Hey, remember that parliamentary pain in the ass, the motion to recommit? And remember how Republicans have been using it to create political annoyances, and even succeeding in using them to make Democrats destroy their own legislation?

Well, someone's had quite enough of that:

May 6, 2008

Dear Democratic Colleague:

I appreciate your support for my legislation to cancel the debts of the world's poorest countries, H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act. I am confident that the passage of this legislation will make a real difference in the lives of millions of impoverished people around the world. Nevertheless, I was puzzled by the large number of Democrats who voted for the Republican motion to recommit during consideration of this legislation.

I am especially distraught that individual Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican motion to recommit did not obtain clarification from Chairman Barney Frank or myself regarding our position on this motion. It is important that Members of the Democratic Caucus have a level of trust and respect for one another that would lead them to consult with the authors of legislation prior to voting for Republican amendments, especially motions to recommit.

Unlike other types of amendments, motions to recommit are offered without advance notice to the majority party; are not pre-printed in the Congressional Record; and are not subject to vetting by the authors of the legislation, the leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, or members of the Rules Committee. Consequently, it is not surprising that Members discovered after the passage of the Jubilee Act that the motion to recommit was drafted improperly and needed to be corrected by a unanimous consent request the week after the passage of the bill.

I am also concerned that the Chair of the Democratic Caucus was one of the Members of the Caucus who organized the "yea" votes, despite the fact that an aide to the Chair was quoted in The Hill as saying the Chair voted "yea" by mistake.

I realize that this was only the most recent of many instances in which Members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Republican motions to recommit. However, as I watched Democratic leaders organize "yea" votes on this motion, I was convinced that Democrats are traveling down a path of complicity on motions to recommit the likes of which we have never seen before. I cannot help but wonder if our Caucus will be torn apart by frequent support for Republican motions to recommit. I find myself wondering, "Where will this end?"

I appreciate the attention of my Democratic colleagues to these concerns, and I look forward to our discussing a consistent, unified approach by our Caucus towards Republican motions to recommit. I believe this is a discussion the Democratic Caucus should have as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

/s Maxine Waters

Member of Congress

Did you catch that?

I am also concerned that the Chair of the Democratic Caucus was one of the Members of the Caucus who organized the "yea" votes, despite the fact that an aide to the Chair was quoted in The Hill as saying the Chair voted "yea" by mistake.

Yow! That's Rahm Emanuel she's talking about there, who's regarded as one of the architects of the Democrats' tactical use of the motion to recommit in the 109th Congress. The success Democrats had in forcing the Republicans to vote against those motions -- and then later running against those bad votes and taking control of the House inn 2006 -- has left Dems worried that the same tactic can be used against them in 2008. And it's true. Minus the fact that the Republican brand is in such tatters that it won't matter, of course.

So what, exactly, was the problem with the motion to recommit on the Jubilee Act that Rep. Waters identified? Well, in an attempt at setting up another "gotcha" moment, Republicans thought they'd force a vote on the restriction that no debt relief ought to go to any country that has business dealings with Iran.

Of course, that's exactly the deal Condoleezza Rice is trying to cut for Iraq, which has both enormous debt and significant business dealings with Iran. But never mind that. While it's true that Iraq's debt wasn't covered by this bill, Iraq's problem is just a matter logic and consistency, and the "administration" and its enablers don't care about that stuff.

But the fact is, the motion was so sloppily drafted and so poorly researched that it ended up killing major portions of the underlying bill,  even though the majority of Republicans in the House agreed with its intent. It was so bad, in fact, that the House ended up having to go back a week later and remove the changes made by the motion by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent! Even the authors of the motion to recommit knew they'd screwed it up badly enough that it needed fixing.

Just watch Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) explaining the situation:

So as stupid as these motions are, the worry they create ends up driving Democrats to destroy the village in order to save it. They gut their own legislation, or end up agreeing to attach provisions odious enough to make the rest of us wish they'd just gut it, all in the hopes of avoiding "gotcha" campaign ads that are probably coming no matter what.

Meanwhile, what's happening out in the real world?

Republicans are losing critical special elections deep in their own territory, running campaigns trying to scare people with terrorism and/or immigration, accusing Dems of not "supporting the troops," and even tying them to the very frightening Barack Obama. And none of it is working with the electorate.

Democrats unafraid to run as Democrats are winning at the voting booths. The DCCC, which Rahm Emanuel no longer runs, is on a hot streak, winning three heavily Republican seats in special elections in the past two months. Meanwhile, the Democratic Caucus, which Rahm Emanuel does run, can't get out of its own way for fear of becoming vulnerable to Republican attack ads that haven't worked in any of those special elections.

Hmm.

Shh! Don't stop me, I think I'm learning something...

Boston Globe:

Rahm Emanuel -- hard-charging Illinois congressman, Clinton White House veteran, and one of the most influential leaders in the Democratic Party -- has spoken. Emanuel, who has remained noncommittal throughout the primary, said today that the contest is all but decided.

"At this point, Barack is the presumptive nominee," he said at a conference sponsored by The New Yorker magazine, according to The Huffington Post. "Hillary can't win but something could happen that Barack could lose the nomination."

Emanuel refused to say, though, that Clinton should drop out, saying "Next question!" when asked. But he warned Clinton not to damage the party in the coming weeks.

"What Hillary does in the next month is important," he said. "If she spends her time contrasting with Senator McCain, drawing distinctions that help the Democratic Party, that's productive. If it's done in another way, that's not productive."

Former Clinton bulldog and current Illinois representative Rahm Emanuel today said that Barack Obama is now the Democratic Party's nominee for the 2008 Presidential race. Emanuel has thus far not endorsed either candidate, the only superdelegate in the Illinois congressional delegation to not do so. We can discuss what, exactly, "presumptive" means. I've thought Barack was our "presumptive" nominee since the 12 contests in a row. Maybe not. This is an important step, however: Emanuel was seen as a strict Clinton loyalist.

Rahm Emanuel:

The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November.

One guess who he's talking about. Though really, why not just say it explicitly already?

Rahm is an uncommitted Super Delegate - the only Illinois Super Delegate who has not endorsed Barack Obama.  On Super Tuesday his district overwhelmingly voted for Obama - my Lakeview neighborhood went 90 percent for Obama.  Emanuel's purported out is that as a Democratic leader in Congress he needs to keep above the fray - tell that to the second most powerful Democrat in Congress, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, who as a New Yorker is supporting Hillary full bore. The second line of defense is that he was a top aide to President Bill Clinton - if that argument flies then it acknowledges that Hillary is merely a stalking horse for Bill's restoration and a run around the Constitution.  Call Rahm and tell him to announce his support for Barack.  He has no excuse.

Well, at least in Alaska, Markos Moulitsas and Rahm Emanuel are in bed together.  They're both supporters of Ethan Berkowitz's Alaska Democratic Party Primary campaign for the AK-AL U.S. House seat, now held by Rep. Don Young (Pervert - CNMI).

Markos, after commissioning a United 2000 poll late last fall on both the AK-AL House race and the 2008 Senate race for the seat Ted Stevens now holds, donated $1,000.00 to the Berkowitz campaign for the first quarter of 2008.  This wasn't at all unexpected, after Markos showed up on the roster of attendees at a San Francisco fundraiser held for Berkowitz this winter.

But the biggest donor to the Berkowitz campaign chest was Illinois Democrat, Representative Rahm Emanuel.  Rahm's PAC, Our Common Values, donated $10,000.00 to Berkowitz in the first quarter.  It wasn't only Berkowitz's biggest donation, it was the biggest amount Emanuel's PAC appears to have ever donated in a quarter to a yet unelected Democratic Party candidate in a primary against two solidly progressive and credible opponents.

This week Newsweek features Rahm Emanuel and Vernon Jordan as the two persons who could effectively tell Hillary that her 2008 campaign for the presidency is over. Newsweek profile "O Come O Come Emanuel"  Rahm doesn't even have to tell Hillary;  he just needs to move from being the last undeclared Illinois superdelegate, to joining every other Illinois superdelegate in endorsing Obama.  And why should he do this?  Because Rahm has been a mediocre congressman for his district and his stance of false loyalty to Hillary is at variance with vote-proven sentiment of his district which voted 2 to 1 for Obama on Super Tuesday.  If Rahm does not move, his old fashioned, clout-patronage politics may seem anachronistic in 2010.  As a constituent,  Rahm's fence sitting, along with his arrogance, his abysmal constituency services and his lack of interest in bringing home the bacon makes me hungry for a challenge.  According to Newsweek, Rahm "thinks of Barack as a peer, but he's very mindful and respectful of the Clintons."  Rahm, you are no Barack Obama, and will never be Barack Obama.  So suppress envy and jealousy and do the right thing.  Now.

The Chicago Tribune publishes an overview of the debate over trade, evaluating whether the Democratic presidential candidates are serious about their fair trade rhetoric. While the article is encouraging in that it at least covers the issue, its contours show the big obstacles we still face in this debate, despite the fact that polls show the vast majority of Americans want a change.

Dear Representative Rahm Emanuel:
Let’s clear the air first.  I am a Jew.  You are a Jew.  I live in Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District.  You not only live here (presumably not in a studio apartment), but represent us in the United States House of Representatives.  I have voted for you and feel you to be a good representative for this district, the Democratic Party, and this country.

Before I continue, I would like to stress that I have no qualms with Christianity – nor, for that matter, any other religious creed.  I respect that Christianity in particular is rooted in the same Noahide tradition as Judaism and, indeed, Islam.  I mean in no way to denigrate the wonderful tradition and faith that is modern Christianity.

That said, as a Jew, I am sure you cringe, as I do, when you hear certain phrases rooted in a deep tradition of anti-Semitism.  Though most modern Christians have purged the belief that Jews are directly responsible for the death of Christ from their belief system, certain wounds still lay bare.

Finally, the dishonesty is being unmasked. Finally, we see just how much we're being lied to when it comes to economic policy. Finally, we see it hasn't just been Hillary Clinton lying about her role in championing NAFTA, but we see it is the entire Clinton machine.

You know, I've spent quite a bit of the last few years trying to figure out how in the world the Democratic Party, the party that so many think of as the Party of the common people, can so often lose elections to an opponent Party that is obviously not only in the pocket of Big Business, but is so clearly opposed to the concept of a government of, for, and by the People. I mean really, if democratic government is the collective will of the governed, how can the Republicans Party, which trumpets the diminishing of the power of the governed, ever win any election? Who would vote for them? And more importantly, how do Democrats lose to them?

I believe the answer lies in the following article I stumbled upon...

  Please, please replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz as Red to Blue outreach coordinator!  She needs to work on her fave campaign, and can't give the new congressional candidates the effort needed. Not only that but she refuses to help the South Florida dems! That, as you have so eloquently said is a no-no!
 What is worse, she claims the 3 South Florida  Repubs are her friends and she can't support another Democrat making a run there. That is her girlfiend Ileana Ros Lehtinen who supported impeaching Bill Clinton and asked for his autograph and picture the same day as she voted FOR impeaching" for her office".  What a crock!!!  (more)  Classless Rethugs.

We may have a hard time getting our local Democratic congressmen to back fellow Democratic challengers, but how about a nice letter from Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James E. Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen.

Dated today March 14, the letter from the five top figures in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee congratulates Joe Garcia on a "strong start" to his campaign for Florida Congressional District 25.

It concludes: "We look forward to supporting your campaign and helping you become our newest Democratic partner for change in Washington."

Identical letters went to Raul Martinez, challenging in District 21, and to Annette Taddeo, candidate in District 18.
MORE below the fold

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D?) has been busy kneecapping some of our best challengers this cycle. Amazingly, she is part of the DCCC leadership  - she's currently co-chair of the Red to Blue program, which is tasked with helping our most promising challengers. But this isn't the first time we've seen something like this. From Naftali Bendavid's The Thumpin' (p. 78-79):

"I've got hundreds of examples of members screwing us. I've got members telling our challengers, 'I won't help you to challenge that X Republican.'" Emanuel continued, "I did say to one colleague once, 'You have an interesting concept of the word team. But when they come after you, I'll remind you of what you said to me. Because they will come after you.' I can give you chapter and verse of people acting like knuckleheads."

In one example, Congressman Adam Schiff of California, who served on the DCCC's recruitment committee, declined to recruit a challenger to a California Republican congressman. Schiff explained that he was seen as a bipartisan type and wanted to keep it that way. "I thought Rahm was going to strangle him," said the staffer who recounted the story. "I'm sure you've seen that look before." (Emphasis added.)

It's pretty stunning to me that anyone who would take on a leadership role in the DCCC would be so willing to undermine the cause. Yet where we had Adam Schiff dragging his feet last cycle, we now have Debbie Wasserman Schultz doing the same - if not worse - this time out.

This job is not for the faint of heart. Rahm Emanuel knew that. As Larry Sabato said of Rahm in The Thumpin', "You need someone whose favorite word is not a or the but fuck." In other words, we needed a hardass - and we got one, and we won. Rahm did not tolerate sandbagging, whether from Adam Schiff or Alcee Hastings or anyone else.

And we need Chris Van Hollen, the current DCCC chair, to have the same zero-tolerance policy. We know that he has a very different approach from Rahm, but being a hardass isn't about cursing, or withering glares, or high-decibel rants. It's about not accepting bullshit from people who want to call themselves your fellow Democrats, whether backbenchers or leaders.

By whatever methods he chooses, Van Hollen needs to make Debbie Wasserman Schultz fall in line. If we want to expand our majorities this fall, we can't have party leaders holding us back. Health insurance, stem cell research, global warming, the war in Iraq - these are all issues which Democrats are champing at the bit to address. Surely Chris Van Hollen can't let Debbie's personal friendships with the likes of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stand in the way.

Originally posted on Citizen Orange

Image: Nepean District Historical Society

The mainstream progressive blogosphere has been frighteningly silent lately, as a major migration battle looms over the U.S. Capitol.  Grassroots migrant rights organizations across the nation are mobilizing in opposition to the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act:

By all accounts, the failure of the "immigration issue" to deliver at the polls for the Republican Party should have sounded the death knell for any attempts at passing get-tough legislation in Washington before this year's election cycle was over.

With McCain as the presumptive nominee, one would think that down-ticket Republicans wouldn't want to re-hash the "immigration wars" and put their candidate in a position where he would have to once again revisit the issue.

But then again, that would assume that politics is based upon logic and McCain isn't more than willing to even further pander to anti-immigrant sentiment despite his previous record.

If Barack Obama wins the Presidency this November, the Democratic Party will surely have some major shuffling to do, especially in Illinois and wherever the VP comes from.

So I've been thinking about and discussing the possibilities for a new Illinois Senator and some reshuffling of other positions in my home state. Some thoughts are below.

My first diary so constructive criticism is very welcome.

What happens in Podunk shouldn’t stay there.  Or at least if it does, the Democratic Party Establishment, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs among us, will have won one more unrecorded battle against those of us who want real change.

What’s happening most immediately in the IL-14 corner of Podunk (a term I use here to describe anything not directly inside the DC Beltway) is a primary and a special primary on Tuesday, between the DC insider "pick" for our district, an attorney who is a relative newcomer to both politics and our area, and John Laesch, the nominee against Denny Hastert last time out, and the only progressive in the race.

At this point, I’d call it a significant bellwether for the upcoming Congressional elections that virtually no one outside of IL-14 is paying much attention to in the glare of the presidential race, as well as a bellwether event in the battle for control of the party.  So while I don’t expect this diary to get much attention, I want to leave a record of what has happened in this primary.  Bellwethers, however unobserved at the time, sometimes have a way of becoming useful history for those who follow.