Why Is Blue America Making Such A Fuss About Ted Lieu's Race?

As you probably know by now, Blue America is giving away an opportunity to own a rare and collectible RIAA-certified Fleetwood Mac quadruple platinum award. Anyone who contributes to Ted Lieu's campaign on this page, before Wednesday at noon, will be among those who have a chance to be chosen, randomly, to get this thank you gift from Blue America. When people tell us that Ted is a shoe-in, we point out that Sheldon Adelson is making an unprecedented financial push to win this seat for one of his protégés. Last time a right-wing Republican dumped a massive amount of cash into this district, beloved, 20-term incumbent Henry Waxman, won anyway-- but with great difficultly… and only barely. Republican plutocrat Bill Bloomfield spent $7,567,080 of his own money and Waxman won 171,860 (54%) to 146,660 (46%)-- and that was with President Obama on the ticket, bringing in 210,010 votes (61%) against Romney. That's what a billionaire can do with a $7,567,080 check to himself. Adelson and his network are funneling massive funds into the Republican in CA-33 now-- and Ted, although a highly accomplished and admired state senator for most of the area, isn't nearly as well known as Waxman. The danger is clear and present and why we are asking you to help Ted-- and why Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti doing the same.

Tonight Mayor Garcetti is hosting an event for Ted at 6:30 PM and anyone who contributes at least $250 to Ted's campaign on our Fleetwood Mac page will be on the guest list for that as well. The mayor backed him during the primary, telling voters that "Ted is not only the most qualified candidate, but the type of person we need in Washington-- intelligent, ethical and relentless as a representative for our community. He has shown tremendous leadership on important issues of our time including climate change, healthcare and protecting victims of domestic violence. I am confident that Ted Lieu is the best candidate to strengthen the middle class, create more jobs and help workers save for retirement."

And it helps that Waxman is campaigning for him. He told voters in the district that Ted Lieu is his choice to represent the district in Congress. "I endorse Ted Lieu because he will always work tirelessly to strengthen the middle class, make higher education more affordable, help workers save for retirement, and protect our privacy from intrusive NSA surveillance." Ted is very aware of the Waxman legacy and how important it is to the voters in CA-33. This morning he gave us this statement about his own feelings about Henry Waxman and what it will take to carry on that legacy.

Congressmember Henry Waxman is a remarkable American whose four decades of public service have shaped the course of our country. From pushing through the Clean Air Act Amendments-- one of the strongest environmental laws in the world-- to nutrition labeling, tobacco reform, the Ryan White CARE Act, the Affordable Care Act, and numerous other significant laws, Congressmember Waxman has improved the lives of generations of Americans. But Congressmember Waxman has acknowledged there is one issue he did not finish working on: climate change.

I believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Ocean levels are rising, we are experiencing more extreme weather events, and there is more risk of droughts. Left unchecked, climate change will turn from an inconvenience to a full scale disaster that affects our food and water supply. In other words, conditions that will kill people on a large scale and cause violent conflicts.

That is why I have repeatedly championed legislation to tackle climate change. Last year, as a result of a California law I authored, two rounds of funding totaling over $3 million have been awarded to cities and nonprofit organizations to address climate change. I was also a coauthor of AB 32, California’s landmark law that mandated greenhouse gas reductions by 2020.

Two years ago I authored a bill to take cap and trade funds and direct a portion to natural resources conservation. Wouldn’t it be great if we could invent a machine that sucks carbon out of the air? Well guess what, nature already has that technology: it’s called a tree. If we could simply preserve or even expand our natural resources-- including forest land-- we would help mitigate climate change.

As a Member of Congress, I would focus on climate change as one of my highest priorities. There are many difficult challenges we face in our country. But only one issue threatens the existence of our species.

One of my first acts will be to reintroduce the Waxman-Markey bill, which puts in place a nationwide cap and trade system and imposes a 20% renewable portfolio standard. To seriously address climate change, we need America to do what California has done. And then we need America to get the world to do what California has done. This is how we and our children will survive.

What's Worse, Republican Science Deniers Or Corrupt Transactional Democrats?

Where Does Tom Steyer Get His Targeting Advice?

Tom Steyer is a San Francisco billionaire and a dedicated environmental activist. Last year, he spent $11 million helping elect one of the most corrupt corporate whores in American politics, Virginia's new governor, Terry McAuliffe. A few days later, the Washington Post reported that Governor McAuliffe has joined a coalition of right-wing, anti-environment governors pushing for off-shore drilling. Steyer may be delighted he helped keep Ken Cucchinelli out of office but his boy McAuliffe joined up with Climate Change deniers Pat McCrory (R-NC), Robert Bentley (R-AL), and Phil Bryant (R-MS) to demand that the Interior Department allow Big Oil and Gas companies to drill, baby, drill off the coasts of their states.

This morning, Andrew Restuccia reported for Politico that Steyer has announced the first 7 states in which he's deploying his $100 million political budget for 2014. NextGen Climate Action, a super PAC, is targeting the Senate races in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire and the governor’s races in Florida, Maine and Pennsylvania in what is likely to be the best-funded pro-environmental campaign in history.

So how did he pick his targets? I was at a board meeting the other day for one of the preeminent progressive groups in the country. The staff outlined their political plans for the cycle. As best I could tell, it came directly from the DSCC and was utterly unrelated to the progressive values of the organization. Grotesquely conservative Democrats in states the DSCC has signaled are top priorities-- Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Pryor (AR), Kay Hagan (NC), Alison Lundergan Grimes (KY), Sam Nunn's daughter (GA) were the organization's top targets. No Shenna Bellows in Maine, no Rick Weiland in South Dakota, both of whom the DSCC say are too progressive for their states. Ironically, Weiland has a better chance of winning-- or he would if he were funded as well as the DSCC targets-- than Grimes and Nunn's daughter.

NextGen is bypassing key Senate races in which the Democratic incumbent has not put a major priority on climate change and renewable energy. The prime example is Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Mary Landrieu’s reelection bid in Louisiana, where she has been a champion of her state’s oil and gas industry and a vocal supporter of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

While Steyer puts a priority on maintaining Democrats’ majority in the Senate-- he donated $5 million to a political committee tasked with getting Senate Democrats reelected-- his first order of business is changing the conversation on climate change, said Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic operative who serves as Steyer’s top political adviser.

“This is the year, in our view, where we’re able to demonstrate that you can use climate, if you do it well and you do it in a smart way, as a wedge issue to win political races,” Lehane said.

Lehane said NextGen could get involved in more states eventually, and he indicated Steyer is already looking ahead to the 2016 presidential race. “Obviously we do have an eye both on 2014 and 2016,” he said, adding that NextGen believes that questioning climate science “functionally disqualifies you from being president.”

Steyer has previously said he’ll spend $50 million or more of his personal fortune on the campaign, a sum he hopes to match with $50 million in donations from green-minded donors. But until now, his group hasn’t fully spelled out all of the states and races where it intends to make its stand.

It’s a formidable task. Voters rate the economy and jobs as much higher priorities than climate change in almost every poll. And most of the Democrats that NextGen is supporting haven’t made climate change a major focus of their campaigns so far, even if they occasionally mention it.

Gary Peters, a Business-friendly New Dem, is the terribly flawed candidate in Michigan. Overly cautious and utterly uninspiring, Peters has, for a Democrat, a middling voting record on the environment. In terms of crucial votes on Climate Change since he was elected to the House he's got a 79.17 and a 68.75 on Renewable Energy. Those are not environmentally-friendly scores. If Steyer is looking to help the Democrats retain control of the Senate, backing Peters isn't a bad idea. But if Steyers is looking for allies in the fight for sound environmental and Climate policy, Peters will probably be as disappointing as McAuliffe. Steyer would be far better off helping elect a true believer like Shenna Bellows and giving a hand to incumbent Democrat Brian Schatz (D-HI) who is fighting off a well-funded challenge from an a horribly corrupt, anti-environment New Dem, Colleen Hanabusa. Schatz's voting record makes him the #1 environmental fighter in the whole Senate. He has a score of 100. Hanabusa, whose entire career has been predicated on which special interest pay her and her crooked husband/bagman how much for her votes, has a 75.00 on Renewable Energy and an 88.3 on Global Warming. It would be a catastrophe for the environmental movement if Hanabusa replaces Schatz.

Steyer is getting too much mediocre advice from the turds at the DSCC and the DNC. Maybe he should just fund an environmental PAC for the Holy See.

Pope Francis made the religious case for tackling climate change on Wednesday, calling on his fellow Christians to become “Custodians of Creation” and issuing a dire warning about the potentially catastrophic effects of global climate change.

Speaking to a massive crowd in Rome, the first Argentinian pope delivered a short address in which he argued that respect for the “beauty of nature and the grandeur of the cosmos” is a Christian value, noting that failure to care for the planet risks apocalyptic consequences.

“Safeguard Creation,” he said. “Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!”

The pope centered his environmentalist theology around the biblical creation story in the book of Genesis, where God is said to have created the world, declared it “good,” and charged humanity with its care. Francis also made reference to his namesake, Saint Francis of Assisi, who was a famous lover of animals, and appeared to tie the ongoing environmental crisis to economic concerns-- namely, instances where a wealthy minority exploits the planet at the expense of the poor.

“Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is the property of only a few: Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude,” Francis said.

Francis also said that humanity’s destruction of the planet is a sinful act, likening it to self-idolatry.

“But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: ‘I don’t like it! This is not good!’ ‘So what do you like?’ ‘I like myself!’-- Here, this is sin! Do you see?”… “Human action which is not respectful of nature becomes a boomerang for human beings that creates inequality and extends what Pope Francis has termed ‘the globalization of indifference’ and the ‘economy of exclusion’ (Evangelii Gaudium), which themselves endanger solidarity with present and future generations,” the statement read.

Wednesday, environmental champion Henry Waxman sent a letter to his colleagues urging them to oppose an amendment from West Virginia Big Coal whore David McKinley. "The flat earth society," wrote Waxman, "is at it again. Today, Rep. McKinley will offer an amendment to H.R. 4435 that denies that carbon pollution causes harm. Science denial will not solve the problem.

Earlier this month, our nation’s leading climate scientists released the National Climate Assessment, which confirmed that climate change is real, is caused by humans, and is already harming communities across America. The assessment explains that the scientific evidence is “unequivocal.”

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s premiere climate science body, released its authoritative reports on the state of climate science. The latest science shows that climate change is expected to exacerbate heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, and water- and vector-borne diseases, which will pose greater risks to human health and lives around the world. Wheat and corn yields are already experiencing negative impacts due to climate change. According to the IPCC, increasing global temperatures combined with an increase in food demand “poses large risks to food security globally and regionally.”

The McKinley amendment tells the Defense Department to ignore these scientific findings and the impacts climate change will have on our national security. That is irresponsible.

Republican science deniers may not want to acknowledge it, but every American taxpayer is already bearing the costs of climate change. And for those who lost their income, their home, or even their life in devastating droughts, floods, fires, or super storms, the costs are dramatically higher.

As it turns out, McKinley's deranged amendment passed this morning, 231-192. The Science Deniers included every Republican but 3 (Garrett, Gibson and LoBiondo) plus 4 of the most sold-out Democrats in the House:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog- NC)
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)

Easiest Question Of The Day: Why Is Henry Waxman REALLY Retiring?

When Henry Waxman retires next year, he will be 75 years old. He will have served in Congress for 4 decades… 40 years! Even before being elected to Congress he had been a member of the state legislature. The man has served his country for a long time. He has 5 grandchildren. This morning he announced his retirement. People are reading much more into it-- as they did when George Miller announced his retirement-- than they should.

The lesson? Democrats aren't really counting on re-taking the House in 2014.

Waxman is the fourth top Democrat on a House committee who has either called it quits or opted to run for another office, and a fifth-- House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)-- said this week that he's still weighing his options.

In other words, about 20 percent of the people who stand to become chairmen if Democrats re-take the House are choosing not to stick around (there are 20 standing committees in the House)-- and possibly 25 percent, if Peterson calls it quits.

"The House Democrats don't think they're going to be wielding the gavels," National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) told my colleague Paul Kane shortly after Waxman's retirement was announced.

I agree that the House Democrats can't possibly win back the majority with Steve Israel running the DCCC; it's mathematically impossible because he won't target vulnerable Republicans for several reasons-- his deal with the NRCC and his Center Aisle Caucus bullshit agreement. But that isn't why Waxman is retiring. I haven't asked him why he decided to do it-- I stopped talking to him when he backed Bush's illegal attack on Iraq-- but I bet it's for the same reason I retired from Warner Bros. It was time-- time for himself and his family and time to make room for younger generations. Really. Here's what he said on his official House website:

“As I reflect on my career, I am filled with gratitude.  I am grateful for the support of my constituents, who have entrusted me to represent them and encouraged me to become a leader on national and international issues. I am grateful for my supporters and allies, who have worked side-by-side with me to fight for issues we care about: health, environmental protection, women’s and gay rights, and strengthening the ties between the United States and our most important ally, the State of Israel.

…“I first ran for office because I believe government can be a force for good in people’s lives. I have held this view throughout my career in Congress. And I will leave the House of Representatives with my conviction intact. I have learned that progress is not always easy.  It can take years of dedication and struggle. But it’s worth fighting for.

“My parents were scarred by the Great Depression and as a result they were ardent Democrats. They believed in the ideals of this wonderful country and made sure that I had the opportunity to be the first in the family to get a college education. They taught me that the special interests have plenty of advocates; it’s the poor, the sick, and the powerless who need a champion in Congress.  And that’s what I’ve strived to be.

...“There are elements of Congress today that I do not like. I abhor the extremism of the Tea Party Republicans. I am embarrassed that the greatest legislative body in the world too often operates in a partisan intellectual vacuum, denying science, refusing to listen to experts, and ignoring facts.

“But I am not leaving out of frustration with Congress. Even in today’s environment, there are opportunities to make real progress. Last Congress, I worked with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate to pass legislation that will ease the nation’s growing spectrum shortage, spur innovation in new ‘Super WiFi’ technologies, and create a national broadband network for first responders.  Just last year, I worked on a bipartisan basis to enact legislation strengthening FDA’s authority to stop dangerous drug compounding and to track pharmaceuticals through the supply chain.

“And I am not leaving because I think House Democrats have no chance to retake the House. House Republicans have no compelling vision for the future. The public understands this, and I am confident that the Democrats can regain control of the House.

“The reason for my decision is simple. After 40 years in Congress, it’s time for someone else to have the chance to make his or her mark, ideally someone who is young enough to make the long-term commitment that’s required for real legislative success.  I still feel youthful and energetic, but I recognize if I want to experience a life outside of Congress, I need to start soon. Public office is not the only way to serve, and I want to explore other avenues while I still can.

“I have had a long career and an eventful one-- and I wouldn’t trade any of it. I woke each day looking forward to opportunities to make our country stronger, healthier, and fairer. And I will always be grateful for this honor and privilege.”

Waxman's clear-headed decision is noble and compelling and something we should be toasting him for. There are plenty of Members of Congress who are older and far less capable than he is, who should take his example to heart. Steny Hoyer, Hal Rogers, Ralph Hall, Don Young, Charlie Rangel and Joe Pitts, for example.

UPDATE: So Who's Running?

Political hacks will all discount her-- looking for the usual suspects-- but Marianne Williamson should be able to win this one. People are ready for a fresh face. The non-fresh faces being pushed by the politicos: conservative ex-Republican and EMILY's List monstrosity Wendy Greuel, Fran Pavley (formerly an environmental guru), Zev Yaroslavsky, Debra Bowen. Julia Brownley decided to stay in CA-26, as she should. A couple iof Shrivers are not running. Ted Lieu just took himself out of consideration. Expect another half dozen names by morning. Has anyone heard from Harold Ford, Jr.? Here's a statement from Marianne Williamson on the new development in the race. Read it carefully. Deluded political pundits won't:

The political world was atwitter yesterday over the retirement of Congressman Henry Waxman, who announced he will not run for reelection. Mr. Waxman has had a long and illustrious career as a Congressman, and I join with others in my sincere best wishes for the next phase of his life and career.

Almost as soon as Mr. Waxman’s announcement was made, a great wave of speculation began as to who else will run for his seat. New candidacies have already emerged. And all that is good. Democracy is at its best when a lot of us want to play.

I wish to make very clear where I stand politically in relation to Mr. Waxman’s surprising announcement.

What I spoke of two weeks before his announcement, and what I will speak of two weeks after it, will be the same. I wasn’t running against Henry Waxman, any more than I’m running against any of the specific candidates who will be joining the race now. I’m running against the system that produced them.

We will hear some say, “Oh now, the race has burst wide open!”-- but do not be fooled. America’s traditional two-party rhetoric is not wide open. It is fundamentally narrow and constricted, at the effect of economic intimidation by forces that will only tolerate a little tweaking here and there.

No one should confuse the rash of new candidacies emerging over the next few days as representing a fundamental contest over the future of America. Rather, a very narrow vision of possibilities remains at the heart of our political system: given that huge moneyed forces are going to continue to have their way with us-- grabbing whatever resources they wish, then leaving crumbs to fall on the floor for everyone else to fight over-- here’s how this or that candidate will help build a bigger and better pile of crumbs. We need to do more than fight over crumbs; we need to put the American people back in control of our country’s destiny.

I am running for Congress because I feel in my heart that the political status quo today, instead of protecting the American people from encroachment by an unholy alliance of money and power, has become too often the handmaiden and advocate for that alliance. And at a time like this, there’s only one thing to protect us: ourselves. It’s time for a new American Spring, a pro-democracy movement here in our own country, by which we rid the US government of the undue influence of money, probably through a Constitutional Amendment forbidding it.

A majority of the American people, both on the Left and Right, feel money wields too much influence on our politics. We need to break the chokehold of a system that represents a narrowing of the democratic franchise for the majority of our citizens, by calling the system on what is really wrong. From income inequality to child poverty to GMO’s to our high mass incarceration rate, the most important issues will not be addressed until we deal with the issue that underlies them all. As long as Wall Street owns America, the American people will not.

Please donate what you can to make my candidacy a powerful statement, a dynamic container for a conversation that truly matters, and victorious at the polls in the primary election on June 3rd.

If Henry Waxman Doesn't Stay On His Toes, Marianne Williamson Will Beat Him Next Year

I don't want to demonize Henry Waxman. As congressmen go, he's been a fairly decent one, for the most part, relatively progressive and-- except on issues relating to Israel and the Middle East-- pretty open-minded. The only time I remember really disagreeing with him, in fact, was when he backed Cheney's and Bush's horrific decision to attack Iraq without provocation. And he has been in Congress for 20 terms, about 39 years… long enough for anyone, way too long for most. But Waxman should realize when his time is up on his own and bow off the congressional stage gracefully. Demonization should have no role in that decision.

A few days ago, we saw that highly acclaimed author, Marianne Williamson had decided to challenge Waxman's reelection. She's running as an independent. And she has a real shot at beating him. I wish she were running next door against Blue Dog/New Dem Adam Schiff instead, a much worthier target. Schiff and Waxman share the Sunset Strip. Doheny Drive is the border between Schiff's 28th CD on the east side of the street and Waxman's 33rd on the west side of the street. Laurel Canyon Blvd. divides the two districts between Lookout Mountain Avenue and Mulholland Dr. Rosewood Avenue, a street just between Melrose and Beverly in West Hollywood is another border between the two districts, Schiff on the northern side of the street, Waxman on the southern side. Waxman has Cedars-Sinai but I think they share Macy's Men's Store in the Beverly Center. They also share deep reservations about Obama's decision to take the diplomatic route with Iran.

A few weeks go, Waxman was joining House Republican warmongers and extremists howling for more and tougher sanctions. “The Senate should act. We ought to pass these increased sanctions, and make sure that the Iranians don't think that they can charm their way out of this situation. Act now,” he barked. The White House asked the Senate to hold off to give the peace process so time to work.

Williamson is more in that camp. Like Waxman, she's also Jewish. I asked her how she felt about the agreement. "It's a tenuous first step," she told me yesterday, "and there are legitimate reasons for mistrust-- but if you don't plant a seed, then how you can ever expect a tree to grow and bear fruit?"

I have no doubt she could beat Schiff easily. And if Waxman doesn't treat her challenge as a serious threat, she'll beat him. Last year, running against mad dog billionaire Republican Bill Bloomfield (posing as an "independent"), Waxman had his closest call ever. He managed to beat Bloomfield 171,860 (54%) to 146,660 (46%). Consider that on the same ballot, Obama won the district over Romney 210,010 (61%) to 127,421 (37%). Bloomfield did a lot better than Romney and Waxman trailed Obama. If EMILY's List jumps into this race on behalf of Williamson, which would be a real stretch, Waxman might as well retire.

Is Henry Waxman Vulnerable… From The Left? Meet Marianne Williamson, Congressional Candidate

Henry Waxman has been an effective and well-respected legislator from the West Side of Los Angeles. First elected in 1974, the 74 year old progressive Democrat is serving his 20th term in Congress. He's the ex-Chairman and now Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. No Republican opponent has ever gotten to 35% against him and most haven't even gotten to 30%, His closest call ever was last year when multimillionaire real estate mogul Bill Bloomberg, a not so stealth Republican, ran against him as an independent. The result was 171,860 (54%) to 146,660 (46%). Bloomfield spent $7,982,215 (95% of it self-funded) and Waxman spent $2,663,179. Most voters were unaware that Bloomfield is a Republican and that he's contributed millions of dollars to GOP candidates and committees. This year Waxman, whose newly configured district includes Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Malibu, Bel Air, Brentwood, Marina del Rey, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Venice and Rancho Palos Verdes (with a medium household income of $89,354/year, one of the wealthiest districts in America), will face another independent opponent, New Age guru and author Marianne Williamson.

Obama won CA-33 against Romney 210,010 (61%) to 127,421 (37%) and the PVI is a solid blue D+11, unassailable territory for any Republican. And, sure enough, Williamson-- unlike Bloomfield-- is a lifelong Democrat. Her NY Times #1 best seller, A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles is Oprah Winfrey's favorite book.

Williamson has promised an idealistic campaign that focuses on ideas. She even refuses to call Waxman her “opponent,” saying they’re just two people applying for the same job. Her campaign literature features an American flag with doves instead of stars, with the small type below crediting the artist and noting, “Used by Permission.” It’s exactly how you’d imagine a spiritual guru would run a campaign.

“The first place democracy is broken isn’t in Washington. The first place democracy is broken is in our hearts and minds,” Williamson said. “There needs to be an intervention of sorts and it’s the American people who have to do it.”

But for the 61-year-old, this intervention is less about specifically unseating Waxman than it is about starting a conversation. And Waxman seems willing to chat.

“I’m gratified Ms. Williamson thinks I’m doing a good job and agrees with me on most issues,” Waxman said in a statement. “And while some think it would make more sense for her to challenge a Republican and help us regain control of the House, I respect her right to run.”

Williamson has a list of issues she rattles off when asked what she’s focused on, including NSA surveillance, the use of drones in the United States and the incarceration rate, but her top priority is ending the influence of money in politics.


“The cancer that lies under the cancer is the undue influence of money,” she said.


“You can look at all these issues and see they’re all derivative of that one poison.”

But she also needs $2.5 million to be competitive, she said.

At a campaign event at a Santa Monica middle school Nov. 20, Williamson spoke to a full auditorium that included self-described hippies, a female pro-choice Republican and a woman who was planning to protest President Obama’s support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement during his trip to the state next week.

…“We need to make you famous!” said one female attendee. If only people know what Williamson stands for, she said, they’ll vote for her.

If that’s all it takes, Williamson will have the election in the bag. Her Twitter followers outnumber Waxman’s nearly 100 to 1.

Professional pundits and political operatives are dismissing Williamson's chances out-of-hand-- and the clueless writer of the Buzzfeed piece above mistakenly asserts that Waxman "never won an election by less than 61%," which is certainly a lot better than the 54% he took just one year ago. If Waxman is smart-- and he is-- he'll take Williamson very seriously. Remember this is a district that is both very Jewish and also has the biggest Iranian community in America. But she told one of the local newspapers, the Daily Breeze that "In most ways I would probably vote exactly how Mr. Waxman has" and that the biggest single reason she's running is because she turned 60 and sees it as her next challenge." If she keeps that kind of talk up, the pundits will be proven correct. If she sticks to real issues-- she's outlined income inequality, the state's high incarceration rate, the environment and what she calls the corruption of the country's food supply, she'll have a shot. And then there's Iran. Waxman abandoned progressives to back the Bush- Cheney rush to war against Iraq. It'll be interesting to see how he handles the nuclear agreement with Iran, and if Williamson is deft enough to make that work for her. She could also point out that Waxman quit the Congressional Progressive Caucus last year and she could pledge to join it if elected.

How Hostile To Science Are Republican Congressmen?

Ralph Hall, ancient GOP Science denier heads the Science Committee

We started looking at the House Science Committee when a particularly brainless and outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), since defeated in a primary, started ranting and raving in a Science Committee hearing about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, never considering exactly where cable TV gets their information. Another member of the committee told me that even most of the Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement. But not all of them. Long passed are the days when a mainstream Republican like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency. That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which eschews Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed and Avarice. Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest (90) and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas Blue Dog who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting in on the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee? He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has accused climate scientists of concocting the evidence for anthopogenic climate change in order to receive federal research grants. What more evidence could Boehner and Cantor possibly want to give Hall the gig?

In fact, when you look at the committee, you sense that Boehner and Cantor were being a little ironic when making the assignments. Aside from weather expert Adams, the committee is chock full of flat-earth sociopaths, teabaggers like Paul Broun (R-GA), Todd Akin (R-MO), the GOP expert in lady parts, and internet porn expert Ben Quayle (R-AZ). Other notably anti-Science members of the Science Committee include Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Steven Palazzo (R-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chip Cravaack (R-MN) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).

This month, with the election coming up, Scientific American decided to ask a simple question-- and answer it scientifically: Does Congress Get A Passing Grade On Science? They contacted 32 congressional leaders involved in science on their committees but only 9-- 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans-- agreed to respond.

We have responses to all eight questions from Reps. Henry Waxman (Committee on Energy and Commerce), Chris Van Hollen (Committee on the Budget), Ralph Hall (Committee on Science, Space and Technology), Timothy Bishop (Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) and John Mica (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure); Senators who responded were Jay Rockefeller (Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), Tom Harkin (Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and Dianne Feinstein (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi answered five of the eight questions.

The following legislators declined to participate: Sens. Michael Enzi (Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and Jeff Sessions (Committee on the Budget) as well as Speaker of the House John Boehner and Rep. Collin Peterson (Committee on Agriculture). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's press secretary informed SA that the senator ultimately did not have time to get to the questions before the deadline. Sen. Ron Wyden's press team wrote that the member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has a policy not to respond to survey questions.

The remaining elected officials did not respond: from the House, Frank Lucas (Committee on Agriculture), Scott Garrett (Committee on the Budget), Fred Upton (Committee on Energy and Commerce), Edward J. Markey and Doc Hastings (both on the Committee on Natural Resources), Eddie Bernice Johnson (Committee on Science, Space and Technology), Bob Gibbs (Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment) and Nick Rahall (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure); from the Senate, Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow (both on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry), Patty Murray (Committee on the Budget), Jim DeMint (Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation), Lisa Murkowski (Committee on Energy and Natural Resources), James Inhofe and Barbara Boxer (both on the Committee on Environment and Public Works), Harry Reid (majority leader) and Lamar Alexander (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development).

We posted the responses in full and we welcome your analysis in the comments. Do congressional leaders weigh science when forming their policies? How do they plan to fund and regulate research? We are not asking politicians to be scientists, but we are asking them to consider the evidence when shaping U.S. science policy for the future.

Here are the questions:

• Innovation and the Economy. Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?

• Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change-- and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

[Chairman Hall's response:

As Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee I have had the opportunity to hear from widely respected scientists on all sides of this question. The only thing that is clear is that there continues to be great debate and uncertainty among these experts regarding the extent of natural climate variability versus human impacts, and what, if anything, enactment of economy-wide greenhouse gas regulations might do to alter our changing climate. I do not ignore those who, like former Vice President Al Gore, warn us about the seriousness of global warming. We should get the best science and stay abreast of any threat from human impacts, but I am disturbed that we have spent over thirty billion dollars studying climate change and have little to show for it.

More importantly, however, science alone does not and cannot tell us if cap-and-trade or other greenhouse gas regulatory regimes are a good idea; many other factors-- particularly economic consequences-- must be considered to answer this question. Unfortunately, this Administration has pursued a regulate-at-any-cost agenda with respect to greenhouse gases, completely disregarding the harmful impacts on our long-sputtering economy. Until we have a better handle on these issues, I will continue to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases because of the significant threat it presents to American jobs, the economy, and energy affordability and reliability.]

• Research and the Future.  Federally funded research has helped to produce America's major postwar economies and to ensure our national security, but today the UK, Singapore, China, and Korea are making competitive investments in research.  Given that the next Congress will face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?

• Education.  Increasingly, the global economy is driven by science, technology, engineering and math, but a recent comparison of 15-year-olds in 65 countries found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 23rd, while average U.S. math scores ranked 31st.  In your view, why have American students fallen behind over the last three decades, and what role should the federal government play to better prepare students of all ages for the science and technology-driven global economy?

• Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

• Fresh Water. Less than one percent of the world's water is liquid fresh water, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of U.S. and global fresh water is now at risk because of increasing consumption, evaporation and pollution. What steps, if any, should the federal government take to secure clean, abundant fresh water for all Americans?

• The Internet. The Internet plays a central role in both our economy and our society. What role, if any, should the federal government play in managing the Internet to ensure its robust social, scientific, and economic role?

• Science in Public Policy. We live in an era when science and technology affect every aspect of life and society, and so must be included in well-informed public policy decisions. How will you ensure that policy and regulatory decisions are fully informed by the best available scientific and technical information, and that the public is able to evaluate the basis of these policy decisions?

Henry Waxman's response to the last question puts the entire debate about the GOP attitude towards Science into valuable context:

Effective policies must be informed by the best scientific and technical information available. When policymakers reject the science, the result is bad policy. Unfortunately, science-denial seems to be the norm on Capitol Hill these days.

The Republican denial of climate change science is a prime example of this irresponsible approach. According to the eminent scientific journal Nature, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken positions on climate change that are "fundamentally anti-science" and the result of "willful ignorance," making it "hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness." Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is a serious threat, House Republicans unanimously supported a bill, H.R. 910, to overturn EPA's scientific finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare. During the floor debate on H.R. 910, I offered an amendment that stated, "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." All but one House Republican voted to reject these scientific findings.

Many House Republicans explained their rejection of EPA's scientific findings by stating their view that the science is "not settled." At the same time, House Republicans have voted to cut funding for climate research that could provide more insight into the pace and likely impacts of climate change. They have also refused to hold hearings to better understand the overwhelming body of existing scientific evidence showing that climate change is occurring.

Policymakers cannot address serious problems such as climate change by denying their existence. Congress should be holding hearings with the nation's top scientists to understand the problems we face so that we can design sensible policies to tackle those problems. I have repeatedly requested these hearings. So far, the Republican leaders I have written have not even bothered to respond. It is a deplorable record.

People's Republic Of Santa Monica Meets Stephen King... And The Judean Peoples' Liberation Front

Monday I was a guest on Nicole Sandler's radio show. Her listeners are always so kind and so supportive. When I woke up Tuesday I found this note in my in-box:

Howie, I am listening to you on Nicole’s Monday show and cannot tell you how amazing you are. I love your passion, you intelligence, and all that you say and do.
 
I have a request. I vote out of Santa Monica but live up in xxx, and have tried to read about an alternative to Henry Waxman, my congressman, but nothing on Google. I just feel that he hasn’t done all I expect him to do. Dropping the ball on the Bush Impeachment and other things. Would like to vote for someone else, just to show my anger and frustration. I plan to vote for the ex Salt Lake mayor, at the moment, for president. I want Obama to know this and maybe he will somehow hear someone like me’s anger and frustration. I may end up voting for Obama, but not now. Do you have any name(s) for me? Would very much appreciate it.
 
Howie, I hope you sleep well every night, knowing what a very special person you are. We need to clone you. F Debbie Wasserman. What a piece of shit. Waxman, Wasserman/Shultz make me ashamed to be a Jew. Howie Klein MAKES ME PROUD to be a MOT.

With Deep Respect.

Not sure what a MOT is but what a nice bit of feedback to wake up to-- pretty different from most of the mail I get! Waxman used to be my congressman too. He's one of the smartest and most dedicated progressives in the House, although he lost me as an actual supporter when he gave Bush the green light for his unconstitutional and unjustifiable war against Iraq. Waxman, like most all of the L.A. congressional Jews can be quite the pawn of AIPAC. You expect that from outright principle-less shills like Berman/Sherman and Blue Dog Adam Schiff but... well Henry Waxman is supposed to more like a West Coast Jerry Nadler. Supposed to be.

Like Barney Frank once said-- although he claims he doesn't recall ever saying it-- if you want to agree with an elected official 100% of the time, run for office and win-- and after a few years you won' even agree with yourself 100% of the time!

As it turns out, there are 3 Democrats, a Green, a Ron Paul Republican, a Libertarian and an Independent running in the Jungle Primary against Waxman. In 2008 Waxman had no GOP opponent at all but in 2010 a crackpot teabagger ran against him and nearly got a third of the vote. But this year the race is a cornucopia of possibilities for someone hunting for a protest candidate. The Democrats in the race include Brice Margolin an attorney who specializes in pot cases and describes himself as "a marijuana activist." That sounds pretty pure, right? Well, don't forget about filmmaker Tim Pape, who describes himself as an "Occupy Movement Activist." I mentioned him to a lefty friend of mine in Santa Monica this morning and she said she didn't know there was an Occupy movement in Santa Monica. "I've looked for it," she told me. "I saw a couple of stoners with a sign the other day but then realized they were selling Bob Marley t-shirts." That might have been the Margolin campaign. And then there's Zein Obagi, another attorney, who bills himself as a "Conservative Democrat." I'm sure there's a neighborhood in Santa Monica-- or more likely Agoura Hills, Palos Verdes Estates or Calabasas-- for that too. Bill Bloomfield is the Independent and David Steinman is the Green and Steve Collett is the Libertarian who must be an entirely different animal from the Judean Liberation Front Ron Paul Republican, 25 year old Christopher David. His gets his awesome campaign slogan from Arundhati Roy:

Another world is not only possible, she is on her way.
On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.

I suggested to my admirer from the Nicole audience that he give n especially good look at Tim Pape's campaign, mostly because I loved the Twitter feed on his campaign website which highlighted Stephen King's kick ass Daily Beast article yesterday about tax inequality. Nothing to do with Henry Waxman but more interesting than anything about that particular race.

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “He should just write a check and shut up,” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check-- go ahead and write it.”

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility-- America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is-- like the monies my wife and I donate-- totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.
.
The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell-- them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot-- as I have, from time to time-- and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

...I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want-- those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money-- is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that-- sorry, kiddies-- you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay-- not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay-- in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Meanwhile... there is this-- no matter how far from perfect Obama has been:

REGINA! Is Back-- And Barrow Shouldn't Start Counting His Chickens Yet

There's no way to prove that sleazy Blue Dog John Barrow stole the primary election in Georgia July 20. The state of Georgia made certain of that by opting for voting machines with no paper trail. What we do know is that Barrow was unable to buy off the electoral officials in the biggest county in the district, Chatham (Savannah) and that there Regina Thomas swamped him better than two to one. According to the Secretary of State's official canvas, Regina wound up with 6,083 votes and Barrow, the Blue Dog incumbent only took 2,788 (in his adopted hometown). She won Screven, a rural county north of Savannah, with a much closer margin but lost the rest of the district with suspiciously high returns, including tiny Johnson County which early returns showed she had won (with approximately 90% of the precincts counted before it tuned into a route by Barrow). In the end, the official canvas shows Regina with 14,201 votes (42.1%) to Barrow's 19,505 (57.9%). As of June 30, the FEC shows Barrow had raised $1,344,515 and spent $713,332. Regina raised $43,709 and spent $35,792. The day after the election, Regina, in excellent spirits, called me up and told me she wouldn't be challenging the results or even running again.

I just got off the phone with her. She's running in the November general election as a write-in Democratic candidate. "When I lost the Democratic primary on July 20," she began, "I had no thought or inkling that I would even consider qualifying as a write-in candidate. With 42% of the vote and barely raising the amount to run a viable campaign... it wasn't a bad showing. But my thoughts were of the people in the district, a district that has been represented by a "Blue Dog" Democrat for the last 6 years and the residents of the district, my friends and neighbors. So many people asked me to run as an Independent-- not an option for this Democrat-- then there were others who said be a 'write-in'... something to consider. At least I would still be a Democrat. I had to weigh the pros and cons. What did I have to lose? How would this affect the outcome of the general election and, most important, how would it effect the people here? One thing I do know-- a Republican cannot win the 12th and since we are already represented by a 'blue dog'-- what do we have to lose? My conscience would not allow me to think of anything else but the district and how we have suffered. I for one do not like to wonder, bite my nails or hold my breath to see if the 'blue dog' would turn 'yellow' and vote with the party. How can we trust a politician that will campaign one way-- say what they will do/support then do the exact opposite?

"It is past time that we bring back trust between those elected and the people back home. It is time to have a representative with integrity whose word is their bond. It is past time to have a representative who cares for the whole district and votes for what is right and not what is popular or just to get elected.

"I am first and foremost a Democrat, a true public servant who has the desire to serve-- even when my own party will not support me. As I have said, this is not about me; it's about being able to trust who is elected, it's about we the people, of the people, for the people and by the people. If the GA 12th is ready for a true Democrat who is a public servant with integrity-- then you want REGINA, if not then it will be 'politics as usual'."

Far fewer Republicans showed up to vote (27,477 as opposed to almost 34,000 Democrats) in their confusing 4-way race. The winner of the Republican primary Ray McKinney took far fewer votes than Regina, only 11,709, and ended up with 42.6% of the GOP vote. The other candidates, particularly runner-up Carl Smith, hate him and aren't going to be voting for him. The two of them just faced off in a hard-fought primary last week and McKinney won 14,256 (62%) to 8,722 (38%). The bitterness between the two camps in palpable. Nevertheless, the first response to Regina's declaration tomorrow will be that she's a spoiler who will throw the seat to McKinney.

The first journalist to write about the new situation was Dave Weigel, who went right there:

Here’s another reason to be skeptical that Democrats will benefit from Republican infighting and insurgent candidacies: They’re not keeping their own house in order.

...“I’ve had a lot of people asking me to run,” Thomas told me in a phone interview. “The people deserve it. Those who voted for me on July 20, and those who didn’t vote because they didn’t realize I wouldn’t be on the ballot – they deserve a chance to restore some honesty and integrity to the relationship between this district and its representation.”

Thomas’s two runs against Barrow pitted her political base against the national Democratic Party, which intervened for the congressman. Then-candidate Barack Obama even recorded ads for Barrow in 2008. Thomas said she wasn't worried, and that it would be "dishonest" to back Barrow.

“It is what it is,” said Thomas. “You deal with it. You can't let it stop you. Look, if they're pleased with his voting record, with begging him to support the president, with him embarrassing the president with his votes, that's fine. The president does not live in Georgia. They don’t live in Georgia.”

Thomas said that she's "running to win," and doesn't think Republicans have a chance at winning the seat. In Georgia, a candidate who fails to win more than 50 percent of the vote on election day is forced into a runoff. The most likely beneficiary of a situation like that would be GOP candidate Ray McKinney, but Thomas confidently predicted she'd make the runoff and that McKinney had "no chance."

This is all happening in a context of a battle Pelosi is working furiously to tamp down: Democrats vs Blue Dogs. Russell Berman and Molly Hooper interviewed Henry Waxman for The Hill last week and he spat out some positions that are as impolitic as they are clear headed. I hear the coverage at DWT ruffled some feathers from our serious friends Inside the Beltway. Steven Dennis at Roll Call has been sniffing around the story and reports that Waxman has walked back his anti-Blue Dog howl in the night and that Barney has "clarified" his tirade as well.

While Waxman’s comments earned rave reviews from some left-wing bloggers, Blue Dogs fumed. They sought a rebuke from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and wanted a public apology from Waxman.

Waxman instead wrote a letter to the editor objecting to how The Hill represented the interview and vowing his support for all incumbents.

“For those who support universal health coverage, clean-energy policies, and economic stimulus for our struggling economy-- as I do-- there can be no bright side to the defeat of any Democratic members of Congress,” Waxman said in the letter.

Pelosi, in an apparent effort to quell the unrest, reiterated to the Democratic Caucus during this week’s special session her support for bringing back every Democrat in November.

“The Speaker’s highest priority is to re-elect every single incumbent Democratic Member of Congress, who have worked to create jobs, restore fiscal discipline and move America forward, not back,” said her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami. “The Speaker has said on numerous occasions: we will not yield one grain of sand.”

However, senior aides for moderate [sic] Democrats told Roll Call that Waxman needs to do more to repair his relationships with Blue Dogs, which they say were already frayed by Waxman’s handling of climate change and health care bills in his committee.

“He needs to pony up,” said one aide who complained that Waxman has been stingy with helping Democrats who opposed the health care and climate change bills. “He needs to demonstrate with his war chest that he wants these Members back.”

“I’d like to line them up and ask him which ones are too ‘difficult’ to come back,” fumed a former senior staffer for moderate Democrats. “Those are the types of things that make it tougher and tougher and tougher for the Democratic Caucus to work together collegially.”

The Waxman kerfuffle is emblematic of the broader fight between the two wings of the Democratic Party; moderates feel leaders like Waxman and Pelosi walked them off a plank for issues like the climate bill that went nowhere in the Senate, while liberals have been frustrated that moderates have slowed or watered down a host of agenda items.

Dennis followed the bright shiny object down the rabbit hole and away from a story I suspect he'll be breaking this week when the Blue Dogs go on the offensive and make a concerted effort to destroy a progressive leader. Stay tuned; this is going to be big.

Henry Waxman Will Spit On The Political Graves Of Defeated Blue Dogs

When I saw Barney Frank (D-MA) at a meeting of progressive activists here in L.A. a few months ago he was sitting in for local Democratic Party hero Henry Waxman, who couldn't make it. I was happy, not just because I like Barney personally, but because I've never trusted Waxman all that much after he voted to give Bush the green light to go ahead and attack Iraq. Anyway, Barney gave a great speech about how progressives need to use the weapon of primaries against faithless Democrats who vote with Republicans. I was really happy to hear it. Yesterday, in an interview with Russell Berman and Molly Hooper for The Hill, Waxman was even more explicit than Barney! Although he is confident that Democrats will retain the majority in the House, he'll be happy to see the last of a pack of cowardly Boehner Boys. Waxman is very clear he won't miss any of the Blue Dogs who have turned off the Democratic base with their reactionary behavior.

“I think a lot of the House seats we’re going to lose are those who have been the toughest for the Democrats to pull into line-- the Democrats that have been the most difficult,” Waxman said.

Waxman, one of the Democratic Party’s stalwarts, is simply voicing publicly what many in his party have said privately as the reality of the looming November elections sets in. If Democrats retain a majority, it will be smaller but more cohesive.

 As Waxman sees it, the fractious coalition of Democrats that House leaders have cobbled together to pass sweeping healthcare and energy bills is not markedly different from the bipartisanship of the past, when Democrats partnered with centrist and liberal Republicans, whom Waxman says are “practically nonexistent at the moment.”

 “We’ve been trying to get the Democratic conservatives together with the rest of the Democratic Party, so in effect we’ve gotten bipartisan support among Democrats in the House,” the chairman said with a laugh. “Now we’ll have to work on genuine bipartisanship in the future.”

For much of the early part of his career, the liberal Waxman battled conservative Democrats from the South on the direction of the party. Years later, Waxman is still waging that fight, but now he wields the gavel of one of the most powerful panels in Congress. Waxman became chairman after successfully challenging Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the former chairman, in 2008.

Waxman has rewarded loyalty to the Democratic agenda through his leadership political action committee, L.A. PAC. Each of the 14 donations of $5,000 the committee made after the final healthcare vote in March went to Democrats who voted yes.

A single contribution of a lesser amount, $3,000, was sent in April to Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), one of the party’s most vulnerable members, who voted against the bill. In January, Waxman gave $10,000 to Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), a month after he voted for the initial House version of healthcare reform. Two months later, Space voted against the final bill.

Democratic conservatives serve little purpose for Waxman, who seemed to relish the thought that a strengthened GOP would mean that the minority party would have to play ball.

 “With the increased Republican margins, they won’t be able to act as if they have no responsibilities. I think they are going to be called on to be accountable … so that may produce opportunities for bipartisanship,” Waxman said.

Keep an eye on Blue America's BadDogs page as we help make Waxman's dreams come true.

The Third House Committee Passes Health Insurance Bill-- But Why Did John Barrow Vote With The Republicans Against It?

John Barrow, the worst Democrat in the House

And now it'll all up be to the anti-democratic bastion of corruption, colossal egos and the status quo: America's very own House of Lords. Late last night the final House Committee working on President Obama's health care reform, the Energy & Commerce Committee, passed the bill 31-28. All 23 Republicans, from extremist like Roy Blunt (MO), John Shadegg (AZ), Nathan Deal (GA) and Marsha Blackburn (TN) to supposed mainstream conservatives like Mary Bono-Mack (CA), Lee Terry (NE), Greg Walden (OR) and Fred Upton (MI) voted no, no, no, never, never, never. These are the people who would have opposed Medicare, Social Security, the minimum wage, the 8 hour workday, consumer protections... the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and the abolition of slavery. Conservatives opposed all of those things and progressives carried the day and made America a better place.

There are 36 Democrats on the committee so who cares what 23 die-hard conservative obstructionists have to say? The problem in this particular committee is that it is infested with bribe besotted, conservative Democrats, including 8 snarling Blue Dogs. In the end the committee chair, Henry Waxman (D-CA), was able to defang the Blue Dogs and make a reasonable deal. Only 3 of the worst Blue Dogs-- Jim Matheson (UT), Charlie Melancon (LA) and John Barrow (GA)-- crossed the aisle and voted with their Republican allies-- joined by conservative Democrats Rick Boucher (VA) and Bart Stupak (MI).

It's a miracle that Waxman was able to pull this off in the face of what looked like implacable Blue Dog and Republican opposition, fueled by an onslaught of thinly disguised legalized bribes from Big Insurance and the Medical-Industrial Complex-- bribes targeted at the most conservative members who were judged to be the most likely to sell out their constituents' interests for the right price. "Today," said Waxman after the vote, "is a historic moment for the House of Representatives and a defining moment for our country. It is a significant victory that all three committees in the House have worked together to pass comprehensive health reform legislation for all Americans. This bill will deliver the results the nation’s health care system so desperately needs: lower costs, better quality, and broader coverage. I hope that when we return from recess, the House will act expeditiously to enact this bill into law." He's not exaggerating. In her own statement after passage, Speaker Pelosi made it clear why getting this bill, America's Affordable Health Care Choices Act, out of this third committee was so important.

For more than 60 years, we have tried as a nation to make quality, affordable health insurance coverage available to all Americans. Tonight’s vote marks the next step in the most successful effort in our history.

All three House committees with jurisdiction over health care have now passed health insurance reform legislation. The reforms now advancing to a vote in the full House of Representatives reflect the diversity of our Members. Our legislation includes the best ideas to build on what works and fix what’s broken in our health care system.

Our reforms will hold insurance companies accountable, offering stable coverage and lower costs-- even if you get sick, have a pre-existing condition such as diabetes or cancer, or lose or change your job. Americans deserve no less.

In the coming weeks, we will work to produce a strong piece of legislation that the House will approve in September.

You may have noticed that one of the Blue Dogs who voted no was Blue America's old nemisis, Georgia reactionary, John Barrow. Barrow is widely considered the single worst Democrat in Congress. He represents a solidly Democratic district, campaigns as a progressive moderate and then consistently votes with Republicans. He has been disrespectful to working families' intelligence in his district and is looked at as one of Congress' most cowardly and craven members. Last year, a progressive African-American state senator from Savannah, Regina Thomas, challenged him in the primary and Barrow swamped her for one reason and one reason only: the intercession at the urging of Rahm Emanuel by Barack Obama. Obama won Barrow the African-American vote in the primary and eviscerated Senator Thomas's campaign. Since then Barrow has returned to Congress and has been one of a small handful of Blue Dogs to consistently support the obstructionist, anti-Obama right-wing agenda. Another great call by Rahm Emanuel!

But maybe Georgians don't need health care. Perhaps the folks in Barrow's sprawling district are flush and thriving and just want to be felt alone. Uh... no. Barrow's district is one of the poorest in Georgia and is more in need of assistance than most of the state and Georgia in general can definitely use some assistance. Our friends at the Center For American Progress have taken a good look at the health care situation in Georgia and come up with the facts and figures:

• 430 residents of Georgia are losing health insurance every day, and 14,000 Americans nationwide lose insurance daily.

• The average family premium in Georgia costs $900 more because our system fails to cover everyone-- and $1,100 more nationally.

• Our broken health insurance system will cost the Georgia economy as much as $9 billion this year in productivity losses due to the uninsured-- and up to $248 billion nationally.

• In Georgia there has been a 18 percent increase in the uninsured rate since 2007.

• 1,880,000 are uninsured today in Georgia.

• In Georgia the combined market share of the top two insurers is 69 percent, limiting employers’ and families’ health insurance options as well as the care they receive.

• The average family premium will rise from $12,471 to $21,280 by 2019 in Georgia without health care reform.

• In Georgia, without health care reform, 248,160 will have lost coverage from January 2008 to December 2010.

• In Georgia, 827,000 people would gain coverage as a result of the House health care reform bill by 2013, and 1,331,000 would gain coverage by 2019.

• A typical Georgia family will pay $21,280 for health coverage in 2019 without health care reform.

Last year Blue America was the only national progressive organization working to retire John Barrow. Rahm Emanuel foiled us. We promise to try again in 2010. Please help us; we can't do it without you. But together, we CAN do it! All four members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who Blue America has helped win their races-- Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Bruce Braley (D-IA), and Peter Welch (D-VT)-- voted in favor of the bill. In 2010, aside from replacing John Barrow with a Democrat who will fight for working families, we expect to help replace at least 4 of the Energy and Commerce Committee anti-family Republicans-- John Shadegg (AZ), Mary Bono-Mack (CA), Fred Upton (MI), and Lee Terry (NE)-- and to work vigorously to prevent far right corruptionist Roy Blunt from winning the open Missouri Senate seat. A reminder:



UPDATE: Let Blue Swine Know What You Think Of His Anti-Health Care Stand

John Barrow will be back in GA-12 and holding townhall meetings. Perhaps if you're a constituent of his, you should consider going to one of his meetings and letting him know what Americans expect from their representatives. He has 3 pitifully short "Health Care Congress on the Corner" events scheduled so far:

Country Buffet
Sandersville, GA 31082
Saturday, August 1, 2009
11am-noon

Scoops
Milledgeville, GA 31061
Saturday, August 1, 2009
3pm- 4:30

Hancock County Library
Sparta, GA 31087
Saturday, August 1, 2009
1pm- 2pm

Nothing in Savannah or August, where most of his constituents live? How ironic!