The Home Stretch In Massachusetts Brings Out The Worst In EMILY's List-- As Usual

Of course Elizabeth Warren refused to endorse conservative shill Katherine Clark, but that didn't keep EMILY's List from printing up these fliers

Last April, Digby exposed the EMILY's List strategy for beating progressive L.A. mayoral contender-- and now progressive L.A. Mayor-- Eric Garcetti on behalf of their Republican-"turned"-Democrat conservative candidate with a sleazy campaign mailer you can see here. The obvious intention was to portray Garcetti, a happily married man and a naval officer, as a sleaze bag. L.A. voters know him too well, and the EMILY's List slimy tactics failed miserably and their pathetic candidate lost badly. EMILY's List sent out the shady mailer under another of the many names they use to mislead people: "California Women's Vote." Keep that in the back of your mind for a second.

A few years before that, EMILY's List financed a very corrupt conservative-- the Harold Ford Machine candidate-- against progressive Congressman Steve Cohen. EMILY's List didn't just finance a race-baiting sociopath against Tennessee's only good congressman, they financed a virulently anti-Semitic campaign against him-- so virulently anti-Semitic that when wealthy Jewish EMILY's List donors had a mass conniption, EMILY's List was forced to withdraw their endorsement… the day of the election! The EMILY's List executive who made the decision to go with Nikki Tinker was soon eased out. But EMILY's List disgusting and sleazy tactics-- like the ones used against Eric Garcetti-- are still the heart and soul of what they do when they take over a candidate's campaign. Five years ago, the day before the pressure got too intense on EMILY's List to keep backing Tinker, their anti-Semitic and homophobic candidate, I wrote this:

Tennessee holds its primary tomorrow and all eyes are on Memphis, where progressive freshman Steve Cohen, who is white and Jewish, is being challenged by a vicious anti-Semitic, racist pawn of ex-Congressman Harold Ford. It's been a very ugly race-- and the ugliness is all on one side, Nikki Tinker's. Steve Cohen was first elected in 2006 with the help of Blue America and we have enthusiastically endorsed him again. If you know anyone in Memphis, please call them and talk to them about this race. Cohen has been a real leader for working families and he is the only progressive congressman from Tennessee. Tinker is a complete corporate shill and far more conservative across a wide array of issues. Rahm Emanuel, a longtime ally of Ford's, has encouraged institutional support for Tinker and has prevented his DCCC pawn, Chris Van Hollen, from coming to the aid of Cohen, the way the DCCC and Nancy Pelosi backed other challenged incumbents like Kilpatrick yesterday and Al Wynn a few months ago. One of the most corrupt members of the Democratic Party, Gregory Meeks (NY) has been supporting Tinker, as has Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio). More progressive and respectable members of the Congressional Black Caucus like John Conyers and Jesse Jackson, Jr. have been campaigning for Cohen.

So why rehash all that EMILY's List crap again now? Well, of course, they're up to it again-- this time in the crucial Massachusetts House race next Tuesday. They're raising campaign money for the worst of the 5 contenders, state Senator Kathleen Clark, the very wealthy wiretapping enthusiast. And that ad up top-- that was a flat-out misleading attempt to get voters to think that Elizabeth Warren endorsed Clark. Of course, she hasn't. Progressive members of Congress like Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Mark Takano and Jared Polis have loudly and unambiguously endorsed Carl Sciortino. Elizabeth, whose views are in sync with Sciortino's, has insisted on staying neutral in the primary battle in her own state. EMILY's List tried to get her to endorse their horrible candidate and she turned them down. So they printed up thousands of those fliers and send them out all over the district to mislead voters. That's EMILY's List-- and that's Katherine Clark.

A brand new PPP survey shows that 57% of voters are less likely to vote for Clark once they learn that she sponsored a bill, S. 654, to give police more power to listen in on private conversations of people not suspected of breaking the law. Randy Borntrager of People for the American Way explains that the "polling shows once again that Massachusetts voters want a real progressive in the United States House. Carl Sciortino is the only reliable progressive in this race. He has a strong record of standing up for civil rights and civil liberties in Massachusetts, and will bring those values to Washington.”

EMILY's List has morphed into an anti-progressive operation whose sole function is helping to enrich themselves through campaigns backing wealthy women. They take over the campaigns and funnel as much money into their own operations as they can get away with. So they don't care about that. In fact, none of Clark's anti-progressive positions worries them at all, especially since she has a marked tendency to tell whomever she's talking to whatever it is she thinks they want to hear. At the PCCC-sponsored online forum on April 10, where she assumed she was talking to progressives, she said, “I just want to be crystal clear-- that I am taking a pledge never to cut benefits to our seniors through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid... I will not be part of a ‘grand bargain’ that leaves our seniors behind and breaks our promises to them.” She was trying her best to sound like Carl Sciortino.

But when she talked to the far more conservative editors of the Boston Globe she told them about "her willingness to support a 'grand bargain' to trim the long-term federal deficit, even if it includes some provisions that are disappointing to liberals, is a sign of maturity." If Katherine Clark is elected Tuesday, she'll be Massachusetts' worst Member of Congress… by far. Hopefully the 5th district will opt to elect Massachusetts' best instead.

Carl Sciortino commented on the discrepancy this morning. “It’s appalling to me that Katherine Clark would be open to cutting Social Security and Medicare. We’re Democrats. We’re the ones that stand up for seniors-- not cave to the Tea Party on the most important social safetynet in the last century. I’m proud to stand with Ed Markey in my pledge never to cut these vital American programs. I call on Katherine Clark to clarify her position on Social Security today. The voters of the 5th District deserve to know whether she stands with Ed Markey against cuts in Social Security, or if she would cave to the Tea Party and vote for cuts in a ‘grand bargain’ as she told the Boston Globe.”

YOUR BLUE AMERICA DOLLARS AT WORK-- TRYING TO SAVE THE CONSTITUTION

Very few issues have touched the readers of DWT with a greater sense of urgency than the debate over warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity (FISA). Basically it is a debate over whether we are a nation ruled by laws or by men. Together with the other Blue America bloggers at Crooks & Liars, Firedoglake, Digby's Hullabaloo and Salon (Glenn), we were able to reach enough concerned citizens to raise over $340,000 in the last couple of weeks. Today I opened a letter from Barbara in Schenectady, New York. I didn't know if I should cry or cheer. In either case, I felt a sense of pride for my connection with Barbara:

"Enclosed is my personal check for $25.00 to support the FISA campaign. These are my personal funds. I am a secretary, currently unemployed.

Almost 6,000 people have donated so far and we have run TV, radio, and newspaper ads in Chris Carney's Pennsylvania district, newspaper ads and patch-thru calls explaining to Steny Hoyer's constituents (and colleagues) his odious role in this massive betrayal of Democracy. Tomorrow we are running the following full page ad in the Washington Post and the day after we will explain our efforts to hold John Barrow (GA-12) accountable for his outrageously anti-American votes.

Click on the ad to read it

One of the most inspiring Blue America candidates, Dennis Shulman from northern New Jersey is running for Congress against the last of the far right extremists in the Northeast United States, Scott Garrett. Garrett, of course, is an enthusiastic supporter of warrantless wiretaps against Americans and loves the idea of retroactive immunity for his campaign donors. Dennis sent us this statement today:

"The House of Representatives, with the support of Republican Scott Garrett, recently passed a bill that would grant President Bush and future administrations unprecedented powers to spy on American citizens without a warrant or review by any judge or court. The new law would also let our nation's largest telecom companies off the hook for knowingly violating the law and releasing their customers' private information at the behest of George Bush.

"Our constitutional right to protection against unsupervised searches was written into our Bill of Rights for good reason by Founders whom we rightly celebrate.

"Neither President Bush nor Scott Garrett are as wise as James Madison.

"It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.

"The President, his advisers, and his rubber stamps in Congress, including Scott Garrett, have demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the laws of the United States. This bill not only immunizes telecom companies from lawsuits, but it would also block the American people from ever knowing the full extent of the Bush Administration's illegal behavior.

"I urge my fellow Democrats in the Senate to vote against this unnecessary and deeply troubling law.

"I believe that Congress must protect the rights of citizens and the laws of our country from career politicians in Washington too willing to cave to special interests and endanger the fundamental rights that we, as Americans, hold so dear."

Wednesday the Senate votes. Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Ben Cardin are leading the uphill battle to defeat this bill. You have two senators; consider calling them and telling them this is a line in the sand and that you won't vote for them if they vote to chip away at the Constitution. It's easy; use this tool your Blue America dollars paid to develop:

JUDGE FINDS BUSH'S WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS UNJUSTIFIED-- WILL CONGRESS HEAR?

Take out the candidates for the presidency-- although keep in mind that the Telecoms have given McCain a whopping $356,145, far more than they donated to either Obama or Hillary-- and the senator who has benefited most from their largesse is... Jay Rockefeller, the crooked West Virginia political hack who has been leading the fight to grant his benefactors retroactive immunity for any crimes they may have committed under the FISA laws. The Telecoms gave Rockefeller $51,500 and the next closest senator was-- speaking of crooks-- Ted Stevens (R-AK) at $37,900. Funny how Rockefeller has vaulted to the top of the heap too. Overall, he was only their 25th most favorite senator (at $168,442) and it wasn't until he became the champion of retroactive immunity that they realized he was worthy of some big checks. In way of comparison, this year's #2, Senator Stevens, has gotten $260,450 from the Telecoms over his Senate career, which, I guess, helps explain his popular "tubes" song and dance.

Yesterday another judge rejected the Bush Regime's-- and the paid off members of Congress-- claim that they could wiretap American citizens without legal warrants. Count on Glenn Greenwald to make it clear and easy to understand:

A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge-- out of three who have ruled on the issue-- to reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday's decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.

In this morning's NY Times Eric Lichtblau took a stab at explaining how the new ruling did not and does not give Bush the right to wiretap without warrants.

The Bush Regime had worked diligently to quash the law suit for the past 2 years claiming the case was a "state secret and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program."

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to-- and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court.

But for members of the House and Senate, particularly the Republicans plus corrupt Democrats like Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Chris Carney, and John Barrow, who are determined to keep the bribes from Telecoms flowing their way, no voice carries any weight except for the voice at the polls. There are no plausible opponents for Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, and Rahm Emanuel in 2008. If Carney loses, as bad as he is, he will lose to a much worse Republican lunatic. That leaves John Barrow. Helping to elect a progressive state Senator, Regina Thomas, who vociferously opposes warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity-- and who has made it a key part of her election campaign is the only way to send our congressional employees a message they will hear. There is still a chance to let them know there is a real price to pay for violating our constitutional rights. Please help Regina Thomas this Independence Day weekend. It means at least as much as a parade and a barbecue.


UPDATE: SO HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE SENATE ON TUESDAY?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation seems optimistic. "With the Senate poised to vote on the FISA Amendments Act and immunity this Tuesday, this decision is particularly timely, as it demolishes key arguments made by proponents of telecom immunity... udge Walker's decision makes clear that Congress is about to pass telecom immunity based on arguments that are just plain wrong. Congress should take the time to look at the facts, rather than be fooled by the myths. It should not to rush to judgment next week. If you haven't already, phone your Senators now and urge them to vote against ending debate on the FISA bill, vote for the amendments to the bill that would strip or weaken the immunity provisions, and vote against final passage of the bill." And the list of myths and facts is absolutely great. Stuff like this:

Myth: The telecoms can't defend themselves in court because of the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege.

Fact: The Al Haramain decision makes clear that the state secrets privilege will not prevent the telecoms from defending themselves, because FISA's evidentiary procedures preempt the privilege. See Opinion at p. 2 ("FISA preempts the state secrets privilege in connection with electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.")

Myth: It's not fair to punish the telecoms for relying in good faith on the president's authorization to conduct the surveillance, even though it violated FISA.

Fact: In an extended discussion, the Al Haramain decision makes clear-- or rather, shows how clear it already was-- that the President's commander-in-chief powers do not give him the authority to ignore FISA. See Opinion at pp. 10-14, 23 ("[With FISA,] Congress appears clearly to have intended to-- and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities....")

But there is one problem: the pervasive and all powerful Culture of Corruption that IS Washington, DC. You thought we got rid of that with the end of Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Bob Ney and Denny Hastert? Not a chance. Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Jay Rockefeller, John Barrow and the rest of the bribe-takers who are adamant about joining the Republican to pass retroactive immunity for their benefactors at the Telecoms, make that crowd look like pikers.

WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS AND RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY ARE UNAMERICAN

Earlier today we mentioned that a campaign to hold accountable wayward Democrats who vote with the Republicans to stomp on the Constitution is about to commence. Readers of Crooks & Liars, Firedoglake, Digby, Salon and DownWithTyranny had an opportunity to vote and pick which among the small handful of Democrats who voted with the Republicans to allow for warrantless wiretaps and grant retroactive immunity would be the first to be targeted. Chris Carney (PA) was the overwhelming favorite. We'll let you know when the radio, TV, billboard and newspapers ads start running. Rand Beers has an important piece up at HuffPo that talks about a progressive perspective on national security. The vision he presents is very different from the failed policies of George Bush.

Embrace core sources of American strength: For decades, our ability to ensure our security and promote our values rested on the global embrace of Americans, admiration of our democratic institutions, and a willingness to accept our leadership with the expectation that it would serve the global good. In the past seven years conservatives have squandered or ignored our most precious assets, and we need to reclaim them. Projecting America's core values abroad is key to reversing this and successfully implementing a sustainable progressive foreign policy.

Value our moral authority and credibility: Americans care deeply about our values and expect our leaders to reflect them. We must lead so that others will follow. In the absence of our moral authority and credibility, our allies won't send troops to Afghanistan, critical multilateral initiatives to address terrorism or reduce the threat of nuclear weapons will flounder, our business partners will no longer welcome our investments, and people struggling for freedom will no longer believe that we share their values. The restoration of our international prestige and global reputation establishes the foundation for an effectual foreign policy future.

Use all our tools-- tackle complex problems with smart, comprehensive solutions: Americans know instinctively that our lives are connected with the lives of others, and that we're at our best when we work with others to tackle the most difficult problems - tracking terrorists across borders, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, fighting diseases like smallpox and AIDS, and stopping global warming. Our political leaders must reflect these realities we know about ourselves, and should be expected to foster cooperation to serve our interests and values.

Demonstrate good stewardship of our military might -- respect and transform the military: Our mix of military capabilities must be rebalanced away from the structures of the last century and toward missions like counterterrorism, counter-insurgency, and homeland defense. America's greatest military asset is our men and women in uniform. Maintaining a strong volunteer military means meeting the needs of those who serve - better training and equipment for soldiers in the field, proper care for family members, and better health care for veterans. Strong national security should not be hindered by mismanagement and corruption. That means more stringent oversight on how money is spent, and better accountability.

Meanwhile, we contacted many of the Blue America candidates and asked them to explain how they feel about Bush's demands on the FISA bill. Glenn and I quoted some in our earlier posts. Here are some of the others that you might be interested in reading:

Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME) voted against retroactive immunity and against warrantless wiretaps. Last night he told us why: "Warrantless domestic surveillance is yet another example of the Bush Administration denying civil liberties to ordinary Americans. I strongly oppose retroactive immunity for telecom companies and will continue to vote against it. Neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable."

Victoria Wulsin isn't a member of Congress yet but her district is represented by extremist Jean Schmidt who voted in favor of warrantless wiretaps and in favor of granting retroactive immunity to the lawbreaking telecoms (who donate to her campaign) This morning, this is what Vic had to say about that: "The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers' privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people."

Jim Himes, who is running to replace Bush rubber stamp Chris Shays in Connecticut felt just as strongly: "I strongly oppose granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on Americans at the behest of the Bush administration. The issue at stake here is simple and fundamental-- no person, president, or corporation is ever above the law, period. Protecting our nation from the real threats to our security is one of the most serious responsibilities of Congress. Yet Chris Shays and the rest of Bush's allies in Congress have once again abdicated this
responsibility by reducing the debate on security to peddling fear, straw men, and mistruths for partisan political gain. America is better than this, and both parties in Congress should be too."

And this isn't just a red state/blue state issue. Larry Joe Doherty, who is gaining tremendous traction against pathetic Bush rubber stamp Michael McCaul in a sprawling Texas district between Austin and the Houston suburbs, is just as adamant as anyone else about protecting the Constitution. "This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies."

Not many candidates have been as proactive on this issue as Martin Heinrich in New Mexico. He's made it a big issue in his campaign and has written a lot about it. This morning he summed up his thoughts in 3 short sentences: "In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn't compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush's friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice."

Leslie Byrne, a former and future member of Congress from northern Virginia, has been talking about this too. Here's what she told us today: "In March I said, 'I'm against immunity. The telecommunications companies who complied (not all did) have some of the highest priced legal talent available. They should have asked for a court ruling before handing over their customers records. I was very pleased that the US House found their voice on this issue.' I can only add that I hope the House continues to use that voice to protect Americans."

Let me end with a comment from Mark Begich, the Alaska Democrat running against one of Bush's worst-- and most unhinged-- senatorial henchmen, Ted Stevens. Mark is a hawk on rule of law. "The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

FISA BILL MOVES TO THE SENATE-- WHERE IT GETS EVEN WORSE

Yesterday we spent some time going over the debate in the House about FISA and how the Bush Regime uses it for unconstitutional domestic spying. Today the action moves to the Senate. I'm not thrilled by the tenor so far. The draft bill includes amnesty and retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that broke the law. So even though there were at least two companies that actually stood up to Bush-- and for the Constitution-- and refused to comply, the companies that went along, especially mega-campaign contributors AT&T and Verizon, get retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years. (Note: the criminal Bush Regime even penalized Qwest for standing up for the Constitution and refusing to get drawn into their illegal schemes.)

Further, Taylor Marsh points out that both the House and the Senate "cave in to Bush’s fear-mongering in a major way: it does NOT required the government to get an individual warrant before wiretapping Americans' phones and emails. Instead, it allows for program or basket 'warrants,' which aren't really warrants at all. They're the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they're more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever."

Last night we heard from half a dozen Democratic office-holders and candidates who are outraged by this. Matt's got a great overview at OpenLeft that he and I worked on together. As this debate moves over to the Senate, I thought it would be especially useful to highlight a statement from Maine's Congressman Tom Allen since he's running for the Senate seat currently occupied by Bush rubber stamp hack Susan Collins. Here's what Rep. Allen said:

"There is no question that the Bush Administration is responsible for an unprecedented and widespread infringement upon basic civil liberties. It is equally disturbing to know that phone companies took part in this. Just as we must hold Bush and his Administration accountable, we cannot let private sector businesses off the hook for breaking the law."

Two especially good progressive candidates-- Donna Edwards (MD-04) and Dan Grant (TX-10)-- have had to spend a good deal of time thinking about this issue because of the opponents they are facing. Dan is challenging rubber stamp Republican Mike McCaul who is more the representative in Congress for his father-in-law's company, Clear Channel Communications, than he is the representative for the good people of his central Texas district.

"I spent the past decade helping Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other trouble spots around the world try to strengthen their law enforcement systems and constitutional protections.  Little did I think my own government would violate those very rights by offering amnesty to telecommunications firms back home.

"My opponent Mike McCaul, whose family owns Clear Channel Communications, bears a special responsibility not to rubberstamp the Bush-Cheney administration's attempt to let his and other big telecom firms break the law. Is he representing Central Texas or his family's monopoly? His failure to speak out on this outrageous attempt to let unreasonable search and seizure go unchecked provides the answer-- Mike McCaul is the Congressman from Clear Channel."

And Donna Edwards is running against one of the big telecom companies worst whores, Al Wynn, a man who has financed his career with their bribes and gifts. Her comments are worth thinking about too:

"Congress must not give in to the President on the issue of immunity for telecommunications companies who have violated the law. These companies and their powerful lobbyists have given generous contributions to members of Congress including Congressman Wynn. They must be held accountable. These companies had a choice and some chose to break the law and violate our civil liberties. No amount of money or influence should prevent the companies and their senior decision makers from being held accountable if they broke the law. Corporations cannot be allowed to break the law under the thinly veiled guise of 'national security' and walk away without penalty."

Of course it isn't just candidates who are alarmed. People For the American Way has a new campaign they just launched, Help Congress To Grow A Spine. Worth checking out, especially since they say that the Senate version looks like it will be even worse than the House version, more in line with all of Bush's demands. Thanks Jay Rockefeller, a senator from West Virginia is practically owned by AT&T. By the way, if you want to call him and the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence who might be persuadable, this is a reliable list.

*Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman — (202) 224-6472
*Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — (202) 224-3841
*Sen. John Warner (R-VA) — (202) 224-2023
*Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — (202) 224-5244
*Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — (202) 224-4224
*Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — (202) 224-5623
*Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) — (202) 224-4654
*Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — (202) 224-5344
*Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) — (202) 224-5274

The guys we know we can already count on-- Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)-- plus the total Bush hacks who would rather cut off their own peckers than go against Bush-- like Saxby Chamberpot (R-GA) and Richard Burr (R-NC)-- aren't on the call list.


UPDATE: NOT ALL DEMOCRATS THINK HOLDING THE TELECOMS ACCOUNTABLE IS A GOOD IDEA-- ESPECIALLY NOT THE ONES WHO ARE ON THE PAYROLL

Yesterday Matt Stoller and I started contacting candidates we talk to regularly about their read of this FISA bill Congress is working on. As you can see, we've had some great answers from the candidates who have been endorsed by Blue America and BlogPAC. But I got a curious e-mail from the manager of one of our most forthright and combative young candidates. The pollster for the campaign Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, quintessential Inside the Beltway corporate hacks who have helped make the Democrats an Insider party rather than a true party of working families, started screaming that the candidate shouldn't cooperate with Blue America and BlogPAC and should just not take a stand. Hit that link and look at who their corporate clients are and you'll see why this "Democratic" polling firm is telling candidates not to take a stand on FISA.


LET'S END TODAY'S FISA STORY ON A HIGH, EVEN VISIONARY NOTE-- FROM ANDREW RICE, SENATE CANDIDATE FOR SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

Andrew's statement sums the whole FISA debate up perfectly. Can you imagine having a guy who said this in the Senate instead of a yutz like Inhofe?

"Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community's ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveilance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.

The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance. "

SENATE DEMOCRATS BEND OVER, HAND BUSH THE K-Y AND VOTE FOR WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN CRAVEN COWARDICE

We don't have to go back to Roman times to find historical analogies to the Senate's approval of Bush's nefarious spying plan last night. I'm just finishing up a marvelous book by Kenneth Ackerman, Young J. Edgar: Hoover, the Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties, the chilling account of how, in 1919, an anti-immigrant jihad coupled by an irrational fear of terrorism (Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer's "Red Scare"), and fueled by naked political ambitions, combined to subvert the rule of law during a dubious war on terror into an unconstitutional war of terror.

The author of the Red Scare, Young J. Edgar's boss, was a "progressive Wilson Democrat," a Quaker and former congressman from my old hometown, Stroudsberg, PA. When the going got tough, the progressive Palmer turned into a right-wing fanatic who was more than ready to shred the constitution for the sake of his conception of homeland security. History remembers this would-be presidential contender for a series of brutal police roundups of immigrants, unionists, and suspected leftists and radicals and for warrantless wiretaps, mass arrests (of thousands of people, mostly innocent of any crime whatsoever) and shameful deportations.

Last night a modern day Palmer, Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey (who hails from the same northeastern part of the state and also rather loudly claims his public service is informed by his religionist beliefs) joined 15 other treacherous Democrats to band together with all the Republicans in passing Bush's latest assault on civil liberties. The other Democrats who shamed themselves and their party include the regular reactionaries like Landrieu (LA), the two Nelsons (NE & FL), Carper (DE), the pair of swine from Arkansas (Pryor and Lincoln), Salazar (CO), Feinstein (CA), Bayh (IN) but the list also includes 2 dependable progressives Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Barbara Milkulsi (MD) and fickle freshmen James Webb (VA) and Claire McCaskill (MO). The whole list is here. You'll notice all the progressive heroes and heroines who were too frightened to vote: Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Tom Harkin...

So now the Democrats co-own Bush's unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping so many of us have been citing when we clamor for impeachment. No wonder there was so little enthusiasm for that from Congressional Democrats!

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

So now it's up to the House leadership to stop this monstrosity. Today. Can we count on them? Are you kidding? Yesterday, Crooks & Liars posted a brilliant take on this mess by Keith Olbermann. I urge you to watch it. I would trade 20 members of the Democratic caucus-- you pick 'em-- for one Olbermann. (Bush sounds exactly like the vile David Strathairn fear-monger character in The Bourne Ultimatum.)

In June Kenneth Ackerman, the Young J. Edgar author I referred to above, penned an article for the L.A. Times Another J. Edgar Hoover?, comparing the environment that spawned the authoritarian, even tyrannical, Hoover to the environment nurtured by the Bush Regime today.

Almost 90 years later, today's war on terror exists in an echo chamber of the 1919 Red scare. The federal government demands more powers at the expense of individual rights: secret CIA prisons, enhanced interrogation techniques, suspension of habeas corpus. Even the president openly claims powers that are beyond the reach of laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The same kinds of teachers who transformed the straight-laced, young Hoover in 1919 seem to be on the loose again in Washington. And that raises a troubling question: Are we today creating a whole new generation of young J. Edgar Hoovers, dedicated government agents learning the wrong lessons from the war on terror, who will stick around to haunt us for decades to come?

I'll update this post later in the weekend when the House caves. How do I know they'll cave over the weekend? Don't be silly; they have vacation plans.


43 HOUSE DEMOCRATS CAVE TO FASCISM, COLLECT THEIR RUBBER STAMPS

House Democrats buckled and the Republican bill passed. While only 2 Republicans had the guts to vote for America, 41 treacherous Democrats abandoned the party today and voted against our nation. It passed 227 to 183. Earlier today we ran a post about the worst Democratic House members. This should trump that entirely, except of course, nothing much changes. The worst and most reactionary are still the worst and most reactionary.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I guarantee you that if you contribute any money whatsoever to the DCCC, a good part of it goes to insure that these members who voted against your values will be re-elected. Never, never, never, no matter what, donate to the DCCC or the DSCC. Contribute directly to incumbents and candidates who you have checked out and feel confident will reflect progressive positions. Here's is the list of the 41 Democrats who betrayed us and our values tonight (the members in bold have consistently voted against progressive positions enough so that no progressive should even vote for them, let alone contribute to their campaigns):
Altmire (PA)
Barrow (GA)
Bean (IL)
Boren (OK)
Boswell (IA)
Boyd (FL)
CARNEY (PA)
Chandler (KY)
Cooper (TN)
Costa (CA)
Cramer (AL)
Cuellar (TX)
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth (IN)
Etheridge (NC)
Gordon (TN)
Herseth Sandlin (SD)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (IN)
Lampson (TX)
Lipinski (IL)
Marshall (GA)
Matheson (UT)
McIntyre (NC)
Melancon (LA)
Mitchell (AZ)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy (ND)
Rodriguez (TX)
Ross (AR)
Salazar (CO)
Shuler (NC)
Snyder (AR)
Space (OH)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)
Walz (MN)
Wilson (OH)

And a little good news on this dismal night. Every single Blue America endorsed candidate-- no exceptions-- voted against Bush's unconstitutional power grab. (No one who voted for it will be eligible for a future endorsement.) Our incumbents who voted no were Tom Allen (ME), Steve Cohen (TN), John Hall (NY), Jerry McNerney (CA), Patrick Murphy (PA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), and Hilda Solis (CA). Here's where you can say thanks for doing your job if you think that's merited. I might add that Steve Cohen faces a tough primary from a reactionary Democrat from the corrupt, right-wing Harold Ford Machine and that both John Hall and Carol Shea-Porter are in Republican-leaning districts where they are already being smeared by the far right for being soft on terrorism.