There Are No Syrian Moderate Terrorists But 300 Members Of Congress Voted To Give "Them" Billions Of Our Taxpayer Dollars

We live in a political system where Congress shirks it's clear and unambiguous responsibility to declare war. Instead we get military actions of dubious legality and with superficial public support, which often quickly sours. Thursday the House came as close as they do to debating and voting for war. Disguised as H.R. 3979-- "The Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014"-- the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was clearly meant to draw as little public attention as possible. It passed by a big margin, as always, only 87 Democrats and 32 Republicans with the guts too stand up to the outrageous excesses of the Military Industrial Complex. The final vote was 300-119. The Republicans seeded it with a few goodies for Democrats, like a half-assed crack-down against sexual assault, but many of the Members who care most about the issues weren't taken in and voted no anyway. Take Donna Edwards for example, a perfect target for that kind of appeal. But too smart to fall for it. She voted against it. Donna:

“This National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) extends the authority the Administration is using to justify military action in Syria for an additional two years without explicit Congressional approval or debate. I cannot support a foreign policy to train and equip Syrian rebels and fight ISIS over the long-term absent a full debate and vote by Congress-- that is our constitutional responsibility.

“I support provisions in this House-Senate agreement to help combat sexual assault in the military, and to provide a 1.0 percent pay increase and necessary resources for our service members and their families. Nonetheless, I could not vote for this NDAA. After more than a decade of war, it’s time for a debate in Congress to reassure the American people and our military community about the best path forward.”

Across the aisle, one of the most vocal-- and credible-- opponents of the bill was Walter Jones the conservative Republican whose district includes Camp LeJeune and who has dedicated his career to serving the interests of the men and women in the ranks (rather than the contractors and mercenary corporations). His website explains exactly why he bucked the Establishment and voted NO.

Today, Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) voted against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, which cuts military benefits and provides billions of dollars in spending toward President Obama’s unconstitutional expansion of military force in Iraq and Syria.

The NDAA for FY 2015 cuts military benefits by requiring a $3 increase in certain pharmacy co-pays and a 1 percent decrease in the housing allowance for uniformed service members.

In addition to cuts in military benefits, the NDAA for FY 2015 also includes President Obama’s $5 billion request to fund Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria.  Of that $5 billion, $3.4 billion will be used for airstrikes against ISIS and $1.6 billion will be used for training Sunni tribes and forces in Iraq. Overall, the NDAA for FY 2015 authorizes $63.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere.

“I cannot vote for a bill that cuts military benefits while funding wars that Congress never declared,” said Congressman Jones. Congress repeatedly authorizes spending on undeclared wars that put our troops in danger and then has the audacity to cut the benefits of those they are unconstitutionally sending overseas to fight. It’s just not right.”

Justin Amash, one of the only Republicans in either House of Congress worth taking seriously sent out this tweet right after the vote:

Most of the House progressives voted no as well,Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Beto O'Rourke (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), etc. Most of the Democratic Leadership team voted yes, including Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Israel/Luján, Wasserman Schultz. And both freshmen who were already sworn in because of unexpired terms-- Alma Adams (D-NC) and NJ machine boss George Norcross' hopeless brother Donald Norcross both planted their flags on the side of the Military Industrial Complex. No one should have expected any more from either.

"Today," wrote Seatte Rep. Jim McDermott to his constituents, "I voted in opposition to H.R. 3979, the National Defense Authorization Act.

"I have said consistently that if President Obama was prepared to escalate military action against ISIS or to expand the arming and training of the ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition, he must come to Congress with a plan and ask for our support.

"And we, as Members of Congress, must take seriously our Constitutional responsibility when it comes to matters of war and peace. There is no question in my mind that ongoing operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have become a full-fledged military campaign, which warrants a fresh Congressional debate on an authorization for the use of military force.

"And yet, this afternoon the House passed a gargantuan NDAA with only one hour of debate on the floor, a clear abdication of Congressional authority in deciding the conditions under which we send our men and women into conflict.

"I remember the last time Congress failed to thoroughly debate a plan for military action in the Middle East; it unleashed a Pandora’s Box in Iraq and the wider region that we struggling to contain even today.

"I appreciate the unenviable position the President faces in Iraq and I even sympathize with his reluctance to seek cooperation from a Congress that has done its upmost to stymie his legislative agenda for the past five years. Nevertheless, I will not vote to authorize billions of dollars toward a military campaign, as well as a clear military campaign by proxy, without the proper and robust debate such a grave action deserves."

A senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, California Democrat John Garamendi explains, in some detail, why he voted what what he saw as "an imperfect" bill. First and foremost: pork for his own district-- through Beale and Travis Air Force Bases:

While Congressman Garamendi disagrees with portions of this extensive legislation, it earned his support through the protection of vital missions at Beale and Travis Air Force Bases, improved transitional services for new veterans, and several important measures to reduce wasteful spending in the Pentagon budget.

“Throughout the committee process, I’ve worked to ensure that the NDAA treats our servicemembers and veterans with the respect they deserve. I’ve also done everything I can to preserve the vital Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Air Mobility missions at Beale and Travis Air Force Bases, missions that will only grow in importance as we continue to adapt to 21st century threats,” Garamendi said. “If I were the sole author of this bill, there would be some significant modifications to some of the language, but as a good faith compromise bill, it has earned my support.”

The NDAA prohibits the retirement of the U-2 and KC-10 fleets in 2015, protecting important missions at Beale and Travis, respectively.

“Military priorities change with time, and in the 3rd District, we are blessed to have two missions that will only grow with importance as America adapts and responds to modern threats: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance at Beale and Air Mobility at Travis,” Garamendi said. “As we’re seeing with the rise of organizations like ISIL, extremist organizations are becoming an even bigger threat. We need to know what’s happening on the ground, and when necessary, quickly respond. That’s why it is very important to preserve the U-2 and KC-10 missions until the next generation technologies are ready.”

The NDAA includes a 1% pay raise for the troops and improved mental health screenings to earlier diagnose and treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and brain injuries that so often plague servicemembers when they return to civilian life.

The bill also includes several provisions to help veterans succeed in civilian life, including:

  •         Changes to the Transition Assistance Program that make it easier for transitioning service members to understand and use their benefits. In particular, the NDAA requires additional instruction and guidance on pursuing post-secondary education, including financial guidance and detailed instructions on how to use the Veterans’ Benefits Administration’s educational benefits such as the post-9/11 GI Bill;

•         Programs to make it easier for servicemembers to obtain professional credentials (professional accreditation, Federal occupational licenses, state professional licenses, and certifications) through their military training. For example, electrical maintenance training in the military could also be used to fulfill some of the requirements needed to obtain a state electrician license; and

•         A pilot program to establish connections between the Department of Defense and state veterans’ agencies. Under this program, the Department of Defense will supply essential information to state veterans’ agencies to make servicemembers’ transition from military service to civilian life easier. This is similar to the California Department of Veterans Affairs’ Operation Welcome Home.

“Imagine spending years of your life getting certified in a skilled trade, only to be told you need to go through a nearly identical certification process once you hang up your uniform. That’s the reality for thousands of servicemembers transitioning to civilian life,” Garamendi explained. “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, since we’re often subsidizing these private certification processes through financial aid programs, and it’s a waste of time and potential earnings and advancement for the new veteran looking to get a jumpstart on a civilian career. While there’s more to be done, I’m glad the NDAA is making progress on this front.”

The NDAA continues our nation’s slow but positive progress in addressing the issue of sexual assaults in the military.  This NDAA:

•         Requires the Secretary of Defense to consider the preference of sexual assault victims regarding whether offenses should be prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court;

•         Allows a victim of sexual assault, who believes that their rights were violated during the court martial process, the ability to petition the Court of Criminal Appeals to require the court martial to comply with the Military Rules of Evidence;

•         Provides an appeal process for individuals who were victims of a sex-related offense and were discharged from the military for what they believe is a side-effect of their assault, such as psychological struggles, or a failure to adjust; and

•         Requires the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces.

“I believe that if victims of sexual assault in the military want to pursue their complaints through an independent civilian process, they should be given that opportunity. This NDAA doesn’t go far enough, but we’re getting closer to a system that empowers and fairly treats the victims of sexual assault and deters these horrific crimes from ever occurring,” Garamendi said.

The NDAA rejects a Department of Defense proposal to substantially cut commissaries on military bases, which would have led to a de facto pay cut for servicemembers and military families. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review, utilizing the services of an independent organization experienced in retail grocery analysis, of the defense commissary system to help determine the best way forward while still providing significant savings to patrons.

“I’m ever mindful of backdoor pay cuts to servicemembers and their families. Let’s be clear: the proposed commissary cut would have taken money out of the pockets of people defending our nation and the family members who support them at home. I’m sure there are reasonable savings we can find in the commissary program without increasing food prices, and I will review any such proposals as they’re presented to us, but of all the places to cut waste in the NDAA, commissaries are near the bottom of the list,” Garamendi added.

In 10 Days The Republicans Will Force Student Loan Rates To Double

This week, PPP released a survey showing that Republicans-- plus 4 New Dems who voted with them (Jared Polis, Dan Maffei, Joe Garcia and multimillionaire Scott Peters)-- are way on the wrong side of public opinion when it comes to education. (Rumors have been floating that Obama's backward and overly corporate Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, actually encouraged the 4 New Dems to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans against the best interests of education policy-- which would be par for the course for Duncan.)

The national poll shows that an overwhelming 83% of Americans want to keep student loan rates at 3.4% or to adopt Elizabeth Warren's plan to lower them to the same 0.75% that the big banks pay. Even better, three-quarters of voters say they would be less likely to vote for their Representative if he or she voted to double rates to 6.8%, or allowed them to increase to a maximum of 8.5%, which is the Republican plan that was proposed by John Kline (R-MN) and passed with only 8 Republicans dissenting.

And so do 195 Members of Congress. 195-- that's the number of Members who have signed Joe Courtney's discharge petition that would force Boehner and Cantor, no matter how against it they are, to schedule an up-or-down vote for H.R. 1595, which prevents the rate from doubling by extending the current 3.4% rate for another two years. I don't see a single Republican on that list, although I do all 4 of the New Dems who voted for the Republican bill that world force rates to rise dramatically: Scott Peters (CA), Jared Polis (CO), Dan Maffei (NY) and Joe Garcia (FL). They need 218 signatures to get Boehner off his fat ass.

With Peters finally aboard, it looks like the whole California Democratic delegation is on this now. One of them, John Garamendi, formerly a University of California Regent as well as a Cal State Trustee, who has UC Davis in his district, warned that "If Congress fails to stop the Stafford loan rate from doubling by July 1st, it will take money out of the pockets of working families and students, including 11,000 students at UC Davis. Those stopping this vote from happening should be ashamed. We live in a country where half of the children from wealthy families complete college, but only one in ten children from the poorest families are able to get their degree. The Stafford loan is a vital lifeline for those trying to bridge the achievement gap, making the American Dream more accessible to all... If you believe like I do that college should be accessible to every qualified student, that a well-educated workforce creates a more resilient economy, then you should join me in calling on the House Republican leadership to give the Student Loan Relief Act the up-or-down vote it deserves. Education creates our greatest return on investment.”

Boehner Comes Through For China Again-- Defeats Made In America Proposal

China made a really good investment by donating to the Chamber of Commerce when they ran a big international effort to illegally scoop up vast sums of foreign cash to help replace Nancy Pelosi with John Boehner as Speaker. Boehner is the worst patsy for China's economic agenda in Congress (not counting Miss McConnell). And Boehner came through for his Beijing financiers again yesterday.

During a little remarked on debate over a bipartisan bill, H.R. 678, to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to contract for the development of small conduit hydropower at Bureau facilities, John Garamendi (D-CA) tried to get the Republicans to include language that would require, when practicable, all materials used for conduit hydropower generation be manufactured in the United States. Sounds simple, right? Not when John Boehner is in charge.

All Republicans were instructed to vote NO and Garamendi's commonsense proposal lost 194-226. Only two Republicans cared enough about American manufacturing jobs to stand up to Boehner and vote with the Democrats-- Walter Jones (R-NC) and Jimmy Duncan (R-TN). The Democrat running for the seat Boehner is occupying, Andy Hounshell, is an Ohio steel worker at a plant in Middletown, in the heart of Boehner's district. "I admire Congressman Garamendi for always putting working people first," Hounshell told us this afternoon. "If he proposal passed there probably would have been good-paying jobs created for American workers right here in western Ohio. I would have voted for the proposal and one of the reasons I'm running is because John Boehner never does. Whose side is he on? There's one way to turn this economy around and spread around the benefits across all levels of society-- creating good-paying jobs. Boehner should have done what those two other Republicans, Jones and Duncan did-- pushed to pass Garamendi's proposal and pushed for more jobs right here in the U.S.A."



“Our first priority as Representatives of the American people must be creating more American jobs,” said Congressman Garamendi. “Over the past two decades, the manufacturing sector has lost nine million jobs-- in large part due to unwise public policy. However, manufacturing is roaring back with approximately half a million new jobs created in the last three years.”

Garamendi added, “We can do so much more by improving education, research, infrastructure, and adapting to changing conditions. The very first step though is simple: when the government invests in public works projects, including hydropower, that money should go toward employing American workers. The businesses are ready, the workers are ready, it’s time for Congress to step up to the plate, so we can Make It In America once again.”

California Congressional Races Looking Good For Democrats

California went through a nonpartisan congressional redistricting and it looks like it could work out well for Democrats. Although the Republicans were once hopeful they could make conservative Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney's race competitive (CA-09), last month a poll, from Celinda Lake, the most consistently accurate pollster in America, showed McNerney with a pretty insurmountable 16 point lead over Ricky Gill, an unemployed 25 year old stalker with a fake resume. The NRCC also had some kind of delusion they sold to the clueless media-- and Colusa County supervisor Kim Vann-- that they could beat John Garamendi (CA-03). Two polls have shown Garamendi leading by 15 points.

The DCCC is backing 7 challengers in Republican-held districts: Ami Bera (CA-07), Jose Hernandez (CA-10), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Raul Ruiz (CA-36), Mark Takano (CA-41), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), and Scott Peters (CA-52). Bera and Peters have been endorsed by the pro-business, anti-consumer/anti-worker New Dem Coalition. Takano is a progressive. The rest are somewhere in between. The most obvious race the DCCC should be pursuing, CA-25, pitting Dr. Lee Rogers, a progressive, against House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon, who is drowning in a sea of corruption scandals and a local GOP civil war, is being studiously and aggressively ignored by "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel. (You can contribute to helping Rogers replace McKeon here.) The DCCC doesn't take on Republican leaders like Boehner and Cantor and they don't take on Republican committee chairs like Paul Ryan and Buck McKeon. They specialize in faceless, unknown backbenchers. OK, someone's got to. But someone has to go after these galoots as well too... and corrupt hacks Steve Israel, Joe Crowley and Debbie Wasserman Schultz take too much cash from the same nefarious interests that finance your Eric Cantors and Buck McKeons and Paul Ryans to ever go up against them.



On the other hand, the good news is that Ventura County Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (CA-26) leads Republican extremist Tony Strickland by 4 points (48-44%) according to a recent poll by Tulchin Research. She has a decent record in the state legislature and would probably wind up voting with the Democrats on all important issues. Even better news is that the one real progressive the DCCC is backing in the state, Mark Takano (CA-41), is ahead of Chamber of Commerce candidate, Republican John Tavaglione by 4 points (42-38%), even with ConservaDem Riverside mayor Ron Loveridge campaigning for the Republican. And in the new 47th CD (Long Beach, Westminster, Cypress and Garden Grove), state Senator Alan Lowenthal leads Republican Gary DeLong by 11 points (47-36%), despite a huge fundraising advantage by DeLong.

Dr. Ami Bera, who has come close twice before, is tied with far right Congressman Dan Lungren at 47%, and after positives Bera leads by five points (51-46%). Obama leads Romney 52-44% in this same poll. Similarly, conservative New Dem Scott Peters is tied with shady incumbent Brian Bilbray in two recent polls, one at 45-45% and one at 40-40%. Peters is a total Steve Israel brand of candidate and the DCCC is expected to spend close to $2 million on this race.

And even in the two races where the DCCC candidates are losing, they're not losing badly and could make up some lost ground. Dr. Raul Ruiz (CA-36) trails Mary Bono Mack by only two points (43-45%) with 12 percent of voters undecided, according to a recent PPP poll. Obama leads Romney 49% to 48% in this same poll. And freshman Jeff Denham (CA-10) is under 50% with astronaut Jose Hernandez trailing by just seven points (41-48%) with 12 percent of voters undecided, according to a recent PPP poll. Obama and Romney are tied at 47% in this same poll.

Meanwhile, the big one in California is CA-25, the one Steve Israel, for whatever reason, is adamant on throwing. McKeon has been the epitome of right wing conservatism and his career is characterized as being anti-gay, pro-war, and anti-immigrant, and as a leader in the war against women. As chair of the House Armed Services Committee, he opposes any reduction in defense spending or withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. He promotes proliferation of nuclear weapons, threatening Iran with war, and the use of military drones domestically. He is the top recipient of campaign cash from the defense industry-- more even than any TWO senators!-- and he founded and chairs the drone caucus, which is giving him money hand over fist.

Several other circumstances make McKeon vulnerable for the first time. Redistricting was not favorable to him. The 25th CD used to be the second largest in California and had a 9 point partisan Republican advantage. Now it is a more compact, a mostly LA County district with a 4 point Republican advantage over Democrats and 18% Decline-To-State voters. The district is now 30% Latino, a group McKeon has alienated with his anti-DREAM Act stance and he’s even been caught trying to help overturn California’s state DREAM act.

What makes the race unique is that several large scandals have surfaced this year surrounding McKeon. The largest is the Countrywide Financial VIP program in which McKeon received a preferential loan at the direct intervention of then-CEO Angelo Mozilo. He lied about his involvement and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently released their report implicating McKeon. Issa, the chairman, referred to this loan program as a “bribe” on TV. National and in-district media have covered this story extensively. A newspaper poll even showed McKeon losing to an unnamed challenger over this issue.

McKeon has several FEC violations and failure to report in-kind donations and pays his wife to be his treasurer, in effect, illegally funneling vast amounts of campaign contributions into his personal household accounts. She is the highest paid congressional spouse and has made $600,000 from the campaign in recent years. McKeon also pays other family members for questionable services.

In the district, there is a gaping rift in the Republican party. McKeon former district director, Scott Wilk, is running for State Assembly in AD-38, a district wholly located inside CA-25. McKeon and Wilk separated on bad terms and McKeon ran his wife Patricia against him in the primary. Patricia lost embarrassingly, but not before causing irreparable damage to McKeon. In fact, all of his supported candidates in 2012 have lost local and state elections in the district, including the incumbent mayor of Santa Clarita. Being endorsed by McKeon is known as the kiss of death for any local Republican.

McKeon’s Democratic opponent is Dr. Lee Rogers, a surgeon and former national spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association and first time candidate. I know Lee personally and he's an independent-minded progressive who is articulate, intelligent and committed to public service in the same terms he's been committed to serving his medical patients.

Meanwhile, McKeon’s hometown newspaper, The Signal, refused to endorse him for the first time in 20 years in the primary over the CEMEX mining issue that Lee's been all over and will probably be the most important single issue in the minds of voters when they go into the voting booth. Please help us make sure Lee beats McKeon-- even without any help from Steve Israel, Joe Crowley and the rest of the corrupt DC insiders. You can contribute here.

What Happened Last Night? Short Answer: Mixed Bag

Last night's biggest losers

Although younger voters and African-Americans didn't bother voting yesterday-- and Republicans did well in Virginia and New Jersey-- the most recent polls show that Obama is still as popular today as he was when he was elected. 54% of Americans approve of his job performance, one percent higher than his winning total a year ago. And even Southerners agree he's been doing a better job than Bush did. (True that is an exceedingly low bar... but still... Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee...)

With GOP factions arming themselves for a bloody civil war, and N.Y. Republican Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava talking about how all the hyperbolic right-wing hate and lies wore her down, the Republicans are celebrating their expected victory in Virginia and their surprise one in New Jersey. Democrats who went for that whole Hope and Change thing a year ago just didn't feel all that inspired and didn't bother turning out. Deeds basically lost the Virginia governor's race when he declared in a debate that if he was elected, he would opt out of the public option. But Republicans already had a candidate they liked; all Deeds did was give Democrats a reason to stay home; a good one. And the results were disastrous-- not just for Deeds who deserved to lose, but for the whole ticket. Most tragic of all, progressive Delegate Margi Vanderhye was defeated by lunatic fringe GOP nutjob Barbara Comstock. Margi lost by about 300 votes, thanks to Deeds' stupidly-run, conservative campaign.

An even bigger disappointment came in Maine where bigots took away the right of marriage equality for gays and lesbians, 53-47%. It was close all night but what I just couldn't understand is how medical marijuana legalization won in Maine while same sex marriage lost. Stoners voted against gay marriage? And although Maine passed its medical marijuana referendum by a hefty vote (59-41%), in Breckenridge, Colorado it was a 3 to 1 landslide, not for medical marijuana but for full on pot decriminalization. Only 27% of voters opposed de facto legalization.

"This vote demonstrates that Breckenridge citizens overwhelmingly believe that adults should not be punished for making the safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol," said Sean McAllister, a Breckenridge attorney who proposed the ordinance.

The measure's victory is considered symbolic because it conflicts with state and federal laws. However, supporters of the measure say it inches the whole state closer to full legalization.

And at least the pro-gay ordinances won in Kalamazoo, Michigan and in Washington state. And openly gay Mark Kleinschmidt won the mayoral race in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Detroit elected an openly gay City Council president, Charles Pugh.

California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher was a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrat is suburbs north of San Francisco, in a district that was Republican just over a decade ago. She often voted with them on crucial issues like bankruptcy and other bills that empowered banksters and Wall Street thugs. She was appointed to a minor job in the State Department and last night she was replaced in Congress by John Garamendi, a hard working progressive. He beat Republican David Harmer 56-40%.

But the big race, of course-- the one the media had hyped beyond recognition-- was in NY-23, where Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Darrell Issa, Jim DeMint, Tim Pawlenty and the teabaggers slimed the mainstream Republican candidate so badly that she withdrew, leaving a confused Republican Party in complete disarray. They switched en masse to the teabagger third party candidate, Doug Hoffman, who then proceeded to lose to conservative barely-Democrat Bill Owens, 49-45%. It was the night's biggest shocker-- or at least one that was tied with Corzine's loss in New Jersey and Bloomberg's near loss in NYC (after dumping $100 million of his own money into the race against someone who no one has ever heard of). The biggest losers were Palin and Beck-- and the GOP has so much egg on its face that it'll never figure out how to clean itself off. Does this mean Marco Rubio should throw in the tea-towel down in Florida?

I'll be on the radio this afternoon (1-2pm, PT) with Nicole Sandler, who's sitting in for Randy Rhodes, and we'll be talking about the election results and about how screwed up the GOP is with their deadly teabagger problem. The call in number is 866-87-RANDI.

Next Tuesday Is The Special Election To Replace Tauscher In Northern California-- We Stand Behind Anthony Woods

There's a special election a week from today up in Northern California. The objective is to replace fiscally conservative Ellen Tauscher who has been drafted into the Obama Administration by her staunch ally Rahm Emanuel. (Poor Hillary!) Early in June DWT endorsed Anthony Woods but we've been mostly sitting back and watching the race from afar since then. I watched the a credible batch of endorsements roll in for Anthony, not career pols but grassroots organizations that have first hand knowledge of his work-- like VoteVets.org, Human Rights Campaign, Victory Fund, as well as the Bay Area Reporter, a weekly I used to write for, and the Veterans Press. He's clearly the grassroots candidate, although he's up against a batch of very seasoned pols, one of whom, John Garamendi, is clearly the Establishment choice and has the biggest name recognition. But look at the ActBlue fundraising page for the election. Anthony has more donors than the other five candidates-- combined. Over 1,700 donors have given him more than $175,000. Garamendi goes to more traditional sources of income, which is, after all, the very bedrock of everything-- and I mean everything-- that is wrong with American politics.

If you wonder how it's possible that in a democracy off sorts, over 70% of the people want a public option in the new health care legislation being debated now and the entire (100%) Republican Party opposes it, look no further than the billions of dollars being spent in thinly-disguised bribes to members of Congress by the Insurance Industry and the Medical-Industrial Complex. These bribe-takers should all be in prison-- Republicans and Democrats and we certainly shouldn't be electing new ones of that ilk. So are any of the Democrats running in CA-10 taking dirty money to run their campaigns? Glad you asked. And you're not the only one who's asked. The very first question at an August 6th debate in Solano County was about who's taken money from the crooked insurance companies. Take a look.

Nice answer from Joan Buchanan... although before she gave it she took $5K from vicious health reform opponent Wellpoint, $1500 from the teabagger-financing American Insurance Association (AIA), and $5K from Anesthesia Service Medical Group. In the days since, she’s accepted another $5K from the AMA, $5K from the California Dental Association, and $1,000 from the Financial Services Roundtable. So she's not even in Congress and she's lying her ass off already. As for the claim she's gotten all her money from individual donors. That includes one really big donor-- herself, to the tune of $750,000 so far. She running, simultaneously, for the state Assembly and she's also been taking money from Merck and other bad players in the health care reform debate.

For all his show of how "the insurance companies don't like me," Garamendi has received PAC contributions from Pacific Life Insurance Company. Maybe he didn't notice the middle two words in the donation. That might not be Garamenddi's biggest weakness though. For one thing, he and the 2 other Sacramento career pols are running for 7 offices between them... simultaneously! That isn't just weird, it's unethical and very shady. The 3 of them "hold California public offices and continued to raise and spend money from their state campaign accounts after they declared themselves federal candidates."

While not illegal, the practice raises questions among watchdog organizations who say multiple campaign funds allow candidates to bolster their war chests while sidestepping the more stringent federal contribution limits.

Citizens may contribute up to $2,400 per election to a federal candidate compared with $3,600 to a state Senate or Assembly candidate or $6,000 to an individual seeking statewide office.

A Bay Area News Group analysis of the latest campaign finance reports of the three congressional candidates who had both state and federal accounts found that Lt. Gov. John Garamendi raised $20,140 for his gubernatorial and lieutenant governor's re-election bids following his April 22 entry into the congressional race.

The analysis fails to reveal, however, how much of Garamendi's combined expenses of $662,712 in his two state accounts in the first six months of 2009 were made after he became a congressional candidate.

The state does not require, and Garamendi's campaign did not report, the disclosure of the dates of expenditures. Reports of state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, include the data.

But if Garamendi loses by one vote, it's because he wasn't able to vote for himself, since he doesn't live in the district. (He lives in Dan Lungren's district but was afraid to go up against him, even though Lungren is certifiably insane.)