Dr. Steve Porter, Pennsylvania's Independent Candidate For Congress

Dr. Steve Porter has been a good friend of Blue America's since we got started in 2005. At that time he ran for Congress in northwestern Pennsylvania as a Democrat. I was somewhat naïve back then and couldn't understand why the DCCC wouldn't help such an independent-minded stalwart progressive. Now I understand that the DCCC isn't looking for stalwart progressives and absolutely hates independent-minded thinkers. Steve ran again-- but as an independent. I've invited him to join me on a panel at Netroots Nation in June to help people understand how antithetical to the progressive movement an organization like the DCCC, built as part of a vast incumbent protection racket and imbued with values that extol corruption. truly is. Should be fun. I've asked the Netroots Nation folks to invite Chairman Israel as well. Meanwhile, Steve is, once again-- and as an independent, running for the Erie-based House seat in Pennsylvania. I asked him to give us an idea of what it's all about.

Why I Am Running For Congress As An Independent

-by Steven Porter, Ph.D.
 
For most of my 68 years, I, like millions of my fellow citizens, have fallen prey to the myth that our two-party system would further the American democracy.
 
But I was wrong. I didn't heed the warnings of our first President, George Washington, who begged us in his farewell address of 1796 to avoid turning the reins of government over to political parties.
 
Listen, dear God, listen to his words.
 
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties to the state," he said. "The alternate domination of one faction over another... serves to distract the public...enfeeble the administration... agitate with jealousies, kindle animosity, and foment riot."
 
And as our seats of government were turned over in every state legislature and almost every court to our two-party duopoly, the tenets of our Constitution and sources of our very freedom were prostituted by greed and the desire for power to the point where service to the people has now become a governmental impossibility.
 
In 1976 with the Buckley vs. Valeo ruling which equated money with free speech and in 2010 when the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court made political contributions virtually unlimited and virtually anonymous, we allowed the nails of our democratic coffin to be driven tight.
 
In the last twenty years, the wealthy who lust for profits and control have spent an incredible $25 trillion  to put into Congress their own lapdogs. People thus owned-- no matter how they once might have wished to serve the nation-- now serve their financial masters. So our legislators squabble over party power and fail term after term to deal with the crises which face us.
 
If you go to www.opensecrets.org, you will find the statistics of the Center for Responsive Politics.  Don't believe me. See the flow of money for yourselves. Look, for example, at the $5 trillion used by the financial industry to buy Congress since 1990. Then ask yourselves how our representatives can serve those of us who have lost our homes and our jobs when their first order of business is to bail out the banks which put them in office.
 
Well, they can't. Nor can they provide affordable health care before profits to the insurance carriers, nor clean air before oil leases, nor peace before feeding the industries of war.
 
Confused and misled by corporatized news and under-educated by a continually failed school system, our public has been paralyzed by ignorance and distracted by a media whose profits rely on prurience rather than meaningful information.
 
Consider this: 37% of American voters are registered independents, yet only 2 of the 535 members of Congress are independents. That is because state-by-state, in ways often patently unconstitutional, everyone but a Republican or a Democrat is denied equal access to the ballot  [see Grand Illusion by lawyer Theresa Amato]. For example, here, now, in the state of Pennsylvania, while a Republican or Democrat needs only 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot, I-- an unaffiliated independent-- must get 2% of the total of the winning congressional candidate's vote in the 2010 election. That is far more than 1,000 signatures. And that in spite of Pennsylvania's own constitution which says that elections shall be "free and equal." It also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that all Americans shall have the equal protection of the laws of the land.
 
I wish I could put all of my research into this one post. I can't. But it is there for you to see in my books. I beg you to read Preserving America and check the references for yourselves. I urge you to listen to my internet broadcasts on http://webtalkradio.net/shows/preserving-america/. I ask you to visit my campaign website, www.porter4congress.com. You will find the truth there, waiting for you to verify, waiting for our nation to hear.
 
I run with an easily understood platform which-- as I look to our future-- I do not see changing.
 
1.  Leave Afghanistan now.

2.  Remove the Social Security earnings cap.

3.  Replace Obamacare with HR 676,  the Physicians National Health Program.

4.  Restore the tax rates on corporations and the wealthiest 1% of Americans so that they generate one-half of what they did in 1960 when corporations accounted for 25% of federal revenues rather than the 9% they yield today, and when the wealthiest 1% were taxed on rates close to 80% instead of the approximately 30% rate of today.

5.  With the monies derived from these steps, institute public works projects in solar power generation, wind power generation, and building a national watershed program.


6.  Fund all elections with taxes already paid and equally distributed to candidates who are allowed to gain ballot access by laws applied equally to all.
 
This simple six-item platform will pay off our debts, make us energy independent, put millions to work now and into the future, and end the bribery of our government.
 
For years we have been brainwashed by the major parties and a press designed to control us instead of inform us.  We have been brainwashed to think that if we do not vote either for a Republican or a Democrat, we throw our votes away. And so we leap from the frying pan of the Republicans to the fire of the Democrats and throw our democracy away.
 
I beg you to support my campaign. Get me elected and see what an honest, un-owned voice in Congress will do. Give me the chance to speak for us. I will not fail you, and-- if I do--cut me loose. You lose very little if you respond to me in mass. Maybe $100. Maybe 2 years. You might, however, gain back the promise of your nation.

Preserving America-- Ten Things We Must Change To Survive

-by Dr. Steven Porter

I’d like to tell you that my new book, Preserving America, is a happy book. It isn’t. I’d like to tell you that as a nation, America is on the cutting edge of greatness. It isn’t. In fact, it is on the cutting edge of great tragedy, and the only way to avert that tragedy is to honestly assess current issues and offer solutions to current problems which heretofore have not been given much attention.

In Preserving America, I have tried to research the origins of our dilemmas and to offer facts which explain their severity. I chose ten topics which I believe are eroding our nation. They are: the decline of the American family, the failure of American education, the corruption of both major parties, the consolidation of the American media, our financial irresponsibility, the insolvency of Social Security, the unaffordability of healthcare, our misunderstanding of terrorism, the way in which we have ignored ecology, and our religious intolerance.

Like an addict who must first face the reality of addiction in order to attempt a cure, America is going to have to acknowledge her problems with a degree of honesty which, frankly, seems to be missing. If she can do that, however, she will then be in a position to find ways in which she can deal with her problems more successfully. That is why I end each chapter of the book with a section devoted to what we can do to solve our problems-- issue-by-issue.

It won’t be easy for us. We have dug ourselves into a huge hole on many fronts, and glib slogans for the sake of gaining political power are only going to contribute to a further decline. I am afraid that meaningful assessments and meaningful actions will not come until the level of pain experienced by our people worsens. We seem to react better to crisis. I guess that is true of all peoples. But the stakes are really too high for delay. We can’t wait for the economy to collapse completely before we right the fiscal ship. We can’t wait for the ecological tipping point with respect to global warning before we curb our emissions.

It is because I see such great peril in so many areas that I have tried to write honestly and to offer solutions rooted in reality. I hope you will visit the book’s website. I hope you will read the book. I hope you will find it of importance to your own lives and to the life of our nation.

And as you read it, please let me tell you what I have told my students throughout my teaching lifetime. Don’t believe me just because I say it. I have referenced my work for you. Check the references. Verify that what I say is accurate. Form your own opinions about the problems which confront us. I do not have the only mind or the only data or the only answers. Let my work be an inspiration and a catalyst for you to join the march of progress for our country and our world.

Thank you for reading this. Thank you for visiting the website. Thank you for reading the book.

Automotive Saturday: The Wood River Question

And, at 376 miles/gallon, the winner is... a nice 1959 Opel

Guest post by Dr. Steve Porter, whose latest book, Preserving America, is available now.

If you drove along the Great River Road on the Illinois side of the Mississippi just about where the Missouri joins up with it, you’d get to Wood River, Illinois. It’s a fairly typical Midwestern town: eleven-and-a-half thousand; not too far from St. Louis; prone to river flooding. You could stop at Fast Eddie’s and get a good burger for ninety-nine cents. Or you could visit the oval track at the old airfield where Shell Oil conducted some pretty amazing tests.

Funny thing about the tests. It was long before the world got bent out of shape about global warming and ecology-- long before the big three U.S. auto makers needed the government to bail them out. Long before the Tea Party was clamoring for change.

You see, Shell wanted to find out just how far a car could go on a gallon of its gas. They invited people to fuel economy competitions, and here’s what they found.

In 1949, a 1947 Studebaker got 149.95 mpg.
In 1968, a 1959 Fiat 600 got 244.35 mpg.
In 1973, a 1959 Opel got 376.59 mpg.

Not bad.

A trick of some kind, you’re thinking, right? Sorry. No tricks. These were modified stock cars right off the assembly lines. They were stripped down, yes, to lower weight and wind resistance, but the engines were stock engines using old-fashioned carburetors and coil-based ignition systems. No electronics. No fancy computers. No automatic fuel injection. The cars were driven at a variety of speeds with the average velocity not dipping below 30 mph.

Today, that 1959 Opel is owned by Evan McMullen, who heads up Cosmopolitan Motors in Seattle, Washington. To be sure, it’s not a thing of beauty to look at, but it does elicit a comment from Mr. McMullen. “Here’s a car that was twenty years old at the time of the contest that was the product of a couple of guys in a garage. You can’t tell me we can’t do better than this with cars today.”

Indeed. With the major auto makers of the world pumping their chests with pride at mpg ratings of 25, 30, 35, 40-- one might ask why the technology of the Wood River competitions has been withheld from our roadways.

Are the automobile and oil lobbies so powerful, is the American Congress so thoroughly owned by special interests, are the proponents of greenhouse gas reduction so weak-kneed that the Wood River Question can’t be discussed publicly? And where are the American people in all this? Shouldn’t we be interested in an answer? After all, the only things at stake are our economy and maybe the ecology of the world.

[And just in case you think I’m joking, you might turn to pages 221-223 of Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine (ISBN 0470991321) by the Shell Oil Company, published in New York in 1977 by John Wiley & Sons.]

The Daily Blue America Report

Superb Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter

Texas-10- Early voting, increased Democratic voter registration, a lack of enthusiasm for McCain and for Republicans in general looks like it is turning one of Tom Delay's gerrymandered districts-- a big swatch of eastern and central Texas from Austin to the Houston suburbs-- blue. Larry Joe Doherty is doing an incredible job and Bush rubber stamp Michael McCaul' is suddenly waking up to realize he may soon be working for his father-in-law directly. Today's Austin Statesman seems to have detected a bit of the old gloom and doom setting in at McCaul campaign headquarters.

After looking at the early voting turnout-- two to one, Democrat over Repug-- McCaul campaign manager Jack Ladd sent out an e-mail alert to right-wing activists: “This is very bad news. If you think your friends are volunteering, they are not. I know I’m not going to sit down and die, and I know you will not either. There are only 12 days left, and this is not a lifelong commitment, we are asking you just give part of a day or days and help keep CD10 Republican.”

Between the Rick Noriega, Barack Obama and SEIU ground campaigns-- not to mention Larry Joe's own-- McCaul would probably be better off spending the next 12 days in one of the snake-handling churches that support him begging for some of that sky-god intervention Palin is counting on.

New Hampshire-01- None of the freshmen elected in 2006 has been more forthright in battling the special interests and always keeping the interests of working families front and center than Carol Shea-Porter. Unfortunately, Jeb Bradley, the rubber stamp reactionary the voters in eastern New Hampshire decided to replace in 2006, is trying to get his old job back. And there's nothing he won't stoop to to get back to Washington. Right now he's using a poor distraught Gold Star mother to distort Carol's support for the troops and principled opposition to the war. Carol has received the endorsement of the VFW's PAC, and an A+ rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. What Bradley is trying to do to her is despicable. 

Carol is a military spouse and has been one of the best friends our fighting men and women have in Congress but Bradley is callously manipulating this woman-- apparently driven insane and filled with partisan rage and hatred-- as an attack dog against Carol.

Bradley's corporately funded campaign includes the most vicious and deceitful ads being run by anyone from either party in New England. His ads are entirely based on distortion and outright lies-- like this ugliness. Fortunately New Hampshire is not Alabama and most of the voters there seem to see right through Bradley's slimefest. The two most recent polls-- both in October-- show Carol ahead of him by an average of 7 points. The problem is that Bradley was a 100% corporate shill before Carol banished him from Congress and K Street wants him back-- and right-wing front groups and hate organizations like Freedom's Watch are flooding the district with ads. Carol can really use our help-- and she's earned it.

Pennsylvania-03- The only independent who Blue America has endorsed this year, Dr. Steven Porter, is running against an anti-choice fanatic/pathetic Democratic hack from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Kathy Dahlkemper and against one of the most useless and personally corrupt GOP shills in Congress, Phil English. Predictably, the two superficial and unqualified major party candidates have conspired to keep Steven out of the debates. When Edinboro University announced recently that they are including him in a debate next Tuesday, the petrified and tongue-tied Dahlkemper immediately backed out. English isn't saying whether or not he will participate.

"Dahlkemper’s refusal," Steve told us, "is evidence of a fatal flaw in the character of a legislator:  the lack of courage. When the choice before the electorate is limited to one between clever thieves and shallow puppets, the only results possible are disastrous. We are experiencing those kinds of results now in our land and across our planet. And still, things can get worse. Recessions can collapse into depressions. Terrorist conflagrations can escalate into nuclear war. The greed of international business can result in ecological holocaust. To stave off such calamities, legislative leaders around the world will need the courage to speak the truth and act accordingly. The cowardice of Mrs. Dahlkemper (and a very corrupt political system which supports her) in both driving independent voices off the ballot and refusing to face them in open debate signals her complete unpreparedness for the office which she seeks. It is a warning sign of unmistakable dimensions."

And English, as usual, has problems of his own. One of the misguided labor unions that has backed him preciously, AFSCME, has finally woken up and seen the light, launching a half million dollar campaign against him for his consistent support of Bush's anti-working family economic agenda. The AFSCME campaign may not be enough to defeat English. Steve has virtually no money to mount a campaign and Dahlkemper is such an abysmal candidate that no self-respecting progressive could possibly vote for her. On top of the corporate pals who English has sold his soul to are coming through for him with last minute mega-donations, especially mutual fund firms, mortgage bankers and other authors of the economic collapse he has helped preside over. Needless to say Big Oil and every big corporation that opposes labor unions, especially Wal-Mart, is donating to English.

Tonight's last item: in a move that surprised most people, Oklahoma's fourth largest newspaper, the Muskogee Phoenix endorsed one of the best candidates running for Senate anywhere, Andrew Rice.

There is no doubt that Inhofe maintains a conservative attitude that reflects the position of his constituent base, but the extremist statements he has made throughout his career on many subjects hurts his credibility and the state's image despite whatever positive contributions he has made while in Congress. And extremism, whether to the right or left, does not promote good government policies or government that benefits everyone.

That is why Andrew Rice is a better candidate in the U.S. Senate race.

Rice has a more even-handed and rational approach to the issues and problems we are experiencing. He has gained a experiential world view as a missionary, working with rural development projects in Asia, that would serve him well in the Senate.

And another great Blue America candidate for Senate, Jeff Merkley, had a pretty special endorsement today too:



Meanwhile, I want to remind everyone to be sure to wander over and check out Digby's Blue America fundraiser.

Blue America Welcomes Dr. Steve Porter, Progressive Candidate For Congress-- Round 3

Last night I read that Cindy Sheehan had qualified for the November ballot to oppose Nancy Pelosi and will base her campaign on Pelosi's refusal to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and for not taking any effective action against the war in Iraq. I used to live in the district. If I still did, I'd vote for Cindy. And she isn't the only worthy independent running for Congress. Today is a week shy of the one year anniversary of our last chat with Blue America fave Steve Porter. As he did in 2006, Steve is running for the House seat still held-- if tenuously-- by Republican rubber stamp Phil English. Of course, when Steve was our Blue America candidate in 2006, he was running as a Democrat-- even if the national Democrats ignored his race.

This year, like Cindy, he's fed up with the national Democrats, didn't run in the primary and decided to challenge both parties in the November general election as an independent. Steve will be with us at Firedoglake for a couple hours this afternoon and he's eager to answer questions about his campaign and his new book, America's Dying Democracy.

Republicans and Democrats need 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot in PA-03. Independents need 2,171 and Steve filed a thousand extra, having collected almost all of them himself by walking door to door around the district and introducing himself to voters. He's says he's campaigning more vigorously this year than he did in 2006. "I'm running a more grassroots, door-to-door campaign this year," he told me. "I've walked over 500 miles so far; thousands of homes that I've been to." In nearly a third of the houses he visited, he found that the people weren't registered to vote. "It's alarming that so many people have given up on democracy and just say, when they come to the door, 'I can't stand it anymore; go away. I'm not registered; I don't vote.' In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm running for office. For me, both major parties have been derelict in their leadership... to put it mildly."

I asked him if he has a real chance to win this race-- after all, English is being underwritten by his corporate masters to the tune of around $1.5 million (so far) and if the DCCC ignored the independent minded Porter, they are lavishing support on the empty-headed cookie-cutter Democrat running this year, Kathy Dahlkemper. He told me he has a reasonable chance to win.

I think it depends very much on the level of frustration that people feel in this district and nationwide. Independent registrations have gone up while major party registrations have decreased and I think that people are in a mood to listen to an alternative voice. Neither major political party represents, or can represent, the average citizen of the United States. They're owned by special interests and I think the public is catching on to that. The lies that are being told-- by President Bush on the one hand and by Nancy Pelosi on the other-- are simply catching up to them. Polls show that the Democrats gained control of both Houses of Congress in 2006 for one overarching reason: the public believed that the Democrats would get us out of Iraq. And the day after the election, Nancy Pelosi takes the impeachment hearings off the table. The Democrats caved in and gave Bush virtually everything that he wanted. Other than raising the minimum wage they accomplished nothing. They did nothing about Social Security, nothing about health care, nothing about shoring up the economy, nothing about the energy crisis, nothing about ecology of the planet; they did nothing about our borders. Congress' approval rating is the lowest in history; I'm not surprised. I'm hoping the public will listen to an alternate voice that's not owned.

He makes the point that after running twice already, he has far more name recognition than Dahlkemper does. In 2006 over 82,000 people voted for him (to English's 104,000). English spent $1,466,487 (around $14.10 per vote) and Steve spent $63,034 (or .77 per vote).

He feels that the biggest difference since leaving the Democratic Party is that his hands are no longer tied. "I can say what I need to say. You don't get anywhere with the two major parties unless you sell yourself to them. I was willing to do that in 2006 because I still believed in their message and that they were serious about getting us out of Iraq. I really did. I was take in. I was very angry when Pelosi took all of that off the table; it was the clincher for me. The Democrats don't want people who think for themselves. They want people who they can control, just like the Republicans do. People who think for themselves don't make it in the two major parties."

In the end he knows he'll have to caucus with the Democrats if he's elected and he's aware that they might not like him. "I'm not going there to be Miss Congeniality. I'm going there to help my country and to help the people of this district... I'm not going there to whore myself out or to be anybody's ass kisser. I'm going to do the things I need to do to satisfy my own conscience and work for the well-being of our people. I'm not going to be like Kathy Dahlkemper. Kathy Dahlkemper is an idiot; she can't speak four coherent sentences in a row. She's a woman who doesn't believe in choice. But she's well-packaged and she's exactly what the Democrats want: someone they can lead by the nose."

ActBlue only collects donations for Democrats. You can give to an anti-choice candidate like Dahlkemper but not to a pro-choice independent. If you'd like to donate to Steve's campaign today, you can't do it through the Blue America site. You can do it on his own site or by sending a check to Porter for Congress, 9451 Page Road, Wattsburg, PA 16442. This weekend, anyone who donates at least $50 through Steve's site-- or who sends a check with a little "BLUE AMERICA" notation will get an autographed copy of America's Dying Democracy.

YOU MAY NEVER HAVE HEARD OF ERISA-- BUT ITS EROSION COULD BE AT THE ROOT OF YOUR SOUR MOOD ON THE ECONOMY

Corrupt politicians mean bad news for working folks... always

Today's L.A Times ran a startling editorial, Working Without A Net about how the Bush Regime has shredded what Ronald Reagan once acknowledged was a bottom line "safety net" for Americans. One of the most ignorant and venal people ever elected to federal office, North Carolina neo-nazi Virginia Foxx, insists that everything is wonderful and if the Democrats would just stop badmouthing Bush's fabulous accomplishments the country would be like her concept of heaven. "Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina," the Times tells us, "recently distilled this view with Nixonian flourish, declaring: 'This is not a failed economy. We are not in recession. What a shame that Democrats want to talk down the economy.'" Consumer confidence isn't that much higher than it was during the Depression. 8 in 10 Americans-- including Republicans in North Carolina-- think the country is headed in the wrong direction. The price of gas-- at least where I live-- is much closer to $5/gallon than to $4/gallon (and is $10/gallon in England, which augers poorly for our future here. And unemployment and inflation are rising as rapidly as home pries are falling. We really appreciate the straight talk from Rep. Foxx and her candidate for president, Senator McCain, the two of whom have rubber stamped every single Bush Regime agenda policy that has brought our country to this state.

The Times editorial writer, Peter Gosselin, author of High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families, thinks Foxx is all wet and that there is a much better explanation for what's going on with the mood of the country.

Working Americans and their families arrived on the doorstep of the current economic crisis uniquely ill-equipped to cope with its consequences. Rather than having gained a financial protective coating during the period of growth that preceded it, working families up and down the income spectrum were actually nudged further out on an economic limb and therefore were primed for being picked off once problems emerged.

It's not that the growth of the last generation wasn't real; it was. The U.S. economy doubled in size between 1980 and last year. It's not that all of the benefits of the just-past era went to those at the top (although a very substantial chunk did); millions upon millions of Americans prospered right along with the super-rich.

But the prosperity we enjoyed was purchased at a price of diminished security for our families and ourselves. Even as our incomes went up, economic risks-- the costs of being laid off, of suffering a work-stopping illness or of a catastrophe like a house fire-- that were once largely borne on the broad shoulders of business and government were being shifted onto the backs of ordinary families, from the working poor to the reasonably rich.

That means that even before the current crisis struck, families were primed to take steeper financial falls than in the past, ones from which they'd have a harder time recovering. And now that trouble is upon us, they are falling in greater and greater numbers.

The changes that have made Americans more vulnerable have occurred in the struts that hold up working families and that have held them up for generations. Jobs, benefits, housing, health coverage, college and retirement savings, even bought-and-paid-for insurance all played crucial roles in maintaining families' economic stability during the second half of the 20th century. But the protective value of each has been weakened over the last generation.

Gosselin explains the erosion of employer-provided benefits, the lion's chunk of what working families have always relied on, even more so than Social Security and Medicare, which are primarily for retired people. ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, governs Americans' assurance they will receive work related health insurance and 401 (k) benefits, as well as the remedies when corporations decide to forego payment.

ERISA's congressional authors intended the law to protect employee benefits. We know this because they said so right in the law's preamble. But over the last generation, the Supreme Court and increasingly conservative federal appeals courts have rendered a series of decisions involving ERISA that have made it easier for employers and their agents to deny benefits to workers and their families.

Yes, a reactionary federal judiciary has been catastrophic but a reactionary federal judiciary has been appointed by reactionary presidents and confirmed by reactionary senators. Not just reactionary, but very much bought-off by the industry that benefits most from the rulings-- the Insurance Industry. Not including candidates for the presidency-- each of whom was given massive contributions-- in the current election cycle the Insurance Industry has been most generous to its biggest shills in the Senate: $279,033 for Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $228,250 for Max Baucus (D-MT), $204,894 for John Cornyn (R-TX), $191,049 for John Sununu (R-NH), $182,399 for Norm Coleman (R-MN), and $152,950 for Susan Collins (R-ME). Not a single one of these crooked political hacks represents his or her constituents' interests; each represents the interests of their paymasters in the insurance industry. Each is a disgrace to government and, in a world where politicians didn't make their own rules of conduct, each would be in prison for bribery. You're notice that this is a bipartisan list and that there are both Republicans and a Democrat on it. Dr. Steven Porter is neither. He left the Democratic Party after nearly beating a Republican who is very big on taking corporate bribes and then representing their interests, Phil English. Porter is running for that House seat in northwest Pennsylvania again this year-- but as an independent. He also looked at the erosion of the intent of the ERISA statutes:

The AP released an article today which explains how employers are using federal law to deny benefit claims to their employees and their beneficiaries. The article explains that even though they feel horrible about ruling against people whose health and insurance claims have been denied, judges are compelled to uphold the ERISA law which allows corporations to refuse benefits.
 
Congress could easily amend the law to allow for large suits against such corporate action, but Congress has done nothing of the kind. And why are we not surprised? When we look at the amounts which the health and insurance lobbies have paid in hefty campaign contributions to Congress, why on earth should we expect Congress to work for the benefit of the people?
 
The recent estimate of total lobby money spent to buy off Congress exceeds $20 billion. Of that amount, $1.38 billion was spent by the pharmaceutical lobby, $1.06 billion by the insurance lobby, and another $1.6 billion by the health and hospital lobbies. These are small amounts when compared with the total expenditures and profits of the industries involved. In the large picture, they are bargain prices for Congressional protection.
 
We shall hear very little about this from our Presidential candidates, and even less about it from the major party candidates running for Congress. It is not politic to bite the hands which feed one’s campaign. And even if a major party member spoke up, the ostracism he or she would face from the remainder of the party would probably outweigh the moral obligation which Congress owes the people it is supposed to serve.
 
It is just one more reason for voters to think outside the Republican/Democratic box-- a box designed to imprison Americans in the choice between the frying pan and the fire.

A Guest Post From Dr. Steve Porter: Is Nancy Pelosi Surprised By Anything In Scotty's Book?

In 2006 Dr. Porter was the progressive Democratic candidate in northwest Pennsylvania. Although he didn't win, he came close enough to deserve another shot at pathetic rubber stamp incumbent Phil English. But, like many Americans, he was frustrated and sickened by the lack of follow-through from the Democrats who did win. In fact, he was so frustrated and sickened that he quit the Democratic Party and is running for the seat as an independent. English is a contemptible rubber stamp for Bush and for the avaricious corporate interests who feed him. The "Democrat" in the race is an anti-choice reactionary with as little to offer towards tackling our country's problems as English. A victory in Erie for Dr. Porter with send an unmistakable message to both out of touch and imperious political parties. If he wins in November it will be the most significant message the grassroots could possibly send to Washington short of open revolt. I was curious about Dr. Porter's take on the brouhaha over Scott McClellan's new book. His point of view isn't what you're hearing from the corporate media. He shares it with us below:

Today’s outrage over Scott McClellan’s new book is misplaced. The Republicans are furious over McClellan’s revelations that Bush and his administration manipulated intelligence to lead us into war. Predictable but rather irrelevant. The press is all agog about asking McClellan to explain his revelations further. Again, predictable and irrelevant.

The real question ought to go to Nancy Pelosi, and it ought to be this: "In the light of McClellan’s book-- and several others like it-- why did you take impeachment investigations off the table two years ago when you became the Speaker of the House?"

That the Bush Administration has mangled our Constitution and led us into military and economic disaster is no longer the point. The tragedy equally appalling is that the Democrats, who came to power promising to hold Bush accountable, have done nothing in the last two years except to contribute to the deaths in Iraq and sit idly by while gas prices have risen and our jobs have continued to be exported.

Before the 2006 elections, the Democrats in Congress fairly salivated at the chance to hold impeachment hearings. In fact, senior Democratic Congressman John Conyers did hold them-- at least mock inquiries in the basement of the Capitol Building. On March 2, 2006, Conyers said this: “People think of Watergate or Iran-Contra as constituting crises… Today the crisis is substantively and systematically far worse. The alleged acts of wrong-doing-- lying about the decision to go to war; manipulation of intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using confidential information to out a CIA agent; open and flagrant violation of wiretap laws-- are more egregious than any I have witnessed in my 41 years in Congress… We could simply ignore the myriad transgressions…or we could do everything in our power to call attention to and document these grave abuses…I opted for the latter."

But the day after the Democrats got control of both houses, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," as she said. In other words, all the pre-election hullabaloo was just a ploy to gain political power. Pelosi and the Democrats had no intention of stopping the war and devoting their attention to the American economy. And they are counting on the voters in 2008 to turn to them for the “change” they have failed to deliver. Laughable.

I hope that the American people understand how corrupt both parties have been, and how poorly we have been led. Neither party deserves our support. They are both cut from the same cloth. Both are willing to play with our lives for power. Disgusting.

-by Dr. Steven Porter


UPDATE: THIS COULD GET STICKY

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and someone serious about impeaching Bush, would like to have McClellan testify under oath about some of the assertions in his book. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the manipulation of prewar intelligence in the run up to Bush'a ttack on Iraq. So far all they have gotten from the Regime is a total lack of cooperation and a refusal by any of the potential war criminals to testify. The Regime's bogus claim of "executive privilege" would be moot in McClellan's case because he has already written about the issues the committee is looking into.

McClellan's new memoir, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," is scheduled for publication Monday. In it he says the administration became mired in "propaganda" and political spin and played loose with the truth at times.

In his book, McClellan wrote that President Bush decided to go war with Iraq shortly after the September 11 attacks and then ordered his aides to make the arguments for it.

"I think very early on, a few months after September 11, he made a decision that we're going to confront Saddam Hussein, and if Hussein doesn't come fully clean, then we're going to go to war. There was really no flexibility in his approach," McClellan said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, referring to the former Iraqi dictator. "Then it was put on the advisers: How do we go about implementing this; how do we go about doing this?"

Although it is expected that the Regime will somehow try to prevent him from testifying, McClellan said he would "be glad" to.

GASOLINE PRICE INCREASES ARE NOT A COINCIDENCE-- THEY ARE PART OF THE BUSH ECONOMIC MIRACLE

Yes, there's a connection between who we elect and how badly we get ripped off

Dr. Steven Porter is the Blue America-endorsed candidate for Congress in northwest Pennsylvania. In 2006 he held rubber stamp slob Phil English to 54% of the vote which excited the Inside the Beltway Democrats so much that they realized English is vulnerable and started looking around for one of their own corporatist hacks to take him on. They didn't get the one they wanted but they managed to stick Democrats with an anti-choice loser named Kathy Dahlkemper who virtually guarantees another term for English. Steven had already pulled out of the Democratic Party in disgust and is running as an independent. He sent us this straight forward look on why we're paying do much at the gas pumps today. It is based on a posy by F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in the HuntingtonNews.net. Steven Porter's report:

The article states that 60% of the price of oil is not due to the supply/demand pressures cited yesterday by the oil company magnates to the Senate of the United States. Rather, it says, the prices are being jacked up by speculative trading which, since the new Bush commerce laws were passed, are now often beyond the regulation and control of Congress.
 
In fact, the article quotes the Senate’s own Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (report filed Washington D.C., June 27, 2006, p.3) which warns about an impending crisis. Quoting the Senate’s own report: "Until recently US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to oversight… In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts which are traded on unregulated electronic markets… The impact of market oversight has been substantial… In contrast… unregulated OTC electronic exchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports… These trades are exempt from oversight."
 
Engdahl goes on to say that Enron was behind the push for unregulated oil trading, and that the largest speculators in this unregulated market include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase. It is of extreme importance to note that these banks are leading contributors to the campaigns of all three presidential candidates (numbers 1, 6, 2, and 4 respectively for Clinton; 1, 16, 10, and 2 respectively for Obama; and 3, 12, 2, and 9 respectively for McCain), as well as to other members of Congress.

It is quite clear that Congress has ignored its own report, and that the major candidates and major parties are "owned" by the speculators whose greed is now causing an enormous amount of pain to the American people. When I read such reports, I laugh at the claims that either of the corrupted parties or any of the puppeted candidates will bring about change for our people. And I continue to be dumbfounded by a media which does not bring these connections to light but rather spends hour after hour, headline after headline, arguing about political trivia.
 
Time is running out for the American people to come to their senses.

ActBlue doesn't take contributions for Blue America candidates who aren't in the Democratic Party. I can't imagine we'll ever endorse a Republican but it seems reasonable that when we're looking at an anti-choice "Democrat" and a rubber stamp Republican, we need to speak up for the independent. If you'd like to support Steven's campaign you can do it directly at his website.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN PA-03-- A CASE FOR MIKE WALTNER

Almost a year ago, Blue America re-endorsed a stalwart progressive for Congress in northwest Pennsylvania's 3rd CD, Dr. Steven Porter. I say "re-endorsed" because Steve was one of our candidates in the last election cycle as well. At the time, and with absolutely no support whatsoever from the DCCC or any other establishment Democrats, Steve held rubber stamp Republican hack Phil English to a 54% share of the vote, signaling deep vulnerability. He has become more than moderately disillusioned with the Democratic Party and has decided to run as an independent. Please take a look at his most recent visit to Firedoglake to get an understanding about why he's decided to leave the Democratic Party behind.

Soon after our session with Steve last August, I got calls from several of the other candidates considering making the run for the Democratic nomination. The first guy who called was a living, breathing example of all Steve's complaints about Democrats who are as clueless-- and complicit-- as Republicans. But eventually I spoke with Mike Waltner, a minister from a solidly working class family with a compelling lifestory. Since then he has emerged as the grassroots fave among Democrats running for the nomination. A DWT reader from a neighboring congressional district asked if he could introduce Mike's campaign here and I was happy to give him the space. His report:

PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY, APRIL 22-- 3rd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

-by Pittsburgh Steeler Fan Working for Universal Health Care



National media attention is currently focused on the presidential race in the upcoming Pennsylvania Primary, scheduled for April 22, 2008. However, the Democratic primary in the 3rd Congressional District deserves much wider coverage because of a fundamental difference between candidate Mike Waltner and the other three candidates. This difference speaks to the type of Democratic Party progressives hope to build.  The winner of the Democratic Primary will face incumbent Phil English-R in November. Because of the past record of Rep. English and the current political climate, it is assumed that the top vote-getter on the Democratic side can win this race.  
 
I am a member of the Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Single Payer Health Care and was drawn to Mr. Waltner's campaign because of his position on health care. I live in Pittsburgh, PA where our group advocates for HR 676, which is co-sponsored by 89 members of the House of Representative and would establish a single payer health care system in this country, essentially "Medicare For All".  We are fortunate that our representative in Congress, Rep. Mike Doyle, is one of the co-sponsors of HR 676.  
 
Pennsylvania CD-3 is a sprawling district that encompasses the city of Erie and spreads southward to Butler County, which is just north of Pittsburgh. When supporters of HR 676 became aware of Mike's campaign, we decided to become involved because he has made health care a centerpiece of his message, and he clearly speaks of his support for a single payer health care system on his web site. During the first week of April, a number of individuals supportive of our efforts held a fundraiser for Mike in Pittsburgh and raised over $3,000 for his campaign.

This past weekend, seven supporters of HR 676 traveled to Butler to hand out campaign literature on Mike's congressional campaign and we also distributed material on HR 676. We worked jointly with seven of Mike's Butler supporters, some of whom are UAW members working at the local steel plant. Incidentally, this steel plant is one of the few remaining industrial workplaces in Butler and the town is a shadow of its former self-- much like Erie and hundreds of other rust-belt cities in Pennsylvania.

In terms of the difference between Mike and his opponents, a debate held on April 7th in Hermitage, Mercer County is instructive. The other contenders for the nomination are Kathy Dahlkemper, a small-business owner; Erie County Councilman Kyle Foust; and Tom Myers, an attorney. Michael shaped the debate on health care by announcing that he would work for a bill to bring universal health care to all Americans. Though the other three candidates said that they agreed with the concept of universal health care and would support such a bill if it got to the House floor, they didn't pledge to fight for it and doubted that such a bill could succeed. 

It's this type of wishy washy, "have it both ways" position that points to the difference between leaders who would fight for a policy that would clearly benefit their constituents and others who are simply interested in getting elected. Mike will be a leader who will fight for the types of policies articulated on his web site. And this is why Mike is deserving of the support of Blue America and Down With Tyranny readers… even though it is important to defeat a Republican rubber stamp such as Phil English, it will not be enough to simply elect any Democrat. "Not more Democrats, but better Democrats."


The ActBlue pages for Mike's campaign are all here.

LUCKY FOR HARRY HE HAS A WELL-CONNECTED FAMILY. NOW IF YOU'RE NOT ROYALTY...

Mission accomplished: myth created-- now get home fast

Today's NY Times ran a small story about some 23 year old prince who is third in line for the anachronistic British throne. His name is Harry and there was some brouhaha a while back because his army unit was being deployed to Iraq and it was judged to be too dangerous for him. He threw a royal tantrum and the compromise was that he was allowed to go play-- secretly-- in Afghanistan instead. Today, after Drudge blew the secret, the British "Defense Ministry" had nothing better to do but tell Prince Harry it wasn't safe enough for him there and he'd have to come home. Maybe they can station him on Antigua.

The awkwardly timed dissemination of the prince’s whereabouts had several immediate repercussions. Politicians, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, leapt all over one another in lavishing praise on Prince Harry, 23. British reporters whipped out their notebooks and unleashed into the public domain all the material they had been saving for later: interviews and video scenes of him discussing his deployment, wearing fatigues and firing his machine gun.

Independent congressional candidate Steve Porter, who is running against Bush rubber stamp Phil English, is wondering why if it's not safe for Prince Harry, it's safe for other people's -- American people's-- sons and daughters.

Prince Harry served in a war zone because he comes from a family which believes in putting your money where your mouth is. That is a trait which was often found in British royalty, and which to our disgrace is not often found in today’s American political leadership.
 
There are some members of the Washington elite whose kids are serving in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict, but damn few. And certainly not Jenna and Barbara Bush, the two healthy, privileged children of a President who lied to get us into a war which has killed nearly 4,000 American “kids,” wounded tens of thousands more, and caused the deaths, injuries, and emigration of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
 
Prince Harry, truly the son of Princess Diana-- whose efforts on behalf of the downtrodden won her the love of the world-- said with his decision to serve, your burden will be my burden; your pain will be my pain; if my government asks you to die, I must stand with you.
 
What a contrast to Mr. Bush who asks others to die while his own kids enjoy the night life of Manhattan’s posh East Side. What a contrast to so many in Congress who send our soldiers to fight in a war which rarely involves their own flesh and blood.
 
I wonder what kinds of military aggression we would be involved in if the physically able children of those who demanded American participation were required to fight on the front lines. If the bullets were whizzing around the heads of Jenna and Barbara, I wonder if George would have been so hot to invade.
 
It surely is something to ponder, and while we ponder it, hats off to Harry and Diana and the family who had the integrity to ask not what their country could do for them, but what they could do for their country.

MODERATE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL WAY WAY BETTER THAN REPUBLICANS-- MEET KYLE FOUST

Sunday Blue America stirred up quite a controversy by endorsing our old friend, Steve Porter, for Congress in Pennsylvania's 3rd CD. Like last year he's running against rubber stamp Republican Phil English. But he's also running against whomever wins the Democratic primary, a primary Dr. Porter has twice won in the past. He won't be competing in the primary this year; he's disgusted with the Inside the Beltway Establishment and has decided to run as an independent. Many Blue America members cheered him on and others were certain that was a bad move that would guarantee another victory for the odious English. I highly recommend Sunday's very lively discussion with Steve Porter at FDL.

In the course of this, I was unkind to one of the Democrats running, Kyle Foust. He wrote and asked for an opportunity to give me his side of the story. "I take great offense to being called a 'hack politician, a Democratic rubber stamp wanna-be,'" he wrote. "I am a life long Democrat and the son of a former County Chairman and former County Councilman. I take my Democratic roots seriously and I hold the issues of the Democratic Party close to my heart." Here's the letter I wrote back to him:

We spoke on the phone a couple months ago when you called and told me about your plans to run for Congress. I speak to candidates on behalf of our PAC all the time, several a week, every week. Let me be frank: as highly as Steve Porter recommended you and as eager as I was to get behind your campaign I was, to put it mildly, severely underwhelmed by your grasp of the issues and your attitude towards the problems and opportunities facing the country and the Democratic Party. That is no excuse for name-calling and I feel badly that I referred to you as a hack and a rubber stamp wanna-be. I apologize for the name calling. I won't do it again.

This morning Kyle followed up with another letter and I asked him if it would be OK with him if I posted it here at DWT and he said sure:

Howie,

Thank you the your reply and your apology. The apology wasn't needed. I'll be honest, though. When Republicans call me names, it rolls off my back, but when Democrats and/or progressives do it, it hurts a little. Being in the public eye, however, exposes you to such things and I've grown somewhat accustomed.

I just wanted an opportunity to set the record straight a bit about how "real" of a Democrat I was. I saw your blog about Chris Carney and any comparison to him (to me) is way off base. I've built a solid reputation here in Erie County as someone who can work with Republicans while remaining true to my Democratic roots. As an old social science education graduate, I have a great appreciation for this Country and what the Republicans are, unfortunately, doing to it. I plan on going to Washington to help fix that.

However, I am no ideologue. I first got elected, and I continue to enjoy widespread support because I vote for things that are in the best interests of all my constituents; liberals, conservatives, Dems, and R's combined. I don't believe I can force my own ideology on the public anymore than I want some right wing nut forcing his or her ideology on me. Somewhere in the middle is where reasonable people meet to solve disputes and find solutions to problems. That is where I tend to me.

Having said that, I am a proud Democrat and I don't apologize for that to any one or any group. My Republican friends know this and respect this. They support me (along with many Democrats) because they know I have the public's interest in mind, not my party's.

When we spoke on the phone, it doesn't surprise me that I "underwhelmed" you with my responses. There are two reasons for that. One, I was just beginning the process of having to identify, more clearly, what my policy positions were. My responses to you, I'm sure, reflected that.I am no policy expert but I think I have a pretty solid inner compass to help me find my way. The second reason our phone call may not have been as positive as it could have been is that I am a very guarded person about my feelings to strangers. I really didn't know much about you or Firedog at the time. The last thing I wanted was to say something inarticulate and then have it posted on the web so that Phil English could use it later on in a commercial or whatever. This guy is a pathologically vicious campaigner and I don't want to hand him any material. The Republicans have already come at me to bloody me up so I know they'll use whatever they can get.

You were correct about one thing in your blog about me-- I do oppose public financing for elections. We have great social problems in this country that need to be solved; health care, drug addiction, domestic abuse, public education, just to name an important few. We need to marshal our resources toward those problems and the solutions for them. I don't want to subsidize the slander that goes into elections. I argued with Steve Porter over this issue and reminded him that public financing will not eliminate a persons incentive to influence policymakers, it will only change the means by which it is done. We need to elect people who have the will and the backbone to resist such pressure and do what is right. As I've said earlier, I've developed a pretty solid reputation as someone who has done that locally and, if I'm fortunate enough, I plan on conducting myself in a similar fashion in DC.

Thanks again for your reply and your apology. Take care.

Kyle

BLUE AMERICA WELCOMES BACK DR. STEVEN PORTER-- BUT NOT AS A DEMOCRAT THIS TIME

If you've been a Blue America regular you probably recall our 2006 candidate for Congress in northwest Pennsylvania, Dr. Steven Porter. He ran a great race against rubbery rubber stamp Republican Phil English, holding English to 54% of the vote, drawing over 80,000 votes for himself and all with no help whatsoever from the Inside the Beltway Democratic Establishment which viewed him as too grassroots, too anti-war and too independent. One thing was sure: Steve Porter was never going to be a Rahm Emanuel type candidate or congressman. He never stopped talking about taking legal bribes out of the electoral system, not exactly a message Emanuel or Steny Hoyer wants Democrats to talk seriously about. Blue America embraced him with gusto and 594 of us donated $5,630 to his campaign-- as well as a song and two videos. You might want to go back and check Steve's original session with us at Firedoglake as well as a followup he did with us in January.

A few months ago I was saddened to get a call from Steve telling me he had decided not to run again. He had good news however; he wanted to introduce me to a local Democratic councilman, Kyle Foust, who would be opposing English. He asked me to speak with Foust on the phone. I did-- and wasn't impressed. If I was expecting someone as brilliant and resolute and courageous as Dr. Porter, I had set myself up for a let down. Here was just some hack politician, a Democratic rubber stamp wanna-be with no clear ideas about why he was running, about what was important in the public arena or about how to fix any of the problems he heard about (like Iraq). He didn't have too many firm opinions but when it came to campaign finance reform he did: he's against it. I later told Steve that I wished Foust luck in defeating English but that we both realized on the phone that he was not a Blue America prospect. I may have missed it with Chris Carney but I can smell a Blue Dog in the making a mile away now.

And so can Steve. He went back and asked Foust some probing questions, thought it over and decided to jump back in the race. But not as a Democrat. He reregistered as an unaffiliated independent and that's how he'll appear on the ballot in 2008. A firm believer in accountability, Steve is a hawk on impeaching Bush and Cheney. He told me that "From the moment Pelosi took impeachment off the table, I knew there was no difference between the parties and that the Democrats would only posture and feign opposition which they knew would never amount to anything. In the end they gave George Bush absolutely everything he's asked for... [It] is a calculated strategy to win greater gains in 2008... using the lives of our kids in Iraq-- and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians-- for political purposes."

Steve isn't running for Congress as part of a career move. He is serious about the issues-- more serious than almost anyone I have ever talked to. When he says he wants to end the occupation of Iraq now, he means "end" and he means "now" and he means them in plain unnuanced English-- English even George Bush and Rahm Emanuel can understand. Thursday he spent the day doing interviews at newspapers and television stations across PA-03 explaining why he is running again and why he has decided to eschew the baggage of the two Inside the Beltway political establishments. His website goes into this very thoroughly.

This morning I was on the phone with Howard Shanker, the grassroots progressive running for Congress against Rick Renzi in Arizona. He told me that the party leaders didn't ask him how he felt about issues or positions; "All they care about, is how much money you can raise." Funny, I hear that from almost all of our candidates. It has Steve pretty worked up too. "We flit from Republican to Democrat, Democrat to Republican and they're both owned by the Special Interests. The only thing that matters [to the 2 established parties] is raising money and by the time enough money is raised for a campaign, all the candidates are in the pockets of the big contributors... If just a handful of independent voices could somehow galvanize the progressive public nationally so that they could win, it would shake the 2 major parties to their roots and they might begin to think that its time to serve the people instead of the special interests."

Steve is joining us at Firedoglake this afternoon (2pm, EDT) to explain how he expects to beat Phil English and answer any questions we have. He told me his goal in this campaign is to "reach people who believe America's future is not with the Nancy Pelosis and George Bushs but with independent statesmen like Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders." I think he's come to the right place. Please join me in contributing to his campaign at Blue America. First 10 donations of $30.00 or more get an Impeach Cheney cap-- because Steve Porter is one progressive who no one can tell impeachment is off any tables.

MY ENEMIES' ENEMY-- ANOTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH BLUE DOGS?

Last night I interviewed Dr. Steven Porter, the former two-time Democratic candidate for the congressional seat now held by rubber stamp Republican Phil English (PA-03). Steve will be the Blue America guest at Firedoglake tomorrow at 2pm (EDT). He's running for Congress again-- although not as a Democrat. Steve quit the Democratic Party in disgust and re-registered as an independent. And he's running on a platform based on integrity and progressive values-- as an independent. Steve doesn't believe in the Democratic House leadership. "From the moment Pelosi took impeachment off the table," he told me, "I knew there was no difference between the parties and that the Democrats would only posture and feign opposition which they knew would never amount to anything. In the end they gave George Bush absolutely everything he's asked for... [It] is a calculated strategy to win greater gains in 2008... using the lives of our kids in Iraq-- and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians-- for political purposes."

I also spent some time on the phone today with progressive, grassroots anti-war candidate Randi Scheuer who is primarying Blue Dog Melissa Bean. Randi will be the Blue America guest October 13. Bean's voting record isn't progressive; it's kind of moderate on some issues and reactionary on others. She tends to support corporate power over the interests of workers and consumers. She could easily be a moderate Republican. In fact on Iraq, she could easily be described as a Bush rubber stamp. While taking significant contributions from lobbyists and Republican-leaning corporate front groups, she has been an aggressive supporter of Bush's hideous trade agreements which have been devastating for ordinary Americans and for our country. She cast the deciding vote on CAFTA, reason enough to vote her out of office. She has also supported the Bush agenda in many other ways:

* for the credit industry's Republican bankruptcy bill
* for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy
* for repealing the estate tax
* against net neutrality
* for the Patriot Act
* for the Military Commissions Act (pro-torture.anti habeas corpus)
* for the Republican Terri Schiavo bill
* for a Flag Desecration Amendment
* huge supporter of wasting taxpayer dollars on Big Oil subsidies

You get the picture? Whether it comes to insurance companies, medical care, immigration, the military-industrial complex, Melissa Bean almost always votes with the Republicans. Randi's positions are the polar opposite of Bean's on every single issue above.

Now, there are few Republicans left in Congress as loathsome as their House Whip, Roy Blunt (MO). I noticed yesterday that Blunt was launching some kind of an offensive against Blue Dogs. I don't kid myself about what Blunt is or what his motives are-- and I certainly prefer to take out reactionary Democrats in primaries, as we are trying to do with Al Wynn in Maryland and Dan Lipinski in Illinois. Still I won't weep if Blunt is successful in some of the cases where Blue Dogs and DLC freaks are voting with the Republicans. Blunt claims that 30 of the 48 Blue Dogs have voted for all the legislation that would increase the federal deficit, a joke coming from a big spending Republican like Blunt.

When you look at the list of the 25 Democrats who vote most frequently with Republicans on substantive issues, you find almost all Blue Dogs. Here's a list of Blue Dogs among those 25 worst Democrats in order of most supportive of Bush/Cheney (members in bold are also DLC members):
Gene Taylor (MS)
Bud Cramer (AL)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Dan Boren (OK)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
John Tanner (TN)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Tim Holden (PA)
John Barrow (GA)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Bart Gordon (TN)
Leonard Boswell (IA)
Marion Berry (AR)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Jason Altmire (PA)
Mike Ross (AR)
Sanford Bishop (GA)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Baron Hill (IN)
Earl Pomeroy (ND)


UPDATE: MELISSA BEAN MADE THE PAPERS TODAY-- SOME SAY SHE'S THE WORST DEMOCRAT IN THE WHOLE CONGRESS AND THAT IS SAYING A LOT!

Peter Cohn covered Melissa Bean's rampant treachery in CongressDaily today. Bean routinely votes with the GOP but she took practically everyone by surprise last month when she was the only Democrat to vote against the $607 billion 2008 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, legislation important to the House leadership as an example of the Democrats' traditional commitment to the poor, sick and elderly.

Now Bean is under fire from labor and progressive advocacy groups. "We're profoundly disappointed, to put it mildly," said Chuck Loveless, legislative director for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "It was a stupid vote on her part."

...Bush threatened to veto the Labor-HHS bill because it is $12 billion above his request. It passed 276-140-- the precise number of 'no' votes necessary to sustain a veto, based on the requirement that two-thirds of those present and voting are needed to override-- meaning Bean's vote could be decisive. Activists have lined up meetings with Bean during the recess to "register their extreme displeasure," said a spokesman for USAction, a network of progressive advocacy groups. USAction president William McNary, who also heads up the group's Illinois affiliate, said he was meeting with Bean next week. He said the group only focused on moderate Republicans, never expecting Bean to be a problem.

"Everyone we targeted voted right," he said, noting that Bean's vote put her in the same camp as conservatives such as former House Speaker Hastert, whereas Illinois GOP Reps. Mark Kirk, Jerry Weller, Judy Biggert, Ray LaHood, and Tim Johnson all voted for the bill. McNary said he is now focused on changing Bean's mind should a veto-override be necessary. "Rather than throw stones at Melissa Bean, she has another chance to stand up and do what's right. You don't get many second chances in life," he said.

Bean not only angered interest groups but also House Appropriations Chairman Obey, according to sources, who also invested a lot of effort wooing GOP moderates to support the bill. A senior Democratic aide said "he disagreed with her" but that Bean informed Obey beforehand so as not to take him by surprise. Bean's spokesman said she is "looking forward to seeing what comes out of conference" and that if overall spending is lower, she might support the final bill. Loveless noted that Bean announced she had received earmarks in the bill, including for a workforce training program at a local community college; an obesity prevention project aimed at elementary school children; and a therapy program for families with children at risk of being placed in foster homes. "Next time around we'll see how many earmarks she gets," he said. Bean's spokesman said it is her policy to post earmarks in a bill on her Web site before it goes to the floor, as part of her "efforts to maintain and encourage transparency."

WHEN THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN A DEMOCRAT, A REPUBLICAN AND A PROGRESSIVE, WE'LL OPT FOR THE PROGRESSIVE

Today our old pal Dr. Steven Porter announces that he will not abandon the battle to rid PA-03 of the odious Bush Regime rubber stamp Phil English. Steve has formally left the Democratic Party and re-registered as a non-affiliated independent. On Saturday, Steve will join us at Firedoglake, the first candidate we are endorsing who is not running as a Democrat. Come by and talk with Steve about why he gave up on the Democrats and how he expects to win in northwest Pennsylvania next year. The show kicks off at 2pm, EDT.

“No one tried harder than I to change the Democratic Party from within, and it is with a great deal of sadness that I have come to believe that both major parties no longer represent the people of this district or this nation.
 
“I remember speaking with former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley soon after he declared that he would not run for re-election. ‘When I first ran,’ Bradley told me, ‘people asked what I believed in.  Now the only thing they care about is how much money I have.’
 
"Since the Buckley vs. Valeo decision of the Supreme Court in the 1970s which declared that money was the equivalent of free speech-- a decision which I believe has destroyed the ‘one-man, one-vote’ principle of our Constitution-- both major parties have deteriorated into machines whose primary purpose is to serve the special interests which finance their campaigns. I can no longer be a part of that process, and I believe it is that process which has created America’s distrust of its government and prevented the Democrats from ending the war in Iraq, even after they were given a clear mandate to do so by the 2006 elections.
 
"Einstein’s explanation of insanity was for people to do the same thing over and over yet expect different results. We keep electing the same corrupted politicians and expect them to act for our welfare. It is time to try to end that by offering the public a clear, un-affiliated, un-owned choice.
 
“Having conducted two congressional campaigns in this district, I am well aware of the political tactics of the area, and they aren’t pretty. I will not engage in any rhetoric which involves personal attacks on opponents or waste the public’s time responding to personal attacks or lies circulated about me and my positions. You all know that I have instituted a law suit to respond to such attacks, and I will let that law suit do its work in our courts. Rather, in my campaign for election in 2008, I will stress my programs for the people of this district and this nation, and I would like to start right now.
 
In case you don't recall, Steve's #1 priority involves Iraq and global terrorism. It was last year when we first talked with him and it is today. "I begin with the war in Iraq which, as you know, I have opposed from day one. I believe that only a political solution in Iraq will end the slaughter and bring our troops home. That is why I support an immediate end to the use of our soldiers in an offensive capacity. I would give the government of Iraq six months to establish autonomous zones in their country: one for the Kurds, one for the Shiites, and one for the Sunnis (with Baghdad as perhaps a fourth divided city along the lines of Berlin after World War II). The zones would share equitably in Iraqi oil revenue, and the re-building of Iraq would be open to all international efforts-- not just those of Halliburton and the four big oil companies (Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and BP). US forces could aid in securing these autonomous zones, but after six months they would be re-deployed, mostly back home, and it would be up to the Iraqis to defend their own zones against any terrorist or civil aggression. Having accomplished this, I would re-invigorate our failed alliances so that the irradication of terrorism is internationally undertaken with all nations sharing in the burden instead of leaving the United States to carry it virtually alone. Finally, I would work to end the cycles of poverty and despair which have created global terrorism and made the United States as hated a colonial intruder as were France, England, Spain, and others in the age of Imperialism."

A closer runner up for Steve priority-wise is health care. He vows, with great enthusiasm, to campaign, in PA and in DC for universal health care in America and specifically for the passage of HR 676, the enactment of the Physicians National Health-care Program.

Next on his agenda is environmental action. "I will campaign to save our planet from what may be its permanent destruction by immediately mandating significant improvements in automobile gas mileage by putting resources similar to the billions wasted in Iraq into the immediate development of clean, renewable, American-produced energy."

He is completely committed to public funding of elections which he feels will help reinvigorate our much beaten down democracy. He is adamant that elected officials must be beholden only to the people and not to the special interests which currently buy them off.

On Social Security reform, he's looking for a real solution, quite the opposite of the Republican plan to wreck the system. "I will campaign for the solvency of Social Security by requiring all people to pay their fair 6.2% of all wages earned." Similarly his plans for tax reform are the polar opposite of the unfair system that the Bush Regime has rammed down our throats. He is very clear about the need to end Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy and for powerful corporations. He hopes to reshift the tax burden off the backs of the middle class.

An economic populist, Steve plans to campaign against the outsourcing of American jobs by insisting that trade deals are mutually beneficial and that wage, environmental, and monetary standards in the nations with which we trade are compatible with those of the United States. He opposes illegal immigration the economic forces which thrive on cheap labor/substandard wages.

Steve didn't get any help from the DCCC last time and if it were possible, he'd get even less this time. But the issues sound very much the same and the song still works just fine. Let's give him a hand.



UPDATE: PEOPLE WANT ENGLISH TO STOP RUBBER STAMPING BUSH'S WAR AGENDA

This is a brand new nonpartisan TV ad that is running in PA-03 starting today:

NOT THAT MANY DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR BUSH'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FISA LEGISLATION-- BUT ENOUGH TO PASS IT

Most Democrats voted against Bush's FISA bill. But the congressional leadership didn't do anything to derail it and more than a few of the Democrats who voted against it-- caving in to the will of their constituents-- were secretly glad it passed. (Yes, we have our sources.) One walks away from this disgraceful episode thinking our congressional Democrats are weak and wobbly; hardly the champions of liberty the times call for.

I received an e-mail from a friend of mine yesterday, Steven Porter, twice the Democratic candidate against depraved rubber stamp Republican incumbent Phil English. It looks to me that '08 could well be the year English is finally sent packing for the northwest Pennsylvania voters. Steve, however, doesn't see the Democratic Party as the solution to much. He's decided to run as an independent! Steven is the kind of Democrat who takes the values thing seriously. He seems to have gotten to the point where being part of the Democratic House caucus seems as unappetizing to him as being part of the Republican House caucus. Steve takes things like this seriously; he sent it to me this morning. "It states that the US has now fallen from 11th to 41st in life expectancy and goes on to detail why the US has done so and why our heath care system is not nearly the best even though we pay the most for it by far. The answer to improving it," suggests Steven," of course, would gore the oxen of the health and insurance lobbies and fly in the face of our Congress which is paid by those lobbies to make them money."

This morning's Washington Post has a story explaining how Bush won the FISA battle against the American people. The Regime bowled them over by playing to their cowardice. They wanted to be able to monitor calls-- with no judicial or congressional supervision-- and the Democratic leadership either lacked the skill or the will to stop them. And as long as we keep electing quasi-Democrats like Jason Altmire (PA), John Barrow (GA), Melissa Bean (IL), Dan Boren (OK), Chris Carney (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Baron Hill (IN), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Marshall (GA), Collin Peterson (MN), Heath Shuler (NC), Gene Taylor (MS) the reactionaries will have a governing coalition in America.

There are various courses of action to take in different districts. Obviously, never vote for a Republican for anything, anywhere. They all stink because their underlying partisan philosophy of Greed, Bigotry, Hatred and Selfishness is just plain toxic. Reactionary and corrupt Democrats who voted like Republicans should never be supported and when primary time comes around they should be opposed. There are strong primary opponents to Al Wynn and Dan Lipinksi and we should all be supporting Donna Edwards and Mark Pera. Where there is no incumbent Democrat, it is important to figure out if there is a progressive-- like Rick Noriega in Texas, Angie Paccione in Colorado, Victoria Wulsin in Ohio, John Laesch in Illinois, Darcy Burner in Washington-- and vote for and support her or him.

And in the case of PA-03, we have a specially interesting opportunity: someone who is neither a reactionary Republican nor a gutless, corrupt insider Democrat, Steven Porter.

THE CASE AGAINST POLITICAL DEFAMATION-- WHY IT MATTERS AND WHAT TWO PROGRESSIVES ARE DOING ABOUT IT IN PENNSYLVANIA AND ARIZONA

Big Phil English (R-PA) forms defense fund to fight off charges of defamation and slander

Ellen Simon is one of the most accomplished and distinguished public service lawyers I've ever met. Last year when she ran for Congress against corrupt Arizona pip-squeak Rick Renzi (R), who is now plea bargaining with federal prosecutors to keep down an expected prison sentence for gross corruption, she was viciously and savagely attacked by right wing maniacs. This year instead of running for the seat again-- although it will be an open seat-- Ellen has decided the best contribution she can make to our country is to work on a project that would hold accountable candidates and groups that defame their political opponents. Later this summer, Blue America will have Ellen guest blogging to explain her new project.

Another progressive candidate who has decided not to run again is a Blue America fave, Dr. Steve Porter. The Republican incumbent and his supporters had slandered and smeared Porter-- who is a scholarly Jewish professor-- as "a Nazi." Odd that a Republican could project so blindly and with so little self-awareness as to call an opponent as Nazi, when the current GOP agenda mimics the same fascist principles that were imbued in nazism! In any case, Dr. Porter defamation law suit against English has been moving forward in the courts. Here's part of a letter I got from Steve yesterday:

As you know, in October of 2006, Rita and I filed a defamation suit against Phil English and his campaign.  Though the press pundits called it a "stunt," it was no stunt.  We have a case and we are pressing it forward.
 
Particulars were filed last February and are a matter of public record.  There are 7 counts against English for conspiracy, defamation, and damage to our reputation and lives.  We are now in the law suit phase known as "discovery."  It may be as much as a year until we get to trial, but that will happen, and God willing, we will receive a judgment in our favor.
 
Yesterday, I got a call from Roll Call Magazine reporter Paul Singer about the suit because apparently English is worried enough about it to have started a legal defense fund (toward which he contributed a whopping $10 of his own money). 

Rita, Alan Natalie (our lawyer), and I are very proud of what we are doing, not just because I am standing up for the defamation against me (particularly the labeling of me as a Nazi sterilizer when I am in fact a Jew), but because English's kind of campaigning has got to be stopped in America.
 
The bastards at all points along the political spectrum-- but particularly on the conservative right lately-- have degraded our democracy and our electoral processes with the worst kind of irrelevant filth.  You have all seen it ad nauseum:  the swift boat ads against Kerry, the denigration of Senator Max Cleland by Ann Coulter because his three limbs were blown off by an American grenade and not a Vietnamese one, etc., etc.
 
If my law suit is successful, it may signal the end of this nonsense and make a real contribution to the preservation of our democracy.  It will not stop the political prostitution of candidates who are owned by special interests ( for that we need the public funding of elections), but it may keep candidates and a pathetic corporate media focused on issues instead of libel and slander.

Although Steve isn't running against English this year, don't worry that the Democratic-leaning district will be forfeited without a fight. This morning's CQ Today makes it clear that English's rubber stamp record on Iraq and the rest of the Bush/Cheney agenda will not go unchallenged.

Pennsylvania's Phil English is a member of the big House Republican Class of 1994 -- the one that ushered in a GOP majority that lasted for a dozen years until Democrats overturned it in last year's elections. Though he prevailed against the strong partisan tide to win a seventh term in 2006, English was one of a number of Republican survivors re-elected with underwhelming vote numbers.

Running in a northwest Pennsylvania district, including his hometown of Erie, where he was used to more dominant performances, English took 54 percent to defeat Democrat Steven Porter, a little-known educator who did not attract national attention.

That modest showing in Pennsylvania's 3rd District, coupled with a continued public opposition to President Bush and his policies, has spurred the Democrats to wage a more vigorous -- and much earlier starting -- effort than usual to unseat English in 2008.

Two Democratic candidates already have emerged: Kyle Foust, an Erie County councilman who has organized an "exploratory" campaign, and Tom Myers, a lawyer with close ties to organized labor who is an official candidate.

... Despite the many months that will transpire before voters head to the polls, it seems clear that the Pennsylvania 3rd race will be dominated by the ongoing war in Iraq. In recent interviews with CQPolitics.com, Foust and Myers identified the Iraq war first when asked which issues they would emphasize in their campaigns. And English has been vocal in his advocacy of a beefed-up diplomatic effort to solve the crisis.

Democrats, though, have tended to note English's opposition to a Democratic-crafted war spending measure, vetoed by President Bush, that included a timeline to redeploy troops from Iraq.

"I don't think Phil English's view on the war is how people feel in the 3rd Congressional District," said Foust, who also said the war would be "the biggest issue, for sure" in the upcoming race.

"I think the country is incredibly frustrated with the direction that we've taken [in Iraq]," Myers said. "Mr. English has supported that endeavor almost completely right down the line."