Breaking: Congress Accomplished Something

Here's an interesting little article from the Washington Independent on how Jim Webb's GI Bill, without fanfare, came back from the political brink and will quietly become law -- despite the best efforts of the usually-decisive Blue Dog caucus. This is kind of heartening, both because the Blue Dogs suck, and because the new GI Bill is a great piece of legislation that will help innumerable military families and add a much-needed patch to our unraveling social safety net.

But it makes you think -- what else has this Congress, which in 2006 ostensibly was going right to work in rolling back conservative policies, actually accomplished? Other than that hike in the minimum wage, which came immediately after Pelosi and Reid took power, they've done nothing that I can think of. We all know that Blue Dogs, and their Republican pals, have been obstructing most major legislation (especially anything serious on Iraq), but surely after a year and a half there'd be some incremental progress we can point to, right? Is it hiding somewhere?

Sarbanes Preview

So John Sarbanes is coming this Saturday! Yay! 5:30 P.M. in Ticknor Lounge.

He is a really kick ass Congressman. Here are a couple of highlights from his Freshman Term that point the intellect and integrity that make people so optimistic about his future.

First, (this made the daily show), he throws down on Bush appointee Lurita Doan about grammar! grammar! He is breaking out the "future pluperfect" and "hortatory subjunctive" in the middle of an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

Awesome.

Second, this is his speech against the troop surge back in February.

It is one of the more eloquent articulation of a solid Democratic position on the issue that I have heard. Especially with the whole "Respecting ROTC" thing going down right now, this is a good example of how Democrats should talk about the military. That is why he is considered a rising star in the Democratic Party.

Be there on Saturday! 5:30, Ticknor Lounge, FREE GREEK FOOD

Maryland Politics Update (Martin O'Malley is sexy)

The first Congressional District in Maryland (the eastern shore, basically glorified Delaware) is competitive for the first time in over a decade. Wayne Gilchrest, a eccentric moderate Republic known for his strong support of the environment and his lack of hair; was defeated by a uber conservative state senator Andy Harris in the primary.

But Harris does admire Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley. But not for his policies. For his hot, sexy body.

Harris expressed his appreciation for O'Malley's physical prowess in a recent debate.

He is young and definitely a rising star in the party. Supposedly he also really wants to come to Harvard. Gala guest?

Telecom Immunity, Round II

I'll heed Markus's call and take this opportunity to pen an update on the prospect that our Congressional Democrats will sell out the judicial process in exchange for some campaign contributions and Feeling Important. The large media coverage of this whole travesty has been pretty close to zilch, so I've been getting most of my information from Glenn Greenwald and TPMMuckraker. For starters, let's just look at what Reid said on the floor of the Senate the other day:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

Normally I would be over-joyed to have Reid say something like that, because it's exactly what progressive Dems have been asking him to do pretty much since the beginning of this Congressional term. But up until now, Reid has been either 1) too a-scared that people would think bad things about him, or 2) too a-scared that his Republican pals would snub him at the lunch table in the Senate cafeteria. 

And now here's Chris Dodd--probably, at this point, the Senator I respect most--and Reid has chosen this moment to stand up for majority rule. And that's not all. Glenn Greenwald:

As I noted in my post yesterday, Reid had the audacity to send his spokesman, Jim Manley, to falsely claim to the New York Times that "Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill" -- even though the exact opposite is true. Reid is engaged in at least as much maneuvering to ensure that Bush and Cheney get what they want here as McConnell would be willing to do if he were the Majority Leader.

Go to Greenwald's site to read the transcript of an obviously-scripted exchange (one might say collusion) between Reid and his ostensible adversary Mitch McConnell. 

And just today, this:

Ending months of resistance, the White House has agreed to give House members access to secret documents about its warrantless wiretapping program, a congressional official said Thursday.

The Bush administration is trying to convince the House to protect from civil lawsuits the telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without the approval of a court. Congress created the court 30 years ago to oversee such activities.

House Intelligence and Judiciary committee members and staff will begin reading the documents at the White House Thursday, said an aide to Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

On the surface this seems fine, of course, but we should know from experience by now that we can't count on the Bush administration to turn over any truly incriminating documents; more likely they 'recycled' them, "consistent with industry best practices," but inconsistent with the law. And this disclosure is part of a deal--at least the appearance of Congressional oversight in exchange for votes on immunity. 

When this, or some other less clearly ludicrous but equally effective form of immunity passes the Congress, it's going to be a sad day. I agree with what seems to be a widespread sentiment: we need more and better Democrats. And I think that 'better' should probably come before 'more.'  No one should be afraid of primary challenges.

Double bonus: Hastert resigns

Adding to the joy of Trent Lott resigning today, Dennis Hastert announced his resignation today. (Thanks, Audrey!)

I don't really know why he resigned, but it appears that he's going to dedicate his post-Congress career to himself:

Hastert said he had no immediate career plans, but said he expects to devote time to the creation of the Hastert Center for Economics, Government and Public Policy at Wheaton College, his alma mater. The school also will house a special library collection of his congressional papers.

Anyway, there's a day of celebration for you.

(heavy sigh)

WASHINGTON -- For the second straight day, minority House Republicans ground the House to a standstill Wednesday as they drove home their objections to a Democratic plan to deny a floor vote on lawmakers' thousands of pet projects.

Public anger over the surging number of special member projects called earmarks -- derided as pork barrel spending -- was a factor in the Republicans' loss of House control last November, GOP members concede, and now they say they've gotten religion on the need for openness in government.

Emphasis, of course, on "now".

...About 90% of the raving about pork-barrel spending is bullshit; these are mostly just projects that, however obscure, genuinely benefit people and cost little in the broad scheme of things. Sure, there are extreme examples -- see Bridge to Nowhere -- but for the most part these are things like municipal buildings, offices, public events, aid programs for needy subgroups, research funding, etc. The vast majority of them are respectable. And lawmakers know that.

But they're a hot issue with the public, because nobody likes to hear that their tax dollars are being wasted. Never mind that the vast majority of earmarks are for perfectly legitimate public use; at any moment some pissant congressional candidate, TV commentator or blogger can yell "Hey! You're paying for such-and-such boondoggle!" and next thing you know it's Fiscal Conservatism time again. Give me a break! Going from particular bits of congressional overspending to a sweeping criticism of spending as a whole is like saying "professional wrestling sucks, so let's ban all televised sports." But this is the caliber of political debate today.

Criticizing "earmarks" in general is the pinnacle of easy political bullshit -- Democrats have been guilty of this too -- and it's time we spoke honestly about it. I like government spending and I'm not afraid to say it. How about you?

At Least It's Something

I can't write at length, because I'm in Canada and my internet connection is borderline useless. You think your dialup is slow? You ain't seen nothing. I'm pretty sure every packet of data this computer receives is being read and relayed individually by a beehive-haired switchboard operator named Mavis. (Hi, Mavis!) Ah, summer.

But I do want to offer some consolation amid the smoking heap of worthlessness that is our Democratic Congress. Yes, we blatantly capitulated on Iraq timetables, handing the president yet another blank check to send soldiers into the meat grinder; yes, Harry Reid sounds like a buffoon on the radio saying we're going to "continue pushing" or whatever it is, even though we've already done everything but hand the president our balls on a silver platter; and yes, the White House is suddenly NOW considering a plan to seriously cut deployment, which if effected would give them political cover to take credit for ending the war and kneecap Democrats' whole 2008 election effort. These are not exactly good developments. In fact, one could reasonably argue that we have been played like a goddamn fiddle.

HOWEVER. There is another story: you may not have heard, but we raised the minimum wage. Tucked into the bottom of that voluminous Iraq bill was a provision hiking the federal minimum wage by $2.10/hr, to $7.25, which affects 5.6 million people in 22 states. We've been fighting for this for a long time; while it sucks to attain it under these circumstances, the fact is that Democrats helped a lot of people this week. For the first time in 10 years, our workers are going to get some relief. Naturally behind the Iraq thing it's not getting a lot of press, but then the good stuff never does.

So give a little credit to our friends in Washington. Sure, they might be a bunch of spineless cockstains, but they're our spineless cockstains and they're working their hearts out for the good of the American people -- finally, with concrete results. This is progress.

--

Hope everyone's exams went well, and congrats to our departing seniors. Keep reading Dem Apples over the summer; if it's anything like last year, we'll be updating just sporadically enough that new posts will be a pleasant surprise. Also expect them to be even more irrelevant and poorly-conceived than usual, if that's possible. (By August it'll probably just be nudie pics.) Happy Memorial Day!

Double Take

So I was reading RedState, as I often do before bed. (The stupidity is so overwhelming that my brain just quits, and then I can sleep like a baby! Better than Lunesta!) And amid the usual mind-blowing absurdities (apparently a "McCain-Lieberman ticket would bring back the majority support for the war"), my interest was caught by one piece: a post titled "The Democrats' Reality Crisis". Frontpaged. Here's the argument:

Speaker Pelosi has said that she feels “sad” that the President says al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Just last week, Steny Hoyer said “The Administration and Congressional Republicans now disingenuously claim that the fight in Iraq is primarily against al-Qaeda,” before back peddling in front of another audience. Senator Harry Reid has said (what hasn’t Harry Reid said?), “We have to change course [away from Iraq] and turn our attention back to the war on al-Qaeda and their allies.” And John Murtha has said, “We cannot win this… al-Qaeda is a small part of this.” The current issue of the New Republic takes a deeper look into their troubling words.

People across America should call their offices and ask whether they actually believe the claims they are making – because if they claim that they do - one of two things must be true. They are either intentionally misleading Americans about the reality in Iraq for political gain or they haven’t a clue about what is actually going on the ground in Iraq.

OK, fair enough, RedState. You contend that Democrats, in arguing that Al Qaeda is not the primary problem in Iraq, are incorrect. I presume that after the jump you'll provide evidence for this interesting claim?

Are they are so far removed from the reality of the world we live in that they think al-Qaeda is an entity that operates in dozens of other nations in the world except in the place that Osama Bin Laden has called “the center of the war” with America?

It is being reported that the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, has been killed today. Do these Democrats think al-Masri wasn’t really operating in Iraq, he was just vacationing there? Their statements beg the question.

We have young men and women paying the ultimate price for freedom in Iraq, fighting a battle against radical Islam for our children the future of our nation. Meanwhile, the Democrat majorities in Congress – knowing that they can’t force the President and Republicans in Congress to surrender in Iraq - are simply trying to score political points with their liberal base by exploiting the most serious threat to freedom loving nations on earth.

Um... well, leaving aside the note that al-Masri may not be dead after all, I feel obligated to point out that Democrats aren't arguing that Al Qaeda is not in Iraq. In fact one of our key arguments against the war is that it exacerbates the terrorist problem in Iraq. Just read the quotes above, for heaven's sake, and you'll note that they describe Al Qaeda as a "small" part of the conflict -- our focus is on the fact that Iraq contains issues greater than and separate from Islamist terrorism (viz: civil war), a fact that goes entirely uncontested in the piece. Which renders the whole thing nonsensical.

Basically, this is a blatant straw-man argument that doesn't even stand up to the immediate scrutiny of a sleep-deprived 19-year-old. Big deal, right? It's just RedState. But then I glanced back at the author of this garbage, and I saw--- no, no, it can't be---

"Congressman Jeb Hensarling."

Yes. This bilge was written by a member of the United States Congress.

(Pause while I attempt not to shoot myself in the face.)

...I'm not sure who exactly should be more insulted here -- Congressman Hensarling, at the fact that his writing doesn't even pass muster on a shitty blog, or the United States of America, at the fact that we pay this man. We pay him money. Good Lord...

I have to wonder, if this is the logic Republicans are really capable of employing when it comes to Iraq, whether there's even any point in engaging them. Certainly Bush's obstinate veto is not a positive sign. They seem, as I've previously argued, impervious to logic; it becomes increasingly clear every day that the Iraq problem cannot be solved as long as Republicans have a hand in it. Period.

But it's not healthy to focus too much on these partisan things. Don't you know there's a War on Terror going on, and we must be serious and civil about it. There is no room for political gamesmanship in these matters, like Joe Lieberman says. Etc, etc, fucking etc.

-----------------------UNRELATED: Be sure to come to the Stand For Security rally today at 2:30 outside Holyoke Center. Additionally, the Dems will be having a solidarity fast on Friday, and an event that day at 1:00 outside University Hall. (I actually can't make it to the Friday thing, ironically enough because I have to be at my job, but everyone who can make it should really come out.)

Gates: Timetable = Good

Guess who dropped this refreshing gem:

"The debate in Congress ... has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact ... in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

A) John Kerry

B) Nancy Pelosi

C) Jacques Chirac

or, D) Robert Gates, Bush's hand-picked Pentagon Czar.

If you guessed, D, you're correct! Bush's top military adviser recognizes the logic behind a planned, phased withdrawal. When will the rest of Washington and the punditocracy?

Bush: Congress Has Right to End War

Check out this quote:

Asked at a recent news conference about congressional war powers, Bush seemed to suggest that while he disagrees with efforts to set a timetable for withdrawal, lawmakers are within their constitutional rights to do so. "The Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now," Bush said. "I just disagree with their decision."

Note to conservative pundits: even Bush recognizes that Congress has the legitimate authority to end the war. Bush just disagrees about which Iraq policy is best. So, stop hiding your untenable war behind fantasy constitutional voodoo, and start discussing the actual issues facing our country and Iraq.

Speaking of God

I might be alone in thinking that the coin-printing error Raul pointed out below is, however accidental, a definite step in the right direction. (Seriously, guys. Separation of church and state. This one is pretty fucking obvious.)

But regardless of your opinion on government-mandated monetary theism, this
is big news:

On Monday, March 12, the Secular Coalition for America will make history by announcing the name of the first openly nontheistic member of Congress.

Per their press release, this seems to be the result of a contest they held last year, with a $1000 reward, to effectively "out" an atheist/agnostic member of Congress (such as gay rights activists have been doing, with mixed success, for the past few decades) -- although this release also describes their Mystery Congressman as "openly" nontheistic, so hopefully it's a mutual rather than a malicious thing.

Anyway, I'm very excited about this, both as an atheist and as a lover of religious freedom -- in an era where a majority of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist president, and public school teachers are being fired for "enticing children into witchcraft," anything that hints at acceptance of nonbelief in the public sphere is laudable. Hopefully this Secular Coalition thing is legit and will be able to garner real publicity (i.e., not just unhinged bloggers).

Meanwhile, political junkies get to play the predictions game: who is it? The libertarian blog I found this on suggests, without any corroboration whatever, that it might be Massachusetts' own Barney Frank... as cool as that would be, I'd rather it was not the case. Why? Because Barney Frank is already the most awesome congressman ever, and we need to spread the love around a bit.

Anyway, it seems to be a big day for atheists and a bad day for God. Personally I hope these trends continue. After all, what's the worst that could happen? ...

Update (3/12/07): It's Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), who is 75 years old and has been in Congress (representing part of the San Francisco Bay Area) since 1973, consistently ranked among the body's most liberal members. He's apparently a "nontheistic Unitarian". Bravo, Rep. Stark!

Congressional Dems will force vote on "Iraq surge"

So the Congressional leadership has announced that there will be a symbolic vote denouncing Bush's decision to increase troop levels.  Best decision they've made yet.  Congressional republicans will be forced to declare themselves and Bush likely will have some genuine problems with his own party.  It's about time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10capitol.html?ex=1326085200&en=0ab1fcaf62db9954&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Congress in Review

Frank Luntz has written a memo largely attributing recent Republican losses to poor communication and strategy, leaving voters unaware of Congress' many accomplishments

Because it couldn't POSSIBLY be that a Republican Congress was ACTUALLY a FAILURE, could it?

Oh, wait:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite criticism for adjourning last week without acting on several major legislative initiatives, members of Congress can boast significant achievements in at least one area of federal lawmaking -- naming post offices.

"Of the 383 pieces of legislation that were signed into law during the two-year 109th Congress, more than one-quarter dealt with naming or renaming federal buildings and structures -- primarily post offices -- after various Americans."

Democrats: Putting Congress Back to Work

The incoming Democratic leadership has made a bold move - Members of Congress will now have to work FIVE WHOLE DAYS each week! That's a full majority of the week! I think this quote says it all about Republican double standards between themselves and their buddies, and working class America:

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR200612...

vvia kos

Turnout Among 18-24 Year Olds Could Break Records, IOP Survey Released

The IOP has just released the results of its Fall 2006 Young Voter Survey.

For the first, time we polled college students AND non-college 18-24 year olds.

LINK: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/

HIGHLIGHTS

• Midterm election turnout among 18-24 year old could reach record levels in 2006.

• A strong majority of likely young voters favor Democratic control of Congress.

• A near-majority of young people favor total troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next year.

• 18-24 year olds trust the military and the United Nations more than Congress and the federal government.

• President George W. Bush gets “C-” grade on seven key issues.

• President Bush’s handling of Iraq, clearly the issue that is driving this election and the President’s second-term agenda, is viewed by more than two-in-five (43%) young Americans (and 67% of young African Americans) as a
  failure or “F."

Obviously, this is big. Youth voter turnout for midterm elections is usually very low. High turnout next week would represent both an individual record-breaking event as well as reveal a trend of increased youth involvement in politics.

Also, as the poll clearly shows that young people are strongly siding with the Dems, high youth turnout could confound the pollsters who always weight their polls based on expected demographic participation.

Check out the rest of the poll results. It's a treasure-trove of interesting data. For one, I can't get over how much young Americans HATE the media.