It’s been more than a year and a half now since Barack Obama voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, a law giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations that broke their privacy agreements with millions of customers and shared huge amounts of personal information with George W. Bush’s White House. The FISA Amendments Act also legalized use of electronic surveillance technology against Americans without a search warrant and without any effective oversight.

Don’t worry about all that, Obama said. He promised that after he was elected President, he would reform the FISA Amendments Act, and the Patriot Act too. Promises were easy for Obama to make back then.

At the end of last month, the Democrats in Congress passed an extension of the Patriot Act without any reforms at all, and Barack Obama signed it into law. This week, Get FISA Right, a group of Democrats trying to pressure President Obama to reform the FISA Amendments Act as he promised to do, got in touch with staff on both the House and Senate judiciary committees, and asked when America might see a bill to reform the FISA Amendments Act. The contact person for Get FISA Right “was told to expect nothing legislatively until the next couple of months, if ever, before the election.”

In 2008, we were told that the FISA Amendments Act had to be passed, so that Democrats could win the election. Now, in 2010, we’re being told that the FISA Amendments Act cannot be reformed, because Democrats need to win the election.

If this is what Democrats do with their power, why should we work to help them win elections?

When American liberals questioned the record of some candidates being selected (without primaries) by the Democratic Party back in 2006, do you remember what the response was?

With a Democratic majority in Congress, just “imagine” the changes!

In particular, Democratic partisans asked liberal voters to “imagine John Conyers” as the chair of the House Judiciary committee. Boy, would things be different or what?

Chlorocardium at the Smirking Chimp, October 2006:

There are many reasons to WORK to see control shift. It will definitely be an improvement, a starting point.

Just as an example: Imagine John Conyers as chair of the Judiciary Committee!

Willing to put off the second stage of house cleaning until after we get to the first one???

Russron at Daily Kos, July 2006:

Can you imagine John Conyers as Judiciary Chairman instead Senslessbrenner? Can you say new Downing Street Hearings? Can you say hearings into Domestic Spying and Torture?

Truthdig, August 2006:

Should the Democrats retake control of the House after the 2006 midterm elections, Conyers would become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee—which would give him the power to call hearings and subpoena witnesses. It is widely whispered that should Conyers ascend to the chairmanship, he may initiate articles of impeachment against the president.

Republicans like Tom DeLay were appearing on television, predicting an amazing shift if the Democrats won a congressional majority in 2006 and John Conyers were granted the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 4 2006:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What would happen if Henry Waxman got the subpoena power in the Government Reform Committee? What would happen if John Conyers of Michigan got the subpoena power? Would they go after the president?

TOM DeLAY: Sure, they would. They’ve — they’ve tried the whole time we’ve been in the majority, just look at what they’ve been doing. Henry Waxman is constantly calling for investigations — mostly frivolous investigations to make political points. John Conyers has even called for the impeachment of the president.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that –

DeLAY: What do you — What do you think he’s [Conyers] going to do if he’s chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

MATTHEWS: You have an inside view, Congressman, of what they will do. I know their records. I know their philosophies. But you tell me, the man in the news today, do you believe that the Republicans, if they lose the House, will turn over the subpoena power to people who will try to impeach the president?

DeLAY: Absolutely.

Yep, if John Conyers got the chair of the Judiciary, we sure would have to watch out, because big change would be a-coming, right?

Well, John Conyers got that chair three years ago. What’s happened since? No impeachment, that’s for sure. No truth commissions. Instead, we’ve had John Conyers voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act, without an iota of reform. Conyers’ excuse: that after eight and a half years of these Patriot Act surveillance provisions, and after three years during which he had held the chair of the Judiciary Committee, he still hadn’t worked out legislation to reform those provisions. He needed some more time to figure it all out, Conyers explained, which is why he voted to keep the Patriot Act exactly as-is.

That was last month. John Conyers got his wish — Patriot Act surveillance powers were reauthorized without any reform. So you can imagine that in his capacity as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers has been eager to get that reform going. You can imagine he’s introduced some new legislation to reform the Patriot Act. You can imagine he’s jumped into action, scheduling hearings for this spring to unpack the civil liberties problems associated with the use of Patriot Act powers. I mean, heck, time’s a-wasting, right?

Oh, you can imagine all that. Imagine it all you like, but check legislative databases and House Judiciary schedules and you’ll see that your imagination has run away with you. John Conyers hasn’t done any of those things. He’s done nothing. Even the revelation that the FBI had broken the Patriot Act law to mount surveillance against law-abiding journalists hasn’t prodded Conyers into action.

Conyers is backed up by a president of his party in the White House and the biggest congressional majorities the Democrats will see for years to come. We don’t have to imagine what John Conyers would do with the power and advantage of the House Judiciary Chair any longer. Conyers has responded to this opportunity with nothing.

Is nothing what you voted for?

Republican Steve Buyer, from Indiana’s 4th congressional district, announced yesterday that he will not be running for re-election this year. Buyer has been under investigation for hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from pharmaceuticals corporations to a foundation he created. Buyer is on a committee that is supposed to regulate pharmaceuticals.

Right now, there’s only one candidate registered to campaign for the seat: David Sanders, who ran against Buyer in 2004 and 2006. There only remain about 20 days before other politicians can file the necessary petitions to become official candidates in the race.

Democrats should have some concerns about running Sanders again, however – and not just because he fared poorly both times he ran for Congress in the past. Sanders has used Republican themes to promote his political candidacies. Most prominently, Sanders has used the politics of fear. The graphic you see here is taken straight from one of Sanders’s 2006 television advertisements.

In that commercial, Sanders touts his experience working against bioterrorism as a significant reason to elect him to Congress. However, the United States has never been the victim of a serious bioterrorist attack, and there’s no evidence to indicate that there is any specific danger of an attack using biological weapons. Even in the 2001 anthrax scare (launched by an American, not a foreign terrorist), only 5 people died – while between 10 and 20 times that number of people die of chicken pox every year.

Using scary messages about looming terrorist attacks is a dumb political tactic for a Democratic candidate to use, because it encourages people to adopt the Republican security-state mindset. Once in that mindset, people are more likely to just vote for a Republican, rather than voting for a Democrat sounding like a Republican.

More importantly, this kind of politics of fear is wrong for our nation, causing us to focus on minor problems that excite us, instead of the serious challenges we need to deal with. The Democrats of Indiana’s 4th congressional district would do better to find a new candidate who is willing to confront the right wing obsession with terrorists head on than to give Dave Sanders a 3rd chance to peddle his vision of fear.

U.S. Representative Jane Harman has a lot of explaining to do. So does the New York Times. So does Alberto Gonzales. So does the government of Israel. So does the Democratic Party leadership. So does the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). So does the National Security Agency.

Accusations are flying fast and furious after it was leaked that the National Security Agency wiretapped a telephone call in which it is alleged that Harman offered an agent of the Israeli government in conjunction with the lobbyist group AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, in exchange for AIPAC arranging for the House Democrats to give Harmann a congressional leadership position in intelligence affairs if the Democrats retook Congress. Harman was indeed made chair of the House Intelligence Subcommittee in the Committee on Homeland Security when the Democrats took over the House in the election of 2006.

It is also alleged that Harman was on the verge of being formally investigated for this action, when she made a deal with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was blackmailing her with a transcript of the telephone call. It is alleged that Harman agreed to pressure the New York Times editorial board to censor an article it was preparing revealing the National Security Agency’s program to electronically spy on Americans without any search warrant. Instead of conducting oversight on the unconstitutional spying activities of intelligence agencies, it is alleged that Harman helped cover them up. For a while, the New York Times complied, agreeing to keep the American people in the dark about the spying being conducted against them by their own government.

There are many questions coming out of this story. How many other members of Congress have been blackmailed into supporting the Bush Administration’s unconstitutional programs to spy against Americans? How did Harman, and other government insiders, force the New York Times editorial board to remain silent in the face of these high crimes? Was Jane Harman’s vote in favor of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008 a result of the blackmail, and would the legislation have made it out of committee without her assistance? Why does AIPAC believe that it has the power to direct the Democratic leadership in Congress?

Oh, and here’s another little question, my favorite for the evening: When it comes to unconstitutional wiretaps by the government, does Jane Harman care about anyone but herself?

I’m asking that question because, as those of you who follow Irregular Times are aware, there have been at least two previous scandalous revelations about warrantless wiretapping abuses against the American people by the National Security Agency since the beginning of this month. First, there was President Obama’s declaration that no one has the right to sue the government when their rights are violated by these spying programs. Then, it was revealed that the National Security Agency has used the FISA Amendments Act to spy on massive numbers of Americans within the borders of the USA.

As the chair of the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee, Jane Harman has the responsibility to investigate abuses of intelligence laws and programs, such as the warrantless spying system perpetuated by the FISA Amendments Act. But what has Representative Harman done in response to the two substantial abuses of warrantless spy powers revealed in the last few weeks?

Nothing. Representative Harman hasn’t lifted a finger to do anything to address these unconstitutional abuses. Harman’s subcommittee hasn’t issued a report or even sent out a press release this year so far. On Harman’s individual congressional web site, recent news focuses on other issues, as you see in the snapshot below:

As you see, Jane Harman hasn’t bothered to speak out against the abusive warrantless wiretapping done routinely against the American people. Today, however, Jane Harman has finally spoken out about warrantless wiretapping – because she says she was the victim. Harman is up in arms, but only only about the alleged wiretapping of her own telephone conversation.

When it comes to the National Security Agency program to use warrantless wiretapping powers against ordinary, law-abiding Americans, Jane Harman doesn’t seem to give a damn. Does Jane Harman care about anyone but herself?

If you’re looking for some good lunchtime reading to browse through as you munch on that cheeseburger, head on over to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and take a gander at the new report published in draft form there.

It’s entitled, White House Orchestrated Taxpayer-Funded Trips to Help Republican Candidates. The report provides evidence that, in 2006, the Bush Administration was converted into a Republican congressional campaign office, with public officials being used to prop up faltering Republican congressional candidates.

The more American voters find out about Sarah Palin, the less comfortable they are with the idea that she could, in the case of an elderly McCain’s illness or death, become President of the United States in as little as five months from now.

The Militant Moderate writes: “I want to vote for McCain, but he is working hard to convince me otherwise. The nomination of Sarah Palin is only the latest, most egregious, example.”

The McCain campaign says that Sarah Palin is not ready to hold a press conference or to be interviewed by journalists. The mystery on the minds of voters is how Palin could possibly be ready to succeed John McCain as President of the United States if she can’t even answer a reporter’s questions.

If the McCain-Palin campaign won’t give the Press the chance to find out more about Sarah Palin directly, then it’s up to the Press, and to the rest of us, to find out what we can on our own. A good place to start is the sixty six page summary of Sarah Palin’s time as mayor of Wasilla, created by Democrats in 2006. The summary is written by Democrats, but the information is from state and local newspapers and the public record.

Read. Inform yourself.

Then call the McCain-Palin press office at 703-650-5550 and tell them you expect Sarah Palin to start answering reporters’ unscripted questions today. Call the Washington Post ombudsman at 202-334-7582 too, and get ask the D.C. paper to put the pressure on McCain as well.

When Nancy Pelosi appeared at the Netroots Nation conference today, people questioned her decision as Speaker of the House to let the H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, come to the floor. Speaker Pelosi’s answers were anything but respectful to the intelligence and attention span of those who were listening.

Hotline reports part of her answer before the entire Netroots Nation:

“Was it a bill that I would have written? Definitely not. Was it infinitely better than the Senate bill? I believe so.”

Infinitely better? Infinitely? I don’t think Nancy Pelosi knows what “infinitely” means. If the House bill was really infinitely better than an earlier Senate bill, then clearly she would have wanted to have written it (which she didn’t) and voted for it (which she did). The bill is finitely different from the prior Senate bill and finitely similar, but such finite characteristics are beneath her explanation.

Pelosi is the latest politician to mouth the words to the effect that “this wasn’t a bill I would have written” (see Hoyer, Steny and Obama, Barack). If she really, sincerely means this then Nancy Pelosi, like Barack Obama and Steny Hoyer, should be willing to provide the following information:

1. How would you have drafted the FISA Amendments Act? What are the ways in which the FISA Amendments Act, in your judgment, is far from perfect? What are the specific provisions that would be present and absent in a bill that actually is all you want?

2. As the leader of the House of Representatives, what specific legislative actions do you intend to engage in to bring about the specific changes you identify as necessary?

That information is not forthcoming.

Did you notice the passivity of Pelosi’s characterization of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act? Why, it’s almost as if she were not the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the most powerful member of that body. It’s almost as if she stood by like a little kid, powerless to do anything. Elsewhere in her remarks today, the passivity about the FISA Amendments Act continued: “We had no options,” Pelosi complained. No options? The House of Representatives is a deliberative legislative body. It always has options. They include: 1) amending the bill, 2) rejecting the bill, 3) writing a different and better bill. But no, the Pelosi story is one of passive victimhood. Is Speaker Pelosi really such a hapless, helpless schmuck, or does she just want you to think so?

The helpless tone and passive voice are repeated and multiplied in a separate interview today with TPM Muckraker’s David Kurtz:

David Kurtz, TPM Media: On the FISA vote, was that an election year expediency to get that passed and get that off the table?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: No. No. Well, I think we have to protect the American people. We have to protect the American people, and intelligence is a way to do that. We didn’t have to have this bill. But the only alternative that was there, because of the actions of Democrats in the Senate, and I’ll be very clear with all the respect I have for them, they put us in this situation where we only had a choice between the Senate bill, which was completely out of the question, and the alternative that we were putting forth in the House. The bill that we voted for, that overwhelmingly the Democrats I think 100% supported protected the American people in a way that protected and defended the Constitution as well. The Senate didn’t go for it.

Kurtz: If it was a bill we didn’t have to have, then why…

Pelosi: Well we did have to have it. We had to have a bill, because everything had expired. Two reasons we had to have a bill. First of all, I don’t have to tell you that the technology has changed since 1978, and there needed to be a modernization of the FISA bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There had to be a modernization that recognized all the new technologies. So we had to have a bill that recognized that and all the other legislation had expired. So what we wanted to do was to have a bill that protects the American people, insist that include all of the technologies, because what the administration wanted to do was say, “Well, it’ll include e-mail and… the rest of
things we have authority to surveill.” Bring it all under FISA because they wanted a lot of electronic communication to be outside of FISA.

So understand the bad intentions of the White House when it comes to this surveillance. Again, as with everything it was an excuse for them to use to expand the authority of the president, which they said he had inherently from the Constitution, but we wanted to remove all doubt: The FISA law is the sole authority to do that. So we had to have a bill.

And there are those that say, “Well, stall it until next year and under a new administration” — you still need 60 votes to bring up a new bill next year in the Senate even though you have a new president. And mind you 17 of our Democrats voted with the Republicans to give THEM 60 votes. So I put this at the feet of the Senate, and then we have to support it and they walk away from it!

Kurtz: Do you know if the president attached a signing statement to the FISA bill?

Pelosi: I don’t know, I don’t know. I don’t know, but you know what? 107 days until the election, what is it until the inauguration? He’ll be gone soon.

Let’s boil down the bluster to Pelosi’s core contentions:

1. It’s not my fault, it’s the Senate’s fault. Weird thing, but H.R. 6304 was passed by the House first. The Senate voted on the bill after the House did. This makes Speaker Pelosi a science fiction character who is somehow able to use the powers of her office to reverse the flow of causality. Shazaam!

2. We had no choice! See above comments. Legislative bodies have bushels of choices. Capable legislative leaders frame those choices rather than be framed in by a supposed lack of them. What Nancy Pelosi is really telling you here is that she’s an incompetent leader.

3. We had to give Bush a law to do this, because otherwise he was breaking the law to do it. How about impeaching him for breaking the law? Oh, right. Pelosi took that off the table.

4. We had to let the president spy on you without warrants or restriction for periods of 67 days because now we have cell phones. #?^$ !?($$*!?

5. Revoking American freedoms is necessary to protect the American people.. Because now, more than ever, American freedom will kill you. See Bush, George. Also see Franklin, Ben.

6. Don’t worry, we’ll fix everything later, maybe after the next election. See 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006. If you still believe this line after oh so many broken “just wait till next time” promises from the Democrats, see this beautiful bridge I have to sell you.

Excuse me for one moment. I have this wall I have to beat my head against.

…

Hm, no. It still doesn’t make sense.

In pushing to pass the FISA Amendments Act, the U.S. House of Representatives is moving to undo one of the most important promises of the Bill of Rights: The right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. It’s in the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304), establishes a regime of search and seizure of the papers, persons, houses and effects of American citizens with NO search warrant, NO proof of probable cause, NOT describing the place to be searched or the things to be seized. The FISA Amendments Act is also against the separation of powers established in the original core of the Constitution, in that it establishes Executive power that is beyond judicial review and congressional oversight.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is a direct assault upon American freedom, and as such, it merits full and open debate in Congress before it is passed. However, the turncoat Democrats of Congress, led by Steny Hoyer, are afraid of full and open debate. They don’t want the American people to know what’s in the FISA Amendments Act. They don’t want you to read it. They don’t want to give American citizens time to think about it.

That’s why they’re rushing the bill through in less than 24 hours, on a Friday in the summertime. They’re hoping no one will notice. Democratic Congressman Michael Arcuri has helped them do that with a resolution to limit debate to just one hour. They’re undoing the fourth amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights, and they restrict debate on the measure to just one hour?

Is this what the Democrats were elected to Congress to do? To shove through legislation for George W. Bush, to help him gain more powers and violate the Constitution? To close off debate?

That’s what Arcuri and Hoyer believe in. Is that the vision you had for the the Democratic Congress back in 2006?

The debate began at 10:48 AM. That means that at 11:48, all debate on this bill in the House of Representatives will be cut off, whether members of the House have questions about the legislation or not. The vote will take place soon after – we’ll be watching, and we’ll be taking names of every single Democrat who joins George W. Bush and the Republicans in attacking the Bill of Rights.

The failed promise of the Democratic majority in Congress elected in 2006 have become especially clear this week, with the passage of the FISA Amendments Act to establish uncontrolled electronic spying against Americans, and with the admission by the White House that it ordered torture, a high crime against U.S. and international law if ever there was one.

What did the Democratic majority in Congress do about these outrages? They let them slide, just like they’ve let everything the Bush White has done to America slide.

Out of Iraq? The Democrats in Congress say no.

Restore habeas corpus? No.

Restore fair and speedy trial? No.

Restore presumption of innocence? No.

Restore right against self incrimination? No.

Restore protection from cruel and unusual punishment? No.

Restore protection from unreasonable search and seizure? No.

Impeachment? The Democrats in Congress say no.

Investigations of baseball? The Democrats in Congress say yes.

While primary elections splash their way across our television screens, the substantive train of legislative politics keeps right on chugging along in the background, taking this country to a dark destination. The FISA Amendments Act, a bill to institute six years of wiretapping and physical searches without a warrant, is up before the Senate now. A variety of amendments are being voted upon this morning. The most notable — an amendment to let people sue corporations for breaking the law, violating Americans’ privacy, and giving Americans’ most intimate conversations up to the government without a warrant — is being voted upon as I write.

A second amendment, also important, has NOT passed.

This amendment stipulated that one of the Bush administration’s tricks — ignoring a law and instituting programs that work outside it — would not be legal. Amendment 3910, the Feinstein Amendment, required that all surveillance programs at least work under the FISA Amendments Act and not outside that measly, impotent, authoritarian, anti-constitutional law. Amendment 3910 was like putting a band-aid on an exploded aorta, but at least the band-aid would have been there, and the White House couldn’t have started up new programs flouting even the measly FISA Amendments Act.

But guess what.

Amendment 3910 failed, 57-41.

Yes, Virginia, 41 Senators voted to let George W. Bush operate surveillance programs on Americans outside the law. Any guesses as to who they were?

57 plus 41 equals 98. That’s not 100. Two senators didn’t bother to show up to vote. One of them was Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was not there to do her job and cast a vote on this amendment to the FISA Amendments Act.

Barack Obama showed up for work, and cast a vote for this meagerly helpful amendment.

Hillary Clinton threw the rule of law under under her campaign bus.

Senator Clinton can’t claim that this was an unimportant vote, and she can’t say it wasn’t a close vote. It WAS a close vote. The amendment almost passed. It would have passed with 60 votes. Clinton should have shown up for this. But Clinton couldn’t be bothered with that work, the work she signed up for when she was elected to the Senate just fourteen months ago.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to vote to uphold the rule of law. So you tell me why I should be bothered to vote for Hillary Clinton when the primaries come to my state of Ohio in March.

Ned Lamont, the Democrat who dared to take on Joseph Lieberman in 2006 and expose the truth about Lieberman’s right wing political agenda, has endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Ned Lamont wrote in explanation of his endorsement:

I am announcing my support of Barack Obama for President because I am convinced that his forward-looking, progressive vision provides the best chance to enact meaningful reforms in the way Washington works.

Sen. Obama has the tone and temperament to bring out the best in our people and our nation, and to bring new coalitions together in support of the progressive policies we all want to see enacted. His campaign has already reflected this, not only by bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters of all ages to the polls, but by inspiring so many who are new to politics to become activists as well…

We have seen that Sen. Obama has the wisdom and judgment to get the big decisions right – as he did on Iraq more than five years ago. And when President Obama steps out of Air Force One in countries around the world, he will represent a fresh start with friends and allies. He will end the war in Iraq, work for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and start investing in America again – and we will be safer and stronger for it.

Barack Obama gave praise in return, saying, “Ned Lamont is a strong progressive leader who understands the power of the grassroots, and I’m proud to have his support. Ned and I have both refused to accept money from Washington lobbyists, and we both took a stand against the war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged.”

It’s worth remembering that in the 2008 presidential election, Joseph Lieberman has endorsed a Republican candidate. It’s also worth remembering that in the 2006 election, Bill and Hillary Clinton supported Joseph Lieberman, with Bill Clinton jabbing Ned Lamont even after Lamont got the Democratic nomination.

Michael Mukasey has been confirmed by the United States Senate, even though Mukasey indicated that he would not challenge the use of torture planned by the Bush White House. The confirmation of Mukasey came in spite of the promised change of the 2006 election, when the Democrats swore that they would change things if they got the majority in the Senate. The six Senate Democrats who voted to confirm Mukasey place a stain on the reputation of the Democratic Party.

Things are even worse for the Republican Party, however. Not one single Republican senator had the basic human decency to vote against the confirmation of Mukasey.

The Democratic Party is stained with the support of torture shown by some of its leaders. The Republican Party, however, seems to be pro-torture through and through.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

(Source: Library of Congress)

The biggest result of the 2006 congressional election has been disappointment. Sure, the Democrats took majority control over the House and the Senate, but they have failed to bring about the changes they promised. The Democratic congressional leadership has come up with a list of excuses, just like they always do, saying that if they had just a few more votes then, later, two years from now, the Democrats would finally get a backbone. The Democratic leadership always says that, of course. The real problem is that that many Democrats in Congress, including a bunch of those that were elected in 2006, have been voting with the Republicans to support George W. Bush’s agenda.

Now, the Democrats are asking Americans to strengthen their majority control over both houses of Congress, but the more important task for the 2008 elections is to remove the cancer of right wing politicians from the Democratic Party. If the Democrats in Congress were more reliably progressive, America would be in a much healthier position today.

There’s one primary contest coming up in 2008 that bears special attention. Georgia’s 8th congressional district has long been represented by Jim Marshall, a pro-Bush Democrat who is as opposed to core progressive values as many Republicans.

The following is just a sample of the outrageous right wing record of Jim Marshall:

Jim Marshall voted to help George W. Bush start the Iraq War.
Jim Marshall voted for the Patriot Act.
Jim Marshall voted for the Military Commissions Act.
Jim Marshall voted for the Protect America Act.
Jim Marshall voted to allow Head Start bosses to fire workers for nothing more than not belonging to the boss’s church.
Jim Marshall voted against providing expanded SCHIP health care coverage for children, helping George W. Bush maintain his veto.

Thank goodness, there is a Democratic challenger to Congressman Jim Marshall this time around. Democrat Robert Nowak is running an insurgent campaign in the Democratic primary against Congressman Marshall. Consider Robert Nowak’s positions on the issues:

In his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan criticizes the Republican Party, of which he has been a member for his whole life. Writing of the Republican loss of majority control of both houses of the United States Congress in 2006, Greenspan states, “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.”

Of course, the Republican presidential candidates for the 2008 election are still promoting the same tired agenda that they did back in 2006. They are still choosing to trade principle for power. That’s why, by Alan Greenspan’s own accounting, the Republicans deserve to lose the White House in 2008.

(Source: The Age, September 17, 2007)