The Blue State

Both Democrats and Republicans vote to block war funds

Republicans blocked a Democratic measure that would give funding to Bush for the war only if he redeploys troops from Iraq.  The Democrats blocked a Republican measure to fund the war without any timetables for troop withdrawal.

Democrats are now showing some spine -- at least at the moment:

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties warmoney to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill this year.

Instead,they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing thePentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepeningDemocrats' conflict with the White House on the war.

Inthe meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billionannual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.

"The days of a free lunch are over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Either we just took a dramatic step towards ending the war, or we are being set up by Pelosi and Reid for a huge let-down when they cave in early next year.

Not going the distance -- but it's still something

I feel embarrassed that I actually call this good news.  But due to the fashion that the Democrats have handled this Iraq issue since last year's election, this is definitely a move in the right direction:

Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if theGOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senatorssaid Tuesday.

That could set the stage for a dramaticend-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help themturn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq intoanger with the Republican Party.

In layman's terms, until now the Democrats had been allowing their Iraq bills to be blocked, after which the Democrats would give up.  This time, they are calling the Republican's bluff, and allowing the minority party in Congress to stage a true filibuster.  It would last all night, pretty much endangering the GOP's chances in 2008.  "This incumbent stayed all night to help prevent the war from ending," some Democratic challenger could say.

Again, in reality, it won't amount to squat.  But it is an effort.  Congress will actually have to stay up past its bedtime.

What is with Dianne Feinstein these days?

A voice that played a pivotal role in outing the actions of Alberto Gonzales in the US Attorney firing scandal is now all of a sudden going the other way.

This week, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) voted in favor of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, despite the fact that Mukasey refused to say whether waterboarding was torture.  Now, Feinstein is backing immunity for telecommunications companies that handed over their customers' personal information to the NSA as part of the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping program:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein saidThursday that she favors legal immunity for telecommunicationscompanies that allegedly shared millions of customers' telephone ande-mail messages and records with the government, a position that couldlead to the dismissal of numerous lawsuits pending in San Francisco.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whichis considering legislation to extend the Bush administration'selectronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies shouldnot be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially acomplaint about administration activities."

Why are Feinstein and so many other Democrats scared of a President with a 32% approval rating?  Feinstein should know that there is a primary system -- and progressives will use it to oust certain lawmakers with a habit of being Bush lite.

Democrats could have filibustered Mukasey if they wanted

If I could write the rules, I would make seniority work against lawmakers.  The less years you spend in Congress, the higher committee rank you get.  It would discourage legislators from staying in Washington -- because the longer you stay, the more your power diminishes.

Of course, that is not how things work.  Seniority is an asset that lawmakers use to convince voters to reelect them.  Once reelected, those same lawmakers take their laundry list of promises, set them on fire and protect the status quo of broken government.

As a matter of principle, you cannot alter the status quo without showing some spine.  On Thursday, by failing to filibuster the nomination of Michael Mukasey, Democrats showed no spine, no desire for change and no inability to fulfill a promise made to voters one year ago:

The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democraticcriticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against thetorture of terrorism detainees.

The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the thirdperson to head the Justice Department during the tenure of PresidentBush, placing him in charge of an agency that members of both partiessay suffered under the leadership of Alberto Gonzales.

Six Democrats joined 46 Republicans and one independent in approvingthe judge, with his backers praising him as a strong choice to restoremorale at the Justice Department and independently oversee federalprosecutions in the final months of the Bush administration.

Sixty votes are needed to end debate and force a vote on the nomination.  There were not 60 'yea' votes present, meaning that many who even opposed Mukasey voted for cloture.  Where was their spine?  We all know that if it were the Republicans in our shoes, they would have had the courage to block the nomination.

This is why seniority rules hurt democracy -- nothing gets done, and the status quo is protected.

Oh, and by the way, I hope Connecticut voters are happy.  Republicans like him so much that they allotted him five minutes of time to speak on their behalf about Mukasey:

Democrats unveil bill that protects against voter "caging"

A brand new Senate bill would fight a certain voter suppression tactic:

A new bill introduced by Democrats in the Senate today would makeRepublican attempts to challenge voters' eligibility based on thetime-tested technique of using returned mail illegal.

The voter suppression technique, which has come to be known as "caging," has been practiced by Republicans for decades,but received additional attention for its role in the U.S. attorneyfirings scandal. Timothy Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove whoreplaced one of the fired prosecutors in Arkansas, was forced to defendhis role in an alleged 2004 caging scheme when he worked for theRepublican National Committee. (We ran down the evidence that Griffinwas involved in a 2004 scheme to block African-Americans in Floridafrom voting in a story this June.) Those questions, along with the circumstances of Griffin's appointment, eventually led to his resignation.

Still trying to get a grasp on what caging means?  Here is a better explanation:

Vote caging is an illegal tactic to suppress minorities from voting by having   their names purged from voter rolls when they fail to respond to registered   mail sent to their homes. The Republican National Committee signed a consent   decree in 1986 stating they would not engage in the practice after they were   caught suppressing votes in 1981 and 1986.

Bill would require Congressional approval for war with Iran

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced legislation this week that requires President Bush to seek Congressional authorization before going to war with Iran:

Standing behind him are liberal anti-war groups, which have expandedtheir focus on Iraq to include a drumbeat of protests against apotential war with neighboring Iran.

"Every day now, it seems that theconfrontational rhetoric between the United States and Iran escalates,"said Sen. Robert Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"President Bush needs to understand that theCongress will not be kept out of the loop while his administrationplots another march to war," said Byrd, D-W.Va.

The question is when Bush and Cheney disobey that order and go to war will Congress actually stand their ground for the first time since winning back majority in both houses last November?

Holding our children to higher standard than Larry Craig

Senator Larry Craig will not resign even though the judge rejected his motion to overturn his guilty plea.  Yesterday on MSNBC's Hardball, Craig's lawyer warned Barbara Boxer's Senate Ethics Committee to stay away and not investigate him.  Interesting.

Employers can fire employees for their conduct outside the workplace.  Teenagers can be put on academic probation for yelling profanity while sitting in the bleachers during a high school basketball game.  Even elementary school students have been suspended for inappropriate content on their MySpace pages.  Bottom line: your conduct, even if it is done outside the institution you represent, does not make you immune from internal punishment.

And Larry Craig's lawyers think it is inappropriate for the Senate Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation?  Maybe Craig should start showing some respect for the long-standing institution called the United States Senate, which no lawmaker is ever above.

MN-Sen: Coleman runs from his base

Fighting to be reelected in 2008, with celebrity Democratic candidate Al Franken breathing down his neck, Senator Norm Coleman is pulling out all the stops to make Minnesota voters forget that there is an 'R' next to his name.  On Sunday, he criticized conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh for calling US soldiers that come back and oppose the war "lazy":

“Limbaugh’s suggestion that those who have served their country andexpress their opinions are ‘phony soldiers’ is wrong. There needs to bea level of civility and honest debate in this country about issues asimportant as this. Labeling an active duty General a traitor, orcalling a soldier a phony for having a different opinion does not riseto the level of discourse we hold ourselves to in this country.”

If Norm Coleman wants to raise the issue of civility, maybe he should explain why he accused John Murtha of "undermining the morale of our troops" just because Murtha had the audacity to take a stand against Bush's war policy -- a policy that Coleman now all of a sudden opposes.

That, right there, is the definition of political calculation.

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.

Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act

There's a bill called the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act which will require Insurance Companies to cover a minimum 48-hour hospital stay for patients undergoing a mastectomy. It's about eliminating the 'drive-through mastectomy' where women are forced to go home just a few hours after surgery, against the wishes of their doctor, still groggy from anesthesia and sometimes with drainage tubes still attached

Lifetime TV (I know "guys", Lifetime hates "us"...but this is a good cause) lays out this issue very well 'The Re-Introduction of The Bipartisan Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act'.

This bill has been introduced during each Congressional session since 1997 (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005). Each time, unfortunately, the bill dies in committee. It has been submitted again during the current legislative session as "The Breast Cancer Protection Act of 2007"   

Lifetime does have an online petition (much like an email petition),   however, there is no way to verify signatures or prevent multiple   "signings". A more productive approach to getting this, or any   legislation passed would be for interested voters to contact their elected representatives   directly. Click the following links for contact information for SENATORS   and REPRESENTATIVES.

 

Those interested in tracking the progress of this latest attempt at   passage, can click HERE   for Senate action, and HERE   for the House version.

The above information came from HERE, and in my opinion does not dilute the importance or effectiveness of Lifetime's petition, it's additional "insurance" and "assurance" of getting the JOB done. Our elected officials are getting the best care available, yet when it comes to us "commoners", it's a crap shoot on the crap table of the insurance companies.