DES MOINES REGISTER ENDORSES ED FALLON OVER BLUE DOG LEONARD BOSWELL... UPSET IN THE MAKING?

The next member of John Hall's & Paul Hodes' congressional band?

I want to remind everyone that all this week DownWithTyranny is the guest blog for AirAmerica. We decided to donate the generous weekly salary to one of the Blue America candidates and I'm hoping you'll help us pick which one. I laid out how to do it yesterday, although the short version is just signal us which candidate you want to vote for by adding one cent to a donation to his or her campaign (or just donate one cent) on the Blue America ActBlue page. The candidate who gets the most votes (not the largest amount of money, just the largest amount of one cents) wins the AirAmerica check.

Yesterday's big winner was Debbie Cook, the progressive Democratic Mayor of Huntington Beach who is running against GOP kook Dana Rohrabacher. I have a feeling that today will be Ed Fallon's day. This morning he was endorsed by the Des Moines Register. Considering that the Register usually endorses incumbents and has always endorsed Boswell's re-election bids, this is pretty earth shaking. A week from today Des Moines Democrats will decide between their Bush rubber stamp congressman and a very progressive alternative.

[H]olding the job of congressman doesn't mean a candidate automatically deserves to be re-elected. After interviewing both candidates and reviewing their records, the editorial board can no longer embrace the congressman as the best person to represent Iowa in Congress. Fallon is running under the slogan "new energy for Iowa." On June 3, Democrats in the 3rd District should give Fallon a chance to unleash some of his ideas and energy in Washington.

Why Boswell falls short

Boswell's own record of accomplishment in a dozen years in Congress is relatively light, and, in a recent meeting with the editorial board, he seemed out of touch about some serious issues facing the country.

One example: Boswell expressed skepticism about the financial problems facing Medicare, asking what economists the Register had consulted to conclude the health-care program was in fiscal trouble. It's hardly an issue for debate. The Medicare Board of Trustees has issued numerous reports outlining the trust fund's looming deficits. David Walker, former comptroller general, has expressed concerns about projected Medicare spending. Yet Boswell talked about further studying the issue rather than proposing how to address it.
On immigration, he suggested that undocumented immigrants should go back to their home countries and "get in line" for a chance to come here. That's hardly realistic considering there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

When asked about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's prediction the previous day that most American troops could be home from Iraq by 2013, Boswell seemed unaware of McCain's statement. When asked about education in Iowa, Boswell said the state does "pretty good." And when asked what he based that on, he said Iowa's history and his own experience. But Iowa's educational system-- not to mention the world economy-- looks nothing like it did in Boswell's childhood.

How Fallon stands out

Though Fallon was viewed as a maverick in the Iowa Legislature, he was frequently on the right side of issues. He argued for community-based corrections for nonviolent offenders and against building more prisons. He was the only House member to vote against the 2,000-foot residency restriction for certain sex offenders, a law that virtually banished them from many communities, making them harder to track, while driving up costs for law enforcement.

He's right on many federal issues, too. He supports a taxpayer-financed health-insurance system that would cover everyone, and he wants to reform the wasteful prescription-drug program.

A longtime peace activist, he has steadfastly opposed the war in Iraq.

During his meeting with the editorial board, Fallon said climate change is the single biggest issue the country faces. He arrived with his own reusable water bottle and said if sent to Washington he will continue to try to bike to work and "grow a few tomatoes."

This may make him seem an odd fit in the bustling bureaucracy of the nation's capital, but it's also a sign he's willing to chart his own path, a refreshing approach for Capitol Hill.

...Fallon said Washington needs more people to "think independently and critically." That's the best argument for selecting him as the 3rd District Democratic nominee.

We have three crucial and very winnable primaries coming up in the next two months. June 3 in Iowa is the first. The following week, June 10, Leslie Byrne, faces a corrupt insider with a lot of money and a suspicious record of flip flops on Iraq. And then on July 15 Regina Thomas is going up against Blue Dog and Bush rubber stamp John Barrow. All three of these candidates deserve support from progressives and anti-war Democrats and independents. All three are on our Blue America ActBlue page


UPDATE: BOSWELL AND RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY

Boswell has been carrying Bush's water on retroactive immunity for his criminal coterie, working behind the scenes to subvert the will of the majority of the Democratic House caucus. Matt Stoller over at Open Left published a letter Ed Fallon wrote to Boswell about his shady role in this. Boswell has refused to debate Fallon so there is no way for him to be challenged publicly on his egregious Bush Dog record.

DON'T SUPPORT ANYONE WHO VOTES TO GIVE BUSH $12 BILLION A MONTH FOR THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ-- NO MATTER WHICH PARTY THEY'RE WITH

We may have mentioned a few times this week how Steny Hoyer is taking a leading role in delivering retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping authority to the Bush Regime... on a silver platter. But that doesn't make him too busy to also figure out how to make sure Bush has all the money he needs to continue his absolutely disastrous war policy in Iraq. Of course, Hoyer has plenty of allies among Democrats helping him with that odious task. "But Steny is the Democratic leader," you ask... kind of plaintively. "Would he really do that?" Sure, his Iraq voting record is pro-war and has been since October 10, 2002 when he voted to give Bush a blank check in attacking Iraq. If ever there are war crimes trials, Hoyer will have a tough time proving his innocence-- and he will need to pray I'm not on the jury.

I have little doubt that Bush's latest "supplemental budget"-- $108.1 billion in war funds for the remainder of fiscal 2008, plus $70 billion in fiscal 2009 for the war and $5.8 billion for Gulf Coast levee reconstruction in fiscal 2009-- after the Congressional leadership and various congressional factions are finished with their pointless dramatics. Hoyer and other reactionary pro-war Democrats want to lure moderates in by offering a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a major expansion of education benefits for veterans (which Bush says he'll veto)-- at which point, Hoyer will lead the Democrats back to approve Bush's billions. It's complicated by the warmongering Blue Dog faction, which, like the Republicans, wants plenty of war but no economic middle class relief-- not even for returning vets.

You think there's a better way to handle this? Maine Congressman Tom Allen is one of a growing cadre of Democrats-- ones who actually want to end the war-- who take a completely different tact from Hoyer's shameful and deceptive pro-war policy. Allen says he'll oppose the "supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war in Iraq because it lacks a binding responsible deadline for troop withdrawal and leaves room for an open-ended commitment."

This is one reason-- among many-- Blue America supports his election to Congress. Tom:

“After more than five long years, there is still no end in sight in Iraq. Yet President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Senator Collins, and other supporters of an open-ended commitment still have no plan for bringing our troops home. During a time when the middle class is struggling to pay for things like fuel, groceries, healthcare, and education, we continue to spend $12 billion every month in Iraq. America can’t afford to stay in Iraq indefinitely. For that reason, I will oppose any funding bill that doesn’t include a firm, responsible deadline to bring our troops home.”

That's the progressive position. Ironically, the pro-war Blue Dogs and the anti-war Out-of-Iraq Caucus may vote together on a procedural motion to prevent Hoyer's plans from working. Right wing Blue Dogs are against it because, like the Republicans, they oppose the modernization of the GI Bill which would offer military vets better educational benefits. Out of this mess, Pelosi predicts not just victory (in Congress, obviously victory in Iraq is beyond illusory), but Democratic unanimity. I don't know what drugs she's on but she must have picked them up when she visited Damascus. She thinks she's going to get Democrats who want-- I mean really want, not make believe, theoretically, rhetorically want-- to end the war to support the same bill the die-hard war mongers like Jim Marshall (GA), John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS), Jim Matheson (UT), Chris Carney (PA) and Dan Boren support. Roll some of that up and send it over here, Ms Off the Table.

ARCH-REACTIONARY BUSH DOG JOHN BARROW GETS A SERIOUS CHALLENGER-- MEET SENATOR REGINA THOMAS

How do you figure out who's the overall worst Democratic member of Congress? A good place to start is over at Progressive Punch where you can order everyone's vote in their Chips Are Down category. The bottom of the barrel, Democrats who consistently vote with the GOP on substantive matters, turns up Jim Marshall (GA), Nick Lampson (TX), and John Barrow (GA), the three of whom rotate from week to week as the worst. By way of comparison, the 3 best scores belong to Tammy Baldwin (WI-- 97.34), Linda Sanchez (CA-- 96.79), and Nancy Pelosi (CA-- 96.55). This week Jim Marshall's score is 29.28, Nick Lampson's is 30.43, and Barrow's is 31.02. None of them are worthy of the term "Democrat."

Lampson has no primary opponent and Marshall's opponent, Robert Nowak isn't making much headway. But Friday  there was some really good news on the anti-Bush Dog Front. An impressive Democratic state Senator from Savannah, Regina Thomas, tossed her hat into the ring against Barrow. Yesterday Senator Thomas told me she considers herself a fiscal conservative but when I started asking her the Blue America questions, she had all the right answers. She's adamantly opposed to the occupation of Iraq. When she talks about being pro-choice she makes complete sense on the non-ideological human level and she already voted against an attempt by the far right to pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Georgia. She was first elected to the Georgia House in 1995 and served as an assistant majority whip. In 2000 she was elected to the state Senate. Her legislative passions have involved education, children's issues,  welfare reform, veterans and defense issues, technology and consumer affairs. She doesn't have a campaign website up yet but there's a wealth of information about her on her senate website.

I just wanted to share the good news. I'll get into a deeper analysis of exactly why Barrow needs to go. And I'll do an interview with Senator Thomas soon. Keep in mind that the district is around 40% African-American and that African-Americans will be over half the voters in the Democratic primary. Senator Thomas has addressed the crucial issues that concern this mega-constituency really well as a state legislator. On the other hand, Barrow has been sucking up corporate money like there was no tomorrow and his warchest is overflowing. Senator Thomas has nothing to count on but grassroots support.


UPDATE: REGINA'S CAMPAIGN IS ABOUT REAL REPRESENTATION FOR WORKING FAMILIES

I spoke with Senator Thomas again today and she emphasized to me the difefrence in her record on working families and Barrow's failure to support his constituents against the encroachments of powerful Big Business interests. "This country," she told me, "was built on the backs and at the hands and sacrifices of working-class people. My voting record is 100% for working families. To see what this country is doing to families and the working-class is an abomination. Outsourcing our jobs to foreign nations-- taking food out of the mouths of our children can not and should not be tolerated.  This is the very fact that nothing will be done to bring the jobs back to America. With the national deficit being so high we do not even own America. IT IS TIME TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!"

IOWA PROGRESSIVE ED FALLON HEADED TO VICTORY OVER BLUE DOG LEONARD BOSWELL

Ed Fallon represents a chance at REAL change in Iowa

Regular DWT readers are already familiar with Iowa's one Bush Dog Democrat, Leonard Boswell. On a broad array of substantive issues Boswell has acted as a Bush rubber stamp, voting with the Republican minority far more than either of his Democratic Iowa colleagues. This year Boswell is facing a serious challenge from progressive Democrat Ed Fallon. Ed has already been endorsed by Democracy for America and the Iowa chapter Progressive Democrats of America. I was a little skeptical about him at first because he voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 but when I spoke with him on the phone this week he admitted he had made a mistake but explained that his decision stemmed principally from Gore’s choice of Lieberman as a running mate. That was good enough for me. I asked him to do a guest post here today and I'm hoping that after you read it you'll want to join me over at one of the ActBlue pages and make a contribution to Ed's campaign.

There are two reasons we haven’t seen the change voters were looking for when we elected Democratic majorities to Congress in 2006. One is the group of Congressional Democrats who too often break with the majority of Democrats and support President Bush’s Republican agenda. One such representative is Leonard Boswell. I’m challenging him in the primary because he has split with House Democrats to vote for the war in Iraq, for funding the war without a timetable for withdrawal, for reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, for warrantless wiretapping, for giving Bush the authority to decide what torture is, for giving $14.5 billion in tax breaks to oil and gas companies, for punitive bankruptcy reform, for punitive immigration reform, for several ‘free trade’ agreements and giving fast-track authority to Bush, and against the environment so many times that he has earned a lifetime voting record of 57% from the League of Conservation Voters. I am running to give voters in Iowa’s Third District the choice to have a progressive Democratic voice and vote in Congress.

The second reason we haven’t seen change is the influence of corporate money in politics, something that obstructs progress on issue after issue. In 14 years as a state legislator, I never accepted contributions from PACs or lobbyists. Congressman Boswell, however, has always received most of his support from PACs. Last year, PAC money accounted for 74% of contributions to his campaign, and half of it came from corporate PACs. I’m running to give our district a voice that speaks for ordinary people, not powerful corporate interests.

Voters in Iowa and across America are ready for candidates who are fiscally responsible and socially progressive. I have a clear legislative record of supporting choice and civil rights for all, and in 1996 helped lead the opposition to a bill banning same-sex marriage. At the same time, I have a solid record of leadership on fiscal responsibility, working against corporate giveaways and for sound budgeting practices.

Finally, let me just say that this race is ours to lose. The progressive tide in Iowa continues to rise. Congressman Boswell and his status quo supporters are running scared. They are trying to steer the debate away from real issues and into the kind of negative attacks they hope will discredit me and suppress voter turnout.

But that won’t happen. Beyond the fact that I won this district when I ran for governor in 2006, record participation in the Iowa Caucuses makes it clear that people are ready for new leadership and new energy. With the support of the grassroots across the country, Iowa’s Third Congressional District will join the Progressive Caucus in 2009.

-Ed Fallon

HELP BLUE AMERICA DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT DEMOCRATS WHO VOTE LIKE REPUBLICANS

Mary Landrieu: Hopelessly bad instincts?

Yesterday we celebrated that the Democratic leadership in the House was able to hold nearly the whole caucus together to pass an updated FISA law stripping out Bush's absurd and venal demands for retroactive immunity. And they managed to do that even after nearly two dozen of them had written a letter to the Speaker telling her that they demanded the opportunity to go on record in favor of retroactive immunity. Only 12 Democrats voted with the Republicans and half of them did so to protest that the bill was still too weighted in favor of the Bush Regime's unconstitutional agenda.

For those of us who follow the foibles of treacherous reactionary Democrats-- the Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs-- all the names are familiar: David Boren (D-OK), Chris Carney (D-PA), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Tim Holden (D-PA), Nick Lampson (D-TX), and Heath Shuler (D-NC). Last time I checked, out of the 6 Bush Dogs who had signed the original letter to Pelosi that we were asking the community to vote on so we could target one district for an educational campaign, Carney and Shuler were coming in, respectively, #1 and #2. The 4 others fled from retroactive immunity in terror. Our experience with Blue Dogs and Blue Dogs is that when you roll up a magazine and smack them firmly in the snout and then rub said snout in their mess, they eventually learn. We were very successful in assisting our pals in the House leadership to convince some banditos to get back on the reservation when it came to S-CHIP last year. Once conservative Democrats like Leonard Boswell and Jim Marshall, who normally act as though being bipartisan means rubber stamping every diktat that comes down the pike from Pennsylvania Avenue, starting speaking in favor of the House bill, the Republicans knew the gig was up.

But what the DLC and Republicans (and most Blue Dogs) want is a bill that caves to all Bush's demands for warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity, basically, the shameful bill the Senate passed last month 68-29. What happens now is a conference with the Senate to hammer out a compromise. So why did almost all the Blue Dogs support the House bill today? They know it will never become law. Even if it ever managed to pass the Senate-- almost impossible-- Bush has vowed to veto it. So what happened? Sources in the House tell me that Pelosi, Hoyer and Emanuel promised the Blue Dogs that they would be on the reconciliation committee wit the Senate charged with hammering out a compromise.

The Senate bill overturns the rule of law by granting probable criminals retroactive immunity. The House bill doesn't. The Senate bill is fine with warrantless wiretaps. The House bill isn't. In the Senate 18 Democrats voted with the Republicans and Lieberman to grant retroactive immunity and to enshrine warrantless wiretaps into law. Almost none are up for re-election this year. The exceptions are Mark Pryor of Arkansas (who has no primary or general election challenger), Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and, leader of the bad Democrats on this, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. What should our community do about this?

An article in yesterday's Hill makes it clear that reactionary Democrats running amuck isn't just a problem the blogosphere is frustrated about. The Democratic leadership has to grapple with these Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs everyday.

House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) said Friday he canceled meetings with a New Orleans delegation because a Louisiana lawmaker had defied party leadership on a procedural vote the night before.

And he’s warning others who do the same thing that they’ll get the same treatment.

“When people are consistently hitting the red button on procedural votes, that gets to me,” Obey said in an interview.

“I announced yesterday in caucus that anybody who wants to routinely vote against the leadership on procedural grounds, don’t ask me to see their visiting firemen when they’re in town.”

It's worse in the Senate, much, much worse. Maybe we can help, though. It will be painful but let's talk about holding one really terrible Democrat in the Senate accountable in November, especially if she votes to rubber stamp retroactive immunity again (as expected). Discussion today at FDL, 11am (PT).

HOLDING TYRANTS AND THEIR CHICKEN-SHIT ENABLERS ACCOUNTABLE

Has he earned your trust?

This morning Glenn Greenwald kicked off the latest initiative of the Blue America PAC, an attempt to hold some members of Congress accountable for their decisions (and actions) to grant the Bush Regime and their cronies retroactive immunity. To me this egregious travesty of justice spells the doom of the Rule of Law and a return to pre-French Revolution societal norms.

House Democrats are expected to unveil and possibly vote on their FISA bill this week. While they may (or may not) end up securing some additional, mild safeguards against eavesdropping abuses as compared to the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill, it is almost certain that they will ultimately end up granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms and gutting most of the long-standing, core protections of FISA. The recent, extraordinary revelations of just how sweeping is the administration's spying on domestic calls and emails of Americans seem to have had little effect thus far on what appears to be the inevitable course.

As this week's red-district election to Congress of anti-telecom-amnesty candidate Bill Foster demonstrates, they're not doing these things because it's politically necessary. They're doing it because more than enough Democrats believe in the virtues of telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping -- just as they believe in the continued occupation of Iraq, the abolition of habeas corpus, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Military Commissions Act, concealing Bush's illegal eavesdropping programs, and a long array of other radical Bush policies that now have bipartisan Congressional support.

There's absolutely no point in helping to elect Democrats like that to Congress or helping them to stay there. Yesterday, there was some celebration over the fact that Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor will be re-elected without opposition this year. That's the same Mark Pryor who voted for the Military Commissions Act, for the Protect America Act, for telecom immunity, against every Iraq redeployment measure, and scores of other similar votes. The fact that he's being re-elected with no opposition demonstrates his extremely strong political standing, i.e., that he cast these votes because they reflect what he believes. What's to celebrate about the fact that someone like that -- with that belief system -- is returning to the Senate?

Democrats are never going to change their behavior if there continues to be no price for what they're doing. If even the most pro-Bush Democrats continue to receive reflexive support from other Democrats, regardless of how fundamentally they reject the political values of those Democrats, they will continue on the same course. Why wouldn't they? And if Democrats whose political values are violated by these office holders refrain from ever working against them, solely because they have a (D) after their name, then this process will continue unabated.

We want to ask you which Bush Dog we need to focus in on first-- with an educational plan for their constituents. These 6 have been consistent Bush Regime rubber stamps across the board and each signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi supporting retroactive immunity.
John Barrow (GA)
Chris Carney (PA)
Leonard Boswell (IA)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Zack Space (OH)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Help us pick our winner here on our Get Even for FISA page. And if you'd like to contribute to the effort, to help us hold the winner accountable through action above and beyond railing against him on our blogs, we have a new contribution page set up for this specifically.

We want to move a little more aggressively than Senator Leahy and Congressman Conyers feel they can. The two of them sent a joint email message to their lists today, encouraging their supporters to
write letters-to-the-editor and help build grassroots support in their communities for fixing FISA the right way: protecting national security, preserving civil liberties, and denying retroactive telecom
immunity. By all means, write a letter to the editor and support what Conyers and Leahy are doing, but we think there must be much stronger action accompanying their efforts.

Yesterday Rep. John Hall (D-NY), twice endorsed by Blue America, sent an Op-Ed to all the newspapers in his district. Here is what he told his moderate suburban/exurban district-- which is about a third Republican, a third independent and a third Democratic-- about the FISA bill:

The highest priority of Members of Congress – on both sides of the aisle – is to protect our nation and to uphold our Constitution. Congress and the President must work together to come to an agreement that modernizes FISA. I remain committed to detecting, identifying and defeating terrorists and to preserving the freedoms that define America. Thus, it is disappointing that President Bush and his allies have chosen to play politics and to misrepresent the facts in the continuing debate on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FISA was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to President Nixon's abusive use of wiretaps against his political adversaries and the press. The existing FISA law has protected American citizens both from foreign terrorism and from infringement on their Constitutional right to privacy. Intelligence agencies should have the tools to intercept cellular or fiber optic communications through switches in the US while protecting Americans' rights.

Unfortunately, President Bush is using scare tactics in an attempt to bully Congress on this issue, much like he did in the build up to the war in Iraq. He has repeatedly made statements that officials within his administration and outside experts have indicated are untrue. Since the President and his allies are likely to continue these attacks, it is important to separate myth from fact.

The President continually states that with the expiration of the Protect America Act (PAA) last month, the capability of intelligence agencies to track terrorists will be weakened. The fact is that authorizations ordered under the PAA to conduct surveillance will continue for at least six months, and in some cases for up to one year. All known terrorist organizations and targets are already included in those orders, and new targets can be added quickly. Here's the bottom line—if a terrorist was being tracked a month ago, he can still be tracked today.

The President also claims that intelligence efforts are impeded by a requirement to obtain a warrant in a FISA court. The fact is that a FISA court order can be obtained up to three days AFTER intelligence collection has already begun. In the 30 year history of the FISA courts, the government has asked for over 23,000 warrants, and only five have been denied. Obtaining a warrant from a FISA court when there is concern that an American will be overheard during collection of evidence is clearly not a high hurdle.

Last November, the House passed a strong, balanced FISA bill, and I supported it. However, it was opposed by President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate and did not become law. I will not support any FISA legislation that lets the executive branch alone decide who is a terrorist suspect and to forego judicial warrants altogether. This would completely undermine the system of checks and balances that is the bedrock of our Constitution. I also will not support a FISA bill that gives legal immunity to telecom companies who cooperated with the Bush Administration's efforts to overstep its authority.

The debate over FISA is extremely important and President Bush will not make America stronger or safer by attempting to stampede Congress into accepting a severely flawed bill. I will work quickly with my colleagues and the President to pass a strong bill that protects our nation and our civil liberties, and I will never let my family or yours be put at risk.

Martin Heinrich, the progressive candidate for the New Mexico congressional seat being abandoned by Heather Wilson, has written about retroactive immunity at DWT in the past in a guest post. Yesterday the extreme right-wing maniac the Republicans plan on running against him, Darren White (the 2004 Bush/Cheney Campaign Chair) attacked Martin for his strong and principled stand against retroactive immunity. In a typical right wing fundraising missive, White lies about Martin's stance, tries to use Blue Dogs as a wedge and calls all of us "extreme left-wing groups." White:

My likely Democrat opponent... is opposed to the Terrorist Surveillance Program and has used the issue to drum up support for his candidacy among extreme left-wing groups. He believes that we should not immediately intercept calls from known terrorists and has even gone so far as to attack middle-of-the-road Democrats who support this bipartisan bill. I believe his position on the Terrorist Surveillance Program clearly demonstrates that his views are out-of-step with common-sense New Mexico values.

Martin is a progressive leader and a real champion of the values that draw us to a progressive world view. He doesn't back down. Here's how he answered White and the Republicans:

"...I stand with the American people who say fear mongering is not acceptable. Not acceptable from George Bush, not acceptable from Karl Rove and not acceptable from Darren White. I agree with Bill Richardson that we can keep our country safe without resorting to unconstitutional, warrantless wiretaps. I support a strong FISA that authorizes our intelligence community to intercept the communications of foreign terrorists, not American citizens minding their own business."

That's how you respond to a budding little fascist turd.

So, again, please help us pick the worst Bush Dog and please help us finance a campaign to hip the winner's constituents about how he votes.

DEMOCRATS PUSH THROUGH WAR FUNDING BILL WITH WEAK STRINGS ATTACHED THEY WILL ABANDON AS SOON AS BUSH VETOES THE BILL

The latest bill funding Bush's catastrophic war in Iraq passed 218-203. Generally speaking, Democrats voted for it and Republicans voted against it. The Democratic leadership was pushing for it because it makes some moves in the direction of troop withdrawal. But even those weak moves were enough to stir controversy. 15 Democrats voted with the Republicans (while 4 North Carolina anti-war Republican Walter Jones plus 3 pathetic opportunist rubber stamps-- Phil English, James Walsh and Chris Shays-- fearlful that voters will toss them out next year, abandoned Bush and voted with the Democrats).

Most of the Democrats who voted with the GOP on this were the regular war-mongering Cheney-supporters like John Barrow (GA), Jim Marshall (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jim Cooper (TN), Nick Lampson (TX), Gene Taylor (MS), John Tanner (TN), Vic Snyder (AR), Jim Matheson (UT) and Brian Baird (WA). But several progressive Democrats also voted against the leadership position because they are tired of playing games and felt-- rightly so-- that the bill is just a charade and a sop to Americans who want real peace. John Lewis (GA) loudly abstained and no votes were registered from ant-war heroes Pete Stark (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Tom Allen (ME).

As you know, Blue America has been working to help Tom Allen challenge notorious Bush Regime rubber stamp Susan Collins for Maine's senate seat. Allen sent us his rationale today for opposing the bill:

“I opposed this war from the beginning and have consistently worked to set a deadline to bring our troops home. I voted against this bill because it does not set a binding deadline for safe, logical withdrawal of our troops. This legislation carries the ‘change the mission’ view that leaves our troops in Iraq indefinitely, merely re-labels their jobs and costs billions and billions of dollars. That isn’t the change in policy that we need.”

The polar opposite came from Bush-supporter Brian Baird (D-WA) who has drunk the koolaid and is now a die-hard war hawk. CSPAN captured him speech making the Democratic version of Cheney's talking points:

"My colleagues, as someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq and believes it was one of the most egregious mistakes in the history of this country, I rise today to implore you to not make a mistake today by demanding that we begin an immediate withdrawal. The facts on the ground are the situation is improving in Iraq. Courageous Americans have given their lives and the time away from their families to make that happen. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in a conflict that we created. We have a chance now to try to improve the situation. Progress is being made, do not let anyone today say it is not. Violence is down, political leaders are reaching out across the aisle, Shias are meeting with Sunnis, Sunnis are meeting with Shias. They need more time to succeed, and an insecure situation will undermine the progress, not further it. We need to have more time to debate this resolution today. We need to take the good parts of it, keep those in, but abandon this requirement for an immediate withdrawal. There is a big difference between one year, which this measure says we have to be out in, or a ten year horizon. We should find the nuanced ground that we can agree on."

To summarize Cheney's Baird's position:

* "Courageous Americans have given their lives" so we must make more courageous Americans give their lives too. This was a rationale used for endless war starting in ancient times and has been used in every war since Athens invaded Sicily in 414 BC as part of the Peloponnesian Wars, an invasion that has all the hallmarks of Bush's Iraq disaster.
* "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in a conflict that we created" so let's double down and see how close we can get to a million before we bankrupt ourselves completely.
* "Progress is being made" is the same calumny that was used to prolong, tragically and pointlessly the War in Vietnam (although them Baird would have been saying "There is light at the end of the tunnel."
* "Violence is down," another accountant's lie perpetrated by the Bush Regime and bought by hacks like Baird, Barrow and Boren but few others.
* "Political leaders are reaching out across the aisle." Baird must be referring to al-Mailiki hiring CIA double agent/Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi, another sure bet that further disasters await for all concerned.
* "We need to have more time," basically what all war-mongers who are losing always say. Always.

PRIMARIES HAVE CONSEQUENCES-- LIKE WAR AND PEACE: A CASE FOR JOHN LAESCH

If you're a regular DWT reader you're already aware that the axiom "All Republicans Are Bad And All Democrats Are Good" is pure hogwash. Well half of it is hogwash. All Republicans are bad; every. single. one. But plenty of Democrats are just as bad: corrupt, power-hungry, impervious to the best interests of their constituents and disinterested in protecting the common good or promoting basic progressive values and principles. Even on an issue as basic as the Bush Regime's war in and occupation of Iraq, you will find rubber stamp Democrats every bit as bad as Republicans-- not many, but enough to prevent Nancy Pelosi from exercising an effective opposition to the Regime's toxic agenda.

There are no surprises on the list of the worst Bush-Dogs, those Democrats who vote most frequently with the Bush Regime on issues related to endless war in Iraq. Using Progressive Punch's Chips Are Down scale here is the list-- from bad to worse-- of the handful of  Democrats who have consistently voted most frequently to rubber stamp Bush's policies in Iraq. These are fake Democrats (except for Tim Mahoney who is an actual Republican who just re-registered as a Democrat in order to win a congressional seat-- and vote like a Republican):

Eliot Engel (NY)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Bud Cramer (AL)
Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Tim Mahoney (FL)
Melissa Bean (IL)
Zach Space (OH)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Baron Hill (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Chris Carney (PA)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Jason Altmire (PA)
Dan Boren (OK)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Nick Lampson (TX)
Jim Marshall (GA)
John Barrow (GA)

The bolded names are on the Democrats' own list of most vulnerable members of Congress. They are on the DCCC Front Line list for 2008, the list of Democrats that the DCCC judges most in need of lifeline infusions of cash to combat, basically, a lack of popularity with their constituents. When you donate to the DCCC most of the money goes to shore up the re-election campaigns for these Democrats. In many cases-- like in the ones above-- it is to support Democrats who consistently vote against Democratic values and principles, even in the most crucial instances like the occupation of Iraq. Would it be fair to consider these members war-mongers? Yes, absolutely. Would it be fair to consider these members worthy of defeat and in the same category as a Republican? If you think the war in Iraq and Bush's policies there are wrong, the answer is absolutely yes.

Many of these congressmembers were once candidates, candidates who were being pushed by Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC. Just as Emanuel is telling favored insider candidates today to "inoculate" themselves by moving right on immigration issues and throwing immigrants under the bus, last year Emanuel was hysterical in demanding that Democratic candidates inoculate themselves by not speaking out against the war in Iraq. Many Democratic candidates were defeated because they followed Emanuel's lousy advice. But much worse, many anti-war progressives and grassroots activists never got a chance to even run because Emanuel, Hoyer and the DCCC pushed them out of the way in favor of pro-war, insider schlubs, schlubs who are now on the list above (Tim Mahoney and Baron Hill being perfect examples) or who went down to defeat in November (like Christine Jennings and Tammy Duckworth). Matt Renner did an extensive report on many of these catastrophic Bush-Emanuel Dogs in the September 6 (2007) edition of Truthout. He explores how Rahm Emanuel sabotaged progressives all over the country and helped elect the conservative Democrats who have thwarted Nancy Pelosi's agenda and her ability to battle the GOP. The races he focuses on include IL-06 (which Emanuel threw to a far right Republican by supporting a mediocre, non-grassroots Democrat who could never win against a progressive activist in the primary), FL-13 (identical scenario to IL-06), CA-11 (where an enlightened grassroots gave Emanuel the finger and beat his shill in the primary and went on to defeat a far right Republican without his help), and FL-16 (where Emanuel drove the progressive out of the race in order to install an actual Republican, Tim Mahoney, in the place of the doomed Mark Foley).

Renner comes to similar conclusions that most people who have followed Emanuel's machinations have:

Many of the candidates that Emanuel helped elect have joined with a group of self-styled conservative Blue Dog Democrats and have cast key votes with Republicans and stymied Democratic efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Thirteen of the Democratic members of the House elected in 2006 joined The Blue Dog Coalition; a group that, according to its spokesperson, has no official stance on withdrawal from Iraq or the president's warrantless wiretapping program. However, 30 out of 47 of the Blue Dog members broke with the majority of Democrats and cast votes in favor of the recent Protect America Act, a bill that greatly expanded the power of the executive branch to spy on Americans. The caucus also broke with the majority of Democrats when 40 of the Blue Dog members voted to continue funding the occupation of Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal.

John Laesch between 2 would-be Bush Dogs

Now, let's take a look at the race in the northern Illinois congressional district being abandoned by Denny Hastert. IL-14 a district we've been talking about for several years because of our support for a progressive, grassroots young military vet named John Laesch. Last week the other Democrats who are trying to move in on the chance to fight it out with whichever millionaire representative of special interests the Republicans decide to attempt to replace Hastert with tested themselves out against Laesch. They came up short-- very short. Today's Daily Herald tells the story:

It was Laesch who won the crowd; the Newark carpenter's remarks garnered more applause than that of the other two 14th District candidates combined.

Oh... so what, you say-- he must have brought lots of fans to cheer for him, the way Mitt Romney does at the GOP straw polls he always wins. Nope. As the story makes clear, the forum at the Kane County Government Center in Geneva was open only to Democratic Party committeemen. These are the people who watched Laesch's campaign last year and who know from on the ground experience that he is the one who can turn this red district blue. In Washington, on the other hand, Emanuel is insisting-- working behind the scenes-- that self-described Blue Dog millionaire Bill Foster be the nominee. Foster was recently invited to a training session in Chicago for favored candidates during which Nancy Pelosi, Chris Van Hollen, other DCCC functionaries, incumbents, labor leaders and cash-rich PAC officials spoke with the candidates. Laesch was excluded. Emanuel is determined to make sure Foster is the nominee regardless of what the local Democratic Party thinks and regardless of the likelihood that he would be disastrously defeated in 2008. He's an Emanuel kind of candidate-- no values, no positions, just a Republican-lite power-hungry player. When Emanuel spouted off at the session that Democrats must "move to the right" on immigration in order to "inoculate" themselves, many of the candidates rolled their eyes and ignored him. Foster was straight out of the gate immigrant-bashing (in a district with a vibrant and growing 20% Hispanic community). See that list of bad Democrats above? Emanuel will do whatever he can to make sure Bill Foster is on it next year.

Why should you care? There are many reasons-- not the least of which have to do with the potential for national progressive leadership John Laesch is displaying. But the story in today's  Herald goes straight to another matter that I know is of great concern to all readers of DWT: Bush's and Cheney's vow to provoke a war with Iran.

A former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who served in the Middle East, Laesch repeatedly lashed out at President Bush and the Iraq war. Starting a war with Iran, Laesch said, would cause "World War III."

"If you think Iraq is a mess, Iran would be a complete and utter nightmare," Laesch said.

Laesch pushed Stein and Bill Foster, a scientist and businessman from Mill Creek, to say whether they'd immediately cut funding for the troops in Iraq and whether they'd authorize going to war with Iran. Laesch pledged, if elected, to cut funding for the Iraq war and to vote against going to war with Iran.

In response, neither Foster nor Stein would commit to vote "no" on going to war with Iran, saying they would need to study the issue further.

Do I need to say any more? Do you take this kind of thing seriously? Prove it by kicking in-- even $5 if that's what you can spare, for John Laesch's campaign. It's your country. You want Bush and a bunch of craven Bush Dogs like Bill Foster getting us into a war with Iran?

MARK PERA ON A ROLL AGAINST A FALTERING BUSH DOG REACTIONARY IN ILLINOIS

For an increasing number of people, the Internet has become a primary source of news. It's also a more targeted source. For people interested in politics, the days of listening to bullshit from incumbents is long in the past. Because of tools like ProgressivePunch, for example, voters are two clicks away from their congressmember's actual voting record-- like Dan Lipinski's. Yes, he may be a Democrat in a decidedly Democratic district but his voting record, especially when it comes to core issues, like a woman's right to choice or the occupation of Iraq is pure Republican. He doesn't mention that when he asks voters to re-elect him.

Today's Chicago Tribune features a piece by Jim Tankersley about Lipinski's desperate battle to hold onto a seat he should never have held to begin with, Bloggers Dog Dems Who Vote Bush. Woof, woof!

Tankersley has noticed the Bush Dog campaign that is attempting to hold reactionary Democrats accountable for voting with Republicans on core issues. And he turned to bloggers from OpenLeft, Arch Pundit and DWT to help explain the phenomenon to his readers.

Matt Stoller, the editor of openleft.com and the architect of the "Bush Dog" campaign, proclaimed Lipinski the first "Bush Dog" to be targeted in a primary by the "netroots." In an interview, he said Lipinski was "not a good Democrat."

"Bush has made it very clear that he's not withdrawing from Iraq, and he's not going to sign anything that would lead to withdrawal from Iraq," Stoller said. "Either Lipinski knows this, and he's misleading everyone, or he's stupid."

While many of the "Bush Dogs" hail from Republican-leaning districts, Lipinski's traditionally votes Democratic. That galls some of the other bloggers who have joined Stoller in supporting Pera.

Lipinski votes "like a right-wing nut," said Howie Klein, who runs downwithtyranny .com and is one of the leaders of Blue America, a political action committee founded by bloggers. But, he added, "He's not in some radical right district."

ArchPundit, OpenLeft and DWT aren't going to win this race. Mark Pera, an exceptionally good candidate, is. Bloggers can help get his message out and help rally some support in terms of volunteers and financial contributions but without a good candidate, bloggers can't do much at all in these kinds of races. And, as we've seen when Mark visited us over at Firedoglake September 8, Illinois' third CD certainly has an opportunity to elect a congressman who will be far superior to Lipinski.
Today's Tribune story begins with a quote from Pera.

"Every time Bush needs a vote," the Democrat from Western Springs, Ill., says, "he turns to Dan Lipinski and gets it."

In the most recent quarter, Mark outraised Lipinski, $100,000 to $75,000. And $30,000 of Mark's total, more than the difference between the two came via ActBlue. While Lipinksi was raking in the dough from the Chicago Machine and Inside the Beltway lobbyists. In fact, one of Lipinksi's donors was Louisiana Republican Rep. Richard Baker's Back America's Conservative PAC, which normally just gives to GOP incumbents but in this case has chosen to give to a Democratic incumbent who, at least when the chips are down, votes with the GOP.

The primary in IL-03 is one that can be won. So far 108 Blue America donors have given Mark $1,860. If you'd like to help keep that going, here's the place to do it.

RANDI SCHEURER TAKES ON ILLINOIS BUSH DOG MELISSA BEAN

Randi's family-- next stop: Congress

One of the highpoints-- albeit a very short-lived one (literally the time it took for an e-mail and a response)-- was when West Virginia bloggers told me they were going to convince Christy Hardin Smith to run for Congress. Can you imagine working on that campaign? Not to mention how the average IQ of the congressional caucuses would rise! Or imagine the Jane campaign? Or Teddy, Marcy, Digby, Scarecrow, Pach, Egregious... None of these are professional politicians; they're sharp, concerned citizen activists. Speaking this week with Randi Scheurer, the progressive running against Bush Dog Melissa Bean, I couldn't help but think how Congress needs far fewer professional politicians and far more concerned citizen activists like Randi-- or Christy.

I can't imagine the Inside the Beltway Democrats ever getting behind Randi. She is so not them! She doesn't favor civil unions for same sex couples; she can't see why their shouldn't be total equality-- in marriage, in health care and in every other issue used to discriminate against gay men and women. Ask her when the war should end; she doesn't hesitate and she doesn't equivocate: "Tomorrow." Health care: guaranteed and single-payer. You get the picture.

Now what about the district? Illinois' 8th CD is in the extreme northeast corner of the state. It shares Lake County with Dan Seals' future district, McHenry County with John Laesch's future district, and a long border with Wisconsin. It leans Republican-- Bush took 56% of the vote in 2000 and 2004-- and when conservative Democrat Melissa Bean first won the seat from Phil Crane in 2004 she beat him by 9,000 votes out of 270,000 cast. Randi tells me that she's lived in IL-08 for 30 years and she's seen the demographics changing. "Less people identify themselves as Republicans now; they think of themselves as independents. The voters in this district are sitting on the face and waiting to see who addresses the issues best." And the voters in the district aren't happy with Bush's policies-- policies largely supported by their putative Democratic congresswoman, a Blue Dog, a member of Ellen Tauscher's reactionary New Democratic Caucus, and a vile pro-war Bush Dog.

I asked Randi if residents-- just the average folks, not the activists-- know about Bean's support for Bush and his corporatist policies. "Yes," she told me. "I've been to thousands of homes already and I've been to events in various parts of the district and close to 98% of the people who sign my petitions and who I speak with say they do not like her and are very disappointed in her. People say they are disappointed in her voting record. They expected her to represent us better than she has. And she hasn't responded to members of the community. She never seems to be part of the community."

Randi joins us today for a couple hours of blogging at Firedoglake, 1pm, Central Time (11am on the West Coast). If you agree with me that we have enough professional politicians concerned primarily with special interests and you'd like to see someone just like us in Congress, please consider helping Randi's grassroots campaign at our Blue America page.

HOLDING REACTIONARY DEMOCRATS ACCOUNTABLE: S-CHIP TO DOMESTIC SPYING

Earlier today Jane Hamsher, Digby, John Amato, Christy Hardin Smith, Chris Bowers and myself asked our blogs' readers to help us hold 5 of the worst, most reactionary renegade Democrats accountable for their support of Bush's veto of the S-CHIP legislation that would help provide for medical coverage for needy children.

What we are proposing to do is to run automated phone calls to 40,000 registered voters in each of their districts (2 in North Carolina for tobacco lobby whores Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre, one in Mississippi for Gene Taylor, one in Georgia for Jim Marshall and one in Indiana for Baron Hill). Is that too harsh, you ask? Afterall, they are Democrats. Are they? Do Democrats vote against health care for needy children? Do Democrats vote to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq? Do Democrats vote for domestic spying? Do Democrats vote against equal rights for minorities? Do Democrats vote for a bankruptcy bill written by predatory lenders? Do Democrats rubber stamp the Bush agenda? These five do.

Today the NY Times published a sickening story about how the Bush Regime felt confident they will win approval of the broadened wiretapping authority that they secured temporarily in August... and some Democratic officials admit that they may not come up with the votes to rein in the administration." Why can't they? For the same reason they can't override Bush's veto of the legislation that would provide health care for needy children. And that means reactionary Democrats like Taylor, Marshall, Etheridge, McIntyre, and Hill. Their records aren't identical-- but they are all abysmal, usually little better than an actual Republican's.

Please consider making a donation this evening to the Blue America PAC so we can hold these renegades accountable and make sure the voters in their districts at least know that their representatives are siding with Bush and his-- and their-- Big Business campaign contributors against... sick children. Even $5 helps and the process is easy as pie.