Growing Right-Wing Chorus Backs Impeachment. When Will Pelosi?

When Lou Dobbs recently called for the impeachment of George W. Bush, he became only the latest in a growing number of Right-Wingers who are harshly criticizing the White House these days. Dobbs joined Conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Hagel in slamming Bush and raising the prospect of impeachment.

In fact, when Rep. Dennis Kucinich recently introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, no less than 24 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for an impeachment inquiry to begin.

And on June 21, no less a Conservative figure than Paul Craig Roberts, the "Father of Reaganomics," bitterly blasted the Bush Administration, calling it one of the most "lawless regimes" of the 21st Century. Last year, Roberts (who in 2006 called Bush supporters "Brownshirts") urged the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Note that we're not talking about Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill here. We're talking about Roberts (a man who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration).

These days, the growing chorus of Right-Wingers calling for Bush's impeachment range from articulate writers like Roberts all the way over to Right-Wing radio hate spewers like Michael Savage.

With all these Conservatives raising the issue of impeachment, it's all the more baffling as to why Nancy Pelosi continues to insist that "impeachment is off the table."

Not only that, but the Democrats continue to be bullied by a deeply unpopular president who has approval ratings that are in the toilet. Just in the past week, the Dems meekly caved in on FISA, as well as the massive, no-strings war-funding bill.

When former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently added his voice to the anti-Bush chorus, the White House quickly sought to portray him as a lone disgruntled employee, with an ax to grind.

What they didn't address, though, was why so many Right-Wingers are now criticizing Bush in the harshest possible language these days. One thing that is certain, though, is that if the shoe was on the other foot, does anyone think that GOP would hesitate one second in launching impeachment proceedings?

There's more: "Growing Right-Wing Chorus Backs Impeachment. When Will Pelosi?" >>

Friday news analysis roundup and more

Gazprom’s head says oil could hit $250/barrel. How likely is it?

So why is House Democratic leadership as passive as Jonathan Turley charges on Dennis Kucinich’s Bush impeachment push. My take: Perhaps Pelosi is worried pro-war voting Dems could be called by Bush lawyers as witnesses.

What’s up with Exxon selling its gas stations? Unfortunately, it probably won’t put an end to Big Oil price fixing conspiracy theories, although it should.

Hillary lost because of the speech she didn’t give and Nick Kristof wants Obama to give it.

Semis can be 10 percent more fuel efficient.

What’s up with William Shatner?. My normal Friday SCATblogging is SHATblogging this week.

Read more about my take on all of these issues at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Friday news analysis roundup and more" >>

The cluelessness of Nancy Pelosi — John Hagee edition

Like my semi-regular “Irony Alert” and “Hypocrisy Alert” posts at my personal blog, the cluelessness of our Speaker of the House, if not of politicians in general could turn into a regular blog feature here.

Today’s installment? After calling for John McCain to reject the endorsement of bigoted “evangelist” (spreading the gospel of hate? Armageddon? Anti-Catholic, to be sure) John Hagee, our nation’s beloved dimwitted Speaker had to be reminded McCain solicited Hagee’s endorsement. A blogger on a blog conference call had to remind her of that.

But, wait, it gets better.

As TPM notes, AFTER she was reminded of this, she STILL (sorry, have to use caps plus bold for stupidity of this level) uttered this gem:

“I can’t imagine that he wouldn't reject it.”

There's more: "The cluelessness of Nancy Pelosi — John Hagee edition" >>

Nancy Pelosi Sends Us Season's Greetings, I Guess

I picked this photo up at New Chautauqua. I recommend we all give New Chautauqua a look. It's a great site.

I know the photo is impertinent, but after Nancy's endless string of failures that all start with her decision to "take impeachment off the table" I feel a little impertinent. Off to sing Christmas carols and pray for peace.

There's more: "Nancy Pelosi Sends Us Season's Greetings, I Guess" >>

Nancy Pelosi and The Democrats Surrender On SCHIP -- Merry Christmas

Faced with the need to get out of town to shop for luxury Christmas gifts for their families, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress betrayed millions of working class children by formally surrendering to the Republicans on SCHIP. The bill they passed yesterday essentially maintains the status quo until March 2009. Given inflation the bill really reduces over all SCHIP benefits.

According to NPR's All Things Considered.

The Democratic-led Congress on Wednesday officially waved the white flag of surrender on its top domestic issue: the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. Eleven months and two presidential vetoes after vowing to expand its reach, the House instead passed and sent to President Bush a bill that will essentially continue the program in its current form until 2009.

Democrats had little choice in the matter. With Christmas fast approaching, they were in a fix. They had two health funding emergencies. First, temporary funding for SCHIP — whose authorization technically expired Oct. 1 — was about to run out once again. Second, on Jan. 1, a 10 percent cut in pay to doctors under Medicare was set to take effect — something Democrats, Republicans and the Bush administration agree shouldn't be allowed to happen.

But President Bush and Republicans had nixed most of the ways Democrats wanted to pay for either the Medicare changes or the SCHIP expansion. That basically gave Republicans the upper hand, and left the majority Democrats with little more to do than fume.

"What we have before us gives the lowest common denominator a bad name," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), chairman of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee. "It shows the Republicans in their truest form: Help the rich at the expense of the poor and deny government services to anyone and only help the profit industries who pay them so generously through their campaign contributions."

And, adding insult to injury, Republicans insisted on continuing SCHIP at its current funding levels not just until September — as Democrats had wanted — but until March 2009, four months after the November 2008 elections.

All things considered we don't just need more Democrats, we need better Democrats.

Nancy, I hope you have fun going to all those swank shops in San Francisco. I wonder how many kids will die because you just had to get out of town for Christmas.

There's more: "Nancy Pelosi and The Democrats Surrender On SCHIP -- Merry Christmas" >>

When Democrats fight ain’t so pretty either

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel? Senate Democrats have “Stockholm syndrome” for caving to Senate GOP filibuster threats all the time.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticizes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s “iron hand” style of government. (Oh, if it were only true, Harry. You must be confusing her with former GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert, or his power behind the throne, Majority Leader Tom DeLay.)

Neither side of the Capitol Dome has done itself much credit. The latest anti-results:

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop a cherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft of high-profile legislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete.

And, the backbiting probably isn’t dying down. Not after comments like this:

Reid has let his own frustration show. After Republican senators accused Pelosi of lying about her intentions on a comprehensive energy bill, the majority leader offered a backhanded defense.

“I can’t control Speaker Pelosi,” he said on the chamber floor. “I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand. I support what she does, but no one needs to come and tell me I didn’t keep my word.”

There’s plenty of blame to go around here. First, on Reid’s side, besides his anti-filibuster all-nighter on Iraq spending, he still hasn’t figured out enough sneaky tactics to counter GOP filibuster threats. Surely, Robert Byrd, “Mr. Senate,” could tell him a trick or two.

If nothing else, why doesn’t Reid threaten to do what House Appropriations Chair David Obey plans? Gut any Senate spending bill of earmarks until Republicans start squeaking. It WILL work.

Look at the water bill that Congress recently re-passed to override a Bush veto for the first time. If there’s money involved, the GOP will listen.

On Pelosi’s side, part of it is that a number of freshman Democrats are fairly conservative. At the same time, she pissed off many of the definite liberals, before taking over, by how much, besides impeachment itself, she seemed ready to rule off the political table.

There's more: "When Democrats fight ain’t so pretty either" >>

Scooter Drops Appeal

Scooter has skated so he has decided to drop his appeal. That means there is no pending criminal litigation in the Plame case. That means the White House personnel can't use the "pending criminal litigation" no comment excuse any longer. I guess the information will start flowing as Democrats ramp up their investigations for the impeachment of Dead Eye Dick Cheney.

On second thought the only thing the inside the beltway Democratic leadership piss on more than rank and file Democrats demanding justice is the Constitution. My guess is somebody is going to write a stern letter. The entire affair will die before Christmas. You can't expect Nancy and Harry not to do what George tells them, can you?

There's more: "Scooter Drops Appeal" >>

Why is Pelosi blocking new auto CAFE standards?

Apparently, we need to blame the Speaker and not John Dingell. Gregg Easterbrook, who while too conservative in some ways for me, has some decent insights on environmental issues, says that’s not the only thing wrong with Nancy Pelosi’s green credentials:

Raising mileage standards for vehicles and enacting a carbon trading system for electric power generation are two highly desirable actions Congress can take right now, without doing economic harm, to cut greenhouse emissions, improve national security by reducing U.S. reliance on Persian Gulf oil and push Detroit automakers to become more competitive so they stay in business. But instead of taking badly needed action, the House of Representatives last week spent $89,000 of taxpayers' money to purchase 30,000 tons' worth of "carbon offsets" for its antiquated coal-burning powerhouse. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared the U.S. Capitol will be green by 2008, but this sounds to me like political yammer.

First, according to estimates by resource economists, carbon offsets need to cost $20 to $25 per ton in order to generate a significant profit incentive for innovators, and thus inspire technical breakthroughs that will stave off artificial global warming. If the Capitol paid only $3 per ton, it wasn't buying much. More important, if you really believe artificial global warming is a huge menace to society, you don't just buy offsets and continue using your antiquated coal-fired powerhouse -- because, after all, the offsets only prevent emissions from rising, doing nothing to reduce emissions. If you really believe artificial global warming is a menace, you buy offsets and cut your own carbon output, thus reducing emissions. This is the big fault with Al Gore's patting himself on the back for buying offsets: He has not reduced his carbon footprint. If he believed his own speeches, he'd both buy the offsets and cut back his carbon-intensive jet-set lifestyle.

Pelosi's talk of a "green" U.S. Capitol is especially phony when she refuses to allow the House of Representatives to vote on proposals to increase fuel-economy standards for vehicles. Higher mpg standards -- the average fuel economy of new cars, trucks and SUVs has not risen since 1988 -- are a million times more important to preventing artificial global warming than symbolic actions such as those being taken at the Capitol. Stricter mileage rules would not only reduce U.S. payments to Persian Gulf dictatorships but also make a significant dent in greenhouse gases because greenhouse emissions are proportional to fossil fuel burned. Yet while Pelosi announces lofty promises about a renewable Capitol, she won't schedule a vote on the strict new mileage standards backed by figures as diverse as President Bush and Barack Obama.

Easterbrook is an equal-opportunity excoriator on politicos from both parties, though.

What of other political leaders? George W. Bush has proposed an international conference to negotiate nonbinding future goals for greenhouse gas reduction — exactly the empty gesture his father proposed in 1992! As Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post shows, all contenders for the presidency have embraced climate proposals that seem bold and sweeping. But read closely: None would have teeth until long after the bold politicians making the sweeping proposals leave office. Hillary Clinton, for instance, wants bold, sweeping action against greenhouse gases by 2030, when she would have been out of office for at least 14 years. John Edwards, whom TMQ likes because he emphasizes the forgotten issue of poverty, wants bold, bold, really bold action by 2050, when he will be 97 years old. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pulling this fast one, too. His bold, bold California climate plan has gotten him fawning press but does not require any action until after Schwarzenegger is out of office.

This is a complaint I’ve had for a long time. And, if you think I have this complaint about global warming, I have it in spades about Peak Oil.

There's more: "Why is Pelosi blocking new auto CAFE standards?" >>

The Seven Steps To Media Domination

I found this video at Beyond the Clintons. Hat tip to you and to The Young Turks. I think the seven steps to media domination are right on target.



Nancy, I know you or one of your staffers read this blog at least occasionally. The next time you encounter feigned Republican outrage stand tall for your fellow Democrat. Stand shoulder to shoulder with him or her and against the phony Republican outrage. Don't apologize. What ever you do, don't rebuke one of your own. You will never get a rebuke out of the Republicans, why should they get one out of you?

There's more: "The Seven Steps To Media Domination" >>

Have Soldiers Died For The President's Amusement? Watch This And Decide.

This post is all about George W.Bush telling jokes, but I don't think it is every funny. Look at the crowd, I bet you can find some good Democrats yucking it up with George. Wonder why I am so mad about Nancy Pelosi chastising Pete Stark for telling Republicans how he and a lot of us feel, watch this video and you will know.



Posted by kynandog.

My post from versusplus.com below is tonight's funny.

There's more: "Have Soldiers Died For The President's Amusement? Watch This And Decide." >>

Democratic Voters Deserve Leaders With Fire In Their Bellies

What is wrong with the Democratic leadership? First, I read that Nancy Pelosi is all over Rep. Pete Stark for saying in public what a lot of folks all over the county say in private every day. If you haven't heard during the SCHIP debate Pete Stark, who has been in Congress for 18 terms, told the Republicans

"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Sure the comments were inflammatory, but damn it, it is time to call a spade a spade. If Republicans get their little feelings hurt, too damn bad. It is about the only thing they have had hurt since the President launched his little Iraq adventure. When is Nancy going to pull her head out of her designer frock and start standing up for Democrats.

Now I read Yellow Dog's excellent post about Harry Reid's decision to poop all over Chris Dodd just because Dodd wants to protect the Constitution of the United States. Harry you either agree the Constitution is the bed rock of America or you are right there with George W. Bush who is reported to have said the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

I don't know about you, but I am long past sick to death with fraidy cats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Damn it, the Democratic party deserves leaders who are trying to win, not wimps who are trying not to lose.

Nancy, Harry, if you are going to be leaders, sometimes you have to be a little inflammatory, and sometimes you have to stand up for the Constitution, fat cat telecos be damned.

There's more: "Democratic Voters Deserve Leaders With Fire In Their Bellies" >>

House Leadership Nixes War Surtax

The Hill is reporting that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic House Leadership have nixed the war surtax House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) proposed yesterday when he argued that if the war is worth fighting, it is worth paying for. “If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war,” Obey said Tuesday. Republicans took little time before they started mocking Obey for wanting to pay for the war. Democrats took even less time distancing themselves from Obey's commonsense proposal.

Nancy (impeachment is off the table) Pelosi quickly nixed the idea when she issued a press release stating, “Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax.” When given a choice between making a leadership decision that is courageous and honest as opposed to one that is weak and ineffective, our girl Nancy will chose weak and ineffective every time. On the bright side she does wear designer clothes.

Sticks and stones may break our soldiers bones, but words will always scare Nancy.

There's more: "House Leadership Nixes War Surtax" >>

The Beltway Wing of the Democratic Party Stands Firm With Bush/Cheney Against The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

The House has just passed a resolution 341-79 condemning MoveOn.org for the New York Times ad asking whether Gen. David Petraeus should be called "General Betray Us." This follows a similar Senate resolution last week. Also today the Senate passed a reportedly watered down version of the Kyl-Lieberman Let's Bomb Iran Resolution 76-22. The watered down resolution probably gives Bush/Cheney the cover they need to order an air strike on Iran. The votes for the Kyl-Lieberman included Hillary Clinton. Somehow Barack Obama avoided voting.

Before we get lost in the details I think it is important to step back and take a look at what our Democratic leadership is saying to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Essentially, they, including Hillary, are saying, "progressives, go Cheney yourselves. We can afford to take you for granted because we know you haven't got any place to go. We don't want the media and our contributors in the Israel lobby jumping all over us for not signing on with Dick Cheney's Iranian war, and for not condemning MoveOn.org over a trumped up distraction invented by the Republican spin machine."

More after the break.



The President commented last week that Democrats are more afraid of MoveOn than they are of the "military." He was wrong. The Democratic leaders, including Hillary, are more afraid of the President and the neo-con wing of the mainstream media than they are of their own base. In fact, they are scared to death to oppose Republicans. Maybe it is time we members of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party stopped enabling the current Democratic leadership.

What do we do to get their attention? Maybe it is time we tell Hillary that if she really wants war with Iran so bad she should join the Republican party. I would recommend everybody write Hillary condemning her for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Let's Bomb Iran Resolution. The Democratic "leadership" seems to be motivated by fear more than principle. Maybe it is time we contacted the Pelosi, Obey, Reid and the rest of the house and Senate leadership to tell them no more money until you sign on for peace.

There's more: "The Beltway Wing of the Democratic Party Stands Firm With Bush/Cheney Against The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" >>

The Energy Bill Is In Big Trouble

Remember earlier in the year when both the House and Senate passed energy bills. The House version of H.R.6 - United States Energy Storage Competitiveness Act of 2007 was passed on January 18, and the Senate version on June 21. Passing the energy bill was cause for celebration. Headlines and high fives all around. Most rank and file Democrats think our team in Congress actually took some small, but courageous steps to solve a whole host of problems facing America.

Hooray for our side. Hooray for America. Send $25 bucks to your favorite Democratic Congressperson or Senator. It's all good. Our team is on the job. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Boys and girls never fear, Nancy and Harry have found a way to have their high fives, pick your green pocket, pander to the lobbyists and do nothing all at the same time. Call it benign neglect. Call it knowing how the system works. Call it anything you want. It seems Harry and Nancy let both houses pass legislation but have failed to appoint a conference committee to reconcile the two versions. They probably won't until way late in the year--at a time when other priorities will probably doom the energy bill.

More on the other side.

The New York Times recently reported that

Democratic leaders in both chambers have signaled that conference committee members are unlikely to be named until late October, at the earliest. Others suggested that leaders may try to resolve the differences in the bills without convening a conference, which would create other problems, including the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate. . . .

President Bush has threatened to veto the House bill, which he says does not have enough incentives for domestic energy production, and the Senate bill because it has penalties for price gouging by the oil industry.

According to Donny Shaw at Congress Gossip Blog

If Congress fails to pass an energy bill, there will be reasons to believe it was because lawmakers and the President put the interests of the utilities and auto industries over America's interests in clean and independent energy. The industries are out lobbying hard in Washington. And if you look at the campaign contribution figures for the electric utilities industry, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that there is a quid pro quo arrangement with the Republicans who are threatening to block this bill.

If you care at all about energy independence and the future of America you should give Nancy and Harry a call. Encourage them to appoint a conference committee to finish the job. If George wants to veto the bill, that's Republican business. I don't give a damn what industry lobbyists say, there is no need for Democrats to make life easy for Republicans. Anyway if we don't start moving toward energy independence we are going to be fighting wars in the middle east for most of the next century. More importantly we are going to lose all of our freedoms to oil sheiks and oil company insiders.

There's more: "The Energy Bill Is In Big Trouble" >>

Campaign Video of the Day -- September 15, 2007

Today's Campaign Video of the Day isn't a campaign video. Instead we have selected MoveOn.org's latest ad entitled Betrayal of Trust.



After this video was aired Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

hinted at bigger cuts to troop numbers in Iraq than those so far approved by President George W Bush.

Mr Gates suggested the current level of more than 160,000 soldiers could be cut to about 100,000 by the end of 2008.

Don't hold your breath because according to the BBC

"The whole situation and recommendations at this point are based on an analysis by the commander in the field, plus... the situation on the ground.

"One of the sad aspects of war is there is no script. That history hasn't been written yet. And the enemy has a vote."

Hey Nancy, how come the enemy gets a vote, but Congress doesn't?

If you find a compelling video needing wider play, please nominate it by emailing a link to proctoring.congress@gmail.com subject Campaign Video of the Day.

There's more: "Campaign Video of the Day -- September 15, 2007" >>

America to Congressional Democrats -- Are You Going To Do Anything?

I have spent some time reading the responses of Congressional Democrats to the President's speech last night. Senator Clinton's comments are posted below. You can find Senator Barack Obama's response here. Here are Joe Biden's comments. The comments of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and Rep Steny Hoyer can be found here.

I think all of the above comments are best be summarized by the title of the following video. Unless the Democrats in Congress get off their royal asses and do something, they may just as well "sit right down and write themselves a letter." The rest of us have had it.



Maybe that is the best description of this Congress. From now on we should refer to the 110th Congress as the "I Am Going To Sit Right Down And Write Myself A Letter" Congress.

There's more: "America to Congressional Democrats -- Are You Going To Do Anything?" >>

Pelosi To Conyers and Reyes--Revisit the FISA Bill As Soon As Possible And This Time Do It Right.

I don't know what to make of this, but Nancy Pelosi has written a letter concerning the "interim" FISA bill passed just yesterday.

August 4, 2007

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Silvestre Reyes
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H 405 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and Chairman Reyes:

Thank you for your leadership on matters affecting the security of the American people and the protection of the liberties that define our country.

I know that your committees have been working diligently on a proposal by the Administration to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I also understand that your work has been hindered by the Administration’s refusal to provide all of the documents you believe are relevant to your consideration of the proposal.

Tonight, the House passed S. 1927, a bill approved by the Senate yesterday, which is an interim response to the Administration’s request for changes in FISA, and which was sought to fill an intelligence gap which is asserted to exist. Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and, although the bill has a six month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken.

Accordingly, I request that your committees send to the House, as soon as possible after Congress reconvenes, legislation which responds comprehensively to the Administration’s proposal while addressing the many deficiencies in S. 1927.

Thank you for your attention to this request and for your service to our country.

best regards,

Nancy Pelosi

In related news, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek is reporting that last week the administration served a secret search warrant on a former justice department attorney who is known to have opposed the President's Domestic Surveillance Program. It is rumored that the attorney is suspected of leaking the existence of the program to The New York Times in December 2005.

When somebody at the water cooler tells you that the President must pursue the leaker because merely telling the American people of the existence of a possibly unconstitutional program is helping the "enemy," you might remember the following quote from Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason.

(T)his intricate clockwork mechanism of American Government has always depended on a "ghost in the machine." The ghost animating the Constitution's machinery is not holy;it is us, all of us, the proverbial "well-informed citizenry. We may be endowed with individual rights by our Creator, but we act to protect those rights and govern our nation with the instruments of reason. page 51

How can we citizens be a "well-informed citizenry" if the Congress passes secret laws, creating secret Courts to oversee secret activities that might violate the Constitution? How can we keep our Democracy alive if the Executive is clearly going beyond what has been authorized by Congress apparently bypassing the secret court altogether? How can we protect our democracy if the Administration is executing secret search warrants on people whose only crime is to have informed us, the electorate, that our constitutional rights are being violated? Disclosing a program that violates the United State's Constitution might justify the application of something that could be called a whistleblower's defense.

Good luck, Nancy, we will be watching.

There's more: "Pelosi To Conyers and Reyes--Revisit the FISA Bill As Soon As Possible And This Time Do It Right." >>

Takin' Names for 2008

I hereby nominate Sixth District Congressman Ben Chandler, D-KY, for the first name on the DINO Hit List to get a progressive primary opponent in 2008.

The treasonous schmuck was one of 41 "Democrats" voting to let the Usurper put the finishing touches on his American Dictatorship.

In January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave Sophmore Chandler a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, as a fairly obvious incentive to get him to vote the straight and narrow on the Democratic agenda.

At first it seemed to work, too. Benny voted in line with the leadership on most of the important votes, most recently co-sponsoring a bill to impeach AG Alberto Gonzales.

But Benny's been a shill for this maladministration since his special election in 2004, and now he's reverting to form.

Look, I understand the importance of not eating our young, keeping the majority, red-state politics, blah, blah, blah.

But a vote that blatantly invites Smirky to shit on the Bill of Rights? An engraved invitation to declare himself dictator-for-life? When bush's disapproval rate is poised to exceed Nixon's? When republicans are running for the exits? When a significant majority of Americans trust DEMOCRATS more than republicans on the war on terror?

What. The. Fuck?

No, scratch that. I don't really care what slimy rationalizations float in Chandler's wingnut brain.

With Democrats like Chandler (and Nick Lampson and Henry Cuellar, the ungrateful bastards), what do we need with republicans?

We - real Democrats, liberals, progressive, members of the reality-based community, bush-haters all - WE got these assholes elected. WE handed them the House and the Senate.

WE brought them into this new Democratic world, and WE can take them out of it.

Next year, people will not only be looking for a way to punish republicans hard, they'll also be looking for a way to punish Democratic Collaborators.

2008 is going to be our best chance to not just grab huge majorities in both houses of Congress, but to replace Democratic Collaborators with Real Democrats.

Check out this vote roll to find out whether your Democratic representative is a collaborator. If he or she voted yes, start recruiting a primary opponent today.

Do it now, before voting Democratic makes you an enemy combatant, Guantanamo-bound.

I am extremely relieved and proud to announce that Louisville's own John Yarmuth, D-KY voted keep the Bill of Rights and deny Smirky a crown.

UPDATE, 6:42 p.m.: Logical Negativism has the full list of DINOs in the House.

There's more: "Takin' Names for 2008" >>

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid--August 3, 2007 Edition

All month we have been treated to the reemergence of al Qaeda, gut feelings, vague threats and most recently a fear mongering senator. Yesterday Minority Leader John Boehner revealed that earlier this year the FISA Court ruled part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program illegal.



The Washington Post explained this morning that a large percentage of the world's communications passes through communication switching stations in the United States. Earlier this year a FISA judge ruled that it was illegal for the government had "to broadly surveil communications," even if a phone call or email exchange starts in one foreign country passes through the United States and ends in another country. (I don't know what that means either, but I would guess "broadly surveil communications" means something like having a computer listen to all the phone calls and scan all the email from one country to another or at least one city to another.)

It is pretty clear the Administration and their lackeys in the media and the Republican house leadership are sending Democrats in Congress a simple message--give us more American freedoms or if we are attacked we will tell the world it is your fault.

It looks like the Democrats are more than willing to give the President what he wants. This morning the President announced:

The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has provided the Congress with a narrow and targeted piece of legislation that will close the gaps in intelligence. In other words, he's working on the Hill and he's told members this is what we need to do our job to protect the American people. It's the bare minimum the DNI said he needs to do his job. When Congress sends me their version, when Congress listens to all the data and facts and they send me a version of how to close those gaps, I'll ask one question, and I'm going to ask the DNI: Does this legislation give you what you need to prevent an attack on the country? Is this what you need to do your job, Mr. DNI? That's the question I'm going to ask. And if the answer is yes, I'll sign the bill. And if the answer is no, I'm going to veto the bill.

Everybody who expects the Decider to keep his word, put up your hand. No hands. Well at least you have learned something the last 6 plus years. According to TPMMuckraker

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), says that a deal had in fact been reached with McConnell, who has been busy lobbying Congress on a FISA update all week. "We had an agreement with DNI McConnell," Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards tells TPMmuckraker, "and then the White House quashed the agreement."

The real question is will Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid surrender all of our remaining Constitutional freedoms in a mad dash to avoid being labeled soft on terrorism while still getting out of town for their August vacation?

UPDATE: The the Huffington Post is reporting that Senate Democrats have just surrendered many of the remaining rights of free Americans to the Administration. What could they do? They had to go on vacation.

Pressure is mounting on Nancy Pelosi to go along with the Senate. In what could be taken as a veiled threat, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas said, "I hope that there are no attacks before we are able to effectively update this important act."

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control __ it's mind-boggling."

Can we just say no to Congressional Democrats when the ask for money?

There's more: "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid--August 3, 2007 Edition" >>

Sixty Nine Democrats and Ron Paul Write The President A Letter

Sixty Nine Democrats and Ron Paul have written the President a letter telling him they will not vote for any more money for Iraq not tied to withdrawing the troops. According to the Crypt's Blog at Politico.Com this is a big deal. Nancy Pelosi's grip over the mostly liberal Democrats is slipping.

Here is the letter:

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Blue Girl, Emanuel Cleaver is one of the determined Democrats.

There's more: "Sixty Nine Democrats and Ron Paul Write The President A Letter" >>