Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA9], proved she has a backbone when in 2001 she stood up against war and became the only member of congress to vote “No” on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), and she was oh so right.
Now, Barbara has again taken the lead in trying to stop the insane decision to expand and escalate the war in Afghanistan. Her bill, H.R. 3699 “To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan,” has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Link: http://www.govtrack.us/congres…
Cosponsors:
Yvette Clarke [D-NY11] Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO5] Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
John Conyers [D-MI14] Donna Edwards [D-MD4] Keith Ellison [D-MN5]
Bob Filner [D-CA51] Alan Grayson [D-FL8] Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7]
Maurice Hinchey [D-NY22] Michael Honda [D-CA15] Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18] Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10] John Lewis [D-GA5] James McDermott [D-WA7]
James McGovern [D-MA3] Jerrold Nadler [D-NY8] Fortney Stark [D-CA13] Edolphus Towns [D-NY10] Nydia Velázquez [D-NY12]Maxine Waters [D-CA35]
Diane Watson [D-CA33] Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]
As you can see, MOST of our 53 California representatives have NOT signed onto the bill. No Waxman. No Berman. No Sherman. No Schiff. Just those heroes in bold above are on this short list. CONTACT your representative to ask that they co-sponsor and support this important legislation to take back the war powers as in our constitution. And thank those who have signed on.
Here’s the link to the committee: http://www.govtrack.us/congres… The Democratic Chair is Rep. Ike Skelton [D-MO4] with the ranking Republican member Rep. Howard McKeon [R-CA25] (Santa Clarita and east), Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA52], and the TWO DEMOCRATS from CA:
Rep. Susan Davis [D-CA53] (San Diego) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA47] (Garden Grove-Santa Ana).
Please CONTACT these people on the committee right away and ask that this bill be brought to a vote immediately. With the impending announcement coming from Obama, there is no time to lose.////
Here’s an email I received recently from a person who refused to help American Combat Veterans of War because a few Democratic politicians were listed on our website as supporters, even though just as many Republicans support our mission as Democrats. For background, ACVOW is a San Diego based nonprofit that recruits combat veteran volunteers to mentor our young warriors, helping them cope with combat stress. ACVOW’s response follows. It’s a bit lengthy, but I hope you read it.
Dear Sir;
Yesterday, outside of a Stater Bros. store a gentleman from your organization was soliciting signatures for a ballot. This is not a problem, and your program is probably worthwhile. However, the persons endorsing your program, in my opinion, are a not good representatives to promote your cause. If Bob Filner & Susan Davis lent their support or name to any organization I would never contribute any amount of money. I would not ask any friends or relatives to contribute either because Filner and Davis, in my opinion, are disasterous for San Diego and CA. When I saw their names I knew immediately that I would not contribute. There are others that believe differently, but I do know that there are many who also believe as I do.
Regards,
Libby
Libby:
Yes, I remember speaking with you and frankly, I apologize for losing my demeanor. It was unprofessional for me to do so. Frustrated with the ease at which many people dismiss our young warriors with a wave of their hand, I had lost my patience when you suggested American Combat Veterans of War was not a legitimate organization simply from our support by certain public officials.
Under the surface of our great young warriors lurks an enemy for which many lack the training to fight. Having served our country on the battlefield, they are rewarded with an economy that has little room for them and trauma that continues to haunt. The combat veteran volunteers of ACVOW have been mentoring and healing our young warriors suffering from combat stress since 2001. Our presence at supermarkets is to remind our community of the sacrifices our troops continue to make for our country on and off the battlefield. If I have spoiled anyone’s shopping experience by asking for a signature, be certain that I lose no sleep over it.
Many people want the freedom to go to the market without being pestered by petitioners. In our case, however, it is the very men and women requesting signatures that have given us that freedom. I am sure you would agree that American combat veterans have sacrificed considerably for America and yet, rather than spend their weekends at picnics or summer barbeques, our volunteers choose to stand their post with clipboards ready, to remind you that without commitment, the faded yellow ribbon on the back of your Chevy Tahoe remains an empty gesture.
It is unfortunate that some Americans cannot remove their personal political prejudices from our national interest to ensure our young warriors are treated with the dignity and honor they have earned. You will not contribute to ACVOW because Bob Filner, Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives and a Democrat, has endorsed our work. You will not contribute to ACVOW because Susan Davis, Chair of the Personnel Subcommittee for the House Armed Services Committee and a Democrat, recognizes us as an asset to our young warriors. We gladly and enthusiastically accept their recognition of our services as we do with Congressman Brian Bilbray and Mayor Jerry Sanders as well as City Council members Kevin Faulconer and Carl De Maio, all conservatives. Your decision not to support us says more about you and the political climate reverberating from partisan politics than it does about the legitimacy of American Combat Veterans of War.
Are you so uncompromising with your political rivals that even our warriors must suffer from the ideological fallout? I hope yours is not a common position as you suggest and that the contentious partisan divide that has beleaguered the debate on health care does not creep its way into care for the treatment of our troops.
American Combat Veterans of War is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and by law, completely nonpolitical. That does not mean our individual members do not embrace their own political beliefs, however. You may be surprised to know that even as veterans, we are evenly divided, Democrats to Republicans, in our group. On our own time we enjoy political discourse over a beer or two like everyone else, but when it comes to our mission and care for our troops, politics plays no role whatsoever, allowing us to effectively help thousands of young warriors. May America heed such a lesson.
As I write this-indeed this very moment-our Camp Pendleton Marines are fighting courageously in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, protecting people for which they share almost no common interest, just so they have the freedom to vote at the polls-a luxury you and I may have taken for granted at times in our lives. And yet, when these kids return from the battlefield as changed men and women, suffering from an invisible wound with which they will struggle the rest of their lives, you refuse to contribute, not because of our political views, but because of your own.
The Veterans Administration estimates that twenty percent of our military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer from some level of post traumatic stress. We believe that estimate to be far too conservative. It is not too late for you to help them, Libby. You can make a contribution at www.acvow.org and you do not have to compromise your political beliefs to do so. You just need the courage and wisdom to rise above them to see our warriors in need. May God bless them all.
As the news comes in on the indictment of Series of Tubes Ted Stevens, it’s instructive to take a look back at who the Yacht Party in California allows to speak for them as “leaders”. First we have Sheriff Michael Carona, “America’s Sheriff,” who is apparently more than just a run-of-the-mill corrupt public official, but actually deeply vulgar, venal and unethical, even by the standards of the GOP – but also weirdly representative of a certain level of corruption in the OC.
His attorneys are asking a federal judge to prevent a future jury from hearing secretly recorded tapes of Carona snarling racial epithets, referring vulgarly to women and boasting of both sexual and political prowess.
“I mean, I’ve met millionaires, billionaires, and I’ve traveled on personal airplanes . . . drank great wine and, you know, had great booze and had some, you know, phenomenal [sex] along the way,” Carona told his longtime patron, an auto auction magnate who was wearing a wire. “I’m the most lethal [expletive] in politics in Orange County.”
The revelations have disappointed but not quite shocked Orange County, where the sensibility enshrined at Anaheim’s Disneyland long has informed local politics, as well. Each invests heavily in an idealized, lavishly financed and fervently polished vision of Americana that few appear to accept as entirely real in the first place […]
Before Carona’s public disgrace, a superior court judge last year was sentenced to 27 months for possession of child pornography. The founder of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, located behind white wrought-iron curlicues in Costa Mesa, paid $425,000 to suppress an account of an alleged homosexual encounter. The Orange County Register reported that the Justice Department is investigating the county treasurer for allegedly diverting funds from a bankrupt trucking company to pay for Botox.
(the party affiliations of these officials have been strangely expunged. Thanks Washington Post!)
And this behavior is not limited to Orange County (flip it)…
In San Bernardino, Bill Postmus was a young chair of the GOP who delivered a string of victories in the early part of the decade. Now he’s taking a conveniently timed leave of absence:
Last week, Postmus announced that he’s taking a leave of absence from his elected post as county assessor because of unspecified medical problems.
He’s been under scrutiny lately. A former top aide faces six felony charges, and a district attorney’s investigation is ongoing. The assessor’s office also was the subject of a critical grand jury report released last month.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party, which as recently as two years ago held a five-figure registration advantage over Democrats in San Bernardino County, is clinging to a one-half percentage point lead.
Leaders are working to distance themselves from the party as it was under Postmus — one critic said he ran it like a personal fiefdom focused on his own political goals. Fundraising, which slowed at the end of Postmus’ three-year stint, has flatlined.
From what I hear, the indictment is imminent.
Then there’s the bizarre case of Delecia Holt, a would-be challenger to Rep. Susan Davis.
Holt, who ended up not appearing on the ballot in June, may have been a phantom. She claimed support from the powerful Lincoln Club and $200,000 in contributions. But nothing materialized.
Holt, 46, ended up not filing to appear on the ballot. The Lincoln Club says she’s not a member in either Orange County or San Diego. The District Attorney’s Office is looking into her real estate dealings. She owes $32,000 in toll road penalties. Three nonprofits have complained about her use of their names for fundraisers in which they were not involved.
And the $216,000 she reported raising?
The Register wrote each of the 217 donors at the addresses listed on Holt’s federal financial filings, inquiring about their donations. Not a single one responded that they had supported the would-be candidate.
The Register heard back from eight of the listed donors – all said they had not given Holt money, and six said they’d never heard of her.
“We aren’t in a position to be giving money to anybody,” said Vista’s Jill Granquist, who is listed as having contributed $2,000, but whose financial straits led to losing her home to foreclosure in March. “I’ve never heard of her, but this makes me kind of curious.”
I’ll be fair and say that there are loony tune fringe candidates like this in every party. But given the sorry state of the GOP, what’s sad is that a con artist like Holt feels right at home. It’s almost sad to see how low these people have sunk. Except I then consider their agenda, and it’s not sad at all.
They’re not two of my favorite California Congresswoman. But their leadership on repealing don’t ask don’t tell comes to a head with a hearing today, chaired by Davis.
Democrats in Congress hope to ignite a drive to reverse the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Wednesday with the first hearing on the subject since 1993, when President Clinton said gays could serve in uniform if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation.
Without this hearing, said former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, “you will never repeal the law. It’s a great idea.” He is among more than 50 retired generals and admirals who have said it is time to rethink the policy […]
Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee tried to have a hearing on the policy in April 2007, but opposition from conservatives in their party sank the idea.
Since then, “There’s another year in the war,” says Rep. Susan Davis, a California Democrat who chairs the military personnel subcommittee. “We want to start a conversation” that could put the issue on a front burner again.
Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, the lead sponsor of a bill to repeal the policy, said she knows what military leaders would say if they testified.
“The military leadership will tell you that this is the law they’ve been given to operate under and that’s what they do,” she says, “which is a very different question of off-line and off-the-record, ‘Personally, admiral, what do you think?’ That’s the only way they could answer … differently.”
The Pentagon may be ducking this hearing, but they can’t hide from public opinion. Over 75 percent of Americans would like to see DADT repealed. The arguments about “unit cohesion” have been shown to be ridiculous, and the case of Arabic translators being fired for being gay have highlighted not only the absurdity of this policy, but the national security harm it’s actually doing.
The most fitting part of all of this is that Larry Craig supports Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Yeah, he would, wouldn’t he? I’m sure he’d love to change the title to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Just Tap Three Times,” but then…
UPDATE: Rep. Patrick Murphy (from my hometown) had a great hearing. He kicked a little butt today. Video on the flip:
Yesterday Mike Copass and incumbent Susan Davis participated in a debate hosted by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. They are candidates for the Congressional seat in the 53rd district of California, my district. The hour-long event at the Joyce Beers Center was very well attended – standing room only – and it was a great debate.
I didn’t take notes – and I should have – but below the fold are the points I can remember.
I don’t know if “full disclosure” is called for, but I’ll try to describe my association with Mike. I don’t have any position on his campaign, but I’m a supporter and have come to know him better over the course of the campaign. I consider him a friend. I have long been impressed with his clearheadedness, his courage, and his attention to detail, but in yesterday’s debate he revealed even greater mastery than I already knew him to have. My overall, admittedly biased, impression was that where Representative Davis spoke in generalities and evasions, Mike had specifics – in terms of the facts of the issues, the legislative context, and his positions.
It is very much to the credit of Susan Davis that she agreed to participate in the debate – one thing I have admired about her in the past is her willingness, with frequent Town Meetings, to face her constituents and defend her votes and positions. She had nothing to gain, really, by this debate; as the incumbent she only lends legitimacy to her challenger by giving him this forum. Both candidates showed class, showed respect for the other, and that made this serious debate about serious issues focus almost entirely on the issues, on the record, and not on personal attacks. Mike did point out Susan’s voting record and the contributions she’s received from Titan Corp. I (with my acknowledged bias) felt that was entirely appropriate.
The question that most struck me was whether the candidates would end military recruitment in high schools. Mike’s answer was an unequivocal Yes – and that we shouldn’t have shooting ranges on our high school campuses, as are already (I think) present on some San Diego schools; Susan’s was a tempered No, that somehow we need to fill the military and while there should be rules about it, the rules should allow our schools to be used to prime the cannon fodder pump (my words, not hers, of course).
The war machine, the Congressional military industrial complex, and our illegal occupation of Iraq (Afghanistan was shouted out by someone in the crowd, too, but it didn’t reach the mics) were probably the dominant subjects of the debate. Susan is proud to have voted against the use of force resolution, and conflicted, but still proud, of her support for so many war funding resolutions – she considers herself to be “supporting the troops” by these votes (this statement brought a rare chorus of boos from the audience, which had been enjoined by the moderator to keep quiet so we could have more time for the debate). With respect to ending the war, she expressed hope that the new administration would turn things around. It was odd, too, the circumlocution by which she said (or didn’t say) it will be President Obama: as best I can remember, her words were, “of course we all hope it will be one of two candidates, and I think we all know which of those two candidates it’s looking like it’s going to be.” That, to me, in a nutshell reveals just how unwilling she is to take a position that might offend someone. But that’s not the point; the point is that she seems to consider the continuation or termination of the Iraq occupation to be a question for the Executive branch – despite her steady votes of support for its funding.
Mike, of course, explained that he supports ending our illegal occupation of Iraq and understands the role of Congress in bringing that about.
Both candidates support a woman’s right to choose and stem cell research; there was not a lot to differentiate them on these issues. As a microbiologist, Mike arguably has significantly better credentials on the stem cell question, but Susan’s answer was quite correct and heartfelt, referring to a family member who might have been helped by such research.
One question asked for specific projects for the San Diego area; I’m sorry, but the only answer I remember is Mike’s support for a public park to take the place of the Naval Training Center; this is a rather pointed contrast with Susan, who supports turning the property over to a developer for commercial development.
Specifics were again asked for with regard to policy to fight global warming. Mike talked about Kyoto and Jim Bell’s plan to make San Diego energy independent. I’m sorry to say I have forgotten Susan’s response.
I am sorry I did not take notes; it would be better to have more specifics to share with you. I came away with strong impressions: of a defensive, misguided incumbent and a very well prepared challenger. The audience certainly was on Mike’s side, and I think that most people watching the debate would be compelled to consider him, not just the superior debater, but the person better qualified for office. I hope more voters in this district will have the opportunity to watch the debate. Please join me in contributing to Mike’s campaign; the primary election is June 3rd and he could use all the help you can give him.
I have been holding off writing to Susan Davis, my local superdelegate, but after what Hillary Clinton said yesterday, I finally had to let it out. Here is the text of my letter to Rep. Davis:
May 24, 2008
Susan Davis for Congress
PO Box 84049
San Diego, CA 92138 Via Facsimile
Re: Superdelagate Endorsement
Dear Congresswoman Davis:
I write to you as my member of Congress and as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention. I strongly suggest that you endorse a candidate for President of the United States now.
It is my understanding that there are three positions that you and the other superdelegates have taken in this election: those who have endorsed a candidate; those who have declared their intention to vote for the winner of the most pledged delegates; and those who have made no endorsement. It appears you fall into the third group.
Recent developments in the presidential campaign have, in my view, made it absolutely necessary that you and the other superdelegates declare your intention as soon as possible. Specifically, Senator Clinton’s remarks about her staying in the race, juxtaposed with a reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968, are simply beyond the level of decency I expect from a Democratic candidate. Further, any attempt on her part to explain them as a mistake are unconvincing to say the least; as she has made such a comment on at least one other occasion in March to a Time magazine editor.
I want to say that I will respect your decision as to whom you will support; the party rules have reposed such discretion in you and your conscience, and I will leave it to you to exercise such discretion whether or not I agree with you. However, the Democratic Party can no longer wait and watch as this internecine battle winds down. In order for Senator Clinton to win the pledged delegates, she would have to win well over 100% of those delegates to be awarded in the remaining primary contests and caucuses.
I have supported you in Congress since you got there, but I feel that I am witness to a disturbing lack of alacrity on your part for both your Congressional and political duties. I have been rather unimpressed with your legislative accomplishments with regard to the core duties and powers of Congress as set forth in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Let me point out, for example, that you were on the Veterans’ Subcommittee for years while conditions deteriorated at Walter Reed and other VA hospitals, yet I am unaware of any statement from you regarding those conditions until they became public in late 2006. Walter Reed Hospital is only a short distance from Capitol Hill. Based on the conditions I saw in the news, they should have been obvious to anyone who had visited the place. I would think that you even more than others, being that your husband was a military physician, would have made an effort to visit that hospital.
Further, I note that going into the second primary election this year, you do not have a functioning campaign website. The page asks viewers to “bear with you” while it is being updated. I must ask: what is the holdup?
This is a disturbing trend. Now, as the Democratic Party needs unity, and Senator Clinton seems bent on destroying it, you again “sit on the sidelines.”
It is time for the party to begin to move on to the general election. John McCain is being given a “free ride” to do as he pleases, in spite of his daily gaffes, flip-flops, and shockingly bad positions, such as his cowardly abdication of any leadership on the new G.I. Bill. He says he opposes the Webb bill, but would rather be fundraising rather than vote either for or against it. The Democrats simply cannot let him get away with it any longer.
I urge you to do the simplest of things, even though it will take courage. Please publically endorse a presidential candidate now.
Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry’s 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she’s still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.
For all of you CA-45 fans, “moderate” Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she’s still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.
On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she’s being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.
(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.
100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry
I’m guessing that at tonight’s Calitics’ Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house — wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.
House Yea
Joe Baca (CA-43)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Tom Lantos (CA-12)
Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
Grace Napolitano (CA-38)
Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)
Nay
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Howard Berman (CA-28)
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Barbara Lee (CA-9)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Doris Matsui (CA-5)
George Miller (CA-7)
Linda Sanchez (CA-39)
Brad Sherman (CA-27)
Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-33)
Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
(worth being frontpaged. Also, Jerry McNerney, Jane Harman, Adam Schiff, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Jim Costa, Laura Richardson, Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez, Mike Thompson, Tom Lantos, Dennis Cardoza, Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr, Ellen Tauscher, and Grace Napolitano voted to tell the progressive movement to STFU. So replace Davis’ name with any of them. – promoted by David Dayen)
In a direct slap in the face to anyone who’s ever felt that free speech or the right to protest the government are, you know, Constitutional imperatives, Susan Davis voted today to condemn the Petraeus/Betray us MoveOn ad. That’s what your congress is doing. Not ending a war. Not passing a law that will make people healthier, wealthier, wiser, or safer. Spitting on free speech. Thank you to Bob Filner and the 79 Democrats who stood with him for getting this vote right, and no thanks to the 195 Republicans and the 145 other Democrats in the House who joined Susan Davis in telling the nation to sit down, shut up, and leave governance to the grownups without passionate public input. If you think MoveOn was disrespectful to the troops by running an ad in the New York Times Ms. Davis, where exactly does paying for the troops to get shot at rank?
It’s time to get angry. Congress is telling people what they’re supposed to say and not say. I don’t remember learning about that congressional duty in government class.
