Remember When Kidnapping Was Punishable By Death?

by Noah

The saddest, most horrific and sadistic thing about how Trump and his I.C.E. Gestapo are treating the children they've torn form their families and kidnapped is that they've done it in the first place. They did it to refugee families who ran from certain death and legally presented themselves at our border for asylum. Then kids were taken and deliberately mislabeled as illegal, for propaganda purposes. Trump and his Gestapo lie about it all. They laugh about it. They hope to do more and more of it, egged on by White House staff such as white supremacist Stephen Miller. We're getting more details now and it has become obvious that they wouldn't feel at all guilty if more of the children just plain die. Trump's supporters cheer that sort of thing at their rallies.

We now hear what we always suspected or only had inklings of: The kids sleep on concrete floors with aluminum blankets. They are crammed into cages (The El Paso facility, for one instance, is designed for 125 "prisoners"but, as of this writing is holding 800 stolen children) in such awful numbers that they have to take turns standing on the toilets just to get enough air so that they can go on living. There's no soap, no toothpaste, and no toothbrushes needed diapers, and what food there is is devoid of the nourishment that children need to have if they are to grow, but that's the point of instituting the deprivations of course. This is the stuff of dungeons. Trump Administration lawyer, Sarah Fabian (DOJ), even dismissively said in court that there was nothing "legally" wrong with the unsafe and unsanitary, life-threatening conditions the kidnapped children are being kept in. In fact, that is against the legal policy, if the children are imprisoned for more than 72 hours. That's the way it used to work and was designed to work, going back 22 years now. But notice that with Fabian and those she fronts for, the concepts of human decency and morality never enter into it but I guess that's why she got the job of presenting the Trump Administration's case.




We can, like Trump, point to the House and Senate not granting still more money to throw at the crisis but it is Trump and his white supremacy, xenophobic attitudes that have caused this crisis by deliberately overburdening existing systems. They saw some opportunities that fit their agendas That's a big part of what this sadistic game is to Trump, his republican Gestapo, and their followers. It's enough to put a smile on any republican's fat, ugly face. How many more of these kidnapped children have died that we haven't heard about? We've heard about rapes, too. How many more of those that we'll never hear about? Would you be shocked if pictures are privately couriered out to despicable, detestable scum like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Tucker Carlson, Kellyanne, the Huckabees... and key Republican donors, for their own personal gratifications? When people dedicate their lives to spreading as much human misery with their laws and their propaganda as they can, it's easy to imagine them sitting at home at night with a glass of wine and a fresh packet of pictures of the day's goings on in the dungeons. Can you see Don Jr. and Eric joking with Stephen Miller at dinner about building giant roach motels ("They check in but they can't check out, Heh, heh!") for the little brown children? I can. Any open, honest, and reasonable person can.

These children are, by now, permanently damaged, mentally as well as physically. How many will one day soon become terrorists seeking some diabolical revenge upon this country that makes today's world look like Pleasantville by comparison? If any decent and sane government found the children of American parents living in their homes in the conditions of squalor Trump has willfully and sadistically chosen to place these children in, that city, county, or state government would have taken them away from their parents weeks or months ago. Ironic, isn't it?

This horror continues to exist because those in charge A) get off on it, B) are fattening their off shore bank accounts from it, or, C) most likely, both. Think about it: As the meme above shows, for the same amount of money we, as taxpayers, are spending to maintain this horror, Trump and his Gestapo could be housing each child in a comfortable, to say the least, $775 per night hotel room (Not in a Trump hotel though. Certainly not!). But I suppose republicans would loudly bellyache about that being some kind of socialism. No, better that socialism go to your friends and fellow fiends that can enjoy torturing people for fun and profit in their for profit prison facilities. That's kind of a big part of the Republican Party platform anyway.

After, World War II, many "good" Germans claimed to have not known what was going on right on the outskirts of their own towns. Now in 2019, none of us have that excuse, as implausible as it was back then. What's our excuse? We have our TVs and our social media but we use those things to watch mindless idiocy like the Kardashians, moronic shows like Naked and Afraid, and cats that can play the piano, instead of, at the least, demonstrating in the streets with our neighbors against people who are the worst mankind has to offer.

What is going on in our names, with our money, should be cause for impeachment and conviction and removal from office all by itself. Kidnapping is supposed to be a capital crime, not a capitol crime. We don't need the treason, the corruption, the obstruction, the lies, and everything else. "High Crimes And Misdemeanors" are what we the people say they are but only if we speak loudly enough and hold a big enough axe over the heads of our so-called leaders. We can start by burning down the phone lines in Washington from overuse, finding the local offices of our so-called representatives and acting accordingly, and shouting down the Trumps, Grahams, McConnells, Nadlers, Seans, and Nancys, shouting louder than such old, fat, and useless asswipes could ever do. Until then, this country will deserve whatever terrorism those children have in mind for us. It's coming.

A first hand report, via PBS, can be seen in the following clip:

Corrupt Political Hacks Like Steve Israel And Chuck Schumer Promote Other Corrupt Hacks Like Themselves... Take Patrick Murphy In Florida

Today I got another shameless fundraising email from a Senate Democrat doing Wall Street's bidding-- Barbara Boxer, disgracing herself as she hobbles out the door by referring to reactionary "ex"-Republican, Patrick Murphy, as a "bold progressive" and asking people who trust her to contribute to his right-wing campaign. Maybe "bold-faced liar" would have been more precise. Until Murphy realized he would have to run against Grayson in a primary-- a Democratic primary-- he regularly voted with the GOP on almost every crucial roll call. He had the 4th worst voting record among Democrats, having carried water for the banksters for his whole time in Congress, while voting for oil drilling off Florida's pristine beaches, to undermine and wreck the Affordable Care Act, for the Keystone XL Pipeline 6 times-- as well as for a bizarre and unconstitutional GOP law to remove President Obama from the decision-making process-- and even to authorize the Benghazi witch hunt against Hillary Clinton. Boehner had come to depend on Patrick Murphy so he could say his agenda was "bipartisan," meaning supported by Republicans + Patrick Murphy and a few mangy Blue Dogs.

Then someone let Murphy know that a primary is different from a general election and that he had to at least appear a little like a Democrat. So now he's just the 12th worst Democrat in the House. What a bargain! Bold progressive, my ass!

This morning Progressive Democrats of Florida sent out a letter to its members pointing out that Patrick Murphy "stands somewhere different each and every day. First, he was for improving mass transportation by supporting a high speed rail project crucial to moving Florida forward. Then, after his 'Daddy Warbucks' lost a big construction contract related to the project, Murphy was all of a sudden against it. He was a Republican mega-donor, before being elected to Congress as a Democrat and espousing his 'progressive' credentials. According to the East Orlando Post, a top staffer for John Boehner called him a Republican at heart."

That same Boehner staffer referred to Murphy as one of the GOP House leadership's "best assets on the other side of the aisle." And his support for All Aboard Florida's high speed rail project and then his opposition was all based on his family business, the corrupt Coast Construction Group which does business with Trumpf and bankrolls Murphy's political campaigns ($250,000 to his SuperPAC, American Sunrise in 2012, $76,750 to his campaign directly that year and another $50,300 to his campaign directly last year.) Coast Construction Group-- and Muphy's parents-- have been buying endorsements for Murphy's campaigns from transactional politicians like Alcee Hastings, Frederica Wilson, Ami Bera, Sean Patrick Maloney and a gaggle of disreputable and corrupt DCCC candidates who were all defeated in 2014 after their parents were caught illegally trading maxed-out contributions.

How do Democrats and progressives start to reclaim the Democratic Party from the buckets of slime like Steve Israel, Chuck Schumer and Patrick Murphy? By never contributing to any of the party committees-- the DCCC, the DSCC or the DNC-- or their front groups, like the alluringly-named EndCitizensUnited, and by contributing directly to progressive candidates with progressive records-- like these four-- not corrupt conservative candidates useful idiots like Barbara Boxer are told to fundraise for. By the way, I called her office to find out if she knew anything about Murphy's ethics or voting record and i was told to send my opinion to bulletinfeedback@boxer.senate.gov/

How about we end the night on a more positive note? Did you read Bernie's OpEd in the NY Times this morning? "Wall Street," he reminds us, "is still out of control." And that would not be the case without the active connivance of Wall Street politicians-- whether we're talking about Paul Ryan ($5,519,391), Mitch McConnell ($11,435,701), Marco Rubio ($5,076,359) and Ted Cruz ($4,134,237) on one side of the aisle or about Chuck Schumer ($23,538,638), Patrick Murphy ($2,388,998) and Hillary Clinton ($36,846,987) on the side of the aisle that is supposed to be protecting us from predatory banksters, not enabling them the way the Republicans do.

Seven years ago, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department bailed out the largest financial institutions in this country because they were considered too big to fail. But almost every one is bigger today than it was before the bailout. If any were to fail again, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout, perhaps a larger one this time.

To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment. Unfortunately, an institution that was created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.

The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort-- not to fight phantom inflation.

What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed’s board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.

These are clear conflicts of interest, the kind that would not be allowed at other agencies. We would not tolerate the head of Exxon Mobil running the Environmental Protection Agency. We don’t allow the Federal Communications Commission to be dominated by Verizon executives. And we should not allow big bank executives to serve on the boards of the main agency in charge of regulating financial institutions.

If I were elected president, the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse. To ensure the safety and soundness of our banking system, we need to fundamentally restructure the Fed’s governance system to eliminate conflicts of interest. Board members should be nominated by the president and chosen by the Senate. Banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed’s boards and to handpick its members and staff. Board positions should instead include representatives from all walks of life-- including labor, consumers, homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses.

...Financial reforms must not stop with the central bank. We must reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the too-big-to-fail financial institutions that threaten our economy. But we need to start with fundamental change. The sad reality is that the Federal Reserve doesn’t regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates the Fed. It’s time to make banking work for the productive economy and for all Americans, not just a handful of wealthy speculators. And it begins by making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution, one that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street.

That's just one crucial issue that differentiates Bernie from the establishment candidates like Rubio, Cruz and Hillary. Today he pointed out another important one for progressives to remember: "I want to talk with you about one of the very real differences between Secretary Clinton and me that surfaced during last weekend's debate, and that is our approach to health care in this country," he wrote to supporters. "I was, and all progressives should be, deeply disappointed in some of her attacks on a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system. The health insurance lobbyists and big pharmaceutical companies try to make "national health care" sound scary. It is not. In fact, a large single-payer system already exists in the United States. It's called Medicare and the people enrolled give it high marks. More importantly, it has succeeded in providing near-universal coverage to Americans over age 65 in a very cost-effective manner...

"[A] Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system will expand employment by lifting a major financial weight off of the businesses burdened by employee health expenses. And for the millions of Americans who are currently in jobs they don't like but must stay put because of health care access, they would be free to explore more productive opportunities as they desire. So, what is stopping us from guaranteeing free, quality health care as a basic fundamental right for all Americans? I believe the answer ties into campaign finance reform. The truth is, the insurance companies and the drug companies are bribing the United States Congress."

You can contribute to Bernie's campaign here if you believe in his vision for a more equitable America.

Is Tom Steyer Asking California Democrats To Buy A Pig In A Poke?

Very expensive photo shoot

California progressives were delighted yesterday when neoliberal corporate whore Gavin Newsom took himself out of consideration for the Senate seat being opened by Barbara Boxer's 2016 retirement plans. He'll have to be dealt with when he runs for governor but at least Cory Booker won't be getting a doppelgabger on Capitol Hill-- or will he? Newson claimed "unfinished work" in California. Maybe he's building tree house; he's certainly not allowed to do anything that involves Jerry Brown's Administration. Brown sees him as a shallow-- albeit ambitious-- worm and has all but banned him from the administration. If I had to bet on someone as a successor to Brown, though, it would be the clean-cut and dedicated Eric Garcetti, not the greasy, self-serving Newsom.

As for the Senate seat. That still leaves over two dozen contenders contending. Kamala Harris, who threw her hat into the ring this morning, is now considered the front-runner, although my guess is that most Californians don't have any idea who she is or what she stands for. She's hardly alone there. Few of the professional politicians clamoring to run are known outside of narrow political circles. And most of them are pretty terrible... like Blue Dog and warmonger Jane Harman, her New Dem mini-me, Ellen Tauscher, and the third in this triumvirate of aggressive mediocrity, Loretta Sanchez, a not very bright Orange County Blue Dog. Just as ad as the ladies is the male counterpart-- Blue Dog, New Dem, warmonger, mediocre all rolled up in one: Adam Schiff. The other congressman plotting a run isn't as bad as those 4, but he's basically an uncourageous centrist who isn't going to help anything important ever happen if he gets into the Senate: John Garamendi. Worse: two more DC backbenchers, Eric Swalwell and Raul Ruiz, both insipid moderates with no leadership potential.

Progressives are trying to persuade House Democratic Conference Chairman Xavier Becerra-- who sees himself as a future House Speaker-- to run for the Senate seat instead. He's the best possibility among likely contenders-- if he'll even do it. Congresswoman Jackie Speier is relatively progressive-- not that unlike Boxer-- and I could see her or Karen Bass getting a lot of progressive support if Becerra decides to take a pass. I could just as easily see both of them hop aboard the Kamala Harris train.

Antonio Villaraigosa says he's running. He was a solid progressive when he was Assembly Speaker but its been pretty much downhill since then... and that was a long time ago. He didn't impress anyone when he was Mayor of L.A. and he's some kind of an advocate for Charter Schools, which means he's part of a clique that defines the worst kind of corruption in American politics. Damn! He used to be a nice guy. And there are worst mayor types who want to get in, namely San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

And then there's the big rich wild card, billionaire hedge fund manager turned environmental activist Tom Steyer, who spent a fortune on congressional races last year, often helping Democrats with mediocre environmental records. He certainly helped corrupt conservative Terry McAuliffe get elected governor-- just to watch McAuliffe immediately begin her term by joining a coalition of right-wing anti-environment governors.

No one knows what Steyer stands for and what he's passionate about other than the environment. I'm sure he's pro-Choice and pro-gay but what about the core economic issues working families and billionaires don't usually see eye to eye on? Maybe he'll tell people what he thinks they want to hear. The big piece in Sunday's Chronicle reads like it was done by a couple of talented third graders and offers no insights into what Steyer's all about politically. I wonder if the "reporters" every wondered. Probably not... too busy with their reality show:

The former hedge fund titan has been huddling with advisors, polling California voters, buying website addresses and meeting with political and labor leaders as he weighs a bid, the sources said.

..."Steyer has the greatest incentive to plant his flag early," said Dan Schnur, head of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. He "has the capacity to scare other people out of the race."

But California has a political graveyard full of neophyte millionaires and billionaires who spent large chunks of their fortunes only to be rejected by voters. Among them: former business executives Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Al Checchi, Michael Huffington and Bill Simon.

"There's a first time for everything. But California voters have not historically looked very kindly on first-time self-financing candidates," said Democratic operative Garry South, who led former Gov. Gray Davis to victory over Checchi in the Democratic primary in 1998, and over Simon in the general election in 2002.

South said wealthy but inexperienced candidates tended to have three critical flaws-- free-spending but unfocused campaigns, large and undisciplined staffs and a lack of respect for people with professional experience in politics.

"They think that because they're worth a billion dollars, they're basically better than everybody else in the political system," South said. "Their disdain for people in the process is just obvious, and it makes them make a lot of mistakes."

...Steyer left Farallon Capital Management, the hedge fund he ran, in 2012, saying he wanted to focus his work on alternative energy. As he became increasingly engaged in politics, his business record has come under growing scrutiny.

News reports detailed his longtime investments in coal and other fossil fuels, for example, and the slow pace at which he shed those investments.

Farallon Capital Management pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies running coal mines and coal-fired power plants overseas, the New York Times reported. The fund was profiting from mining companies that produced more coal each year than the entire amount of coal consumed annually by Britain.

The inquiries would surely magnify if he launched a Senate run; opponents would scour his two-decade hedge-fund history for vulnerabilities to exploit. Deals that seem routine in the world of finance can be poisonous in politics. GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney was portrayed as a corporate scoundrel in 2012.

Steyer's polling, conducted in late December, found another obstacle-- few people had heard of him. But that could be easily remedied with advertising.

In addition to veteran Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, Steyer is also working with Jim Margolis, who was President Obama's media strategist, and Chris Lehane, a longtime adviser to President Clinton.

Steyer has begun purchasing "Steyer for Senate" websites and planned to meet with advisors at his home this weekend.

Steyer's moves are expected to narrow the window for other candidates to make their own announcements, given that anyone hoping to compete with him needs to start raising funds immediately.

That whole billionaire centurion thing kind of stepped right into the glop of Chris Van Hollen's long-overdue message yesterday about how the Democrats are going to rediscover their pre-Wall Street roots as a party representing working families. As the Roosevelt Institute's Richard Kirsch pointed out on the think tank's blog yesterday, "By forcing Republicans to admit their support for Wall Street over working families, Van Hollen's proposal opens the economic debate the Democrats need." So how does Tom Steyer fit in there. I keep reading he's being "recruited" by "liberals." All the actual liberals I know are working on getting Becerra to run. Money-grubbing professional "liberals" who want a piece of Steyer's fortune for their worthwhile liberal projects are the only ones excited about Steyer.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) proposal to tax Wall Street speculators and CEO millionaires to put money in the pockets of working families and the middle class, the engines of our economy, is a political and economic home run. It allows Democrats to focus on economic growth and fairness at the same time, sharply defining the debate on the key question voters ask: “Which side are you on?”

Leading politicians from both parties are all expressing sympathy for the stagnant prospects of the middle class. If you need evidence, here is Jeb Bush sounding like Elizabeth Warren: “Millions of our fellow citizens across the broad middle class feel as if the American Dream is now out of their reach … that the playing field is no longer fair or level.”

Where the two parties split-- and where the core debate that will define the next two years and the 2016 election lies-- is on who is to blame and what to do about it.

Americans believe we need economic growth, but they are more likely to place the blame for stagnant wages on the super-rich and powerful who game the system at their expense. That is why they told pollsters they prefer “an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy” over “growing the economy” by 22 points.

Van Hollen claims both grounds-- growth and fairness. As he says, “What our country needs is a growing economy that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy few.”

The heart of the plan is providing a $1,000 tax credit for workers, phased out as income rises, along with an additional $250 tax credit when workers save. He would pay for that by taxing Wall Street speculation (with a tiny financial transactions tax) and closing loopholes that allow millionaires to pay lower taxes than average people.

It’s clear that this is great politics: taxing Wall Street gambling and the super-rich to put more money in the pockets of working families and the middle class.

...Van Hollen adds another proposal, which is also brilliant politics and sharp economics. He would not allow corporations to get tax breaks for million-dollar executive pay unless they shared the rewards of soaring corporate profits with their workers. Van Hollen accomplishes this by proposing to end corporate tax deductions for executive compensation of over $1 million, unless the corporation’s wages are raised enough to keep up with worker productivity and the cost of living. Another way that corporations could deduct higher executive pay is by providing employees with ownership and profit-sharing opportunities.

With this proposal, Van Hollen puts the focus squarely on the corporate behavior that has driven down wages and crushed middle-class aspirations. His proposal would boost worker income, which drives the economy forward. When Republicans oppose this, the choice will again be clear to Americans: CEO millionaires or working families.

As Van Hollen recognizes, his proposal is not the complete solution to creating an economy of broadly shared, sustainable prosperity. He recognizes the need to raise wages and job standards, which directly turn today’s low-wage, economy busting jobs into economy boosting jobs. He reinforces the necessity of investment in infrastructure, research and education.

It will be important to do all these things. We need to raise wage standards and strengthen the ability of workers to organize, to make sure that every job pays enough to care and support a family in dignity. It is essential that we make huge investments in transportation, clean energy, communications, and research to build a powerful economic foundation for the future. That investment will take revenues, which can be raised from closing corporate loopholes, raising tax rates on the wealthy, or other progressive tax measures. We can also discuss whether some of the revenues Van Hollen raises would be better spent on infrastructure rather than tax breaks for upper-middle income people.

Simplicity is key to political communication. In its simplest terms, Van Hollen is saying that we drive the economy forward by putting money in the pockets of working families and the middle-class, not Wall Street and the super wealthy. And then his proposal invites Americans to ask their elected officials: “which side are you on?”

If Democrats around the country are willing to stand up to their big campaign contributors and ask that question with such a powerful proposal in 2016, they will triumph. And in triumphing, they will move the country toward an America that works for all of us, not just the wealthy.

Who Will Be The Front Runner For Barbara Boxer's Senate Seat In 2016?

Schiff and Newsom, the 2 from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party

-by Anonymous Operative

A little birdy tells me that Senator Barbara Boxer will not be seeking re-election in 2016. If in fact this source is accurate—- please note that this source accurately predicted Congressman Henry Waxman’s abrupt decision to retire—- a political war is soon set to begin in California’s Democratic politics. This war will be between a set of Democratic factions which are all but conventional.

It is assumed by most Beltway pundits that primary politics has become an expensive battle between the corporate/conservative wing of the Democratic Party (often referred to as “moderate wing”) and the progressive wing (sometimes referred to as the “Elizabeth Warren Wing”). However, because California is so diverse in its voter and donor populations, the 2016 Democratic senatorial primary will highlight intra party divisions that defy the usual corporate/conservative vs. progressive dynamic.

The first dynamic I’d like to point out is the racial dynamic. Due to California’s racial melting-pot quality, there will be various candidates who make the claim that California must be represented by their own race. The Democratic bench has the lineup for such a battle: Kamala Harris (Black), Antonio Villaraigosa (Hispanic), and John Chiang (Asian). Rest assured, there will be more individuals trying to claim these racial mantles however I do believe those I’ve selected can make the most natural arguments for their appropriate races.

The second dynamic I’d like to point out is the labor/union dynamic. Again, because California is unlike most any other state, labor has the potential to carry a candidate(s) a long way in the race for Boxer’s seat. Especially because so many unions have felt incredibly slighted by the Brown administration (the most recent iteration) I foresee labor attempting to push forward a candidate of their own. If she weren’t so new to her supervisorial seat, Hilda Solis would be the natural choice.

The third dynamic is the corporate one. This gets a bit tricky.

California has pockets of great economic/financial success, however, they are vastly removed from one another. To name a few, technology (Silicon Valley), international trade (Los Angeles, Bay Area), agriculture, Big Oil, and entertainment (Hollywood) are all successful industries that have the financial capacity to boost candidacies on a state wide level. If there were a candidate who would like to be identified as the “business-friendly Democrat,” it will be a herculean task to receive the political and financial backing of these robust, yet diverse industries.

I foresee Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom making a play for this position (all the while wearing his pseudo progressive smiley face and hair gel), however he will run into issues in Silicon Valley where I see the prospect of a Tom Steyer or Sheryl Sandberg laying claim to being the first tech/venture capital senator as likely.

The final division I see playing out in a way very new to Democratic primary politics is the issue of Israel. For a while, the punditry has discussed the prospect of a Jewish retreat from Democratic politics. While I think that concept is a bit misguided, I do see the California Democratic primary having a candidate who runs as the pro-Israel candidate. Let’s face it, there is a lot of money to be raised from the AIPAC community throughout the state and the nation. Watch for Haim Saban puppet Adam Schiff here.

For a political operative, what will be quite interesting in this race is that whomever wins, cannot do so simply as the bearer of one of these qualities (ie; racial, labor, religious, or corporate support). There will need to be a concerted effort to build a California style “rainbow coalition” in order to win the primary.

For example, I see Kamala Harris’s race, sex, and business friendliness (Cory Bookeresque) as a potential winning combination for her. Although, simply, she just may want to wait to be Governor! Similarly, I see Tom Steyer’s money, environmental activism, and national attention as a potential winning combination should he want to leave his current success for the dreariness of Capitol Hill.

While it’s unfortunate that many of the potential candidates are total corporate sell outs, I do foresee the 2016 Democratic senatorial primary in California as a game changer in American political strategy.

Did We Elect A Congress That Isn't Really Doing Anything... Except Making Divisive Noises And Trying To Restrict Women's Choice?

Barbara Boxer doesn't tweet much. As you can see, just 411 tweets ever and before yesterday the last one was simply "Thank You, California!" on November 3 after she beat some wealthy Republican by just over a million votes, 5,218,441 to 4,217,366 in her reelection bid. Yesterday, however she was drawing a line in the sand against the onslaught from the religious right trying, again, to grandstand against women's right to choice. I guess it's easier for them to talk about this pointless stupidity than it is to do something about jobs. Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes presented it well on Rachel's MSNBC show Monday evening and the clip is at the bottom of this post. Senator Boxer is working in tandem with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to expose what they call "the most egregious attacks on women’s health we’ve seen." They're asking all Americans to stand up to Boehner and his crazed, lazy cronies:

• They want to stop women from using their own private money to buy insurance covering a full range of reproductive health care.

• They want to block access to mammograms and other preventative health care services.

• They want to raise taxes on families and businesses that try to keep or buy insurance that covers a full range of reproductive health care.

• Before the public outcry, they even proposed changing the definitions of rape and incest to actually take away health care services from survivors of these heinous crimes.

Boehner's theater-- or dog and pony show for the deluded right-wing base-- is taking place in the House, of course, and yesterday the Republiclowns running the Judiciary Committee called forth a veritable circus of silly "witnesses" to "testify" at a hearing about H.R. 3, their first big anti-choice move of the year. These are the idiots they wasted the afternoon listening to: Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy and chair of the Department of Health Policy at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services; and Cathy Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council. And today they followed that pointless sideshow up with an Energy and Commerce Committee meeting on... what else? Abortion!

Revolted by this game, 3 Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee, former Chairman John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters), Mike Quigley, Judy Chu, Linda Sanchez, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed back with their own press event highlighting the Republican cynicism inherent in these kinds of culture wars rather than working on jobs and issues that are actually plaguing American families.

Obviously it isn't only women who are offended by this attempt to insert Big Government into women's personal health issues. Jerry Nadler, former Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution speaks for the vast majority of Democratic men in voicing his vehement opposition to H.R.3 and its blatant attempt to roll back hard-won reproductive rights while redefining rape and incest in bizarre ways to make women less safe. Here is a portion of Rep. Nadler's very powerful presentation at the hearing:

“Today’s hearing concerns what just might be the most difficult and divisive issue we will have the opportunity to consider. A woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, whether to become pregnant, to continue a pregnancy, or whether to terminate a pregnancy, has long been a right protected by the Constitution. Whether or not you think that is a good idea, or a fair reading of the Constitution, it remains the law of the land.
 
“Congress has, for more than three decades, used economic coercion to prevent women from exercising that constitutionally protected choice. Until now, that coercion was directed against the poor, and women dependent on the government for health care: military personnel and their dependents, prison inmates, and federal employees. We have, thus, developed a two-tiered system, where people with means have the right to choose, and where vulnerable populations do not.
 
“Now comes the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which is really misnamed, because it goes well outside the limits of taxpayer funding and places government in the middle of private choices by families and businesses about how they wish to spend their own health care dollars.  This legislation represents an entirely new front in the war on women and their families.
 
“After two years of hearing my Republican colleagues complain that government should not meddle in the private insurance market, or in private health care choices, I was stunned to see legislation so obviously designed to do just that. It seems that Republicans only believe in freedom provided no one uses that freedom in a way that Republicans find objectionable. It is a strange understanding of freedom.
 
“Even more stunning, this bill contains huge tax increases on families, businesses, and the self-employed if they spend their own money-- let me repeat that: their own money-– on abortion coverage or services. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and, here, the taxing power is being used to destroy the right of every American to make private health care decisions free from government interference.
 
“A Republican tax increase? You heard it here first.
 
“I am equally surprised to find out that my Republican colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of government funding. What happened to all the rhetoric about it being ‘our money?’ Or does that only apply in certain circumstances. Will we now have to judge every tax exemption or credit as a form of government funding for the recipient? I’m sure that there will be many businesses, charities, and religious denominations that will be alarmed to find this out.
 
“I also join many other Americans in being absolutely horrified that the sponsors of this bill seem not to know what rape and incest are.
 
“Rape, according to this legislation is only forcible rape. Date rape drugs, sex with minors or with the mentally impaired are-- at least according to the sponsors of this bill-- not really rape anymore.
 
“Incest is also no longer incest. Instead, it is now ‘incest with a minor,’ which means-- I guess-- that incest with a high school student doesn’t count.
 
“Have the extremes really taken such a hold on this debate that we can’t even agree to help children and teenagers who are the victims of predators? Is there no compassion left in this place?
 
“There is also a provision in this bill that would allow any health care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman whose life is in imminent peril. They could let that woman die right there in the emergency room and the government would be powerless to do anything.  In fact, if the government insisted that the hospital not let the woman die, section 311 of the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and, in the case of a state or locality, strip that community of all federal funding until the jurisdiction relented.
 
“That’s the new definition of ‘pro-life? 
 
“So, Mr. Chairman, let’s start off on the right foot: the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act is not really about taxpayer funding; it’s about government interfering with private health care decisions. It is not about protecting the innocent, it is about creating appalling, even life threatening situations, for women. It is a tax increase of historic proportions. Finally, if passed, it would eliminate the private market for abortion coverage.
 
“The sponsor of this legislation, the Gentleman from New Jersey, has been very clear about his purpose. When he introduced this bill, he cited a study by the Guttmacher Institute that showed a decline in the rate of abortions by approximately 25% when funding is cut off. What that proves is that economic coercion works. This bill takes that to a whole new level by going after the private insurance and health care markets.
 
“It is an unprecedented attack on women, families, and their rights under the constitution.Let’s not pretend this is about government funding.”

I applaud Rep. Nadler and Senator Boxer for taking a strong, clear, principled stand on this but... yes but... there's a problem. Easy to make this into some partisan battle-- especially easy because every single Republican, even the women, are going along with this cynical ploy. But to bury one's head in the Beltway sands and refuse to acknowledge that there are also right-wing, anti-Choice Democrats giving the GOP cover and adding their voices to the hatred, confuses the whole issue. These conservative misogynistsand Blue Dogs who are backing Boehner and his claque need to be called out-- loud and clear. In fact, this "Republican bill," has 10 Democratic co-sponsors, most of them notorious Boehner Boys:

Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Mark Critz (PA)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Daniel Lipinski (IL)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)

Rachel doesn't mention them either-- but she should take a look at what Gillibrand wrote, diplomatically, at HuffPo the other day:

I pledge to you that, just as we did with the Stupak Amendment, we will organize our fellow Senators to make sure we defeat this legislation. Can I count on you to join us in this fight to make sure Republicans and some conservative Democrats don't succeed in chipping away at a woman's right to choose even further than they already have?

Yep; she went there-- something so few Democrats have had the balls to do. But as AC/DC said, she's got... This, from her press conference yesterday is good: "If the Republican Party doesn't believe that 51% of America deserves equal rights in this country, then they will have a fight from at least the people standing behind me and many many more." But calling out treacherous misogynist religious nuts inside the Democratic caucus like Heath Shuler and Mike Ross is really going to bat for what you believe in.

Rand Paul Is Offended, Joe Miller Is Offensive

Barbara Boxer's first ad defining Carly Fiorina-- watch it if you haven't seen it yet-- was devastating for the failed business executive running for the Senate. Boxer's polling numbers started climbing from the day the ad was released. It was tough and stark and clear as a bell-- targeted exactly to what California voters are worrying about when they think of Republicans getting their hands on the levers of power again. Over the weekend, Boxer released another, obviously made by the same company, and even more powerful. Neither ad is playing footsie with these fascists.

"Oh, don't call them fascists," pantywaist hand-wringers and pearl clutchers whine. These are also the craven self-styled adults who bemoaned the "mean-spiritedness" of Markos' insightful and brilliant new book, American Taliban and Alan Grayson's stark ads about the religionist crackpot he's running against, Daniel "Taliban Dan" Webster, who the mass media has tried to paint as a mainstream conservative but who is actually far more radical and extreme than even Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Pat Toomey or Sharron Angle. (I left Joe Miller out for a reason and we'll get back to him shortly.) Friday night I went to the filming of Bill Maher's TV show because Markos was a guest. I was reluctant to go because Maher, the creator of the great documentary religionism takedown, Religulous, had made a craven, boneheaded remark about Grayson's Taliban Dan ad that showed a disturbing lack of comprehension and/or attention-- and on the part of someone who fancies himself a social commentator. I had a feeling he would also ambush Markos. And he did. It was completed obvious that the distracted Maher-- sexy girlfriend-- hadn't bothered to read Markos' well documented book he decided to savage.

Digby's kept a steady commentary up on these smelling salt users for some time and she hit it out of the ballpark yesterday.

Rand Paul, the pot smoking libertarian Tea Partier is now rending his garments like a typical social conservative Christian and condemning Jack Conway for being insensitive to his religion. (And once again the liberal intelligentsia is abandoning Conway because he's made an ad that they feel in "inappropriate.")

The fact is that Rand Paul, once a hardcore libertarian, condemned religion and certainly didn't believe in social conservatism. Tens of thousands of libertarians sent him money just this year believing that's the kind of Tea Partier he was. Now, like the rest of them he's changed his tune and he's become a Church Lady Bible thumper, excoriating Conway for saying the word "hell" at a political picnic. This is a bullshit game and Conway has every right to call him out as a hypocrite.

This race in Kentucky is a vicious dogfight that very possibly may end up being the only chance the Democrats have to hold the Senate. The Teabaggers and other right wing deviants are running disgusting ads all over the country ripping Democrats to shreds and appealing to basest instincts of the voters.

...But the good news is that if we can help Rand Paul drag down Conway and give the villagers an "even the liberals" narrative for Paul to use as his sanctimonious fainting couch, at least on the morning after the election, when the US Congress is taken over by antediluvian throwbacks, we'll all be able to say that we didn't stoop to their level. I'm sure that will be very comforting.

When this new progressive movement started, one of its tenets was that if progressive candidates would take risks, would be aggressive against the Republicans, would shake up the establishment and stop being the milquetoast campaigners that had turned the Democratic party into an embarrassment-- we would get their backs. Some of them believed us and they went outside the normal cautious "don't make trouble" approach and came out swinging. It's risky, and sometimes it misses. But taking risks is what we asked them to do and that's what we signed up for.

We have two weeks to go and some of these races are very, very tight. They may all lose, some might win, we just don't know. This is an ugly election-- one of the worst I've ever seen-- financed by billionaires who are very happy to let the GOP run completely wild as long as it takes care of the owners. But it isn't ugly because the Democrats have been hurling mud. It's ugly because this ugly political movement is fighting as dirty as candidates can fight. Some Democrats aren't rolling over and playing dead. The least we can do is have their backs as we promised we would.

Joe Miller & Rand Paul have you in mind-- and your family

Sunday night, during a town hall in Anchorage, crooked Tea Party thug Joe Miller-- who has already announced he will not be answering any questions about his shady background-- had members of his private militia attack and kidnap, Tony Hopfinger, a journalist who asked him some embarrassing questions. Do you think any conservatives have come out and chastised Miller? Let me know if you find any. After all, Miller's professed love of the Constitution is just a talking point, nothing something he or his followers take seriously.

The Senate race in Alaska is a three-way neck-and-neck scramble between Democrat Scott McAdams, Miller and conservative Republican sore loser Lisa Murkowski. If she were to drop out, McAdams would win a sweeping victory. Unfortunately, her colossal ego is keeping her in a race that splits the sane people on one side and the insane people on the other (Miller's). This could end badly. If you'd like to help McAdams in the final round, you can do it here, same place you can help Jack Conway fight back against Rand Paul.

If teabaggers like Joe Miller, Sharron Angle, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Ken Buck (and don't forget rightist Florida thug Allen West) are elected in two weeks, our country will be one step closer to this, the Republican vision of "freedom" and "liberty":

More Fall-Out From Obama's Health Care Speech-- Focus: Paul Ryan (R-WI), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Bobby Bright forgot his make-up

Last night Barbara Boxer hit a nerve with the American people when she said to her colleagues-- during an appearance with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC-- "If you don't vote for this [the public option], then give up your health insurance. Because your health insurance is run by the public; it's a government-run plan. And if you don't think it's good enough for you, then drop it... If you're going to keep it, then you'd better give other people a chance."

Earlier in the day the DNC sent out a press release to media outlets in Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee and Janesville in southeast Wisconsin calling out sleazy Republican corporate shill Paul Ryan for his duplicitous role in the health care debate and for his knee jerk reaction to President Obama's speech last night-- which, unlike Ryan, most normal Americans-- those who haven't received $1,211,115 in thinly disguised bribes from the Insurance Industry, the Medical-Industrial Complex and their lobbyists-- appreciated, understood and regarded highly.

We’ve heard plenty of Republicans’ partisan, inflammatory, and misleading attacks, but we haven’t heard a lot of solutions.  A simple question for Representative Paul Ryan: what is your solution to the urgent need for health insurance reform?

“As a Member of Congress who doesn’t have to worry about the taxpayer-paid health insurance for themselves or their family, it’s easy for Republicans to say ‘no’ to health insurance reform,” said Jennifer Crider, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Representative Paul Ryan, the question is simple: what is your solution to the need for health insurance reform?  Criticism comes naturally to Representative Ryan, but constituents deserve more than Ryan’s lip service on health insurance reform.”
 
“Representative Ryan shouldn’t put big insurance companies’ interests before the needs of hardworking Americans struggling to pay for health insurance for their families.”

Ryan, along with his wife Janna and his 3 children, Liza, Charlie and Sam, use the same health care system that the insurance companies are bribing him to fight against for his constituents-- the ones who subsidize his family's platinum-plated health care. So where are the Republican Party's suggestions-- supposedly being formulated by Roy Blunt and Ryan-- that will help solve the problems of health care plaguing the American people?

In Ryan's own district, there are 73,000 unemployed people-- 51,000 of whom would be eligible for high quality, affordable health insurance if President Obama's proposals overcome Republican obstacles. In fact, according to the study by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as many as 14,000 small businesses in WI-01 could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 9,400 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; and 1,600 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs. Considering Ryan's unbelievably bad record on delivering for his district, it would be hard to understand why he's against everything-- until you look at the gargantuan "contributions" he gets from corporate special interests in the health care debate-- more than any other member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation in history!

Now... to be fair, when President Obama brought up the fact that there is virtually no competition in Alabama-- and that 90% of the people with health insurance there are forced to buy it from just one company-- he wasn't just pointing to Republicans. In fact, the memo the DNC sent out about Paul Ryan, could just as easily have been sent out to media in Montgomery, Troy, Greenville, Dothan and Andalusia about their own representative, reactionary Blue Dog Bobby Bright, as die-hard an opponent of health care reform as Ryan and the Republicans. Bright-- as well as fellow Alabama Blue Dog Parker Griffith-- has vowed to oppose any meaningful health care reform. This is especially odd because Bright's Alabama district would gain even more from reform than Ryan's! The same House Energy and Commerce Committee report that we quoted in regard to Ryan's district, shows that Bright's district is far more distressed. "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 2nd Congressional District of Alabama: up to 12,600 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 7,900 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 1,990 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $118 million in uncompensated care each year; and 91,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance."

• Help for small businesses. Under the legislation, small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $40,000 qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. There are up to 12,600 small businesses in the district that could qualify for these credits.

• Help for seniors with drug costs in the Part D donut hole. Each year, 7,900 seniors in the district hit the donut hole and are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite having Part D drug coverage. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, cutting brand name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and ultimately eliminate the donut hole.

• Health care and financial security. There were 1,990 health care-related bankruptcies in the district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill provides health insurance for almost every American and caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $10,000 per year, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.

• Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers. In 2008, health care providers in the district provided $118 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and were unable to pay their bills. Under the legislation, these costs of uncompensated care would be virtually eliminated.

• Coverage of the uninsured. There are 110,000 uninsured individuals in the district, 17% of the district. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nationwide, 97% of all Americans will have insurance coverage when the bill takes effect. If this benchmark is reached in the district, 91,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage.

• No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals. This surtax would affect only 1,700 households in the district. The surtax would not affect 99.4% of taxpayers in the district.

Publicity Seeking Lunatic Fringe Republican Chuck DeVore vs Don Henley

On Friday Don Henley sued extreme right wing kook and U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore, an Assemblyman from Irvine in Orange County. DeVore ignored a cease and desist request in regard to his use of Henley's song "The Boys of Summer" as part of his campaign to denigrate President Obama and unseat Senator Barbara Boxer. This is the lunatic fringe former GOP Whip who resigned to protest the Republican legislative leadership agreeing to a compromise that would keep California functioning as a viable state paying teachers and firemen and policemen their salaries. To say DeVore is an extremist is like saying water is wet. And like many selfish, intolerant and self-entitled Republicans, DeVore thinks laws are for other people, not for him. He keeps ignoring copyright laws and using Don Henley songs, "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance," to attack Senator Barbara Boxer.

Right-wing Republicans like Devore hate China-- he even wrote a Chinaphobic book-- and castigate China's flouting of the copyright laws but when a songwriter challenges DeVore for the unauthorized use his work, the self-righteous assemblyman is on the warpath, counter-suing Henley and screaming about his Constitutional rights to free speech. He posted two attack ads on YouTube using Henley's music. He re-wrote the lyrics of "All She Wants To Do Is Dance" without asking permission, something very clearly covered in copyright law; it isn't allowed. After YouTube pulled down the offending ads, Devore posted the lyrics on a right-wing hate website.

All She Wants To Do Is Tax

They’re pickin’ up the taxpayers and puttin
‘em in a jam
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
Liberals been liberals since I don’t know when
And all she wants to do is tax
Cap and trade program-from D.C. Inc.
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
They pull and push us right over the brink
And all she wants to do is tax
Barbara Boxer talkin’ round
Control in her sight
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
Wild-eyed global warmers
Who ain’t afraid to lie
And all she wants to do is-
And all she wants to do is tax
And break our backs
She can’t feel the heat comin’ off the street
She wants to party
She wants to get down
And all she wants to do is-
And all she wants to do is tax
Well, the government rigged the market
in the carbon trading scam
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
To keep the boys a sellin’
All the credits they could ma’am
And all she wants to do is tax
But that don’t keep the boys
From makin’ a buck or two
And all she wants to do is tax, tax
They still can sell the public
On the good that they can do
And all she wants to do is-
And all she wants to do is tax
And break our backs
Well, we barely made twenty ten
The vote was in doubt
As we finished up the campaign
She could hear the people shout
They said, don’t come back here Boxer!
But if she ever does-
We’ll bring more money
cause all she wants to do is tax
And break our backs
Never mind the heat comin’ off the street
She wants to party
She wants to get down
All she wants to do is-
All she wants to do is tax
All she wants to do is tax
And break our backs
All she wants to do is tax

When Henley took steps to protect his copyright DeVore struck back by running to a popular right-wing website and writing a post blasting Henley and "Boys of Summer" co-writer Mike Campbell as "the laughless legions of the left" and trying to paint himself as a victim, long a right-wing tactic when they get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. I wonder if there are many Eagles fans in California. I did notice, though, that the loud mouthed little fascist, after re-posting the song on his own site in another (non-YouTube) format, has now disabled that. What a wimp-- not just a blowhard, but a coward.

Why doesn't he just use right-wing songwriters for his ads? I'm sure that with all the excitement for the reunification of the Amboy Dukes a nice parody of "Journey to the Center of the Mind" would work just fine for DeVore. Or he could always forget the Dukes, like everyone else has, and go right for "Cat Scratch Fever." It would probably be a good idea for wingnuts to stay away from music by Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, Black-Eyed Peas, Madonna, Nanci Griffiths, Neil Young, the Eagles, Pearl Jam, John Mellancamp, Lou Reed, Dave Matthews, James Taylor, Green Day, Bonnie Raitt, Congressman John Hall, Rickie Lee Jones, Wilco, Stevie Wonder, Death Cab For Cutie, R.E.M. and other musicians committed to social justice. But that doesn't mean they can only use polka music or Ted Nugent. John Rich, half of Big and Rich is a vicious right wing homophobe always eager for kooks like DeVore to use his songs. Kid Rock too... or Toby Keith, Ricky Skaggs... Rachael Lampa? Meanwhile, you can enjoy Don Henley's original version of the "The Boys Of Summer" below, without any input from the GOP peanut gallery:

For the U.S. auto industry to survive, we need the best minds to join to forge a possibly viable restructuring. Instead we get clowns and saboteurs

by Ken

Here are three statements issued last night in response to the Senate's 52-35 refusal to provide bridge loans to help tide GM and Chrysler over into the new year.

First from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Given the unhappy choice between a bridge loan and bankruptcy, Democrats have always believed that we must give the Big Three and the millions of Americans they employ every possible chance to succeed.

By rejecting every good-faith bipartisan compromise -- including those from the White House and Senator Bob Corker -- it is now abundantly clear that Republicans have no interest in keeping the Big Three from collapsing.

Because Republicans failed to act, three million Americans are more likely than ever to lose their jobs and our economy is at risk of suffering even greater damage. Our hearts go out to those families who will now have to deal with this burden as the holidays near.

Republicans may think that rejecting this legislation sent a message to the auto industry. Instead, they sent a message to every single American that they are more interested in settling scores than solving problems.

Then from Michigan Sen. Carl Levin -- an interested party, obviously, but still an informed one:

Congress should not recess and leave town without voting on the proposal to provide emergency bridge loans to our domestic auto industry. The consequences of our failure to act will be extremely harmful to our economy and to the lives and welfares of millions of working Americans in communities across our country.

I call on the leaders of the Senate to keep us in session, and let us go back to work tomorrow to try to fashion an agreement that will keep our domestic auto industry operating into next year and beyond. We certainly owe that much to all Americans who will be harmed by our failure to act here tonight, and that is most Americans since a failure tonight will be felt throughout our economy and in every community across this country.

Finally this from California Sen. Barbara Boxer:

Change is on the way, but it didn't come tonight. The American people will see who stands for the middle class of this country and who doesn't. Who cares for the working people and who doesn't.

Even the White House grasped the urgency of providing bridge loans to keep the U.S. automakers going until the next administration can take a stab at working out a major restructuring -- maybe, yes, involving nationalization (from a colleague: "Nationalization is the worst option, except for all the others") -- aimed at establishing a viable future for the industry, and preventing the large-scale further downward economic spiral that would accompany a collapse of the U.S. automakers.

It was the fringiest of the fringe rightists, people like Jim DeMint (R-SC), David "Diapers" Vitters (R-LA), and Tom Coburn (R-OK), who in concert with senators like Alabama's Richard Shelby who don't like to talk about the extent of state subsidies to foreign automakers with plants in their states led the charge against a more rational approach to the subject.

Not that the task would be easy.

The only hope for the U.S. automakers is neither a bailout nor bankruptcy but a genuine restructuring, a substantial overhaul that takes full account of the realities of the U.S. economy and marketplace and finds a workable way to harness the human and physical resources currently committed to the industry.

If we're lucky, there is a way this could all be accomplished, based on a coupling of some real economic brainpower and political knowhow -- "a way," note. Whereas there are undoubtedly thousands of ways that large-scale federal funds could be committed to the auto industry and wind up simply poured down a rathole. You know, the way the TARP billions seem to be disappearing without a whimper from the White House or the Treasury or the wingnut or Wall Street fringes. (As a colleague wrote in the wee hours last night: "The sheer economic logic of a loaning a fraction of the money to the auto industray that we've given away to Wall Street ought to be a no-brainer.")

Man oh man, those are some crappy odds: the chance of finding the one workable solution vs. all the money-down-the-drain business-as-usual ones. And understand what it means, which would be to bring together:

* on a good-faith basis, the knowledge, vision, and creativity of legitimate experts, people who genuinely understand the realities of the industry and of the economy, meaning people other than the strategic "visionaries" who got both the industry and the U.S. economy into their present states; and --

* in the event that a really hard-headed yet potentially workable plan can be developed, the political ingenuity and muscle to sell it to a Congress and public best by not just economic panic but legitimate apprehension about the

From those people, after all, come "economic" arguments that are painstakingly crafted frauds, like the wild misrepresentations of actual U.S. labor costs and the willful failure to consider the massive concessions already made by the United Auto Workers and the costs to U.S. manufacturers of health care and large pension-drawing retiree pools, and more important the failure to even look at the overwhelming portion of the per-vehicle cost of Big Three production which has nothing to do with labor. As a colleague writes, the Republican deal-wreckers "were not asking any concessions from the dealers or the creditors or the suppliers, just the blue-collar workers."

And there's no question that many of the obstructionists are driven by this thundering opportunity for union-busting. It's what these people believe in, and what they do. They really and truly despise people who work with their hands and yet have the temerity to think they should be treated as anything but menial sevants.

Late word is that economist Paul Stiglitz is advocating Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the U.S. automakers, a solution that most observers of the industry regard as its death knell. On the simplest level, the evidence is overwhelming that customers -- in the event that we ever actually have customers for new cars again -- will not buy cars from a company in bankruptcy. Apart from busting the UAW, the only likely result of Chapter 11 for the automakers is the purchase of selected chunks of their businesses by foreign companies. (Ritual bashers of the U.S. makers either forget or don't know that they're still in possession of substantial technology that other countries, notably China, would be only too happy to acquire, and for that matter that they have expanding markets outside the U.S., notably in Africa.)

Come January, of course, while many of the same loonies will still be present, the overall makeup of the Senate changes considerably. Meanwhile, it's pointed out that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson could in fact find money for bridge loans in his giant TARP slushpile, and that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke too could undoubtedly find the money if he wishes.

I guess we'll see.

#

It's bare-knuckles time at the Bush EPA, which has no intention of being caught trying to, you know, do anything to protect the environment

EPA's Stephen Johnson with a couple of fans of the job he's done turning the agency into a clearinghouse for environmental degradation and rape

As regular DWT readers know, we're big fans of Al Kamen's "In the Loop" column in the Washington Post. (Confusingly, other people also write under the "In the Loop" heading--but if it's Wednesday or Friday, it's really in the loop.) Al and his no doubt gleeful network of spies and informants haunt the back alleys and especially the back channels of D.C. for an often-hilarious view of the way our gummint actually works.

But often what he turns up isn't so hilarious. Often, in the way that a person may be better informed watching The Daily Show than anybody's Evening News, Al's column serves as the primary source for news that should be on every front page. Like this item from today's column, which by the way comes with the urgent recommendation of our go-to webguy on energy and environmental matters, A Siegel (whom we still have to thank for honoring us with a visit and a comment the other day):

Don't Do Any Environment Stuff

Loop Fans know to be highly skeptical of those political announcements that a top administration official is resigning "to spend more time with the family," or maybe to "return to his first love," coin collecting or weight lifting. These phrases are almost always euphemisms for getting the boot or being squeezed out.

But there was even greater skepticism Thursday at the Environmental Protection Agency when deputy administrator Marcus Peacock circulated this e-mail to senior officials at 5:06 p.m. about the resignation of EPA's administrator in the Chicago region.

Subject: Region 5 Personnel Announcement

As of this afternoon, Thursday, May 1, 2008, Mary Gade has resigned her position as Regional Administrator for EPA Region 5. I want to thank Mary for her many years of service to the people and the mission of EPA.

She has worked hard to help protect human health and our environment.

Mary plans to return to private life and spend time with her family.

Bharat Mathur, the Deputy Regional Administrator, will assume the responsibilities of Acting Regional Administrator. I thank Bharat for his continued service and leadership.

Problem was, the e-mail came 1 1/2 hours after the Chicago Tribune posted a story online quoting Gade, who said she had been forced out of her job because of her aggressive stand on dioxin flowing from Dow Chemical's Midland, Mich., plant into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron.

Gade said two political appointees at headquarters told her to quit or be fired by June 1. The EPA confirmed she was leaving but declined to discuss a personnel matter.

Gade, appointed by President Bush 18 months ago, told the Tribune: "There is no question this is about Dow. I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I'm proud of what we did."

Gade had been trying to force Dow to clean up several inland hot spots contaminated by the cancer-causing chemical. She told the Tribune that top aides to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson repeatedly questioned her actions against the chemical giant.

Next thing you know, she "plans to return to private life and spend time with her family."

Now what makes this grim story all the more urgent is that we hear increasingly from environmentalists (including our environmental guru A Siegel) that the politicization of EPA, which not coincidentally has turned its mission upside down, from protecting the environment to presiding over assaults on it, is a scandal of every bit as vast proportion as that of the politicization of the Justice Department--or, rather, the scandal that the firing of all those U.S. attorneys (etc. etc.) should have been.

In addition, we learn from The Cunctator (noting that "eerie parallels between Alberto Gonzales and EPA's Stephen Johnson continue to grow"):

Yesterday, it was reported that EPA's Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett stepped down. Like John "Torture Memo" Yoo, the 31-year-old Jason Burnett is the author and advocate of a series of legal arguments that subvert the very purpose of his agency.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/07/burnett-yoo-of-epa/

Indeed Steve Johnson seems to have studied at the Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales School of Government Accountability, learning how to shoulder the burden of oversight by duly constituted congressional committees. Which reminds us--

P.S.: BE SURE TO SEND ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON A GET-WELL CARD

By way of a postscript, Al Kamen notes that EPA Administrator Johnson has had to postpone, no doubt with the greatest regret, a scheduled appearance tomorrow before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, because of back problems "stemming from a car accident years ago," according to EPA officials.

A cynic--and our Al is nothing if not a cynic--might point out, as he did: "Something like this happened another time he was to appear for a ritual pummeling--which is what happens when any administration official appears before Waxman (D-Calif.). No new date for a hearing has been set." In addition, Administrator Johnson apparently came down with a sudden urgent need to visit Australia for two weeks last month at the very moment that Sen. Barbara Boxer was expecting to have a crack at him on the Senate side.

Both Representative Waxman and Senator Boxer are reportedly standing by.

#