Why Didn't The Democrats Pass Gun Control Legislation When They Took Over Congress?

Bad news for the NRA: Baca, Bloomberg, McLeod

74% of NRA members say there should be background checks before anyone is able to buy a gun. But the Republican congressional leadership sent out their most junior-- and only female-- member, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) to tell the media that the GOP will stop any attempts to pass any kind of meaningful gun control legislation. As we saw Friday, the NRA has almost every single House Republican on their payroll. And they pay off enough Blue Dogs and New Dems so that the efforts to derail legislation appears "bipartisan."

"We need to find out what happened and what drove this individual to this place," McMorris Rodgers said. "I think we have to be careful about new-- suggesting new gun laws. We need to look at what drives a crazy person to do these kind of actions and make sure that we’re enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. And yes, definitely, we need to do everything possible to make sure that something like this never happens again."

I hope Ms Rodgers gets to the bottom of what drives crazy people. I'd suggest she begin by delving into the minds of some of her colleagues, like Allen West (FL), Steve King (IA), Louie Gohmert (TX), Michele Bachmann (MN) and Virginia Foxx (NC). But she needs to understand that if West, King, Gohmert, Bachmann and Foxx finally explode into a frenzy of violence, if they have kitchen knives or scissors, there's a good chance they'll do less damage than if they have guns. (Bear in mind that when the Gambino Crime Family's congressman, Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm of Staten Island, had his first one-on-one-- and reportedly his last one-on-one-- with Speaker Boehner, he suggested that Boehner allow congressmembers to pack heart on the House floor. Boehner, who is well acquainted with West, King, Gohmert, Bachmann and Foxx, demurred.)

When the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2007 Carolyn McCarthy's legislation to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban (which had expired on March 2, 2004) had already been introduced. The Republican House leadership had already killed her bill twice by bottling it up in the Judiciary Committee, where it died. The first time she introduced it (2003), there were 111 co-sponsors, 109 Democrats and 2 Republicans (and, ominously, non of the Southern Blue Dogs). McCarthy tried again in 2005, this time with 94 co-sponsors, all Democrats, no Republicans and, again, no Southern Blue Dogs.

But when she introduced the bill on February 13, 2007, it wasn't Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay and John Boehner running the show any longer. It was Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. The committee chairs were no longer all reactionary Republicans owned by the NRA. They were all Democrats, many of whom were long-standing NRA foes. But this time-- when the bill could obviously pass-- there were only 67 co-sponsors, only Democrats and only Members who actually wanted to pass the bill or look like they wanted to pass the bill to their constituents. Rahm Emanuel was still a sponsor, although last summer Jake Tapper reported the dual role-- like in duplicitous-- he tends to play on things like this.

On February 25, (2009) Jim Messina, Emanuel's deputy, walked into his boss's office to inform him of Holder's latest 'gaffe.' At a press conference earlier that day, Holder had told reporters that the administration would push to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, which had expired in 2004. The comments roused the powerful gun lobby and its water carriers on Capitol Hill. 'Senators to Attorney General: Stay Away from Our Guns' read a press release issued by Senator Max Baucus of Montana-a Democrat, no less.

"Emanuel was furious. He slammed his desk and cursed the attorney general. Holder was only repeating a position Obama had expressed during the campaign, but that was before the White House needed the backing of pro-gun Democrats from red states for their domestic agenda. The chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to 'shut the fuck up' on guns…"

The back story on this is important. Emanuel, as a congressman who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (and as such helped recapture the House) came to understand that for many Democratic members of Congress is swing districts, supporting gun control was a liability. The "majority makers," as then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi came to call them, were often from rural or blue collar districts where the NRA was active.

But, regardless of Rahm's games, not only were there no Republicans and no Southern Blue Dogs, someone important dropped out. Steny Hoyer had signed on-- reluctantly-- as a cosponsor in 2003 and 2005. But in 2007... no Steny.

Steny had something more important in mind than passing an Assault Weapons Ban-- protecting Blue Dogs. A Judiciary Committee staffer told me that a decision was made by the whole leadership-- Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, the DCCC to kill the bill in the Judiciary Committee, the same way the Republicans had. They said they couldn't afford to force Blue Dogs into voting on something that would kill their chances to be reelected. And that's why we don't have any gun control. McCarthy is going to try again and, she said, "the gloves are off." And she was talking about her attitude towards President Obama! And she had already informed the White House before the election about it. Speaking to Chief of Staff Jack Lew, she said, "I know the president is going through an election and I’m telling you after the election I’m coming out full force" and that if Democrats were going to be "embarrassed" so be it.

Embarrassing the White House, McCarthy said, meant building a large-scale public campaign to ban assault weapons. She pledged to continue to work with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others to build support for her cause.

“I want to talk to the White House. I know that they can’t give me an answer tonight, but I want to know what they’re going to do. I need to know what they’re going to do.”

Hoyer may want to save Blue Dogs-- the vast majority of them were defeated in 2010 and this year anyway-- but Mayor Bloomberg has them in his sites. No one thought there was any chance Blue Dog-- and gun nut/NRA patsy-- Joe Baca could possibly be defeated by another Democrat, Gloria McLeod. A week before the election, the race was on no one's radar. And then Independence USA PAC, entirely financed by Bloomberg (around $10,000,000 this year), dropped over $3,000,000 into the district-- in one week. And that was the end of Joe Baca. A safe Democratic seat, Baca moved there to be safer. Instead, he wound up losing to gun control supporter McLeod, 72,652 (56%) to 57,304 (44%). Bloomberg's PAC also spent $440,000 to defeat gun freak and teabagger Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY). Targeting Blue Dogs and teabaggers... what's not to like?

Saturday, House Democratic Caucus Chair, John Larson (D-CT) sent a letter to his colleagues asking them to get real on gun legislation. It's worth reading-- and supporting:

Yesterday our hearts were broken as we witnessed one of the worst tragedies in the history of Connecticut. The children and teachers whose lives were taken are in our thoughts and prayers and their families deserve space and privacy. They, along with the staff, first responders, and the community of Newtown deserve our continued support and prayers through this most difficult time. As a parent, the unspeakable fear has happened. May God help all those families get through.

President Obama is right. Friday was a day of mourning, but the time to act is now upon us. To do nothing in the face of continuous assaults on our children is to be complicit in those assaults. There may not be a single cure-all for the violence in our nation, however we must start the process and begin the deeper and longer conversations that need to take place. Politics be damned. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation’s history, half of them have happened in the last five years. And there is not a single person in America who doesn’t fear it will happen again. It’s time we recognize the danger and address it.

It’s time for Members of Congress to act! Congress should be prepared to vote on requiring background checks for all gun sales, closing the terrorist watch list loopholes, and banning assault weapons and high capacity clips. Those measures don’t solve all our problems, but they’re a start. We also need to focus on our mental health care system. We need to support a better process for families and friends to share their concerns and fears with authorities about people’s mental status, and begin to invest in the human infrastructure needed for effective prevention programs that create healthy children. The pattern is clear- action must be taken. To do nothing in the face of pending disaster is to be complicit. It’s time to act. It’s time to vote.

Urgent Congressional Election This Thursday

There's a crucial and defining election coming up tomorrow but unless you've been reading DWT you probably don't know about it. I'd be in a state of shock if any of the MSNBC anchors mention it, even Rachel. It's part of the concerted move by the New Dem Coalition-- a corporately funded conglomeration of economically conservative anti-family Democratic sell-outs-- to take over every aspect of the House Democratic Caucus. And they appear to be winning. Tomorrow the main event is a caucus vote to pick the next vice chair of the Caucus.

In the year House Democrats are bragging how women and minorities are a majority of their caucus, progressive icon Barbara Lee, beloved and respected by both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should be a show-in. But she's the decided underdog to one of the most corrupt men to sit in Congress in any of our lifetimes, Queens County Democratic boss and Wall Street/K Street whore, Joe Crowley, until last week, chairman of the New Dems.

If Lee is the very best of what Democrats have to offer-- she is-- Crowley is the very worst. He stands for nothing at all but naked power and systemic corruption. The House Ethics Committee had the goods on him and seemed likely to end his miserable career for taking bribes from Wall Street lobbyists during the Wall Street reform hearings in the House Ways and Means Committee, But the same net that scooped up Crowley also scooped up equally corrupt Republican Tom Price (GA) and one of those voce sotto deals was struck to save one GOP leader and one Democratic leader. The losers in this arrangement: the American people who are now stuck with Crowley and Price, each in completely gerrymandered, non-competitive districts. Before deciding to get into the national leadership, Crowley was a vehement anti-Choice bigot. He "changed" to pro-Choice to facilitate his move. Now he's trying to run to the head of the progressive parade to challenge the Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain that throws working families under the bus. Curiously none of his New Dem teammates are taking that too seriously.

Not unrelated was yesterday's AmericaBlog blockbuster by Gaius Publius, pointing the finger directly a Nancy Pelosi for the way the New Dems have taken over the caucus. One of my friends in the caucus tells me she's already paying special deference to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Crowley as the next generation of House leadership. "They're given precedence over even the most senior committee ranking members these days," my friend groused.

Look, there are two ways at this point to look at Ms. Pelosi: 1. She’s either a true liberal (whatever that means) who gets regularly rolled by the Blue Dogs in her coalition, starting with Steny Hoyer and Steve Israel, plus all their ilk (remember the Public Option?).

2. Or she’s a complicit Democratic leader, playing the needed left-of-center role that-- knowingly or not-- enables all those NeoLiberal atrocities (like extending the Bush Tax Cuts).

The enabling role is this: while the actual control group of the Obama-Clinton–led Democratic party betrays progressive goal after progressive goal, lefties like Pelosi paint a useful we-tried face on each of the losses. In this way the party never quite loses its faux-progressive cred. Looks like a sweet system to me, if you’re a Keystone-loving, NAFTA-signing, drone-killing corp-enabler like Obama.

Rolled or complicit? Either way, it seems Pelosi is not helping much-- in this man’s estimation, at least-- well-intentioned or not as she may be. Time for a change? If so, what kind?

Time for an Open Rebellion Caucus?

What’s a progressive to do? Do we want Steny Hoyer to mount the Speaker’s gavel (or the House party leader’s chair)? No.

But do we want true party progressives to serve notice that they are NOT on board with Blue Dogs AND complicit leader-led cave-ins, including Pelosi’s? Yes. We in the bleachers, who actually suffer the effects these congressional-millionaire–enacted laws, would like that very much.

So what are we asking for? I think we need an Open Rebellion Caucus within the Democratic Party office-holder class-- one that openly rejects NeoLiberal policies and stands with true progressive constituencies first, not party first. Party-first is the death of progressives in office, say I.

Do they have to be named the “Open Rebellion Caucus”? No-- they can be the “Puppies & Light Caucus” for all I care, or “Kittens & Cupcakes for All-- though I do think the “Open Rebellion” branding will get a ton of real progressives to love them a whole lot more than they do right now. Perhaps those newly-loving grassroots progressives will even finance their careers much more than they do right now.

Besides, if Steve Israel can found something “shady” called the bipartisan (heh) “Center Aisle Caucus”-- search Klein’s article for the phrase and explanation-- surely there’s room for an “anti–Steve-Israel-and-complicit-ilk” caucus as well. What’s sauce for the goose, as they say.

But whatever happens, whatever our bright new caucus is formed or not formed, just remember-- progressive office-holders look pretty ineffective from the outside, from out here in the hinterlands. As a result, it’s hard to raise money for most of them-- which means they are even more dependent on largess from the Steve Israels of the wicked political world. A vicious circle if ever their was one. You could even call it a “reptilian” circle-- with the reptile head reporting to Nancy Pelosi. Ouch.

Dear Progressive Office-holder: Maybe selling yourself as a strong, unwilling-to-be-complicit, more-effective kind of office-holder is worth a shot. Who know? Maybe someone (or a big bunch of you) should try it and find out.

Say I.

Crowley, as you could probably guess, is part of the Steny Hoyer Team. Recently a Democratic congressman predicted that if Hoyer becomes Speaker "he will run every bill by K Street and nothing will ever happen." Well, Rachel and Lawrence and Big Ed may be missing it, but this faction is sealing it's control of the congressional Democrats on Thursday, Pelosi smiling benignly from the sidelines. One of the most nonsensical of the heavily-funded centrist (meaning right-leaning) Democratic think tanks, the Center for American Progress (CAP), is cheering this, of course. Their quintessential veal pen president, Neera Tanden, blurted out the other day that "on every major battle, Hoyer has been in the trenches with progressives." That's patently absurd-- and it goes beyond Hoyer working behind the scenes to consistently kill off progressive candidates in primaries.

On many critical issues, Hoyer has simply not stood with progressives. Here are a few examples:

• Abandoning The Public Option: While Hoyer did voice support for the public option during the health care reform debate, he was saying in August of 2009-- not too long after a New York Times poll was released that showed 72 percent of the country supported a public plan-- that it may have to be jettisoned. Keep in mind that progressives in Congress and their allies around the country were rallying for the public option as late as February 2010-- but Hoyer and his pro-corporate allies took the wind out of their sails.

• Helping Hide Money In Politics: When President Obama proposed a plan by which he could unilaterally  require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions, Hoyer-- whose district is packed with many of these contractors-- attacked the plan, saying that “there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.” Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor soon used Hoyer’s statement to his advantage, saying, “Certainly, I am in agreement with the Democratic Whip.” The disclosure plan was never put into law.

• Raising The Retirement Age: In 2010, when then-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) suggested raising the retirement age to 70, Hoyer didn’t object. “We could and should consider a higher retirement age,” he said.

• Endorsing Job-Killing Free Trade Deals With Human Rights Abusers: Working-class Americans know that NAFTA-style “free trade” deals cost Americans jobs. But Hoyer joined with only 31 other House Democrats to support a free trade agreement with Colombia, the most dangerous place on the planet for union leaders.  He also broke with the majority of House Democrats by backing similar trade deals with South Korea and Panama. These trade agreements are expected to cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The record speaks for itself. Hoyer has repeatedly sided with the corporate wing of his party over progressives.

Hoyer, Wasserman Schultz, Crowley, Israel... if that's the new face of the Democratic Party-- the next generation-- it really is time for a third party, one to represent working families rather than corporations and the wealthy. These people will make the phrase "but they're better than Republicans" an anachronism.

DC Politicians All Want To Be The King Of K Street-- Yes, Even So-Called Democrats

Yes, they're pro-Choice & she's even pro-gay, but when it comes to corruption... they're as bad as any Republican

A friend of mine in Congress explained to me why he would probably have to support Debbie Wasserman Schultz for Speaker when Nancy retires, even though he realizes what a gigantic step down she would be from Nancy, who, for all her flaws, is a political giant and one of the best Speakers in the history of the House. My friend's worry is that if it isn't Wasserman Schultz, who, he says, at least has "energy" and would want to accomplish something, the alternative is likely to be Steny Hoyer. "If Steny becomes Speaker," he told me, "every single bill will be sent right to K Street and nothing worthwhile will ever get passed. Everything will go through K Street... everything." That's our Steny. In fact, that's our whole political elite. So Lee Fang's story in The Nation, Ann Palmer's report in Politico, Zaid Jilani's post at the Daily Change and Mike Barbaro and Ashley Parker's gossipy, fashion-oriented story at the New York Times all came flooding out yesterday with tales of lobbyists at the DNC, it didn't exactly take me by surprise. And, if you're even a casual reader of DWT, it shouldn't have taken you by surprise either.

Obama doesn't want the lobbyists too close to the convention. So... they're a few blocks away. And the politicians come to them. Is it as gross and despicable as it was at the Republicans' convention? Well, not that bad... but bad enough so that everyone involved should be tossed into prison cells and let us get started over again. Jilani:

Last week’s Republican National Convention was a no-holds-barred party for lobbyists for Big Business. From free espresso from fracking lobbyists to nightly parties with Coca Cola and weapons lobbyists, Big Money had a great time at the convention last week.
But these corporations aren’t exactly sitting on the sidelines at the Democratic convention this week.

It’s true that the host committee for the convention took an historic and important step of for the first time ever refusing to take any donations from lobbyists or corporations.

But that isn’t stopping Big Business.

The American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association, Credit Union National Association, Pfizer, among others are hosting parties a mile away, and some especially toxic corporate predators like Piedmont Natural Gas, Wells Fargo and Florida Crystals Corporation (Debbie Wasserman Schultz's crooked pals at the sugar lobby) are sponsoring one thing or another. "Duke Energy, notorious for battling any effort to curb climate change, extended a $10 million line of credit for the party to hold the convention, and its CEO has given $100,000 to the host committee," writes Jilani. "The Democrats," he continues, "will boast of sticking up for the little guy and taking on Big Business during their convention speeches this week. And by most measures, they do accomplish these tasks far better than the opposition party. But as the lavish events hosted by lobbyists and corporations right outside the convention walls (and in the swag bags) show, corporations still have far too much influence in even the Democratic Party. or, as Lee Fang put it in his report, "One of the biggest untold stories of the Obama administration is the extent to which supposedly Democrat-led lobbying and PR firms were eager to help undermine Democrats’ progressive agenda on behalf of corporate interests... [and} as delegates prepare to arrive in Charlotte for the DNC, it’s worth noting that the guy who was in charge of producing the event the last time is now working to elect Mitt Romney." Anna Palmer:

Obama made good on some of his promises, barring lobbyists from a host of roles in his administration and blocking them from giving money and serving on advisory panels. He also required officials to publicly report contact with registered lobbyists on specific pieces of legislation, such as the stimulus package.

But despite turning lobbying into a bad word, K Streeters say not much has changed-- it’s still all about who you know. ... Podesta [the sleazebag from the gossipy, fashion-oriented story referred to above, a Democratic K Street "powerhouse," which doesn't get Steny Hoyer as angry if you use the word "whore"] said the only effect Obama’s policy had was to create a class of unregistered lobbyists-- people who deregistered from being lobbyists. Those people after two years can enter into the administration, give campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee and the Obama reelection committee, and can serve on advisory boards.

As for the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, it's as effective in sapping the nation's strength as it's always been. The entire corporate lobbying industry is parasitic and only exists because it's convenient-- and profitable-- for congressmen. Who do you blame more, the bribe-taker or the bribe-giver? This billboard could be any senior Republican and almost any senior Democrat:

Who'll Be The Next In Line?

I only ever had one conversation with Steny Hoyer. The Democrats had just won back the House and Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi was about to ascend to the Speakership. She didn't want a slimy corporatist whore like Hoyer as her top lieutenant and she picked Jack Murtha to take him on for the Majority Leader post. Someone on Hoyer's staff saw that I was less of a fan of Murtha than Mean Jean Schmidt later turned out to be and asked me if I would interview Hoyer. The only precondition was that I couldn't call him a shill during the interview. (Really, that's what the request was.) I liked Hoyer personally during the interview-- many sociopaths, and especially sociopathic politicians and business leaders are very charming-- but in the end I just said, in effect, "a pox on both your houses." Two horrible choices.

It may be recalled by a few that the week before the Hoyer-Murtha throwdown, Rahm Emanuel was trying to fulfill his obligations to Wall Street by grabbing the Whip. But he'd have to grab it away from Jim Clyburn, the only African-American in the caucus leadership. Pelosi headed that off at the pass by giving Emanuel some other undisclosed powers. But Clyburn got the Whip position, ostensibly the #3 job in the leadership. Now he says he's thinking about challenging Hoyer for the Speakership if Nancy decides to bow out-- as is widely rumored. Is Clyburn "better" than Hoyer? Maybe, but that depends on what better means to you. Personally, I find both completely inadequate for any job requiring integrity and a dedication to the welfare of the 99%. Sure Clyburn isn't as bad as Hoyer but that doesn't make him any good. In an interview this week with The Hill he sounded very old, very hackish, and nearly incoherent.

Asked whether he will seek a higher leadership post following the 2012 election, Clyburn told The Hill, “I might-- sure. I’m not closing the door on anything.”

The highest-ranking African-American in Congress then detailed what could be his argument for a promotion: He has paid his dues, both literally and figuratively.

“The people who hold these leadership positions in the palms of their hands-- that’s our caucus-- they hold these positions,” he said. “I think the extent to which I demonstrate that I’m deserving will determine whether or not I continue.”

Clyburn was quick to tout his credentials as a veteran dealmaker with a history of both getting things done and sacrificing for the party when need be. He related an episode early in his Capitol Hill tenure, for instance, when he stepped off the powerful Appropriations Committee to make room for a Republican who was promised a seat on the panel if he switched parties.

“I believe that every member will tell you that I paid significant dues, and I never, ever stepped on anybody along the way,” he said. “People may say they’ll put the interest of the caucus before them. But I have demonstrated it.”

He also noted that he paid his full cycle dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. As the No. 3 Democrat, Clyburn’s dues level is set at $600,000, which he met in January. 

Hoyer, for his part, is not ceding any ground. 

“Mr. Hoyer is focused on taking back the House and being the majority leader,” spokeswoman Katie Grant said Wednesday in an email.
Clyburn is not expected to challenge Pelosi, who has a firm grip on her caucus.

When either of them goes off the reservation it's to serve corporate interests, never the working families of the country. Yeah, yeah... better than Cantor or Boehner. But they all just really suck. Why not a progressive? Why not someone who isn't borderline senile? The Democratic leadership is way too old, too hidebound, way too corrupt and too careerist-oriented. There's a whole rogues gallery of crooks looking to move up the ranks-- junior Rahm Emanuels like Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Joseph Crowley worst of all. It scares me that even inside the Democratic Party, sociopaths inevitably seem to gravitate towards leadership posts.

Better choices for the Democrats would be younger, more in touch-- in touch with the real America, not with K Street lobbyists and Capitol Hill operatives-- members like Keith Ellison, Jared Polis, Donna Edwards, Raul Grijalva, Judy Chu... Chris Van Hollen is also waiting in the wings seeing if he can step in, but, while marginally "better" than Hoyer and Clyburn, there;s still that whole integrity and hack problem. Dream scenario: Grayson gets reelected (likely); Pelosi hangs on for another term (possible); Grayson takes over by 2014 (impossible).

Sleazy Steny Hoyer Up To No Good Again

Friday the Republicans will bring up their balanced budget amendment. It's the favoritest thing ever-- a Grover Norquist wet dream. But it takes a two-thirds vote in each chamber to be able to send it on to the states for ratification. We'll look at it more closely tomorrow morning. I'm just bringing it up tonight because I wanted to mention that it wasn't only the Blue Dogs who supported it last time it came up-- in 1995-- but all kinds of corporate whores and servants of the 1%. In fact, in 1995 the considerable Democratic support for this stunningly bad idea came from the absolute worst corporate shill in the Democratic caucus, Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is promising to be better behaved Friday. He sure isn't being well-behaved in the race to win the Democratic-leaning seat in the northern Chicago suburbs currently held by Robert Dold. Although Ilya Sheyman is the frontrunner, Hoyer is throwing his considerable weight behind conservative businessman Brad Schneider.

Sheyman, who was one of the first candidates endorsed by Blue America this cycle, is being backed by Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, neighbor Danny Davis and Howard Dean. Ilya is a progressive activist with roots firmly in the 99%. Schneider, like Hoyer, is just some transactional politician looking to make a good deal, advance his own career and feather his nest. In the last 4 election cycles before this one he donated considerable money to Republican Congressman Mark Kirk (who represented the district before Dold). He's exactly the kind of politician the Democrats would be better off without. Which explains why he's so appealing to someone like Steny Hoyer, someone who voted with Boehner and Cantor to destroy working families with a toxic balanced budget amendment.

Are Schneider and Hoyer as bad as Boehner and Cantor? Not exactly but... isn't it time we got some real tribunes of working families into Congress instead of more corporate whores willing to constantly bend over for the 1%? This is a time for leaders like Ilya Sheyman, not fric and frac. Please consider giving him a hand here.

Several years ago Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel came into West Palm and told Democrats there not to support union activist and school teacher Dave Lutrin, who was running against Republican incumbent and sex predator Mark Foley. Instead they had another "business-friendly" candidate with a history of donating to Republicans, Tim Mahoney. In fact, Mahoney was a Republican himself and Steny and Rahm got him to switch parties at the last minute. They starved Lutrin's campaign and forced him out of the race. Rahm leaked the story about Foley preying on young male pages and Mahoney won, joined the Blue Dogs and proceeded to vote with Republicans most of the time. He then got into his own sex scandal and lost the seat. That's a Steny Hoyer candidate! I asked Dave-- who's running again next year-- to comment on what Hoyer is trying to do to Ilya's campaign now. He was too much of a gentleman to bring up Hoyer's perfidy. Here's what he told me today though:

"For us to facilitate meaningful change for America, we need to not just replace the obstructionist Republican House members with Democrats, but to replace them with more Democrats like Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva. When I hear that a candidate has business background, I cringe and think how Republicans have put this country’s economy on the path of disaster by trying to run it like a business. Business experience is not required to serve the people; however, strong moral values and convictions should be.

"I think that Ilya Sheyman’s core progressive beliefs can make a great difference in Congress. I like his beliefs so much, I just contributed to his campaign on ActBlue. I hope that I have the opportunity to work with him in Washington."

John Boehner-- The Reformer?

Do you remember when one of the half dozen 3 most corrupt members of Congress, Jerry Lewis (R-CA), then the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, threw a temper tantrum and threatened to bring down the whole GOP if they tried to make a move against earmarks, the source of his wealth and power? In those says the GOP ruled the House roost and enough Republicans were getting rich from corrupt earmarks that Lewis easily prevailed. Now that Democrats are running the House, and controlling the earmarks, the Republicans are suddenly trying to cast themselves as reformers. Steny Hoyer may not be as corrupt as Lewis but... well, that still leaves plenty of wide open space for corruption and Hoyer is leading the battle to keep earmarks as a way to grease the wheels of filthy politics. It's the only way old-line hacks like him know how to operate.

As part of the Republican reformer pose, the man who handed out tobacco lobbyists' bribe checks to Republican members on the floor of the House-- during a vote-- John Boehner (who subsequently used his ability to funnel massive amounts of tainted corporate cash to Republican members to catapult him into his party's leadership), announced his party would lead the march to end earmarks. He promised to report to the American people this week. Problem: the Jerry Lewis/Don Young wing of the party, which is convinced that politics is all about sucking up money from the Big Business interests you serve, is not going along with Boehner's game plan.

Keep in mind that when Hoyer scuttled earmark reforms that many Democrats want, his argument was basically that the Republicans are even worse than he and his cronies are. Well, that may be true, but that's the difference between an F and a D. Hoyer's pathetic push-back: You can't spell "earmark" without an "r." The man should retired or become a school crossing guard. This morning's Hill reported that Republican "members disagree over whether the report should recommend that the GOP conference end earmarking, even as GOP Senators and Democrats continue to put aside money in appropriations bill for local projects."

"We all have differences of opinion as to what we should do," task force panelist Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) told The Hill in an interview. “How do you make it binding? It ought to be something that applies to Republicans and Democrats House and Senate and the administration if they are going to reform the earmark process. All of us need to be involved in this process if we’re going to reform the earmark process.”

...Earmarks remain popular with members of both parties. An omnibus spending bill approved by the House last week included $3.8 billion in earmarks, nearly half of which were sponsored by Republicans.

Select Committee member Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said that in order to make the earmark reform meaningful, his party would have to be willing to forgo any and all earmarks, regardless of what the Democrats do.

The anti-earmark crusader notorious for challenging individual pork projects on the House floor, however, was pessimistic that House Republicans would unilaterally give up earmarks.

“There’s some of us who think this only matters if it’s something that we are all prepared to go alone on,” Flake said. “With the omnibus last week, I thought it was completely devastating ... immediately everybody says ‘same old, same old,’ and they are right.”

Select Committee on Earmark Reform Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) was optimistic that the report would be released sooner rather than later, despite the “very strong opinions around the table.” She said that makes her job as chairwoman “festive” and “feisty.”

Festive? Maybe she should join Hoyer at the school crosswalk. At least Hoyer voted for some baby step reforms of the earmark process in 2007. In fact all 232 Democrats voted for a rule to ban secrecy in the ear mark procedures, a good first step. At that time the Republican leaders stamped their feet and made a fuss but 48 of their followers abandoned them and joined the Democrats to pass the rule. Virtually all of the worst abusers of the earmark system-- as well as the congressmen most responsible for pushing the deficit spending into the stratosphere over the last 6 years-- voted against the resolution. Among the worst are crooks like Jerry Lewis (CA), Roy Blunt (MO), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), ex-lobbyist Brian Bilbray (CA), Gary Miller (CA), Pete Sessions (TX), Ken Calvert (CA), Mean Jean Schmidt (OH), Tom Feeney (FL), Buck McKeon (CA)... and, predictably John Boehner (OH) and his extremist whip Eric Cantor (VA)-- 152 shameless leeches on the body politic in all. And now they want to distort the record and make Rush Limbaugh listeners think they're reformers. Why bother when everyone who cares about reform and corruption already knows exactly what they are? So not just a bunch of Nazis (which even Michael Steele agreed is the case) but as corrupt as the day is long! Besides, if Boehner wants to start fighting about earmarks maybe he should have a talk with Miss McConnell, over on the other side of the hall; he's got $75 million worth of earmarks in the current budget.

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN-- STENY HOYER AND CHRIS CARNEY WORKING TO GIVE BUSH WHAT HE WANTS

Steny pledges his allegiance

Back in November, 2006, I got a call from Steny Hoyer. He was trolling for support for his bid to become Majority Leader. Pelosi knew what a backstabbing corporate tool he is and she was pushing for Jack Murtha, no angel-- or reformer-- himself. Hoyer's office had noticed that I warned anti-war progressives infatuated with Murtha off because of Murtha's ultra-reactionary voting record-- much worse than Hoyer's-- and because of his reputation for sometimes being willing to accept some... easy money. Anyway, if you don't want to read the post I did back then about my Hoyer call (at the link above), take my word for it: it wasn't complimentary. Sure, I warned people about Murtha, but I was sure to indicate that Murtha was probably even worse.

And if Jane, Digby, emptywheel, and McJoan were correct yesterday-- and these are all savvy sources-- I wasn't even close to how bad... and how dangerous.

According to the ACLU, there is rumor of a backroom deal being brokered by Jay Rockefeller on FISA that will include retroactive immunity. I've heard from several sources that Steny Hoyer is doing the dirty work on the House side, and some say it will be attached to the new supplemental.

This morning Glenn Greenwald's Salon column, What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA? spells it out very clearly. Glenn rues the rumors of Hoyer and the Blue Dogs reversing "one of the only worthwhile acts of Congressional Democrats since they were given control of Congress in 2006: namely, the refusal to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and bequeath lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty." He warns us that Hoyer is leading the charge to put together a new FISA bill that will purport to grant something short of retroactive immunity for Bush Regime cronies inside and outside the government, particularly to executives of the telecom industry, "but which, in every meaningful respect, ensures an end to the telecom lawsuits."

Yesterday's Hill indicates that a gaggle of reactionary and less than courageous Blue Dogs, typified by our old friend Chris Carney (D-PA). Conservative freshman Democrats and non-freshman reactionaries "are growing skittish. These lawmakers expect campaign opponents to accuse them of imperiling national security if Congress does not enact new intelligence surveillance legislation." A GOP front group, Defense of Democracies Action Fund, has already started running ads in red-leaning districts trying to smear freshmen. Some, like Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), have fought back, explaining the Bush Regime's treacherous policies and have enhanced the respect voters feel for them. Others, like Carney, are motivated by fear, conflicting motivations and confusion.

“A number of Blue Dogs are working on a compromise between the House and the Senate,” said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and the former ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “I’m working with Hoyer and working with others.

“Some other Blue Dogs are involved,” she added. “Blue Dogs are 47 votes; 47 votes will determine how this comes out.”

Harman acknowledged, however, that there is a split in the Blue Dog Coalition and that some members support a Senate-crafted overhaul of FISA while she and others say it gives “blank check” immunity to telecommunications companies that turned over customer data to intelligence authorities.

Harman said that Hoyer, who has long-standing ties with the coalition, will be pivotal to recruiting conservative Democratic support for whatever bill emerges from House-Senate negotiations.

When we warn about supporting Blue Dogs and reactionary Democrats, and how they pull the Democratic caucus towards the right, this-- and tactics like the HeathShuler/Tom Tancredo anti-immigrants bill-- are exactly what we're talking about. The GOP is trying to use a discharge petition to force Pelosi to schedule a vote on the Senate version that does give retroactive immunity to telecom and Regime lawbreakers. The Republicans are concentrating their efforts on the Blue Dogs, many of whom are eager to show their constituents that they are as right-wing as a Republican.

Vulnerable freshman Democrats and Blue Dogs say the issue demands action.
“Overall, it’s very important,” said Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.), a freshman member of the Blue Dog Coalition who often votes against his leadership.

Carney said that a compromise should protect national security and also respect civil liberties. He was one of the 21 Democrats who signed the letter to Pelosi, making him a prime Republican target.
 
“I’ve been in favor of the Senate bill."

Yes, he was. In fact, he was one of the only House Democrats to vote for it and that was why Glenn's readers and readers of Firedoglake, Crooks & Liars, Digby, DownWithTyranny voted overwhelmingly to donate the $50,000 they had donated to running ads in Carney's northeast Pennsylvania district about this issue. Glenn points out today that Carney and other reactionary Democrats like him do more harm to the progressive agenda than Republicans in the minority do. Their "presence in Washington is worse than worthless: it's extremely counterproductive since they essentially eliminate the entire concept of 'opposition party' by continuously pressuring Democrats to enable the most radical aspects of Republican rule for their own perceived narrow political gain."

Glenn has called for more donations to the Blue America PAC's fund that will be used to fight retroactive immunity. So far over 900 people have donated. Please give what you can (right here)-- unless you want to grant the Bush Regime the power to tap your phone without warrants and to grant retroactive immunity for criminal activities to their cronies.

DEMOCRATS-- INSUFFICIENT RESOLVE? OR IS IT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT?

I'm not certain how many times the hacks in Washington who work for us have to be told we want them to end the war in Iraq before they do something about it. And I'm not even talking about the hopelessly deaf Republicans or Lieberman. Today's Washington Post acknowledges that a majority of Americans favor a deadline for troop withdrawal.

The Post-ABC poll found that 53 percent of Americans favored setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Among those who favored a deadline, 24 percent said they would like to see U.S. forces out within six months and 21 percent called for the withdrawals to be completed within a year. The rest of those who supported a timetable said they do not support withdrawing all troops until at least a year from now.

This is the first time a Post-ABC News poll has found that a majority of Americans supported establishing such a timetable for withdrawal, which has long been resisted by the president and even some Democrats.

Growing numbers of Americans also favored withdrawing U.S. forces even if civil order in Iraq has not been restored. The poll found that 42 percent favored keeping troops there until order is reestablished, while 56 percent said the troops should be redeployed to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if the sectarian violence is continuing.

And while reactionary and pro-war Democrats like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer are working full time to sabotage Jack Murtha's efforts to come up with a solid plan to establish requirements for the training and resting of military units that would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available to send to Iraq, a full 58% of Americans approve of his approach. "Even some Americans, 21 percent, who supported the president's troop surge said they would favor rules for training and resting troops."

Two of the most perceptive bloggers I know, Matt Stoller and David Sirota, are as concerned as we are at DWT that there is insufficient resolve on the part of Democrats in Congress to end the war. I'm not basing my concerns on some poorly written story the AP put out over the wires today about a lack of support for Murtha. If you follow this blog, you know I've been writing about it for weeks and pointing out the culprits and their records of playing footsie with the Bush Regime. People like Emanuel, Hoyer, Berman, Tauscher, Schiff are all in solidly blue districts. They should be held accountable for the war.

Sirota's read of the AP piece is that it "tells the story of how Democrats in Washington clearly do not want to end the Iraq War. This story includes all of the tell-tale signs of both a party that disdains the will of voters and a media unwilling to report even the most basic facts: Nancy Pelosi reading Fox News talking points that claim conditioning funding on American troops' training is supposedly not supporting the troops; Harry Reid nonchalantly saying in the face of mounting casualties that there's no real urgency to do anything on the war because 'Iraq is going to be there;' and the AP writer refusing to acknowledge consistent public opinion polls by CNN and the Washinton Post that show the public strongly supports Congress cutting off funding for Bush's military escalation and conditioning funding on adequate troop training, respectively.  

Make no mistake about it: The renewed refusal by Democrats to use their majority in even the most basic way to stop the war is a declaration that the new majority is not close to using even the most basic powers afforded to it to stop or slow down the war. In other words, in backing off, the Democrats have just weeks after the 2006 anti-war election mandate effectively declared themselves as supportive of the Bush administration's stay-the-course policy-- a truly sickening act of cowardice."