Today is the day to take action on H.R. 5740.  As I outlined on Friday:

It's time to draw a line in the sand. There are forty-seven members of the Blue Dog Democrats, and we need to know which ones support the U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and which ones agree with Rep. John Tanner that they are nothing more than deficit-enhancing debris. This is what Mr. Tanner had to say when announcing the plan by a segment of the Blue Dogs to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights:

Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.

A group that has voted time after time to support George Bush's war, at a cost of over $500 billion dollars, now dismisses the men and women who risked their lives as candlestick-makers who don't deserve money to go to college? The Blue Dog's reason? Because their budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go has "been ignored one too many times." Yes, these champions of fiscal responsibility are fine with George Bush's twice-a-year $100 billion "supplementals," they are fine with billions going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but when it comes to providing a benefit to the people who fought in the war that the Blue Dogs supported, well, to hell with the troops.

This week House Democratic leaders will once again to try bring the Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 up for a vote and we need to know which Blue Dogs plan to join John "candlestick-maker" Tanner in blocking educational benefits for the men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Bear in mind, the only reason to block this vote is because they are too cowardly to stand up and publicly oppose this bill.  If they don't want to support the troops, they should have the guts to come out and say so instead of trying to hide behind a procedural maneuver.  

So please, take a few minutes to call a Blue Dog and ask if they intend to block H.R. 5740 or if they will support educational assistance for veterans.  And tell them that supporting the troops isn't just a slogan...at least it shouldn't be.

And for more action items, go to Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

Mike Arcuri (NY): (202) 225-3665
Joe Baca  (CA): (202) 225-6161
John Barrow  (GA): (202) 225-2823
Melissa Bean  (IL): (202) 225-3711
Marion Berry  (AR): (202) 225-4076
Sanford Bishop  (GA): (202) 225-3631
Dan Boren  (OK): (202) 225-2701
Leonard Boswell  (IA): (202) 225-3806
Allen Boyd  (FL): (202) 225-5235
Dennis Cardoza  (CA): (202) 225-6131
Christopher Carney  (PA): (202) 225-3731
Ben Chandler  (KY): (202) 225-4706
Jim Cooper  (TN): (202) 225-4311
Jim Costa  (CA): (202) 225-3341
Bud Cramer (AL): (202) 225-4801
Lincoln Davis  (TN): (202) 225-6831
Joe Donnelly  (IN): (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth  (IN): (202) 225-4636
Gabrille Giffords  (AZ): (202) 225-2542
Kirsten Gillibrand  (NY): (202) 225-5614
Bart Gordon  (TN): (202) 225-4231
Jane Harman  (CA): (202) 225 8220
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin  (SD): (202) 225-2801
Baron Hill  (IN): (202) 225-5315
Tim Holden  (PA): (202) 225-5546
Steve Israel  (NY): (202)  225 3335
Nick Lampson  (TX): (202) 225-5951
Tim Mahoney  (FL): (202) 225-5792
Jim Marshall  (GA): (202) 225-6531
Jim Matheson  (UT): (202) 225-3011
Mike McIntyre  (NC): (202) 225-2731
Charlie Melancon  (LA): (202) 225-4031
Michael Michaud  (ME): (202) 225-6306
Dennis Moore  (KS): (202) 225-2865
Patrick Murphy  (PA): (202) 225-4276
Collin Peterson  (MN): (202) 225-2165
Earl Pomeroy  (ND): (202) 225-2611
Mike Ross  (AR): 1-800-223-2220
John Salazar  (CO): (202) 225-4761
Loretta Sanchez  (CA): (202) 225-2965
Adam Schiff  (CA): (202) 225-4176
David Scott  (GA): (202) 225-2939
Heath Shuler  (NC): (202) 225-6401
Zack Space  (OH): (202) 225-6265
John Tanner  (TN): (202) 225-4714
Gene Taylor  (MS): (202) 225-5772
Mike Thompson  (CA): (202) 225-3311
Charlie Wilson  (OH): (202) 225-5705

It's time to draw a line in the sand.  There are forty-seven members of the Blue Dog Democrats, and we need to know which ones support the U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and which ones agree with Rep. John Tanner that they are nothing more than deficit-enhancing debris. This is what Mr. Tanner had to say when announcing the plan by a segment of the Blue Dogs to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights:

Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.

A group that has voted time after time to support George Bush's war, at a cost of over $500 billion dollars, now dismisses the men and women who risked their lives as candlestick-makers who don't deserve money to go to college?  The Blue Dog's reason?  Because their budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go has "been ignored one too many times."  Yes, these champions of fiscal responsibility are fine with George Bush's twice-a-year $100 billion "supplementals," they are fine with billions going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but when it comes to providing a benefit to the people who fought in the war that the Blue Dogs supported, well, to hell with the troops.  

The Blue Dogs only need 15 votes to block a vote on this measure which scheduled to come up next week, and when asked if they had enough members opposing the bill, Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) said:

"There’s 47 of us, what do you think?"

I think that out of the 292 co-sponsors of the bill , 36 are Blue Dog Democrats, which means one of two things:  either Tanner and Boyd plan to join forces with Republicans to kill this bill, or there are at least 4 Blue Dogs who don't have the courage to stand by their convictions and do the right thing.  
It's time to find out where the Blue Dogs stand.  Do they stand with the troops or do they stand with George Bush, John McCain and the Blue Dogs who dismiss the troops as "candlestick-makers" who don't deserve benefits when they return from war?   Call and ask if they intend to help block H.R. 5740.

Mike Arcuri:  (202) 225-3665
Joe Baca:  (202) 225-6161
John Barrow:  (202) 225-2823
Melissa Bean:  (202) 225-3711
Marion Berry: (202) 225-4076
Sanford Bishop:  (202) 225-3631
Dan Boren:  (202) 225-2701
Leonard Boswell:  (202) 225-3806
Allen Boyd:  (202) 225-5235
Dennis Cardoza:  (202) 225-6131
Christopher Carney:  (202) 225-3731
Ben Chandler:  (202) 225-4706
Jim Cooper:  (202) 225-4311
Jim Costa:  (202) 225-3341
Bud Cramer:  (202) 225-4801
Lincoln Davis:  (202) 225-6831
Joe Donnelly:  (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth:  (202) 225-4636
Gabrille Giffords:  (202) 225-2542
Kirsten Gillibrand:  (202) 225-5614
Bart Gordon:  (202) 225-4231
Jane Harman:  (202) 225 8220
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:  (202) 225-2801
Baron Hill:  (202) 225-5315
Tim Holden:  (202) 225-5546
Steve Israel:  (202) 225-4669
Nick Lampson:  (202) 225-5951
Tim Mahoney:  (202) 225-5792
Jim Marshal:  (202) 225-6531
Jim Matheson:  (202) 225-3011
Mike McIntyre:  (202) 225-2731
Charlie Melancon:  (202) 225-4031
Michael Michaud:  (202) 225-6306
Dennis Moore:  (202) 225-2865
Patrick Murphy:  (202) 225-4276
Collin Peterson:  (202) 225-2165
Earl Pomeroy:  (202) 225-2611
Mike Ross:   1-800-223-2220
John Salazar:   (202) 225-4761
Loretta Sanchez:  (202) 225-2965
Adam Schiff:  (202) 225-4176
David Scott:  (202) 225-2939
Heath Shuler:  (202) 225-6401
Zack Space:  (202) 225-6265
John Tanner:  (202) 225-4714
Gene Taylor: (202) 225-5772
Mike Thompson:  (202) 225-3311
Charlie Wilson:  (202) 225-5705

During this Iowa Caucus process, a lot of us have fallen into a media/blog narrative that Edwards is the fighter and Obama is the consensus builder (or spun negatively, Edwards is all about warfare and Obama is a compromising chicken).  The candidates themselves have helped spread this narrative about themselves and the others, and the media and bloggers and all of us have followed along.

I think these narratives are too constricting for both these candidates.  I'm sure that Edwards would seek consensus when need be -- it's the nature of our political system.  On the flip side, Senator Barack Obama will absolutely fight for progressive principles.  To be sure, he has expressly told us that he believes that consensus building can be a strong ally to the progressive cause.  However, he's also shown us through his actions that he won't turn to compromise, that he will fight, when the progressive cause calls for a fighter.

Hi - so the vote has been moved to this morning but here's the play-by-play of last night's debate (with commentary of course) from www.eyesontrade.org:

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

From the technological glitches to voter intimidation reports to hyped charges of "voter fraud," American voters are well aware of problems in our system of casting and counting ballots. However, a range of these problems are often confused and conflated with "voter fraud" in media stories, trumped-up accusations, and, most insidiously, in voter suppression attempts. The truth of "voter fraud" is much simpler than many people would have us believe. This proves to be an inconvenient reality for those individuals engaged in systematic attempts to disenfranchise specific voting populations, much like the efforts that have been laid bare at the Department of Justice over the past eight months.

The House Judiciary Committee is now conducting a live hearing on the DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Voting Section.  

The Voting Section has much been in the news lately, with allegations about interference in the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio which disenfranchised minority voters, disenfranchisement of minority voters in Georgia with ID requirements, internal discrimination against African-American employees and John Tanner's (the section head) belief that African-Americans die early.

What a circus.

The House Judiciary Committee is now conducting a live hearing on the DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Voting Section.  

The Voting Section has much been in the news lately, with allegations about interference in the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio which disenfranchised minority voters, disenfranchisement of minority voters in Georgia with ID requirements, internal discrimination against African-American employees and John Tanner's (the section head) belief that African-Americans die early.

What a circus.

On October 5, 2007, John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, told the National Latino Congreso that Voter ID requirements don't hurt minority groups, despite all the evidence to the contrary.  Who do they hurt?  According to the man whose job it is to ensure voting rights in America:

I think it's probably true that among those who don't [have IDs], it's primarily elderly persons. And that's a shame.  You know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance."

Of course, that also ties in with a racial aspect, because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly. The way that white people do. They die first ...

So anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly, has the opposite impact on minorities. Just, the math is such as that.

YouTube here  I'll wait for you to pick your jaw up from the ground.  

[For those unfamiliar with the arguments against voter ID laws, let me point you to Judge Terrance Evans' recent dissent in a 7th Circuit opinion which upheld Indiana's voter ID law, a case which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court later this term:]

Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. We should subject this law to strict scrutiny -- or at least, in the wake of Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, (1992), something akin to "strict scrutiny light" -- and strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

The percentage of eligible voters participating in elections has, for many years, been on a downward trajectory. With that being the case, one would think states should be looking for creative ways (like allowing people to vote at places they frequent and are familiar with, like shopping malls rather than basements of fire stations) to increase voter participation. Yet, the Indiana law we sanction today does just the opposite. Constricting the franchise in a democratic society, when efforts should be instead undertaken to expand it, is not the way to go.

The fig leaf of respectability providing the motive behind this law is that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud -- a person showing up at the polls pretending to be someone else. But where is the evidence of that kind of voter fraud in this record? Voting fraud is a crime (punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine of up to $ 10,000 in Indiana) and, at oral argument, the defenders of this law candidly acknowledged that no one -- in the history of Indiana -- had ever been charged with violating that law. Nationwide, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud that photo ID laws seek to stop. If that's the case, where is the justification for this law? Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table? I think not.

Sen. Obama didn't just sit around and be offended, just as he called on Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to address how he would reverse the Bush Administration's failure to enforce civil rights in such diverse areas as the Jena 6, voter photo identification requirements, racial profiling and disparities in mortage lending.

Today, he sets his sights on John Tanner, and has sent this letter to Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler:

October 19, 2007

The Honorable Peter D. Keisler          
Acting Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Keisler:

           On October 5, 2007, at the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles, John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division, spoke on a panel regarding minority voters. During the course of that discussion, which focused on recent state laws requiring photo identification for voting, Mr. Tanner said that such photo ID requirements disadvantage the elderly "[a]nd that's a shame." He explained:  "You know, creating problems for elderly persons just is
not good under any circumstance."

           However, according to Mr. Tanner, such requirements do not disenfranchise minorities, and in fact, they actually benefit minorities.  He said:  "Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first.  There are inequities in health care.  There are a variety of inequities in this country.  And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities; just the math is such as that."

           Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous, and they are especially troubling coming from the federal official charged with protecting voting rights in this country.  Mr. Tanner has already demonstrated questionable judgment in overruling the decision of Justice Department lawyers that the Georgia photo ID requirement would disproportionately discriminate against African Americans.  For Mr. Tanner to now suggest, in an effort to defend his erroneous decision, that photo identification are not necessary for minority voters because "they die first" shows just how far the Justice Department has fallen.  This is a disgrace and yet another reason why the next Attorney General must demonstrate a strong commitment to civil
rights.

           But, until the next Attorney General is confirmed, you are in charge of the Department, and you are in charge of ensuring that our laws are enforced and that the civil rights of all Americans are protected.  Through his inexcusable comments, Mr. Tanner has clearly demonstrated that he possesses neither the character nor the judgment to be heading the Voting Rights Section.  For that reason, I respectfully request that you remove him from his position.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

No other Democratic Senator -- and certainly no Democrat running for President -- has taken this kind of leadership role in protecting the right to vote.

TPMMuckraker has the story: a recently discovered letter from John Tanner, chief of the Justice Department voting rights section, explains the problems encountered in the November 2004 general elections. Tanner wrote that the investigation by the Justice Department had been closed, and:

...the principal cause of the difference appears to be the tendency in Franklin County for white voters to cast ballots in the morning (i.e., before work), and for black voters to cast ballots in the afternoon (i.e., after work).

Seriously.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. took exception to that explanation. He issued a press release the same day in which he said,

"The 2004 election exposed serious deficiencies in this section's failure to adequately investigate and prosecute voter suppression efforts nationwide and I hope he is prepared to address this issue head on."

by Publius Revolts

ePluribus Media has learned that the leadership of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has reversed its  July decision and is now signaling its willingness to permit Voting Rights Section Chief John Tanner to testify before Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)’s  House Judiciary Committee.  Although a Judiciary Committee spokesperson has confirmed the reversal, the final date and time for the testimony have not been finalized. There’s speculation that Tanner in his testimony will assume responsibility for the Georgia Voter ID controversy, leaving Hans von Spakovsky, currently up for confirmation to the Federal Elections Commission, a cleaner resume.

What is The Capitulation Caucus?  That's what we want to know and we need your help.  

In the coming days, Congress will once again take up legislation on Iraq.  As we see the first indication of fissures in Republican support for George Bush's endless war, now is the time for Democrats to stand firm.  Yet one of the first bills the House may be voting on is the Abercrombie/Tanner bill, H.R. 3087.  Toothless doesn't even begin to describe it.

(a) Strategy Required- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, shall develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the Armed Forces in Iraq.   [...]

(1) nothing in this Act shall be construed as a recommendation by Congress that any particular contingency plan be exercised;

More than four years into this war, and Congress is planning to vote on a bill to have the Bush administration begin to develop a plan for redeployment?  Just a suggestion mind you, nothing more. Not good enough. This bill is a joke that doesn't even deserve to get to the floor for a vote, let alone receive bipartisan support.  Because as we all know, these days bipartisan means just a few Democrats joining with the Republicans to continue rubber stamping George Bush's war policies.  And so it's time for the community to limber up their dialing fingers and get to work.

Where does your Congressman stand?  Check that.  Where does every Democratic member of Congress stand? Does he/she plan to vote for H.R. 3087? Will they continue to ignore the vast majority of Democrats who want a timeline for withdrawal now?  Below the fold is the name and phone number of every Democratic member of the House of Representatives. The goal here is to find
out, "Yes or no, does Congressman ___ support H.R. 3087?"  Tell Congress NOT to support this capitulation.  

Let's find out which Democratic Congressmen are members of the Capitulation Caucus.  And when we do, we can pour on the pressure so they remember why they were elected...and to remind them that there's an election just around the corner. If they want to continue getting our time and our money, they need to start doing the job they were elected to do. We are at a point in time where many Republican's blind support of George Bush is beginning to waver, and there is no excuse for a Democratic capitulation.  Now is the time to press our advantage, not to engage in a Kumbaya moment of token gestures.  

So start making those calls and post the results.  Start with your own Representative, and if you have the time, call a few more. And as the results come in, updates will be posted so we all know who are the Democrats and who are the capitulators.  
 
The main switchboard for the House of Representatives:  (202) 224-3121    
And for those outside of Washington D.C., the toll free number:  1-800-828-0498

And below the fold, the name and phone number of every Democratic Representative, and if you are unsure who your Representative is, information on how to find out.

Behind the scenes in Washington, the Progressive caucus has killed a proposal that would have let Congressional Republicans triangulate by pretending to vote against Bush but that would not have brought a single troop home.

Three cheers for this stand against Bush and the bad kind of 'bipartisanship.'

The details below the fold.

UPDATE:

Goddamn it.

In another case of the Department of Justice selectively enforcing laws comes a tale of disenfranchisement of voters. The Justice Department's Voting Section is pressuring ten states to purge "ineligible" voters from their rolls. At the same time, the same body refuses to compel the states to enforce new laws that require people applying for social services be given an opportunity to register to vote.

Dismantling Voting Rights Enforcement

As ePluribus Media recently reported, since the replacement of long-time Voting Rights Section Chief Joseph D. Rich by John K. Tanner (promoted by former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights R. Alexander Acosta) there has been an exodus of unprecedented proportions of experienced voting rights personnel from DoJ's Civil Rights Division. TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel has referred to this exodus as a purge, and it has stretched from the top to the bottom of the Voting Section's ranks. Acosta has been implicated in the plummeting number of voting rights cases filed to protect the rights of African-Americans.  Since then, he has received three interim appointments from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida prior to being confirmed by the Senate. Tanner, however, remains Voting Section chief.

Cho, Roxy, StandingUp, wanderindiana, and Aaron Barlow
xposted at ePluribus Media

When John K. Tanner replaced Joe Rich as section chief of the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section in 2005, a breathtaking politicization -- already under way after Alex Acosta was put in charge of the Civil Rights Division -- accelerated sharply. The exodus of talent, expertise, and knowledge of civil rights law in the two years under Tanner's stewardship is numbing.

Roughly 50% of the staff --  attorneys, including many of the top litigators, researchers and analysts -- have left, and Tanner has waged an aggressive effort to remake the section in his own image -- not an image that most people who promote the core mission of the Voting Rights Act, which the Section is primarily responsible for enforcing, would support.

I am beyond disgusted.  The reports are coming in, and it's painfully obvious now-- the pig that is the $100+ billion Iraq War supplemental appropriation bill is being dressed up with a wig, a party dress, mascara, lipstick, and all the other accessories and trimmings that you could possibly imagine in the form of pork-barrel spending.  Every consitiuency and every feel-good cause is being thrown a bone, in the form of several billion dollars tacked on to the supplemental.  Everybody will get something, and there will be political cover all around-- but there will be no tough stand in Congress on the Iraq War.

James L. Hart, the eugenicist denounced by his own party two years ago is trying to get on the ballot again!