( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

A short time from now the House will adjourn for several weeks, as we put unfinished legislative business aside and head home for the rest of the summer. 

Tragically, but not surprisingly, we’re leaving Washington today without taking any meaningful steps toward reversing the Bush Administration’s disastrous Iraq policy.

There is no August recess for the young men and women who are deployed in Iraq, risking their lives for an ideological pipe dream hatched by people who haven’t sacrificed a single thing. 

Our soldiers will continue to do their jobs valiantly — even though they have been failed by their civilian superiors…even though they have been asked to occupy a nation that doesn’t want them there…even though they haven’t been properly trained or outfitted for their mission…even though they are caught in the crossfire of a brutal civil war that they are virtually powerless to stop. 

To date, 2,571 Americans have died in Iraq.  Thousands more have been wounded, physically or psychologically, such that their lives will never be the same.  And then there is the collateral damage — thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, who have given their lives for their own so-called liberation.

This November, American troops will have been in Iraq for as long as their grandfathers fought the Axis powers in World War II.  And there’s no end in sight.  The President has made it perfectly clear that he intends to occupy Iraq until the day he leaves the White House.  And now comes the announcement that we’re sending thousands more troops into Baghdad, many of whom were scheduled to go home.  But there’s little evidence that an increased military presence will quell the violence in the capital.  If anything, it will make it worse, like pouring gasoline on a fire.

I have been an outspoken opponent of the President’s Iraq policy from day one.  I voted against the war resolution.  A year and a half ago, I was one of the first to say it was time for the troops to come home, and I forced the first House vote to that effect.  When the oversight committees wouldn’t shine a spotlight on Iraq…I did, convening forums that explored exit strategies and highlighted the living conditions on the ground in Iraq.  When I first spoke up, mine was not a popular position.  But gradually, the American people and their elected representatives in this body have come to realize the folly of this war – the immorality of the doctrine that supports it…the lies that were told to sell it…and the incompetence that has characterized it. 

Polls consistently show that Americans want a timetable for withdrawal; don’t think the war was worth the cost; don’t think it’s stabilized the Middle East; and don’t think it’s made us safer from terrorism. 

But the President continues to hunker down, staying his own course of ignoring the writing on the wall and hiding behind platitudes and talking points.

I hesitate to even call Iraq a war.  The “war” — the effort to depose Saddam Hussein — ended in the spring of 2003 with the President’s showy announcement of “Mission Accomplished.” 

Everything since then has been an occupation, an occupation that we can’t win, an occupation that the American people never would have approved of and the Congress never voted on.

Given the false pretenses under which this body authorized force in Iraq, I believe it’s time to turn back the clock.  I think we deserve, with the benefit of hindsight, another crack at that vote. 

So, along with 20 of my colleagues, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 5875, called “The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006.”

It would reverse the fateful decision of nearly four years ago and allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority on matters of war and peace.  It would strip from the President the powers he has so shamelessly abused.

Passage of my bill would be the initial step toward ending the occupation. 

I don’t believe we should abandon Iraq, but the military option has failed spectacularly. 

We can and we should use diplomacy, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping tools to help Iraq on the road to long-term security and stability.  It’s time for us to be a reconstruction partner and not an occupying power. 

For the benefit of Iraqis and Americans…in the name of moral decency and national security…it’s time to bring our troops home.

The Field Poll released their survey on the infrastructure bonds propositions. With the exception of the affordable housing bond, the Yes’s lead No’s for all of the bonds.  However, only the Transportation Package (1B) currently has more than 50%.  So, in theory it’s touch and go on all of the propositions.  It’s rather funny that Arnold can’t get his own party behind these

Of course, the housing bond package was really more of a Dem proposition, and Arnold included it to encourage Democratic participation.  But to be truthful the man primarily responsible for the bonds is not Schwarzenegger, it’s Don Perata, who proposed a very similar bond package a year before Arnold.  I guess Arnold’s bully pulpit was just a lot bigger than Perata’s.

One thing that should also be pointed out here is the complete reluctance of Republicans in the state to spend money on anything.  They favor the transportation bonds, but that’s within the margin, and that benefits Republican voters immensely.  Other than that, GOP voters are against all of the bonds.  A majority of the roads that would get built would be within “red” areas of the state because of the tremendous growth in regions like the Central Valley.  The infrastucture of cities like Fresno and Bakersfield is just not even close to being acceptable for cities of their respective sizes.  Yet the average GOP voter refuses to pay.

I’m not really sure what the Republicans want.  They don’t want to finance debt to pay for infrastructure and they don’t want to raise taxes to pay for it, yet they have no problems wailing on the state government for the way it throws around money.  No, I think what this poll shows is the absolute intractability of the GOP.  They want it all, but want to not pay for it.  Listen, if that’s the way it worked, we’d all be running around throwing away gold and platinum like garbage.  But we’re not, are we?  The bills have to be paid somehow, and the GOP needs to figure out the rules of basic finance.  You pay for what you get, and righ now, it looks like what the GOP wants is some sort of third world infrastructure.  (I know, I know, I’m not supposed to use “third world” anymore…)

On the flip you will see (shortly) the beginnings of a Poll HQ for the Bond Package Props.

The Revolt of the Elders, the Pete McCloskey led movement to get primary challengers against corrupt republicans, has made a lasting impression upon the CA-11 race and Congressional elections in around the nation. On Wednesday, McCloskey wrote a letter arguing for the need of a Democratic majority in Congress and a McNerney win in CA-11.Here are some highlights:

It is clear that the forthcoming campaign will be a vicious one, with Mr. Pombo willing to stretch the truth as he has in the past with respect to the elderberry beetle, levee breaks, his steadfast opposition to veterans’ health care, including prosthetics research for amputees from Iraq and other wars, the impact on Marine lives of endangered species protection at Camp Pendleton and other issues. That Mr. Pombo lied in testimony to the Senate in 1994 is an accepted fact. He testified that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had designated his farm near Tracy as habitat for the endangered California kit fox. This was untrue, and Pombo admitted to the untruthfulness a few months later when questioned over public television, an agency for which he recently voted to cut federal funds. Such a man should not be allowed to be in charge of the nation’s public lands and waterways, a position to which he was elevated by the now-departed Tom DeLay.
***
There is another strong reason, I believe, for Republicans to work this fall for Democrat challengers against the DeLay-type Republicans like Pombo and Doolittle. That is the clear abdication by the House over the past five years of the Congress’ constitutional power and duty to exercise oversight over abuses of power, cronyism, incompetence and excessive secrecy on the part of the Executive Branch.

On the flip you will find the complete text of the letter that McCloskey wrote arguing for the need of a Democratic majority in Congress.  Hat tip to Seeing the Forest

  E NEED FOR A DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 2007

  I have found it difficult in the past several weeks to reach a conclusion as to what a citizen should do with respect to this fall’s forthcoming congressional elections. I am a Republican, intend to remain a Republican, and am descended from three generations of California Republicans, active in Merced and San Bernardino Counties as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have just engaged in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the Republican Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, in the 11th Congressional District Republican primary, obtaining just over 32% of the Republican vote against Pombo’s 62%.

  The observation of Mr. Pombo’s political consultant, Wayne Johnson, that I have been mired in the obsolete values of the 1970s, honesty, good ethics and balanced budgets, all rejected by today’s modern Republicans, is only too accurate.

  It has been difficult, nevertheless, to conclude as I have, that the Republican House leadership has been so unalterably corrupted by power and money that reasonable Republicans should support Democrats against DeLay-type Republican incumbents in 2006. Let me try to explain why.

  I have decided to endorse Jerry McNerney and every other honorable Democrat now challenging those Republican incumbents who have acted to protect former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who have flatly reneged on their Contract With America promise in 1994 to restore high standards of ethical behavior in the House and who have combined to prevent investigation of the Cunningham and Abramoff/Pombo/DeLay scandals. These Republican incumbents have brought shame on the House, and have created a wide-spread view in the public at large that Republicans are more interested in obtaining campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists than they are in legislating in the public interest.

  At the outset, let me say that in four months of campaigning I have learned that Jerry McNerney is an honorable man and that Richard Pombo is not. Mr. Pombo has used his position and power to shamelessly enrich his wife and family from campaign funds, has interfered with the federal investigation of men like Michael Hurwitz, he of the Savings & Loan frauds and ruthless clear-cutting of old growth California redwoods. Mr. Pombo has taken more money from Indian gaming lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates and Indian tribes interested in gaming than any other Member of Congress, in excess of $500,000. With his stated intent to gut the Endangered Species and Environmental Protection Acts, to privatize for development millions of acres of public land, including a number of National Parks, to give veto power to the Congress over constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court, his substantial contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund, and most particularly his refusal to investigate the Abramoff involvement in Indian gaming and the exploitation of women labor in the Marianas, both matters within the jurisdiction of his committee, Mr. Pombo in my view represents all that is wrong with the national government in Washington today.

  It is clear that the forthcoming campaign will be a vicious one, with Mr. Pombo willing to stretch the truth as he has in the past with respect to the elderberry beetle, levee breaks, his steadfast opposition to veterans’ health care, including prosthetics research for amputees from Iraq and other wars, the impact on Marine lives of endangered species protection at Camp Pendleton and other issues. That Mr. Pombo lied in testimony to the Senate in 1994 is an accepted fact. He testified that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had designated his farm near Tracy as habitat for the endangered California kit fox. This was untrue, and Pombo admitted to the untruthfulness a few months later when questioned over public television, an agency for which he recently voted to cut federal funds.
  Such a man should not be allowed to be in charge of the nation’s public lands and waterways, a position to which he was elevated by the now-departed Tom DeLay.

  Some 18 months ago, my former law partner, Lewis Butler, an Assistant Secretary of HEW in the Nixon Administration and subsequently the distinguished Chair of California Tomorrow and the Plowshares Foundation, and I initiated an effort we called The Revolt of the Elders. All of us were retired and in the latter years of Social Security entitlement. Most of us were Republicans who had served in the Congress or in former Republican administrations with men like Gerry Ford, John Rhodes, Bob Michel, Elliot Richardson, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and the president’s father, George H. W. Bush, all men of impeccable integrity and ethics.

  We had become appalled at the House Republican leadership’s decision in early 2005 to effectively emasculate the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by changing the rules to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay had been admonished three times by the Committee for abuse of power and unethical conduct. It was our hope to persuade Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership, of which Northern California Congressman Richard Pombo and John Doolittle were prominent members, to rescind the rules changes and to act in accord with the promise of high ethical standards contained in Speaker Gingrich’s Contract With America which brought the Republicans majority control in 1994. We failed. Letters to the Speaker from an increasing number of former Republican Members were ignored and remained unanswered. Then, only a few weeks ago, the House leadership refused to allow even a vote on what could have become an effective independent ethics monitor. Instead of repudiating the infamous “Pay to Playâ€? program put in place by DeLay to extract maximum corporate campaign contributions to “Retain Our Majority Partyâ€? (ROMP), DeLay’s successor as Majority Leader called for a continuance of the free luxury airline trips, mammoth campaign contributions to the so-called “Leadership PACsâ€? and the continuing stalemate on the Ethics Committee. Strangely, even after the guilty pleas of Abramoff, Duke Cunningham and a number of former House staffers who had been sent to work for Abramoff and other lobbyists. The Republican House leaders don’t see this as corruption worthy of investigation or change. That their former staff members and Abramoff were granted preference in access to the legislative process is not seen as a problem if it helps Republicans retain control of the House. It reminds one of the contentions of Haldeman and Ehrlichman long ago that the national security justified wire-tapping and burglary of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office and the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate. Republicans are happy with this new corporate lobby/House complex, which is far more dangerous that the Industry/Defense complex we were long ago warned about by President Eisenhower.

  I have therefore reluctantly concluded that party loyalty should be set aside, and that it is in the best interests of the nation, and indeed the future of the Republican Party itself, to return control of the House to temporary Democrat control, if only to return the House for a time to the kind of ethics standards practiced by Republicans in former years. I say reluctantly, having no great illusion that Democrats or any other kind of politician will long resist the allure of campaign funds and benefits offered by the richest and most profitable of the Halliburtons, oil companies, tobacco companies, developers and Indian gaming tribes whose contributions so heavily dominate the contributions to Congressmen Pombo and Doolittle.

  As an aside, it seems to me that the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals make it timely for the Congress to consider public matching funds for small contributions to congressional candidates, the same type of system we adopted some time ago for presidential elections. It may be cheaper for the taxpayer to fund congressional elections than to bear the cost of lobbyist-controlled legislation like the recent Medicaid/Medicare drug bill.

  There is another strong reason, I believe, for Republicans to work this fall for Democrat challengers against the DeLay-type Republicans like Pombo and Doolittle. That is the clear abdication by the House over the past five years of the Congress’ constitutional power and duty to exercise oversight over abuses of power, cronyism, incompetence and excessive secrecy on the part of the Executive Branch. When does anyone remember House Committee hearings to examine into the patent failures of the Bush Administration to adhere to laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or to the arrogant refusal of the President to accept the congressionally-enacted limits on torture of prisoners? When can anyone remember the House’s use of the subpoena power to compel answers from Administration officials? Why have there been no oversight hearings into the Cunningham bribery affair or Abramoff’s Indian gaming and exploitation of women labor in the Marianas?

  When three former congressional staff aides join Abramoff in pleading guilty to attempting to bribe Congressmen, and a fourth takes the 5th Amendment rather than answer Senator McCain’s questions about his relationship with Abramoff and Indian gaming, with all five having given substantial campaign contributions to Mr. Pombo, with Indian tribes alone having given more than $500,000 to Pombo, would it not seem reasonable to ask him to conduct an appropriate oversight committee
  Hearing into these matters, as long demanded by members of both parties, notably including his neighbor, George Miller?

  For all of these reasons, I believe and hope that the Republicans who voted for me on June 6 will vote for Mr. McNerney and against Mr. Pombo in November.

  The checks and balances of our Constitution are an essential part of our system of government, as is the public faith that can be obtained only by good ethical conduct on the part of our elected leaders.

  If the Republicans in the House won’t honor these principles, then the Democrats should be challenged to do so. And if they decline to exercise that privilege, we can turn them out too. I appreciate that I had serious deficiencies as a candidate, and that four months of campaigning and the expenditure of $500,000 of the funds contributed by old friends and supporters were unsuccessful in convincing Republicans of the 11th District to end the continuing corruption in Washington. I hope, however, to partially redeem my electoral failure by working, as a simple private citizen, to rekindle a Republican sense of civic duty to participate in the electoral process this fall. The goal of The Revolt of the Elders was and is to educate voters to the need for a return of ethics and honesty in Washington. That goal was right 18 months ago, and seems even more worthwhile today.

  Pete McCloskey, Dublin, California. July 26, 2006