Lanny Davis and Michael Steele: bipartisan scoundrels

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Chait wrote yesterday about a new venture involving "Democrat" Lanny Davis and Republican Michael Steele:

Howard Kurtz reports — or, at any rate, writes down — that Steele and Davis are pitching their firm dedicated to urging people to "tone down the negativity and personal attacks." 

A more specific sense of what they're after can be gleaned by comments such as this, from Davis: "I get more heat and more vitriol from my side than from conservative Republicans." In Democratic politics these days, he says, "you're not allowed to deviate from a purist, absolutist position. It disturbs me that people who are supposed to be tolerant of dissent are so venomous."

In other words, they want less negativity against them. The firm is a nice way for Steele and Davis to reframe criticism of themselves as mean-spirited opposition to bipartisanship. In reality, people like Steele and Davis get attacked not because they break from party dogma but because they are, respectively, a buffoon and a sleaze-merchant. (To be fair, Davis is a buffoon as well.)

Needless to say -- if you know anything about these two -- this is just plain ridiculous, just the sort of right-leaning, Republican-friendly "bipartisanship" that passes for centrism these days, and all the more ridiculous for being peddled by a couple of clowns.

But let me address what Davis said...

Actually, what the fuck was he talking about? The only reason he might get more criticism from the left than from the right is that the right doesn't give a shit about him while some on the left still bother to call him out for being a corrupt and morally bankrupt lobbyist. Otherwise, though, what party does he belong to -- and does he know anything about American politics these days?

The Democratic Party is the party of purity and absolutism, a party that allows for no deviation -- and purges its ranks of dissenters? Really? Is he that stupid?

What's he was describing is the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. The latter, after all -- his party, supposedly -- is the party that can rarely get its act together given all the divisions within. It's the party of progressive activists and Wall Street insiders, the party of Blue Dogs and the CPC, the party of Dennis Kucinich and, well, Barack Obama. It's the former, the GOP, that is the party of extremist absolutism, the party of right-wing Bolsheviks purging its ranks of moderates and others, like Richard Lugar, deemed insufficiently conservative, the party of the Tea Party, the party that required a former Massachusetts moderate to suck up shamelessly to its right-wing base and even then threw up every obstacle it could to block him from winning its presidential nomination.

Let me ask again, is Lanny Davis really that stupid?

The progressive FinReg fight

By Creature

I really don't like the direction FinReg is going. If a bipartisan bill means no floor vote on the Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking Act then, as usual, screw bipartisanship. Enough of this watered-down crap. The progressive fight is Brown-Kaufman. Let's have an up-or-down vote. Please.

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"I think we ought to withdraw the current Senate bill and instead just pass a bipartisan resolution that Americans should strive to be healthier!" -- El Cid, reacting to the president's continued bi-partisan delusion.

Absolutely delusional

By Creature

If the White House actually believes that a Brown win would usher in an age of bipartisanship because "pressure on Republicans to participate in the process" will increase, they are living on another planet. What part of NO did they not understand?

Kristol the Killer: Inside the right-wing agenda to destroy health-care reform

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back in the early '90s, Bill "Krazy" Kristol helped coordinate the Republican effort to kill what the right-wing smear machine called "Hillarycare." He's back at it in 2009, leading the crusade against "Obamacare," and, in The Weekly Standard today, he lays out his strategy bluntly:

With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of weeks or months.

My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill.

The Obama White House and the Democratic congressional leadership shouldn't be underestimated. They're tough. They'll cut deals and twist arms to try to keep their priority legislation alive. They'll certainly attack their opponents, whether their opponents' tone is conciliatory or confrontational.

So this is not the time to let them off the ropes. This is the week to highlight every problem, every terrible provision, in the Democratic bills: from taxes and spending to government control and rationing to federal funding for abortion and government-required death-with-dignity counseling sessions for the elderly. Throw the kitchen sink at the legislation now on the table, drive a stake through its heart (I apologize for the mixed metaphors), and kill it.

Then opponents can say, of course we do want to pass sensible health reform. But to do so, we need to start over.

So the constructive part of the message would be: Start Over. We're not giving up on health reform...

And so on. The title of his post says it all: "Kill It, and Start Over."

Kristol doesn't pull any punches here. Writing at his neocon homebase, he's free to let it all hang out -- and it does. And it's helpful for us, who oppose Kristol and his ilk, to be able to see right into the dark core of their moral and ideological extremism.

The key message is "Kill It," not "Start Over." Do we honestly believe that Kristol wants to start over, that he genuinely wants to see meaningful health-care reform passed? The only reform he wants is more of the same, reform that further supports the private interests -- HMOs, Big Pharma, etc. -- that control America's sinking health-care system, profiting grossly while millions and millions remain uninsured or otherwise unable to access the care they need, including for their children.

And do we honestly believe that Kristol wants to work on "sensible and targeted health reform in a bipartisan way"? Sure, if "sensible and targeted" means keeping the status quo (making it even more difficult for low- and middle-income Americans to access quality care, making the system even more profitable for private interests), and only if "bipartisan" means "Republican."

What this post reveals is just now partisan, in both political and ideological terms, the right is. And this ought to be a warning to those in the pro-reform camp, including moderate Democrats, who think that bipartisanship is a possibility. However desirable it may be to secure Republican support for a meaningful reform bill, after all, one that includes a robust public option, the fact is, Republicans, led by the likes of Bill Kristol, aren't serious about, and aren't soon about to get serious about, working constructively with Democrats. They are obstructionists, it's that simple, and their delay tactics aren't about pushing some viable alternative to "Obamacare" but about killing reform altogether.

That is their goal, and they are adamant about it. It will take all of our strength to fight back against them, and to achieve our goal, a genuinely American goal, of quality health care for all Americans, not just for the lucky few -- like Kristol himself -- who can afford it.

Leadership on both sides of the road

By Carol Gee

President Barack Obama, according to Charles Mahtesian of Politico.com, believes that there is a concerted Democratic effort to divide and conquer leaders in the Republican party. His Wednesday article, "Stealth War: Barack Obama sabotages Republicans," is a compelling argument buttressed by Obama's recent nomination of Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) to be the new Secretary of the Army. To quote from the piece:

"Boxing the Republicans into a South-dominated party is very good strategy, because the more you reduce the Republican Party, the more conservative and reactionary it will become, and thus less attractive to moderates," said Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland-Baltimore County professor and the author of "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South." "The Midwest and the Northeast are the places where there are still remnants of old-line Rockefeller Republicans. And these are the places where the Democrats will build durable majorities."

We Texas Democrats remember Obama's 2008 primary contest, which he narrowly lost to Senator Clinton. More recently we noticed our Republican governor making noises about secession from the Union. And we are reminded once again that we reside in the Republican South, increasingly marginalized as a political region. I can only speak for myself. It is discomfitting. Just as it is uncomfortable to watch what is left of the GOP and their fellow-travelers be such failures in their necessary roles as members of a truly loyal opposition. The nation needs a functional two party system, not a marginal-regional-reactionary-ultra-conservative group of losers dedicated to propping up a dysfunctional corporatocracy.

Watching Transportation Secretary - former Rep. Ray LaHood, Ambassador to-be to China - former governor Jon Huntsman and now Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania come over to help the Democrats govern is proof positive that that President Obama is very adept at leading from both sides of the political road. Moderate Senate Republicans were key in getting his initial big piece of legislation, the Recovery Act passed. It seems apparent the such leaders want to make a difference for our country, rather that merely oppose from a small right wing Republican minority, stuck in the 80s. They prefer to belong to a change movement that is built on finding the common ground upon which to move forward. Rather than attempting to rewrite the history of the Bush administration or wishing failure on the administration in power, they look for problems to solve.

A bronze statue of former President Ronald Reagan was unveiled today in the Capitol's Statuary Hall. It is beautiful and it was heart-warming to listen to his widow Nancy Reagan speak at the occasion. Just as it was heartwarming to see President Obama be solicitous of the former first lady at Tuesday's Reagan Centennial Bill signing ceremony. If the Republican party is ever to recover it must reach out to bring people into a larger tent. Just as President Obama has reached out to bring Republicans into his larger Democratic tent.

Mitch McConnell, bullshitter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here was Senate Minority Leader McConnell yesterday on John King's State of the Union:

I must say I'm disappointed. After two months, the president has not governed in the middle as I had hoped he would. But it's not too late. He's only been in office a couple of months. Still before him are the opportunities to deal with us on a truly bipartisan basis.

It would be one thing if a generally moderate Republican like Arlen Specter had said this. But McConnell? He's long been one of the nastiest and most vicious partisans on the Republican side of the aisle.

And, of course, what he means by being bipartisan is caving in to Republican demands -- and what he means by governing in the middle is being staunchly Republican. There's no "middle" in McConnell's world, you see, there's just the Republican way and the not-Republican way. Similarly, "bipartisanship" is just a rhetorical tool to sucker weak-kneed Democrats, or Democrats without principle or conviction, like Even Bayh, into abandoning their party and embracing the GOP.

Do you think McConnell ever expressed disappointment in Bush for not being moderate or bipartisan enough? Exactly.

Cabinet stupidity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Anonymous Liberal makes a good point: "The Notion of a 'Bipartisan Cabinet' Has Always Been a Stupid One."

Very stupid.

If you elect a Democrat, you get a Democratic Cabinet. It's as simple as that. Or should be.

There are plenty of ways in which a president can demonstrate that he's open minded and willing to work constructively with the opposition. But putting members of the opposition in charge of implementing his policy is just dumb. The fact that the Beltway centrist chorus believes that this is what good presidents should do is just a reflection of their own bizarre obsession with symbolism and belief that bipartisanship is some sort end in and of itself.

I think it's important for Obama to continue to appear respectful and bipartisan in his general governing approach, if for no other reason than to provide a contrast with the never-ending immaturity and childishness of the GOP. But the best way to do that is by sitting down and talking to Republicans, not putting them in charge of various executive branch departments.

"Bob Gates is an exception to this general rule," AL states, and I think he's right -- whether or not you like Gates is beside the point. But there was no need for Obama to nominate Judd Gregg.

The symbolism -- along with the approval of the likes of David Broder and his centrist ilk -- just isn't worth it.

Bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake makes for poor economic policy

By LindaBeth

Is anyone else sick of the bipartisanship overkill? Sure, bipartisanship is a nice idea. But the economy is falling apart--fast. The stimulus bill needs to actually stimulate; a half-assed job is not good enough. Including non-stimulating or less-stimulating items (i.e. a lot of tax cuts) . Wrong policy for the sake of bipartisanship is not going to fix our economy. And it puts the Republicans in the position to be able to blame the Democrats and Obama when/if it doesn't work like it ought to--enabling them to claim that there is too much spending, when in reality, there are too much tax cuts and not enough spending.

You know what else I'm sick of? The Republicans saying (complaining and whining, really) that the bill isn't bipartisan and that it doesn't have enough of what they want (is this an attempt of tyranny of the minority?). Bullshit. There is a better than 60/40 split between spending and tax cuts. Just because the bill is not being supported in a bipartisan fashion doesn't mean the bill isn't itself inclusive of both Democratic and Republican economic approaches. The Republicans are digging in their heels and claiming a lack of bipartisanship. No, it's not really bipartisan--is anyone claiming it actually is?--because the Republicans refuse to vote for it despite efforts by the Democrats and the White House to include the Republican one-solution-fits-all of tax cuts. As Rachel Maddow noted in her show yesterday, the compromise by the bipartisan group of Senate moderates has approximately the same ratio of spending: tax cuts and there are Senate Democrats: Republicans. It seems as though the Republicans will only call this bill bipartisan when tax cuts dominate and spending is minimal; in other words, when it becomes absolutely partisan in their favor. Seriously, they are whining that it's not being done the way their ideology demands, despite the slew of economic experts who disagree, but why should they get their way when they're wrong and they lost.

So the Republicans are complaining that their ideology does not dominate the bill, and are making a big deal out of the fact that the bill is not bipartisan (because Republicans won't vote for it). This is despite the slew of concessions to them that will do little for economic stimulus--and despite the fact that regardless of Republican support, the bill itself is technically ideologically bipartisan. But who cares? Seriously. McCain's arrogant "I've done bipartisanship, and this isn't it" is frankly, beside the point. Do we want bipartisanship, or do we want a bill that will work? Why is bipartisanship the standard of whether or not this is a good bill anyway? Bipartisanship in the midst of an economic crisis is at the very least overrated when one side is just plain wrong; at the very most, it's dangerous to our economic survival. This soap-box statement by Maddow on Friday's show does a great job of calling bullshit on Republican's ideology which would flunk them out of Econ 101 (it's well worth the 8 minutes):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I don't understand the value of including so much tax cuts to appease the Republicans when it will have so little economic impact, simply for the sake of a bipartisan bill that isn't being supported in a bipartisan fashion anyway. And I'm really really frustrated at the perpetuation of economic falsehoods by the Republicans and the media covering them. Maddow says it brilliantly: we need to start "privileging correct information over incorrect information [...] if you are wrong from here on out, you should lose the argument, and you should lose your political potency." I have to wonder: as the economy is crumbling, why, oh why, are Americans continuing to embrace anti-intellectualism? The Republican heel-dragging, falsehood spreading is pure politics: our economic policy is suffering at the expense of political policy. The Republicans are playing politics with our country's immanent future and I've seriously had it.

I grabbed this chart from Moody's Economy.com:


Note the difference in economic impact for tax cuts vs. infrastructure spending and increases in welfare spending. Giving money to low income folk is almost guaranteed to be spent; giving money to upper class folk, and even middle folk is likely to be saved or used to pay down debt. And that's nice and good, but it won't provide the stimulus we need, which requires spending, and it is effectively done by giving it to those who are certain to spend it (i.e. poor and working class) and by giving people incomes so they have the security to spend. Why isn't this front page news, juxtaposed next to Republican's looney economic-speak?

No, the media sure isn't helping; they have bought into the Republican spin that spending and stimulus are opposites. Seriously, between the Republican's screwy economics and the mainstream media regurgitating their ideology, the folks talking to the American people about the merits of the stimulus are economics idiots. From Media Matters:

Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explains: "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." (emphasis mine)

Kudos to Steven Pearlstein, who in Friday's Washington post said:

Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.

Bipartisanship in this ideological war is not a good thing. As reported by the Daily Kos:

Krugman added, “This is the kind of situation where you try to build a bridge across an economic chasm and if you build half a bridge it doesn’t work.”

This can't half-work. Somehow, some way, facts and correctness need to triumph over ideology. The media needs to do its job and not be a mouthpiece for the Republican spin machine. Considering the anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism that pervaded the election, I cynically wonder if "privileging correct information over incorrect information" is even too much to ask.

(Cross-posted to Speak Truth to Power)

Quotes of the Day: Pelosi and Kerry on partisanship and the stimulus package

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Nancy Pelosi: "I didn't come here to be partisan, I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."

John Kerry: "If Republicans aren't prepared to vote for it, I don't think we should be giving up things, where I think the money can be spent more effectively. If they're not going to vote for it, let's go with a plan that we think is going to work."

They're both right. It's all fine and dandy to talk about bipartisanship, about crossing the aisle, and about seeking compromise -- and I respect Obama for reaching out to Republicans -- but what's the point if the other side isn't willing to play along?

There may be good partisan political reasons why the House Republicans voted against the stimulus package, as Slate's Christopher Beam noted today, but the fact is that they all did. And so with the GOP playing politics, and doing what is or at least what seems to be in its own self-interest, it's time for the Democrats to do what's right for the country without regard for some vaguely mandatory bipartisanship, that is, without having to (or even desiring to, for appearance's sake) secure Republican support beyond what may at a minimum be required (i.e., to block a filibuster in the Senate). Yes, that may still mean reaching out to Republicans, to the few who aren't wedded to ideological extremism and narrow self-interest, but above it means developing the best stimulus package possible.

There is risk involved -- the stimulus package is not overwhelmingly popular and may not even work -- but with leadership comes responsibility, a responsibility, as Pelosi put it, "to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest," even in the face of risk, and certainly in a time of crisis.

The sound of one hand clapping

By Carl

It seems bipartisanship died pretty quickly on the Hill:

WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan as Congressional Democrats sought to temper their own differences over the enormous package of tax cuts and spending. [...] Democrats voluntarily dropped from the package several provisions that Republicans had singled out for derision in recent days, including money to restore the Jefferson Memorial and for family planning programs.

You'll hear a lot in the coming weeks from FReepers and their fellow travelers about the domestic spending portions of this package, and of course, the sudden interest in deficits. There will be talk, particularly with regards to the safety net spending portions, like extending unemployment benefits or automatically enrolling the unemployed in Medicaid.

This from a group of people who thought nothing of digging deeply into the national treasury to provide welfare for a people in a land thousands of miles away after we bombed the living crap out of them, shot them up, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, and generally made their lives miserable... for nothing!

So naturally, the first question I have to ask is, "Why would you spend half a trillion dollars on a land that you will never ever visit to assist people you will never ever meet, but not a dime to help the family down the block buy a loaf of bread or get a flu shot? Why would you spend a trillion and a half to bailout your banking buddies so they can buy corporate jets or pay obscene bonuses, but not help a fourth grader keep her clarinet?"

Why do they hate America so?

Naturally, there's a bright side to all this partisan show of hatred for a fairly reasonable-if-massive bill: when it succeeds, the Republicans will be scrambling to explain to constituents why they voted against the very lifeline they ended up depending on, and wouldn't the constituency have gotten an even better deal if their Congresscritter had agreed to go along?

Part of this, I'm sure, is political theatre. Barack Obama, meeting with Capitol Hill Republicans (must have been one of the small conference rooms on the Hill), signaled he'd be willing to adjust some of the tax breaks offered in the package to include small businesses, so long as the Republicans would pony up some of the corporate welfare they've allowed to creep into the budget over the past fourteen years.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Pornville) seemed rather hesitant to be cooperative.

Iowa, where men are men and sheep wear IUDs.

The dance begins. The Senate debate on the bill begins in earnest today, but will likely extend into next week. For once, it might be worth tuning in CSPAN and popping up some Orville Redenbacher.

As well, the whole rural/urban split across party lines (rural legislators, Democrats and Republicans, derailed a compromise on the distribution of Medicaid funding) as reported by Politico is probably going to end up in a bit of arm-twisting behind the shed. Clearly, Republicans in Congress feel this is their best weapon in peeling off support for the stimulus package, and it will be interesting to see if Pelosi can marshall her whip (Steny Hoyer) to drag these kids back into the lunch line.

I suspect so. It's early in the term and these folks have a lot of legislatin' to do. Screw around with the signature piece of legislation of this Congress, and you run the risk of losing the party's backing in your re-election, which most are already running for.

There's a sentiment among conservatives that Americans are "bailed out", that the spending that's already happened has them weary and wary of any new spending proposals.

Silly Charlie Brown conservatives. If anything, people are going to be solidly behind this bill, and will get all over you for supporting Bush's bank bailout bill for taking money that could have been pumped into the economy and wasting it on Falcon jets. And yet, these dimwits report this "sentiment" as if it existed anywhere but in the feeble addlepated minds of Rush and Sean and Lord Coultermort.

If it's a recession when your neighbor loses his job but a depression when you lose yours, then it's a bailout when he gets a check in the mail, but a stimulus package when you do.

And don't feel bad for your banking buddies, Republicans. I know I don't!

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

House passes stimulus package, Republicans vote against helping the American people

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

With no Republican support, the House approved an $819 billion stimulus plan that will serve as the cornerstone of President Obama's efforts to resuscitate the economy, an early victory for the new president but still a disappointment because of the lack of Republican votes.

The measure passed 244 to 188, with 11 Democrats and 177 Republicans voting against it.

The two-year economic package includes $275 billion in tax cuts and more than $550 billion in domestic spending on roads and bridges, alternative-energy development, health-care technology, unemployment assistance, and aid to states and local governments. It would also provide up to $500 per year in tax relief for most workers and more than $300 billion in aid to states for funding to help rebuild schools, provide health-care to the poor and reconstruct highways and bridges.

Read that again: The package includes both spending measures and tax cuts. The American people would get some tax relief, money to save or to spend, perhaps to pay the bills and put food on the table, and money would go to infrastructure projects, for energy and education and health care, to support those who need it, those who have lost their jobs at a time when the economy is bleeding jobs, and down to states and municipalities, to levels of government on the front lines of service provision.

You know what? It's not just about stimulating the economy, it's about helping people. It's responsive, responsible government action at a time when government action is desperately needed.

And, in the House, every single Republican voted against it.

Read that again: EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST IT.

So much for bipartisan outreach. So much for Obama's efforts to be inclusive and to seek compromise with the other side. All the Republicans could offer was the same old tired formula of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts, and, when it came right down to it, when it came time to pick a side, the Republicans sided, in unison, against the American people and the American economy.

Don't get me wrong. Like many others, I actually think there's a need for a much, much larger stimulus package. I would even argue (as I did here, yesterday, where I wrote that the Republicans -- "a mean, nasty mob of self-interested, partisan zealots" -- seem to hate America) that Obama and the Democrats should now do what needs to be done -- that is, pass a bigger, better stimulus package -- without bothering to engage in what has proven to be fruitless bipartisanship, that is, without reaching across the aisle and seeking GOP support. After all, if the Republicans aren't interested in helping the American people, why should the Democrats waste their time with them? The Senate is not the House, though, and it is perhaps there that Obama and the Democrats can secure some Republican support, which, if nothing else, would improve the optics of the stimulus package. As silly as it may be, or seem, given the ideological extremism of the House Republicans, it is still in Obama's interest that the package not be, and not be perceived to be, a purely partisan effort.

For now, though, the Republicans' true colours are bright and clear. They may wrap themselves in the flag, and they may play the patriotism card whenever and wherever possible, but they're actually the anti-American party. At a time when the American people need help, and when the new president and the majority party are willing and eager to rise above partisanship, the House Republicans, once again, put themselves before all else.

Looking For the Light

By Carol Gee

Congress is back in session. It is time to cross your fingers again, that they will somehow manage to avoid throttling each other across the aisle, to keep the government from shutting down, and to supply the military with the basics.

Senator McCain has not shown up in the Senate for some time. It will be interesting to see if he makes any votes at all. It is just as well because it would be just more of the inepitude we have come to expect from both McCain and Bush. He has been otherwise occupied with his campaign, an extremely partisan quasi-reformer now basking in the glow of another partisan quasi-reformer, Governor Sarah Palin. We are quickly learning the truth about the senator's choice for Vice-President and it is not pretty. Juan Cole's asks on 9/9/08: "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists?" The truth is that Palin tells lies, as here described in Memeorandum and at Think Progress, 9/8/08: "Lies To Nowhere: The McCain Campaign’s Inaccuracies On Palin’s Bridge To Nowhere Support." It begins,

From the day he named Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) to be his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been citing Palin’s opposition to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere as the prime example of her ability to stand up to lobbyists and wasteful spending.

That claim has been repeatedly debunked.

Senators and House Members who do show up will also be very preoccupied with campaigns. We will see partisan wrangling over the smallest things. Yesterday's argument* was about whether to return money borrowed by Treasury 8 years ago to the Highway Trust Fund, to pay for the repairs now in progress, as requested by the Transportation Secretary. A Republican Senator had objected, claiming it must go for Iraq. This headline from Yahoo! News (9/7/08) describes it well: "Returning lawmakers make Capitol a campaign stage," By JIM ABRAMS. To quote:

The House and Senate reconvene Monday after back-to-back political conventions, both parties eager to use the three-week session to show voters why their candidates are the ones to fix the economy and lower energy prices.

The only matter of business that must be accomplished is passing a bill to keep the government running from Oct. 1 through the Nov. 4 election and until Congress returns. Even that might not be easy. Republicans are threatening to block the spending bill if Democrats do not give them a vote on ending a quarter-century freeze on new offshore drilling.

. . . With 179,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democratic leaders would like to pass a Pentagon spending bill so they can tell voters that the military's basic needs are covered until October 2009.

We are very lucky because a few congressional leaders are at least trying to be involved in the nation's best national security interests. The following two articles illustrate that.

1) Oversight is still happening -- from the 9/8/08 "Daily Muck" at TPM Muckraker, a quote :

Leading members of Congress are demanding more information about the FBI's seven year investigation into the anthrax killings, . . . In a letter to FBI director Robert Mueller, Democratic congressional leaders argued that there were many lingering questions for the FBI to continue to investigate. Ivins committed suicide while under investigation this July. (New York Times)

2) The fight over congressional subpoenaes is still in the hands of the courts. Congress lost this last round, we learn from TPM Muckraker (9/5/08): "WH Gets Temporary Stay for Testimony," by Kate Klonick. To quote:

The latest in the back and forth between Harriet Miers and the House Judiciary, . . . We have the order here, full text after the jump.

Fortunately Republicans are capable of seeing the light, but most of them have left Congress. However, a number of them have joined an organization called Partnership for a Secure America. (The list includes some heavy hitters): Howard Baker, US Senator (R-TN) 1967-85; Nancy Kassebaum Baker, US Senator (R-KS) 1978-97; Slade Gorton, US Senator (R-WA) 1981-87, 1989-2001; and Warren Rudman, US Senator (R-NH) 1980-92. Tomorrow is the scheduled release of the PSA's "WMD TERRORISM REPORT CARD." The Washington Post has the story on the report itself.: "In WMD Report, U.S. Gets a C." It looks as if the next Congress has its work cut out for itself. To quote:

Group of Ex-Officials Says Terrorism Threat Remains Real. . . The report comes as the Democratic-controlled Congress has established a panel to expand U.S. and international programs designed to counter use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists.

Former Clinton State Department official Wendy R. Sherman, a member of the congressional panel, called the partnership's report a "helpful and useful tool."

"Our report will deepen both the assessment of the threat today and what we can do about it," Sherman said. The group is scheduled to issue its report by November.

Some Republicans still know "What Patriotism Looks Like." Yesterday The Washington Note's Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation, announced a meeting with Lincoln Chafee in Washington today that I would just love to attend. To quote,

Tomorrow, Tuesday, at 12:15 pm, I will be chairing a meeting at the New America Foundation with former Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI).

Chafee, who is now a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Watson Center for International Studies at Brown University, is now a political independent and author of the book, Against the Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President.

Chafee helped launch Republicans for Obama along with philanthropist and former Bush 2000 campaign New York co-chair Rita Hauser and former Congressman Jim Leach.

So I am back to watching the U.S. House and *Senate sessions on C-SPAN. Most of it will be boring and useless. But it is what we have on TV these days. I much prefer it to what the mainstream media has to say as they parrot the Republican line for gullible voters. Most of their "best" people are either inane, biased, lazy, co-opted, or afraid. I guess I'll go Biblical, too. It seems the thing to do. So I say, "Forgive them; they know not what they do."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)