When You Want to Kill a Hydra, You Don't Aim for the Head...

Hercule et l'Hydre de Lerne, by Gustave Moreau (source; click to enlarge — extra large version here)

by Gaius Publius

Scheduling note: Starting this week, my comments here will appear regularly on Monday and Thursday.

Sometimes movements are defined by just the leader. In the old-time Westerns, if you  knock out (non-violently, of course) the lead guy who's been yelling "Let's lynch him," the rest of the mob goes home. But not all movements are single-headed. Some are like hydras, many-headed and hard to put down. Thus the quote of which the title is just one part:

When you want to kill a hydra, you don't aim for the head. And when you want to stop a movement, you don't try just go after the face in the front, because they'll be replaced.

The following is from a Facebook post by Noah Reson-Brown, and it hits several nails right on the head. (Those nails have names, by the way.) And while I don't agree with every point made — I think Trump himself is dangerous as well, for example — I believe the writer is on to something. Give this some thought (my emphasis throughout):

Donald Trump is not the enemy.

That may sound weird coming from a liberal progressive, but I'm also one of those people who wouldn't shoot Hitler if he could go back in time. Is that because I don't believe violence is ever the answer? No. Is that because I don't believe in stopping genocide? No. It's because I recognize that when you want to kill a hydra, you don't aim for the head. And when you want to stop a movement, you don't try just go after the face in the front, because they'll be replaced. I wouldn't shoot Hitler, I'd go after Joseph Goebbels, because he was the voice.

Donald Trump is an empty suit, a narcissist who will agree with whomever flattered him last. It's why he switched from Democrat to Republican, why he's got a Jewish daughter and yet is now pushing nazi propaganda. He's just going with those who are playing him like a puppet. And there's three factions doing that right now. Eliminating him only serves to help one of those factions and does a bit more to damage the other two. So let's talk about those guys.

A hydra with three heads. And they are...

First of all, you've got Mike Pence. Pence is a theocratic Christian zealot, the kind who's got a quiverfull army backing his play (you know, these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull). Victory for that group means LGBT rights go straight to hell, and a lot of these people are downright apocalyptic. Their plan? Push their agenda as far as they can using Trump as a scapegoat for any problems that arise, then impeach Trump and have their man in the big chair. Attacking Trump instead of his policies helps them, because people forget the policies and just think "yay, we won" when Trump goes down.

Second, you've got most congressional Republicans. They're more traditional conservatives. They're on the same game plan as the theocrats, wanting to push their agenda and then blame Trump once he's out (you lost health care because of Trump! But thank goodness we repealed that nasty Obamacare!). They're mostly lead by Paul Ryan. Again, attacking Trump instead of his actions absolves them of any guilt once he's out. He's the pinata for you to vent your rage on while they get shit done. They figure they can work with Pence once Trump's out to get their will, and they're okay with the evangelical folks getting what they want too as long as the Republicans get power.

And third... well there's [Steve] Bannon. Bannon's sitting on Trump's shoulder and telling him what to do, and it's bad enough that Trump's now eating out of his hand. Hell, Bannon's in the security meetings instead of the joint chiefs. So what does Bannon want? Well he's a bloody neo-nazi who wants to destroy everything, quite literally. Then man's pure evil and he knows it. That Muslim ban that's currently masquerading as a ban of only a few countries? His baby. Removing all references of Jews from the speech about the Holocaust? That's him too. Build a wall? He's there. The one good thing in all this... if Trump goes down Bannon doesn't have many more inroads into the political machine, for now.

But what's the point of all this? The point [in] attacking Trump is just attacking the smoke screen. Hit the policies. Tie the advisors to them. Make sure that when Trump goes down he takes Bannon and Pence and Ryan down with him. The recent airport protests were wonderful, because they attacked the policies and were clear about their goals, while protests that are just against Trump and are about screaming at how Trump voters are all racists are often as harmful as they are helpful (because they just end up alienating the folks who voted for him). People who voted for Trump identify with him... but they don't identify with Bannon. Go to town there.

"Go to town" indeed. I smell opportunity with at least two of the three names above. Pence may be harder to get at, but Ryan and Bannon look like sitting ducks, virtually speaking.

Many Trump Voters Would Have Chosen Sanders...

Reson-Brown then makes a point that I've made many times myself, most recently in the final paragraph here — that we need the biggest coalition we can get to fight the Trump/Republican coup machine. We're not going to get that by bashing all Trump supporters as if there were no differences among them.

Remember, many Trump supporters would have voted for Sanders if Sanders had not been roughly shouldered out by every element of the entrenched Democratic machine — including its secret-surrogate media hosts and Rolodexed pundit list. (There's anecdotal evidence that in open primaries, many people who supported Trump did vote for Sanders instead.) All potential Sanders supporters need to be asked back into the Sanders-issues fold, then left to decide for themselves who will stand with us and who will choose race-bashing over improving their lives.

Some, perhaps many, will cross back to us. It certainly won't help if our sneering drives them all away.

We need, in other words, the biggest movement we can get, not just to defeat privatizing, pro-wealth Trumpist policies, but also to make sure that neo-liberal — privatizing, pro-wealth — solutions are toxic in the Democratic Party as well.

Reson-Brown makes the same point:

And for god's sake, remember that the only way to win this is to build a bigger political army. The quiverfull people have been building an army for decades. And unless we want to outbreed them, the only way to do that is to build alliances with people we may not fully agree with, including people who voted for Trump out of a fear of Clinton (no, don't just rail at them for being sexist monsters, many of them had reasonable reasons). There was a time when the left understood this, supporting union mobilization and alliances between poor white workers and civil rights advocates (because social and economic justice are not mutually exclusive). There was a time when we understood that you have to listen to the plight of others before coming up with solutions so you know your solutions won't cause unintended harm. There was a time we knew when alliances were two way streets, and didn't call someone an ally while telling them to "shut up and listen" or claim that an attempt to share similar experiences was "derailing". We need to return to that time, or things will get a lot worse before they get better. I see plenty of conservatives terrified of the recent government overreach, Christians who are horrified at the idea of chasing away foreigners, and anti-Clinton voters who despise what Trump has done. Those people can be allies, if we're willing to work with them.

For those who forgot:

Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative fundamentalist Christian couples, chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada,[1] Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and elsewhere.[2] The movement sees children as a blessing from God[2][3][4] and it promotes compulsory procreation, abstaining from all forms of birth control, (including natural family planning) and sterilization.[5][6]

There's no time (nor frankly, inclination) to outbreed them. Might as well win back as many as we can to the Sanders Side.

Not Just a Battle; An Opportunity as Well

There are two armies in the field against us, and it's going to be a long (but fun, perhaps) battle, with many opportunities to trip up both sides. Paul Ryan, for example, if he were every effectively challenged — and just not handed his DCCC shield of protection — is vulnerable to electoral defeat. WI-01 is considered a swing district with a PVI of R+3, and stretches from south Milwaukee to the Illinois border. Any competent DCCC attack would have sent him to K Street long ago. Could still happen. Is next time too soon?

If Trump becomes toxic, he still has four years in office. But any member of the Republican House can be made toxic-by-association with Trump. If so, if we're effective in doing that, they'll be constantly looking at their own next election, and looking over their shoulder as well.

Who better than Paul Ryan to unseat in 2018. Would that send a shiver up the quiverfull spines of the rest? Opportunity.

A Shot Across the Vichy Democratic Bow

By the way, there's no reason we can't do the same to a few "bad Senators" on the Dem side in 2018. After all, there's no hope in hell of Democrats taking the Senate in the next election. What a perfect time to send a shot across one or two Vichy Dem bows (Vichy Dem: Votes like a Republican; takes money from Democratic donors.). I'll have a few names for your consideration after the cabinate nomination process is completed. There are some obvious targets already. Stay tuned.

GP
 

Democrat-Supported CIA Chief Hires a Torturer of Muslims as Deputy

" Bold anti-Trumpist" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) confronted by "Resist Hate RI" constituents for his Yes vote for pro-torture CIA Director Mike Pompeo. (I've queued the clip to start when Whitehouse speaks. Feel free to start from the beginning.)

by Gaius Publius

A pro-torture vote is a vote for torturing Muslims, at least so far.

As regular readers know, I've been looking at the group of mainstream Democrats relative to the "resistance" they presume to be leading (and occasionally are). In a great many cases, though, they're falling on their faces, or have been forced into stronger stands by a base that's way ahead of them in hating what's happening.

(A bit of background: The same money that buys Republican politicians' votes buys Democratic politicians' votes. But maybe you already knew that. If so, consider this a reminder on the off chance that, as you read this pieces, you wonder, "Now why would Democrats do that?" The obvious answer in many cases is, they can't afford to offend their real base, meaning their donors. In the case of torture, "their donors" includes the entire U.S. "defense" industry and the banks that finance it.)

I'll have more to say in the future about how Democratic voters are ahead of "their" politicians in actually resisting what Trump is doing. The instance detailed below is just one example of that.

Mike Pompeo, Torture and the Democratic Party

As we noted here, Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo, newly confirmed CIA Director, is pro-torture. Read the piece at the link for some of the detail on that (the source for that detail, interestingly, is the lone anti-Pompeo Republican, Rand Paul).  

In that piece I listed the "pro-Resistance" Democrats who collaborated with Donald Trump to put pro-torture Mike Pompeo in charge of the CIA:

Which Democrats Voted For Pro-Torture Pompeo?

The vote, 66-32, was quite lopsided. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate, 46 Democrats and two Independents (Sanders and Maine's Angus King). Only one Republican crossed the aisle to vote No — Rand Paul.

Fourteen Democrats (plus Angus King) put the stamp of approval on pro-torture Mike Pompeo, the new head of Donald Trump's CIA...

• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Dianne Feinstein (CA)
• Maggie Hassan (NH)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Jack Reed (RI)
• Brian Schatz (HI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

...including the Senate Minority Leader...

• Chuck Schumer (NY)

The roll call also includes these names as "not voting":

• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Unless these two were ill or incapacitated, this was a cowardly act. They are either anti-torture and afraid to show it, or pro-torture and afraid to show it. (Blumenthal did vote No on the motion to proceed three days earlier. Murphy voted Yes.)

Here's that reduced list of self-styled "strong anti-Trump resistance fighters" in a slightly different order. These people are branded, or self-branded, as "liberals," as among the "good" Democrats:

• Chuck Schumer (NY)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

• Chris Murphy (CT)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)

• Brian Schatz (HI)
• Richard Blumenthal (CT)

Schumer is positioning himself as the bold face of Senate "resistance." He's all over the TV lately, looking and sounding tough. Kaine was Clinton's VP pick, so a foolish (or low information) voter might mistake him as a tough anti-Trumpist as well.

Whitehouse — good on some issues, especially climate, but not so good on a lot of others. (See the video above for what may have given him "religion" lately — his constituents, who seem to be way out in front of him, complaining about his vote en masse. Too bad he didn't "get religion" in time to keep his fingerprints off of his pro-torture, and therefore anti-Muslim, vote. (Remember, a vote for torture is a vote for torturing Muslims, at least so far.)

Murphy and Klobuchar get lots of face time on MSNBC, painted by the evening hosts as speaking for the so-called the left of the party. It's false cred, as you can see above (and there's more where that "false cred" charge comes from — Klobuchar, for example, is a reliable Monsanto vote, as is Al Franken, who's also getting some good "resistance" limelight lately).

Schatz should not be voting this way. He's actually further left than this makes him appear. And Blumenthal is bad on a lot of things, worse than many realize, but rarely makes the news outside of his home state.

Note that none of their Yes votes (or abstentions) were needed. The final tally was 66-32-2 and only 51 votes were needed. Four, five or six fewer Yes votes would not have changed the result. 

Pro-Torture Pompeo Hires a Torturer as Deputy

To restate: The CIA director reports to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the president. The CIA runs the president's drone kill program. The CIA also runs many or most of the "war on terror" black sites at which torture and death are dealt to enemies designated by the president. 

Trump's new CIA chief, Mike Pompeo has hired Gina Haspel as his Deputy Director. Here's what the Deputy Director does:

The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DD/CIA) is a statutory office (50 U.S.C. § 3037) and the second-highest official of the Central Intelligence Agency. The DD/CIA assists the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) and is authorized to exercise the powers of the D/CIA when the Director's position is vacant or in the Director's absence or disability.

Under current law, the Deputy Director is appointed by the President and is not required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

So, no Senate confirmation for Ms. Haspel. The Senate has had its last bite of the CIA-torture-drone kill apple.

And here's who Gina Haspel is. Glenn Greenwald writes (my emphasis):

In May, 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service [Haspel] was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official – whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time – was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” – part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” – “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated both multiple court orders as well the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by Commission Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and Grand Jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

That CIA official’s name whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel. Today, as BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold noted, CIA Director Pompeo announced that Haspel was selected by Trump to be Deputy Director of the CIA.

That's who Mike Pompeo made his deputy — a woman who ran torture sites, personally ran a "secret prison in Thailand," was involved in the horrific torture of Abu Zubaydah, and who played a "vital role" in the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes in violation of multiple court orders.

And that's who our "liberal" anti-Trump defenders — Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaine, Schatz — just affirmatively enabled. These are your bold, pro-torture "Resistance fighters."

Remember their names. What Pompeo and Haspel do is on them. And if Trump, Pompeo and Haspel ever decide to take this presidential power "local" — the power to torture and kill — and use it on his enemies in the "homeland," that's on these senators as well.

GP
 

Why Targeting Corporate Democrats in the Age of Trump Is a Good Thing (for Democrats)

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. Will he lead a loyal opposition to Trump or a disloyal one? How many Democrats will collaborate in the Age of Trump?

by Gaius Publius

If Democrats do not succeed at being seen as the nation's rescuer, someone else will. And that will definitely not be good ... for Democrats.

Inside the DC Beltway the following is becoming a "what everyone knows to be true" kind of statement. From The Hill (emphasis added):

Dem blame game rages over Clinton loss

Almost a month after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump, recriminations are still flying among liberals and Democrats.

At least one prominent Clinton loyalist has turned his fire on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), arguing that the left-winger’s challenge wounded the former secretary of State ahead of her general election campaign.

Sanders partisans, meanwhile, say that he would have been a better candidate than Clinton to win over an electorate hungry for change.

Both sides express concern that re-litigating the primary battle could be a distraction, wasting energy that would be better spent resisting President-elect Trump.

But even if all sides agree in theory on the need to focus on Trump, not everyone is ready to leave the primary in the past. [...]

In what casts itself as a news piece (and largely is), one "given" stands out. That given: "Both sides express concern that re-litigating the primary battle could be a distraction, wasting energy that would be better spent resisting President-elect Trump."

First, that's not a true statement, or if it is true, it's true only if the group covered by "both sides" includes just those connected to the benefits side of the Democratic Party ecosystem; the people with a vested interests (career; income) in not shaking things up too much, the winners no matter which party is in office.

Second, even though the statement is not true, its opposite — that some people argue strongly for a shake-up within the Party — is not presented. That is, the author's statement is presented benignly as part of the background, part of the "what everyone agrees on" or "knows to be true," for the rest of the news the piece covers — that people within the Party infrastructure are still fighting about who's at fault for Clinton's loss.

The statement, in other words, has a propagandistic goal; it's meant to prevent something from happening.

Draining the Other Swamp

Let's look at the other side of this "given," a side where people are saying that re-litigating the primary isn't a distraction, but part of what has to happen, and a side where that's a good thing.

The fact that people are litigating this battle is obvious, especially if one looks at Sanders supporters and partisans, instead of simply interviewing named Beltway insiders and a "Democratic strategist who requested anonymity." There are plenty of people on the left who want to drain the Democratic swamp too, if you bother to look for them.

Instead of just finding those voices, however, a task easily done, I want to look instead at the benefits of Sanders supporters and progressives pursuing such a strategy. The following is from a nicely argued piece in Truthout by Mark Engler. He starts with the obvious question: Is it really true that attacking corporate Democrats now — his example is the recent sit-in at Chuck Schumer's Senate office — is the wrong thing to do? Engler adds, "After all, isn't that attacking the wrong side?"

Why Targeting Corporate Democrats Is Part of the Fight Against Trump

On November 14, six days after the election of Donald Trump, some 40 young people walked into the office of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, calling on the senior lawmaker to step aside in his bid to be Senate minority leader. Carrying a banner that read "Wall St. Democrats Failed Us," they argued that Schumer, who has received more than $3 million in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry in the last five years, was exactly the wrong figure to lead the opposition to Donald Trump. When the senator refused to meet with them, the protesters sat on the floor to barricade the office, filling the halls of the Hart Office Building with protest songs. In the end, 17 were arrested.

Asked about the purpose of the protest, organizer Yong Jung Cho stated, "The establishment Democrats have failed the American people. The establishment Democrats failed to stop Donald Trump." Another leader, Waleed Shahid, added that the group, #AllOfUs, would continue to target Democratic senators "who don't do anything they can to filibuster Trump's legislation that promotes his hatred or his greed."

At a time when so many people are furious at Donald Trump and terrified of his agenda, some will ask why these activists are targeting leading Democrats. After all, isn't that attacking the wrong side? [emphasis added]

It's a fair question and deserves an answer. Two related questions that should also be considered are these: Can this strategy produce a good result for progressives? Can this strategy produce a good result for Democrats? Let's look at each.

A Lesson from the Iraq War Protests

Engler begins his defense of this strategy in an unlikely place: "A look at the history of social movements under hostile governments provides a counterintuitive answer."

Consider the Iraq War protests of 2002-2003. These protests, which produced million-person rallies in cities around the world, are largely considered today to be failures, and even at the time were viewed by many to be lost causes. After all, the war went on as scheduled despite the marches, and the Bush administration felt in no way constrained by them.

Yet these protests had an effect — on the Democratic side. It made support for the Iraq War toxic for Party insiders, an effect that would prove quite powerful later on, affecting Clinton in 2008, for example, and also Clinton in 2016 when viewed in the context of her support for war in Libya.

Engler (emphasis added):

[A]rguably the most profound effect of the anti-war movement was not felt inside the Republican White House, but instead inside the Democratic Party. This dynamic is noteworthy for anti-Trump protesters. The movement succeeded in turning the party's base against Democrats who had supported Bush's invasion, and it made strong anti-war stances into the pragmatic position for politicians concerned about their political futures.

Before it commenced, a large number of Democratic officials were fully complicit in facilitating the Iraq War. In the fall of 2002, a majority of Democratic Senators -- 29 out of 50 -- joined the Republicans in voting to empower Bush to launch an invasion. Mainstream Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden likely believed that a "no" vote would expose them to criticism of being unpatriotic or soft in the "war on terror," and that an anti-war stance would come back to haunt their future political prospects.

Grassroots organizing played a vital role in turning this reasoning into a huge miscalculation -- making opposition to Bush the safe bet for Democrats and ensuring that centrists such as Clinton would grow to regret their Iraq War votes.

That dynamic then — that the massive anti-war protests made it imperative that Democrats who wanted a future in the Party and the nation's governance moving forward not be complicit with Bush — is exactly the dynamic that's coming into play now. Politicians and others in the Democratic ecosystem, if they value a future in the post-2017 Democratic Party, should be very careful to not be complicit with Trump.

And that only happens if the Democratic Party base and strongly progressive activists hold them noticeably and painfully accountable now.

Defeating Trump Requires Draining Both Swamps...

...because both swamps are fed from the same sewer, the flow of money from the top .01 percent. Engler again:

At a time when Donald Trump has risen to the presidency by railing against the Washington establishment and upending the traditional rules of politics, the Democratic Party's propensity for compromise and triangulation only plays into his hands. The only hope for unseating Trump and minimizing the damage of his agenda will be to fight his racist right-wing populism with a progressive vision. ...

In the short run, this will require pressuring fickle and opportunist politicians to stubbornly oppose and filibuster White House extremism, even at the risk of being labeled obstructionist by critics. In the longer term, it will involve creating an effective opposition in the Democratic Party to ensure that Trump's next opponent will not be another establishment candidate, deeply compromised by ties to corporate America.

Note that this is not an angry vision or a reactionist one — a vision reacting to Sanders' loss out of pique or sting. It's a vision that says the only hope of defeating what's being called "Trumpism" (more on that term later) is to defeat all that it stands for — not just racism, nativism, anti-Islam-ism; but also the "rule by the rich"-ism that feeds the both parties' version of the Washington insider swamp.

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson

On that, a simple comparison. Is the anti-Islamist racism of powerful  Democratic Party donor Haim Saban any different than the anti-Islamist racism of powerful Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson? Don't take the question as a theoretical one. Saban is using his sledgehammer influence with the corporate Democratic Party today to make sure that the next DNC Chair — a critical position going forward if used right — is not held by a Sanders-supporting Muslim.

And he's using anti-Muslim smears to do it. The Intercept:

This smear campaign against Ellison received a major boost Friday night when the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, said at the Brookings Institution, a part of which he funds: “If you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted, he is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” Saban added: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”

That's what "throwing your weight around" looks like. About Saban and Adelson:

Last year, he briefly teamed up with GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson to sponsor an effort to counter university boycotts and divestment from Israel’s occupation. “When it comes to Israel, we are absolutely on the same page,” [Saban] said of Adelson. “When it comes to this, there is no light between us at all.”

Make no mistake; this kind support for Israel — using U.S. power to put a nation of seven million people, mostly of one religion, in absolute charge of a region of 350 million, mostly of another religion — is a blueprint for disaster, and yes, deep deep racism.

Rescuing the Nation from Trump

But let's set the battle for the DNC chair aside for a moment. This kind of fight, if it replicates itself throughout the Party, and especially if it engages the "base" to the extent that the base was engaged during the run-up to Bush's Iraq War, is exactly what the Democratic Party needs to succeed ... not just as a party, but as a rescuer in the Age of Trump.

Because if Democrats do not succeed at being seen as the nation's rescuer, someone else will. And that will definitely not be good ... for Democrats. Those who care about the Democratic Party might want to care about that.

GP
 

Monsanto Democrats Attempt to Kill Vermont's GMO Labeling Law

Al Franken, a reliable Monsanto Senator (source)

by Gaius Publius

Let's look at this story from a couple of angles. First, here's what happened recently in Vermont, as told by Thom Hartmann (my emphasis everywhere):

On July 1, Vermont implemented a law requiring disclosure labels on all food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients, also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, hailed the law as “the first law enacted in the US that would provide clear labels identifying food made with genetically engineered ingredients. Indeed, stores across the country are already stocking food with clear on-package labels thanks to the Vermont law, because it’s much easier for a company to provide GMO labels on all of the products in its supply chain than just the ones going to one state.”

What that means is that the Vermont labeling law is changing the landscape of our grocery stores, and making it easier than ever to know which products contain GMOs.

The "first law enacted in the United States that would provide clear labels" identifying food with GMO ingredients. And as noted by Ms. Hauter of Food and Water Watch, once one state mandates this labeling, these labels will be de facto practice in all states, since "it’s much easier for a company to provide GMO labels on all of the products in its supply chain than just the ones going to one state."

That tells you what the stakes are — a de facto national GMO labeling law instigated by Vermont. Now the response.

Your Monsanto Senators at Work

Hartmann again:

And less than a week later after that law went into effect, it is under attack. Monsanto and its bought-and-paid-for toadies in Congress are pushing legislation to override Vermont’s law. Democrats who oppose this effort call the Stabenow/Roberts legislation the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” Act, or DARK Act.

This isn’t the first time that a DARK Act has been brought forward in the Senate, and one version of the bill was already shot down earlier this year. The most recent version of the bill was brought forward by Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, both recipients of substantial contributions from Big Agriculture.

How much money?

Stabenow has received more than $600,000 in campaign contributions since 2011 from the Crop Production and Basic Processing Industry, and Pat Roberts has received more than $600,000 from the Agricultural Services and Products industry.

Doesn't sound like much, does it? Especially compared to Monsanto's annual revenue of $15 billion. If I were Stabenow's agent, I'd get her ten times as much. Some folks, I guess, just don't know their worth to those they serve.

George Orwell Explains the Anti-GMO Labeling Law

Here's Senator Stabenow on what her anti-GMO labeling law would do (quoted here):

“This bipartisan bill is a win for consumers and families. For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. This proposal is also a win for our nation’s farmers and food producers.”

The anti-labeling law is offers consumers a "national, mandatory label" that looks like this:

Clear as a bell, right? Not only that, but the bill contains restrictions in its definitions and applications:

The 14-page bill – which uses a narrow definition of genetic engineering (traits developed through recombinant DNA techniques, which involve transferring a gene from one organism to another) that would exempt new techniques such as gene editing from labeling – would come into force two years after it is enacted.

Like many state-led bills, the Roberts/Stabenow bill would not require labeling on milk or meat from animals fed GM feed, or food sold in [a] restaurant “or similar retail food establishment.”

It does not make any reference to ‘natural’ claims, meanwhile, which have been a feature of many state-driven GMO labeling bills, including Act 120 in Vermont. ...

One fact immediately picked up by Dr. William Hallman, Chair of the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University, is that - as written - the definition of 'bioengineered' could potentially exclude scores of products containing heavily refined ingredients derived from GM crops, as it states (p1) that food qualifying for labeling "contains genetic material."

He added: "According to the definition, the food must contain genetic material i.e. DNA. This requirement would presumably exclude ingredients made from genetically modified crops that are then refined to remove DNA. This would include commonly used ingredients such as refined sugar from GM sugar beets, corn syrup from GM corn, and oil from GM canola."

In other words, this anti-labeling labeling law is designed to be toothless and offered as a "bipartisan compromise" by lead Democratic sponsor Debbie Stabenow.

Do You Know Who Your Monsanto Senators Are? They're Also Your "Progressive" Senators.

Which brings me to the point of this piece. You can't defeat Monsanto and the rest of the corporate food industry, with its insistence on basing all food possible on poison such as "modified food starch," a product that fattens its consumers slowly while it fattens the wallets of its producers much more quickly — you can't defeat Monsanto if you don't know who's propping them up.

The list of Your Monsanto Senators includes these "liberals" and "progressives":

    Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) — 202-224-5653
    Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — 202-224-3841
    Al Franken (D-MN) — 202-224-5641
    Tim Kaine (D-VA) — 202-224-4024
    Amy Klobushar (D-MN) — 202-224-3244
    Jean Shaheen (D-NH) — 202-224-2841
    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) — 202-224-4822

plus:

    Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — 202-224-2315

who declined to vote No by declining to vote (but see below). 

These senators were part of the Yes vote on cloture for the bill. Cloture, the motion to close debate, passed 65-32. Since cloture required 60 votes, six No votes from the list above would have killed the bill in the Senate.

Remember these names when you assemble up your "progressive heroes" list. They should not be on it.

They're on another list, though. The Christmas list at Monsanto. Doesn't help us much when we're fattening up on GMO modified corn starch at the McDonalds and Burger King trough, but it does provide the money that keeps them in power. So I guess there's that.

They've Done This Before, Your Monsanto Senators

This isn't the first time Your Monsanto Senators have killed GMO labeling from their high seats in the Senate. There was another instance in 2012. This Senate amendment attempted to "permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient (my emphasis)." In other words, it wouldn't have mandated GMO labeling; it would allow states to do as they choose with respect to GMO labeling.

The amendment failed 26-73. Among the No (pro-Monsanto) votes were these "progressive" senators:

    Al Franken (D-MN) — 202-224-5641
    Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — 202-224-2315
    Amy Klobushar (D-MN) — 202-224-3244
    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) — 202-224-4822
    Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) — 202-224-4451
    Dick Durbin (D-IL) — 202-224-2152
    Tom Harkin (D-IA) — retired

Their No wasn't even needed, given the margin, so I guess their Yes was a proof of loyalty.

Do you feel like telling these senators what you think of their love of Monsanto, ahead of the "unity festival" at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia? The DC office phone numbers are above.

GP
 

NY Times Exposes The Garbage Candidates The DCCC Spends All Their Money On

The root of the House Democrats' problem

California freshman Democrat Mark DeSaulnier is the only Member of the House left with a ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 100. He's never backed any of Boehner's right-wing agenda. Aside from DeSaulnier, the 10 Members who have, over the course of their careers, been the least likely to vote for Republican efforts to undermine America's working families are Mark Pocan (D-WI), Katherine Clark (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY). Way on the other end of the scale, the House Democrats who have the career-long worst ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores-- the ten voting most frequently with the Republican Party against the legitimate interests of working families-- are (with their abysmal scores):

• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL)- 29.42
• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE)- 29.42
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- 36.67
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)- 39.52
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 39.98
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 40.54
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 43.85
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)- 44.03
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- 45.71
• Raul Ruiz (CA)- 46.03

Each of them has voted more often against progressive legislation than for it. Exposing these false Democrats has been one of the themes of DWT-- a lonely effort overall-- for years. So wasn't I pleasantly surprised yesterday when Derek Willis reported in the NYTimes who the House Democrats are who have been backing the GOP agenda? (Unfortunately, Willis uses crude data that doesn't show the depths of right-wing support these fake Dems have been exhibiting, just their relative ignominy.) It isn't a subject Times readers are normally exposed to and I can imagine that the report absolutely freaked out the DCCC-- not the content, of course, but just that the Members they waste the most money on were exposed, and exposed to nearly the entire DCCC donor base.

Appropriately enough, the piece is accompanied by a photo of political chameleon Kyrsten Sinema, who started her shameful career as a socialist and a Green, posing provocatively. Willis' point isn't just that these treacherous Democrats abandon working families but that they're doing it even more consistently than they used to. And he's most interested in talking about the careerist scum looking for political advancement by selling out progressive values.

A small group of House Democrats has begun moving to the right in the current Congress, breaking from a majority of colleagues on votes that pit lawmakers from liberal areas against those from more rural and conservative districts.

The lure of a Senate seat, which in many cases requires shifting from a narrower ideological focus to a broader one, and the threat of a well-funded challenger are among the reasons for this this shift.

A few members of this group, which numbers fewer than a dozen, are congressional veterans like Collin Peterson of Minnesota, who survived a tough challenge in 2014 and is voting with a majority of his fellow Democrats 64 percent of the time, down slightly from the previous Congress.

But most are new to the House and have known life only in the minority, with Republicans controlling the schedule and agenda. These Democratic lawmakers have voted against Democratic legislation such as the alternative budgets proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Their ranks include John Delaney of Maryland, who was first elected in 2012 and narrowly defeated his Republican challenger last fall, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who won easily in 2014 but may be considering a run for the Senate (and, notably, did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House in January). Ms. Sinema’s party voting percentage has dropped to 73 percent from 80 percent this year, while Mr. Delaney’s score has fallen further, to 80 percent from 92 percent.

Patrick Murphy of Florida is another example; he’s already running for the Senate seat currently held by the Republican Marco Rubio, and his party voting score has dropped from 83 percent in the last Congress to 77 percent in this one.

Also in the group are four California Democrats who have voted less often with their party in the current Congress than in the previous one, including Julia Brownley, who has joined a majority of Democrats on 84 percent of votes in 2015 compared with 91 percent the previous two years.

...The bills that have attracted the support of the small group of Democrats have included ones that provide tax cuts; support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline; and change the ways the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies study and approve regulations.

Willis' list of the worst House Democrats:

• Collin Peterson (MN)
• Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)
• Kurt Schrader (OR)
• Jim Costa (CA)
• Patrick Murphy (FL)
• Scott Peters (CA)
• John Delaney (MD)
• Ami Bera (CA)
• Julia Brownley (CA)

A motley collection of political cowards, many of them claim they vote with Republicans because their seats are in jeopardy in "moderate" districts, although each of them won those districts campaigning on progressive values. None of them will acknowledge that their seats are in jeopardy because they vote with Republicans so much and have managed to alienate their own support base.

Mukasey Is No More And No Less What Bush, Schumer And Feinstein Saddled Us With

Accountability? A little? Someday?

Michael Mukasey is Attorney General today because of the effusive support he received from Chuck Schumer. Should Schumer be held responsible? Absolutely. During the confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey weaseled his way through his testimony, refusing to say, for example whether or not waterboarding was legal. That should have ended the hearings on the spot and the man should have been escorted to the door and thrown out on his ass. Instead, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senator with all the re-election money (from corporate sources), announced, along with Madam Dianne Vichyssoise (D-CA) that he would be voting for him, ensuring the futility of a battle.

The actual Senate confirmation vote itself (Nov. 8, 2007) was just political posturing. Every single Republican was in their regular rubber stamp mode-- not one voted no-- and they were joined by Lieberman and by 4 of the most consistently right-wing Democrats in the Senate-- Carper (DE), Bayh (IN), Landrieu (LA) and Nelson (NE)-- plus Schumer and Feinstein. Obama, Dodd, Biden and Clinton were all off campaigning and didn't vote.

No one can honestly claim they were buying a pig in a poke (or a cat in a sack). If someone expected an honest man or a righteous man or a man committed to Truth and Justice or who would serve the American people and the Constitution, they need to be removed from office just based on naiveté alone-- or for spending too much time listening to the rivers of bullshit that flow out of Chuck Schumer's mouth every time he opens it. Mukasey turned out to be exactly the kind of stooge Bush hired him to be and that the Senate was amply warned he would be and that, in fact, he has been.

This morning's NY Times claims there are some senators, particularly this most disingenuous of all senators, who are having buyer's remorse nine month's on.

Mukasey has dragged his ass and completely derailed the investigation into the Bush Regime's politicization of the Justice Department. There was never any question that he was hired to do exactly that. Schumer's crocodile tears are repulsive.

[A]t a hearing this month, face to face with his pick for attorney general, Mr. Schumer, a Democrat [thanks for the clarification, Eric; it does get hard to keep track in some cases], did not hide his disappointment in what he saw as Mr. Mukasey’s reluctance to move more aggressively in investigating accusations that the Justice Department had brought politically inspired prosecutions against Democratic politicians.

Mr. Schumer was still fuming a short time later as he went to the Senate floor for a vote. “That was terrible,” Mr. Schumer told a colleague privately in assessing Mr. Mukasey’s performance, an official privy to the conversation said.

...“I don’t want to use the word ‘disappointed,’ but he hasn’t provided the balance that I had hoped for,” said Mr. Specter, who supported Mr. Mukasey’s nomination.

Halfway through his term, Mr. Mukasey has defended or let stand some of the most controversial policies that he inherited from Mr. Gonzales, including the treatment of detainees, the broad surveillance powers claimed by Mr. Bush and the White House’s use of executive privilege in warding off demands from Congress for information.

Last week, Democrats charged that Mr. Mukasey was using the shield of executive privilege to “cover up” possible wrongdoing by the White House. The result, critics say, is that investigations have languished on some critical issues.

Patrick Leahy acknowledges that Mukasey is "head and shoulders above his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, but Bush would have had to look for an inmate of a federal penitentiary to find someone who wasn't. Still, Leahy, who knew what was coming and voted against Mukasey, said he is “letting the worst excesses of the Gonzales era stand... He doesn't want to rock the boat."

Neither Mukasey nor his pal Schumer-- well known as the biggest publicity whore in the Senate outside of McCain-- would agree to an interview for today's Times piece.

SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF

The disgraceful piece of legislation known as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 just passed 293-129. Although most Democrats (128) voted against it, 105, including Pelosi, stuck with Hoyer and Bush. Hoyer no longer represents a majority of Democrats in the House. He should hand in his resignation today. Only one Republican stood up for the Constitution (Ron Paul ducked the vote): Tim Johnson of Illinois. Here's the whole list of who voted which way.

You want to fight the power? Donate to the Blue America vs Retroactive Immunity fund which is working to hold Vichy Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Chris Carney and John Barrow accountable. So far over 4,409 people have donated more than a quarter million dollars for this battle.



Neither Carney nor Hoyer faces a primary challenge this year. Barrow does. On July 15 he has to go before the voters of GA-12 who will decide if they want a Bush rubber stamp or a real Democrat, Regina Thomas. Barrow voted with Bush today. Regina opposes retroactive immunity and opposes warrantless wiretaps against U.S. citizens. Many Democratic primary voters in Savannah, Vidalia, Statesboro and Augusta have unpleasant memories of a powerful and unaccountable federal government illegally wiretapping Dr. Martin Luther King. That is George W. Bush and that is John Barrow and that is Steny Hoyer. That is not Regina Thomas. I urge you to think about donating to her campaign directly.

The Republicans in Congress are in big trouble, but we need better Democrats, not just more Democrats.

A single question in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll says all you need to know about the problems facing Republicans in the fall election.

Asked if the election were held today which party's candidate would they vote for in their own congressional district, 53 percent of registered voters said they would back the Democratic candidate, compared with just 38 percent said they would support the Republican candidate.

That 15-point bulge for Democrats on the so-called generic ballot question matches the party's largest margin in more than two years in the Post-ABC poll.

The top Democratic leadership-- Emanuel, Hoyer, Pelosi, Clyburn-- all voted with Bush. The next tier of Democratic leaders-- George Miller (Policy Chair), Rosa DeLauro (Steering Chair) and Chris Van Hollen (DCCC Chair)-- broke with Hoyer and Bush and voted for the Constitution and for America. At this point, the ACLU better represents grassroots Democrats than our own House leadership.

Tom Perriello, the Democrat running against warrantless wire-tap advocate, Virgil Goode in Virginia, blasted Congress for passing this bill and came closer than most to doing what most Democrats are afraid to do-- denouncing Steny Hoyer for what he is-- a Bush enabler. Tom: "This 'compromise' will not make Americans safer. If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation."

I spoke with Carol Shea-Porter a few moments after she left the floor after voting against the Bush-Hoyer bill. This is what she told me:

I'm very disappointed in the FISA vote today. I thought that the Democratic leadership had been doing a very good job of bringing the Republicans along and taking care of some of the problems that were in some of the previous attempts, but the fact is that they have basically provided retroactive immunity. We know that all of those telecom companies will be able to produce a letter saying that the Bush Administration said it was OK. That wasn't the point. The point was that
we're a government of a laws, not men. We're a government of laws not of the Bush Administration... I think we should have stuck with the initial position that we needed to see exactly why they were asking for retroactive immunity."

Representative Shea-Porter will be coming on to Crooks and Liars Monday afternoon live at 5pm (EST) to discuss this and other important issues confronting Americans.


UPDATE: NO DEMOCRATS ARE WILLING TO DENOUNCE HOYER AS A TRAITOR

Oh, some do it off the record, but no one is willing to get to the heart of the problem and get rid of Hoyer. If there is anyone who cares about a America still donating to the DCCC or the DSCC they should reassess after today. There is not a single person on the list of Democrats who voted for this bill that I would support.

Tom Udall is a progressive congressman running for the U.S. Senate against one of the worst Bush rubber stamps, Steve Pearce, who falls asleep at night dreaming up rights he can take away from Americans. Udall-- unlike his most establishmentarian and less trustworthy cousin in Colorado-- voted against the bill. Here's what he told New Mexico voters why:

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

Today's vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

John Hall represents a Republican-leaning district and he has a very progressive voting record. But his constituents, regardless of political party, support the Constitution and John didn't hesitate for a moment to vote against the Bush-Hoyer travesty. Here's what he told his upstate New York constituents:

I have consistently supported modernizing the existing FISA law to give our government the tools it needs to identify and defeat terrorists in today’s high-tech world, while at the same time preserving the freedoms and rights that define America.  I have voted three times to pass legislation that would strengthen and modernize FISA and reaffirm the rule of law.  Despite some improvements over previous attempts to update FISA, the bill considered by the House today regrettably falls short of achieving that critical balance. The rule of law lies at the core of America’s founding principles, and the language in this bill was too weak to ensure that any breach of our laws that may have occurred under the warrantless wiretapping program will be fully addressed.  It is not appropriate to deny Americans the right to pursue these matters in court, or to short-circuit the judicial review that lies at the heart of our system of checks and balances, which is the bedrock of our Constitution. Accordingly, I voted against this bill.

 

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT... OR NO PUNISHMENT AT ALL

Quick, fair trials, followed by public firing squads, aren't likely for this batch of war criminals and traitors. The people who make the kinds of political decisions that would lead to that are... well, in short, the same people who were guilty or at least complicit in the crimes. If Cheney were found guilty and handed a blindfold and last cigarette, the whole world would rejoice, but Steny Hoyer might have reason to wonder what his punishment would be.

Last night Keith Olbermann discussed the idea-- since Nancy Pelosi and her crew have decided to thwart the constitutional remedy of impeachment (a remedy that has never in American history been more appropriate than now)-- with Richard Clarke. Even with the Senate Intelligence Committee-- and let's face it, more than half the members of that body were at least accessories to the systemic criminality of the Regime (and I'm not just talking about the Republican members by any means)-- have finally determined that Bush lied us into attacking Iraq by twisting and misusing intelligence. Clarke:

Well, there may be some other kind of remedy. There may be some sort of truth and reconciliation commission process that’s been tried in other countries, South Africa, Salvador and what not, where if you come forward and admit that you were in error or admit that you lied, admit that you did something, then you’re forgiven. Otherwise, you are censured in some way.

Now, I just don’t think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened, when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grievously wounded, and they’ll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives.

I don't think Bush and Cheney give a damn about university boards or even, despite John Cusack's brilliant War, Inc., corporate boards. They have stolen generational wealth-- not millions or hundreds of millions, but billions and billions of dollars-- and nothing short of confiscation will phase either of them. Just like nothing short of blindfolds and last cigarettes will ever satisfy me-- or justice.

Think Progress has put together a brilliant report called "The Architects of War: Where Are They Now?," and you will notice that neither Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Mitch Daniels, Irving Libby (aka "Scooter") nor Stephen Hadley, let alone Bush and Cheney, are awaiting trials. They and dozens more-- including half the U.S. Senate, on both sides of the aisle-- should be.

Many, though by no means all, of the senators who aided and abetted Bush and Cheney have now, like Hillary Clinton, made the claim that they were lied to, and if they knew then what they came to learn, they would have never, never have been sucked into Bush's nefarious scheme. What a crock! Almost half the Senate Democrats did know and loudly warned their colleagues, and more than half the House Democrats had it all figured out and voted against Bush's rush to war. But even in September 2006, with the Regime still brandishing their "red scare" and smear tactics against spineless Vichy Democrats, only one third of the Senate was willing to oppose the Bush Regime on their torture agenda. Although Clinton and Reid had learned their lesson and opposed torture, every single Republican aside from Olympia Snowe (who ducked the vote) and Lincoln Chafee voted with the Regime to allow torture.

And the Democrats who should be dragged before the bar of justice and tried as criminals and traitors along with the despicable likes of Mitch McConnell, John W. McCain, Gordon Smith, Joe Lieberman, James Inhofe, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, Elizabeth Dole, Ted Stevens, Lamar Alexander, John Sununu and Lindsey Graham? Well, there were quite a few Democrats who still didn't know then what they know now-- and some still don't know it even now!-- including Mary Landrieu (LA), Jay "Retroactive Immunity" Rockefeller (WV), Tom Carper (DE), Mark Pryor (AR), Tim Johnson (SD) and both the treacherous Nelson girls (FL and NE)... to name some of the worst of the Vichyssoise.

Our political class, or at least much of it, has let us down in the worst possible way. There are no Republicans who deserve reelection, not a single one. Many Democrats do, and many do not. Be careful in November not to vote for potential war criminals, particularly not the unreconstructed ones like Mark Pryor (AR) or Mary Landrieu (LA) in the Senate or John Barrow (GA), Eliot Engel (NY), Gene Taylor (MS), Tim Holden (PA), Collin Peterson (MN), Jim Marshall (GA), Steven Rothman (NJ), Jim Matheson (UT), Allen Boyd (FL), Shelley Berkley (NV), Steve Israel (NY), Mike Ross (AR), Adam Smith (WA), Vic Snyder (AR), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Chet Edwards (TX) and Ike Skelton (MO), to name a few, in the House.


UPDATE: STEVE ROTHMAN (D-NJ)

I just goy back from DC and found the comment from Anonymous asking why Steve Rothman was included in this list of war supporting Democrats. Rothman has a dismal overall Iraq War score of 71.43, one of the lowest for any Democrat in the Northeast. Before Pelosi became Speaker, he routinely voted with the Republicans to keep the war going. Out of the 44 roll calls on Iraq before 2006, Rothman voted with the Republicans 18 times. the chart show the first 8 Iraq roll call votes in the House. Column 1 was Rothman's vote; column two was the Democratic position; and column three was the fate of the Democratic position (8 losses-- thanks, in part, to traitors like Rothman. That's why.

Click to see how Steve Rothman has acted as a rubber stamp for Bush