House Foreign Affairs Committee-- Another Leadership Battle

Sherman (with the tefillin) & Engel (with the flag) may also be pro-American

Sherman beat Berman-- and he beat him convincingly (mostly, no doubt, because most of the new district had been part of Sherman's old district. The San Fernando Valley district gave Sherman 111,914 votes (61%) and gave the more senior Berman 72,979 (39%). The two congressmen were so-so garden variety moderates. Neither joined the Progressive Caucus or the New Dem Coalition, but Sherman was more populist on economic issues, less a friend of Wall Street and more a Fair Trade rather than a Free Trade guy. But where the two congressmen are tweedledee and tweedledum is on Foreign Affairs. Both are Zionist AIPAC shills on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where Berman was the chairman and then the ranking member. Three on the worst warmongers in the country, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman, as well as a shitload of far right Republican congressman like Ed Royce, Darrell Issa, Buck McKeon, Mary Bono Mack, Dan Lungren, even dangerous psychopath Wally Herger, all endorsed Berman. That probably helped defeat him.

So now Sherman, currently the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, would like to be the ranking member of the whole committee. [The chairman of that subcommittee, racist hatemonger Ed Royce, is running for the chairman of the committee. He and Sherman don't get along well.] Sherman is up against another lockstep Likkud-oriented Zionist, Eliot Engel (NY), ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

What's odd about this Democratic leadership battle-- which will decided next week in the caucus-- is that Republicans have inserted themselves into the intraparty dispute. and the Republicans, predictably, are opposing Sherman and backing Engel. And who's leading the interference? Ed Royce, of course.

“If Sherman wins the chair and so does Royce it could make for an interesting dynamic in the committee,” a House Republican aide told The Hill, unprompted.

Royce and his office declined to comment. But in joining a majority of California's Republican congressional delegation in supporting Berman last month, he said that “in every measure of a legislator, from his command of the issues, to his effectiveness, Howard stands head and shoulders above the rest"-- an indirect jab at Sherman.

A third candidate, American Samoa Del. Eni Faleomavaega, has also announced his intention to run for the top Democratic spot.

Engel, well aware of Berman's positive reputation as a low-key champion of bipartisan compromise, has sought to portray himself as being cast from the same mold. Sherman, by contrast, is widely seen as being more abrasive.

“I have worked with Mr. Royce for a number of years on the committee. We're friends. We have reached out to each other, we've talked about the possibility of the two of us being respective leaders on the committee of our parties,” Engel told The Hill in a phone interview. “And I have no doubt that should he be the chairman of the committee, that I would work very well with him. And I think that's important, to have someone at the helm as the leading Democrat who works with people, who doesn't come with any kind of antagonisms.”

That's “one reason why I think it would be much easier and smoother for me to be the ranking member.”

Engel said he has also had a good working relationship with Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who is running against Royce to take over the panel from term-limited Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

Sherman, for his part, pointed out that the other party doesn't get to vote in leadership races.

“I have worked cooperatively with many Republicans on the Foreign Affairs Committee including Rep. Ed Royce and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,” Sherman told The Hill in a statement. “However, I am not seeking support from Republicans in my efforts to become the ranking Democratic member on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”

It should be interesting to see if Democrats will allow the GOP to pick Democratic ranking members of committees now. Berman and Engel were supporters of the corporate "free" trade agenda. On October 12, 2011 only 31 Democrats went along with the horrific GOP Colombia Free Trade Agreement and 158 opposed it. Sherman was one of the Democrats fighting the bill. Berman and Engel joined Boehner, Cantor and Ryan in backing it. Berman and Engel also pushed the Panama Trade Agreement, which Sherman voted against.

Steve Israel's Success: Undermining Rob Zerban To Protect Paul Ryan's Seat

AIPAC has given the thumbs up on both the rabidly Zionist prospects to replace the defeated rabidly Zionist Howard Berman as the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY). Both backed Bush's attack on Iraq neither ever stray from the most extreme Likkud positions. Engel is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and Sherman is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. Ironically, it was Sherman who defeated Berman (60.5-39.5%) for reelection Tuesday. Foreign policy came into the debate because Sherman is a Fair Trade guy and Berman is a Free Trade corporate whore. Sherman, in fact, is generally more progressive than Berman on everything except Israel. Both-- as well as Engel (and the GOP chair of the Committee, Ilya Ros-Lehtinen) are complete pawns of the Israeli right-wing.

Next week the new Democratic caucus, which will include around 50 new members [from Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Lois Frankel (FL), Beto O'Rourke (TX), Joe Kennedy (MA), Matt Cartwright (PA), Joe Garcia (FL), Mark Pocan (WI), Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Annie Kuster (NH) and 11 new members from California alone-- Jared Huffman, Ami Bera, Eric Swalwell, Julia Brownley, Tony Cardenas, Gloria McLeod, Raul Ruiz, Mark Takano, Alan Lowenthal, Juan Vargas and Scott Peters-- to reelected former members like Alan Grayson (FL), Ann Kirkpatrick AZ), Dan Maffei (NY), Dina Titus (NV), Rick Nolan (MN), Carol Shea-Porter (NH) and Bill Foster (IL)] will meet to pick the next Congress' leadership team.

No one good is running and the big question, of course, is whether or not Nancy Pelosi will retire. The quality of the leadership team will go down regardless. Other than Nancy the House Democratic leadership team is pure dreck, as horrible and out of touch with the grassroots as the GOP leadership team. Corporate whore (and the Congressman from K Street) Steny Hoyer will be Pelosi's replacement if she steps down, #2 if she stays. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is demanding a special position be created for her that will eventually lead to the top slot and Hoyer-- not wanting to battle with her now-- has agreed. Don't expect any surprises in the decisions about committee ranking members, although it will be interesting to see how they handle the delicate matter of a replacement for Barney Frank on the House Financial Services Committee. (I can't imagine they'll give Fox the pleasure of announcing it's Maxine Waters but, who knows; the caucus is so utterly dysfunctional and useless than anything can happen. Except something good.) Much-liked Nita Lowey (NY) will challenge much disliked Marcy Kaptur (OH) for the Appropriations Committee ranking member slot and Richard Neal may challenge Sander Levin for the Ways and Means slot. Yawn.

As for leader of the DCCC... Steve Israel has been on a propaganda blitz since his disastrous performance Tuesday to persuade the caucus that he's earned another term as chairman. More than a dozen congressional offices-- including some way up on the top-- have asked me for a written analysis showing why Israel doesn't deserve another term. I'm waiting for the last ha;f dozen races to be called before I publish it. Meanwhile, let me just mention today a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel-- which doesn't mention Steve Israel, but indicates why he led the DCCC to ignominy rather than the great victories at the DNC/OFA (Obama landslide) and the DSCC (the Senate sweep).

We've talked for years and ad nauseum about how the DCCC has a set policy of protecting Paul Ryan's blue-leaning seat. They always give him a free pass to reelection. Emanuel did. Van Hollen did and Israel did. But Emanuel and Van Hollen are slicker than Israel; each made sure, by manipulating the primary process, that Ryan's general election challengers would be a joke. Israel forgot to do that and Ryan would up with a plausible challenger, Rob Zerban. So Israel was in the uncomfortable position of privately tearing down a person who could beat Ryan and persuading big Democratic donors to not contribute to Zerban's campaign, while publicly mouthing worthless platitudes about beating Ryan. All the usual DCCC lies were ineffective. Normally they claim grassroots progressives like Zerban can't raise any money-- while they make sure none of the regular sources give-- and that they can't support him for that reason. But Zerban raised more money-- all of it from the grassroots-- than most candidates the DCCC backed. In Wisconsin, for example, Israel got behind two candidates up against GOP backbenchers with no power, Jamie Wall who was battling Reid Ribble and Pat Kreitlow who was battling Sean Duffy. Predictably both the DCCC-backed candidates lost, Wall 55.9 to 44.1% and Kreitlow 56.1% to 43.9%. It was similar to how the Ryan Zerban results looked: 54.9 to 43.4%. But the similarities stopped there. The DCCC hampered Zerban's fundraising, telling big donors to not waste their money on him, while urging contributions to Wall and Kreitlow. In the end Wall brought in $1,016,688, Kreitlow brought in $1,176,147 and Zerban brought in $2,117,162. The DCCC and its affiliates also spend $2,205,515 on Kreitlow's race and $87,664 on Wall's race. Keeping his promise to their mutual backers on Wall Street, Israel made sure the DCCC spent nothing to oppose Ryan. If they had, Zerban would be a congressman-elect and Ryan would be looking for a job at K Street or Wall Street or at some crackpot think tank.

Wisconsin voters delivered a mixed verdict on Paul Ryan this week.

His House constituents returned him to Congress. They also voted narrowly for the Mitt Romney-Ryan ticket.

But his congressional victory margin was his smallest ever (11.5 points).

He lost his hometown of Janesville twice: by 10 points for Congress and by 25 points for vice president.

And the GOP ticket lost the battleground state of Wisconsin by 7 points in a race Republicans thought would be far closer. In Ryan's southern Wisconsin district, the Romney-Ryan ticket ran about 3 points behind Ryan the congressional candidate.

In the end, there's little in the numbers to suggest Ryan provided a meaningful home-state boost to Romney.

Ryan, expected to continue on as House budget chair, is on everybody's shortlist of potential Republican presidential candidates in 2016.

Here are some yardsticks for measuring his election performance in Wisconsin Tuesday:

Ryan in his hometown. Democratic congressional challenger Rob Zerban defeated Ryan in Janesville 55% to 44%. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden defeated the Romney-Ryan ticket in Janesville 62% to 37%. Ryan had never lost Janesville in a re-election campaign before. Of course, he had only faced token opposition in past re-election races. Janesville is also a Democratic city that gave Obama 66% of its vote in 2008.

But even in Ryan's backyard, there's not much evidence of a Ryan boost to Romney. The drop-off from the Ryan congressional vote to the Romney-Ryan presidential vote was much larger in Janesville (7.2 points) than it was in the rest of the congressional district (3 points). Put another way, there were more Ryan ticket-splitters in Janesville than other places: people who voted for Ryan for Congress but against Ryan for vice president.

Ryan's congressional district. Ryan won his previous House re-election campaigns with 63% to 68% of the vote. He got 55% this time. As noted above, he had very weak opponents in those races. Democrat Zerban was a first-time federal candidate but ended up raising more than $2 million, thanks to national interest on the left in unseating Ryan. The incumbent was still favored heavily and while he didn't actively campaign for Congress, he spent more than $5 million on his House race.

How did the Romney-Ryan ticket do with Ryan's own constituents? Presidential results aren't gathered by congressional district on election night. But when you aggregate the unofficial vote returns from the different counties, communities and wards that make up Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District, it adds up to a narrow win for Romney, 51.6% to 47.4%. (Ryan's district was just redrawn slightly; Romney would have won Ryan's old district by less). Romney's margin in Ryan's modestly Republican district is consistent with historic patterns. Romney did 5 points better in Ryan's district than he did in Wisconsin as a whole. Four years ago, Republican John McCain did 5 points better in the district than he did in Wisconsin as a whole.

So will Zerban run again in 2014? I'm betting on it. You should too. 

Amy Klobuchar vs Justin Bieber, Round 2

A couple weeks ago we mentioned the trouble brewing between Justin Bieber-- on behalf of internet freedom-- and Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN)-- on behalf of censorship and corporate dominance. Although the charismatic Bieber, an underage, anti-Choice Canadian, can't run against her, he can cause he far more damage than she ever imagined. Above is an ad Demand Progress is running.

We're running this ad for one simple reason:  We need to embarrass a key lawmaker to set an example for others, and make it clear that it's not okay to shill for the entertainment industry.

Our ad calls out Sen. Amy Klobuchar for spearheading the effort to make it a felony to stream certain content online-- meaning ordinary Americans would risk getting locked up for posting karaoke videos, cover band performances, video game play-throughs, and more. 

Hollywood has gobs of money, and that means that they have undue clout in DC.  Lawmakers love sponsoring Hollywood bills because it means untold thousands of new dollars for their campaign coffers.  Ads like this will make them think twice.

This week the ad is running on Comedy Central in the Twin Cities, the area that is key to Klobuchar's reelection prospects. It criticizes her for spearheading the effort to make it a felony to stream certain content online-- meaning ordinary Americans would risk being imprisoned for five years for posting karaoke videos, cover band performances, video game play-throughs, and more. Bieber became famous by posting videos of his covers of other artists' songs on YouTube, exposing him to potential prosecution if this legislation passes. He was recently asked what he thought about Klobuchar's proposal, and his answer couldn't have been more dead-on:

"Whoever she is, she needs to know that I'm saying she needs to be locked up-- put away in cuffs." He added, "People need to have the freedom... people need to be able to sing songs. I just think that's ridiculous." 

As far as making corrupt politicians who cater to corporate agenda think twice... we'll see. Hollywood's most blatant legislative whore, Howard Berman, affectionately known as the congressman from the RIAA-- and every other Hollywood trade group-- just did a big reelection fundraiser in Beverly Hills... and raised $1.6 million in one night. Next time you're thinking about what terrible slimebags the Republicans are-- and they are-- think about Democrats like Howard Berman as well. Do you think he cares about a grassroots groups running an ad against Amy Klobuchar? I don't. If Justin Bieber and some of his friends donated $1.6 million to the cause... he might.

HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE?

Woid knows just how to do it. May it serve as an apt example for one and all:

Dear Rep. Berman,

I've written to you several times in the past months. Each time, I've received the same unresponsive reply: a form letter about your position on Iraq war issues-- which wasn't the topic about which I
wrote to you!

In fact, I don't expect a personal reply, because I hope your staff is too busy reading hundreds of letters to reply to each one.

And I hope that those letters reflect the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of your constituents: that THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS MUST STEP UP AND CONFRONT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

By now, it's beyond obvious that the Bush Administration has bent and even broken the law, and that they're actively assaulting the Constitution. In fact, they've bragged about some of these very activities! We KNOW they've contravened the FISA court. We KNOW they've been complicit in torture and rendition. We KNOW they've bent the legal system to their politics. We KNOW they've ignored subpoenas from Congress. We KNOW they've seized power from Congress and the Judiciary, by defining the law as they see fit, and ignoring the laws that you pass.

That's a lot of really irrefutable evidence that they've been breaking the law. And then, there's the massive amount of persuasive evidence that there's a lot more going on than we've heard about, maybe a lot worse.

How are we going to get at the truth of these issues? How should we punish whoever's responsible?

Isn't this where the House Judiciary Committee comes in?

I urge you, as my representative in Congress, to do what I and a huge majority of your contituents want: INVESTIGATE.

It seems like you and others are not willing to use the word that the Constitution uses for this moment: impeachment. I'm very sorry about that. And I don't understand your hesitation. Even if you're scared of the consequences of impeaching Dick Cheney, how about Alberto Gonzales? I may be wrong, but I believe he's still impeachable. Since he left office, more evidence of his complicity in corruption of the DOJ has appeared. Why isn't he back in Washington testifying?

Now, like the Writers' Guild, I'm going to back off on my demands (to which the corporations countered with NOTHING, but I digress). Let's not call it impeachment-- if it's that word that makes you and your colleagues uncomfortable. Let's just call it investigating, shall we?

There are so many areas to be investigated in the conduct of the Bush/Cheney administration. I wonder why I'm not seeing more aggressive investigations, no hearings, no forthright statements. Chairman Conyers promised investigations, but the Judiciary Committee, along with other key committees in both Houses, has been awfully quiet.

Many people have noticed that if you read the Bill of Rights today, you'll notice that a lot of words have been crossed out by this administration. They've attacked and even reversed key parts of every one of the ten amendments.

That is what Congress should be investigating, in the same depth that we've seen in other investigations of the past. The Watergate hearings didn't start with an impeachment resolution, they were investigative hearings that culminated in impeachment. It's the same thing now. There are plenty of grounds for investigation. If that leads to impeachable offenses (including, if they stonewall, refusing to respond to subpoenas) -- fine. Is this political? Of course it is, to counter the political maneuvering of the Executive branch. Is it partisan? It shouldn't be-- both parties should be standing up for the Constitution. If the Republicans oppose investigations, they're the partisan ones. If the Democrats use their majority power, the majority of Americans will support them.

Getting to the bottom of what's going on is the right thing for Congress to do, NOW. What's more, it's your constitutionally defined duty.

Please use your power as our representative to speak out on behalf of your constituents, and to do what has to be done to restore the rule of law.

Thank you!

Woid

ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW, I'M JEWISH BECAUSE MY MOM WAS-- AND LIKE MOST JEWS I OPPOSE BUSH'S WAR ON IRAQ

I was mortified when all-- not some, all-- the L.A. area Jewish Democrats voted for Bush's illegal attack on Iraq back in October, 2002. Some, particularly Howard Berman and Adam Schiff, have been consistent supporters of the Bush Regime's hideous policies there. There have been 44 roll call votes regarding Iraq in the House between October, 2002 and May, 2005. Howard Berman, an old line "liberal" hack from the San Fernando Valley who seems to believe he represents Israel's far right Likud Party rather than the thoroughly anti-war Southern California Democrats who he's supposed to be working for, has voted with the Republicans 17 times, one of the most reactionary records of any Democrat. Adam Schiff, a disgraceful Blue Dog who represents the equally safe Democratic seat in Glendale/Pasadena was nearly as bad, voting with the Republicans a dozen times. Most L.A. area Democrats voted with the Democrats and not, like Berman and Schiff, with Republican warmongers Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, John Boehner and John Doolittle.

I was even sadder when Henry Waxman, purported to be the smartest congressional Democrat from California also tossed his lot in with the reactionaries to support Bush's war in Iraq (albeit less frequently than the 2 above; 8 times.) I thought it was a black mark against American Jews to have these representatives abandon progressives and go over to the Dark Side in the single most important issue in the past decade. It turns out the vast majority of American Jews are not putting Likud interests before America's.

How do I know? Gallup took a poll-- actually 13 polls during 2005-07 measuring religious affiliation and support for Bush's war policies. Jewish Americans came out as the most progressive. Of the course of the 13 surveys, 52% of all Americans concluded invading Iraq was a mistake (and 46% thought it was the correct thing to do). The only religious group supporting Bush's insane and catastrophic policies were, predictably, the Mormons (who are fielding their own insane candidate for president, Mitt Romney who plans to stay the course in Iraq). 72% of the Mormons support the war and only 27% realize it was a tragic mistake. Among Jews 77% realize the war was a mistake and only 21% think it was the right move. Protestants are basically evenly split and 53% of Catholics see the war as a mistake.

Among Jewish Democrats, a full 89% see the invasion as a mistake. (Among non-Jewish Democrats the war is seen as a mistake by 78% and even among Jews who are not Democrats 65% see the war as a mistake. So who exactly do Berman and Schiff think they are representing when they support Bush's policies on Iraq? Eric Cantor, one of the half dozen most reactionary members of Congress across the board on everything, is a Jewish Republican from Virginia who would probably have been not just a kapo under Hitler, but a kapo organizer.

Even many Israeli Jews have long understood that Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and the Neocons were pushing policies that put Israel in mortal danger, policies embraced only by far right, mentally unbalanced religionist cult members who think the world is coming to an end and Jesus is coming to take them away.

HOW DIFFERENT ARE DEMS FROM REPUGS WHEN IT COMES TO CORRUPTION? HOWARD BERMAN NOW CHAIRS THE SUBCOMMITTEE HIS BIGGEST DONORS MOST WANT TO CONTROL

Howard Berman's district (CA-28)-- half the San Fernando Valley-- borders mine. Berman has a fairly progressive voting record, nothing to writing home about but overall pretty decent (except when he forgets he's an L.A. Democrat, not a member of the far right Israeli Likkud Party-- as he did when he abandoned his usual progressive allies and joined Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt and Gary Miller and John Doolittle to support Bush's illegal attack on Iraq). Oh, and there's one other time when he forgets he's supposed to be a progressive and that's when something comes up involving the movie or record industry. Aside from bordering my entertainment industry peopled district, CA-28 also borders on Beverly Hills and Hollywood and is itself home to most of the big studios, like Warner Bros. and Disney.

Although Berman has long been considered one of Israel's representatives in the U.S. Congress, the pro-Israel lobby is only his 5th biggest contributor. Dwarfing AIPAC and coming in at #1-- almost 5 times bigger than the Israelis in terms of pay-offs to Berman-- is the TV/Movie/Music Biz, my old industry. And, believe me, we all knew Berman was our bitch-- and everybody always chipped in to keep our bitch stylin'. And he treated us good-- real good-- especially after 1999 when he became the ranking Dem on the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee (of Judiciary). How strange that it isn't considered a breach of ethics when members get into these positions and then accept hundreds of thousands of dollars-- in Berman's case, over a million-- from the very industry they're supposed to be regulating. Those congressmen sure make nice rules for themselves.

Anyway, Berman-- along with far right kook Howard Coble (R-NC)-- proposed the infamous anti-Napster legislation that sought to outlaw peer-to-peer file sharing. It was a bill tailor made for record companies (his big donors) and opposed by tech companies and music fans. Berman never stops carrying water for the music and film business. That's what he does... when he isn't representing the Likkud. (He and his brother basically gerrymandered California in a much-hated redistricting considered one of the more corrupt in the country in terms of incumbent protection.)

Maybe by now you're scratching your head and wondering why I'm telling you all about this guy, who wins his district by 80% in a good year and in the 70s in a bad year. Well, guess which ranking member of that Intellectual Property subcommittee is now chairman? And moving rapidly to do his big donors some big favors? Yes, you are correct. His new bill to revamp the music licensing system is very one-sided. Wanna guess which side? If you said "internet users" or "songwriters and composers," you would be wrong. If you said "giant entertainment conglomerates and corporations," on the other hand, you would be right.

In honor defiance of Rep Berman, please join me in listening-- free of charge-- to "I'll Do You" by Wire Train, a great song whose publishing I happen to own a substantial portion of.