"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Friday, February 11, 2011
So Many Retirements... But Still No Clarity From Lynn Woolsey
>
About a week ago I got a fundraising letter from Lynn Woolsey. I didn't realize at the time that she might be concerned because one of her patrons, well-connected conservative Big Business shill Jane Harman, was getting ready to announce her retirement from Congress. And I was surprised because since Christmas Eve we've had reason to believe that Woolsey might be retiring herself. At the time, I wrote:
Bye-bye, Lynn Woolsey?
Lynn Woolsey has done more to retard the effective development of the Congressional Progressive Caucus than anyone else in Congress. As the caucus's co-chair, she sowed the kind of dissension and discord that have marked her entire political career. Long before she made herself famous by undermining the efforts of Raúl Grijalva to forge the CPC into an effective fighting force and long before she backed Blue Dog and warmonger Jane Harman against progressive activist Marcy Winograd-- and long before becoming addled by her addiction to painkillers-- Woolsey had become such a divisive figure in Sonoma County politics that the Petaluma City Council did everything it could to "kick her upstairs" into an open congressional seat and get her out of their hair. It looks like she may actually retire now and get out of the way of real progressive change at a time it is most needed. It won't happen fast enough! (Imagine Norman Solomon replacing her!)
Since then we've seen a spate of resignation announcements, even besides Harman's high-handed-- albeit long overdue-- departure to the Woodrow Wilson Center. Another GOP hypocrite and pervert, this time Family Values imbecile, Chris Lee from the suburbs between Buffalo and Rochester, got caught trying to lure young women on Craig's List and possibly other social networking sites. Boehner, who has his own problems with adulterous relationships (yes, plural), forced him to resign within hours. Zero Tolerance (for freshmen). Yesterday, Arizona right-wing fanatic Jon Kyle announced, as many expected, he wouldn't be running for reelection to the Senate on 2012. The vultures are circling-- in DC and AZ.
Before that, conservative Virginia Democrat Jim Webb also said he wouldn't be running again, probably handing the Senate seat to his former political party and ideological brethren and now there's Mubarak... maybe. Aside from offering Harold Ford a veritable buffet of relocation opportunities, all these resignations are potentially extremely healthy. But not necessarily. Omar Suleiman would mean an extension of the illegitimate tyrannical regime in Egypt with an even worse overlord than Mubarak. Yes, worse; much worse. Arizona's Neo-Nazi state Senate President Russell Pearce, could wind up as a U.S. Senator; even Dirk Diggler could in that screwed up, dysfunctional state. And the Democrats who might run are mostly anti-immigrant conservatives whose most endearing features are that they're not as bad as the Republicans. Blue Dog Gabby Giffords was planning on running against Kyl before she was gunned down by a teabag terrorist. (Exceptions-- in a good way-- are progressives Andrei Cherny and Kyrsten Sinema.) Nothing good will come of Webb's retirement.
The two brightest spots would be to replace the warmonger and conservative Harman with Marcy Winograd or Debra Bowen in southern California and replace Lynn Woolsey, speaking of dysfunctional, with Norman Solomon. Norman looks like a perfect Blue America candidate but he won't be the only Democrat running for that Marin/Sonoma County seat-- which went to Obama in 2008 with a staggering 76%. Conservative Democrat Joe Nation probably is salivating at the prospect and it looks like Assemblyman Jared Huffman will see this as a lovely career opportunity. Ditto for Assemblywoman Noreen Evans. She and Huffman are both decent Democrats-- but would either provide the strong progressive leadership the district could offer (and deserves)? Solomon sure could.
Streams Of Consciousness, Christmas Eve Edition: Korea, Belarus, Jim Messina, et al.
>
Despite a disastrous meeting between White House political hack Jim Messina-- a kind of dense and clueless Rahm Emanuel sleazebag-- and the Democracy Alliance, a group of top progressive heavy donors (many vowing to never give another dime after hearing the White House's tone-deaf look forward, which apparently didn't include anything about job creation and didn't even mention the word "jobs"), the White House did lay out what many will consider a Christmas present for the nation yesterday, even before a major staff reshuffle. Not as likely to generate headlines as the success they had in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, getting a reasonable healthcare package passed for the 9-11 first responders, and getting the START Treaty ratified-- none of which impinged on the core demands of government by the Conservative Consensus ruling elite-- the White House reversed Bush's anti-environmental wilderness policy, restoring federal land managers' powers to curb development on vast tracts of America's back country, undoing what conservation groups called a "no more wilderness" policy put in place under Bush.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced on Thursday that the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will again have the authority to set aside large areas of federally owned territory in the West that it deems as deserving of wilderness protection.
It would still be up to Congress to decide whether to grant those areas formal wilderness status, thus putting them off-limits to energy development and other commercial uses on a permanent basis.
An official wilderness designation by law prohibits the building of roads or other structures, or any human activities that would alter the natural landscape, such as farming, logging, mining, or oil and gas drilling.
Hard to imagine either house of Congress getting behind this, though, financially controlled as each is by the extraction and development industries. It'll give us something to write about going forward, though. Already one of the worst special-interest whores in this area, Utah Republican crook-Senator Orrin Hatch denounced the policy shift as a "brazen" attempt by the Obama to usurp congressionalcontrol of wilderness designations. Hard to imagine Salazar fighting hard enough for the change to see it through to the end.
Bye-bye, Lynn Woolsey?
Lynn Woolsey has done more to retard the effective development of the Congressional Progressive Caucus than anyone else in Congress. As the caucus's co-chair, she sowed the kind of dissension and discord that have marked her entire political career. Long before she made herself famous by undermining the efforts of Raúl Grijalva to forge the CPC into an effective fighting force and long before she backed backed Blue Dog and warmonger Jane Harman against progressive acivist Marcy Winograd-- and long before becoming addled by her addiction to painkillers-- Woolsey had become such a divisive figure in Sonoma County politics that the Petaluma City Council did everything it could to "kick her upstairs" into an open congressional seat and get her out of their hair. It looks like she may actually retire now and get out of the way of real progressive change at a time it is most needed. It won't happen fast enough! (Imagine Norman Solomon replacing her!)
Plenty of Crime On Wall Street... And Punishment?
You're more likely to find a reasonable look at that by reading Rolling Stone than the Wall Street Journal, and Matt Taibbi reports on some real movement in bringing the evildoers to justice.
It took more than two years, but there might finally be some capital sentences handed out for crimes committed during the financial crisis. That’s metaphorically speaking, of course. Like the accounting firm Arthur Anderson, whose head was sacrificed during the Enron debacle, the once-proud financial auditing firm Ernst and Young now looks poised to take a spin down the toilet of history thanks to its role in the Lehman Brothers debacle.
New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is about to file civil fraud charges against E&Y for the work it did helping Lehman cook its books during 2007 and 2008.
Taibbi speculates that this suit is curtains for Ernst and Young and "may be the beginning of a series of investigations that ultimately take down the auditors and ratings agencies that made the financial crisis possible. Without accountants and raters signing off on all the bogus derivative math and bad bookkeeping, a lot of this mess would never have happened."
Belarus, A Nazi Hellhole That Never Dealt With Its Dark Past, In The News Again
I'm guessing most Americans couldn't tell you what or where Belarus is if their lives depended on it. The Republicans made the same bet right after World War II when they sponsored the illegal immigration of hundreds of Belarus Nazis to America, most of whom had been involved in extermination of that country's entire Jewish population. They moved to South River, New Jersey, and, contrary to federal law barring Nazis from immigrating, became citizens and staunch Republicans. Their resettlement was a pilot project for the GOP takeover of Florida with fascist Cuban refugees.
Former U.S. government prosecutor and Army intelligence officer John Loftus has a new book exposing the entire project, America's Nazi Secret. Right-wing elements in the State Department, led by the Dulles brothers, with powerful financial and ideological ties to the Nazis were able to subvert President Truman's policies and, once Eisenhower became president, move into high gear in bringing thousands of genocidal war criminals and Nazis from Belarus and Ukraine to America.
Today, never having dealt effectively with its past, Belarus is one of the world's worst authoritarian hellholes, and today the U.S. human rights organization Freedom House called on the European Union and our own country to renew full sanctions against Belarus.
More than 600 people were detained [including five presidential candidates] in the Belarusian capital [Minsk] during a police crackdown on demonstrators after the presidential vote that the opposition said had been rigged.
"The current situation is much worse than that in 2006, when the EU and U.S. together imposed sanctions against the regime," [Freedom House director David] Kramer added.
Western nations, including the United States, called the 2006 presidential elections in Belarus fraudulent and introduced sanctions against the country and travel bans on some Belarusian officials.
[Alexander] Lukashenko, 56, who has ruled Belarus with an iron rod since 1994 and has been dubbed by the United States "Europe's last dictator" for a clampdown on opposition and dissent, won 79.67% of the vote on Sunday. International monitors said the election was "flawed."
The United States and the European Union have called on Belarusian authorities to immediately release opposition activists who were arrested during the protests.
Wiping North Korea Off The Map Would Probably Guarantee Obama A Second Term-- A Popular Idea In Certain Circles
The U.S. won't be distracted by Belarus's fascism when it's busy provoking North Korea into a suicidal attack on South Korea so it can end the Communist regime there once and for all. Watch the video below explaining what's really happening in Korea and then read the U.S. propaganda version in the Washington Post, which is pushing a right-wing American line that South Korea's puppet-president, Lee Myung-bak, "looks weak" by not acting after all his bellicose statements attacking the North and his election promises to reunite the two countries.
Wonderers are wondering how the incredibly popular and respected Donna Edwards missed out on being elected chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus last night. More than a few sources have told me that even after Donna's idea for swapping out the co-chair structure for a single chairmanwoman was voted down, Donna was still in the running-- along with the two eventual winners, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). What did her candidacy in, oddly enough, was the aggressive advocacy by the very much disliked and ineffective outgoing co-chair, Lynn Woolsey. "Her leadership style," she told caucus members all week, "will be just like mine." That was enough to bring in a couple dozen CPC members who normally don't vote in these kinds of caucus meetings and who aren't aware that Donna is nothing like the demented and confused Woolsey (who was originally pushed into Congress by the Petaluma City Council so they could get rid of her).
Her whispering about how the extremely well-liked and admired Grijalva was "impossible to work with," wound up hurting Donna by being associated, albeit unfairly, with Woolsey. The Caucus then went on to elect Hank Johnson (D-GA) whip and 5 vice-Chair/liasons-- Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus), William Lacey Clay (Hispanic & Native American Caucuses), Chellie Pingree (Women's Caucus), Judy Chu (Asian and Pacific American Caucus), and Tammy Baldwin (LGBT Caucus). Grijalva and Ellison issued the following joint statement after their election:
“We are honored to have the opportunity to serve as co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for the 112th Congress. We will work tirelessly to project a progressive vision for America, and to advocate that vision to the American public. Working families deserve a commitment from Congress to look out for their interests every day, and the Progressive Caucus will be on the front lines to honor that commitment.
The 112th Congress will present many challenges and opportunities for this country. As co-chairs, we will advocate for America’s working families and strive to ensure middle class prosperity for generations to come. We will work with President Obama to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and to make peace the guiding principle of our foreign policy. We will be the first to reject and defeat Republican attempts to eliminate benefits for unemployed Americans even as they call for another billionaire bailout. We will continue to work with the broader progressive community to ensure that every American who wants to work can find a good-paying job to support their family. These and other fights will take time and dedication, and we welcome the opportunity to lead the way.
With Republicans promising to scrooge the country out of a secure retirement, our commitment to protect the American middle class will be more important than ever. The American people need effective advocates-- in and outside of Washington-- to restore their faith in their government’s ability and willingness to do the right thing. Over the next two years, Republicans are going to push as hard as they can to cut programs that the American people depend on, like Social Security, and the Progressive Caucus will be out in front reminding them that Congress works for all of the American people, not just the top tax bracket. We stand ready to take on these important fights, and intend to win them decisively. America deserves no less.”
I saw some interesting responses from Democratic insiders over the 234-188 passage of the middle class tax cuts extension today. (We'll have an analysis of this vote up at 6AM.) One congressional buddy of mine told me he thinks if the vote had been taken before the midterms many Democrats who were defeated could have run on it and kept their seats. The Blue Dogs who told Hoyer they would lose if it was voted on before the midterms lost anyway, over two dozen of the most worthless and scummiest of them-- many of whom voted against the middle class tax cuts anyway today.
Obama, who Matt Bai reported today in the NY Times privately considers himself a Blue Dog, had an absolutely dreadful reaction to the passage of the bill. My friend Brad Reed from Crooks and Liars, in a fit of rage, e-mailed me a simple statement Obama should have made after the vote: "The House has already passed an extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans. This is an urgent matter for many families and deserves an up-or-down vote. If the Republicans want to filibuster this bill and raise taxes on the entire country just so Paris Hilton can afford a new pool, that's their business. But I'm not working for Paris Hilton. I'm working for 98% of the country." It could have been tweaked a bit, but you get the idea. Instead this is the statement Obama issued, completely stabbing Pelosi and the House Democrats in the back:
“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension. But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward. Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon. The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”
Another in a long series of botched "negotiations" from an inept political department in the White House.
Roll Call ran this today: "While the White House and Republicans have all but agreed to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts for several years, House and Senate Democrats are still resisting that arrangement. Additionally, while those broad parameters may be settled, what other pieces of the puzzle will be included-- such as unemployment insurance or a set of tax cuts included in last year’s stimulus bill-- have yet to be determined." Like I said this morning, this wimp we put in the White House is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.
Meanwhile the DCCC was somewhat more proactive than the White House. When Obama ran in 2008, he beat McCain in Dave Reichert's suburban Seattle district 57-42%, one of his top performances in a Republican-held congressional district anywhere. Reichert scraped by with 53%. This year, even with the GOP tidal wave, he only scored the same shaky 53% against a political novice Suzan DelBene. Today he voted against extending middle class tax cuts. This is, in part, what the DCCC sent out to media in his district:
Even as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to afford gas, groceries, and housing, today Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans voted to give 98 percent of middle class families the one thing they need the least right now-- a hike in their taxes.
Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans’ vote against middle class tax relief comes weeks after Republican Leader John Boehner said he would support extending tax relief only to the middle class. Yet, rather than provide tax relief that will help struggling families make ends meet and small businesses to hire more workers, Representative Dave Reichert is holding these tax cuts hostage to provide tax breaks to millionaires.
“Instead of giving immediate tax relief to 98 percent of middle class families and small businesses who need it the most, Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans are fighting to give tax breaks to those who need them the least,” said Ryan Rudominer of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It’s outrageous that Representative Dave Reichert would vote to raise taxes on 98 percent of Americans during these tough times instead of doing everything possible to help families make ends meet and businesses to create more jobs.”
The measure includes:
o A permanent extension of the 10%, 25% and 28% rate brackets. It also permanently extends the 33% rate bracket to the extent that this bracket applies to income of $200,000 or less for single filers ($250,000 or less for joint filers).
o A two-year extension of alternative minimum tax relief to protect more than 25 million families from the AMT.
o A permanent reduction in capital gains and dividend tax relief for middle-class taxpayers.
o A permanent marriage penalty relief for middle-class taxpayers.
o A permanent extension of small business expensing amounts, to ensure that small business taxpayers be allowed to quickly recover the cost of certain capital expenses.
The DCCC sent similar press releases out to the media in districts that include Republican leaders like Boehner, Pence, Sessions and Cantor, as well as to districts where Obama did well in 2008, like those represented by Judy Biggert (IL-13), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Paul Ryan (WI-01), Aaron Schock (IL-18), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Leonard Lance (NJ-07) and several others.
Of course they didn't send similar press releases to media in eastern Oklahoma, where Dan Boren crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against these tax cuts, nor in western Minnesota, where another Blue Dog, Collin Peterson, did exactly the same thing. And California conservatives who voted against middle class tax cuts, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson were spared as well. There's never any price to pay for these kinds of outrageous votes within the caucus. Ironic how the DCCC just spent $1,031,192.02 in Independent Expenditures saving McNerney, in a district where Democrats and left-leaning independents stayed away from the polls in droves because of his conservative voting record-- a conservative voting record that attracted no conservatives whatsoever, of course. They all voted for the Republican. McNerney barely won, and only after a tense recanvas and even then only with a margin of just over around 600 votes, one of the closest calls for any victorious incumbent in the country.
Rangel Gets Censured
Charlie's such a likable guy. I was cheering to see so many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus voting against censure today. And then to see one of Congress' most corrupt Republicans, Alaska career criminal Don Young, vote NO gave me a warm feeling for that old reprobate as well. But then I caught myself and reminded myself that even though the deck was stacked in Rangel's favor in terms of a real investigation and the charges he was found guilty of were technical and almost silly, he is the worst of what our political system vomits up. He's as crooked as Jerry Lewis. He's as crooked as Ken Calvert. How do I know? I know-- I know first hand. Let's leave it at that so I don't wind up as a witness at a real trial one day. The censure vote went against him 333-79, although a chastened (chastened for getting caught and disgraced, not chastened for being a crook) Rangel got a standing ovation after he was censured.
Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clarke voted against censure. This was her statement:
“Today, the House of Representatives took a vote on a resolution to censure Rep. Charles B. Rangel after the House Ethics Committee found him in violation of 11 counts of violating the House Rules of Conduct. After a thorough consideration of all the charges and the recommendation from the Committee, I have decided not to vote in support of censuring Congressman Rangel.
“Congressman Rangel has publicly taken full responsibility for his conduct over the years that violated House Rules. However, as it stands with Rep. Rangel, the Committee did not find any proof of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or acting for personal gain. His violations were primarily a result of improper, bad and inaccurate recordkeeping in regards to his financial affairs. While these are serious offenses to House Rules, Rep. Rangel’s actions are not consistent with the precedents in which Members of Congress have been censured.
“The precedent of censure used by the House Ethics Committee has been raised to the level of such offenses as improper sexual misconduct, were convicted in a court of law, or presented false statements to the Standard of Official Conduct Committee. Censure has been used exactly four times in the last 100 years because it is a severe penalty. It is not an appropriate penalty in the case of Rep. Rangel. I believe that Rep. Rangel should have been considered for a less charge that would be appropriate to his violations. This is precisely why I voted yes for a resolution offered by Rep. Bobby Scott, which substituted a penalty of reprimand for that of censure. I strongly believe that his punishment over exceeded his offense.
“Congressman Rangel has been vocal in taking responsibility of his actions and has taken steps to rectify the faulty financial disclosure paper work or any other the violations. I strongly believe that Congressman Rangel’s service to our nation and his district will remain in history for years to come. I am confident that despite the circumstances, he will continue to be an effective legislator.”
Issa
I can't wait for Darrell Issa, who Boehner is appointing to head the House Oversight Committee in January, to start issuing subpoenas. He plans to spend the next two years bothering Democrats with typically Republican frivolous investigations... he says he has 500 planned. That's almost one a day! The reason I'm so excited about Issa's subpoenas is because he's another GOP career criminal-- started as a common car thief-- albeit a serial car thief-- and never stopped. He's now the richest man in Congress and when he was subpoenaed for his role in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, he refused to submit to the subpoena. We'll be reminding Democrats of this regularly. And so will Issa Exposed, the new Everything Issa website, that launched this afternoon.
Bachmann Overdrive
Driving home last night I was listening to Mike Malloy. The guys so awesome but he really got carried away with his fantasy of angry Everymen running into Congress and dragging Republicans out of their offices and bearing them (to death, but he never said that; he's no dummy). Now Minnesota religious fanatic/teabag queen (self proclaimed) Michele Bachmann... she's a dummy. Today she was yowling about an insurrection again. She told some religious-right website that there will be a need for an insurrection-- but she wasn't just talking about Obama. She now has a grudge against Boehner and his cronies.
[T]here will need to be an “insurrection” against the House Republican leadership if it does not hold an independent, straight up-or-down vote on repealing the entire Obamacare law that does not tie this repeal to other policy initiatives including any effort to “replace” elements of Obamacare with new federal health-care reforms.
A spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), who will be the House majority leader in the next Congress, told CNSNews.com in response to Bachmann’s statement that Cantor agrees with Bachmann and is committed to the vote she wants.
Did You Kick In For Bernie Sanders Yet?
Obama's got to be primaried. He froze out Hope. Krugman wrote today Democrats have no choice but to look elsewhere for leadership:
After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?
On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking-- successfully, it seems-- to destroy him.
So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of.
...there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. Just as a reminder, over the next 75 years the cost of making those tax cuts permanent would be roughly equal to the entire expected financial shortfall of Social Security. Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands-- to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.
But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.
There were no comparable gestures from the other side. Instead, Senate Republicans declared that none of the rest of the legislation on the table-- legislation that includes such things as a strategic arms treaty that’s vital to national security-- would be acted on until the tax-cut issue was resolved, presumably on their terms.
It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure-- that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.
The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?
What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.
Does Nigeria Have An Extradition Treaty With America?
Who wants to see Dick Cheney spend the rest of his life in prison? In Nigeria?
California Progressive Caucus Slams Lynn Woolsey Support For Blue Dog Jane Harman
>
Did Marcy Winograd make that sign? Jane Harman sure didn't
A few days ago we mentioned that Lynn Woolsey, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, had decided to do a fundraiser for Blue Dog Jane Harman. Harman, the wealthiest Democrat in the House, has supported Woolsey in the past and perhaps Woolsey felt that that overshadowed Harman's consistent support for the Bush agenda, especially all things related to war, but also including Bush's domestic priorities, like the bankruptcy bill that makes life almost unbearable for so many victims of medical and health insurance catastrophes. That doesn't make her a bad person; but it does make her a bad co-chair for the Progressive Caucus. She should resign from that.
Woolsey is also on the board of PDA and yesterday they publicly excoriated her for backing Harman. They pointed out that she was "conferring on the Harman campaign is something far more valuable than an appeal for financial donations (which, given her vast personal wealth, are hardly needed). Your title of Progressive Caucus Co-Chair will be useful to the Harman campaign as it labors to give Democratic primary voters the false impression that she can be called 'progressive' in any meaningful sense of the word."
Along those same lines, yesterday the California Progressive Caucus sent all their members the following letter:
Dear Progressive Caucus Members,
Last week, we received the unfortunate news that a stalwart ally of progressive Democrats everywhere has come out to give her support to one of the worst Blue Dogs in the House. Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Lynn Woolsey has decided to appear at a fundraiser for war hawk Jane Harman (CA 36) this Saturday, in a part of the district that last time turned out strongly for Marcy Winograd, a much loved and respected member of our own Progressive Caucus. Marcy is challenging Jane again and this time, the ‘powers that be’ have wasted no time in implementing a plan which includes character assassination on the one hand to whip up a McCarthy-like hysteria among a targeted demographic in the district, and a cynical divide and conquer strategy on the other, in an attempt to cut into the base of support that is apparent for Marcy. While we understand the politics of well, politics, what caught all of us off guard was the matter of degree to which the situation has so far transpired and most disappointingly, the way ‘one of our own’ obliged the Harman campaign without considering the consequences of her actions.
We have received quite a few emails asking us to respond as officers of the Caucus. We thank everyone for contacting us. This is indeed an important development that warrants a serious and thoughtful response. On behalf of the CDP’s Progressive Caucus Executive Board, the following letter has been sent to Congresswoman Woolsey. We hope you agree that it reflects the collective view of our Caucus membership.
Faithfully yours,
Karen Bernal Chair, Progressive Caucus, CDP
And this is what they sent to Woolsey herself:
January 13, 2010
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey 2263 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 354 San Rafael, CA. 94903
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey 1101 College Avenue, Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Dear Congresswoman Woolsey,
We, the officers of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, are your constituents, both in your district, and throughout the rest of California. We are your friends, your ardent supporters through your long and distinguished career and consider ourselves your progressive colleagues in the California Democratic Party. We have worked for the same agenda inside the Democratic Party as you pushed for in Congress. We turned out and worked on the ground to defeat your primary opponent several years ago, motivated by a deep admiration for the leadership you have shown on many issues dear to Progressives, and we have been reliable campaign contributors along the way.
We write to express our strong disappointment in your decision to support the re-election campaign of Jane Harman, an undistinguished, scandal-ridden conservative, over Marcy Winograd, a true and longstanding progressive. We understand that Harman has recently moved slightly left in an attempt to keep her seat. After the election, however, we expect her to revert to her blue-dog ways and oppose much of your (and our) legislative agenda. Marcy, on the other hand, is a certain vote for the progressive legislation you and we have fought for: an end to two wars, Medicare for all, reform of the banking system, a civil liberties renaissance, etc. To us, it should be an easy moral as well as political choice: replace a blue-dog with another member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
While we do not relish having to write to you over this matter, we are more astonished to find ourselves in the position of having to express how damaging we feel your appearance at this event would be to the credibility and reputation of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the health of the progressive movement in the Democratic Party (which could be made either precarious or robust, depending on the actions of those representatives we deem most important, such as yourself), and all who would call themselves Progressive Democrats. Numerous articles have been written on the subject of the wandering soul of our Party as of late, and as progressives in the largest state party in the nation, we would hope you would recognize the context in which your actions will certainly be judged.
We know that you are committed to this fundraiser. If you won’t withdraw from that event, we ask that you appear at a similar event for Marcy Winograd in your district.
Sincerely, and hopefully,
Karen Bernal, Chair, AD 5, CD 5 Mal Burnstein, NoCal Vice-Chair, AD 14, CD 9 Ahjamu Makalani, SoCal Vice-Chair, AD 61, CD 43 Dotty LeMieux, Secretary, AD 6, CD 6 Ralph Miller, Treasurer, AD 6, CD 6 Jeffrey Killeen, Parliamentarian, AD 27, CD 14 Mayme Hubert, Officer-at-Large, AD 6, CD 6 Dr. Bill Honigman, Officer-at-Large, AD 73, CD 48 J Brian Washman, Officer-at-Large, AD 4, CD 4
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party 24 Riverpebble Ct Sacramento CA 95833 916.359.2151 info@ProgressiveCaucusCDP.org
In a few hours Blue America will officially endorse Marcy Winograd for the congressional seat representing CA-36 and she will join us a CrooksAndLiars.com at 10AM (PT)> I hope you can come too. Meanwhile, please consider donating to Marcy's campaign.
Marcy has been slandered by Harman supporters who like to whisper about some anti-Israel plot. Listen to Marcy in her own words about the Middle East:
UPDATE: Anti-War Movement Dismayed By Woolsey's Betrayal
Jane Harman has never seen a war she didn't like or a crime by anyone important that she couldn't excuse. When caught on a warrantless wiretap by the Bush-Cheney gang conspiring with representatives of the Israeli government against her own, Harman chose to allow herself to be blackmailed. She pressured the New York Times to keep the story of warrantless spying programs secret until Bush could get into a second term as president. Harman's loyalty is not to the wishes of her constituents, not to the political fate of her party (the Democrats) and not to her country. In other words she's a model congress member.
Lynn Woolsey, another Democratic congress member, from Northern California, sometimes-- in fact more than almost anyone else-- votes against her party's leadership but with her constituents and the majority of Americans. She votes for peace, justice, decency, and good governance. But just about the only thing she does is vote right. And all of her good votes are countered by someone like Jane Harman, who always votes the worst way she can manage.
I like Lynn Woolsey. She has good intentions. She's spoken at peace rallies. She and I have spoken together at the same peace rallies. I've made a website to raise money for her. But I spoke up in her district last week, and her constituents cheered when I denounced what she was planning to do in Los Angeles.
A crowd of people was protesting yesterday outside a fundraiser for Harman, according to the report I got from my friend, Ray McGovern. And they were progressive activists, the same people who usually cheer for Woolsey when they see her. Now they were protesting her action, and she had to run the gauntlet to enter the event. According to Ray, Congresswoman Woolsey kept her eyes on the ground and gave the appearance of a criminal being paraded before the cameras after being convicted of some highly embarrassing crime. When she passed by him, Ray said "I am very disappointed in you, Lynn," but she wouldn’t look at him. When she reached the door, Woolsey raised her fist in triumph, as if to say "I made it through you nonviolent peacenik riff-raff, hurrah!"
It was an accomplishment not much less significant than any of Woolsey's accomplishments as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
Several caucuses in Congress behave as caucuses. The Blue Dog Caucus, for example, has been known to tell the congressional leadership that its members will vote against a piece of legislation unless it is made worse in certain specified ways. And so it is. These other caucuses are taken seriously and have an impact because they don't just say things. They do things. They threaten to vote No if they don't get their way, and they follow through. The CPC has never ever ever done that. As a result it is universally ignored, despite being the largest so-called caucus in Congress.
...What more would I have Lynn Woolsey and every other so-called progressive member of Congress do? I would have them do what you or I would do if we were there: publicly commit to voting No on war money ahead of time, publicly and privately lobby and pressure colleagues and leadership to do the same, vote No on the procedural votes that allow the policy votes, quit monkeying around with bills that express displeasure or which will never pass the Senate and be signed into law, and focus instead relentlessly and uncompromisingly on blocking the funding in the House. An all-out peace advocate would not raise money for Jane Harman, but would instead publicly shame Jane Harman's funders and call for a criminal investigation of both Harman and her blackmailers.
An all-out peace advocate in Congress would be exactly like... well, exactly like Marcy Winograd. Marcy is a brilliant, outspoken, hardworking, and principled activist citizen challenging Jane Harman in an electoral primary and scaring her into whatever pressure it is she put on Lynn Woolsey that brought her down to Los Angeles to provide "progressive" cover. If Lynn Woolsey wanted progressive change, rather than merely progressive branding and imagery, she would be standing shoulder to shoulder with Marcy Winograd. Fortunately, I get the impression that a great many Angelenos and Americans are principled, decent, and sophisticated enough to support Woolsey when she does right and oppose her when she does wrong, and to overwhelm her misplaced advocacy with our support, donations, and volunteer time for the woman who will be the leader of the fight for the people's views against the corporate agenda in the 112th Congress, Marcy Winograd.
Lynne Woolsey Betrays Progressive Movement-- Raises Money For Blue Dog Jane Harman
>
Would it shock you if Jim Matheson of Utah, co-chair of the congressional Blue Dog Caucus, did a fundraiser for Donna Edwards (D-MD), one of Washington's most stalwart fighters for working families? Don't worry; that's one shock you're not likely to ever have to live through. Instead, please consider the implications of this invitation that southern California progressives got found in their in-boxes yesterday:
Most people who have heard her stumbling along trying to sound like she has a clue what she's talking about already know that Lynne Woolsey is the House's version of what Arkansas reactionary Mark Pryor told Bill Maher about the qualifications-- or lack thereof-- to be a senator. Watch, to get a flavor and imagine the giggling chimp with a wig:
Lynne Woolsey is among the two dozen most progressive voters in the House, not exactly Raul Grijalva, Donna Edwards, Jan Schakowsky, Tammy Baldwin, Linda Sánchez, John Olver, or John Conyers, but she's almost always on the side of progressives when it comes to voting. In fact, her ProgressivePunch lifetime score on substantive matters (93.53) is more than 20 points higher than the Blue Dog she endorsed (71.52). And if Jane Harman has strayed back towards voting with the Republicans lately-- her score since Obama was elected is a pretty dismal 62.30-- it's because she forgot the close call she was dealt in 2006 when progressive activist and L.A. community leader Marcy Winograd nearly upset California's female Joe Lieberman in a primary, the woman who bragged that she is "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." After her brush with political death, Harman started acting more like a Democrat and better representing her district. That lasted about a year and a half. After Marcy didn't challenge her in 2008, she slipped right back into full-fledged reactionary Blue Dog mode.
If she were a far right Likud candidate for the Israeli Knesset, her disgraceful activities would make more sense than they do for a highly educated, strongly Democratic Los Angeles district (where Obama beat McCain 64-34%). Harman supports a wide range of Republican policies that Woolsey has always opposed-- from the Iraq War, the anti-family/pro-bankster bankruptcy bill, and abolishing the estate tax to warrantless wiretaps (except the ones that expose her as an Israeli spy) and offering "special treatment" to defense contractors. She is widely considered to be the least trustworthy and most disliked Democrats in the House by her fellow Democrats. And Lynne Woolsey understands that completely.
Is this how the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus builds a progressive movement? Marcy Winograd is in a tight primary race against Harman. It may be too much to expect Woolsey to campaign for Winograd but endorsing the Blue Dog who is consistently voting against-- and working behind the scenes against-- everything the Progressive Caucus is supposed to stand for? Then they wonder why no one takes them seriously? Woolsey should be relieved of her position as co-chair and made to write on the blackboard, "I am an asshole clown" 5 billion times. Short of that, how about making a donation to Marcy Winograd's campaign on the anti-Blue Dogs page, in the hopes that she'll win, get into Congress, join the Progressive Caucus and beat Woolsey in the next co-chair election. She'd certainly do a better job!
If anyone plans to picket this event, please let us know-- and take pictures of Lynne and Jane together. Meanwhile, I know-- since I did it myself-- that Woolsey's staffers just love hearing from pissed off progressives about her betrayal. Here are the numbers. Please be polite-- and firm:
Washington DC Office: 202-225-5161 Fax: 202-225-5163
District Offices:
Marin Office: 1050 Northgate Drive Suite 354 San Rafael, CA. 94903 Ph.: 415-507-9554 Fax: 415-507-9601
Sonoma Office: 1101 College Avenue Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Ph.: 707-542-7182 Fax: 707-542-2745
LYNN WOOLSEY TAKES A REAL LEADERSHIP STAND-- TELLS PROGRESSIVES TO TAKE ON REACTIONARY INCUMBENTS
>
Unlike Insider Democratic leadership figures like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) is serious about ending the occupation of Iraq and bringing our troops home and she's serious about supporting core Democratic values. How serious? According to today's Hill, on a conference call organized by the Network of Spiritual Progressives Rep. Woolsey urged progressives to "go after Democrats" who vote with Bush on key issues. “I’d hate to lose the majority, but I’m telling you, if we don’t stand up to our responsibility, maybe that’s the lesson to be learned.”
The activists strongly criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for failing to meet with them and not doing enough to stop funding the war. Moran [Virginia Congressman Jim Moran was also on the call] pushed back, arguing that Pelosi’s heart was with them but that she was constrained by political reality within the House Democratic Caucus and the Senate.
“We’ve got too many risk-averse members,” Moran said. “[Pelosi] really is trying. She doesn’t have the votes; she doesn’t even have the complete support of some of the leadership [referring to surreptitious war supporters Hoyer and Emanuel].
“If you heard the caucuses that are not public and could hear the arguments that she makes to sway some of the conservative members, I think you’d be much more impressed with her.”
Ever since the voters gave the Democrats the majority in the House, individual Democrats-- including even the most reactionary Blue Dogs-- have tended to move in a more unified direction. The Congressional Quarterly Party Unity scores among Democrats has tended to go up. At the same time, Republican unity has been collapsing, even among their most die-hard extremists.
Let's take a look at the dozen most reactionary non-freshmen Democrats and the dozen Republicans who are the least extremist. According the Progressive Punch's meticulous scoring, the two dozen most right-of-center Democrats and least extremist Republicans (again, freshmen excluded) are: DEMOCRATS (in order of how often they vote with the Republicans) Gene Taylor (MS) 69/73- the only exception but he is in reality a Republican inside the Democratic caucus Bud Cramer (AL) 86/60 Collin Peterson (MN) 85/63 Dan Boren (OK) 75/54 Ike Skelton (MO) 90/75 Allen Boyd (FL) 90/67 Mike McIntyre (NC) 84/74 John Tanner (TN) 83/74 Jim Marshall (GA) 72/65 Jim Matheson (UT) 75/66 Tim Holden (PA) 90/79 John Barrow (GA) 71/65
REPUBLICANS (most extremely vulnerable to defeat for rubber stampism) Christopher Shays (CT) 66/77 Rodney Alexander (LA) 84/97 Ron Paul (TX) 84/68 (the only significant GOP exception, complicated by a presidential run) Chris Smith (NJ) 59/72 Mike Castle (DE) 66/77 Wayne Gilchrest (MD) 52/75 Dave Reichert (WA) 70/80 Tim Johnson (IL) 66/79 Frank LoBiondo (NJ) 62/73 Jim Ramstad (MN) 73/70 Charlie Dent (PA) 73/81 Jim Gerlach (PA) 71/70
The first number represents the party loyalty rating for the 2006 session and the second number represents the loyalty rating for the 2004 session. Notice that Democrats have gotten far more loyal while Republicans have abandoned their party positions much more frequently.
Now, back to Congresswoman Woolsey's suggestion. In the current session of Congress, the Democrats with the lowest loyalty scores are Gene Taylor (MS)- 69 in a solidly Republican district (R+16) John Barrow (GA) -71 in a swing district (R+2) Jim Marshall (GA)- 72 in a Republican district (R+ 8) Heath Shuler (NC)- 73 in a Republican district (R+ 7) Jason Altmire (PA)- 74 in a swing district (R+ 2) Dan Boren (OK)- 75 in a Republican-leaning district (R+ 5) Jim Matheson (UT)- 75 in a solidly Republican district (R+ 17) Joe Donnelly (IN)- 76 in a Republican-leaning district (R+4) Brad Ellsworth (IN)- 76 in a Republican district (R+8) Nick Lampson (TX)- 78 in a solidly Republican district (R+14) Chris Carney (PA)- 79 in a Republican district (R+8) Melissa Bean (IL)- 81 in a Republican-leaning (R+5) Harry E. Mitchell (AZ)- 82 in a Republican-leaning district (R+4)
I suspect a primary challenge to someone like Gene Taylor would be fruitless and even if we could defeat him in a primary, we would be handing the district to a much worse-- as hard as that is to believe-- Republican. Far better to concentrate on Republican-leaning districts (or Democratic districts, though, as you see, there are none on this list) and back strong primary opponents to reactionary Democrats in them. Jane Harman has been acting more like a Democrat since her unpleasant primary last year. Even Ellen Tauscher has been behaving better just because of a credible threat of a primary. Al Wynn has done a 180 degree turn to try to blunt Donna Edwards' powerful challenge. Last week we talked with Mark Pera, the progressive challenger to Bush Dog Dan Lipinski. That's the exact kind of race we should be working in. It's a solidly Democratic district and Lipinski votes with the Republicans far too frequently. On top of that, his loyalty score is in the bottom third of Democrats. You can give Mark's campaign a boost at our Blue America page if you're so inclined.
