The Democrats' Magic Bullet? They'd Be Better Off With A Magic Mullet

A few weeks ago a friend of mine who sits in Congress left a Democratic House Caucus meeting and called me and said the party is doomed. Most of them, he warned me, have lost whatever retail political skills and instincts they may have once had. "All they know about is running to special interests and whoring out their asses for cash to hire consultants and media firms who put together ineffective, astronomically expensive ad campaigns." On the other hand, he said the DCCC, as poorly run and incompetent at anything beyond sucking up cash, was loaded. "They're sitting on $50 million," he told me. Well, now they're sitting on $41 million and it's what they're counting on to save their asses.

I was on a conference call with Speaker Pelosi Wednesday. I had the uncomfortable feeling that her upbeat mood wasn't because she was attempting to deceive the folks on the call... but because she had succeeded in deluding herself. She told us her Members are fired up, ready to stand up for their accomplishments and take the battle to the people. She's delusional. When the moderator accidentally opened up my mike and I started to ask a question-- about apologetic, craven Blue Dogs Bobby Bright and Jim Marshall (see video above)-- I was immediately cut off. [It's been 2 years and I still have no idea why they invite me on these calls; I've never gotten to ask a question. Just as well; I'm shy.]

Anyway... the DCCC had predetermined the unhappy outcome of this year's midterms when visionless leaders Chris Van Hollen and Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- not to mention corrupt (more about that November 3) professionals Jon Vogel and John Lapp-- followed the advice of the Republican Party and their Village allies by going into the defensive crouch of determined losers. They put corporate money vacuum/Rahm Emanuel protégé Wasserman Schultz-- best known for her sabotage of 3 Democratic races in South Florida in 2008-- in charge of incumbent protection and told her she could use virtually the whole budget to help re-elect the Democrats who had most alienated the base by voting most frequently with John Boehner (i.e., Blue Dogs). Basically there would be next to nothing for Democratic challengers willing to go on the attack against some of the most hateful and harmful of the Republican Party's storm troopers-- from leaders like John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter and Paul Ryan to execrable, shrieking backbenchers like Steve King, Virginia Foxx, Paul Broun and Ken Calvert.

There are too many Democrats in deeply red districts for this kind of a strategy to work in a year like this. Never mind that Bobby Bright-- who never votes with the Democrats on contentious issues, brags he's a Boehner Boy in his own TV ads and vowed to not vote for Nancy Pelosi or any other liberals-- is worthless; his district is overwhelmingly Republican. Obama only managed to win 36% of the vote there in 2008 and Bright managed to scrape by with a 1,790 vote margin. This hasn't stopped Wasserman Schultz, Vogel and Lapp from allocating more money to Bright than to any other Democratic incumbent in the House, so far $870,664.90-- with more in the pipeline. (Second has gone to an almost equally reprehensible conservative, Frank Kratovil in a Maryland district that gave Obama 40%, Kratovil a 2,852 vote margin and has sucked up $802,799.82 from the DCCC so far this year.)

This wasteful expenditure isn't going to save either of these seats. Both will be won by actual Republicans in 2 weeks. What it does is jeopardize loyal Democratic incumbents who are cash-starved and possibly doom the prospects of promising Democratic challengers in districts that Obama won in 2008. Bill Hedrick is the perfect example. His Inland Empire (Riverside/Orange counties) district gave Obama a 50-49% win over McCain-- a ten point increase over Kerry's total 4 years earlier-- while Hedrick lost to Ken Calvert 51-49%. The DCCC spent nothing at all in the district in 2008 and acknowledged what a terrible mistake they had made afterwards, promising to never let it happen again. This year, though, in a rematch-- after demographic and registration shifts that favor Democrats-- the DCCC has spent the exact same amount that they spent in 2008: nothing. The latest polling-- on top of a Fox News exposé of Calvert as one of the most corrupt Members of Congress-- shows Hedrick, a committed progressive, ready to beat the incumbent. One problem: the corrupt corporate hack has sucked up $1,368,747 this year, while Hedrick has managed to raise $367,698. Going into the final two weeks Calvert has a massive cash advantage and the DCCC has shirked its responsibility once again-- coming to California to raise millions for Blue Dog retention in the Deep South-- for anti-Choice, antigay, anti-reform, anti-healthcare conservatives-- while leaving California true blue challengers like Hedrick and Beth Krom high and dry... and unable to compete (at least financially). Even the California challengers the DCCC pretends to be behind-- Ami Bera and Steve Pougnet-- haven't seen a nickel in Independent Expenditure media buys. So where is all the money going?

There are some very well-connected-- connected to Lapp and Vogel, that is-- campaigns that are getting it all. Justin Coussoule, who's running against John Boehner? Nooooo... Ed Potosnak, who's running against the ultra-vulnerable Leonard Lance in a neck-and-neck race? Nooooo... Joyce Elliott, the Majority Leader of the Arkansas state Senate who would be the first African-American woman ever elected to federal office from that state if she were to win (against despicable Rove protégé Tim Griffin)? Nooo... they're too busy trying to wring a victory for right-wing Blue Dog Chad Causey (spending an obscene $743,919.61 on his race while ignoring Elliott's entirely).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a monster September, bringing in nearly $16 million and ending last month with $41.6 million in the bank for the homestretch of the midterm elections.

The monthly fundraising total is nearly twice as much as the committee raised in August, and leaves it with a significant amount to spend on an expanding landscape of competitive races that feature vulnerable incumbents.

The committee has spent nearly $19 million in independent expenditures so far, according to reports filed through Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission. According to DCCC spokeswoman Jennifer Crider, it will spend another $40 million on TV over the final few weeks, while $20 million will be spent through coordinated spending and direct get-out-the-vote efforts.

Although the DCCC has managed to corral most of the Inside-the-Beltway operators and most big Democratic donors, the progressive grassroots are rallying to promising progressive candidates making worthwhile fights-- like Billy Kennedy in North Carolina, Bill Hedrick and Beth Krom in southern California, Boehner's opponent Justin Coussoule in Ohio, Tarryl Clark, the intrepid state Senator from St Cloud taking on vicious hatemonger Michelle Bachmann, Ann Kuster in New Hampshire and, in New Jersey, the LGBT's best chance to add a gay member to Congress, Ed Potosnak, supported by feisty, independent LGBT organizations, like Stonewall Democrats, but utterly abandoned by the DCCC-coopted shills like HRC and the Victory Fund. You can contribute to any-- or all-- of these campaigns, and others, here at the Blue America ActBlue page. And you can sign up at the Blue America/DFA/PCCC phonebank page to help make crucial phone calls to potential voters for your favorite House and Senate candidates; not just challengers like the ones we've been talking about above, but also a few well-deserving incumbents as well, like Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Mary Jo Kilroy and Carol Shea-Porter (none of whom, predictably, have gotten any significant incumbent protection money from the DCCC so far).

Blue Dogs... Peeing Where They Sleep

Since many of them will be headed for far more remunerative jobs sponsored by the Big Money operators they've bolstered over the years, the Blue Dogs on the verge of losing their seats in 3 weeks-- reactionary Tennessee congressman Jim Cooper predicts as many as 27, although, alas, that's too good to be true-- senior members of the right-wing Democratic caucus don't seem overly frazzled by the tsunami headed their way. Desperate freshmen like Bobby Bright, who haven't earned their bones-- or enough bones-- with Big Business yet are the only ones freaking out. You saw his despicable ad last week, bragging that he's voted with Boehner 80% of the time; this week he has a new one (up top) indicating he won't be voting for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker if he's reelected. Bright says he's heard his constituents and they want a conservative running the House. Is that so? No Democrat could possibly win in AL-2 without landslide wins in Lowndes, Bullock, Barbour and Butler counties where Blue America will be making sure voters are part of the conversation as well as Bright's allies in the elite country club set of suburban Montgomery.

Meanwhile, though, the Blue Dogs are marking territory and fighting over who will lead the smaller, weaker, more ridiculous caucus, especially with sleazy South Dakota credit card company shill/Blue Dog chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin likely headed for a job on K Street next year and with senior pack member John Tanner retiring voluntarily. CQPolitics speculated yesterday that the one Democrat who cosponsored George Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security, arch-reactionary Allen Boyd of Florida will be the new Tanner. He's close to Steny Hoyer and embodies everything that's wrong with the Blue Dogs, although two other mangy slimeballs who vote as frequently with the GOP as Boyd-- Jim Matheson of Utah and Heath Shuler of North Carolina-- are also looking to move up the depleted ranks.

While Boyd has been quietly notifying Members of his desire to lead the group next year, he already has the support of Blue Dog alumni such as former Rep. Jim Turner (D-Texas).

“Certainly Allen’s been a leader for years, a very strong leader in that group,” said Turner, a co-founder of the caucus.

With his departure, Tanner is vacating his post as chief deputy whip of the Democratic Caucus, and Boyd may be angling for that spot in the 112th Congress, assuming he is re-elected.

“I know the Blue Dogs will lay a claim to that spot,” said a lobbyist with ties to the group.

But the lobbyist said many prominent Blue Dogs, including Boyd and Shuler, are preoccupied with their races rather than climbing the ladder.

“A lot of the people who are rising leaders in the caucus are really having to focus on their re-elections,” the lobbyist said.

“There is some pre-baked bread already when it comes to the vision of who the leadership ought to be,” a second lobbyist with Blue Dog ties said. “There are a variation of slates ... but depending on who wins and loses, the bigger question there is, does the establishment within the Blue Dogs prevail in putting forth their chosen leaders, or does somebody like Jim Cooper or [Rep.] Lincoln Davis [D-Tenn.] rise up?”

Former Blue Dogs who have moved on to lobbying are powerful voices within the slimy caucus, which is largely dependent on lobbyist money for its existence. The lobbyists will make the final decision of which Blue Dog gets the leadership slot as Chief Deputy Whip. Meanwhile, the lobbyists and brainless Villagers who take them seriously are spreading their poison that a smaller Democratic House Caucus-- with far fewer of the Blue Dogs who have destroyed the mission of the Democratic Party and helped bring about its downfall-- will be more influential!

[D]eep losses for the Democratic Party could have a silver lining for the coalition’s clout. In a narrow Democratic majority, leadership will have to pay far more attention to Blue Dog concerns than it did in this Congress.

“Even if there is a Republican majority, they are going to be hurting for votes, and depending on the issue, Blue Dogs can be providing key votes,” Cooper said. “The role that Blue Dogs can play is honest broker.”

There are other advantages to a smaller pack, Cooper said. “We probably will be more disciplined and more cohesive in the next Congress. With a smaller group, that’s easier to achieve.”

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, who is the Blue Dog liaison to leadership, also predicted the group’s influence will rise.

“America is craving an honest middle ground with folks who fight for America above everything else, and that’s what the Blue Dogs stand for,” the California Democrat said.

The Blue Dogs worked with the Republican majority on a number of issues in the 1990s, including plans to balance the budget.

Republicans may be eyeing Blue Dogs to switch parties, but Cooper said he thinks that is unlikely.

“You usually get the worst of both worlds with party switchers, and Parker Griffith is the best example of that,” he said, referring to the Alabama Republican who lost his primary this year after he switched parties. “The new party doesn’t trust you, and the old party is particularly angry.”

Democrats can't even fully attack the U.S. Chamber for financing the Republican Party with foreign money because some of that Chinese and Russian and Arab dough is going to Blue Dogs as well as Republicans. The Chamber has endorsed aisle-crossing Blue Dogs Frank Kratovil (MD), Glenn Nye (VA), Travis Childers (MS), Jim Marshall (GA) and Bobby Bright (AL) and they're as guilty of treason-- allowing foreign money to finance our elections-- as are Boehner and the rest of the GOP. But, after all, isn't that one of the primary functions of Blue Dogs... muddying the water? And this morning one of them, reactionary, anti-family corporate whore Jim Marshall proudly declared that he will not vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. His GOP opponent slammed him well: “After taking $46,000 from Nancy Pelosi, voting four times to put her in charge, supporting her agenda nearly 90 percent of the time and backing her Wall Street bailout and failed stimulus, the election-eve conversion Jim Marshall’s making on his political deathbed doesn’t exactly merit a ‘Profile in Courage’ award." Too bad he's wrong about that 90% of the time figure. In truth, Marshall has been one of the Democrats most likely to suck John Boehner's toes and his ProgressivePunch score was a dismal 32.52 in the past two years, one of the most reprehensible of any Blue Dog in Congress.

Three Democrats Join GOP In An Attempt To Scuttle Health Insurance For Needy Children

Earlier today DWT and Crooks & Liars hosted the new head of the DCCC's Red to Blue Program. When asked about reactionary Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans on core Democratic values-- like equality in the workplace for women-- he didn't mince words:

It's extremely frustrating to me. It doesn't seem like one of those defining issues that is going to be used against you to paint you as a tool of the Speaker, which is usually what happens in these races in the Deep South. It does seem like this is an issue that is a defining issue for Democratic voters and I would hope that Democrats in those districts in Alabama and around the country would make their feelings known to help educate these new members to the fact that just because you have received support in the past, to pick up an open seat, does not mean that you can ignore what your party stands for when it comes to basic tenets.

He had to rush off from our session to vote on SCHIP. Before that vote, there was a procedural attempt by the Republicans to kill it. It failed 244-178. Three reactionary fake Democrats joined every single Republican in trying to sabotage health care for needy children. The culprits?

Baron Hill (Blue Dog- IN)
Walt Minnick (ID)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)

Hill is the co-chair of the reactionary Blue Dogs in charge of policy. Minnick was just elected and has voted with the Republicans on every disputed bill that has come up so far. And Shuler... Rahm Emanuel's one success from 2006, a Republican jackass masquerading as a Democrat who thinks he's going to run for Richard Burr's Senate seat in 2010, something that would insure another six years for Burr.


UPDATE: SCHIP PASSES... AGAIN

The Republicans tried another tactic to kill the bill (a motion to recommit) and it failed 179- 247. Three Republicans, Chris Smith (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ) and Vern Buchanan (FL), voted with the Democrats and 5 reactionary Democrats crossed the aisle in the other direction:

Bobby Bright (AL)
Walt Minnick (ID)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Mike McIntyre (NC)

In the end 40 Republicans voted for final passage, bringing the total to 289 for and only 139 against. Only two fake Democrats voted against it:

Jim Marshall (GA)
Bobby Bright (AL)

Zell Miller On The Warpath Again-- This Time For Saxby Chambliss

Lifelong racist and former chief of staff to Lester Maddox, Zell Miller isn't just a disgrace to the Democratic Party-- the original Joe Lieberman-- and a shameless reactionary, he's also lost his marbles. He's been in and out of mental institutions ever since his breakdown at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Ole Zell lives up in the mountains in KKK country now and rarely comes down among people. But Saxby Chambliss had someone go up there and clean him up and get him into a shirt and tie and drag him down to a Republican rally last week.

These days Republicans roll him out whenever they need a "Democrat" to endorse them. He's a regular on Fox and has cut campaign ads for Ralph Reed, Johnny Isakson and Sonny Perdue. Needless to say, he adamantly refused to support Obama in the recent election. So it should come as no surprise that the mentally ill Miller would be up on stage endorsing Saxby Chambliss. Remember, it was ole Zell who actually sponsored a Constitutional amendment (in 2004) to outlaw gay marriage, the far right's most cherished tactic for divisive politics. (The other Constitutional amendment Miller proposed, actually the repeal of the 17th amendment, was meant to take away the right of the people to vote for senators and return that to the state legislatures.)

Delusional and ranting, Miller claimed he was governor of Georgia in 1944 (a full year before his bar mitzvah and 46 years before we was elected governor) and that he was proposing tax cuts Jim Martin was fighting. The whole audience was laughing at the loon but they were happy to have another right-wing nut voting against Martin. After working himself and the crowd into a frenzy of self-righteousness, someone gave him his pills and took him back to his home in Young Harris way up in Towns County near the South Carolina line. Meanwhile ole Saxby is doing what he can to weasel out of tesifying about his despicable role in the notorious Imperial Sugar case-- and claiming he doesn't know if we're in a recession or not or even what one is. Clearly, Georgia needs better representation in the U.S. Senate.

Please enjoy this short clip of ole Zell campaigning for "the firewall" who the Republicans hope will thwart the will of Americans who just elected Barack Obama in the sincere hope that he would bring a progressive agenda of change to this country after 8 miserable years of the Bush-Cheney agenda that included neither peace nor prosperity but that was completely rubber stamped by Saxby Chambliss:

Tuesday Is Election Day in Georgia

Regina Thomas: A voice For The Voiceless

Three Democrats who tend to take a great deal of money from corporations and then reward those corporations with their votes, even though those votes often harm the constituents they supposedly work for, are facing more progressive Democratic challengers in the primary. David Scott represents the 13th CD, south and west of Atlanta, from Smyrna in the north, through Douglasville and down to Union City and Riverdale. Bush only managed to get 36% of the vote against Kerry in 2004 and the district's PVI is R +12. Scott is being challenged by Donzella James, a retired state Senator, with a progressive voting record, who also ran against him in 2006. That primary was meaningless because of malfunctioning voting machines. She hasn't reported raising any money and Scott has raised $578,361 and spent over $300,000 of it.

Far worse than Scott are two Democrats who often trade off the #1 position as Bush's top Democratic ally among Democrats in Congress, Jim Marshall and John Barrow. On ProgressivePunch's "Chips Are Down" ranking, Marshall scores a 29.65 out of 100 and Barrow scores a 32.20. They are both virtually Republicans in all but name. Marshall at least has an excuse for voting like a Republican. He represents the Republican-leaning 8th CD, centered on Macon and Warner Robins but going all the way down to Tifton and Moultrie. (Still it isn't that Republican and he was the one Democrat to adamantly oppose children's health care every single time it came up.) Marshall certainly doesn't deserve to be re-nominated but his opponent, Robert Nowak has generated much excitement outside of a small and dedicated band of liberals.

The race where there is at least a chance of victory is in GA-12 (Augusta/Savannah) which pits progressive Regina Thomas against Barrow. Regina has managed to raise $45,000 on ActBlue, a drop in the bucket against Barrow's $1.4 million, at least some of it from an extreme right-wing Republican, anti-union outfit, the shady Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC), which has endorsed a handful of radical right Republicans and only one Democrat... Barrow, the worst Democrat. And GA-12 is a Democratic district, so Barrow has no excuse whatsoever for his treachery and cowardice.

Blue America ran a series of full page ads in many of the cities and towns in GA-12. Our pals at Democrats.com have done an amazing job standing up for Regina and getting out the progressive message to voters.

If you know anyone in Savannah, Augusta, Swainsboro, Vidalia, Statesboro, Milledgeville or anywhere in between, please remind them that Tuesday is primary day and that, for a change they have a real choice. Maybe you can send them this 12 second video:




BARROW RESPONDS TO ENDORSEMENT FROM ANTI-UNION PAC

Barrow has been pushing his endorsement by Obama as the reason why Democrats should renominate him to a House seat he misused so consistently. He's been less vocal about the endorsement he received from a right-wing front group called BIPAC which is a viciously anti-labor force that rarely endorses Democrats. In fact, Barrow is the only Democrat they endorsed this year. And Barrow says he is delighted to have the union-bashing group's donation.

“I’m honored to have BIPAC’s support in this election,” said Barrow. “We’ve got a lot of work to do to get the economy back on track for working families. The investments in our workforce, in our economic growth, and in our infrastructure that BIPAC supports will help get our economy working for the middle class again.”

KNOW YOUR CONGRESSMEMBER-- IF YOU'VE GOT THE STOMACH

Reactionary Georgia Dems, Jim Marshall and his role model, Zell Miller

Last Wednesday Martin Heinrich, the progressive Democrat running for Congress in the Albuquerque, New Mexico area, did a guest post here at DWT, about the importance of lawmakers standing up to tyranny and protecting our basic constitutional rights against encroachment from above. Logically, he called for "more and better Democrats in Congress," a position that would once have been strongly echoed here at DWT. But I took the liberty of adding an update to Martin's post: "Forget More; Concentrate on Better.

Since Martin had brought up the FISA legislation being debated in the House, I took the opportunity to point out that the nearly two dozen Blue Dogs threatening to break with the Democratic House leadership and vote with Bush, Cheney and the radical right extreme of the GOP to push through warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity, were all-- every one without exception-- recipients of substantial bribes (in the form of campaign contributions) from the telecom companies for whom Bush and Cheney were demanding the retroactive immunity.

Is this one particular enough of a reason to withdraw support from a congressman-- a Democratic congressman likely to be replaced not by a progressive Democrat but by an even more reactionary, more corrupt right-wing Republican? Not for in my opinion. Instead, what an instance like this is, is an opportunity to check for patterns in voting records and see if this awful instance is the exception or the rule. When I was much younger I would have to spend untold hours of difficult research in a musty library to be able to access the very difficult to find information to help me come to any conclusions about how hundreds of congressmembers tend to behave. Now the information is just a click or two away!

Last April the founder of ProgressivePunch, Joshua Grossman, came and answered questions about his goals and methodology at Firedoglake. Here at DWT we spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out-- and keep track of-- the members of Congress who are true to the progressive values that are at the foundation of the Democratic Party... and of the ones who aren't. One of the tools that has been most helpful is ProgressivePunch which has done its best to keep score. Looking at votes going back to 1991, they've developed an algorithm that can be used to rank every member based on how progressive he or she is-- or how reactionary. They explain the over-all progressive scoring here. Their newest measurement, called "When the Chips Are Down, is "a subset of the overall votes that qualify according to the Progressive Punch algorithm... They show the impact that even a small number of Democrats have when they defect from the progressive position. These are votes where either progressives lost or where the progressive victory was narrow and could have been changed by a small group of Democrats voting differently... Narrow progressive victories are defined as votes in which progressives won by 20 votes or fewer in the House (so a shift of 10 votes from one side to the other would have changed the result) or by 6 votes or fewer in the Senate (so a shift of 3 votes from one side to the other would have changed the result). Due to a programming error, “Chips Are Down” scores for Democrats displayed on Progressive Punch prior to February 13, 2008 were previously inflated. The programming was incorrectly set at a margin of 40 votes instead of 20 for progressive victories to qualify. Because this was a brand new category of votes for us and the initial percentages seemed plausible, we didn’t spot the error right away. The percentage scores ARE NOW CORRECTED."

I'm glad they corrected the programming error and that the algorithm is spitting out more accurate data. In light of that, I decided to take another look at the House and see which Democrats have been the ones who have been most consistent in teaming up with the Bush Regime to cause all the setbacks-- in issues from SCHIP to Iraq to civil liberties.

Here's the whole House ranked by "Chips Are Down" scores. I don't think any of the dozen worst Democrats will surprise you, although the corrected algorithm now shows something never seen before, 2 Republicans (Wayne Gilchrest and Ron Paul) with better scores than at least one Democrat. So who's that worst of all Democrats? You should be able to guess if you're a regular DWT reader: Georgia arch-reactionary Jim Marshall, who Blue America has tried to cure of his evil ways. He sits between Bush rubber stamp Republicans Chris Shays and Wayne Gilchrest. The bottom of the barrel (from bad to worse):

Zach Space (OH)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Chris Carney (PA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Jason Altmire (PA)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Nick Lampson (TX)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
John Barrow (GA)
Dan Boren (OK)
Jim Marshall (GA)

These 12 Democrats have voted again and again and again to thwart a progresisve agenda and push Bush's and Cheney's policies and programs. We talk about "more and better Democrats" a lot here. These 12 are part of the "more" and as far as you can be from the "better." In some ways Barrow is the worst of the lot because his district-- though recently gerrymandered-- isn't all that Republican. Altmire and Donnelly are also in districts that do not necessarily favor Republicans by wide enough margins to justify their horrible and treacherous voting records. Their apologists still excuse their dreadful voting records by claiming that if they didn't vote like radical right Republicans they might lose their seats. So? Are we supposed to support people so they can advance their careers at the expense of our values and even our constitutional rights? Today Ted Rall made the case for tough electoral decisions in a thought-provoking essay called There Should Be Blood: Liberal Democrats Left Out in the Cold. Although I personally came to a different conclusion he-- and thousands of other progressives -- did, it's very much worth reading.

TWO REACTIONARY DEMOCRATS- JOHN BARROW AND JIM MARSHALL

Search as hard as you like, you're not going to find worse Democrats in the House of Representatives than Georgia reactionaries John Barrow and Jim Marshall. Example: Marshall was the only Democrat to vote to sustain Bush's anti-children's healthcare veto. There were 43 Republicans who voted better than he did. Two years ago he was the only Democrat to vote with Bush on an anti-war roll call. And-- how about this?-- overall, Barrow has an even worse voting record. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that these two were the only Democrats who even came close to losing their seats last year in the anti-Republican landslide. And this year they are considered the two most vulnerable Democrats, primarily because real Democrats don't want to vote for either. Both are on the DCCC Front Line list, reserved for vulnerable freshmen and a tiny handful of Democrats with no grassroots Democratic support. (Notice that none of the DCCC candidates have a single contribution on that list, a testament to the intelligence and discernment of Democratic donors so far this year. Barrow and Marshall taint all the other candidates on the list.)

Today's Congressional Quarterly look at the situation of the two despised Dixiecrats. "Barrow won the 12th District race by just 864 votes of more than 142,000 cast, and Marshall secured the 8th District seat by only 1,752 votes of nearly 160,000 cast." And next year could finish them both off, with quasi-legal GOP gerrymandering kicking in against both. Outside the Beltway, few tears will be shed if these two are defeated. In Barrow's case, particularly, it would offer an opportunity for a moderate Democrat-- rather than the far right Republican-lite Barrow-- to win in 2010.

Unfortunately, Barrow has no primary challenge. In a district where African-Americans are a plurality of the Democratic Party and where the congressman is not especially friendly to African-American interests, it is tragic that there is no challenge from inside that community. Marshall, on the other hand, does have two primary challengers, though neither looks like they can dislodge him.

Later today I'll be talking about three primaries where progressive, grassroots candidates can beat reactionary Democrats, one in Maryland and two in Illinois.

NOW ONLY ONE DEMOCRAT OPPOSES HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN

STOP! Is that sick baby an illegal or too rich?

Earlier we mentioned the House leadership was bringing up S-CHIP again. They did. And it passed again-- with 43 Republicans joining all but one Democrat. We'll get to that in a second. But first I want to share with you some of the responses from our GOP congressmember who refused to vote for children's health care. Please bear in mind that all of their families are covered by far more sumptuous healthcare (at taxpayer expense):

First from the scumbag whose concern for the welfare of children made him cover-up his colleague Mark Foley's serial molestation of underage male pages for years so as not to endanger a GOP-held seat in Florida: Tom Reynolds, one of the most vile and despicable creatures to crawl around the halls of the Capitol-- "The bill puts lipstick on a sow. Today is raw politics-- trotting out a vote just for the sake of a vote." If you'd like to help put an end to the disgrace of this pile of vomit's career, the name of his opponent is Jon Powers, someone who very much cares about children and, in fact, started an organization to care for war orphans after returning from the war in Iraq. Please consider helping him at his Blue America page.

Last year we mentioned that rubber stamp Republican Ginny Brown-Waite was certifiably insane after she demanded that the U.S. dig up all the bodies of American fighting men buried in France and return them home. Her embarrassed Republican colleagues just ignored her. Her consciously false reason for voting again children's health care today was because she said it will be a "magnet for illegal aliens." As she is-- assuming she is vaguely literate-- aware, the bill specifically excludes undocumented immigrants in order to address Republican xenophobic hysteria. But she voted no anyway-- and then lied about it to her constituents.

But no deception rises to the level of Michigan crook Mike Rogers. In a convoluted excuse for his anti-family vote he "said that rich children could still qualify for benefits because states, in determining eligibility, could ignore or disregard part of a family’s income." Mike Rogers, whose entire career has been one championing the prerogatives of the rich and powerful over ordinary Americans, whose entire career has been 100% dedicated to serving, slavishly, special interests-- basically his campaign contributors, is afraid states will bend the rules to cater to the children of the rich? Give me a break! Does anyone listen to this stuff with a straight face?

And of course Georgia's Tom Price (KKK) is still whining that it's a "massive tax increase" because it would increase the cost of cigarettes. Another blatant liar: Pete Sessions (R-TX) "said that under the new bill, as under the original, two million people would lose private health insurance coverage and enroll in the expanded government program." These people have no shame whatsoever. The bill will be vetoed by Bush again and his veto will be sustained again.

Reactionary Mississippi "Democrat" Gene Taylor, voted for the bill today. He had been one of the two to vote to sustain Bush's veto last week. So of the 5 Democratic reactionaries who voted against children's health care-- Taylor, Baron Hill (IN), Mike McIntyre (NC), Bob Etheridge (NC) and the execrable Jim Marshall (GA)-- only the execrable Jim Marshall is still standing with the Republicans. He's still on the DCCC Front Line page as well, so that Democrats contributing to that organization can fund a candidate who votes against all Democratic principals and values-- and for endless war in Iraq.

WILL PUTATIVE DEMOCRATS JIM MARSHALL AND GENE TAYLOR BETRAY CHILDREN AGAIN?

As I mentioned earlier, the Democratic leadership in the House, much to the chagrin of Republicans, has decided to compromise on the GOP complaints about S-CHIP and reintroduce a modified version of the bill. Hoyer has been asking the 44 or 45 Republicans who have supported the bill on their advise on how to get another dozen or so votes so that the House can present Bush with a bill that is veto-proof. Perhaps he's meeting with Gene Taylor (D-MS) and Jim Marshall (D-GA), as well. They're the only two Democrats to have voted to sustain Bush's veto.

Republicans have been barraged by calls and e-mails from constituents and several are thought to be faltering. One bitter right-winger, Ric Keller of Florida, was bitching to the Washington Post that Democrats need his vote but "don't even have the courage to ask me for it." Keller's constituents have been hearing radio ads from USAction and MoveOn about his anti-family vote. In fact the newest barrage of pro-family groups advertising is hurting several Republicans:
Marilyn Musgrave (CO)- AFSCME, USAction, MoveOn
Tim Walberg (MI)- AFSCME, USAction, MoveOn
Sam Graves (MO)- AFSCME, USAction, MoveOn
Randy Kuhl (NY)- AFSCME, USAction, MoveOn
Tom Reynolds (NY)- AFSCME
Tim Johnson (IL)- SEIU
Rodney Alexander (LA)- SEIU
Michele Bachman (MN)- SEIU
Robin Hayes (NC)- SEIU
John Peterson (PA)- SEIU
Thelma Drake (VA)- SEIU
Barbara Cubin (WY)- SEIU
Tom Feeney (FL)- USAction, MoveOn
Ric Keller (FL)- USAction, MoveOn

Nobody's advertising in Georgia or Mississippi? Hmmmm... You think we should get this one on the air? Would you chip in if we did?




UPDATE: BUSH VOWS ANOTHER VETO

Speaker Pelosi sounded very concilatory when she offered to work with Republicans to fix their main stated objections to the S-CHIP legislation Bush vetoed. Today Bush says he doesn't care what Pelsoi claims to be doing, he's got his veto pen out and ready for use.

Pelosi's main point is that the legislation, is already "supported by a bipartisan coalition, Democrats and Republicans across the country. Republican and Democratic governors support the SCHIP initiative. Every organization that you can name, from the AARP to the YWCA, and everything in between, AMA, the Catholic Hospital Association, Families First, are lobbying for the passage of this legislation." Over 70% of ordinary Americans also support it. But even though only 24% of Americans give Bush a passing grade on his job performance, he still has enough rubber stamp Republicans willing to back his every move so that he can enforce his unpopular veto down Americans' throats. And according to this afternoon's Congressional Quarterly Bush vowed another veto.

BUSH AND HIS REPUBLICAN RUBBER STAMPS BLOCK PASSAGE OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE

Only the wealthy need apply

You've probably heard by now that Bush-- whose approval rating is down to 24% (as low as Nixon's ever was)-- applied enough pressure on a handful of Republican trolls in Congress to have his disgraceful veto of children's health insurance sustained 273 in favor of health insurance to 156 in favor of Bushism, or 13 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority it takes to override a veto. Very few people changed their votes. The only Republican shift was vulnerable Long Island congressman Peter King (R-NY) who had voted against health care for children when the bill came up twice before and ducked the issue today by staying away. Craziest comment of the day came from the other King, Iowa's whacked out neo-Nazi Steve King who renamed the bill that 73% of Americans would like to see made law "Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents." As for the Democrats-- of the 8 who voted "no" last time, the House leadership convinced 3 to vote to override and grassroots efforts (including the Blue America PAC campaign directed at Baron Hill, Mike McIntyre and Bob Etheridge) helped crack 3 harder core nuts. That left 2 "Democrats," Georgia war-monger and reactionary Jim Marshall and Mississippi Republicrat, voting with the Republicans.

A friend of mine from Air America just asked me why the Democrats don't ask Marshall and Taylor to just go and join the GOP since they vote with them so frequently on all the core issues. The answer is simple. The ossifying Democratic political machine of the Inside the Beltway establishment doesn't care all that much about the core issues-- at least not in comparison to getting better offices, more power (apparently for its own sake, since they almost never use it for anything worthwhile) and better parking spots.

Madam Off the Table "vowed" she would "insist" all 10 million kids would be covered in any negotiated settlement. She is no longer a believable figure. Her empty promises and partisan rhetoric ring very empty. And her leadership team, Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer, are far worse.

More and better Democrats? How about just "Better Democrats" and we'll worry about the "more" after that? Three who are credible are got us reactions right after the vote. Rep. Tom Allen, who is running for senator in Maine against the Bush-Lieberman hack who currently holds the seat, was, like almost three-quarters of the American people, very disappointed in the failure to swing any more Republicans over to the side of children's health care. "This bill has wide bipartisan support in Congress and will have a real impact on thousands and thousands of working families in Maine and across the nation who are struggling to provide adequate health insurance for their children. It deserves to become law. Though disappointing, the President’s decision was not surprising. It is yet another example of this Administration turning its back on working families and the middle class. Our nation deserves real health care solutions, and it deserves a government that will act in the best interest of American children."

Eric Massa and Larry Kissell are two Blue America-endorsed candidates running against Republicans who voted to sustain Bush's veto, respectively, Randy Kuhl and Robin Hayes, each a disgraceful rubber stamp tool. Speaking from Biscoe, North Carolina, Larry said that "Hayes claims he supports the State Children's Health Insurance Program and wants to see it strengthened. He had his chance today, and chose loyalty to President Bush over the working families of this District. I believe Hayes is wrong and I also believe that when he faces our District next November that the people will show their loyalty to North Carolina's children."

Pointing out how Kuhl has been bought out by Big Tobacco, Eric, a cancer survivor, was swinging a lot harder at his pathetic opponent. He said Kuhl had drawn a line in the sand. "Randy Kuhl, George Bush and their friends the tobacco lobbyists are on one side of the line and working families, the American Cancer Society, and doctors all around the country are on the other. Kuhl has once again shown his loyalty to his boss George Bush, by rubber-stamping the President's agenda, no matter what the cost. He does not understand the priorities of Americans if he's standing up against an overwhelmingly bi-partisan proposal to care for our kids. It doesn't get anymore black and white than that. We need a change in this Nation, not more rubber-stamping of the President's failed policies. My opponent has been right there on all of the important issues, lockstep with the President and our community deserves better. Randy Kuhl has decided to stand with the President and his downright lies to keep thousands of children out of the doctor's offices. George Bush wants a compromise that will deny health insurance to more children, and I don't think that's an acceptable compromise. Sacrificing the health of our children is unconscionable and I promise that I will stand up for our kids once I am elected to Congress."

And we shouldn't support any Democrats who aren't willing to take stands like Eric Massa, Tom Allen and Larry Kissell.

THREE DOWN, TWO TO GO-- ETHERIDGE SUDDENLY REMEMBERED HE'S A DEMOCRAT AND WILL SUPPORT SCHIP

After the House Democratic leadership was finished gently persuading a handful of reactionary renegade Democrats that voting to sustain Bush's SCHIP veto wouldn't be a good thing to do, only 5 remained wedded to Bush's obstinate, anti-family position, their heels firmly dug in. The DCCC started going after Republicans with hard-hitting internet and telephone campaigns and radio spots urging their constituents to call them and tell them to support health care for needy children. It looked a little hypocritical to me that they weren't even mentioning the 5 reactionary Democrats.

So Blue America and our buddies over at BlogPAC decided to give them a hand. We got together and decided to run a version of the DCCC campaign against the 5 Democrats. Now the Democratic leadership has been very confused and ill at ease over this situation. Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports a somewhat embarrassing moment for Democratic power-behind-the-scenes (i.e.- boss), Rahm Emanuel on CBS' Early Show today when he and right-wing extremist Tom Price (R-GA) got into a nasty tiff over SCHIP.

Emanuel fumed that Price’s vote against a bill that would add $35 billion to the program, known in Georgia as PeachCare, showed he was “isolated from the real concerns that are facing working parents.”

“The Republican governor of Georgia has endorsed what we are doing here,” Emanuel said. “And the reason is because we’re solving a big problem in Georgia.”

Price countered Emanuel’s wielding of Gov. Sonny Predue’s name by tossing out [Congressman Jim] Marshall.

“I know [Emanuel] doesn’t think that his colleague on the Democrats side, Jim Marshall, doesn’t care about kids, and Jim Marshall voted with us on this,” Price said.

Marshall (GA), along with Baron Hill (IN), Bob Etheridge (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC) and Gene Taylor (MS) were the 5 with the dug in heels. After the telephone campaign elicited a barrage of phone calls to all 5 congressmen, we started the process of placing newspaper ads. Baron Hill, who was aware of the full-page ad due to run in last Sunday's Bloomington Herald Times was the first to come back to the Democrats, announcing just in time to allow us to recall the ad that he would vote to override Bush's veto.

We were assured that the two in North Carolina would do likewise and not to run newspaper ads in their districts. McIntyre came back to the Democrats on Monday and Etheridge followed suit today. He was under gigantic pressure from the Democratic party, both nationally and locally and from grassroots activists in North Carolina. He did the right thing. Now every single North Carolina Democratic congressman is supporting health care for needy children and every single North Carolina Republican congressman is opposing it. Larry Kissell, our Blue America-endorsed candidate for the congressional seat in NorthCarolina's 8th CD had something to say about this over at Kos today.

Robin Hayes must decide tomorrow if he wants to show his loyalty to President Bush or to North Carolina's 8th District.

The badly needed override of President Bush's veto against State Children's Health Insurance expansion goes to vote tomorrow. And as North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has said,
"We need this bill to serve North Carolina children currently eligible for the program," the governor says. "It is not for North Carolina adults, nor for children in families earning $80,000, nor illegal immigrants, nor for those with insurance right now. Those who make these claims are not telling the truth."

Easley was key in helping McIntyre, Etheridge and, earlier, Shuler, do the right thing. It's unlikely his urging will impact Hayes, let along the pack of other rubber stamp embarrassments the North Carolina GOP has in Congress-- Lil' Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Howard Coble, Sue Myrick, or Walter Jones.

As for Gene Taylor, I'd say he's just plain hopeless. He's in an overwhelmingly Republican district in southeast Mississippi where Kerry barely broke 30%. Voting like a Republican keeps the anti-choice Taylor in good stead with his constituents. Last year he won with 80% of the vote. When you examine Progressive Punch's "Chips Are Down" scale, you notice that Taylor has been the 4th worst Democrat in the House. Jim Marshall has been the second worst. Listen to the call the Democrats in Taylor's district heard on the phone and take a look at the full page ad that ran yesterday in the Macon Telegraph. It isn't too late to help us pay for this campaign; we could sure use the help. Hundreds of people have contributed $5 and $10 and $20 to make it possible. Donations to the Blue America PAC is what we use to pay for these campaigns. Hit that link and contribute what feels comfortable.


UPDATE: PICK A KID

Congressman Marshall, Congressman Taylor, if your family wasn't getting free health care paid for by taxpayers, which child would you choose?

JIM MARSHALL JUST GOT A LOAD OF WOE DUMPED ON HIS HEAD

We don't know a lot of people in Macon, and many of the ones we do know (now) work at the Macon Telegram, the daily newspaper there that moved heaven and earth to make sure our full page ad citizen financed public service announcement about Jim Marshall's intention to vote against Children's health insurance again got into the paper today. But we do know a blogger activist in Macon, Amy Morton, who normally posts at Georgia Women Vote. Today, though, I noticed a post she did for Tondee's Tavern, the state of Georgia's definitive political blog.

Amy has an analysis of what Georgia loses if Marshall goes through with his threat to vote with the GOP to sustain Bush's veto of S-CHIP against his constituents' interests. "If this bill passes, Georgia will get over $400 million in federal funds every year-- that's $240 million more than was provided under the original program. Take a look at the figures and tell me how anyone-- anyone-- representing Georgia could possibly fail to vote for this legislation."

The good news is that the ad you've been helping us finance ran. Macon is in the heart of the district and the paper covers a 60 mile radius from there, especially in Bibb and Houston Counties. The ad will be seen by approximately 106,000 of Marshall's constituents. In 2006, approximately 158,000 people voted and Marshall's margin of victory was less than 2,000 votes, the second closest call for a Democratic incumbents anywhere in the country. If he votes with Bush Thursday-- counting on extreme right Republicans to support him against an actual Republican-- he will be giving the Democratic base a good reason to abstain from voting in his race. He doesn't deserve support from people who believe in Democratic values. He's proven that again and again and again on issue after issue. Fellow reactionaries Baron Hill and Mike McIntyre have already reassessed their positions and declared they will vote with the rest of the Democrats to override Bush's cruel and heartless veto. What the hell is wrong with Jim Marshall? Does he just hate children?

Listen again to the telephone campaign 40,000 of Marshall's Democratic constituents heard last week. Take a look at the ad we ran. And think about making a contribution to help us pay for them. Thanks-- working for a better America-- everywhere.


UPDATE: FAMILIES USA REFUTES THE GOP TALKING POINTS

Marshall, Gene Taylor and Bob Etheridge, the only Democrats still supporting Bush's veto of children's health care, are quoting Republican Party talking points to defend themselves from the anger of their constituents who rightly expect a Democratic representative to at least vote for the well-being of innocent children. Families USA is a national organization for health care consumers is trying to dispel the lies and distortions emanating from the White House and from John Boehner's office. The first lie-- repeated every few moments by the GOP Noise Machine at Hate Talk Radio-- is that passing S-CHIP will mean a government takeover of the health care industry.

·         The vetoed bill simply continues a program that has worked well for the past 10 years and extends coverage to uninsured children in low-income families who are currently eligible for it. Children enrolled in CHIP receive their care through private plans, mostly managed care, and are treated by private doctors and hospitals.

·         The bill is supported by organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans (which represents the health insurance industry), PhRMA (which represents the pharmaceutical industry), and the American Medical Association-- organizations with long histories of opposing government-controlled health care.

·         The key Republicans who crafted this compromise bill with leading Democrats, Senators such as Orrin Hatch (UT), Chuck Grassley (IO), and Pat Roberts (KS), are strong opponents of a government takeover of the health industry.

·         CHIP has always been, and will continue to be, a block grant that is administered by each of the states. This means its funding is capped at a specific amount each year that may not be exceeded. It is not an entitlement program, and it is carefully confined to cover a portion of uninsured children whose families can't otherwise obtain health coverage.

"As key Republican Senators have told the President, it is high time that he and his advisors read the bill," said Pollack. "They either have chosen to remain uninformed, or they are purposely repeating falsehoods. America's children deserve much better than that."

The second most parroted of the Republican lies on this is that it expands eligibility to rich children. Suddenly Bush and Limbaugh and Hannity and Boehner don't like rich children and are working hard for the poor. If this wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.

·         This bill does NOT change which children are eligible for CHIP. States have always had the flexibility to set CHIP eligibility at whatever level they deem appropriate for their state. CHIP is not a one-size-fits-all program, and eligibility levels vary widely from state to state. The bill preserves that flexibility.

·         Claims by the President that this bill raises the CHIP eligibility level to $83,000 (400 percent of the federal of the poverty level) in annual income are unambiguously false. There isn't a single state in the country with such a high eligibility level. One state, New York, wanted to set the eligibility standard at that level, but its request to do so was denied by the Administration.

·         The CHIP bill will make it more difficult for states to set eligibility levels above 300 percent of poverty (approximately $62,000 in annual income for a family of four). States wishing to establish higher levels would receive less money for children with incomes above 300 percent than for lower-income children.

·         The vast majority of the 3.8 million children who will gain coverage under this bill-- more than 75%-- have incomes below twice the poverty level. That's $41,300 for a family of four.
"Insurance premiums for family health coverage now average more than $12,000 a year," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "These costs are simply unaffordable for millions of working families, especially those that would receive the most help for their children under this bill. It is cruel for the President to deny coverage to these kids and to offer a disingenuous reason for his veto."

The third-- the one that Marshall can't repeat enough, as though he's auditioning for Hate Talk Radio himself-- is that the bill spends too much and represents irresponsible budgeting. Yes, and we've all seen how concerned Bush and the Republicans-- and their handful of reactionary Democratic allies like Marshall, Taylor and Etheridge-- have been about balancing budgets. And it's a lie.

·         This bill will not increase the federal deficit. It is fully financed by a 61 cent per pack increase in the tobacco tax.

·         Using a tobacco tax to pay for expanded children's health coverage is doubly beneficial; it will pay for the health care of low-income children in need, and it will prevent approximately 2 million children from smoking.

·         The President's budget-- which would add only $5 billion to CHIP over the next five years-- is truly irresponsible budgeting. It fails to account for the increasing cost of health care over the next five years, and it would cause nearly half a million children who are currently enrolled in the CHIP program to lose coverage. Astoundingly, it would do nothing to cover any of the millions of children who lack health insurance today.

"At the same time that the Bush Administration opposes new funding for CHIP, it is seeking $190 billion in funding for the Iraq war," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "In so doing, it proposes to spend more money in two weeks for Iraq than it is to spend in a full year for America's children. This is clearly a misplaced priority that deserves to be changed."

And, of course, the reactionaries are trying to claim that the program helps-- God forbid-- "illegal aliens." It doesn't.

·         This bill does not cover undocumented immigrants. Indeed, it perpetuates the denial of coverage to legal immigrants who haven't been in the country for five years.

·         It explicitly prohibits the use of any federal funding to cover undocumented immigrants. Section 605 of the bill states:  "NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents."

·         The bill retains the requirement that citizenship be verified for all individuals applying for Medicaid, and it extends this requirement to CHIP. It allows states to use Social Security databases to verify this information.
 
"Not only does this bill not cover undocumented immigrants, it actually penalizes legal immigrants by not allowing them access to the program unless they have been in the country for at least five years," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "This is another example of the many false statements he's made about the CHIP program."

Speaker Pelosi's office made very similar points. She would sound a lot more credible if she acknowledged that it isn'y only Republicans who are the problem.


THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK-- KKK vs BLUE AMERICA

A proponent of the most extreme right fringe of the Georgia Republican Party endorsed Jim Marshall (D-GA)-- or at least his anti-family S-CHIP votes-- and viciously attacked Blue America today on the Georgia blog PeachPundit. Erick Erickson was the author of Georgia's latest Jim Crow anti-democracy legislation designed to prevent people from voting. Funny to hear him laying out a strategy for putative Democrat Marshall to win re-election by attacking citizens who favor something so radical as health care for children, which is supported by 72% of Americans and half the Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

FIRST BARON HILL AND NOW MIKE McINTYRE... ANOTHER DEMOCRAT DECLARES HE'LL VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO OVERRIDE BUSH'S SCHIP VETO

If you were one of the several hundred people who helped us finance our phone and newspaper ads campaign in the districts of the five renegade reactionary Democrats who were supporting Bush's veto of children's health care, you have another reason to celebrate. Last week we got Indiana Congressman Baron Hill to back down. Today it was North Carolina's Mike McIntyre. We ran 40,000 robocalls in his district and today he raised the white flag on his own website.

"As a longtime advocate for children for over 25 years, and as one who has consistently supported family health issues, I will not support President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, and I will vote to override his veto. My objection to the method of funding for this bill and my support of North Carolina's farmers and the economic well-being of our communities are well-known, but I have always supported the SCHIP program and will do what is necessary to preserve it for the sake of children and families in need. As Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee that oversees tobacco, I will also continue to do all that I can to support our farmers and our region's economy. That commitment has not changed with this vote for our children."

Welcome home, Mike. Can you call Etheridge?

We're far from the only ones pushing but we are pushing and we're pushing hard and for real. Now let's get Jim Marshall to come around too. Jane's on this tonight too.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN'T GET CONGRESSMAN MARSHALL TO COME AROUND AND START VOTING LIKE A DEMOCRAT

ad design by J-Ro (this is the web version)

We're still pretty excited around here about Baron Hill declaring that he would vote to override Bush's veto on S-CHIP. I mean what self-respecting Democrat wouldn't vote to override? Glad you asked. Now there are 4-- 4 reactionary Bush Dogs: 2 tobacco industry whores from North Carolina (Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre), Gene Taylor from Mississippi and... the dependably execrable Jim Marshall from Macon, Georgia.

DWT readers have come to know ole Rep. Marshall as the absolute worst Democrat in the entire House of Representatives, especially on Iraq, on which he's voted with Democrats exactly 15 times out of the 50 Iraq-related roll calls since he's been in Congress. Some in South Georgia may admire his generally reactionary stands on issues. But when it comes to health care for sick, needy children... probably not-- and certainly not Democrats. Gore won 47% of the vote in this district in 2000 and in 2004 Kerry took 10,000 more votes, although a slightly smaller percentage. The district is pretty Republican, but not prohibitively so. And now Marshall is getting what he's earned: a primary.

I might add, that although the Insider Establishment always rallies round even their worst and most disgraceful members-- just look at Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi sucking up to corporate whore Al Wynn today-- a couple of staffers from the DCCC called me, surreptitiously of course, and asked me to go after Jim Marshall. They really hate him. And yet... he's still, inexplicably, on their Front Line page.

Georgia blogger FlackAttack at Tondee's Tavern is covering this in great detail. But the short of it is that progressive Robert Nowak and Macon Mayor (which is what Marshall was before becoming a congressman) Jack Ellis are both running for the Democratic nomination in GA-08. They're both stunned by Marshall's anti-S-CHIP stance and his disingenuous arguments about why he supports Bush's veto. But Nowak has pointed out a myriad of reasons why he thinks GA-08 deserves a better Representative in Washington.

I suspect both Nowak and Ellis were cheered by the 40,000 robo calls Blue America launched this week to Democratic voters in the district:



And they probably noticed how the Atlanta Journal Constitution has emphasized that more and more Democrats are thinking of challenging Marshall and that how they covered Marshall's position and the reaction from Blue America and others in the blogosphere.

Democratic-leaning groups are making hundreds of phone calls in the Macon area district of Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall, deriding Marshall for voting against the funding of a children's health program and potentially causing problems for Marshall, one of the most vulnerable congressional incumbents in the country in the 2008 elections.

The groups-- Blue America and BlogPAC-- are targeting Marshall and four other House Democrats who voted against the bill that would have added $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known nationally as SCHIP and in Georgia as PeachCare for Kids.

The campaign against Marshall and other Democrats mirrors an effort by another coalition of progressive groups that have targeted 17 House Republicans who voted against the SCHIP funding. Democrats sent the bill to President Bush knowing he would veto because it gave Democrats an issue against Republicans in the 2008 election.

...Marshall's spokesman, Doug Moore, said Marshall is unlikely to change his position and he played down the chances that the phone campaign would hurt Marshall among his Democratic constituents.

OK, then we'll just have to see how Congressman Marshall and his consultants respond to the newspaper ads. You can take a look here and if you'd like to help us out with the cost, that would be very much appreciated. (Click on the ad's image if you would like to see an enlarged version.)


UPDATE: THANKS FOR HELPING US FINANCE THE MARSHALL PLAN

Last time I looked we already had over 100 donors today! Thanks for coming through! I bet Jim Marshall is wishing he never climbed out on this shaky limb with George Bush and Dick Cheney! Digby did an incredible piece about it today at DailyKos and John did two at Crooks and Liars: here and again here. Jason, the guy who designed the ads writes about what's behind them at his own blog, The Seminal, as did Jane at FDL-- and Mike Lux over at OpenLeft takes a look at today's campaign tactics and how what we're trying to accomplish fits in.


UPDATE: FROM INSIDE MARSHALL-TERRITORY...

Amy Morton is an influential activist in Macon and her blog, Georgia Women Vote has a lot of credibility across the state. Her perspective is always worth checking out-- as is Jon Flack's. His blog, Tondee's Tavern is a first stop for anyone wanting to know what's going on behind the scenes in Georgia politics. And I have a feeling Jim Marshall isn't feeling any more comfy there than he is at Amy's. And another point of view worth looking at, even if it's from the Golden State: Steve Audio thinks members of Congress with a "D" after their names should try to remember what the "D" is all about (hint: not "deception.")

BLUE AMERICA JUST SAVED A TON OF MONEY-- AND WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO WITH IT

ad design by J-Ro

The e-mail had already gone out this afternoon-- a full page in the Bloomington Herald Times, sure to hit the highest concentration of Democratic voters in Indiana's 9th CD-- when we got the word a minute of two later: reactionary Democrat Baron Hill had raised the white flag and agreed to vote with the rest of the Democratic Party to override Bush's heartless and toxic veto of the S-CHIP law overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. Hill had been stunned by the 40,000 robo calls Democrats in IN-09 had gotten which reminded them that their Democratic congressman was voting with the far right of the Republican Party to wreck health insurance for needy children.

The full page in the Sunday newspaper would have been too much for the already vulnerable conservative congressman to absorb. So he released a half-assed statement belatedly jumping on the band wagon. We were able to cancel the print order just in time. And that was really lucky because we have lots of good Democrats in Georgia's third CD who need to hear about how their congressman, Jim Marshall, stands on S-CHIP, known as PeachCare in Georgia. We'll explain that tomorrow, but if you want to help now-- or just get a preview of Digby's brilliantly written ad, you can jump over to the preview page.

HOLDING REACTIONARY DEMOCRATS ACCOUNTABLE: S-CHIP, PART II

The Blue America/BlogPac campaign to hold the 5 anti-family, reactionary Democrats accountable for backing Bush on his S-CHIP veto is off to a great start. We financed tens of thousands of phone calls to Democrats in the districts represented by Jim Marshall (GA), Bob Etheridge (NC), Baron Hill (IN), Gene Taylor (MS), and Mike McIntyre (NC). The impact of the calls is being amplified by news stories in the local press. Yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the biggest paper in the state ran a story, Marshall Criticized After 'Nay' Vote On Child Health.

Democratic-leaning groups are making hundreds of phone calls in the Macon area district of Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall, deriding Marshall for voting against the funding of a children's health program and potentially causing problems for Marshall, one of the most vulnerable congressional incumbents in the country in the 2008 elections.

The groups-- Blue America and BlogPAC-- are targeting Marshall and four other House Democrats who voted against the bill that would have added $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known nationally as SCHIP and in Georgia as PeachCare for Kids.

The campaign against Marshall and other Democrats mirrors an effort by another coalition of progressive groups that have targeted 17 House Republicans who voted against the SCHIP funding. Democrats sent the bill to President Bush knowing he would veto because it gave Democrats an issue against Republicans in the 2008 election.

Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to override the veto, but not in the House. That's why they're targeting Republicans and Democrats who opposed the bill to change their position on SCHIP and vote to override the veto Oct. 18.

Marshall's spokesman, Doug Moore, said Marshall is unlikely to change his position and he played down the chances that the phone campaign would hurt Marshall among his Democratic constituents.

"It's impossible to predict an impact," Moore said. "Some people were upset and some people were happy" with Marshall's vote, he said. "But you're only hearing from the upset ones. A lot of constituents agree with the way Jim voted."

A number of progressive blogs across the state are helping turn up the heat on Marshall to vote for the SCHIP funding, which would provide an addition 4 million more children with insurance nationwide.

...Marshall's positions on SCHIP and the Iraq war, among other things, earned him at least two Democratic primary challengers. Macon Mayor Jack Ellis last week formed an exploratory committee to challenge Marshall. Robert Nowak, a schoolteacher from Macon, this week joined the primary race.

Echoing Republicans, Marshall said he voted against the bill because he believes the program has strayed from its original intention, with some states enrolling adults and middle-class children in a program intended to help poor children.

Is it a southern thing? Not at all. Even though Marshall and Taylor and the two North Carolina tobacco company whores (McIntyre and Etheridge) voted with Bush, dozens of southern Democrats voted enthusiastically to support S-CHIP and their constituents' desire for a better life for their children. And, more telling, Democrats in the South are actually running on this issue and using it to differentiate themselves with their rubber stamp Republican opponents. Look at this statement from Larry Kissell, the Blue America-endorsed Democrat most likely to displace a Republican incumbent anywhere in the South:

"There is a fight going on in Washington. Some fight for children, some fight for politics. And like the seasoned hand at DC politics that he is, my opponent, Congressman Robin Hayes, is trying to rationalize not supporting SCHIP expansion, a program that will help keep children healthy, by pointing out how powerless he is to change the bill to protect North Carolina tobacco jobs. As folks in Cabarrus County have recently been made painfully aware, tobacco jobs are already leaving, and neither Mr. Hayes' past votes or any other aspect of his tenure in Congress have helped to keep them here one bit.
 
Yet, now when the health of our children is at stake, suddenly he is concerned about keeping our jobs here at home. Of course this coincides with President Bush needing his vote again, just like he did on CAFTA. The working families who depend on Philip Morris fueling the economy of our area to support their children are going to be among the first in need of SCHIP. Congressman Hayes' support of President Bush's veto is sadly pointless for those families.
 
When our jobs are at stake, Hayes stands with Bush over the children of working families. When the children of working families are at stake, Hayes again stands with Bush, only this time blaming the job losses he and President Bush helped create. Enough.
 
There are thousands of families in North Carolina who are counting on Washington politicians to exempt children from their political fight and support SCHIP expansion. I hope Congressman Hayes will just this once break with President Bush and exempt our Congressional District and children from petty politics."

Consider helping out Larry today at Blue America and consider helping re-fill the Blue America PAC. These 5 reactionary Democrats haven't heard the last of us and we have some plans for them-- just to make sure their constituents are aware of their voting records. You can make two donations at one time-- right here.


UPDATE: BARON HILL CRAPS HIS PANTS AND WILL VOTE LIKE A DEMOCRAT AFTER ALL

I don't know if 40,000 robo-calls made Baron Hill nervous this week or if the publisher of the local newspapers in his district told him about teh full page ads that were scheduled to run this weekend, but he has certainly hoisted the white flag. Here's part of a letter he sent out:

Last week the President vetoed H.R. 976, The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. I am disappointed that a more balanced State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill was not put forth. As such, I strongly implore the President and Democratic Leadership to work together to craft a bill that ensures equitable benefits for all states, as well as an expansion of the program.

...However, providing healthcare for our nation's children is simply too important to abandon. Therefore, even though I know the veto will be upheld, I will vote to override the President's veto in an effort to again show my support for the program and desire to move towards a fairer bill.

We're working hand in hand with the DCCC to make sure the veto is overridden and we're happy to welcome Baron Hill into the Democratic Party, even if, as I fear, only briefly. The DCCC is pounding the Republicans and we're pounding the 4 remaining reactionary, anti-family renegade Democrats. All that extra money we were putting into those Baron Hill newspaper ads can be re-deployed now.

GEORGIA TEN-- NOT ON MANY PEOPLE'S MINDS

So what happened in Georgia today? Not much in the way of participatory democracy. Like we explained on Monday, the Republican field was atrocious-- the very worst of the pernicious Know Nothing fear and loathing that have made The South a hopeless political swamp since England started sending convicts and idlers to colonize it in the early eighteenth century. As expected, racist, xenophobe and all around bigoted ignoramus Jim Whitehead won-- but not outright. The last time I looked at the Secretary of State's site, 87% of the precincts were accounted for and Whitehead was leading with 41%, Marlow coming in second with 22% and Broun, an even further right maniac and hate-monger than Whitehead, was nipping at Marlow's heels with 21%. (Greene, the one who wants to build walls around everything and seal America in saran-wrap had only appealed to 3% of his fellow northeast Georgians. In fact, two other Democrats were running ahead of Greene.

I noticed this morning that ole Mac Collins, the former Republican extremist congressloon who tried, unsuccessfully, to win his seat back last year from pro-war right-wing Democrat Jim Marshall wants to try again. With progressives finding no reason whatsoever to go to the polls and support someone as reactionary as Marshall, he came closer to any other Democratic incumbent in the House to losing his seat in a breakthrough year for Democrats. Out of almost 160,000 votes, Marshall only outpolled Collins by 1,752. Another extremist maniac, retired Air Force Major General Rick Goddard, has already declared he's running for the GOP nomination. I imagine he and Collins will get into a pissing contest of who's further to the right-- which is kind of like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Like the contest we just watched in GA-10, immigration will be the big issue. These folks don't care who they hate as long as some demagogue can direct it somewhere. Collins wrote an Op-Ed for the local paper called "Mr. President, On Immigration You Are Dead Wrong!!!"

Collins is trying to make hay out of Marshall's vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker. I suppose a vote for someone as corrupt as Denny Hastert, Collins' idea of a Speaker would have been preferable. Too bad Marshall doesn't have the balls to ask Collins how he feels about his Speaker covering up-- for years for predatory child-molester Mark Foley (R-FL). Now that's a Republican Speaker of the House. And speaking about votes for your party's leadership, is anyone going to ask Mac Collins about why he consistently voted for Tom DeLay, an indicted criminal?