting record that attracted no conservatives whatsoever, of course. They all voted for the Republican. McNerney barely won, and only after a tense recanvas and even then only with a margin of just over around 600 votes, one of the closest calls for any victorious incumbent in the country.

Rangel Gets Censured

Charlie's such a likable guy. I was cheering to see so many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus voting against censure today. And then to see one of Congress' most corrupt Republicans, Alaska career criminal Don Young, vote NO gave me a warm feeling for that old reprobate as well. But then I caught myself and reminded myself that even though the deck was stacked in Rangel's favor in terms of a real investigation and the charges he was found guilty of were technical and almost silly, he is the worst of what our political system vomits up. He's as crooked as Jerry Lewis. He's as crooked as Ken Calvert. How do I know? I know-- I know first hand. Let's leave it at that so I don't wind up as a witness at a real trial one day. The censure vote went against him 333-79, although a chastened (chastened for getting caught and disgraced, not chastened for being a crook) Rangel got a standing ovation after he was censured.

Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clarke voted against censure. This was her statement:

“Today, the House of Representatives took a vote on a resolution to censure Rep. Charles B. Rangel after the House Ethics Committee found him in violation of 11 counts of violating the House Rules of Conduct. After a thorough consideration of all the charges and the recommendation from the Committee, I have decided not to vote in support of censuring Congressman Rangel.

“Congressman Rangel has publicly taken full responsibility for his conduct over the years that violated House Rules. However, as it stands with Rep. Rangel, the Committee did not find any proof of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or acting for personal gain. His violations were primarily a result of improper, bad and inaccurate recordkeeping in regards to his financial affairs. While these are serious offenses to House Rules, Rep. Rangel’s actions are not consistent with the precedents in which Members of Congress have been censured.

“The precedent of censure used by the House Ethics Committee has been raised to the level of such offenses as improper sexual misconduct, were convicted in a court of law, or presented false statements to the Standard of Official Conduct Committee. Censure has been used exactly four times in the last 100 years because it is a severe penalty. It is not an appropriate penalty in the case of Rep. Rangel. I believe that Rep. Rangel should have been considered for a less charge that would be appropriate to his violations. This is precisely why I voted yes for a resolution offered by Rep. Bobby Scott, which substituted a penalty of reprimand for that of censure. I strongly believe that his punishment over exceeded his offense.

“Congressman Rangel has been vocal in taking responsibility of his actions and has taken steps to rectify the faulty financial disclosure paper work or any other the violations.  I strongly believe that Congressman Rangel’s service to our nation and his district will remain in history for years to come.  I am confident that despite the circumstances, he will continue to be an effective legislator.”

Issa

I can't wait for Darrell Issa, who Boehner is appointing to head the House Oversight Committee in January, to start issuing subpoenas. He plans to spend the next two years bothering Democrats with typically Republican frivolous investigations... he says he has 500 planned. That's almost one a day! The reason I'm so excited about Issa's subpoenas is because he's another GOP career criminal-- started as a common car thief-- albeit a serial car thief-- and never stopped. He's now the richest man in Congress and when he was subpoenaed for his role in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, he refused to submit to the subpoena. We'll be reminding Democrats of this regularly. And so will Issa Exposed, the new Everything Issa website, that launched this afternoon.

Bachmann Overdrive

Driving home last night I was listening to Mike Malloy. The guys so awesome but he really got carried away with his fantasy of angry Everymen running into Congress and dragging Republicans out of their offices and bearing them (to death, but he never said that; he's no dummy). Now Minnesota religious fanatic/teabag queen (self proclaimed) Michele Bachmann... she's a dummy. Today she was yowling about an insurrection again. She told some religious-right website that there will be a need for an insurrection-- but she wasn't just talking about Obama. She now has a grudge against Boehner and his cronies.

[T]here will need to be an “insurrection” against the House Republican leadership if it does not hold an independent, straight up-or-down vote on repealing the entire Obamacare law that does not tie this repeal to other policy initiatives including any effort to “replace” elements of Obamacare with new federal health-care reforms.

A spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), who will be the House majority leader in the next Congress, told CNSNews.com in response to Bachmann’s statement that Cantor agrees with Bachmann and is committed to the vote she wants.

Did You Kick In For Bernie Sanders Yet?

Obama's got to be primaried. He froze out Hope. Krugman wrote today Democrats have no choice but to look elsewhere for leadership:

After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?

On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking-- successfully, it seems-- to destroy him.

So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of.

...there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. Just as a reminder, over the next 75 years the cost of making those tax cuts permanent would be roughly equal to the entire expected financial shortfall of Social Security. Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands-- to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.

But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.

There were no comparable gestures from the other side. Instead, Senate Republicans declared that none of the rest of the legislation on the table-- legislation that includes such things as a strategic arms treaty that’s vital to national security-- would be acted on until the tax-cut issue was resolved, presumably on their terms.

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure-- that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Does Nigeria Have An Extradition Treaty With America?

Who wants to see Dick Cheney spend the rest of his life in prison? In Nigeria?