Establishment Hacks Lose Another One As El Paso Dems Dump Reyes-- Next Stop Buck McKeon?

All the pundits and bloviating Beltway politicos ignored Beto O'Rourke's race against painfully long-term incumbent, Silvestre Reyes and said the young upstart had no chance. Even the commercialized progressive groups completely ignored his contest. But early voting went drastically in his direction and, despite Reyes, last minute, heavily funded (by the Military Industrial Complex) smear campaign, O'Rourke put him away nice and easy. Even as the votes were coming in, the most unctuous shills of the DC Establishment were hoping out loud that Beto would lose. This isn't about ideology, this is just about Establishment dick suckers sucking Establishment dick, which is what they get paid to do-- to the point where they become what they do. By the end they were publicly praying for a run-off or even a Republican victory in November. The Establishment and it's miserable foot soldiers are very threatened by insurgents... and victorious insurgents make them want to kill themselves.

Beltway hacks are in misery with outright win by Beto O'Rourke

Congratulations to the Campaign for Primary Accountability for putting almost $200,000 into helping make Congress less institutionally corrupt-- and for, once again, making a complete laughing stock out of the ridiculous Cook Report, Washington's most clueless and utterly out-of-touch prognosticators. Here's official statement from the Campaign For Primary Accountability:

The Campaign for Primary Accountability achieved its goal of helping voters hold elected officials accountable through competitive elections.

We congratulate the voters who participated in today’s primary election. They are the real winners.


Nearly 11,000 more voters in the 16th Congressional District this year cast a ballot than in 2010. The increased turnout is a clear victory for the voters, for American representative democracy and a vindication of CPA’s efforts. Greater voter participation means greater accountability. Greater accountability means a better Congress. 


Rep. Reyes had all the benefits of incumbency. Beltway lobbyists showered money on their long-time friend while Washington party leaders with marquee names tried to lend him their stature.

The voters exercised their franchise and chose Beto O’Rourke.

We congratulate Beto O’Rourke. Most importantly, we congratulate all the voters of the Sixteenth Congressional District who participated in greater numbers to have their voices heard.

This is one Super PAC that is quite unpopular Inside-the-Beltway. The Beltway hacks are clueless about America Outside-the-Beltway. They only talk with each other and constantly reinforce each other's prejudices. We see a similar situation out here in L.A., where the Beltway idiots are clueless about the Lee Rogers-Buck McKeon race in the northeast corner of the county. Do you think Steve Israel or Debbie Wasserman Schultz has set a slippered foot down in the Antelope Valley-- or even heard of it? Have any of the Monday morning quarterbacks from the Cook Report? I doubt it. The DCCC would do well to listen to Henry Waxman who understands a little something about Los Angeles electoral politics and who has come out swinging for Lee Rogers and understands it's a race Democrats can and should win-- unlike the foolish and wasteful Blue Dog endeavors Israel is using all the DCCC's money up on that will never even come close. Take a look at this Rogers' video that doesn't figure into DCCC/Cook Report computations. It explains why Rogers is on his way to a victory in a race that the Beltway will never understand. Remember-- since they don't-- all politics is local:



Help us put Lee over the top here at the Blue America ActBlue page. The Establishment didn't want to face reality when corrupt Blue Dog Tim Holden was going down to an historic ass-whooping, a landslide at the hands of some-guy-they-never-heard-of. And they didn't want to pay any attention to Beto's challenge to old-and-in-the-way Reyes, even after the biggest newspaper in El Paso endorsed the challenger and explained in plain English why he would Reyes' time was past. And now they don't want to realize that corrupt California incumbents like Buck McKeon and Ed Royce, despite the Cook Clowns, can be beaten. Beyond conventional, anti-visionary, Steve Israel may well proven to be the worst mistake of Nancy Pelosi's entire political career.

What To Look For Tonight Coming Out Of Texas

In today's Texas primaries there are lots of really horrible politicians running... on both sides of the aisle. Most of the candidates are human garbage in nice clothing. But not all of them... and there's one race in particular we should all be watching as the results roll in from El Paso tonight. We've covered Beto O'Rourke's challenge to corrupt Democratic incumbent Silvestre Reyes before. If Beto wins tonight-- and he's been leading substantially in early voting-- it will be yet another race where an outsider overthrows a favored Establishment old timer, not unlike Matt Cartwright's win over Tim Holden.

TX-16 is a solid Democratic district. Under the new boundaries Obama would have beaten McCain 64-35%. He won the old district 66-34%. Basically, whoever wins tonight will be the next congressman from this district that basically is the westernmost tip of Texas, the city of El Paso and it's suburbs. Gore and Kerry both beat former Texas governor George Bush in this district where the population is close to 80% Hispanic.

Early voting has been record-breaking as younger and more forward-looking voters mobilize to rid their community of someone who has definitely overstayed his time and whose tawdry behavior is an embarrassment to a city proud of recent achievements, achievements associated with O'Rourke and his service on the City Council, rather than with a remote congressman who specializes in nepotism, corruption and coddling the Military-Industrial Complex.

El Paso is the only city in Texas in the Mountain Time Zone. When polls close tonight at 7pm local time, it'll be 6pm on the West Coast and 9pm on the East Coast. Local media has been covering the election almost breathlessly and with a n air of great excitement. The El Paso Times, biggest newspaper in the region, endorsed Beto 2 weeks ago flatly stating that "sending Beto O'Rourke to Congress is an important next step in choosing leadership that positions El Paso to be a leading international city in the 21st century... [I]t's time for a change. And O'Rourke brings the background and passion that El Paso needs." The Times asserts that Reyes, who first won the seat in 1996, has "a mixed record."

[H]e has often lacked focus at home, not paying enough attention to critical issues such as international crossings. And he largely ceased holding town-hall meetings with constituents. Also, Reyes' congressional office has not engaged effectively with other El Paso-area governments. He has stood on the sidelines as decisions have been made or, worse, jumped in at the last minute without consulting other leaders.

O'Rourke, on the other hand, has served effectively on City Council for six years as a key player in a team of progressive new leaders who put city government on a solid path. He has never hid from a challenge, and has sought out conversation with those citizens who disagree with his positions. He is a good listener, a rare commodity in politics.

O'Rourke has focused his campaign on improving El Paso's economy. A key part of that involves improving the flow of goods across the international border. O'Rourke has proposed a number of smaller steps to improve bridge-crossing times, steps that seem achievable even given Congress's current state of inaction.

He also recognizes the importance of building on the recent gains at Fort Bliss. There is admittedly some risk in removing a veteran congressional incumbent at a time when the military will have to look at downsizing. But we believe that O'Rourke, working with other community and state leaders, will be able to protect the vital role Fort Bliss plays in our national security.

...El Paso is at a crossroads. The improved performance in recent years of Commissioners Court and City Council show that passionate, dedicated young leadership can reshape a community and help move it in the right direction.

O'Rourke has been an important part of that change. He can continue that work if we elect him to the House of Representatives. He is the right choice in the Democratic primary, and will be the right choice for the community in November.

Reyes is a moderate, garden variety Democrat-- except in matters of war when he's really a Republican-- but his campaign has, oddly, tried to paint the progressive O'Rourke as a Republican. He claims that O'Rourke wants to "change" Social Security. And it's true; O'Rourke does-- in the same way that all progressives want to change it-- shoring it up by raising the income cap so that the wealthy pay their fair share. Beto, now 39, was the guitarist and singer in El Paso-based Foss, a popular local EMO/grunge band. In 2006 he was voted "Best Elected Official" in El Paso's weekly paper, What's Up, with the mayor coming in second and Reyes coming in third. O'Rourke will make a great replacement for Reyes, whose best days as a public official are long passed.

The Texas-based Campaign for Primary Accountability, which has the strongest track-record this cycle for helping challengers beat entrenched incumbents has pumped almost $200,000 into the campaign against Reyes, evening up the odds a bit in a case where all the slimy armaments makers and military contractors are pouring cash into Reyes' campaign. This was their first ad:

Does Social Media Have A Role To Play In Politics?

Buck McKeon may not understand social media, but he knows how to monetize drones & killer robots

Lucky for Blue America Jacquie keeps up our Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr accounts. Otherwise we wouldn't have any. Or I'd have to learn new tricks. Woof! Yesterday I got an e-mail from one of the Blue America candidates who's typically plugged in to how to utilize social media for campaigning.

The primary election is only two weeks away, and it has certainly been an interesting campaign.
 
So far we have had three candidate debates to discuss our vision for the district, Southern California, and the United States. The incumbent, however, has refused to show up to any of them.
 
Even when I offered to work around his schedule to find a time to participate in a debate, Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon has actively ignored our calls.
 
For me, these debates are job interviews. For him, they are performance reviews. Our elected officials need to be kept accountable.
 
That’s why we have launched a new Facebook timeline: Buck’s Bad Record. It highlights the questionable ethics and extreme positions that McKeon has taken during his 20 years in Congress.
 
I’m inviting you to “like” this Facebook page and share it with your friends in District 25 to help us keep Congressman McKeon accountable to the people. If you believe it’s time for a change of leadership, be sure to like my Facebook page as well and follow me on Twitter.

None of that would have meant much to FDR, LBJ or Ronald Reagan. But I think any of them looking at the way political campaigning has been evolving would have recognized that it was a far more effective communication than the press release sent out at the same time by McKeon's strongest challenger among Republicans in the June 5th jungle primary. Dante Acosta makes some good points and the substance is all there. But the whole mode is outdated... like McKeon's own efforts.

Republican Challenger to 25th District Congressman, Howard “Buck” McKeon Reacts to McKeon’s Statements on Raising Taxes to Pay for Pentagon Spending

The campaign to elect Dante Acosta for Congress takes note of comments made by current 25th District Congressman Buck McKeon insinuating that he’d raise taxes on hard working Americans before ever considering cutting funding to the Pentagon.

“Congressman McKeon’s continued push to preserve the bloated cost of the Pentagon comes at the expense of hard-working Americans who cannot find jobs or are under-employed,” said 25th Congressional Candidate Dante Acosta. The Republican candidate who is challenging Congressman McKeon went on to say, “While the middle class is asking for fiscal vigilance, lower taxes and less regulations on families and small businesses, Congressman McKeon is talking about more unaccountable spending.” Mr. Acosta went on to point out that U.S. military leadership, Congress and the President have not proposed a unified plan or defined goal for the continuing war in Afghanistan yet continue to demand ever larger sums of money for this war.

Dante Acosta is challenging fellow Republican incumbent Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon for his seat in Congress because he feels that Mr. McKeon has lost touch with his constituency as evidenced by his slow reaction to an Afghanistan force-protection debacle that cost Mr. Acosta the life of his son, Specialist Rudy A. Acosta in March, 2011. McKeon is also under heavy criticism in the district for a lack of leadership on a major quality of life issue affecting the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley communities that make up a majority of the district. “Congressman McKeon used to serve the district but now he serves the Republican caucus, multi-national corporations like Cemex and the military hardware industry.” Acosta is referring to the Mexican concrete mining firm Cemex which was granted mining rights by the Bureau of Land Management long before Santa Clarita became a growing city of over 167,000 residents. The project, which the city has been fighting in court for decades, will greatly compromise air quality, increase truck traffic on the rural 2-lane road on which the mine is located and lower home values on properties in the epicenter of what could become the largest concrete mining operation in American history.

“When you take Mr. McKeon’s exhortation that struggling American taxpayers must shoulder additional taxes without any sacrifice to the Pentagon’s budget along with his inattention to the Cemex Mine issue and a growing detachment from district voters, the message becomes clear, it’s time to send the 20+ year Congressman into retirement so that a new generation of Conservative leadership can arise and serve the constituents of the 25Th Congressional District”, Mr. Acosta added.

Who, beyond a political junkie, is going to even try to get beyond that title? Autumn Caviness at the Texas Tribune explains how-- and why-- a "Like" is the new yard sign for young voters-- and even less young voters who are evolving with the times.

A 2009 Pew Research Center study indicates that 10 percent of internet users ages 18 and older have used a social networking site for some sort of political or civic engagement. With just younger voters, 18 to 29, that number jumps to 37 percent.

That's not exactly a tidal wave of civic engagement. But Thor Lund, the University of Texas at Austin's student body president, says that for college students, it feels like marching in the streets.

“Social media is a huge tool to get people interested in things, and honestly, the biggest way to create interest-- to spur the civic engagement-- is numbers, people being involved,” Lund said. “So whether or not someone thinks it’s a civic engagement issue that they’re starting out and that they’re trying to do, when people get behind an idea, the power of people is amazing.”

And when you've got a full semester and an evening job, being able to click "like" before studying can make you feel engaged without taking up too much time.

“When we’re tabling and fliering, we let folks know, hey, like us on Facebook, even if you can’t come at every meeting, even if you can’t be there physically, at least be aware of what we’re doing,” said Huey Fischer, president of the University Democrats at UT. “So that way, when you do have time, when you can make a commitment, you’ll know what’s up.”

Morley Winograd, co-author of Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America, views hitting the "like" button as comparable to putting up a traditional political yard sign. So when friends visit your Facebook page, as when dropping by your house, they'll see who and what you support.

Winograd says making these initial statements of support online can then lead to a stronger outward showing of support.

“Certainly there is that level of engagement at that point, but I think real engagement involves translating that online enthusiasm into offline activity," he said.

Does it mean that stodgy old curmudgeons like-- to just take two examples, one from each party-- Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) will fall to edgy, young political leaders? Stranger things have happened and 2012 is not exactly shaping up as the Congressional Year of The Incumbent. It might be worth noting that almost all of the incumbents defeated so far this year have been older and less technologically savvy than their opponents:

Mean Jean Schmidt (60) was beaten by Brad Wenstrup (54)
Tim Holden (55) was beaten by Matt Cartwright (50)
Richard Lugar (80) was beaten by Richard Mourdock (60)
Don Manzullo (68) was beaten by Adam Kinzinger (34)
Special case: Dennis Kucinich (65) was beaten by Marcy Kaptur (65)

And speaking of Reyes, the El Paso Times has always endorsed him in the past... but not this time. And, largely because of younger, more connected voters, O'Rourke is beating Silvestre in early voting 52-45%.

El Paso has struggled with ineffective, bickering leadership over the years. But that has changed in recent years with the emergence of young, dedicated public servants on County Commissioners Court, City Council and our state legislative delegation.

Sending Beto O'Rourke to Congress is an important next step in choosing leadership that positions El Paso to be a leading international city in the 21st century.

Recommending a change in El Paso's member of the House of Representatives isn't something we do lightly. It is an institution where seniority matters. The 16th Congressional District has had only three representatives in the past 48 years. And the Times editorial board, along with our Community Advisory Board, was split on our endorsement choice.

But it's time for a change. And O'Rourke brings the background and passion that El Paso needs.

...El Paso is at a crossroads. The improved performance in recent years of Commissioners Court and City Council show that passionate, dedicated young leadership can reshape a community and help move it in the right direction.

O'Rourke has been an important part of that change. He can continue that work if we elect him to the House of Representatives. He is the right choice in the Democratic primary, and will be the right choice for the community in November.

That's bad news for Reyes, just as the Campaign for Primary Accountability [CPA] has started firing on all engines in the district. They go after incumbents, of both parties, who have, like Reyes, a record of corruption. And they have the financial resources to make a difference. Their efforts are hurting Reyes badly right now. They've spent close to $200,000 on the race so far. Earlier this month $95,000 went into ads about Reyes’ record of taking money from Washington lobbyists for himself and his family. Reyes went whining to the media and CPA doubled their efforts against him. Their statement responding to Reyes' lame excuses:

Let’s be clear: The more Silvestre Reyes distorts his record, the more the Campaign for Primary Accountability will spend to make sure voters know the truth before the primary on May 29th.

If Reyes wants to complain about money being spent in this election, he should talk to his hand – the hand that takes millions from fat cat Washington lobbyists and stuffs it in his pocket.

If he wants CPA to stop running ads, he can stop with the lame excuses. As long as he continues distorting his record, we will continue spending to educate voters.

Who Is Silvestre Reyes?

Tuesday night a conservative old Democrat, Tim Holden-- despite having all the support the Establishment could give-- lost his congressional seat to an outspoken progressive champion, Matt Cartwright. Silvestre Reyes might not be "as bad" as Holden, at least inasmuch as he never joined the Blue Dogs, but he's plenty bad enough so that Blue America is supporting his progressive opponent for the El Paso congressional seat, Beto O'Rourke. But just who is Silvestre Reyes? There's a lot more to him than just some guy born in 1944 who worked for the border Patrol and was elected to Congress in 1996.

He's the senior Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He's been a wink-and-a-nod kind of guy on torture, which has brought him to the attention of many groups and individuals who take civil liberties seriously. And in 2008 he was the chief sponsor of FISA, which allows for unconstitutional spying on American citizens inside the country. His bill protects telecomm companies from privacy lawsuits in domestic spying cases as long as the president claims the spying is legal. The reasoning is, to say the least, faulty. But no one ever claimed Reyes was a Brainiac. In fact Reyes was roundly criticized after a 2006 interview in which he claimed al-Qaeda was a "Predominantly-probable Shiite" organization when even school children know it's exclusively Sunni. For many, that was an inexcusable mistake for the head of the intelligence committee to make.

But if civil liberties issues are what make progressives nationally mistrustful of Reyes, it is the old corruption issues that so many long-time congressional incumbents fall into that has him in trouble back in El Paso. In 2004, the inspector general of the General Services Administration investigated problems with the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS), a $239 million network of hundreds of cameras and 12,000 sensors installed along the Mexican and Canadian borders since 1996 that Reyes had championed.

Aside from major problems involving defective equipment, poor installation, cut corners, tens of millions of dollars potentially wasted, and lax oversight of the contractor, International Microwave Corp. (IMC, which had its Texas registered office out of Reyes home!), the investigation focused on IMC’s employment of Reyes’ daughter, Rebecca.

An Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employee named Walter Drabik had recommended that the first contractor on the project hire Rebecca as liaison to the INS and then that the succeeding contractor, IMC, do the same, which both did. Ultimately she became IMC’s vice president of contracts and ran the ISIS program. IMC hired Reyes’ son Silvestre Jr. as an ISIS technician for several years. It also hired his other daughter, Monica. Reyes claimed he never interceded to get his children hired.

When Congress threatened to eliminate the program in 2000, IMC appealed to Reyes and other allies in Congress. Soon afterwards, IMC was awarded a no-bid contract expansion worth $200 million. IMC began contributing to Reyes’ campaigns that year and continued through late 2002 for a total of $4,500.

In 2003, L-3 Communications bought IMC, retained both Reyes children as employees, and continued servicing the ISIS program. That year, L-3 began contributing to Rep. Reyes’ campaigns, which it has done every year since for a total of $32,500.

Much like the worst Republican Military Industrial Complex hack, Buck McKeon, Reyes takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from armaments makers and war contractors. In fact, that's where he gets most of his campaign cash-- at least $723,795 since 1996 (most of it, like almost $700,000, from industry PACs). He's also beloved by the sleaziest lobbyists in Washington, who shower him with cash. He took over $45,000 from a corrupt lobbying firm that was shut down for illegally bribing Members of Congress (like himself). From 2006 to 2008, Reyes took $28,800 from the PMA Group via its employees and PAC. Reyes’ PAC, Best PAC, accepted an additional $17,000 from PMA, all but $1,000 of it on the same day. The PMA Group is a defunct lobbying firm that was raided by the FBI in 2008 over allegations of numerous types of illegal financial activity in connection with John Murtha (D-PA) and for illegally funneling money to members of Congress. The firm was shut down the following year. In September 2011, PMA’s founder Paul Magliocchetti pleaded guilty in federal court to funneling more than $386,000 in campaign contributions to lawmakers, including appropriators, over nearly six years by reimbursing his friends, family members, and colleagues for making those contributions He's currently serving 27-month prison sentence for running the scheme. In March 2007, Reyes’ brother Chuy set up Reyes’ PAC, Best PAC. “By the first week of June, the PAC had raised $35,000 from 32 individuals, almost every one of whom was an employee of the PMA Group or an employee of a defense or intelligence technology firm represented by PMA. Most of the donations were made on May 7, four days before the Intelligence panel approved the 2008 intelligence authorization bill, which included earmarks for several donors to the PAC.”

Most of the other individuals and companies who had contributed to Best PAC by that point were affiliated with the lobbying firm Potomac Advocates (a.k.a. PRASAM), which specialized in defense and intelligence matters.

Most of the donors to the PAC were also longtime supporters of Murtha, Alan Mollohan (D-WV), and Peter Visclosky (D-IN). Together with Reyes, the men provided Best PAC donors with 12 earmarks worth $30 million in the House-passed Defense appropriations bill.

For example, Reyes requested and won inclusion of an $800,000 earmark for El Paso-based Romanyk Consulting to “develop a program to help secure laboratories working with biological agents.” Andrew Nicholas Romanyk had contributed $4,000 to Reyes’ campaign from September 2006 to March 2007 and contributed $1,000 to Best PAC on June 1, 2007. He also requested and won inclusion of $2 million in earmarks for Raytheon and Trex Enterprises, two PRASAM clients. Raytheon had given $5,000 to Best PAC on May 1, 2007 and had given $2,000 to Reyes’ campaign in January 2007.

Keith Ashdown, the chief investigator for watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said at the time that the PAC “looks like it was solely set up to funnel money to Democratic interests in exchange for earmarks.”

And Reyes has been running the same corrupt scams with the Telecoms-- sponsoring bills for them in return for payoffs and bribes. When he was named chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in December 2006, he said he was going to confront the Bush administration on its warrantless wiretapping program. Instead, in June 2008, he sponsored a bill to give telecom companies retroactive immunity for illegally allowing the Bush administration to spy on American citizens without warrants. The bill ensured that pending lawsuits against telecommunications companies would be dismissed, which would shield them from future lawsuits, and which granted the government sweeping wiretapping authority with little oversight. Reyes voted for his hideous bill with all but one Republican and with a minority of Democrats. Verizon and AT&T showered members of Congress with contributions in 2007 and 2008 as the Bush regime pushed Congress to grant telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for letting the National Security Agency illegally
eavesdrop on Americans and mine their communications records. In 2007 and 2008, Reyes accepted $4,000 from Verizon and has taken $20,500 from them in his career. He took $10,000 from AT&T in those two years and has taken $20,000 lifetime. In May 2011, Reyes broke with the majority Democrats and voted for a four-year extension of three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act regarding government surveillance. Extended would be the government’s authority to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by terrorists; the requirement that banks, telecommunications companies, and libraries yield up to the government any information about a customer that it wants without informing the customer; and the government’s authority to track terrorists acting independently of any foreign power or organization.

And Reyes takes bribes from financial predators galore-- $538,451 as of March 30. And he works hard for the money. In September 2000, he voted for the Archer (R-TX) motion to suspend the rules and pass HR 4986. The bill exempted from federal taxes most income earned abroad and repealed portions of PL 98-369 that created foreign sales corporations (FSCs) at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion over five years. The bill would treat all foreign sales alike as long as 50 percent of the content of the goods sold was produced in the U.S. Additionally, current FSCs would be abolished on Sept. 30 and certain products, including oil, gas and unprocessed softwood timber, would not receive the benefit. The measure passed 315-109. The year before that Reyes voted for HR 833, a bankruptcy bill which revised bankruptcy laws to require individuals to file for relief under Chapter 13, rather than Chapter 7, which is more forgiving. Every Republican but one voted for it and most Democrats voted against it. Corrupt conservative Democrats-- like Hoyer, Holden, Crowley, Velázquez, Blagojevich and Reyes-- voted with the GOP. Two years, four years and five years later he did it again, voting for the notorious bills that targeted consumers on behalf of credit card companies. The worst of these was Bush's bankruptcy bill 2005 which every Republican supported and all the corrupt conservative Democrats went along with. Again, all the corporate whores and the worst Democrats, like Hoyer, Holden, Israel, Crowley, Bean, Ed Case, voted with the banks against consumers and against progressives like Grijalva, Conyers, Nadler, Baldwin, Pelosi, and Frank. Reyes, of course, sided with the corrupt conservatives. The banking, credit card and retail industries, widely credited with writing the 2005 bankruptcy bill, lobbied for it for eight years and gave $56 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress in the 2004 elections. Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Programs Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that, “By making it harder for consumers to wipe away abusive loans in bankruptcy, this bill rewards the bottom feeders in the lending industry. These are the firms bombarding college students with high interest credit card offers, or peddling predatory mortgage loans to older Americans, or marketing payday loans at triple digit interest rates to cash strapped members of the military.”

And of course, Reyes voted for the bankster bailout both times it came up in 2008 and in 2009 he voted to not allow mortgages to be modified by judges in bankruptcies. All that, while missing over 800 roll call votes, one of the worst records in Congress and only getting 2 substantive bills passed in his entire career, both dreadful (an Intelligence bill and FISA). But Lockhead Martin, Northrop Grumman, SAIC, Boeing and Raytheon-- war armaments industries-- fully embrace him and keep financing his career. There's an alternative, Beto O'Rourke:

A Progressive Democrat In Texas-- Meet Beto O'Rourke Who's Running For Congress To Represent Working Families In El Paso

El Paso has around 650,000 people and the county, most of which comprises the 16th congressional district has around 800,000. It's the westernmost part of Texas, closer to L.A. than to Houston-- and in a different time zone from the rest of Texas. And it's as blue as the rest of the state is red. Since 1996 TX-16 has been represented by a conservative Democrat and a staunch, even zombie-like, supporter of the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned America about, Silvestre Reyes. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, most Members rate him as having about the same intelligence as Michele Bachmann, another Member. We were excited when we heard that Reyes finally was getting a progressive challenger in the Democratic primary, Beto O'Rourke, and I asked him to introduce himself. Watch the video above (and down below), read what he has to say and please consider making a contribution to his grassroots campaign here at our ActBlue page.

I am a fourth-generation El Pasoan. I graduated from Columbia, came back to El Paso and started a technology and media company in downtown El Paso. In 2005 I sought and won a seat on the El Paso City Council where I worked with the community on a very progressive agenda of restricting sprawl and promoting infill development; rejuvenating our downtown; protecting the environment by successfully opposing the reopening of a copper smelter in central El Paso; and promoting equality and access to healthcare.

One thing that sets me apart from the incumbent in this race: I have the courage of my convictions.

I led the charge on the El Paso City Council to offer health benefits to same sex partners of City employees, and then upheld that decision in the face of a misguided citizen petition that would have removed those benefits from City employees had hundreds of police and fire retirees who were also affected.

After thousands had died in our sister city of Ciudad Juarez in 2009, I pointed out that the drug war our country has waged and forced upon Mexico was partly to blame. When Congressman Silvestre Reyes tried to shut down Council debate by threatening to withhold federal funds, I continued to push for an open and honest debate on the subject. As the death toll mounted over the ensuing years (now more than 10,000 have died, making Juarez the deadliest city in the world), I continued to talk about this politically inconvenient truth and even co-wrote a book with Susie Byrd (Dealing Death and Drugs) about the impact of the drug war on El Paso, Juarez and our two countries.

I am steadfast on the issue of Women's Health. I have called Silvestre Reyes' vote to zero-out Title X funding (which provides family planning, breast and cervical cancer screenings and HIV screenings) embarrassing and indefensible. I believe in a woman's access to contraception, to her right to choose and to having access to quality healthcare, and I will vote accordingly.

What does my opponent stand for?

Silvestre Reyes voted to de-regulate the banks in 1999 and then to bail them out 10 years later.

He voted for the Patriot Act and supports warrantless wiretapping.

He voted for and defended the National Defense Authorization Act which allows your government to arrest you under terrorism charges and hold you without recourse to your constitutional rights.

He voted to defund Title X.

He is a pawn for defense and homeland security contractors, pushing through hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts. One contractor hired all three of his children under a $220 million no-bid contract that turned out to be a boondoggle for taxpayers.

He is tied to corruption in El Paso. Despite professing his faith in the drug war, he accepted and did not return $9,500 from an indicted drug trafficker. He has accepted thousands more from indicted El Pasoans who used their connections to him to obtain federal funds and squander taxpayer resources.

This election is a contest between the regressive rearguard of the Democratic party and the best progressive values our party offers to this country.

What the heck are they hiding? House Dems move closer to accepting the GOP's frantic cover-up of the Bush regime's electronic-surveillance activities

"It's about finding middle ground, and we have middle ground. It's not going to please everyone, but let's get on with it."

--House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, quoted by CongressDaily, on "a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws" which Reyes "disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept"

"There just isn't enough money at stake to explain this. Nobody's suing for the money, they are suing for the discovery. Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up."

--Digby, in "FISA Zombie," a post of the CongressDaily article

I wasn't originally going to pass on this CongressDaily article about the new "compromise" on a replacement for the expired FISA laws which Chairman Reyes has now signed on to. I know how complex and technical this whole issue is -- both in its substance and in the politics of it. I know people's hair tends to hurt when they hear mere mention of FISA, not to mention "retroactive telecom immunity."

Then I saw that Digby had posted the CD article, and noted in particular the above paragraph that she appended. As usual, she's got it exactly right.

The crucial "compromise" -- negotiated, curiously, with the ranking Republican, Kit Bond of Missouri [right], on the Senate Intelligence Committee (not that the Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller, is any more enlightened on the issue) -- concerns the ever-contentious issue of telecom immunity, which is neither granted nor denied. Instead it is to be determined, in secret of course, by the always-secret FISA court.

As regards the politics of the issue, it's still impossible to know from the CD article where matters stand. If we accept that Chairman Reyes is prepared to sign on to the "compromise," that doesn't mean that either House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, which means we still don't know what the Democratic leadership position is. It's just not an encouraging step that the Intelligence Committee chairman has decided that the crucial issue is "getting on with it."

But as regards the substance, allowing the telecom companies to get their "get out of jail free" cards in secret means the Bush regime, or whoever is working so hard to make sure that no proper investigation of illegal surveillance ever takes place, have won their case. Because contrary to the usual Republican obfuscation, which has it that FISA-related lawsuits, like most lawsuits, are just money-grubbing opportunities promoted as usual by sleazy lawyer-loving Democrats, as Digby notes, the importance of the FISA lawsuits has nothing to do with money. Such suits may in fact be the only way to force public disclosure of . . . well, whatever the people who are hiding stuff are trying so hard to hide.

Again as Digby notes, "Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up." And the more ferociously the behind-the-scenes negotiators work to obliterate those lawsuits, the badder we may guess that something is that happened. The working hypothesis has to be that it's so bad, there are people who will do whatever it takes to make sure it never becomes public.

That said, since CongressDaily is a subscription deal, here is the full text of the article:

House Chairman Open To Republican Compromise On FISA
by Chris Strohm

The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws, signaling that a long-running congressional impasse could soon be coming to an end.

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes told CongressDaily that he is "fine" with language offered by Senate Intelligence ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond and other Republicans to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Notably, the GOP language, which was offered a day before the recent congressional recess, would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have helped the Bush administration conduct electronic surveillance on the communications of U.S. citizens without warrants.

About 40 civil lawsuits already have been filed against the companies. The administration, Bond and other Republicans had backed a Senate-passed FISA bill that would have shielded the telecom firms from the lawsuits upon enactment.

"It's about finding middle ground and we have middle ground," Reyes said of the compromise offered by Republicans. "It's not going to please everyone but let's get on with it."

Reyes said he believes enough Democrats will support the proposal to pass it in the House.

But he said House Majority Leader Hoyer told him that House Democratic leaders want to have the liability of the telecoms reviewed in federal district court as opposed to the FISA court.

A senior Reyes aide clarified his boss' positions by saying that while Reyes thinks Bond's proposal is a positive one, he remains supportive of Hoyer's efforts to improve on it.

A FISA reform bill passed by the House earlier this year would have had the cases heard in district court.

Efforts to obtain comment from Hoyer's office were unsuccessful at presstime and Reyes' assertion that the GOP language would pass the House could not be confirmed.

Public interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the GOP language on the immunity issue, saying it does not empower the FISA court to determine if the administration or the telecom firms broke the law. They say the court review would be too limited to give plantiffs in the lawsuits a fair hearing.

On another issue, the proposed GOP compromise would require the administration to submit its procedures and certifications to the FISA court for review before surveillance could begin, except in exigent circumstances. This would apply to wiretaps involving the communications of a U.S. citizen inside the United States.

Republicans also have said they will accept, for the most part, language from House Democrats making FISA the exclusive means for conducting wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence. House Speaker Pelosi has said that having such language in a final FISA bill is her top priority.

And Republicans have agreed to accept a Democratic demand that the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies conduct audits of the terrorist surveillance program.

The House-passed FISA bill included a provision that would have established an independent commission to investigate the administration's warrantless wiretapping activities.

"We knew we weren't going to get everything, but we need to get this done," Reyes said.

#

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE FINDS A NOT VERY UNIQUE SOLUTION ON TELECOM IMMUNITY: GIVE IN TO BUSH

Looks that way. This morning's Washington Post has a story on page 3 that starts off ominously: "House and Senate Democratic leaders are headed into talks today that they say could lead to a breakthrough on legislation to revamp domestic surveillance powers and grant phone companies some form of immunity for their role in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." Shameful!

Hoyer, always predisposed to rubber stamp as much of the Bush agenda as he can get away with rubber stamping without alerting his constituents that he isn't a real Democrat, says he polled the members and, as expected, he's come down on the side of Democratic reactionaries. The Blue Dogs are yipping in victory today and at a precedural manuever cooked up in Pelsoi's office to "allow many Democrats to vote against immunity but still make its approval all but certain."

Anticipating this move, yesterday Glenn Greenwald wrote a scathing post at Salon, House Democratic Leadership: Not Just Complicit But Also Self-destructive. As usual, Greenwald hits the nail right on the head. A couple weeks ago I was not only premature but also naive in applauding Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes' smoke and mirrors offensive against an out-of-control and highly dangerous Executive Branch. I withdraw every word of praise I had to say about him and recommend you judge this imbecile for himself, as he shows what he's worth on this barelu coherent CNN video.

No rational person who has watched Congressional Democrats since they took over Congress could possibly have expected them to do anything but what they always do: namely, whatever they're told to do by the White House. The last thing they were ever going to do was stand their ground over Americans' basic liberties and the rule of law, concepts about which they couldn't possibly care less.

...There's very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented and established at this point to be worth spending any time discussing. They were never going to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping or the destruction of the rule of law via telecom amnesty for one simple reason: many of them don't actually oppose those things, and many who claim to oppose them don't actually care about any of it. That's all a given.

But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.

And now, after picking this fight and letting it rage for weeks, they are going to do what they always do -- just meekly give in to the President, yet again generating a tidal wave of headlines trumpeting how they bowed, surrendered, caved in, and lost to the President. They're going to cast the appearance that they engaged this battle and once again got crushed, that they ran away in fear because of the fear-mongering ads that were run and the attacks from the President. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

It was great to see one of Hoyer's and Pelosi's key allies, Al Wynn fall to the wrath of an awakened electorate in MD-04. Maybe if we can repeat this 100 times they'll learn something. It would be great today to see Democrats sick of this pernicious Democratic rubber stamping of Bush-Cheney attacks on the American rule of law vote against Silvestre Reyes in today's Democratic primary where he is being opposed by political unknown Jorge Artalejo.

And why does retroactive immunity even matter? Dan Froomkin explained it thoroughly and succinctly in yesterday's Washington Post. Despite Bush's own confusion or obfuscation, the question Congress should be dealing with more seriously than Hoyer is willing to is "whether the telephone and Internet companies that for years let the government spy on their customers without a warrant should be protected from civil lawsuits alleging that they violated federal law in doing so."

Bush on Thursday argued that the telecommunications companies shouldn't be punished for patriotically carrying out legal orders. And he characterized the lawsuits as being the product of "class-action plaintiffs attorneys, [who] you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train."

The Washington Post put Bush's claim in context on Friday: "Two nonprofit groups are overseeing [the five coordinated, class-action lawsuits pending against the phone companies]: the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois." The Post also noted that "substantial damages would be awarded only if courts rule that they participated in illegal surveillance affecting millions of people, not just communications involving terrorism suspects overseas."

...Terrorists everywhere had plenty of reason to believe that the United States was trying to spy on their electronic communications long before the New York Times broke the story of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program in December 2005.

What was new about the program was not some sort of tactical or technological breakthrough that the terrorists could overcome once alerted to its existence. What was new about the program was that it was arguably in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which forbids any form of domestic wiretapping without a warrant.

Whether the government was listening in on their calls legally or not was not material to the terrorists -- but it's hugely relevant to any American who cares about the rule of law.

...[T]elecoms can't possibly be worried about prospective immunity for following lawful orders -- that's already part of the agreed-upon legislation.

So are they actually telling the government: Unless you get us off the hook for billions in potential damages based on our past actions, we won't follow the law -- or we'll do so, but only kicking and screaming. That doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to help them out. In fact, it sounds like extortion.

Or are they simply saying that without retroactive immunity, they'll feel a greater need to be absolutely sure that what they're doing is legal? If that's the case, that sounds like a good thing. Any company being asked to do something by the government that they have plausible reason to believe is illegal should push back. Otherwise, there are no checks and balances at work. We call that a police state.

Another possibility, I suppose, is that the telecoms are balking about doing things that we don't even know about -- and are worried that they could be sued once we find out.

At any rate, none of these points argue for retroactive immunity.

HAWKISH DEMOCRAT, SILVESTRE REYES TELLS BUSH TO "PUT PARTISANSHIP ASIDE" AND PROTECT AMERICA

Looks like Pelosi made the right call on Reyes afterall

I wasn't a huge fan Pelosi's decision to make Texas' conservativish Democratic congressman Silvestre Reyes head of the House Intelligence Committee, The stunning letter he sent Bush today, however, has me flabbergasted-- and filled with admiration. The entire letter is well worth reading and we've reproduced it below. Key points, aside from Reyes' telling his fellow Texan to put his divisive partisan approach aside, for once, for the sake of America, are at the very end:

I, for one, do not intend to back down-- not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Good for Reyes! Here's his letter to a terrorist, an errorist and the worst excuse for a president this nation has ever been saddled with:

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year-- until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations-- including al Qaeda-- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.


Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

More context: the House will stand up where the Senate assumed the position and greased itself up. Maybe Nancy and Reyes ought to talk with Heath Shuler-- or have puppetmaster Emanuel do it. Nah, forget Emanuel; get Rush Holt to talk some sense into this sad, pathetic tool, who should never have been recruited by... oh, yeah... Rahm, in the first place.

A BONUS QUOTE OF THE DAY-- FROM INDIA

"This administration cannot be trusted to investigate itself."
--Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes

I suspect that not many Americans-- let alone Indians-- had ever heard, at least until this morning, of conservative Texas Democratic Congressman Silvestre Reyes. But this morning Representative Reyes was the toast of New Delhi when the Hindustan Times featured his announcement that, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he would initiate an independent investigation into the little matter of the destruction by the Bush Regime of the torture tapes.

The Bush Regime war criminals and traitors were, of course, hoping to sweep the whole thing under the carpet by (a) blaming Nancy Pelosi, and (b) having a bogus investigation whitewash conducted by its own lackeys. Reyes, who for years has tended to rubber-stamp much of Bush's agenda, announced: "This administration cannot be trusted to investigate itself." Well . . . better late than never, I guess.