Steny Hoyer hypocrisy alert - with #TPM abetting

Per Talking Points Memo, House Minority Whip Hoyer rightly notes that much of the U.S. deficit is due to tax cuts and wars. He/TPM publisher Josh Marshall even have a nice graph of this:

But, what Hoyer doesn't admit, and Marshall (conveniently?) refuses to tell us, is that Hoyer voted FOR the Iraq War, and just six months ago, voted FOR extending all Bush tax cuts.

Steny Hoyer on different healthcare playbook than Nancy Pelosi

The House majority leader, unlike his boss, the Speaker, is ready to junk the public option. Congressional Dems, as well as Team Obama, maybe can’t get their act together.

Aug. 10 healthcare roundup

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer say it’s un-American to shout down differences of opinion.

Well, it might contravene some American ideals, but in reality, it’s been done for about the entire length of existence of our republic. And, Declaration of Independence aside, the reality of America has rarely been about ideals.

Meanwhile, Robert Reich says that Obama’s deal with Big Pharma — cost controls on its part for patent extensions and other goodies — is “a precarious road -- and wherever it leads, it's not toward democracy.”

No, it’s a road that leads toward 2010 and 2012 campaign cash for the “liberal” president who opted out of public campaign financing.

Meanwhile, the country slouches toward Obama’s town hall in New Hampshire.
-END-

Passive Pelosi™ paints false dilemma on FISA bill

Here’s how the not-so-civil-libertarian Speaker of the House tried to justify her yes vote of last Friday.

“If not good enough for some,” the bill is “certainly preferable to the alternative that we have, which is the Senate bill, which must be rejected.”

What bullshit. Write a better bill.

If Bush vetoes it, so what? Pass another enabling bill for the rest of his less than seven months remaining in office.

And, Slippery Steny™ Hoyer chimes in:

“The issue really was whether we would have a compromise that would involve the court in determining whether or not the telecom companies had received justification ... or simply a bill that gave them immunity.”

Well, no and wrong.

First, immunity was only one issue of several. The issue of authorizing basket warrants was bigger for the future, though not perhaps as sexy as telecom immunity. Extending the “exigency” period from three days to a week was also big.

But, back to your primary claim.

Write a better bill. One that didn’t grant immunity AT ALL.

Now, run-Democrats-up-the-flagpole-and-salute voters, like the other bloggers at Proctoring Congress (I may soon stop being an “other” blogger there) will decry Hoyer, even decry Pelosi. They may even decry Obama for not stopping the immunity, while giving him a free ride on the basket warrants and other issues.

But, you know what?

They’ll keep pulling the “D” lever, claiming it’s better than Schmuck Talk Express™.

Well, I have an old axiom for you folks:

Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best.

Note to Democratic voter enablers – vote Green

How many progressive Democratic voters are gong to bitch after Passive Pelosi™, Slippery Steny and Hardly Relevant Harry Reid ram telecom immunity down the collective public throat, but then pull the “D” lever in November, not just for their particular Member of Congress, but for Democrats as a party?

You know the answer.

Lots.

You’re enablers.

And spare me the bullshit about electing Republicans by voting Green.

In the middle of the Gilded Age, Greenback Party and Populist Party voters didn’t buy that bullshit. They kept voting populist as James Garfield

And eventually, starting with William Jennings Bryan, Democrats started incorporating elements of the Populist platform

Did Socialists back down from supporting Eugene Debs in 1920 for fear of Harding becoming president, even though Debs was running for president from a jail cell? Hell, no, and he got his best showing ever.

Did millions of Progressives shy away from voting for Henry Wallace in 1948? Not at all.

Send some love to Cindy Sheehan in her campaign against Pelosi. Don’t “enable” Democrats any more.

Democratic leadership scaring me on proposed FISA renewal

Here’s why: House progressives say they’ve been shut out of the bill-writing process and the ACLU says it hasn’t even been briefed. House progressives fear that at least some of the incredible spying on U.S. citizens incorporated into a six month renewal of FISA late this summer are going to be made permanent.

But, they’re fighting back. The entire Congressional Progressive Caucus, all 72 members, has released a pre-emptive list of items they want to see in a FISA renewal bill:

1. It should be the policy of the United States that the objective of any authorized program of foreign intelligence surveillance must be to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but makes terrorists throughout the world feel insecure.

2. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress, the exclusivity of FISA was unambiguous. Legislation must reiterate current law that FISA is the exclusive means to authorize foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil.

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be modernized to accommodate new technologies and to make clear that foreign to foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.

4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.

5. Congress must have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected and the authority to require court orders when it becomes clear that a certain program or surveillance of a target is scooping up communications of U.S. persons.

6. Once the government has reason to believe that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons' communications.

7. Congress should not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual for helping the NSA spy illegally on innocent Americans. The availability of amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

8. Authorization to conduct foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The threats to America's security and the liberties of its people will change over time and require constant vigilance by the people's representatives in Congress.

These are, or should be, no-brainers. Then why do House progressives still feel locked out of the loop by people like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer? Why did Hoyer postpone a FISA press conference after hearing of the caucus’ bottom line demands?