The Kurds-- Betrayed Again, This Time By The World's Most Dishonorable Figure

Hole-in-One by Nancy Ohanian

There are between 30 and 40 million Kurds in the world but their homeland stretches across northwest Iran, northern Iraq, northern Syria and southeast Turkey. They are the world's largest ethnic group without a state. The end of World War I and the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire brought with it the establishment of their own states, the Republic of Ararat in Turkey, the Kingdom of Kurdistan in Iraq and the Republic of Mahabad in Iran, together the core of a hoped for Kurdistan. Both republics and the kingdom were suppressed and short lived.

The U.S. has manipulated the Kurds with promises of a homeland in return for fighting in Americans wars in Iraq and Syria. U.S. administrations have always abandoned the Kurds after they were no longer needed. No one has done this more cruelly and blatantly than Trump is doing. (It's worth noting that although German has taken in over a million and a half Kurds, France 150,000, Sweden over 80,000, Holland 70,000, Belgium and the U.K. 50,000 each and tiny Denmark 30,000, the U.S. has only given refuge to 20,591 Kurds.)

Finally a sitting Republican congressman with the guts to break with Trump-- except he's retiring, so not running for reelection. Staunch conservative John Shimkus (R-IL) didn't say he would vote for impeachment but did say on a local radio station that he told his staff "to take my name off the I support Donald Trump list" and that he's "saddened for the Kurdish people."

Yesterday the New York Times reported that Pentagon officials are losing their minds over the latest betrayal, after "more than five years of fighting alongside Kurdish troops in Iraq and Syria has now given way to standing aside as those same allies are attacked." Some reports from inside the officer corps say there is "more anger than they had seen at any point" since Señor Trumpanzee managed to come to power.

2 authoritarian pieces of shit

On op-ed by Air Force Major Jason Baker in USA Today, I fought alongside the Kurds. The United States can't abandon our fierce allies to Turkey illustrates the problem. "As a major in the Air Force who has flown combat missions against the Islamic State," he wrote, "I have seen firsthand the capability of Kurdish fighters. During my missions in 2016, they made up a critical mass of the ground forces flushing ISIS from its strongholds across Iraq and Syria. Together with a small number of U.S. special operators and others making up the moderate Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurds were instrumental in ending the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate. Now is no time to abandon them to the designs of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has just launched a military offensive into Kurdish-controlled parts of Syria... [T]he president did not object to an attack that Turkey launched Wednesday against Kurdish forces in the area-- the same forces that were so critical in liberating large swathes of Iraq and Syria from ISIS control."

The administration's overnight announcement drew an immediate and almost universal rebuke from the foreign policy and military community, even including condemnation from some of the president’s closest usual allies. In the fight against ISIS, it has been U.S. policy to back the Kurds in Syria, and their extremely capable fighters. This week’s decision to turn this policy on its head now puts an extremely valuable partner in jeopardy, risks creating space for the reemergence of the Islamic State, and leaves the status of thousands of captured ISIS fighters uncertain.

America has a long-standing relationship with the Kurdish people, despite a history of overpromising, underdelivering, and often supporting the Kurds when it was helpful and convenient and ignoring them when it was not. After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson supported the idea of an independent Kurdish state, but this dream fell apart when Turkish borders were redrawn in 1923. Denied a homeland of their own, the Kurdish diaspora came to be spread across Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, facing pressure and often outright hostility in countries that viewed them with suspicion.

The United States supported Kurdish factions in an attempt to overthrow Iraq’s government in the 1970s  but abruptly broke off relations in the 1980s, creating an opening for Saddam Hussein’s brutal repression. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, the United States imposed "no-fly" zones that prevented further aggression against the Kurds by Hussein, and President Bill Clinton's administration later helped bring an end to the Iraqi Kurdish civil war. The Kurds in Iraq supported the U.S. invasion of 2003, and were quite possibly the most effective allied fighting force on the ground in the battle against ISIS.

They did all this with the hope-- despite past disappointments-- that America would repay the Kurds by continuing to support Kurdish ambitions in the region. Tragically, they’ve been let down once again, causing many to fear for a humanitarian disaster. With an effective green light from the United States, Erdogan feels empowered to take military actions to sweep the Kurds from territory near the Turkey-Syria border. The repercussions for America and its allies could be huge.

The moral failure of the decision would be bad enough were it not for the strategic implications as well: An invasion by Turkey could roll back allied successes and provide ISIS with space to operate. Kurdish-run camps for detained ISIS fighters-- like the one at Al Hol-- will be in fresh jeopardy, as the Kurds are forced to divert manpower and resources to engaging with the Turks. As a result, not only will ISIS recruiters have an easier time infiltrating their message but also an easier time exfiltrating their new recruits.

This is no way to treat a longtime ally and strategic partner. The Kurds have proved time and again their capability as a disciplined, effective fighting force and their commitment to the kind of stable, moderate governance that is sorely lacking in the region.

Previous U.S. presidents have recognized this and committed themselves to standing side by side with the Kurds. The administration’s plan of abandoning them now would not just be a reversal of long-established policy, it also would be a betrayal of one of America's few reliable regional partners.

On MSNBC, Tom Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, told Andrea Mitchell that "We have given a green light to the Turks to come and fight our allies… It's a real stain on the reputation of the United States." Even Bernie, the peace candidate in the 2020 election, was horrified by how Trump betrayed the Kurds. "The President of the United States should not make significant national security decisions impulsively, by tweets after a single phone call. I strongly condemn Trump's reckless decision to abandon our Kurdish allies to their fate at the hands of Turkish President Erodogan. This is not a case of sending American troops there. They are already there and Trump is withdrawing them, giving the Turkish Army permission to invade. Kurdish fighters have fought and died in our joint effort to eliminate ISIS. They should not be abandoned in this way. Congress must assert its important responsibility over foreign policy and serve as a check on our unstable president." Many Republicans agree with Bernie on this. 

As Turkish planes pounded Kurdish positions from the air and with artillery, CNN reporters on the ground in Syria reported smoke billowing from several large explosions as desperate civilians -- women, children and men-- fled the area on foot, some pushing others in wheelchairs, many crammed into the back of pickup trucks.

With humanitarian groups reporting the bombardment could displace as many as 300,000 people, Erdogan's top adviser told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Trump knew in advance about the scope of the Turkish attack.

"President Trump and President Erdogan have reached an understanding over precisely what this operation is," Gulnur Aybet said from Ankara on Wednesday. "He knows what the scope of this operation is."

The news trickling out of Syria fed increasing Republican anger, as lawmakers, former officials and analysts reacted throughout the day, and the US military stayed conspicuously silent.

"News from Syria is sickening," Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican in the House, tweeted Wednesday, echoing lawmakers across the spectrum. "Turkish troops preparing to invade Syria from the north, Russian-backed forces from the south, ISIS fighters attacking Raqqa. Impossible to understand why @realDonaldTrump is leaving America's allies to be slaughtered and enabling the return of ISIS."

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio noted that "at request of this administration the Kurds served as the primary ground fighters against ISIS in Syria so U.S. troops wouldn't have to." Then, he charged, the administration "cut deal with Erdogan allowing him to wipe them out. Damage to our reputation & national interest will be extraordinary & long lasting."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland on Wednesday announced a framework to place immediate sanctions on senior Turkish government officials, ban all US military business and military transactions with Turkey, and immediately activate 2017 sanctions on the country until Ankara stops its operations against the Kurds.

"This unlawful and unwarranted attack against an American friend and partner threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of civilians, many of whom have already fled from their homes elsewhere in Syria to find safety in this region," Graham and Van Hollen said in a statement.

"This invasion will ensure the resurgence of ISIS in Syria, embolden America's enemies including Al Qaeda, Iran, and Russia, and launch yet another endless conflict in what had been, until today, one of the most safe and stable areas of Syria and a region experimenting with the best model of local governance currently available in that war-torn country."

Brad Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies-- a veteran with 15 years active duty service-- reflected the sentiment of many other Republicans CNN spoke with, describing the day as "a sickening and shameful moment in US history and I put that at the foot of the President."

Both Pentagon and State Department officials had advised Trump against making the move, arguing a US presence is needed to counter ISIS and keep Iran and Russia, both influential inside Syria, in check.

Syrian Democratic Forces said in a statement Wednesday that they were suspending military operations against ISIS in northern Syria following the "Turkish aggression."

On Sunday, after Trump's phone call with Erdogan, the White House said US troops would move out the way and would not support or be involved in the operation. Trump downplayed Turkey's move in comments to reporters at the White House Wednesday.

He shrugged off the likely escape of ISIS fighters from Kurdish prisons, essentially saying it is Europe's problem, not his. "Well, they're going to be escaping to Europe, that's where they want to go," Trump said. He added that "we have no soldiers in the area."

Trump downplayed the alliance with the Kurds, 11,000 of whom died fighting to help the US mission against ISIS. "They didn't help us in the second World War, they didn't help us with Normandy for example," Trump said. "They're there to help us with their land, and that's a different thing." Normandy is an area of France, not the US.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday that it was "false" that the US withdrawal of troops from northeastern Syria was a green light for the slaughter of the Kurds, but did not explicitly endorse them as US allies.

Analysts such as Bowman say part of the outrage is driven by the fact that "we would have not defeated ISIS' Caliphate... without their help" and that the Kurds had just recently lowered their defenses, trusting the US to protect them from Turkey.

Since August, the US has been pushing the Kurds to dismantle their defensive fortifications and pull back their troops along the border that Turkey is now attacking as part of a "security mechanism" framework. The goal was to appease Turkey enough so they wouldn't invade. Kurds agreed to participate "presumably because they trusted the US to restrain the Turks diplomatically," Bowman said.

"We are breaking faith with the Kurds," Bowman said. "The SDF did everything we asked them to do. This will have ramifications for every individual soldier, every squad, every platoon operating in a dangerous place trying to earn the trust of their partners."

Earlier Wednesday, Trump took angrily to Twitter to push back on criticism. The President appeared to reference the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was premised on faulty and manipulated intelligence that former leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"There were NONE!" Trump tweeted. "Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE!"

But analysts and lawmakers of all stripes argue that the big picture and benefits to the US of standing its ground are exactly what Trump is missing. They pointed to the ramifications for future US alliances and the fight against ISIS, which remains a threat, among other issues.

They said the move was strategically shortsighted in Syria and internationally, that it will lend credibility to the narrative-- often pushed by Iran and Russia-- that the US is an unreliable partner making it harder to build future coalitions. That could mean that the US may have to send its own forces into harm's way more often.

"People will come to see the United States as untrustworthy or transactional," Bowman said. "The net result is that the next time we need friends allies partners, they won't be there."

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah pointed to the sense that once Trump pulled the US back, the Turkish attack was inevitable.

"Reports indicate Turkey is predictably attacking the Kurdish allies we abandoned," Romney tweeted. "It's a tragic loss of life among friends shamefully betrayed. We can only hope the President's decision does not lead to even greater loss of life and a resurgence of ISIS."

The wave of criticism-- including from a usually acquiescent Republican Party and in particular from some staunch Trump allies-- seemed to sting the President into damage control mode. On Wednesday afternoon, he released a statement that did not mention his role in giving Erdogan the green light or the fate of the Kurdish fighters.

"From the first day I entered the political arena, I made it clear that I did not want to fight these endless, senseless wars-- especially those that don't benefit the United States," Trump said.

Trump said Turkey had "committed to protecting civilians, protecting religious minorities" and "ensuring no humanitarian crisis takes place," and said Ankara "is now responsible for ensuring all ISIS fighters being held captive remain in prison and that ISIS does not reconstitute in any way, shape, or form."

Graham, usually a stalwart Trump ally, is predicting his sanctions legislation on Turkey will have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, making it impossible for Trump to stop.

Trump responded to talk of the bipartisan legislation saying "Lindsey and I feel differently."

"I think Lindsey would like to stay there for the next 200 years and maybe add a couple a hundred thousand people every place. But I disagree with Lindsey on that. But I will tell you that I do agree on sanctions."

Trump claimed he has stopped Erdogan from moving into Syria "from virtually the first day" he was in office. "They wanted to fight, and that's the way it is," Trump said.

Turkish garbage meets American garbage; bonds

Aside from the dishonor of abandoning the Kurds to Erdogan's genocidal instincts, the Pentagon is also worried about what will happen with the 12,000 ISIS fighters-- the world's largest concentration of terrorists-- being guarded by the Kurdish army. "If those fighters are set free," reported NBC News, "officials fear a replay of what happened in Iraq between 2010 and 2013, when the core group who founded ISIS were released or escaped from detention after U.S. forces left the country. Some of the very people who broke out of Iraqi prisons helped turn ISIS into a movement that not only seized territory in Iraq and Syria, but also orchestrated and encouraged terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States. Asked what would happen if ISIS fighters escape and pose a threat elsewhere, Trump told reporters Wednesday, 'Well they are going to be escaping to Europe, that's where they want to go. They want to go back to their homes.'"

More broadly, current and former officials say, a large Turkish military incursion into northern Syria will have the effect of removing the single greatest source of counterterrorism pressure against ISIS-- a Kurdish force that has been crucial to defeating and containing the terror group.

...Asked about the risks, U.S. intelligence officials chose their words carefully Wednesday, not wanting to say anything publicly that appears to criticize Trump's policies. But they did not dispute what one of the top counterterrorism officials in the government told NBC News last month-- that ISIS remains a dangerous threat, and that reduction of counterterrorism pressure on the group would "set the conditions for potential reemergence in a very powerful way."

"They are absolutely still a viable external operational threat globally," the official, who chose not to be identified, said.

Just days before Trump ordered U.S. troops to withdraw from the border region of northern Syria, a bipartisan team appointed by Congress, the Syria Study Group, issued a report warning that an American pullout would take the pressure off the terrorists.

"There's ample evidence ISIS is still very much active, it has access to tremendous resources, its brand still has international appeal," said Dana Stroul, co-author of the Syria Study Group report and a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank.

"We know that ISIS is looking for opportunities to reconstitute and certainly the lifting of pressure on ISIS is likely to provide the organization with that opportunity."

The report said that ISIS had lost its grip on territory in Syria and Iraq but had "morphed into an insurgency with the will, capability, and resources to carry out attacks against the United States."

Apart from ISIS, al Qaeda-linked groups and other extremists are active in Syria, taking advantage of the chaos of the country's civil war, according to the report.

"Areas of Syria have become safe havens for al Qaeda and its fellow travelers and home to the largest concentration of foreign terrorist fighters since Afghanistan in the 1990s," the report said.

Scott Walker Gives Away The Radical Right's Healthcare Game... Oops

Congressional Republicans don't know quite how to respond to reporters' and constituents' questions about the TrumpCare legislation they just voted for. Some are following Trump's hubristic, bombastic approach of just flat-out lying and claiming more people will be covered for less money and get better healthcare-- just unsubstantiated nonsense that has been widely debunked. Buffalo-area New York Trumpist Chris Collins just flat out admitted he didn't read the bill and wasn't even aware that his vote cuts a program called Essential Plan that provides low-cost health insurance to low- and middle-income people who don't qualify for Medicaid. Over 20,000 people in his own district are benefitting from it. It's one thing for Collins to oppose the program and vote against it and then tell his constituents why; it's entirely something else for him to not even bother reading the bill and understanding how it impacts the life and death struggles of his own constituents but voting for it anyway. John Shimkus told a TV reporter, on camera, that he wasn't able to read the bill before voting on it because he was busy at baseball practice. (He and his family get government health insurance that has been exempted from the life-threatening provisions of Trumpcare, so... no worries. And that district of his is soon read. Trump won it with 70.7% and the DCCC has never even thought about challenging Shimkus.)

At a townhall meeting in Lewiston, Idaho Friday morning, Republican Raul Labrador, who voted for TrumpCare just hours earlier, drew intense jeers when he claimed nobody dies due to lack of access to health care. That's an incident that every voter in the district will have in the back of her or his mind when they vote in 2018-- not that the DCCC has any intention of ever running anyone against Labrador. They had a rot-gut Blue Dog incumbent, Walt Minnick, who Labrador beat in 2010 and Minnick so destroyed the Democratic Party brand in the district that's it's been irrelevant since then.

Greg Gianforte, the Republican multimillionaire running for the open at-large Montana seat against Rob Quist, has carefully tried to hide his support for the highly toxic TrumpCare. But... oops! On Thursday he told reporters he'd need to read the full bill before voting on it. A few hours later during a private conference call with conservative K Street lobbyists, the dishonest Gianforte felt free to say what he really thinks of the horrendous bill. "The votes in the House are going to determine whether we get tax reform done, sounds like we just passed a health care thing, which I’m thankful for, sounds like we’re starting to repeal and replace." The Times pointed out that "Even in Montana-- a Republican-leaning state on the presidential level, but which still elects Democrats statewide-- it appears no longer politically safe in the heat of a campaign to offer full-throated support for repealing Obamacare." (The DCCC refuses to help in Montana but if you'd like to help Quist beat Gianforte, you can do it here.)

And then you've gotten very vulnerable crackpot Martha McSally in the Tucson area (AZ-02). Hillary beat Trump in her district last year 49.6-44.7%. Local Democrats are trying to recruit state Rep (and surgeon) Randy Friese to run against her. She didn't help herself by voting for the very unpopular TrumpCare and, as Jim Nintzel reported in the Tucson's weekly paper, The Range, "After declining to inform the public of where she stands on the Zombie Trumpcare bill, it appears that Congreswoman Martha McSally (R-AZ02) is fully behind it, according to AP reporter Erica Werner, who reports that McSally told her GOP colleagues it was time to get this 'fucking thing' done."

But most Republicans are just sticking to the focus-group tested talking points Paul Ryan's office sent out, the lies about how great the bill is. One of those lies, which was puked out last week 2 days in row on Chris Hayes' show by Republican leaders, first Tom Cole (OK) and then Mike Burgess (TX), is that "oh, no one's going to use those silly waivers that kill preexisting condition protections-- how'd that get in there anyway? Besides, the Senate will kill it. Doesn't mean a thing--zip... nothing, nada, zero... less than zero."

Hours later, Todd Richmond, reporting for the Associated Press: Scott Walker would consider seeking waiver to let health insurers raise premiums in Wisconsin. Embarrassing. But far more an expression of where Republican ideologues are on this than Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Tom Cole or Michael Burgess will ever let on.

Gov. Scott Walker said Friday that he would consider seeking a waiver to let insurers raise premiums for people with pre-existing medical conditions if the House Republicans’ health care plan becomes law... Walker, a Republican, told reporters that he would consider seeking such a waiver, saying Wisconsin has run high-risk pools well in the past.

...According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization that tracks national health issues, about 852,000 non-elderly Wisconsin residents had pre-existing conditions in 2015. That’s a quarter of the state’s non-elderly population.

...Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said he was disappointed that Walker is ready to sacrifice health care coverage for thousands of Wisconsin residents.

“We need to make health insurance more affordable for everyone, not penalize people who get sick or are born with a serious health concern,” Barca said.

Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, said in an email that she was “shocked” that Walker would even entertain the idea of raising premiums on families with pre-existing conditions.

Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, a doctor and a former Democrat, has made quite the splash lately by telling CNN that for TrumpCare to pass the Senate it must pass the Jimmy Kimmel Test.

Jimmy Kimmel's tearful monologue about his infant son's heart surgery struck a cord with at least one member of Congress.

Republican Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy said Friday that he's basing his support on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare on "the Jimmy Kimmel test."

"I ask, Does it pass the Jimmy Kimmel test?" Cassidy told CNN. "Would the child born with a congenital heart disease be able to get everything she or he would need in that first year of life ... That they would receive all of the services even if they go over a certain amount?"

TrumpCare doesn't even come close.

Tomorrow's Non-Presidential Primaries

The corrupt Democratic establishment has been far more successful shutting down primaries than has the corrupt Republican establishment. Primaries are usually the only way it ever challenge entrenched incumbents in gerrymandered safe districts. All Americans actually owe the Tea Party a debt of gratitude for scaring the congressional Republicans and for cleaning out some trash, particularly Wall Street whore Eric Cantor. This cycle, the most comparable action on the Democratic side of the aisle is Tim Canova's challenge to a Democrat as vile and deserving of ignominious defeat as Cantor was: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, although head Blue Dog Kurt Schrader (OR) and So. Jersey machine corruptionist Donald Norcross are also being pounded, respectively, by reformers Dave McTeague and Alex Law.

Tomorrow, though, there aren't many primaries in either party against incumbents that are likely to yield surprises. The one exception might be in northeast Ohio-- (OH-14) between Cleveland's eastern suburbs and the Pennsylvania state line west of Erie-- where dull backbencher David Joyce is being challenged by a crackpot extremist again. In 2014, Joyce fended off the very same crackpot extremist, ex-state Rep. Matt Lynch, 27,547 (55%) to 22,546 (45%). This year though, election officials in Lake, Cuyahoga, Geauga and Summit counties are expecting much, much larger turnouts because of the simultaneous presidential primary. Lynch is counting on Trump and Cruz voters figuring out that he's their man, while Joyce is counting on Kaisich backers voting for him. Lynch has been spending money on tarring Joyce as a compromiser afraid to shut down the government while making it clear that the radicals and extremists back his race against Joyce.

Unfortunately for Lynch, by the Feb. 24 reporting deadline Joyce had already spent $1,058,471 and had another $549,665 ready to deploy, while all he had managed it raise was $173,406. He's getting free airtime on Hate Talk Radio (especially on Beck's show) but will it be enough? Few think so and the establishment and all the newspapers in the area have endorsed Joyce. The DCCC is once again ignoring the race although, presumably, if Lynch wins tomorrow, they'd jump in to try to bolster Michael Wager, the progressive who ran against Joyce in 2014 and is on the ballot again. With Bernie-- or even Hillary-- at the top of the Democratic ticket in November, particularly against Trump, Wager would likely be a shoo-in.



There's also a far right extremist running against John Shimkus in the sprawling, empty southeastern district (IL-15) that skirts all cities and big towns that might have a library. It was Obama's worst-performing district in the state and the last Democrat who ran for the congressional seat, spent $24,243 and won 25% of the vote. This cycle there isn't even a Democrat running at all. Instead, Shimkus, the congressman who repeatedly allowed Mark Foley access to the underage pages he molested for years, is facing far right state Sen. Kyle McCarter, who's being supported-- to the tune of $345,650) by Club for Growth. This is the completely deceptive-- and probably ineffective-- ad they're running in the district:



Shimkus had spent $1,764,009 by Feb. 24 and reported another $995,864 in the bank, while McCarter had spent $245,018 and was getting ready to spend $106,985. American Action Network-- a Chamber of Commerce establishment group run by notorious anti-Semite Fred Malek and ex-Jew Norm Coleman-- spent $200,485 helping Shimkus. Shimkus doesn't appear to be in any real trouble.

The races where there actually could be upsets are both Democratic primaries, a Senate race in Ohio and a House race in Illinois' 10th district. The DSCC and DCCC had each mandated a candidate, the elderly and feeble conservative Ted Strickland in Ohio and the corrupt conservative New Dem Brad Schneider in Illinois. Schneider and his DCCC backers appear to be about to lose to Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering, who is strongly backed by Se. Dick Durbin and endorsed by all the local newspapers.

The Ohio race is a much bigger longshot and Blue America has strongly backed challenger PG Sittenfeld against the NRA's top Democrat, Ted Strickland. Paul Rosenberg covered the primary in great detail forSalon over the weekend. He noted that "when 78-year-old former Ohio governor Dick Celeste endorsed Sittenfeld recently, he directly invoked what was happening in the presidential race. 'What we’re seeing in the presidential campaigns across the country is a growing level of discontent with party leadership in both parties. And I think it was a mistake for the Democratic Party of Ohio, for example, to make an early endorsement in the Senate race,' Celeste said. 'PG Sittenfeld represents a fresh way of moving forward,' he said, pointing to Sittenfeld’s hands-on engagement in dealing with a multitude of urban issues. 'What we have here is a race between the future and the past,' Celeste continued. 'When I say the past, I’m talking about the Democratic Party itself. It is trying to operate in an old way. And that old way was insiders who tried to make decisions and insiders who tried to call the shots. And that’s not what people want.'"

At the most obvious level, this race pits an aging, backward-looking insider against a young, forward-thinking outsider. As Celeste said, it’s “a race between the future and the past.” But the past also means an aging candidate significantly at odds with his party’s voting base-- though with varying degrees of obfuscation-- who has repeatedly refused to debate his opponent… for good reason, it would seem.

On guns, Strickland bragged to a radio caller last year, “As a Congressman I had A and most of the time an A+ rating with the National Rifle Association.” He went on to brag that he voted against the 1994 assault weapons ban that Ohio Gov. John Kasich voted for. As governor, he signed a so-called “castle doctrine” law  that was opposed by Ohio prosecutors and police chiefs associations, who said it would provide legal cover for bad guys hurting folks who had no intention of harming them. He also supported a bill that would allow firearms in family restaurants and bars-- a measure opposed by police groups, which was blocked by the speaker of the state assembly at the end of the 2010 session. He now claims to have undergone a conversion, but even so he admitted, “My record is mixed and spotty and I could be criticized for that.”

On the environment, Strickland got a 100 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters just one year out of 12 he spent in Congress, as opposed to seven years with scores in the 60s and 70s, and four in the 80s. He voted repeatedly for coal and fossil fuel subsidies (1993, 1994, 1997, 2001), against higher fuel economy standards (2001, 2003, 2005), and against protecting public forest lands (1999, 2000, 2003), along with a range of other anti-environmental votes.

Although Strickland calls himself “pro-choice,” his record is more multiple-choice. He did score 100 percent twice on NARAL’s scorecard, but also scored in the 30s twice, and 60 or lower five times. He cast multiple votes that would restrict abortion rights, including a 1998 vote to override a Clinton veto. As governor, he signed an abortion-ultrasound bill that drew anti-choice activists’ praise.

On all three of these  issues, Sittenfeld’s progressive positions signal a clear-cut break with Strickland. He’s pledged that he will only support a Supreme Court nominee who pledges to uphold Roe v. Wade. He’s got a comprehensive agenda to reduce gun violence: first, by closing loopholes to make background checks truly mandatory; second, by holding gun manufacturers and dealers accountable; and third, by keeping violent weapons out of dangerous hands. On the environment, Sittenfeld has a proven leadership record on the city council, chairing the committee overseeing all environmental issues. When a GOP plan was launched to defund the city’s Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ) as part of a cost-cutting plan, he alerted local activists to fight back, pointing out that “OEQ saves tax-payers more money each year than the Department costs-- so axing it would represent broken fiscal management and in no way be productive for our budget situation.” Regarding global warming, he supports Obama’s Clean Power Plan, opposes the Keystone Pipeline, and says “the need to act has never been more urgent or more important.”

But beyond these key issue positions, reflecting the vast majority of Ohio’s Democratic base, Sittenfeld has a mature sense of how intricately different issues and ideas interweave and synergize with one another, based on his own lived experience. Before being elected to city council, Sittenfeld served as the assistant director of the Community Learning Center Institute, which played a key role in dramatically transforming the city’s public schools. He described the result in a speech laying out his urban agenda last year:

Virtually all of our schools are new. But instead of using them only during the school day-- and then shooing the kids out of the building and into the streets-- we’ve turned them into bustling, round-the-clock community centers.

Co-located health and dental facilities…. adult education programs… and enhanced cultural and recreational opportunities have removed barriers to student learning, boosted academic achievement, and sparked broader neighborhood revitalization.

Rather than seeing education through the narrow lens of high-stakes testing of individual students, destroying neighborhood schools in the process, as has happened in Chicago and other major cities, Cincinnati’s approach was the complete opposite, seeing education as the process of a whole community creating a better future by investing in its children holistically, synergizing different support systems that had previously been disconnected, or even absent. Similarly, a careful reading of his issue agenda shows a constant awareness of how different pieces of the progressive policy puzzle fit together.

Under the heading of “rebuilding the middle class,” he says he will “fight for a livable minimum wage, expanded overtime pay, better child care assistance, family leave, and paid sick days,” and “reject bad trade deals that create an uneven playing field for American workers,” pledging to “always be steadfast in standing up for workers’ rights, including collective bargaining,” which Ohio Republicans have fiercely attacked since 2010. At the same time, he won’t be pigeonholed as defending dying industries of the past, saying, “We won’t rebuild the middle class by yearning for yesterday or clinging to a past that will never return. We must embrace innovation, champion change, and understand the tools of tomorrow, including ensuring fast, affordable internet for all Americans.”

His positive stance toward innovation is reflected in other issue areas he stresses as well-- most notably education and the environment. And he has a detailed urban policy agenda, encompassing four major components: ending mass incarceration, improving police-community relations and better gun safety, jobs and economic opportunity, and improving urban schools and making college affordable. This is not a laundry list of issues in his view, but a tightly interrelated set of concerns. Being grounded in the reality of that interrelation is arguably Sittenfeld’s greatest strength-- and given the nature of the Democratic Party’s diverse constituency, it’s just the sort of leadership strength the party desperately needs. “All of us want our best selves represented by who we cast a vote for,” Celeste said. “And I believe PG Sittenfeld represents the best of us.”

But the party also needs leaders who can bring people together in different ways. And that’s precisely where the outsiders excel over the anointed insiders in the other three states as well.

The state's newspapers are all disgusted with Strickland for ducking debates and have almost all endorsed Sittenfeld. Hillary Clinton, who makes believe she opposes the NRA and cares about families, is strongly behind Strickland despite his very Republican record that spans decades. Summing up months of coverage, the Columbus Dispatch closed Saturday by noting that "Ted Strickland, a 74-year-old veteran politician, has been employing a rope-a-dope strategy ... Meanwhile, Sittenfeld, a 31-year-old Cincinnati councilman, has pressed for debates, held news conferences and traveled the state." And the final Toledo Blade editorial reported that "Strickland...has largely limited his campaign appearances to friendly audiences, and even other Democrats have noted his overall lack of visibility... In a year in which voters are turning to insurgent candidates at every level, in search of new voices and fresh faces, such a contrast could work in Mr. Sittenfeld’s favor."

But Chuck Schumer doesn't want energetic and committed independent thinkers like Sittenfeld in the Senate. He wants tired old conservative hacks like Strickland who will just do what they're told. Schumer has no realistic hope that a doddering and incoherent Strickland could actually beat Republican incumbent Rob Portman and he and Tester are just gambling that November will see a battle between Hillary and Trump and that she will be seen as the lesser evil and have the coattails needed to drag Strickland's NRA carcass across the finish line. Ohio Democratic primary voters should give Chuck Schumer the finger tomorrow and nominate PG Sittenfeld. Beyond tomorrow's primaries... in Illinois and Ohio:

DCCC Has A Candidate For IL-13, Chief Judge Ann Callis

IL-12 and IL-13 are two of the nine districts in the U.S. with exactly even PVI scores. They are the ultimate swing districts-- at least by the numbers. Of the nine, only three have Republican congressmen, NV-03 (Joe Heck), IA-03 (Tom Latham) and IL-13 (Rodney Davis). And Obama won all those districts last November except IL-13, which he lost 48.9- 48.6%, one of the closes races in he country. The congressional race was also one of the closest in the country, Davis winning 136,596 over progressive Democrat David Gill 135,309. The two were evenly matched, with Davis raising $1,400,451 (7% from small donors and 46% from PACs) and Gill raising $1,325,027 (30% from small donors and 22% from PACs). Outside spending tipped the race towards Davis. The DCCC and their House Majority PAC put $3,000,927 into the race but that couldn't match a plethora of right-wing groups from Nixon Jew counter Fred Malek's American Action Network's $1,482,559, the US Chamber of Commerce's $500,000, the NRCC's $1,532,442 and a flood of money from shady right-wing organizations like the New Prosperity Foundation, the NRA, Eric Cantor's Young Guns Network, and a gaggle of anti-Choice groups. They spent $3,663,124 attacking Gill and another $189,568 bolstering Davis. Outside spending in favor of Gill was about a million dollars less. That bought Davis his 1,287 vote margin.

The DCCC was never all that comfortable with the very left-of-center Gill, an outspoken progressive. The Democratic Establishment-- both in Chicago and in DC-- had pushed hard for conservative Democrat Matthew Goetten in the primary. This cycle they weren't taking any chances that Gill might run again and got Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to appoint Gill Assistant Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health on Friday-- just as the DCCC choice for the nomination, Third Judicial Circuit chief judge Ann Callis, stepped down to run for the seat. Her official announcement came today.

Gill said Quinn had approached him a few months ago about the post, and he told the governor he'd have to give it some thought; he said he had been considering another Congressional campaign since his narrow defeat on election night. But, he said, he knew he couldn't do both.

"Ultimately it boiled down to deciding which of the two seemed to fit better for me now," Gill said. "I think I can make a significant impact in terms of helping people access health care and implement the Affordable Health Care Act in Illinois."

The DCCC had tried to recruit Callis to run in IL-12 when Jerry Costello announced his retirement but she declined and conservative Democrat Bill Enyart beat Republican Jason Plummer 51-43%. The DCCC and their House Majority PAC spent more helping Enyart-- $3,221,178-- than they spent on Gill. Callis has been a judge since 1995 and has a good reputation across the spectrum.

"Ann Callis has done a tremendous job as chief judge," said Madison County Board Chairman Alan Dunstan. "She's changed the image of Madison County a lot in terms of the judiciary. I've worked with her very well in the past and wish her the best in the future."

Among Callis' endorsements in her most recent judicial retention campaign: Shimkus, who had nominated her veterans court program for a national award. Shimkus said at the time that Callis had earned the respect of both parties for her reforms in the court system.

There are two important facts there. First off, Gill nearly won because he was so strong in Champaign County, where he beat Davis 57-43%. But he couldn't overcome the GOP tide in equally-sized Madison County, where it was Gill who wound up with 43%. That margin, with the big wins for Davis is the more rural counties and Gill lost the election. Callis is well-respected and well-liked in Madison County and should do much better there. The second fact is what a big advocate Shimkus has been for her. You might recall that Davis, who lost all his early campaigns (for state legislature and then for mayor of his hometown, Taylorville, is a total creature of Shimkus and worked as his campaign manager and then as a Shimkus congressional staffer. "Chief Judge Ann Callis has earned my respect and the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike for the reforms she initiated to improve our local court system and for the innovative programs she has launched," said Shimkus when he backed Callis' run for reelection. "I was so impressed by the establishment of the veterans court that helps troubled veterans get their lives back on track that I nominated the program for the national Paul H. Chapman Award from the Foundation for Improvement of Justice.”

People I've talked to in the district have told me Callis is a middle-of-the-road Democrat who is likely to do exactly what the DCCC tell her to do. "She's better than Davis," is the most positive comment I could find. The other Democrat in the race, University of Illinois physics Professor George Gollin, is a less conventional Democrat-- far more progressive and way too independent-minded for anyone like Steve Israel to ever support. He donated generously to Gill's congressional race-- as well as to fellow Illinois physicist Bill Foster. Callis' political contributions have only gone to Obama. She's perfect for the DCCC.

There are some who are surprised that Callis would want to run for Congress, a pay cut from her salary as a judge. She also has been mentioned as a possible federal court judge or even an Illinois Supreme Court candidate.

But she certainly would be an intriguing candidate. No one I talked to could recall a sitting circuit court judge giving that up to run for Congress.

"I think the work that she is doing (as a judge) is wonderful," Gill said. "You know, she's been doing it for a long time. Life is short. It doesn't surprise me when people look to do something else for their fellow man."

As the chief judge in the 3rd Judicial Circuit, she has name recognition in several counties in the southern end of the district, she has contacts and money (she self-funded her campaign for judicial retention last year and her father, Lance Callis, is a Granite City trial lawyer who made millions by investing in the Argosy Casino in Alton, then selling his shares in 2005) and she has a good reputation.

Ask David McKinley (R-WV) Who's Going To Clean Up The Poop

Unless you're a reader of the Wheeling News-Register you probably missed the report of multimillionaire West Virginia Congressman David McKinley addressing the Wheeling Rotary Club last week. "The federal Environmental Protection Agency is 'one of the biggest threats to our society,' McKinley told his fellow Rotarians on Tuesday." David McKinley, a freshman congressman who's already taken in $3,603,130 and whose biggest source of funding are the polluters who would give anything to kill the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA, keep in mind, doesn't just hug trees; they're charged with keeping our drinking water clean and the air with breath safe, goals McKinley's funders find reprehensible-- since it costs them money to not pollute the air and water and devastate the planet in pursuit of their own private fortunes. And although he's just a freshman, notice who the biggest recipient in Congress of legalistic bribes from the mining interests is. Yes, David McKinley, took in $290,478, even more than Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor. So, sure, to McKinley is a big threat-- to his career.

His opponent this year is Sue Thorn, a grassroots activist who consistently stands up for ordinary working families-- especially mining families-- and not for the big money mine owners. As we've expained before, Steve Israel and the DCCC aren't contesting West Virginia's first CD and is doing nothing at all to help Sue-- after spending millions to elect an especially rabid reactionary, state Senator Mike Oliverio in 2008. Oliverio, whose corruption can be smelled from one end of the state to the other, is the ideal Steve Israel Democratic candidate. He has a long record of shilling for Big Business and Wall Street banksters and prides himself on being virulently anti-Choice and hysterically antigay. He was co-chair of the West Virginia chapter of ALEC and, for some reason Bush publicly thanked him for helping get Sammy Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court. And if you still don't get the point, in 2010 2010, the state GOP chair, Doug McKinney, referred to Oliverio's over-the-edge conservatism by saying, "Sen. Oliverio has always been a conservative guy. He votes with the Republicans on committees. We've joked for years he needs to come over to the party who thinks like he does." Israel's plan is to let McKinley win again this year and then run Oliverio in 2014 (when Obama's name isn't on the ballot). By the way, Nancy Pelosi claims she selected Israel to run the DCCC because of his reptilian nature.

Of course McKinley isn't the only Member of Congress trying to kill the EPA. Almost no Republicans back it and more than a few Blue Dogs and New Dems agree with them. Few people think of Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander as an extremist, but when it comes to environmental safety regulation he is. As Joshua Holland pointed out in his book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About The Economy, was moved by a very modest climate change proposal to warn that the law, if enacted, would "deliberately kill jobs and make Americans poorer." And, no, that wasn't David McKinley or Michele Bachmann or Jim Inhofe or Louie Gohmert. It was what passes for a mainstream conservative in 2012.

Since global warming became a front-burner issue, conservatives have taken the old argument that environmental protections hurt the economy to dizzying new heights. According to some of the more feverish voices within the movement, it’s not just that protecting the environment comes with painful “unintended consequences.” They argue that the entire point of environmentalism-- and the raison d’être of environmentalists-- is to bring capitalism to its knees.

No, really. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who called the science of global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” put it best when he argued that “the real purpose” of the Kyoto Climate Accord was not to curb carbon emissions but to “harm Americans, especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices, reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs.” Longtime Alaska representative Don Young went a step further. “Environmentalists,” he told Alaska Public Radio, “are a socialist group of individuals... I’m proud to say that they are my enemy. They are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans.”

Yet it was Jeffrey Kuhner, an entertainingly unhinged columnist for the right-wing Washington Times, who best spelled out this fascinating conspiracy theory in a column titled A Convenient Lie. “Radical environmentalists,” he wrote, “are forging a new socialist post-democracy that is slowly undermining representative government.” He continued, "The myth of global warming along with the Environmental Protection Agency have become the hammer and sickle of eco-Marxism-- the new green-red alliance that seeks to destroy capitalism and the sovereign nation-state.”

Again, this dark conspiracism is simply the logical extension of the long standing conservative argument that environmental regulations impose crushing costs on businesses.

Nobody disagrees that protecting the environment comes at a cost to firms’ bottom lines. To the degree that they can, these businesses pass some of those costs on to consumers. But after that, anything that hurts a company’s profit margins can certainly impact the growth of a business and limit new hires.

Yet that entire narrative asks you to look at only one side of the ledger. It’s a big lie of omission. What they don’t tell you is that environmental regulations are necessary for the free market to function. Without them, polluters can impose massive costs on the rest of society in order to derive a tidy profit for themselves. Robust environmental protections fix a significant “market failure,” and even the most devout worshippers of Randian economics acknowledge that addressing market distortions is an appropriate role for the government. For many years, this has been the central progressive argument: that you have to count the external costs of underregulation as a kind of hidden tax that we all end up paying. Strong environmental protections force polluters themselves to absorb the costs of whatever damage they cause. It’s really the “free market” way.

In recent years, progressives have also turned the environment versus jobs narrative on its head. Transitioning to a new, more sustainable, green economy, they argue, will not only protect the delicate rose of capitalism for future generations, it’ll represent a new source of economic growth in the twenty-first century, creating millions of high-paying green jobs for industrious Americans.

I have a puppy named Daisy. She poops, and I clean up after her. It’s the right thing to do. She’s my puppy, I feed her, I enjoy her company, and if I don’t pick up her leavings, then either someone else has to do it or my neighbors will end up paying a price. It would be great to live in a society where everyone routinely did the right thing, but that’s not realistic. Picking up after one’s dog is pretty gross, and some people simply don’t want to do it. So my city, like most, mandates it, and if I don’t do the right thing, then I risk a penalty, a fine.

At the heart of environmental economics is a basic question: what happens with the poop of our industrialized society? Will the dog owners of corporate America clean it up on their own dime or will the rest of us be forced to make a choice between hiring someone to pick up the crap or stepping in it when we sally forth? In economic terms, if they don’t clean up after themselves, we as a society pay an externalized cost. It’s a market failure because we’re not part of the decision-making process. We can’t make a rational cost-benefit analysis weighing the burden of regulation against the pollution costs of an industrial activity. And because we-- rather than the firms that pollute-- bear much of the costs for the damage they do, the polluters themselves don’t weigh the costs and benefits accurately either.

The World Bank notes, “The effects of pollution can generally be classified into four major categories: health impacts, direct and indirect effects on productivity, effects on the ecosystem, and aesthetic effects.” The World Bank authors continued, "For example, a factory may emit soot that dirties surrounding buildings, increasing maintenance costs. The higher maintenance costs are a direct result of the factory’s use of a resource-- air-- that from the plant’s point of view is free but that has a cost to society."

The World Bank, which was not populated by dirty socialists when I last checked, concluded with a commonsense statement that the Corporate Right refuses to acknowledge: “Such externalities are real costs and benefits attributable to the project and should be included” in the cost-benefit analysis every time.

Progressives favor robust environmental protections not to undermine capitalism or hurt businesses, but to force firms to “internalize” those externalities. We want those regulations for the same reason that most communities require dog owners to pick up their own poop: it’s not only the neighborly thing to do, but it’s also fundamentally wrong for people to get to enjoy playing with their cute little puppies while the rest of us have to pay the street-cleaners’ overtime.

...Progressives have promoted the creation of green jobs not only to protect the environment, but also to disprove the claim that we have to sacrifice prosperity to protect our ecosystem.

The idea, broadly speaking, is to transform our carbon-based economy to one that is run on clean and sustainable power; it would include increasing our energy efficiency and cutting down on our waste. And it would require a lot of work, from manufacturing new and cleaner technologies to upgrading our electrical network with “smart grid” technology. It would create jobs, lessen our dependence on oil (domestic as well as foreign), and reduce climate-changing emissions before it’s too late. Economist Robert Pollin and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst estimated that 1.7 million net new jobs could be created in just two years with an investment of $150 billion in new green infrastructure-- less than the average cost of keeping troops in Iraq for the same amount of time. They identified six areas that are ripe for investment: retrofitting buildings, expanding mass transit and freight rail, building a smart electric grid, and investing in wind power, solar power, and next-generation biofuels. I can’t think of anyone anywhere on the political spectrum who believes these things are bad. Conservatives simply think that the private sector will get us there on its own, eventually, and it’s true that many firms are investing in new technologies for the green market.

The question is: how long would the private sector take? Today, clean and sustainable energy technologies are far more expensive than burning coal or gas and will continue to be in the immediate future. In 2008, the European Commission did a study of the costs of generating electricity using various technologies. With today’s fuel prices, the cost of a megawatt-hour is as follows: gas goes for 50–75 euros; oil costs between 95 and 125 euros, and coal is a bargain at 40–55. But biomass energy costs 80–195 euros, wind goes for between 75 and 140, hydropower costs as much as 215 euros, and solar costs between 170 and 880 euros for a megawatt-hour. (Nuclear energy is cheap, and its lobbyists have pushed it as a green energy source; the problem is they still don’t know what to do with the radioactive waste.

So an efficient green economy that frees us from our dependence on fossil fuels is a good that most of us want, but the private sector won’t be able to deliver it as soon as we’d like. It’s a classic place for the government to intervene. And governments around the world, including our own, are doing just that. Yet it’s also a race, and whichever economy leads that race will have a real advantage-- with more leading-edge technology and a large market share-- for decades to come.

Big Oil, however, with its fingers deep into congressional pockets, wants to drill, baby, drill-- and it can rely on “free market” rhetoric to make it happen. Consider a case in point: the planned Cape Wind offshore energy project miles off the coast of Cape Cod. The “wind farm,” with 130 high-tech turbines, is expected to create 1,000 jobs during the construction phase and 150 permanent new positions on Cape Cod and the surrounding islands. It will also generate 420 megawatts of power, enough to meet 75 percent of the needs of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and the surrounding islands.

It faced stiff opposition, ostensibly of the Not In My Backyard variety from residents who thought the wind turbines would be an eyesore and ruin their ocean views (the late Senator Ted Kennedy, sadly, was part of the effort to kill the project). But Forbes noted where a good chunk of the money behind the campaign was coming from. William Koch, an oil mogul and one of the most prominent conservative philanthropists in the United States, had put up $1.5 million to oppose the wind farm. Forbes noted the “irony” of his opposition: "Koch, through his Oxbow Group ($1.5 billion sales), had once made a mint off eco-friendly power plants by using laws that required power companies to buy Koch’s power for above-market rates. He sold them for $660 million in 2000. But, alas, he now says the project’s economics, requiring heavy government subsidies, don’t add up."

Subsidies, of course, are the only way that moving to clean, renewable energy in the near future does “add up.” Phillip Warburg and Susan Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation responded to the claim by stating the obvious. “Federal and state subsidies for renewable energy projects,” they wrote, “have been created for the express purpose of helping wind and other forms of clean energy compete with long-subsidized conventional fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as nuclear power.”

Oh... and John Shimkus (R-IL), the congressman who allowed Mark Foley to have his way with the pages, is even crazier than David McKinley when it comes to coal.

UPDATE: Who Is Bob Murray And Why Does He Want To Buy A West Viirginia Congressional Seat For David McKinley?

Perhaps you've heard something about a coal baron accused of pressuring his employees to vote for his pet congresscreep. The coal baron is murderer Bob Murray and his pet congresscreep is David McKinley (R-WV).

One of Congressman David McKinley's biggest backers stands accused of breaking campaign finance laws by pressuring his employees to donate. Last month, coal baron Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, drew fire for forcing his miners to attend a Republican rally without pay. Now a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission charges that Murray routinely pressured his white-collar workers to give to candidates and his political action committee.

The New Republic published company fundraising memos, and staff writer Alec MacGillis says they were confirmed by sources inside Murray's mining empire.

"They were expected to give. They were expected to give to the PAC, as a deduction from their paycheck. Typically, 1 percent of their pay would go to the PAC. They were also expected to give to Mr. Murray's separate personal fundraisers."

MacGillis says his sources were afraid to reveal their names. But he says they and the memos describe relentless fundraising coercion, often including thinly veiled threats. He says his sources also told him that at least some of the money was essentially coming from the company itself, laundered through an employee bonus program.

"Their understanding that they got from their superiors was that this would be made up to them. The sense that my sources had was that the discretionary part of the bonus was to some degree dependent on their participating."

Campaign finance watchdogs in West Virginia say the charges against Murray are particularly important because of his history. Julie Archer is project manager for the West Virginia Citizen Action Group. She says Murray uses his donations to build political connections, which he in turn uses to fight enforcement of federal environmental and mine-safety laws. She alleges that Murray has threatened Mine Safety and Health Administration officials who were investigating his mines.

Tales From The Crypt-- The Republican Grassroots

Just as John Boehner's handpicked candidate for RNC Chair, sleazy K Street lobbyist Maria Cino, was going down to a resounding defeat yesterday, he was busy sending out the above tweet announcing the NRCC leadership team under the tutelage of crooked Texas miscreant Pete Sessions. Maybe someone has a better sense of irony than anyone gives the GOP credit for, but there is definitely something spooky about choosing demented Illinois religious fanatic John Shimkus as the Vice Chair for Mentoring. After all, Shimkus was the head of the page board who allowed Mark Foley access to the underage male pages even after everyone in DC knew the Florida Republican closet case was boinking them.

Wonderers sometimes wonder what made Shimkus so god-fearin'? Obviously I don't know. There was no twitter back when I first started paying attention to Congressman Shimkus years after he managed to win the House seat, by the narrowest of margins (50.3-49.7%) given up by Dick Durbin when Durbin ran for the U.S. Senate. What brought the colorless Shimkus to my attention in 2006 weren't any of his small town shenanigans on the Commerce Committee-- like getting B-20, the soybean-diesel fuel blend, qualified for the alternative fuels program or persuading Bush to scuttle the EPA rules that controlled mercury emissions from coal-fired generators. It was his role in the Mark Foley scandal. No, don't worry; Shimkus isn't gay. What he is, is a slouch and a partisan sneak who abandoned his duty and allowed god-only-knows-how-many underage boys to fall into Foley's predatory grasp.

It all started when Shimkus was the head of a less lucrative committee than Energy and Commerce, the 3-member Page Board, a small unheralded one whose one task was to look after the well-being of the congressional pages, all of whom are high school students. Denny Hastert appointed Shimkus to head it and the 2 other members were Republican Shelley Moore Capito and Democrat Dale Kildee, who had served on it for two decades. In 2005 Shimkus claims he first became aware of Foley's uncontrollable lust for underage boys. Shimkus and Capito carefully kept Kildee out of the discussions about the unfolding Foley scandal they were trying to keep contained. After the scandal broke, Hastert ineptly presided over an attempted GOP cover-up. It backfired and helped guarantee that the Republicans would lose the midterm elections. He asked Shimkus, who had already had the wool pulled over his eyes by Foley regarding inappropriate e-mails and pictures of sixteen year old pages. The Republicans were desperate to cover-up the fact that Foley was actually having sex with the boys and the whole Capitol Hill system circled the wagons on that one. "We want to make sure that all our pages are safe and the page system is safe," Hastert said.

...Shimkus got Foley to promise he would cease all contact with the 16 year old. Capitol, who called the e-mails "disgusting," did nothing to alert Kildee or in any way rock the cover-up boat Hastert and Shimkus were launching. "I became aware of it this afternoon [September 29th] when [Shimkus] came by my office. I think we should have had a page meeting right away," Kildee said, referring to the 2005 discovery of Foley's e-mails. When asked if he was upset about being excluded, Kildee said yes, adding, "I've been on the page board for 20 years." Shimkus is a little defensive about his shameful role in the episode. "I'm the chairman of the page board," Shimkus said when asked why he didn't include Kildee. "The Clerk and I addressed this issue." A week later he said "I think, based on the information I had, what I did was fine. If I regret something, maybe I should have had Dale [Kildee] with me because now it’s going to be a political football."

At first he lawyered up and lied about knowledge of the e-mails but it eventually leaked out that he had read them and had done his best to cover-up the whole mess at Hastert's direction. His disingenuous testimony in front of the House Ethics Committee goes a long way towards indicating what kind of a committee chairman he will make.

So what kind of a Vice Chairman of Mentoring do you think he's going to b?. And he's isn't even the most ridiculous-- or horrendous-- Vice-Chair selection. That honor goes to North Carolina bigot Virginia Foxx, who the GOP feels is the most in tune with their severely fractured grassroots. Yep, Virginia Foxx-- in a possible signal to gays and other minorities about Republican outreach-- is the new NRCC Vice Chairwoman of Grassroots Development! I'll leave it to you to figure out what that says about the Republican grassroots-- or at least how the GOP House leadership sees its grassroots. But it does seem to be a grassroots that finds it easy enough to shrug off not just Foxx's hysterical homophobia but even the extremist ravings of Utah's new teabaggy senator, Mike Lee, who-- although still not calling explicitly for a return to the slavery system-- is now publicly claiming child labor laws are unconstitutional. You think I'm exaggerating? Watch this Mormon fanatic lecturing against Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt and other progressive presidents.

Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law-- no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting-- that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned-- that’s something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. [...]

This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.

Now, we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case. So the entire world did not implode as a result of that ruling.

...Moreover, Lee is simply wrong to claim that child labor magically disappeared after the Supreme Court rendered Congress powerless to prevent it. The reason why exploitative child labor has largely disappeared is because Congress placed very strict limits on child labor when it enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the constitutional cloud over this law was removed three years later when the Court overruled Lee’s pet decision.

Child labor laws are also only one of many essential protections that would evaporate in Mike Lee’s America. The same legal theory Lee uses to impugn child labor laws applies equally to the federal minimum wage and the ban on whites-only lunch counters. And Lee doesn’t even stop there. In a subsequent section of the lecture, Lee attacks President Franklin Roosevelt for calling for the federal government to provide “a decent retirement plan” and “health care” because “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress any of those powers.”

Keep in mind when Lee talks about the Bill of Rights, conservatives like himself bitterly opposed them and fought them every step of the way, threatening to break up the young nation over them! The litany of things in Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights he spews out is something most normal Americans would aspire to. To Lee and his fellow conservatives-- and to the rightist grassroots over which Virginia Foxx will be presiding-- this is all blasphemy.