Paul Hodes Voted Against The No-Strings-Attached Bush Wall Street Bailout That Judd Gregg Helped Push Through The Senate

Before she ruined it by declaring her fealty to Wall Street, backing more tax breaks for millionaires, Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan mounted a beautiful attack on corrupt GOP hack Roy Blunt, the Architect of the TARP Bailout. Carnahan wasn't in Congress late in 2008 when the Bush Administration stampeded most Members of Congress to vote for a multibillion dollar no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout. They used the shock doctrine and persuaded most of them that if the bailout didn't go forward the whole worldwide financial system would fall apart. Most Senate Republicans-- 34 of them, in fact-- voted for the bailout, including such "conservative" stalwarts Richard Burr (R-NC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Cornyn (R-TX), John McCain (R-AZ), John Kyl (R-AZ), John Thune (R-SD), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)... while true blue progressives like Russ Feingold (D-WI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted NO and warned about the consequences of giving the band of crooks around Bush and on Wall Street-- as though there was a distinction-- so much unregulated access to taxpayer money.

The bill failed in the House but a week later Republican leaders John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, David Dreier, etc forced enough Republicans to switch their votes to pass the most wasteful and ill-conceived bailout in history. As I mentioned above, North Carolina "conservative"-- if "conservative means you take massive bribes from Wall Street and Big Business and then just let them decide how you're voting-- Richard Burr was an avid bailout supporter. Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling thinks that's part of why Burr could turn out to be the one Republican Senate incumbent to lose his seat in November.

58% of voters said they were less likely to vote for someone who had supported the bailout to only 25% who said more likely.

The big question now is whether Democrats can take advantage of these unpopular votes. There are three main places I can see it helping:

-The Undecideds. In the Missouri race 74% of undecideds said a candidate supporting the bailout would have a negative impact on their vote to only 6% positive. It's a similar story in North Carolina where 57% of the undecideds say less likely to only 20% more likely. If Blunt and Burr can be turned into the bailout candidates in those races it may help bring the folks who haven't made up their minds yet into the Democratic column.

-Make Republicans Depressed. The most interesting thing about the bailout numbers in Missouri and North Carolina is the voters who react most negatively to it are the ones supporting Blunt and Burr who supported it in Congress. Among Blunt voters 88% are less likely to vote for someone who voted for the bailout to 5% more likely and among Burr voters it's 85% less likely and 7% more likely. I don't know how many of those voters can be converted into the Democratic column but relentless attack on the issue could leave GOP voters unhappy with their candidates and staying home, which might help with the Democrats' enthusiasm gap issues.

-Flip Independents. One of Robin Carnahan and Elaine Marshall's common problems is a deficit with independents. Carnahan trails Blunt by 5 with them while Marshall is down 19. But those same voters react extremely negatively to the bailout- 19/66 in North Carolina and 25/61 in Missouri. If Carnahan and Marshall can convince independent voters, who are madder at the system than anyone, that they are the alternatives to business as usual in Washington it could go a long way.

Though they are both on record opposing any no-strings-attached bailouts and are clear that they would not have voted for them, both Carnahan and Marshall are Secretaries of State and neither had to cast a vote. Paul Hodes, who's running for the open Senate seat in New Hampshire, however, was in Congress-- and he did vote-- twice. And despite pressure to do otherwise, Hodes voted against the bailout twice. The reason the seat is now open is because New Hampshire's senior senator, Republican Judd Gregg is retiring rather than face an angry electorate-- angry because he voted for the bailout. In New Hampshire, voters can either listen to the yowlings of Republican activists hopped up on Fox News who claim Paul Hodes is... [fill in the blank, since they're trying anything and everything], or they can look at his voting record. Unlike scores of so-called conservative Republicans, Hodes voted NO on the bailout and was one of the leaders in Congress against earmarks and one of the leaders in the battle to end all tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs overseas. His first TV ad of the season makes the point (and he wrote and performed the music):



UPDATE: Meanwhile Republicans Continue To Tear Each Other Apart With Negative Campaigning

One radical right kook goes after another, more corrupt, radical right kook:

Eric Cantor & Spencer Baucus Give It To Ron Paul-- Without Lube

It was a little complicated following the intricacies of the last minute-- PLANNED last minute-- voting in the House last week. No one is ever going to persuade me that Pelosi and Hoyer and the rest of the Democratic leadership didn't confront the fact that they couldn't find enough votes to support Obama's Afghanistan war supplemental without domestic funding (since Democrats would desert) or with domestic funding (since Republicans would desert) so that they took the trickery route, confusing everyone into voting for a Rule that, in effect, authorized the war spending. Really disgusting!

But there was another vote I couldn't understand, Wednesday's GOP Motion to Recommit the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (HR 4173). What tipped me off that something was amiss was that aside from the usual cast of reactionary Blue Dogs crossing the aisle and voting with the Republicans, a couple of reform-minded Democrats who are very much in favor of Wall Street reform-- Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Paul Hodes (D-NH)-- each of whom turned around and voted for the bill's passage a few minutes later, voted to recommit. I think I understand it now. It was another move by the transpartisan ruling elite getting it two most loyal handmaidens, in this case, Eric Cantor (R-VA), who's taken $4,148,935 from the Finance Sector, and Spencer Bachus (R-AL), who's taken $4,338,674-- to make sure the weaker Audit the Fed language in the Senate bill would win out over the much stronger House language that Ron Paul was behind.

Remember, there were nearly 150 Democratic co-sponsors and just about every single Republican-- even opponents like Cantor and Bachus-- paying it lip service. So when it was announced that HR 4173 would be coming for a vote, Cantor and Bachus called Boehner at his tanning salon and told an aide they wanted to pull a fast one on Ron Paul and all the Paulistas who were ruining Cantor's latest parlor game: You Cut. The Paulistas have been flooding the voting with audit the Fed demands, driving Cantor bonkers. So, without informing Ron Paul-- let alone the 150 Democrats who co-sponsored it-- Cantor and Bachus introduced the Motion to Recommit with an instruction to put the House language back in the Wall Street Reform. And then they proceeded to vote on it without a debate or even an announcement of what it was.

Hodes and Grayson figured it out but Hoyer was definitely working and-in-glove with Cantor, Boehner and Bachus to get rid of the language that would have allowed audits going forward, not just audits looking backward (which is what the Senate passed). But no one else did. It explains why every single Republican voted for the motion, as they always do, but that the Democratic co-sponsors, for the most part didn't. Had Cantor allowed Ron Paul to introduce it or had Bachus mentioned what was in the motion, it would have been easy to find another 14 Democrats to vote YES. But that isn't what anyone wanted. So instead we get this bizarre vote with 21 conservative, mostly Blue Dog, Democrats voting, as they always do, with the GOP-- plus the two reformers, Grayson and Hodes. It failed 198-229, despite virtually the whole country-- and most Members of Congress-- wanting it to pass.

Heroes and Villains In Last Night's Healthcare Votes

Out of step with American families: 2 dangerous clowns against healthcare-- Calvert & Ryan

I can't imagine that anyone who reads DWT doesn't already know that the two substantive votes on healthcare reform last night were won by the Democrats-- and the American people-- 219-212 and 220-211. The conservatives and their Republican Party right-roots, brainwashed by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are predicting the same kind of Armageddon and communism and fascism and every kind of doom under the sky, just as they did when progressives broke free from England, freed the slaves, gave women the vote, made labor unions legal, passed Social Security, passed Medicare, etc. Conservatives, and the foolish people who fall for their selfish bullshit, are all about preserving the status quo and preventing progress.

Interestingly, as soon as the bill passed the DCCC sent out a press release to the media in southeast Wisconsin entitled "Representative Paul Ryan Puts Big Health Insurance Companies Before Affordable Health Care for Americans." They made a lot of sense pointing out that Ryan, "rather than vote to help middle class families, seniors, and small businesses finally afford coverage while reducing the deficit by more than a trillion dollars over 20 years, Representative Paul Ryan sided with the big health insurance companies instead." DCCC spokesperson, Jennifer Crider:

“For decades, big health insurance companies have profited off discrimination and denials and pricing middle class families out of the care they need but that didn’t stop Representative Paul Ryan from continuing to side with insurance companies. Ryan refused to give folks back home access to the same health care that he gets as a Member of Congress.
 
“After taking $534,071 in contributions from insurance companies, it’s outrageous that Ryan would put insurance company profits before helping middle class families and small businesses afford coverage, closing the Medicare prescription drug donut hole, and reducing the deficit by more than a trillion dollars over the next two decades.”  

...For Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, Ryan’s vote against health insurance reform was a vote against:
 
o   Improving coverage for 506,000 residents.
 
o   Providing tax credits and assistance for 153,000 families and 14,000 small businesses to purchase affordable coverage.
 
o   Improving Medicare for 112,000 seniors, including closing the prescription drug donut hole.
 
o   Guaranteeing that 8,000 residents with pre-existing medical conditions can obtain coverage.
 
o   Protecting 1,600 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
 
o   Allowing 51,000 young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans.
 
o   Reducing the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $23 Million annually.

Nothing wrong with that. But do you know what John Adler (NJ), Mike Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Larry Kissell (NC), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Michael McMahon (NY), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA), Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH), and Harry Teague (NM) have in common with each other and with Paul Ryan. They all voted "no" both times last night. What they also have in common with each other-- though not with Ryan-- is that each and every one of them is on the DCCC's Front Line list. This is the absolutely #1 priority list for DCCC money. If you donate to the DCCC you will be paying for the re-election campaigns of these treacherous anti-family putative Democrats. Everything the DCCC had to say about Paul Ryan is just as true about the 34 Democrats who opposed the healthcare reform last night.

Regina Thomas is running against John Barrow, the only Democrat to vote "no" in a blue district. This morning she told us that Barrow "voted with the health care industry and corporations. He received more than $80,000 this year alone from health care lobbyists.  His vote was for them and not the voters of the 12th. His actions prove just what kind of politician he is-- whomever gives him the most money determines how he will vote. July 20th will be here before we know it-- then we will have an opportunity to vote him out." We added Regina to the Blue America endorsement page yesterday and urge you to consider helping her campaign.

Another progressive Democrat endorsed by Blue America had a strong message about the vote last night as well. Connie Saltonstall's opponent, Bart Stupak, after nearly derailing the bill, took stock of his career mortality and pulled back from the ledge, though not before doing his worst to weaken women's choice. "First, let me say ‘thank-you’ to Congressman Stupak for his vote on this historic reform bill," she wrote in a statement to north Michigan media.  "Healthcare reform will create a real difference in Michigan’s First District with provisions that extend healthcare coverage to 44,000 uninsured residents, protect 1,100 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs, grow jobs by extending tax credits to small businesses, and improve Medicare for 141,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole. And let’s not forget, healthcare reform is also about jobs-- about saving auto plants in Michigan from having to move jobs to Canada to save $7.25 an hour in healthcare costs." But what about Stupak; don't worry; she addressed that too:

Representative Stupak’s support has come at a very high cost. Mr. Stupak’s dogmatic insistence on inserting his own religious views into the legislative debate and threatening to deprive his constituents of needed healthcare reform has eroded people’s trust in him. Throughout this debate there is the sense that our Congressman has let us down. It appears he has been more interested in promoting his own personal agenda than in representing the people of Michigan’s First District. 

The healthcare debate should never have been sidetracked into an abortion debate. For more than 30 years, the Hyde amendment has assured that there is no federal funding for abortion and this bill includes that provision; there will be no federal funding for abortion. 
 
This is not a perfect bill. I believe universal healthcare is a right, not a privilege or a luxury. When I get to Congress, I will continue to fight for a single payer system which I believe is the most efficient and cost effective way to deliver healthcare to all. Quality healthcare also allows women the opportunity to make responsible life decisions for themselves and their families.”

Blue America-backed Bill Hedrick in Riverside County is up against right-wing fanatic Ken Calvert, who cavalierly voted against the interests of his own constituents last night, Bill's press release:

“For 18 years, Ken Calvert has put party politics before the people of this district.  Today he had a chance to redeem himself by voting for the landmark health insurance reform bill that would directly help hundreds of thousands of people in the 44th. But Ken Calvert, once again putting his personal and party interests first, voted against it.

Because of the vote today, 107,000 residents of the 44th who had no access to health care have access. 19,600 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage. 81,000 young adults can remain on their parents' insurance plan. And 76,000 seniors will have their Medicare improved.  Those are the facts of this bill.

What Calvert fails to see is that these facts are more than just numbers on a page-- these numbers represent real people that will benefit from this reform. Ken Calvert had the chance to do right by them, and he failed. Just as Calvert failed when he repeatedly opposed expanding insurance coverage to children, opposed re-importation of prescription drugs, and opposed low-cost health insurance plans for small businesses.

Two more facts worth mentioning: This bill will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next ten years and by about $1 trillion over the next twenty. This is fiscally responsible legislation.  Putting the party line ahead of the financial future of our children and our country is irresponsible leadership.

Today’s vote was ultimately about responsibility. Fiscal responsibility to bring America forward and the moral responsibility to keep America healthy. Ken Calvert’s record is clear-- he is not the person to lead us forward as we fight to further reform and balance the budget. It is time for new, responsible leadership in Washington-- leadership we can trust to get the job done.”

Washington state Senator and progressive champion Craig Pridemore congratulated the outgoing congressman, Brian Baird for switching, at the last minute, from a no vote to an "aye," right in line with Craig's own attitude about healthcare reform. "I'm grateful that so many regional voices joined me in calling clearly and unequivocally for a straight up or down vote on the issue," said Pridemore, who has made a clear vote on health care reform a top issue in his grass roots driven campaign. "Baird shifted from opposition to equivocation and then support. While I applaud his ultimate vote, it took too long for Congress to reach this day, undermining public confidence and delaying the needed pace of change and reform." His opponent for the Democratic nomination, a multimillionaire conservative corporate shill has also equivocated on and no one has a clear idea of where he stands on it.
 
Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH) is locked in a tough primary battle against a very conservative Democrat, Katrina Swett (the former head of Joe Lieberman's national race for the presidency). Last night Ann issued this statement: "Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives passed historic health care reform that will make a real difference for New Hampshire families and businesses. This bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion in the next decade alone, extend coverage to 31 million Americans without health care, stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people who get sick or have a pre-existing condition, and close the so-called "donut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that otherwise leaves thousands of New Hampshire seniors without coverage. In Congress I'll continue to work for and support a public insurance option that increases competition and will drive down insurance premiums and health care costs for New Hampshire families. I'm looking forward to President Obama signing this historic bill into law. Health care costs are out of control and are crippling New Hampshire families, small businesses and our national budget. The time for health care reform is now."

The only incumbent to vote with the GOP who Blue America helped to win office was Larry Kissell. We withdrew support for Kissell sometime ago when we saw a pattern of him deciding to vote against the constituents he had promised to support when he ran in 2006 and 2008. He has been a terrible disappointment. All the other Blue America-endorsed incumbents were upbeat about their support for the bill. John Hall (D-NY): "Today we took a huge step forward in our fight for affordable health care for all Americans. I cast my vote in favor of health insurance reform because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do for the woman in Warwick who was dropped by her insurance company in the middle of her breast cancer treatments. It was the right thing to do for the family in Wappinger whose premiums are soaring because of their son's pre-existing condition. It was right thing to do for the Seniors in Somers who are stuck in the Medicare donut hole, paying more than they can afford for the medications they need. When I originally ran for office, I promised I would vote for anything that moved us towards universal health care coverage. Today I feel much closer to delivering on that promise."

We've had a bit of a rocky road with Tom Perriello but he came through for Virginia families last night. This is what he sent out to his constituents after voting for the reform bills:

You sent me to the People's House to do a job. For a century, leaders from both parties have pledged that all Americans deserve access to quality, affordable health care. Tonight we delivered on that promise. After more than a year of substantive debate and vicious smears, I had started to lose hope that we would deliver on the change we promised--that we would solve the problems others had simply kicked down the road. I say tonight that our dream of a better kind of politics stands restored.

A few moments ago, wearing an old suit of my father's, I cast my vote for universal affordable health care. Because you sent me here, I got to be part of this historic moment. Because you sent me here, I voted to make coverage available to 49,000 residents of my district. Because you sent me here, tonight I voted to reduce costs for more than 400,000 of my constituents by over $1,000 every year. Back home, those savings mean something.

Beyond the dollars and cents, tonight I think of those families without insurance who live in fear that they are one illness away from bankruptcy. I think of those with insurance who are one pink slip away from losing their family's coverage. I think of the small business owner who doesn't want to be forced to choose between closing up shop or cutting benefits to his or her workers. I think of the medical student who feels called into pediatrics but sees that our system simply doesn't make that a credible option. And I know tonight that we have made things better.

Some say that this vote seals my political fate, but I didn't come to Congress to do what's easy--I came here to do what's right. I came here to solve problems, to work on legislation that would mean something to families in my district, to be a leader, as you sent me here to do. Thank you for giving me this opportunity tonight.

Jim Himes said he was well aware that "taking a stand against the status quo means that I will be under constant attack from special interests" but he felt that "this was one of the most important votes that I will ever take. Not only will this historic legislation lower costs, improve quality and rein in the insurance industry-- it's also the largest deficit-reduction package in nearly two decades. The bill contains nearly every tested idea for controlling growth in health care costs, including new requirements for insurers to disclose and justify premium increases, new insurance exchanges to promote competition, and historic new incentives for wellness and preventive care."

Paul Hodes (D-NH) is another Blue America alum who fought for reform. He's currently running for the open U.S. Senate seat in his state and sent this to New Hampshire voters last night:

Moments ago, Congress successfully passed health care reform. I proudly cast my vote in favor of this historic reform because it was the right thing to do.

It was the right thing to do for the people of New Hampshire’s second district that I am honored to represent. It was the right thing to do for the 1.3 million people in the Granite State who have fought a broken, backwards health care system for far too long. It was the right thing to do for the thousands of small businesses on Main Streets across New Hampshire that have been forced to downsize, lay off or shut down completely in the face of uncontrollable premium prices.

And it was the right thing to do for every single middle-class family in this country, gathered around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how they can possibly make ends meet.

Above all else, this bill is a jobs bill. It will fundamentally fix a broken system that has let insurance companies jack up premiums and eliminate health care choices, killing jobs across New Hampshire. In this reform proposal, nearly 35,000 small businesses across New Hampshire will be given tax credits to provide the health coverage of their choosing. This bill will help put the Granite State back to work.

It will extend coverage to 60,000 of our uninsured neighbors, reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion in the next decade, improve Medicare coverage for 200,000 New Hampshire seniors, and will rein in some of the most egregious practices of health insurance companies.

Insurance companies and their corporate allies spent billions trying to bully us into giving up. Today, we showed them what we are made of. They fought reform at every step, desperately trying to protect their own profits. But together, you and I stood strong, stayed tough and never gave up fighting because we knew it was the right thing to do.

Today is an historic day for this country. I am proud and humbled to be a part of it.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Coalition fought harder than almost anyone to make this bill better for ordinary working families. He voted for the half full glass and correctly called it a work in progress: "The vote we just cast is a beginning, not an end. It establishes once and for all that health care in this country is a basic right, not a privilege. Our system can be improved in the future, and it will be. I will make fighting for those improvements a priority as long as I am in Congress, because as much work as we’ve done over the past year, more remains before us. Major advances in our quality of life are rarely easy. They are not achieved in a single stroke. They are the result of years of persuasion, discussion and sometimes false starts. This bill is a foundation that we will look back on in five years, 10 years and 20 years and thank ourselves for laying now.”

And the president:




UPDATE: Waterloo

Not everyone is celebrating this morning. Republican propagandist David Frum seems depressed today as he reprises Jim DeMint's prediction about President Obama's Waterloo:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo-- just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Looks like Obama was Wellington.

House Committee Passes Domestic Partnership Bill-- With Every Single Republican Voting NO, Even The Gay Ones

Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23-12 to pass the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal government workers. Next step: the full House, where it is expected to pass, then the Senate and then the President's desk. All of the "yes" votes were from Democrats and all of the "no" votes were from Republicans, including Illinois closet queen Aaron Schock. Another Illinois member of the committee, Danny Davis (D-IL) mentioned in the debate that “It is unsettling to me to think that because of the way that someone might feel, the way they might act, or the way they might behave-- circumstances that they have no control over-- that the rest of us would sit in some kind of judgment to deny them the very things that we would want for ourselves." He didn't get into the deep psychosis involved when fearful closet cases like Schock and Patrick McHenry (R-NC), who also voted against the bill, factor in their own severe mental problems, trying to balance their own sexual preference against the demands of the extreme right-wing, homophobic political party they belong to. It will be interesting to watch and see what other Republican closet cases like David Dreier (R-CA), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) do when the bill comes up for a vote in the full House.

Republican California congressman Darrell Issa, the ranking member on the committee, objected to the bill on the grounds that it was fiscally irresponsible.

“We are taking up a bill that casts aside all concerns about fiscal responsibility in order to bestow costly new benefits to a select class of federal employees,” he said.

We're talking about equality and the bill is covered under pay-as-you-go rules. But Issa wasn't the only vicious homophobe from California to object. San Diego Republican always has his own kooky perspective on anything that comes up: his virulent hatred of immigrants, especially immigrants from south of the border. If you thought Lou Dobbs was bad... Bilbray, who made it clear he would vote against the bill no matter what amendments passed, offered one of his own to "prohibit benefits from being awarded unless the applicant has been screened by the E-verify program under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (PL 104-208) and determined to have a lawful presence in the United States." Three conservative Democrats, Steve Dreihaus (OH), Bill Foster (IL) and Paul Kanjorski (PA) joined a dozen Republicans in favor; it lost anyway, 15-20.

I asked Francine Busby, the Democrat who is running against Bilbray next year, to make some sense for me about why Bilbray is bringing up his xenophobia in the middle of a discussion about health care equality. She didn't hold back: "Extending healthcare and other employee benefits to domestic partners of federal employees as a long-overdue giant step toward ending discrimination and assuring that all Americans enjoy their rightful civic and equal rights. Rep. Brian Bilbray's proposed amendment to verify the immigration status of domestic partners proves again that illegal immigration is his one and only issue, whether it is pertinent to the topic or not." Other Democrats were less polite to the whack-job everyone in DC knows Bilbray is. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) came right out and said his amendment amounted to political posturing and was not germane to the legislation. And during the debate Stephen Lynch (D-MA) asked Bilbray point blank if "we now have to be afraid of gay people coming over the border and entering into domestic partnerships with federal employees? This is where it becomes just too incredible to believe. There are concerns we ought to be grappling with... I don't think this is really one of them."

The bill itself, H.R. 2517 defines a domestic partner as an adult unmarried person living with another adult unmarried person in a committed relationship, who intends to live with that person indefinitely. It would apply to individuals in a domestic partnership with a federal employee, former federal employee, member of Congress, former member of Congress, or annuitant. The bill would cover benefits including health care; disability; family, medical and emergency leave; long-term-care insurance; and compensation for work injuries. Domestic partners could also receive benefits from participation in the thrift savings plan and the Federal Employees' Retirement System.

Paul Hodes (D-NH), who is running for the U.S. Senate, feels the bill is just one step on a long road: "Yesterday," he told DWT "I voted for the Domestic Partner Benefits bill, which would extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal government workers. While this is an important step forward towards ensuring equal access to marriage benefits, I am still fighting for full marriage equality. The time has come for all couples to be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage.”

I was proud of my own congresswoman, Diane Watson (D-CA), who-- as usual, did not disappoint. "All this bill does is stop the federal government from playing favorites, based on irrelevant factors, among those who do the work of this nation. But for five hours we were subjected to Republicans waxing self-righteous on the right of Congress to discriminate against federal employees' whose committed relationships they disdain."

Earlier today I noticed a tweet from the right-wing version of the Log Cabin Republicans, a bunch of gay GOP extremists, sort of teabaggers in more ways than one.


They seem happy the bill passed-- and they should. Kumbaya, teabaggers! But they still didn't offer a word of admonition for the homophobic votes cast by every Republican: Brian Bilbray (R-CA) John Burton (R-IN), homophobic fanatic Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Patty McHenry (R-NC), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Mark Souder (R-IN), and Steve Turner (R-OH). And not a peep about the two gay Republicans on the committee, McHenry and Schock. Let's keep in mind that even passive homophobia from public officials leads to-- gives permission to-- this kind of thing. Muchas gracias, Aaron and Patty!

It sure is a very different matter for David Dreier's congressional chief-of-staff/domestic partner. Because the powerful Republican closeted congressman was able to get his lover, Brad Smith, a very highly paid job in Congress, they not only traveled the world together, Smith had all the healthcare insurance he needed. The thing I never understand about these Republicans-- and especially not about the closet cases-- is not just that they have no empathy for other people outside their narrow circles, but that they actually hate and fear anyone who does have empathy.

Blue America Welcomes Paul Hodes (D-NH)

This evening at 7pm (EST) Blue America will be hosting an old friend, Representative Paul Hodes at Crooks and Liars. Paul first came onto our radar in 2006 was he was campaigning-- successfully, as it turned out-- against entrenched incumbent Charlie Bass in New Hampshire. Blue America endorsed him and has been gratified to see him standing up for working families in the House of Representatives. He was one of the Democrats who put his foot down and refused to vote for the Wall Street bailout, TARP. He believes, firmly, that the government has to watch out for Main Street and for American consumers by reining in the excesses of Wall Street. "I voted against the Wall Street bailout because I didn’t believe we should bail out the big banks while middle class families are hurting across America. I'm working-- fighting-- for tougher regulations on credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and big Wall Street banks so Wall Street’s greed will never be able to hurt middle class families again." When AIG's irresponsibility, unregulated avarice and gambler's instincts got them in trouble and they came looking for money from the government, it was Rep. Hodes who pointed out that to American taxpayers AIG "stands for arrogance, incompetence and greed."

Today, he's asked us to let our readers know that he'd like anyone who was considering donating to his campaign today, instead donate to the No on 1 campaign in Maine. Paul isn't a frightened, mealy-mouthed congressman tiptoeing around equality with a "separate but equal" non-solution for marriage rights. You don't hear him talking about domestic partnerships. He favors equal rights under the law for all couples regardless of gender. "The legislation passed in New Hampshire," he reminds us, "will ensure that all Granite Staters have equal rights under the law. And the law is consistent with the spirit of New Hampshire expressed in our state motto ‘Live Free or Die.’ Marriage equality gives equal justice to New Hampshire residents. I will continue to work for those same principles as a US Senator and I am a proud co-sponsor of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act."
 
Please join us in the C&L comments section and let's talk with Paul about why he's demanding a timeline in Afghanistan and a public option in the health care reform bill-- and anything else you'd like to ask someone who's been serving in the House and wants to move over to the Senate.

Arizona Republican Jeff Flake-- Ethics Superstar... Or Partisan Hypocrite?

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you dice it, Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake is a reactionary and a knee-jerk obstructionist. But he's a reactionary because that's what he believes in, not because he's being paid by the special interests to support the atrocious policy agenda he backs. However-- unlike, say, a Michele Bachmann, a Pete Sessions or a Virginia Foxx-- Flake has one saving grace. He bills himself "the House's most ardent opponent of earmarks," and, although he undercuts his own case by focusing on Democratic crooks (like Blue Dog Travis Childers) instead of on the crooks in his own party, he's got a great idea: prohibiting members of Congress from accepting campaign contributions from anyone for whom they help with an earmark.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has asked the House Ethics committee to deem political contributions a "financial interest." Under House rules, lawmakers cannot submit earmarks if they have a financial interest in the business benefiting from the earmark.

If I remember correctly, New Hampshire Democrat Paul Hodes already introduced actual non-partisan legislation last April that is trying to do what Flake is grandstanding about. In fact, Hodes' bill is much stronger than what Flake is doing. According to Hodes' proposal if a member even requests an earmark for someone-- whether they get it or not-- they are precluded from getting any campaign contributions from that person or entity.

Flake should stop playing partisan games with ethics and stop painting earmarks as a Democratic Party problem when it is clearly just a problem of corrupt Washington insiders that will only be solved when election campaigns are publicly financed.

“As long as we award no-bid contracts to private companies, the ethical cloud will continue to hang over Congress,” said Flake. “It’s difficult to argue with the perception that the earmark process is a pay-to-play system when the executives of the private companies that receive these earmarks turn around and make campaign contributions to those members who secured the earmarks.”

Flake should address his concerns to five of the biggest crooks in Congress, all in his own party's leadership: John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Paul Ryan (R-WI). And perhaps he could have a talk with his Arizona colleague Jon Kyl, one of the most corrupt hacks in the history of the United States Senate. Kyl, the Republican Senate Whip, has always been the surest vote for corporate interests every single day of his disgraceful career-- even as he takes unimaginable amounts of thinly veiled bribes from the most pernicious vested interests with business before the Senate, like the banksters ($3,711,808), the Medical-Industrial Complex ($1,971,468), Agribusiness ($811,544), the War Industry ($370,110), Big Oil ($320,882) and lobbying firms ($279,356). Jeff Flake's laments about corruption in Congress will have more credibility if he stops whining about crooked Democrat Jack Murtha and starts hammering his own caucus and his own Arizona colleagues.

When Is A Little Garden Variety Corruption Congressmen Love So Well Actually Bribery?

Jeff Flake's crusade to get the House Ethics Committee to investigate corrupt Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha has no credibility because it is so partisan. Had Flake recommended a joint investigation of tobacco company lobbyist John Boehner and Murtha, his oft-introduced bill would have been far more compelling. Although few of his hypocritical Republican colleagues would have supported it. Or how about an investigation into the correlation between the half dozen House members who have had the most responsibility for giving the banksters free rein to loot the economy and those who have taken the biggest, fattest, juiciest legalized bribes from the financial/insurance/real estate sector?

Charlie Rangel (D-NY- $4,276,926)
Spencer Bachus (R-AL- $3,789,474)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA- $3,185,464)
Eric Cantor (R-VA- $3,121,188)
John Boehner (R-OH- $3,045,809)
Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND- $2,810,794)

Now that's bipartisan: three corrupt Democrats and three corrupt Republicans. If Flake is really so anti-corruption why not do something that makes sense and has a chance to actually inspire the public-- if not the members of Congress... who have, after all, been rather loathe to cut off their own sources of bribery?

Late yesterday The Hill reported that two reform-minded Democratic sophomores, progressive Paul Hodes (D-NH) and reactionary Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ) are co-sponsoring a far fairer and more reasonable bill than Flake's transparent stunt to target one corrupt Democrat. I mean if you want to single out corruption, Jack Murtha, as slimy as he may be, is certainly no match for crooked Californians Jerry Lewis, Gary Miller and former and future lobbyist Brian Bilbray. Hodes' and Giffords' bill doesn't single out anyone. It simply seeks to "prevent lawmakers from taking campaign contributions from entities for which they have requested earmarks, as well as the entities' lobbyists and employees."

Let's see how many Republican crime fighters sign on to that one! Not that it matters; the current Supreme Court is so stacked with corporate shills, that this law would be struck down as fast as they could get their hands on it.


UPDATE: Tom Perriello Explains Why He Signed On As A Co-Sponsor

Last year Blue America endorsed and helped raise contributions for Tom Perriello who went on to beat corrupt Virginia reactionary Virgil Goode. Tom has been an ethics hawk and was one of the few Democrats to support Flake's resolutions. “While I’m living up to my commitment not to accept contributions from corporate PACs or lobbyists, I think the entire Congress should be held to a higher standard,” said Perriello. “We must demand a new era of honesty and accountability in Washington and on Wall Street to get this country back on course.” 

Edward Liddy-- Longtime Corporate Criminal Spins One In Today's Post

Edward Liddy-- best & the brightest? Or a vicious, dangerous predator?

I know President Obama's Stimulus Package favors "shovel ready" construction jobs but he would be doing the capital, and anyone interested in politics anywhere in the country, a great service if he offered the Washington Post a small stipend to hire a fact checker since, apparently, they can no longer afford one on their own. Either that or they just don't care. This morning many of us woke up to find a column penned by Satan himself-- or, more likely, by one of his p.r. firms, Our Mission at AIG: Repairs, and Repayment.

Edward M. Liddy is a contemptible career corporate criminal and we should all, collectively, hold President Obama to his campaign promise to fire him (following the exposure of the $440,000 corporate executive retreat at the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, a celebration of the first AIG bailout-- 84 billion taxpayer dollars which included $23,000 in spa treatments and $150,000 worth of chow. Then Senator Obama: "The Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired.")

In today's Post Liddy, a maxed out donor to John McCain, says he understands our "palpable wave of anger." His company has beefed up its security forces with armed guards in case the palpable becomes the bloody. "The anger," he writes, "is understandable, and I share it. I have been fortunate in more than three decades in business to see firsthand the wealth creation that well-managed American companies bring to their employees and their communities. I have seen the good side of capitalism."

Yes, the good side of capitalism! For Liddy the good old days were when he, as CFO, and his pal Don Rumsfeld-- yes that Don Rumsfeld-- took pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle-- maker of Metamucil, NutraSweet and Celebrex into the bigtime by engineering a sale of the company to Monsanto. Following the standard predatory capitalist script Liddy and Rummy fired 60% of the company's employees-- the people, unlike themselves, who had build Searle's value over decades-- to make it a more attractive purchase to cost-conscious Monsanto. In return Liddy and Rummy became very, very wealthy men. Rummy moved on to opening torture chambers all over the world and Liddy went to work as president, CEO and Chairman of Allstate where his best known accomplishment was denying homeowners in Katrina-struck New Orleans insurance coverage. In the eyes of the Bush Regime that made him the perfect candidate to take over the job that had been held Hank Greenberg (from 1968 'til 2005 when he was fired in a complex financial scandal). An RNC donor, Liddy was just what the Bush Regime thought would be perfect in June of 2008 as the financial world was collapsing.

Yesterday Tim Geithner-- forever the Wall Street shill-- sent a letter to the congressional leaders defending Liddy. “I know," he wrote, "that much of the public ire has fallen on Mr. Liddy, which is understandable, since it is his name on the door. But it also is unjustified. Mr. Liddy was put in place as the CEO of AIG last year at the request of the U.S. government to help rehabilitate the company and repay taxpayer funds. He inherited a difficult situation, including these AIGFP retention contracts, which were entered prior to his or the government’s involvement in AIG. As long as he is there, we will work with him on measures to wind down AIG in an orderly way and protect the American taxpayer.”

One of Liddy's first acts after Bush got him his current job, was to give Goldman Sachs a fat cut of the bailout money the Treasury gave AIG-- in fact, the fattest cut of all. And why not? Liddy was of the Goldman Sachs Board of Directors. He needs to be fact-checked, not just by the Washington Post but by the U.S. Department of Justice. Today he's been hauled before the House Financial Services Committee. You think we'll be covering that? Paul Hodes (D-NH) summed up AIG right from the beginning pointing out that to American taxpayers AIG "stands for arrogance, incompetence and greed."

Meanwhile, watch Edward Liddy wrapping the always credulous Larry King around his finger last November:




UPDATE 1: LIDDY TESTIFIES

Liddy is the most deceitful hack I've ever heard read a prepared statement. He started by saying he took the job at AIG out of a sense of patriotism. His 4 p.r. firms (+ the in-house p.r. department) wrote it for him and it was sickening. He offered Congress a compromise on the bonus money he stole; they'll voluntarily give up half of the stolen loot. I wish they could lock him up directly after the hearing. Shameful GOP hack, Scott Garrett (R-NJ), the ranking Repug member on the subcommittee started his "questioning" by commiserating about how poor Liddy and his family have had to put up with the indignities of public anger and threats.

UPDATE 2: JUDGE ORDERS MERRILL LYNCH TO COUGH UP THE BONUS INFO

Bank of America was ordered to stop obstructing Andrew Cuomo's investigation of improper use of taxpayer money for Merrill Lynch bonuses for top executives. Does Liddy keep threatening that the losers working at AIG are going to resign? Do they plan to collect unemployment insurance? Move to Shanghai? Do these losers think they're going to be hired by anyone? Of course, they are so rich now-- thanks to their pals in the GOP-- that they don't need to work anyway. Bill Posey (R-FL) just hit the nail on the head, saying AIG employees aren't going to get hired anywhere and should consider tehmselves lucky they're not in prison yet.

CHARLIE BASS, CORRUPT REPUBLICAN RUBBER-STAMP, VOTED TO SCREW UP THE INTERNET. TIME TO REALLY GET BEHIND PAUL HODES IN NH-02

Matt over at MyDD has an important diary called "Ten Days Ago, These Six Democrats Took a Sledgehammer to the Internet". I recommend everyone read it but I want to summarize it in one sentence: 6 Democrats joined 17 Republicans to vote down net neutrality protection and pave the way for the big telecommunications corporations to completely fuck with the way the internet is delivered. Matt is suggesting we hold the 6 Democrats' feet to the fire by supporting primary challenges against them (presumably in 2008). OK, I'm in-- especially for the ones who have consistently supported corporate interests over consumer interests like Ed Towns (NY-10), Al Wynn (MD-04) Bart Stupak (MI-01), and Charlie Gonzales (TX-20). Of course 2008 is a long time from now and many issues and distractions are sure to come up between now and then.

Is there anything we can do now? Most of the Republicans are in relatively safe districts or have weak, ineffective opposition. A couple of races jump out as possibilities for concerted netroots action, particularly what is shaping up to be a close contest in NH-02, where Paul Hodes is offering up a strong challenge to Republican rubber-stamper Charles Bass. Hodes seems progressive and independent and probably not a DCCC stooge, a big plus (at least for me). And Bass is most definitely tainted by his relationships with some of the worst instigators of the Republican Culture of Corruption, having taken many thousands of dollars from unsavory characters like Tom DeLay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney, Roy Blunt, and John Boehner.

New Hampshire's second congressional district is a moderate district with a modest Democratic PVI (which combines the last two presidential election results and compares them to the national average) of +2.7. In other words, it's a district that voted against Bush but elected a Republican. Bass has been a rubber-stamp shill for all of the Bush Regime's catastrophic agenda for our nation. It isn't the agenda of western and northern New Hampshire. Bass is a miserable congressman, undeserving of another term. His predictable vote against net neutrality should give impetus for the netroots community to get behind Hodes in a real way.


MONDAY EVENING UPDATE: HODES KICKIN' BUTT ALREADY

David over at Swing State Project has some great fnancial news on Hodes' campaign today.