Obama Insists On Going Down In History As The President Who Tore The Country Apart Over A Misguided, Pointless War In Afghanistan

So today's the day we get a straight up-or-down vote on continuing the brutal, dysfunctional occupation of Afghanistan and the disastrous, pointless war there. The Senate stripped away the sweeteners-- keeping the economy afloat-- that gave reluctant Democrats cover to go along with it-- and gave some Republicans cover to oppose it! The money the Senate removed for state governments to pay teachers and the money that would have gone to small family farms, many of them impoverished black farmers will make it all the harder to round up enough non-Blue Dogs to help Republicans pass this Frankenstein's monster of a war funding bill. As we pointed out Sunday, the giant wikileak is making it harder for Obama to put enough lipstick on this pig for most Democrats to want to bed down with.

It comes up today on the suspension calendar, which means it needs a two-thirds majority to pass. That's not going to happen. There's no way the House leadership is going to round up 130 Democrats to declare openly that they are nothing but corrupt, filthy shills for the Military Industrial Complex. As David Swanson from WarIsACrime.org, "here's where the hypocrisy hits the highway. On July 1st, 162 congress members voted to require a withdrawal plan and end date for the occupation of Afghanistan, and 100 voted to fund only withdrawal, no continuation of war, while 25 voted to simply stop dumping any money into this war. Now all of them must vote yes or no, probably on Tuesday, on whether to fund a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan. You won't hear anyone mention it, but this $33 billion is to add 30,000 troops plus contractors to the war."

Most of the debate this morning consisted of Republicans and sold-out conservative Democrats angry at the world babbling about not spending any money on anything but wars-- just the worst kinds of crap representatives a democracy can vomit out-- from Buck McKeon (R-CA), Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Harold Rogers (R-KY) to Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Ike Skelton (D-MO). A couple of breaths of fresh air came from Jim McGovern (D-MA) who flat out called the war "a disaster," something most of these imbeciles refuse to admit, even the ones who know it. He pointed out that we're allowing our soldiers to die while borrowing money, putting the country in hock to prop up a corrupt, barely legitimate government in Kabul. He railed against presidents getting blank checks from Congress. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH):

Wake Up America. WikiLeaks’ release of secret war documents gave us 92,000 reasons to end the wars. Pick one. Wake Up America. Main Street is falling apart. Businesses have closed. Bankruptcies abound. People are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their retirement security. The middle class is falling apart. Workers’ rights are not being protected. The government is out of money. There is not even money for childhood nutrition. “Wake up America. There is unlimited money for war. Money for a corrupt government in Afghanistan. When U.S. money is not going to the Karzai mob’s personal use, it goes to help the Taliban kill our troops. There is money for a corrupt government in Pakistan which helps the Taliban in Afghanistan kill our troops. Meanwhile, our troops are committing suicide in record numbers. Wake Up America. How can we solve the world’s problems if we can’t solve our own problems here at home?

Barbara Lee, who was the only member of Congress to oppose attacking Afghanistan in the first place, followed Kucinich. She spoke about ending the war by defunding it and reiterated what every Democrat should be saying-- that no money should be spent on anything to with Afghanistan other than bringing our troops home safely. The chair then asked for a voice vote and claimed it passed with two-thirds, at which time Dave Obey called their bullshit and demanded a recorded vote. The leadership postponed that to see if they could actually find enough Democrats do vote with GOP warmongers.

At that point, staunch anti-war progressives Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson and others released this statement:

Once again, war is being paid for with a credit card while investments in our children’s future are tossed aside. These investments-- $10 billion for teacher jobs, $1 billion for summer youth employment, $5 billion for Pell grants, $701 million for border security-- were cut from the war funding bill coming to the House floor despite being fully paid for and not adding to the budget deficit. They have been jettisoned in favor of further borrowed war spending. Today’s bill doesn’t include anything to maintain first responder, police or firefighter positions despite the dramatic need for those jobs in every community in America. We believe this is fiscal insanity and a moral tragedy.

Consider the following: Despite widespread shortfalls in education funding around the country, the $10 billion that would have saved 140,000 teacher jobs across the nation-- all of it offset-- has been cut. The $37.12 billion in war funding, on the other hand, is not paid for. Every single penny adds directly to the national debt. This is not good for national security. This is continuing a failed policy at the exact wrong time.

The bill before the House denies our children the right to an education and takes away their future earning power. It also adds to the economic burden they will eventually have to bear. This is a moral outrage. We find it unacceptable that this Congress places a greater priority on foreign wars than urgent domestic needs. We have compounded our moral short-sightedness with utter fiscal irresponsibility.

After the dramatic revelations of this week, it is clearer than ever just how daunting a task our troops face in Afghanistan. We are trying to build a modern, democratic state in an area divided by tribal and ethnic identities that has successfully resisted foreign powers for centuries. We are fighting for one side in a civil war, killing civilians, building resentment toward the United States, and making it nearly impossible to gain the popular support that could make success possible.

As multiple reports have shown, pervasive corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan siphons resources so that even worthwhile projects are doomed to fail. This is not how we want to spend borrowed money. Our people at home are facing a difficult job market, lower funding for education, and a shattered Gulf economy that needs significant attention. We need to prioritize and make the right choices, not continue as before out of inertia or a lack of urgency. We urge the president to consider how this spending really improves the lives of Americans and how it can be spent in more productive ways.

So how could any Democrat vote to continue funding this mess?

Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who signed on to the letter above (as did Jared Polis, John Conyers, Donna Edwards and several other progressives), was on Hardball last night talking about the wikileaks and the pointless war in Afghanistan with Tweety. She did a great job:



UPDATE: What You Expected

Jim Holbert is a progressive Democrat running for Congress in Kentucky's 5th congressional district. Unfortunately his opponent longtime warmonger Hal Rogers got to vote today instead. And Rogers voted for more war, more billions of much needed taxpayer dollars down the Central Asian sewer. Holbert's comment: "De-fund it, bring the troops home, and there's the end of it. This is going to happen sooner or later, the only questions are how many more lives will be lost and how much more debt we'll run up." Rogers voted against Kucinich's War Powers resolution in regard to Pakistan-- so did almost everyone else. It failed 38-372, 6 Republicans and 32 Democrats voting YES, with 4 abstentions. And then the supplemental a few minutes later. 102 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against it. So it passed-- more unjustifiable war in our names-- 308-114. Let me take a quick look and see if any good Democrats voted for it. Hold on a sec... Yep, joining the Borens, Boyds, Barrows, Beans, Brights, Harmen and Shulers, we find a scattering of progressives, whose names we should keep in mind when they ask for campaign contributions: Bruce Braley (IA), Susan Davis (CA), Diana DeGette (CO), Martin Heinrich (NM), Tom Perriello (VA), Lucille Royball-Allard (CA), Chris Van Hollen (MD)... ugghhhh, too many to name. All the real good guys voted no though, people like Donna Edwards, Tammy Baldwin, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared Polis, Lloyd Doggett, Steve Filner... you know.

UPDATE II: Garry Wills Has His Say

Obamabots are not going to like the new issue of the New York Review of Books... not one bit. It's worth reading the whole piece, which Wills starts off with a real bang:

Most presidents start wondering-- or, more often, worrying-- about their “legacy” well into their first term. Or, if they have a second term, they worry even more feverishly about what posterity will think of them. Obama need not wonder about his legacy, even this early. It is already fixed, and in one word: Afghanistan. He took on what he made America’s longest war and what may turn out to be its most disastrous one.

It is time for me to break a silence I have observed for over a year, against my better judgment. On June 30, 2009, I and eight other historians were invited to a dinner with President Obama and three of his staffers, to discuss what history could teach him about conducting the presidency. I was asked shortly after by several news media what went on there, and I replied that it was off the record. I have argued elsewhere that the imposition of secrecy to insure that the president gets “candid advice” is a cover for something else-- making sure that what is said about the people’s business does not reach the people. But I went along this time, since the president said that he wanted this dinner to be a continuing thing, and I thought that revealing its first contents would jeopardize the continuation of a project that might be a source of information for him.

But there has been no follow up on the first dinner, and certainly no sign that he learned anything from it. The only thing achieved has been the silencing of the main point the dinner guests tried to make-- that pursuit of war in Afghanistan would be for him what Vietnam was to Lyndon Johnson. At least four or five of the nine stressed this. Nothing else rose to this level of seriousness or repeated concern.

I will let others say what they want (some already have). But I will now reveal what I contributed that night. I told him that Richard Nixon had advised Ronald Reagan not to make too many public statements himself-- let others speak on a daily basis, and save his appearances for big issues. Obama replied that he would speak less often in the future, but at the moment no one else in his administration could command the attention that he did. He added that Secretary Clinton had some ability to get the public’s ear, but she could not speak on domestic issues like the economy.

When Obama said that he was surprised that the left was so critical of him, I said that it would continue to be critical so long as he issued signing statements before passage of a law. He asked which one I objected to, and I said that any are unconstitutional. At the end of the meal, he went around the table one time more to ask if there was a final bit of advice we would give. When my turn came, I joined those who had already warned him about an Afghanistan quagmire. I said that a government so corrupt and tribal and drug-based as Afghanistan’s could not be made stable. He replied that he was not naïve about the difficulties but he thought a realistic solution could be reached. I wanted to add “when pigs fly,” but restrained myself.

Jonathan Alter, in The Promise, becomes almost rhapsodic when describing the President’s official Afghanistan review sessions, to reach “the most methodical security decision in a generation.” But no one in those meetings said that the Afghanistan war was a sure loser, a thing not to be pursued in the first place. The only voice of dissent that we know of was Vice President Biden’s calling for a smaller troop increase (ten or fifteen thousand or so) and more drone attacks. The main point made by the historians he consulted was not referred to by Alter-- one of the deleterious effects of governmental secrecy. The President might have been saved from the folly that will be his lasting legacy. But now we are ten years into a war that could drag on for another ten, and could catch in its trammels the next president, the way Vietnam tied up president after president.

How Many Billions Of Tax Dollars Get Wasted In Afghanistan Before People Do Something About It?

Late last night the Senate tried overcoming a Republican filibuster against H.R. 4899, the war supplemental legislation the House passed which includes "sweeteners" (like money for states to keep teachers, firemen and policemen employed). Cloture failed miserably, not even getting to 50%!. It failed 46-51, 11 of the most conservative Democrats (+ Lieberman) joining all the Republicans to keep the filibuster going and, in effect, send the bill back to the House with instructions to take out the domestic spending and just go for the war. The aisle crossing Democrats were Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Carper (DE), Mary Landieu (LA), Claire McCaskill (MO), Mark Pryor (AR), Arlen Specter (PA), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Warner (VA), and Jim Webb (VA).

In other words, the Senate is fine with $40 billion to waste on an unwinnable catastrophic war but refuse to fund American economic recovery with $20 billion. Like I've been saying all year, the Senate should either be abolished altogether or, if that offers to many constitutional hurdles to overcome, turned into a ceremonial chamber where they can all wear powdered wigs and ermine robes but stop interfering in government.

When the House originally passed the bill on July 1, the Republicans were almost totally united against it-- only Mark Kirk, Timothy Johnson and Mike Castle voting NO-- and 15 mostly reactionaries Blue Dogs, joined them to declare they love them some war spending but don't believe in spending on American families. [The Democrats following Boehner's lead that day were mentally unbalanced and retiring Brian Baird (WA), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD), Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Jared Polis (anti-war Dem-CO), Ike Skelton (MO), Vic Snyder (AR), John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS), Pete Visclosky (IN), and Peter Welch (anti-war Dem-VT). Obama had been threatening to veto the House bill, so apparently the conservative Democrats he used to make common cause with when he was a senator plus the Republicans, are doing him a big favor.

“The funding included by our colleagues in the House of Representatives for education jobs is critical,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat. Still, he said “we cannot delay further the funds necessary to ensure that our servicemen and women have everything they need to do their jobs.”

...The Senate dropped a House provision that would have restricted brand-name drug companies from paying generic-drug makers to delay putting lower-priced pharmaceuticals on the market. That proposal was intended to cut drug costs in government health-care programs, freeing up money for aid to states.

The Senate also cut $5 billion for Pell college tuition grants, $1 billion to promote summer jobs for teens and $700 million to improve border security.

Lawmakers are under pressure to complete the legislation before their August recess. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he may have to furlough some staff if he doesn’t receive the money by mid-August.

Not many Americans who don't get paychecks from the U.S. government have spent time on the ground in Afghanistan-- especially outside of Kabul. I have-- twice and for long stretches. I could have told the Bush or Obama Administrations just what a federal auditor has reported: taxpayer money is almost totally wasted when spent there. It accomplished the equivalent of flushing it down the toilet. We have no business trying to insert ourselves into their world. Even well-meaning projects are idiotic-- and costly. The stuff we build tends to be "too complex and costly for the Afghan government to maintain."

U.S. officials acknowledge that they plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hire contractors to operate a complex of buildings in troubled Kandahar and other facilities in Afghanistan for the next 10 years.

A federal auditor complained in a report that the buildings constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Afghan national police represent an "outrageous waste of taxpayer money." He said the problems are representative of a "regular negative pattern" in overly complex construction in the country.

"Why in the world are we continuing to construct facilities all over Afghanistan that we know, and the Afghans know, they will not be able to sustain once we hand the facilities over?" asked Arnold Fields, the special inspector general for Afghan reconstruction.

His critique comes at a time when the Obama administration is funneling billions of dollars into projects as part of its efforts to strengthen the country's central government and security forces.

With support for the Afghan war declining and concerns about U.S. government spending rising, aid for Afghanistan is an increasingly sensitive political issue for the administration.

This is not the first time Washington has been accused of overbuilding projects for a frail allied government. During the George W. Bush administration, U.S. agencies were faulted for building power plants in Iraq that were never employed to capacity because they were too complex for Iraqi engineers to operate.

War Budget Passes The House-- Bad Deal All Around

Tomorrow at 10:06am, according to the National Priorities Project's Cost of War counter, we will have spent a cool trillion dollars on the pointless and tragic wars against and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday at 4:19pm the House passed Obama's war budget (although the disgraceful supplemental budget to continue funding these two catastrophic boondoggles by borrowing money we don't have because our political "elite" doesn't have the will-- conservatives-- or the guts--progressives-- to raise taxes of the wealthy to a point where they might be paying even a reasonable percentage of their fair share, comes after they get back from their little vacation. The Pentagon budget passed 229-186, nine Republicans voting with the Democrats, 26 Democrats voting with the Republicans. In a moment I want to take a look at the Democrats who crossed the aisle and see if we can get some insight into the horrors of this burdensome bill.

First, please recall that when the White House was trying to figure out how to shove the shit sandwich of a supplemental down our throats, they decided to offer a sweetener (bribe) of helping strapped local governments prevent the firings of public school teachers. After the Blue Dogs starting howling they're fine with paying for more war but would not countenance spending more taxpayer dollars on educating a bunch of unwashed masses who couldn't even afford private school, the Democrats buckled and replaced that sweetener with the removal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a great idea that should have stood on it's own. On top of taking out the $29 or so billion from the upcoming supplemental for education, to get Blue Dog support they also had to gut parts of the unemployment insurance extension legislation that passed today. What a deal! Conservatives won! Lucky we elected Obama and a Democratic House and Senate!

Even with all the disgusting kowtowing to Blue Dogs and conservative swine, only 9 relatively mainstreamish Republicans bit (Ros-Lehtinen, Cao, Kirk, Castle, Biggert, Djou, Reichert, Dent and Bono Mack), while raving reactionary Blue Dogs-- all bitter, vicious homophobes who love the troops less than the hate the gays-- Bobby Bright (AL), Travis Childers (MS), Lincoln Davis (TN), Jim Marshall (GA), Colin Peterson (MN), and Gene Taylor (MS)-- voted with their real leader, John Boehner against the bill. Meanwhile 19 Democrats who really oppose the war (or, at least 18 plus an opportunistic Waxman) voted "no" as well: Judy Chu (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Steve Filner (D-CA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Mike Michaud (moderate anti-war Blue Dog-ME), George Miller (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Dave Obey (D-WI), John Olver (D-MA), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Pete Stark (D-CA), Mel Watt (D-NC), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Last night John Aravosis explained why tossing progressives a (crappy, partial) bone on DADT shouldn't or should have been enough of a reason to vote for this historically hideous bill. Aravosis, probably like most gay people-- this one not included-- felt progressives had no choice but to accept this stinky compromise that could backfire entirely. He might be right; he would have voted yes. I would have voted no. Raúl Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did vote yes, splitting with the 19 progressives from his caucus listed above. He weighed it and seems to have felt the progressive-- however puny and tentative-- on repealing DADT made it palatable.

This is a landmark day for the cause of civil rights, and a meaningful step toward realizing our national ideal of equality. The end of DADT will be a civil rights advance on par with the racial integration of the Armed Forces in 1948.
 
At the same time, I must be clear on the precise nature of the measure passed in the House. The Murphy Amendment does not guarantee a future repeal of DADT. Rather, it allows repeal in the future, pending a Pentagon review and separate findings by the President and the Secretary of Defense.
 
When the Supreme Court struck down segregation, the decision wasn’t conditioned on two ifs and a when. These conditions and delays are not my preferred course of action, and I will be actively working to make sure the promise of this measure is quickly fulfilled. In the meantime, I call upon the President to place an immediate halt to any further discharges of soldiers serving honorably based solely on DADT.
 
General Douglas MacArthur said, “The untruthful officer trifles with the lives of his countrymen and the honor and safety of his country.” DADT forces our soldiers to be dishonest about their very identity, and the corrosive effect of this policy on truth, honor and unit cohesion is unacceptable at any time. It is especially counterproductive in a time of war.
 
In this case, we do not have to choose between justice and security. By repealing DADT, we will advance both of these vital national interests. That’s why the American people, and our men and women in uniform in all four service branches, support allowing gay Americans to serve their country by overwhelming majorities.
 
I am glad to see the nation’s elected officials, soldiers, and families all across this great nation moving forward together to make this a safer and more just nation. Today we are closer to becoming a united, indivisible nation.

Maybe... I don't trust the Pentagon and I don't trust Obama. I doubt we're necessarily any closer to anything-- except killing more innocent Afghanis and making our own country less safe.

Republicans Will Be The Quasi-Peace Party And Obama Will Trap Democrats Into Voting For Pointless War That Will Never Be Won

Yesterday we looked at the cynical trick the White House is using to pass it's unpopular Afghan War supplemental. They're offering Democrats a "sweetener" in the form of $23-25 billion to keep public education and public safety of a local level from collapsing, to get them to vote for a package that includes that money plus the $33.5 billion for the occupation and escalation in Afghanistan. The money to save teacher, firemen and policemen jobs will be enough to get reluctant Democrats to go along with more war-- or at least give them an excuse for voting for it. Ironically, it gives Republicans an excuse to vote against it!

Pelosi says she won't lean too heavily on anti-war Democrats this time. (I guess that explains why Rahm Emanuel hasn't left to be mayor of Chicago yet.) House Dems say the Senate can go first on this one and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn says he's going to put together a filibuster.

House Republicans have strongly criticized the effort to tack on the education funding, suggesting that they could oppose a war-spending bill for the second year in a row. Some Republicans have called the education funding another “bailout” that will add to the country’s $13 trillion debt.

“Giving states another $23 billion in federal education money simply throws more money into taxpayer-funded bailouts when we should be discussing why we aren’t seeing the results we need from the billions in federal dollars that are already being spent,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement.

Boehner and other Republicans have called for a “clean” war-spending bill.

“Our troops and the American people need this bill right now, not weeks from now, and certainly not after it’s been loaded up with billions in bailouts,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.

While Republicans are balking at the idea of including the education funding with $33.5 billion for the war, the inclusion of the teacher fund-- which could save as many as 300,000 jobs, according to its proponents-- could make House liberals take a second look at the package.

Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) has opposed an escalation of the Afghanistan war, but he hasn’t ruled out backing a package that also included money for teachers.

“We’ll review the whole package the Senate will send us, but at this point he’s inclined to vote against the funding,” an aide to McGovern said.

Jonathan Tasini is running for the upper Manhattan House seat now being occupied by corrupt Democrat Charlie Rangel. Jonathan didn't like the way the White House paired this two issues anymore than we did-- and he put this video together last night:



If you think a progressive leader like Jonathan Tasini would make a good alternative to a special interests embarrassment, please help him raise the funds he needs to run an effective grassroots campaign in NYC.


UPDATE From Florida And New Jersey

Blue America-endorsed House candidate Doug Tudor is a career naval officer who was as disturbed by this trickery as the rest of us are around here; in fact-- in some ways, more so. This morning he issued this statement: “Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are putting their lives on the line everyday in Afghanistan. Instead of playing political games to win votes for a failing war effort, the leaders of my party should ask for an honest vote for continued funding. I, for one, would vote no, but members should be able to vote on issues of war and peace without those issues being connected to domestic spending packages. On a final note, if a member of the leadership ever tries to 'lean' on me regarding a war vote, he or she will be in for a big surprise. The thought of a Member of Congress allowing himself or herself to be pressured to vote a certain way when our troops’ lives are at stake is disgusting.”

Yesterday we met Tod Theise, who's running against right-wing warmonger, Scott Garrett. Today he told me that "decisions regarding war and peace should be based on tactical and moral imperatives alone. War purchased by legislative inducement can never be just or rational.  Peace offered at the behest of political patronage can never be lasting or meaningful. Any funding for the war effort in Afghanistan must be based exclusively on what is best for our national defense and our troops in the field. Period."

The Rahm Emanuel Side Of Obama Cynically Pits Teachers Against Troops

If the leaders in Congress were confident that U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was purposeful and worthwhile, they would not have to sugar coat a supplemental war appropriation with billions for teacher retention, Haiti reconstruction, and veterans' health care. Americans deserve an honest vote, a real referendum on the trillion-dollar wars that multiply our enemies and squander our treasury. In Congress, I will not only vote against such bribery, I will work hard to organize the Progressive Caucus as a swing block opposed to deceptive war supplementals. With our states facing massive social service cutbacks, we can't afford to spend half of each taxpayer dollar on perpetual war and occupation. Bring the troops home, stop the drones, and invest at home.

-Marcy Winograd, Democratic candidate for Congress (CA-36) 


There was a little celebration at my pal Roland's school the other day. They had had some good news: the one teacher who had been selected as the cutback had somehow gotten a reprieve. She wasn't being "laid off" after all. Somehow the school district found the money to keep her. Her life wasn't ruined. Her own family wasn't in jeopardy. All the weeks of anguish had been for naught. And all the other teachers felt a little safer too. But they don't know John Boehner.

Melody Barnes is the Director of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council. Last week she addressed the serious concern-- in Washington and in America-- about how the economic downturn has caused the kinds of budget cuts on state and local levels that are threatening hundreds of thousands of public school jobs across the country. (Wealthy conservatives, whose political lives are centered around not paying their fair share of taxes-- and their political handmaidens in Congress-- are unconcerned since their own children go to private schools. That's a very narrow, shortsighted point of view since without an educated workforce America would be unable to sustain a growing and a prosperous economy.) Obama gets this in a big way and explained it at this year’s Teacher of the Year Awards at the White House Thursday. "[I]t's why," he explained, through our recovery efforts, we’ve provided emergency aid that saved the jobs of more than 400,000 teachers and other education jobs-- and why I believe these efforts must continue. I believe these efforts must continue as states face severe budget shortfalls that put hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. We need and our children need our teachers in the classroom. We need your passion and your patience, your skill and experience, your determination to reach every single child."

He had an appreciative audience. Barnes went further:

Now we need swift, bold action from Congress to respond to state and local budget cuts that are placing public education at risk and endangering teacher jobs. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Harkin and Congressmen Miller and Obey, we have legislation to avert this crisis. Today, our Administration wrote to Congressional leaders indicating the President's support for this critical legislation, and urging Congress to include education jobs funding in the supplemental appropriations bills soon to be considered in the House and Senate.

She published a letter from the president to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid about action needed to shore up local governments with between 100,000 and 300,000 education jobs at risk in 2011. "Without swift action," he warns, "millions of children will experience these budget cuts in one way or another through reductions in class time; cuts to early childhood programs, extracurricular activities, and summer school; and reduced course offerings as teachers are laid off. These budget cuts would also undermine the groundbreaking reform efforts underway in states and districts all across the country." And, he goes on, "budget cuts to police and fire departments threaten to undermine public safety and the emergency readiness of first-responders. All of these budget cuts threaten to cause damage that ripples through the economy as a whole.  The layoffs create a new drag on the economy when-- despite the recent encouraging jobs report-- we still have a long way to go." So what do we do, what do we do? 

Give him the billions he requested for the continued occupation of Afghanistan. Huh? That's right. The president who vowed he would never use the disastrous Bush Regime budget tricks that went into funding wars with unaccountable, borrowing-against-future generations "supplementals," is offering reluctant Democrats a deal: give me the endless billions the Pentagon wants for more pointless war and you can tack on money to bolster local governments so they can prevent teachers, policemen and firemen from being laid off.

We applaud Chairmen Harkin, Miller and Obey for crafting legislation in direct response to these challenges. S. 3206, the Keep Our Educators Working Act, H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act, and H.R. 4812, the Local Jobs for America Act, each call for $23 billion in emergency support to preserve education jobs modeled after the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This funding would keep teachers in the classroom while helping to sustain meaningful and necessary reforms in public education across the country.

We urge Congress to include this funding in the supplemental appropriations bills soon to be considered. We also urge Congress to include $2 billion in support to localities for police and firefighters to ensure that our communities remain safe, as well as $1 billion in funds for the Child Care and Development Block Grant to preserve early childhood education jobs and ensure that our youngest children do not lose the supports and services critical to their learning and overall well-being.

Sickening. And he has an easy to find comic book villain to blame: John Boehner, a well-tanned hack whose entire political career is centered around being a bagman for corporate interests and who spent nearly one in three days last year on the golf course. Boehner loves spending money on wars but hates spending money on teachers. In fact, he favors laying them off.

“The American people recognize that Washington’s out-of-control spending is hurting our economy and stifling job creation, and they’re asking their elected leaders to make tough choices on fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the Administration’s call for another $23 billion to pad the education bureaucracy will only make state governments more dependent on the federal government and more vulnerable when the federal funding explosion disappears. This latest state bailout proposal promotes the same flawed logic as the failed ‘stimulus’ bill that has contributed to a record $1.5 trillion deficit and left one in every 10 Americans from our workforce out of work. 

“Last year as part of their trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill, Democrats borrowed nearly $100 billion to bail out state governments and education shortfalls. Even though tens of billions remain unspent, Democrats are demanding even more unchecked spending. We continue to see examples of how this ‘stimulus’ education money was wasted or abused. The American people deserve better.

“Giving states another $23 billion in federal education money simply throws more money into taxpayer-funded bailouts when we should be discussing why we aren’t seeing the results we need from the billions in federal dollars that are already being spent. House Republicans stand ready to work with our nation’s Governors to enact education reform that gives states and localities greater flexibility while protecting taxpayers and students at the same time. If Democrats want to debate spending billions more in taxpayer money on education, then they should do it as a stand-alone bill rather than attaching it to a measure that funds our troops.”

Boehner is rarely right about anything-- and his intentions are always malevolent-- but he's correct this time. Congress should reject the war funding, bring the troops home immediately, and double down on rescuing the economy. I reached out to some of the straightest shooting Blue America congressional candidates to ask them where they stand on this incongruous conflict between the clownish Boehner and a president each one of them admires. Marcy Winograd's comments are at the top of the page. Our newest endorsee is Claudia Wright, a progressive Democrat in Salt Lake City who managed to prevent reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson from walking away from the Utah Democratic convention with his party's endorsement last weekend. If you think the only commonsense progressive approach to big problems comes from Washington and New York and Chicago, you're completely mistaken. Caludia:

Although I agree with Representative Boehner that the bill for troops funding and education be split, I am afraid that is where our similarities end. We are on a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq and that should be kept. As for Afghanistan, our foreign policy seems to be catching more operatives than our war. Pakistan, using its own forces, have recently captured several more terrorists than our army has been able to find. This eight year war of ours is dangerous for our already struggling economy. Do I need to remind you that an eight year war in Afghanistan helped to bankrupt the USSR? Adding debt to our future without any way of paying it off is courting chaos.

However, the same is not true about public education. Education is primarily funded by property taxes. With record number of bankruptcies, levels of funding for education have also dropped. This is a temporary crisis. Education is an investment in EVERYONE'S future. These are the future taxpayers of America and all of us need to invest in their future. This investment pays off for all of us three-fold. First, education insures higher paying jobs. Second, public education keeps our social classes fluid. Finally, education should produce better informed citizens, all of these are necessary for a Democratic Republic to function. The temporary nature of the education crisis and the permanent demand of these wars are very different. I would suggest that dividing these demands and considering each part carefully would best serve the public good.

UPDATE: Progressive Democrat Bill Hedrick Agrees With Reactionary Shithead John Boehner... Hey, It's Bipartisan!

Boehner wants to defund local governments' ability to provide essential services like education, health and safety, while spending billions on pointless wars that only benefit politically-connected contractors... typical conservative claptrap. But he's right about one thing: tying funding for the war in Afghanistan to support for public education is disgusting and even if this stroke of genius comes straight from sleazy hack Rahm Emanuel, it is not worthy of the Democratic Party leadership. Hedrick:

I am deeply opposed to linking education funding to the war supplemental bill. Those who disagree with the ever-expanding war in Afghanistan yet support vital education funding are left with a “take it or leave it” scenario. As a teacher and school trustee, I have made public education advocacy my life’s work, but I cannot in good conscience support added funding for a war that I am convinced does nothing to make us safer, damages our military capacity, destabilizes Pakistan, and is simply unaffordable.  It is enormously disappointing that leaders have chosen to use schools to leverage support for a fundamentally flawed foreign policy in Afghanistan. It is wrong to hold schools hostage. Separate the votes!

Bill Hedrick and family

Is Emanuel's Overreach Going To Help Us Kill The Bush/Obama War Against Afghanistan?

Last June when Obama's first war supplemental-- you know, one of the things he promised to abolish if we voted for him-- was sailing through Congress with the help of Republicans, Rahm Emanuel thought of the brilliant strategy of attaching an unpopular IMF bailout, which drove virtually the whole Republican caucus to vote against a war they love. Progressives nearly beat back the supplemental. They needed 39 Democrats to vote no; 32 did. Now Obama has a similar situation brewing. He wants to deceive the American people-- the same way Bush did-- into thinking the war is free by sneaking it into a $33 billion supplemental. And he has another unpopular policy he thinks he can shove down Republicans' throats. This time funding to close Guantanamo and move the prisoners to the U.S. David Swanson from After Downing Street laid out the whole strategy and counter-strategy last not with a post called Blocking War Funding Just Got Easier.

Last June we were handed an opportunity to block the funding of our illegal, murderous, counterproductive, catastrophic, and hated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The president insisted on an off-the-books "emergency supplemental" bill, and the Senate added an IMF bailout to the bill, leading all the Republicans in the House to commit what for years they'd called treason: they all voted No on war money.

So, we only needed 39 Democrats to vote No, and we could have stopped the thing, at least temporarily.  We had a week-long knock-down drag-out fight, with the White House telling freshmen Democrats they would be "dead to us" if they didn't vote Yes.  And we still persuaded 32 Democrats to vote No.

Then we continued building opposition to the wars, and awareness of the need to choose between wars and jobs.  But we had to hope that we would again be handed a "supplemental" vote and that again some crazy scheme would be found to get all the Republicans to vote No.  If these wishes could be granted, then we would only have to find 40 Democrats to stand with the majority of Americans, soldiers, Iraqis, and Afghans.  Otherwise, we'd need 218 congress members.

Our wishes have come true.  President Obama has insisted on another "supplemental" this spring for $33 billion.  And funding to close Guantanamo and move "the Terrorists" to "the Homeland" has been added into the bill. 

Of course, the Democrats think this will force the Republicans to vote for closing Gitmo.  Democratic loyalists and president worshippers are celebrating this genius stroke, oblivious to the fact that the funding of wars will destroy our nation along with those the wars are waged against, nevermind exactly where we imprison people.  In reality, this maneuver will force the Republicans to vote against the war funding.  And that will give us a chance.

We only need 40 No votes from Democrats in the House if the Republicans are voting No, and we can get them, Here's the whip list.

Take a look and see where your own congressmember stands and then think about what you and your family and friends and colleagues who oppose this war can do to either reinforce the good members-- the Alan Graysons, the Eric Massas, the Donna Edwards, the Carol Shea-Porters, etc-- or how to help the supplemental supporters to change their minds. Blue America has a No Means No! page to show our appreciation to the 32 members who voted "no" last time and to show other members that we appreciate it when congressmen stand up for principles-- even if it means going against Obama and Emanuel.

We don't have challengers on the No Means No! page because it's only about people who have already voted "no" to escalating the war in Afghanistan. But the Blue America challengers are all sure no votes in the future. Late last night I reached out to two of them, Marcy Winograd (D-CA) and Doug Tudor (D-FL) on opposite coasts to see what they felt about the new supplemental looming. Doug had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Navy and he's not thrilled when he sees incendiary words attached to what America's fighting men and women are under orders to do in the name of protecting the country. I can tell it makes him uncomfortable. But it doesn't change his analysis that the war is the wrong way to go about the job of insuring our national security. He's a supporter of shutting down Guantanamo but he would still vote "no" on the supplemental even if that was the carrot the Administration was offering.

The GITMO piece should stand on its own as should the funding request. Combining the two is a thinly veiled political trick, which should never be used when discussing issues of national security. I believe future monies appropriated for military operations in Afghanistan should be carefully restricted to those activities which will hasten our redeployment out of the country. The Congress needs to send a direct message that they control the abilities of the Administration to make war, and Americans want this war to end. Additionally, and I want to be very clear on this: there will never come a time when any member of any Administration or member of the House leadership will tell me how to vote on issues of national security. Never!”

That kind of independent attitude is why Blue America is looking at candidates like Doug Tudor. If it appeals to you, both he and Marcy Winograd have ActBlue slots on the Sending Democrats A Message Page Blue America is hosting. The small contributions from people like readers of this blog are what allows these candidates to challenge the machine. I hope you'll think about donating. Marcy has a similar point of view-- and she's running against one of the most bloodthirsty and vicious war hawks in the Democratic caucus, Blue Dog Jane Harman, who, when supporting every move Bush made that made America less safe, called herself "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." Marcy could well wind up being the best Democrat in the Democratic Party. He congressional campaign theme is "Jobs, not war" and last night she emphasized that this supplemental is not something she would support.

It is time for all congress members of conscience to vote to protect our troops by bringing them home from Afghanistan, a sovereign nation that poses no military threat to the United States. Though my opponent says she opposes the escalation, she votes to send more troops, which, in essence, imposes a death penalty on our youth. In Congress, I will work with the Progressive Caucus to end this unnecessary war by voting against billion-dollar supplementals that create new enemies and undermine our security. We, the People, deserve representation in Congress. Where are our representatives?

Where are they indeed! Either we're going to choose them-- and choose them carefully to represent what we want out of our government-- of the corporate establishment will be happy to do it for us... to represent what they want out of our government. The Constitution's framers carefully decided to give us the right to elect an entirely new Congress every two years. If you want more wars and more government by and for special interests, you'll want to elect Blue Dogs and Republicans (Harman and Tudor's opponent, Lori Edwards, are both reactionary Blue Dogs beholden to the worst of the special interests); if you want to break the cycle and think "Hope and Change" is more than a campaign slogan, you'll want to consider striking a blow against the status quo and helping elect men and women like Doug Tudor and Marcy Winograd.

Senate Prepares To Back Another Obama War Supplemental For Afghanistan Escalation

The faces are all that's Changed... and Hope? Forget that

"For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception; a series of accounting tricks to hide the expense of our spending and the shortfalls in our revenue and hope that the American people won't notice. Budgeting certain expenditures for just one year, when we know we'll incur them every year for five or 10; budgeting $0 for the Iraq war-- $0-- for future years, even when we knew the war would continue..."

That was pretty much Obama's line on supplemental budgets all through the campaign. The quote above, though, was made just after he was inaugurated at a meeting about fiscal responsibility. Four months later he had Emanuel wheeling and dealing and knocking heads together in Congress to pass a supplemental war budget to fund-- "an exercise in deception; a series of accounting tricks to hide the expense of our spending and the shortfalls in our revenue and hope that the American people won't notice"-- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only 32 courageous Democrats stood up to him and voted no. Many of the rest said something to the effect of... "Well, he inherited this terrible mess from Bush; we'll give him some time to clean it up but this is the last time."

Last time? I don't think so. Yesterday the NY Times let it slip that the Senate is ready to approve still another supplemental budget to expand the occupation of Afghanistan. That's right-- even as the L.A. Times was reporting that Obama is going to lose his base of support over his tragic blunders in Afghanistan, the Senate is too chicken-shit to save him (and us) from himself. Senate Democrats may be wary but very few of them have what it takes to stand up to even a weak president like Obama when it comes to war, even if they recognize that he's leading them into electoral ruin.

Few doubt that, despite all the drama and dithering, Obama is about to increase the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan from around 68,000 to over 100,000. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are both predicting that he'll get whatever he asks for-- and by a wide margin.

Yesterday Congressional Quarterly reported that last month John Murtha, Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee said that "beefing up forces in Afghanistan would cost up to $1 billion per 1,000 additional troops per year. If the president accepts the high-end proposal for a troop increase, that could require another $40 billion." Obama, like Bush before him, will call the request, deceitfully, "an emergency." And although most of the Senate will march right along, there are a few who will refuse to close their eyes to the madness, folly and 3-dimensional political chess.

[Jay] Rockefeller said he doesn’t believe Afghanistan will “ever be a country” and that “my Afghanistan policy may be a little more circumspect” than the president’s. He said he is not alone in the Senate in his doubts about increasing the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he views a surge in Afghanistan as “not wise.” He said that given recent economic challenges faced by the United States, boosting U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan “is a lose-lose proposition.”

This is a good time to take a look at the clip of Eric Massa's short speech on the House floor this week:



Rockefeller is correct about Afghanistan not being a real country but if there is one thing that unites the disparate people who live in what is called Afghanistan it's the fact that they don't like being occupied by illegal aliens (i.e., us)-- heavy armed, trigger-crazy ones no less. I spent a lot of time there in the late '60s and early '70s, and most of it not in Kabul, a relatively westernized place with little in common with the rest of the country. For all the talk about "training the Afghans to fight," there is little I've heard as foolish and counterproductive. If there's one thing Afghan men know how to do, it's fight. It's pretty much the only thing they know how to do, in fact. An Af would no sooner leave his home without his gun-- and not a handgun-- than you would leave yours without your clothes. We could try to train Afghan men to work-- though it would be in vain, working being for women, boys and slaves-- but fight? They know how to fight... and very well, thank you. When they talk about "training," they mean "Give us expensive deadly weapons so we can kill our enemies."

In bazaars and university corridors across the country, eight years of war have left people exhausted and impatient. They are increasingly skeptical that the Taliban can be defeated. Nearly everyone agrees that the Afghan government must negotiate with the insurgents. If more American forces do arrive, many here say, they should come to train Afghans to take over the fight, so the foreigners can leave.

“What have the Americans done in eight years?” asked Abdullah Wasay, 60, a pharmacist in Charikar, a market town about 25 miles north of Kabul, expressing a view typical of many here. “Americans are saying that with their planes they can see an egg 18 kilometers away, so why can’t they see the Taliban?”

Such sentiments were repeated in conversation after conversation with more than 30 Afghans in Kabul and nearby rural areas and with local officials in outlying provinces. The comments point to the difficulties that American and Afghan officials face if they choose to add more foreign troops.

If the foreign forces are not seen so by Afghans already, they are on the cusp of being regarded as occupiers, with little to show people for their extended presence, fueling wild conspiracies about why they remain here.

The feeling is particularly acute in the Pashtun south, but it is spreading to other parts of the country. More American troops could tip the balance of opinion, particularly if they increase civilian casualties and prompt even more Taliban attacks.

The grass-roots view among Afghans is at odds with those of top Afghan officials, as well as many American military commanders, who strongly endorse a full-blown counterinsurgency strategy, including a large troop increase.

There's only one way this travesty is going to end: we have to end it. We have to say "no" to Obama, the same way we were saying "no" to Bush. Sure Obama isn't a vampire like Bush but what difference does that make to occupied Afs losing their families to "friendly fire" and accidents? What difference does it make to American families losing their sons and daughters for no purpose that either Bush or Obama has been able to successfully articulate? We need to say "no" and we need to mean it. We need to back up the few political leaders brave enough to say "no" as well, men and women like Eric Massa, Barbara Lee, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Carol Shea-Porter, Keith Ellison... Are you ready to get serious about it? The Pentagon is and Obama, apparently, does not have what it takes to stand up to them. Only the American people can do it. And if anyone is going to start it, it's us. You ready? Think about chipping in... now.


UPDATE: 100 Co-sponsors Demanding Exit Strategy For Afghanistan

James McGovern (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2404 on May 14. If passed it would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress outlining the U.S. exit strategy for our military forces in Afghanistan. These are McGovern's co-sponsors:

Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Tammy Baldwin [D-WI]
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Shelley Berkley [D-NV]
Robert Berry [D-AR]
Timothy Bishop [D-NY]
Bruce Braley [D-IA]
Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Lois Capps [D-CA]
Michael Capuano [D-MA]
André Carson [D-IN]
Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
William Clay [D-MO]
Steve Cohen [D-TN]
John Conyers [D-MI]
Jerry Costello [D-IL]
Danny Davis [D-IL]
Peter DeFazio [D-OR]
William Delahunt [D-MA]
Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
John Duncan [R-TN]
Donna Edwards [D-MD]
Keith Ellison [D-MN]
Sam Farr [D-CA]
Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Bob Filner [D-CA]
Barney Frank [D-MA]
Marcia Fudge [D-OH]
Alan Grayson [D-FL]
Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL]
Phil Hare [D-IL]
Jane Harman [D-CA]
Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
James Himes [D-CT]
Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Paul Hodes [D-NH]
Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Jesse Jackson [D-IL]
Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Timothy Johnson [R-IL]
Walter Jones [R-NC]
Steve Kagen [D-W]
Marcy Kaptur [D-OH]
Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI]
Mary Jo Kilroy [D-OH]
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Barbara Lee [D-CA]
John Lewis [D-GA]
David Loebsack [D-IA]
Ben Luján [D-NM]
Eric Massa [D-NY]
Doris Matsui [D-CA]
James McDermott [D-WA]
Michael Michaud [D-ME]
Gwen Moore [D-WI]
Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
James Oberstar [D-MN]
John Olver [D-MA]
Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Ronald Paul [R-TX]
Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Thomas Perriello [D-VA]
Gary Peters [D-MI]
Chellie Pingree [D-ME]
Jared Polis [D-CO]
David Price [D-NC]
Mike Quigley [D-IL]
Laura Richardson [D-CA]
Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Bobby Rush [D-IL]
Timothy Ryan [D-OH]
Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Kurt Schrader [D-OR]
José Serrano [D-NY]
Joe Sestak [D-PA]
Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH]
Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Jackie Speier [D-CA]
Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Betty Sutton [D-OH]
Bennie Thompson [D-MS]
Michael Thompson [D-CA]
John Tierney [D-MA]
Edolphus Towns [D-NY]
Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Nydia Velázquez [D-NY]
Timothy Walz [D-MN]
Maxine Waters [D-CA]
Diane Watson [D-CA]
Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Peter Welch [D-VT]
Edward Whitfield [R-KY]
Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
John Yarmuth [D-KY]

This is the easy bill to support. It isn't calling for an immediate pull out of U.S. troops or cutting off funding for escalation. It's a first step though and there's no reason for not signing on to it... other than being a warmonger.

Barbara Lee Introduces A Bill To End The War In Afghanistan-- And Sends Up A Major Red Flag

Yesterday I went to a meeting with one of the country's most outstanding and most inspiring progressive leaders, Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee. As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, she was a leader of the controversial move that had progressives banding together to demand a public option in order to secure the progressive bloc's support for reform at all. And she was the leader-- even more difficult than being "a" leader-- when it came to opposing Bush's wars in the Middle East. Last June she was one of the 32 Democratic members of Congress to vote against Obama's supplemental war budget. And Thursday, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, she introduced HR 3699, a bill that will prohibit funding any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

However, something she told me at the meeting yesterday put me on DefCon-5 alert. The House has already passed (with Lee in opposition of course)-- and the Senate is considering-- a bill that will exempt Department of Defense from coming under the budgetary pay-go strictures. Let me explain why that is so dangerous for those eager to end the deadly and catastrophic U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

Bush funded his wars with supplemental budgets which meant he just printed money-- trillions of dollars-- to pay for them without having to worry about raising taxes (on current voters) or about cutting services directly. One result has been the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Obama campaigned on a promise not use supplemental budgets but to ask Congress for money through established budgetary procedures. That would kick in pay-go and a member of Congress voting for funds to escalate expensive occupations of other countries would have to agree to either raise taxes on his or her constituents-- what do you think Boehner, Cantor, Pence, Ryan and other leading GOP warmongers will think of that?-- or cut back on social programs, a prospect none too attractive to many of the conservative and moderate Democrats who have gone along with Bush's outrageous supplemental budgeting and are thereby complicit in the economic disaster that has ensued.

I really thought "pay-go" was our ace-in-the-hole to stop the war in Afghanistan. Not even a political thug like Rahm Emanuel could bully and bribe enough Democrats and Republicans to go for this, especially not at a point when the war is as increasingly unpopular as it is. If the Senate doesn't kill the legislation that the House passed, it is, in effect, a vote for a war that will last until Obama is voted out of office. Please help Blue America build and strengthen a coalition of anti-war Democrats in Congress by contributing to No Means No. (Everyone who donates today has their name entered in a drawing to win two items autographed by Al Franken, a copy of the book The Truth... With Jokes and a copy of a rare advance screener for his DVD God Spoke.

Can Donna Edwards Save Health Care Reform? What About Afghanistan?

Donna Edwards (D-MD) has been one of the most outstanding organizers within congressional progressive circles in favor of holding leadership's feet to the fire when it comes to making sure health care reform is genuine and not just a sop to a confused electorate and a giveaway to the wealthy corporations who have financed the confusion. Recently I spoke to another member, a very senior member, of Congress who was getting a little weak-kneed about holding out for substance over form. He told me that when he was a freshman he was as idealistic and driven as Donna. "She's as pure as the first snow of winter," he told me... wistfully.

It probably isn't going to be easy for progressives after the House passes a strong bill with meaningful reform, including a public option, and then the House of Lords obliterates it at the behest of the special interests that run the show over there. Seven powerful senators have been tasked with killing meaningful health care and each has been paid a tremendous amount of money by the Medical-Industrial Complex and the Insurance Industry. These 7 senators will fight like vicious pit bulls to prevent meaningful health care reform from passing; together these 7 took in over $20,000,000 in thinly veiled bribes from the powers behind the status quo that will stop at nothing to squelch the kind of real reform Obama has been working to pass:

Max Baucus (D-MT) $4,087,094
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $3,713,625
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) $3,428,771
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $3,025,103
Richard Burr (R-NC) $2,886,140
Ben Nelson (D-NE) $2,306,065
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) $2,154,492

(The three whose names are bolded happen to be up for re-election next year; just sayin'.)

So what's all this got to do with Donna Edwards, a forceful, intellectually powerful but very junior member of the House of Representatives? Good question; glad you asked. Most experts think that the Baucus Caucus (see above) will be able to kill any semblance of real reform in the Senate and report out something akin to the shameful Insurance lobbyist bill that Baucus' Finance Committee vomited out last week. It's likely that Pelosi will appoint compromisers to the House-Senate conference committee charged with bridging the gap between real health care and Baucus' corporate welfare for the Insurance Industry bill. Harry Reid will not appoint compromisers; he will appoint the worst of the insurance industry shills to the conference committee-- forgot to mention that Reid's role in all this has earned him a handsome $2,232,911 from his pals at the Medical-Industrial Complex and the Insurance Industry-- and most observers expect an especially bad bill that has no relation to what was passed in the three House committees or the Senate Health Committee (all 4 of which include a public option). At that point Democrats will have to make a decision-- to join the obstructionist Republicans, who just want to kill any kind of reform at all and vote against their own president's #1 domestic priority and a bill that achieves a few goals towards reform and will actually save the lives of thousands of poor working people by offering them some kind of subsidized, stingy coverage, or to say a half loaf (a quarter loaf?) is better than nothing and bite the bullet and vote for the crappy bill.

Donna has been one of the most vocal opponents of accepting Baucus' anti-family, pro-corporate approach, and she is working inside the Progressive Caucus, along with Raul Grijalva and several other stalwarts, to keep progressives who have vowed to oppose any bill without a public option together. Friday the Washington Post sat down with Donna in her office to talk about the battle over health care reform. The Post found that "the public option remains a line in the sand for Edwards, and she thinks the thud with which the much-anticipated bill by Sen. Max Baucus's committee fell this week helps the chances of including the option in a final bill." When asked what she thought about Baucus' horrible bill she was very direct:

Middle class and poor people are bearing the burden and the brunt of this failed health-care system, and in my view, the bill that Senator Baucus is introducing really cuts at the core of the very people we're trying to help. ... This idea of cooperatives as an alternative, I think most experts have completely debunked those as any kind of alternative to a robust public plan, and I agree with that. ... [The bill] has no Republican support, and it's bad policy. ... We have three bills in the House that are far stronger than the Baucus proposal. I think we're on solid ground here. ... Our job in the House of Representatives is to get our work done. We can't worry about what the Senate is doing. Our job for the people is to get the strongest bill possible out of the House. That's how we create legislation. ... One of the things about the president's speech last week [to Congress] ... and the town hall meeting speeches that he's held since then is the president has been very clear: "If you all have better options out there to alternatives to meet the goals of lowering costs and increasing competition and providing accountability for the insurance companies, I'm happy to hear them." The thing is, nobody has put any of those ideas on the table, and the idea that we have on the table that will meet those goals is the public option.

...I've joined with 60-some of my colleagues who signed a letter to the president and to our leadership saying very clearly that if there's not a public option in the final bill then I won't support that bill. I haven't changed my position.

How many will stick with Donna and follow through on that pledge? The last time there was this kind of a showdown in Congress, 90 Democrats had said they would vote against any supplemental war funding that didn't include a clear timetable for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. Donna was one of the 90. So when the first vote came up 52 Democrats voted no. The margin of victory-- with Republicans not in obstructionist mode for a change-- for the White House was so huge that Rahm Emanuel saw it as an opportunity to attach another crapistic piece of legislation-- an IMF bailout-- and get that passed. But when the Republicans said "no way" and said they would vote against the supplemental if it included the bailout, the White House could no longer afford to lose 52 Democrats without losing the whole bill. They could only lose 39. In the end 32 Democrats voted "no," Donna among them. The rest had their arms twisted or were bribed into submission in the same way that Emanuel engineered passing NAFTA for Bill Clinton (and Republican special interests). Those who voted yes the first time and then peeled off under pressure were:

Yvette Clarke (NY)- $5,823
Steve Cohen (TN)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Barney Frank (MA)- $12,984
Luiz Gutierrez (IL)- $4,674
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Kagen (WI)
Ed Markey (MA)
Doris Matsui (CA)
Jim McDermott (WA)- $7,456
George Miller (CA)
Grace Flores Napolitano (CA)- $3,865
Richard Neal (MA)
James Oberstar (MN)
Jan Schakowsky (IL)
Mike Thompson (CA)
Edolphus Towns (NY)- $3,281
Nydia Velazquez (NY)- $3,848
Anthony Weiner (NY)- $10,784

The members bolded are also on the Standing For the Public Option list and the dollar figures represent how much they've taken in from donors who took their pledges seriously on health care reform. For whatever reasons, these people failed to honor their pledges when it came to the war in Afghanistan. (How can a nut like Ron Paul sound so much more sensible than so many Democrats?) I'm guessing they will blow any semblance of credibility if they do it again over health care reform.

The members, like Donna Edwards, who took the Afghanistan pledge and then stuck by it are on a brand new ActBlue fund-raising page being officially unveiled next week, No Means No!, which I invite you to get a first look at today. Several of these people are in tough districts and this was a vote that could cost them dearly. Alan Grayson, Eric Massa and Carol Shea-Porter are big time targets in Republican-leaning districts. And Donna? We hear she was promised a primary opponent if she didn't go along. She may actually wind up with two, Prince George’s State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey and Delegate Herman Taylor. It's the end of the quarter and I've been inundated with requests for contributions from Democrats. Last night I donated to Donna Edwards, Alan Grayson, Eric Massa and Carol Shea-Porter, not so much because of what they are promising to do, but because they already kept a promise they made. You want to join me? We'll be talking a lot about Afghanistan in the coming weeks.

There'll Be A Snap Vote Today If They've Bribed And Blackmailed Enough Members To Vote For The European Bank Bailout

I spoke to a sympathetic Hill staffer yesterday who works for a Midwestern congressman. His boss isn't too keen about voting for the billions and billions of dollars for European bank bailouts that Rahm Emanuel had tacked onto the War Supplemental. His seat isn't that secure. His boss had voted "yes" on the supplemental on May 14 when it first came up, not because he thinks it's a great idea but because he bought into the Dave Obey premise that Obama deserves a year to get the Afghanistan situation under control. It didn't do any good to argue that the West has been trying-- futilely-- to get the Afghanistan situation under control since Alexander the Great got bogged down there in 330 BC. (Alexander took a few months subduing the world's greatest empire of the day, Persia, but couldn't overcome the unruly tribes of Afghanistan for years-- until he finally told Hephaestion, his boyfriend and soul mate, to go sleep in another tent and married Roxanna, an Afghan chieftain's daughter.)

Anyway, to balance the disagreeable nature of the foreign bank bailout, something likely to cost the Democrats at least a couple dozen House seats in 2010, Emanuel tacked on another piece of legislation-- one that had already passed overwhelmingly and is absolutely essential for congressmen in auto industry districts, colloquially known as Cash For Clunkers. They can't vote against what has turned into a real Frankenstein creation, even if it could also be a Democratic congressional caucus suicide pact.

Emanuel hoped that by gratuitously attaching the car bill to the IMF bailout he could count on holding onto a batch of nervous Democrats-- and pressure some Republicans. Recall, 59 Republicans broke with Boehner and Cantor to cross the aisle on June 9th and vote for Cash for Clunkers. Some of them are the exact targets Emanuel has been trying to woo away from the hysterical Cantor in the Supplemental battle, particularly Michigan Republicans like Thaddeus McCotter, Fred Upton, Dave Camp, Vern Ehlers, Candice Miller and Mike Rogers. Emanuel figured it could also give him a shot at John Shimkus (R-IL), Mike Turner (R-OH), Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), Mark Souder (R-IN), Don Manzullo (R-IL), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Tim Johnson (R-IL), Steve Austria (R-OH), Steve LaTouette (R-OH), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and a few other Midwestern Republicans whose constituents have been devastated by the auto industry collapse. Of course that goes for plenty of Democrats as well, particularly Midwest freshmen Mark Schauer (D-MI), Gary Peters (D-MI), Andre Carson (D-IN), and Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Bill Foster (D-IL) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH).

And now Shailagh Murray is reporting that Emanuel, desperate like in the good old days when he was shoving NAFTA up Democrats' rear ends, is actually trying to sell this Frankenstein monster as a bill for flu vaccines. Creepy! What is he doing-- holding Americans' health hostage so he can bail out European banksters? What's next-- trying to pick up more support by attaching the abolition of Don't Ask Don't Tell? This is getting out of hand. Obama needs a new Chief of Staff.


UPDATE: Cars For Clunkers Could Be Stripped Out Of The Bill By The Senate

My sharp-eyed friend Bob from Democrats.com read a story in today's National Journal that points out that Emanuel's strategy for luring Michigan congressmen into voting for the European bank bailout is flawed because the provision can be-- and probably will be-- stripped out by the Senate.

If the House passes the measure, it will go to the Senate, where Republicans may try to strike a provision from the supplemental that would provide $1 billion for the first year of a program that would give drivers a voucher for up to $4,500 to buy or lease a fuel-efficient car if they trade in a less-efficient vehicle.

Under Senate rules, Senators may strike provisions of a conference report that were not in the bill passed by either chamber. Senate Republicans could raise a point of order on the floor to strike the language, which would take 60 votes to waive.

Senate Budget ranking member Judd Gregg said last week the "cash for clunkers" provision of the bill could be subject to the rule, but his office would not confirm that he would raise a point of order against the provision.

Having failed at every step, Emanuel-- part of whose job is to keep Obama from looking like a grubby politician-- had to ask the president to take time out of his day to call wavering Democrats. Bailing out European banks is apparently very important to Obama; Chris Bowers explains why defeating this horrible mish-mash of a bill is also very important to progressives. Emanuel has completely failed; he's a disaster. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, AKA- "Rahmette," sounded especially pathetic today on MSNBC trying to defend Emanuel's Frankenstein Supplemental crap bill. She'll lose the Democrats control of the House:




UPDATE: Supplemental Passes Narrowly

After Emanuel larded it up with all kinds of goodies, threatened and bribed every member he could, the Democratic Suicide Pact passed 226-202. The only Michigan Republican who bought into Emanuel's bullshit about the Cash For Clunkers was Candice Miller. Five of them voted against the war. The 32 courageous Democrats who voted no:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Michael Capuano (D-MA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Eric Massa (D-NY)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Mike Michaud (D-ME)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
José Serrano (D-NY)
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Barbara Watson (D-CA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

So who'd we lose from the May 14th vote? These are members who were either "persuaded" by Emanuel or who really believe that taking 100 billion taxpayer dollars and bailing out failed European banksters is a good idea: Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Luis Guitierrez (D-IL), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Steve Kagen (D-WI), John Lewis (D-GA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bob Matsui (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Richard Neal (D-MA), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA), Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY). How did Emanuel talk so many Democrats into committing political suicide? Cash.

David Swanson at AfterDowningStreet.com explains what happened today if you feel like delving into it a little further.

I'm Certain I'll Never See Afghanistan Again

I left home when I was very young and started traveling. When I was 13 I hitchhiked from NYC to Miami, a practice run for my Great Escape, a couple years later, to California (by thumb) in order to stow away on a boat to Tonga. (I got caught on the ship in San Pedro Harbor.) Eventually I made it over to Europe, bought a VW van and drove to India. I had an awesome 6-7 years. When anyone would ask me what country I liked most I would always say I would have to take pieces of Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan to find my ideal country. (Afghanistan was because of the people.) But since I visited, all three have been torn apart in brutal civil wars. I've been back to Sri Lanka and Nepal but I'm certain I'll never see Afghanistan again.

Robert Greenwald-- brave, dedicated soul-- visited Afghanistan last month. This film he shot gives you an idea why it's not a place Americans can go any longer. It should also give you an idea about why DWT has been so adamant about defeating the $97 billion War Supplemental. What we were doing to the Afghan people was unspeakable when it was Cheney and Bush. It's no better now that it's Obama and Rahm Emanuel. It has to stop.

Ann Kirkpatrick Makes The Case Well: Why She Doesn't Deserve To Be Re-Elected

A vote to bail out foreign bankers will defeat her in 2010

Last year there were few primary races anywhere in America with as marked a contrast between an excellent candidate and a completely unqualified one as in the race for the open seat in Arizona's vast 1st CD. Howard Shanker was the progressive grassroots candidate and the Establishment mediocrity was now Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick. As a member of Congress Kirkpatrick has proven what was obvious to any observer-- residents of AZ-01 still have the least effective representation of anyplace in America.

Like other right-wing, corporate shills, Kirkpatrick calls her abysmal Republican voting record "independent." "Independent of Democratic principles and values" would be a better way to describe it. As this morning's CQPolitics explained:

Kirkpatrick was one of eight House Democrats who opposed a bill (HR 1664) to limit the payment of bonuses to employees of companies that receive federal aid under so-called “bailout” legislation. She was one of three Democrats who voted against a bill (HR 1728) aimed at overhauling mortgage lending practices and curbing what supporters describe as “predatory” lending practices-- but which opponents described as over-regulation.

Basically whenever it comes to a choice between working families and her big corporate donors, Kirkpatrick crosses the aisle and votes with the GOP in favor of the corporate special interests that have devastated the country's-- and her constituents'-- finances. Washington observers consider her to be one of the most dimwitted and ineffective members of Congress and a complete waste of a seat. The only positive thing we've ever heard about her from anyone was that she dresses neatly every day and that she's not a crook like her predecessor, Rick Renzi-- although she does tend to vote almost exactly like him.

Renzi's still waiting trial on multiple corruption, fraud and money-laundering charges but Kirkpatrick is carrying on his tradition of unresponsive and incompetent representation for Arizona. "She's definitely the weakest member of the delegation," one staffer told us today. "She was well-financed though and the DCCC was pushing her."

The upside of the DCCC push is that she owes them-- big time. The party never asks her to compromise her "independence" and let's her vote with the GOP whenever she likes-- which is almost always, at least when it comes to contentious, substantive legislation. But this week is different. This week, Kirkpatrick is being forced to vote for a $108 billion bailout for European bankers. It's a vote most observers in Arizona politics say will cost her her seat. But this is one the powers inside the Democratic Party-- particularly Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Karl Rove-- are demanding. Kirkpatrick doesn't have the nerve to defy him.

She joined the reactionary Blue Dog caucus as soon as she was elected and claims to be against massive government spending programs. Although Emanuel has attempted to wrap this one up in pretty bows and disguise it as support for our troops and for the car industry, the $108 billion bailout for foreign banks has caused John Shadegg (R-AZ), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), to join Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) in opposing the bill.

The Republican party has been targeting her as a tool of Nancy Pelosi. It isn't true and it hasn't stuck. But with her vote for the European bank bailout that Pelosi is pushing this week, it will stick-- and stick hard enough to defeat Kirkpatrick in 2010. Sources close to state Rep. Bill Konopnicki, the NRCC's #1 choice to run against her, say that if Kirkpatrick votes for the bailout, as expected, Konopnicki will jump into the race because it's an issue he can win with, easily.

Randy Pullen and his family have donated many thousands of dollars to Arizona Republicans and Pullen has recently become the treasurer of the RNC. The Pullen family is very confident that Kirkpatrick has no chance to survive a vote for a foreign bank bailout, which they also feel will take down two other Arizona Blue Dogs, Harry Mitchell and Gabby Giffords, both of whom are likely to follow Emanuel's lead into what looks more and more like a Democratic Party Suicide Pact.

“We have three districts, two of which are Republican districts that are held by Democrats, one of which is a slightly Democrat district that is held by a Democrat, but it’s a very conservative district,” Pullen said, referring to Arizona seats held by Democrat Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick, all of whom will be Republican targets in 2010.

“We have some opportunities, I think, in Arizona.”

Giffords has drawn an early challenger, while Mitchell will face the winner of what is so far a two-way primary. Arizona Republicans hope to woo State Rep. Bill Konopnicki, who flirted with a bid in 2008, to run against Kirkpatrick.

“I hope he does (run). I think he’ll be a great candidate,” Pullen said of Konopnicki. “I think he held off last time because he realized it was just a really tough environment for Republicans in 2008.”

Pullen said he had spoken with Konopnicki several times, and that he expects a formal decision within four or five weeks.

Here's a message on this that went out to bloggers in Arizona today. They didn't even bother mentioning Kirkpatrick-- as though she were just another Republican:



UPDATE: Late Breaking News

Jane Hamsher reports that Kirkpatrick may have been frightened into standing up to Emanuel and voting "no" tomorrow. Blue Dogs who don't will suffer at the polls next year. And Emanuel knows he's starting to lose them. So what's his latest strategy? We hear he's turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. It's one thing if he makes a deal with Vern Buchanan in Florida or Chris Smith in New Jersey, but we're hearing that he's offering to protect Republicans who have been slated as major DCCC targets, like Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Bill Young (R-FL), Leonard Lance R-NJ) and Charlie Dent (R-PA). Watch tomorrow to see if any of these characters cross over and vote with Team Emanuel to bail out European bankers.

And speaking of Rahm, there was a passage I read this morning in Charles Pierces' book, Idiot America by an angry Minnesota congressman:

If there be in our midst one low, sordid, vulgar soul... one tongue leprous with slander; one mouth which is like unto a den of foul beasts giving forth deadly odors; if there be one character which, while blotched and spotted all over, yet raves and rants and blackguards like a prostitute; if there be one bold, bad, empty, bellowing demagogue, it is the gentleman from Illinois."

Fits to a t, huh?