The Blue State

Democratic House a failure -- except Henry Waxman

No Democrat in the House of Representatives deserves reelection in 2008 more than Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).  When voters elected Democrats to end the war and investigate the Bush Administration, Waxman was one of the few lawmakers that listened and acted.  He chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In the last few days, Waxman has worked overtime on the issue of contractors, and has the White House worried:

For months, Rep. Henry  A. Waxman, chairman of the House oversight committee, has been threatening, subpoenaing and just plain badgering Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice  to come before his panel to answer questions about the run-up to the Iraq  war, corruption and State Department  contracting.

Today, Rice will finally appear. But Waxman (D-Calif.) has not spentthe week on a victory lap. He has found time to produce evidenceaccusing State Department security contractor Blackwater Worldwide of tax evasion, to fire off a letter to Rice demandinginformation about alleged mismanagement of a $1 billion contract totrain Iraqi police , and to hold a hearing on uranium poisoning on Navajo land.

Waxman has become the Bush administration's worst nightmare: a Democratin the majority with subpoena power and the inclination to overturnrocks. But in Waxman the White House also faces an indefatigable capital veteran -- with a staff renownedfor its depth and experience -- who has been waiting for this for 14years.

Now that is called answering the call of fed up voters!

No more Republican filibusters

If popular electoral trends keep going the way they are, the Democrats could be in for a real treat in 2008 -- no, not the presidency, but rather the Senate:

It started out as such a faint hope for New York Senator CharlesSchumer that he hardly dared voice it. But as more and more Republicansretire or become engulfed by scandal, it has become irresistiblyimaginable: the idea that Democrats might gain a filibuster-proofmajority in the Senate after the 2008 elections. "It's a very remotechance and every star would have to align correctly," Schumer, whoheads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told TIME. "Butit's way too early to make predictions."

Ever wonder to yourself why little gets done in Washington?  It's the filibuster, which in many ways is a good thing, that stalls legislation.  If the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate in addition to the presidency, so much will get done -- from health care to energy reform to deficit management.

Pelosi can't think of any mistakes she made

I completely stand behind my call a few days ago for Nancy Pelosi to step down as House Speaker.  We need a sea change of younger leaders that are allowed into leadership positions.  Ranking party leaders based on seniority only rewards those entrenched in the quicksand of the Washington establishment.

Other than networking with shady people, when you are part of the Washington establishment you start acting above everyone else.  In fact, you begin to sound like George W. Bush.  This week, when asked by a reporter about her biggest mistake as House Speaker, Pelosi could not think of one:

“I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident Ihave. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybeI’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one,” hesaid.

I don't know about all of you -- but I want a House Speaker that constantly evaluates him or herself, and has the courage to admit mistakes.  A true leader has the humility to be his or her own critic.  If you can't think of any mistakes, then you certainly are not in a position to learn from them.

WA-08: The most exciting US House battle in 2008

Over the last two election cycles, the race in Washington state's 8th congressional district has been the most intriguing in the country, but has received relatively little national attention because it is all the way up in the Northwest. 

This district represents the front lines of the House election battles between the Democratic and Republican parties, which plays out during each even numbered year.  Like the state of Virginia as a whole, the 8th district is in the middle of a major sea change.  Many urban Democrats are moving out into the suburbs, turning what once was a Republican stronghold into a new battleground district.

The Republicans have won the last two elections there, but by smaller margins each time.  Incumbent Republican Dave Reichert has an uphill battle because his 2006 opponent, Democrat Darcy Burner, is running again.  This time her populist-driven campaign resources might put her over the top, enabling the Democrats to pick up yet another U.S. House seat. Rothenberg reports on her earnings::

Burner’s fundraising surely is much better this time. She is likely toshow $400,000 in the bank as of Sept. 30, almost four times what shehad on hand at the end of 2005. Burner and Reichert each spent justmore than $3 million in their previous race.

Because Burner was humbled by her loss in 2006, she is more real and outspoken -- exactly the type of leader the Democratic Party needs:

But in addition tobeing a more experienced candidate, Burner also is more outspoken.Indeed, she calls herself “more straightforward” in talking to voters,and that certainly includes her comments about some of the mostcontroversial issues of the day.

In one Web video this year,produced by the liberal blog OpenLeft, Burner uses language notnormally employed by candidates: “I’m Darcy Burner and I want to tellyou that the FISA bill that just got passed in the House completelysucks.” In that video and in another, she criticizes some in her ownparty for not standing up to the Bush administration.

This race is important not only because it will vindicate the opinion that there has been a national progressive trend since 2004, but also because Burner is a truly populist candidate.  She is an activist at heart -- especially on the issue of energy independence.  If we can get individuals like Burner into office and in House leadership positions, it will help make the Democrats more dependent on the grassroots, which include real people like you and me.

Here is a video of a virtual town hall meeting with Darcy Burner last month.

Nancy Pelosi needs to resign

Bloggers, progressive activists and others who gave their hard-earned money to the Democrats in 2006 were utterly shocked by what their House Speaker said on Sunday.  Each of us bought into the notion that Nancy Pelosi would have the courage to force the President to change direction in Iraq. 

Today there are at least 30,000 more US troops in Iraq than when Pelosi first took the gavel.  It is true that Democrats need 67 votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto.  But according to Pelosi, even if Bush's veto gets overridden, Democrats don't have the constitutional authority to end the war.

Unacceptable!

Voters, she told Fox News Sunday, “want it to end and they had expectations that Congress could end it.” 

But, she added, “You know we can’t without a presidential signature.”

Wrong!  If you override Bush's veto, he does not have to sign anything, and the war will be defunded.  Pelosi should know that.  One of two things are going on in Pelosi's head:

1. Either she does not understand the legislative process; or
2. She is giving up on her efforts to lead Congressional action to end the war.

In either case, Nancy Pelosi is not fit to be Speaker of the House.  We need a Speaker with courage, and who gives voters exactly what they asked for last November.  On the issue of Iraq, her tenure as Speaker has been a miserable failure.

Democrats propose war tax

With the exception of all the military families, none of us have either fought or paid for this war.  The money goes straight to the national debt, while the bodies of brave soldiers come home in planes.  If Iraq truly is about September 11th, then telling Americans to go shopping does not cut it. 

This war tax proposal would help offset the more than $12 billion per month that gets added to the debt as a result of the war.  And yes, the tax is steep.  If you don't like it, then end the war!:

The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee ChairmanDavid R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P."Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice amongall taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal incometax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in orderto raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.

"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.

Again, I don't think any of us would like this extra income tax.  But as far as reality is concerned, the Iraq war adds to the birth tax, which future generations will pay for.  The GOP talks a lot about the unborn.  Well OK -- Let's stop shouldering the burden to unborn children.  How about we, as living human beings, take responsibility and either pay for this war or end it (no question mark needed, because that wasn't a question).

Bush's budget games

The deadline to renew funding for the federal government for the 2008 fiscal year has passed. When Congress returns on Monday, it will be October, which is when the next fiscal year begins.  Today President Bush signed a document that gives Congress a 48-day extension to pass a budget.

Of course, Congress already supports a budget, but Bush won't sign it because it exceeds his request by $23 billion -- the cost of funding the war for less than two months.  Last year though, the President allowed the Republican Congress to exceed his budget request by $53 million.

In his weekly radio address, Bush took aim:

"Earlier this year, congressional leaders promised to show that theycould be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seemto have chosen the path of higher spending," the president said in hisweekly radio address.

Who is choosing the path to higher spending?  Is it a President that never chose to veto a single spending bill until the Democrats took Congress this January?

Durbin vows to completely change food safety standards

Well it's about time.  You can't buy your child anything from Fisher Price without worrying whether it contains harmful amounts of led.  Less than two months before the holiday shopping season begins, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) says the Democratic majority will soon write legislation that completely overhauls food safety laws in this country.

Part of the problem is that the job of overseeing food safety is split up between 12 departments.  Like what many wanted to do with FEMA following hurricane Katrina, Durbin wants to have one agency whose top priority it is to oversee food safety:

Responsibility for inspecting and keeping track of foodimports is currently split between the Food and Drug Administration , the Agriculture Department, and otherauthorities.

The FDA oversees about 80 percent of food imports, but asmall inspection team gets its hands on just a small fractionof that.

Durbin is also proposing a fee on all imported food, whichwould fund stepped-up inspection, and a single food safetyagency, but neither idea has received much traction so far. Itis unclear whether a radical step like sunsetting existingagencies would be more successful.

The Congress will attach a provision to a farm bill that phases out the existing laws on food safety.  New rules will then be made.

Death by filibuster: DC voting rights bill killed in Senate

On Tuesday, the Republicans in the Senate successfully filibustered a resolution that would have granted Washington D.C. voting rights in the House of Representatives, and added one more seat in Utah.  The vote was 57-40, three votes shy of breaking a Republican filibuster:

The bill would have created two new House seats: One for the city of about 600,000 people and one for Utah , which narrowly missed out on a fourth seat after the last census.

The procedural vote effectively killed the best chance in decades towin the District a full-fledged House member. The city has been deniedvoting rights in Congress since 1801, making it the only major capitalcity in the world where citizens are denied a vote in the nation'srepresentative body of government.

Strangely, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) voted alongside the Republicans.  Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted 'nay' as well, as did Larry Craig (R-MT), who returned to Capitol Hill for the first time following his temporary resignation in the wake of the public bathroom sex scandal.  Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) did not show up for the vote.

What kind of democracy are we, where our own capital has absolutely no say in federal law?  Situations like these explain why Democrats absolutely must pick up more Senate seats in 2008.

Murtha: Republicans will soon jump ship on the war

Anti-war Congressman John Murtha predicts that after the Republicans picks their nominee, the party will suddenly do a reversal and take a different stance on the war:

“As soon as the primaries are over,you’ll see Republicans start jumping ship,” Murtha said in remarks atthe National Press Club.   

Murthaalso predicted that, despite the unpopularity of Congress, Democratswill make broad gains in next year’s election because voters are upsetwith the war.

On the Democrats' bid to gain US House seats, Murtha is optimistic -- maybe too optimistic:

“People arefrustrated, but you’re going to see a big Democratic increase,” he toldreporters after his speech. “I think we’ll pick up 40 [to] 50 seats.”

40 to 50 seats?  I am an optimist, but that is pushing it a bit.  That means Democrats would have to win 40 seats that they weren't even able to win in 2006.  I would be happy with 20 seats.  Of course though, it is good to aim high, and I like to see that.