Since the time that captured “enemy combatants” were first brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, the detainment facility has undermined America’s image as the model of justice and protector of human rights around the world. Holding prisoners for an indefinite period of time, without charging them with a crime goes against our values, ideals and principles as a nation governed by the rule of law. Further, Guantanamo Bay has become a liability in the broader global war on terror, as allegations of torture, the indefinite detention of innocent men, and international objections to the treatment of enemy combatants has hurt our credibility as the beacon for freedom and justice. Its continued operation also threatens the safety of U.S. citizens and military personnel detained abroad.

[snip]

The closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay would represent a positive first step toward restoring our international reputation as the leader of democracy and individual rights. [my emphasis]

Guess whose signature appears right at the top of the long list of those who signed this letter?

Then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

I wonder what changed between the time when Rahm recognized how unacceptable indefinite detention is and his willingness now, in cahoots with Lindsey Graham, to set up a system of indefinite detention? Heck, this Rahm has even called closing Gitmo a distraction.

Would I be foolish to ask for that other Rahm back?

Tags: Gitmo, Guantanamo, indefinite detention, Rahm Emanuel, Torture

Thanks to a coordinated effort to paint a strategy long used by both parties as secretive and unconstitutional, Democrats have bungled their preferred “deem and pass” strategy for health care reform with just one vote, leaving it with pretty much no political utility. When the swing votes you need the most criticize the tactic meant to shield them from taking a standalone vote on the Senate bill, I don’t understand the logic in still moving forward with it.

Of course Republicans agitating about this are being massive hypocrites. But as long as that doesn’t seem to matter to them, it certainly won’t matter to the traditional media. “Deem and pass” was designed as a way to avoid the standalone Senate vote and all that implied, that endangered incumbents voted for “special deals” for various states. Um, the NRCC has already cut the ads saying that, and I doubt they’ll retract them because of some procedural technicality that can allow members to claim they didn’t really vote for those deals.

It may be easier to consolidate two votes into one, but politically, Democrats lose by taking on a strategy designed to help their members. And the members don’t want it imposed upon them because a mightly Wurlitzer campaign has made it toxic. The leadership can’t even defend it.

Why they would use this strategy at this point is a mystery.

UPDATE: None of this is to say that David Waldman isn’t correct in his analysis. But that basically doesn’t matter. Politically speaking, there’s no real reason to do this anymore.

Tags: deem and pass, health care reform, James Clyburn, Jason Altmire, Reconciliation, Republican noise machine

Dave Weigel isn’t a journalist, he’s a smear-monger that makes things up and projects his own fantasies onto his stories:

I spoke to Kathryn A. Serkes of the Doctor Patient Medical Association at this morning’s rally against the health care bill, after Serkes had addressed the smallish crowd.

“I’m in contact with folks on the progressive side,” said Serkes. “They’re saying right now that Pelosi’s almost there with the votes. What they’re saying is that there’s some serious arm-twisting — their words were ‘union thuggery.’ One progressive source told me that there was serious union thuggery this weekend, targeting Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.).”

The source, she said, was Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, a liberal blog that’s also paid for polls in some Democratic districts asking voters whether “aye” votes on health care reform would help or hurt their re-election chances. “She said that they’re very close — [liberal blogs] are better at keeping a tab on it. And I think Pelosi’s very close. I think we’re right at the edge.”

I know Katherine, we were on MSNBC together, and we’ve spoken about working on the pot legalization measure in California in the future. She tells me that when Weigel approached her and asked her who her “source” was, she didn’t say. He said “It’s Jane Hamsher, isn’t it. . . I’ve been around.” According to Katherine, she didn’t respond.

Weigel decided to print his own suspicions as fact, and didn’t bother to contact me for confirmation. It’s a pattern with him.

Weigel goes on to accuse me of using the words “union thuggery,” in quotes. He completely put words in my mouth. That is a totally fabricated quote.

I’m not “working” with the tea partiers on health care. But Weigel doesn’t care about the truth — any reporter would’ve contacted me first before printing something like that. He’s just a fantasist printing propaganda, and the Washington Independent has no higher standards than to print it.

I guess trading in political smears is something their donors approve of.

Tags: Dave Weigel, fantasist, Kathryn Serkes, Making Sh*t Up, Washington Independent

But the Democratic establishment are now out to torpedo any woman who sticks up for choice. Steve Hildebrand — Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, who called up rich donors and told them to cut off 527s during the campaign — is threatening to primary her if she defends a womans’ right to choose from Ben Nelson’s assault:

Hildebrand, deputy national campaign manager for Obama’s presidential campaign, told CNN in an exclusive interview that he has been frustrated with Herseth Sandlin’s voting record for some time, especially her decision to oppose the House health care reform bill in November. The House is expected to vote again on the issue later this week and a Herseth Sandlin spokesperson has said she plans to vote no again.

“I want to see how she votes on health care,” Hildebrand said. “If the vote is very, very close and we lose it or come close to losing it, I will take a seriously look at challenging her.”

“She is on the wrong side of history,” he added.

Let’s just be very clear about what’s happening here. There were forty-one members of Congress who signed Diana DeGette’s letter saying “We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

And now, if any of these women wants to keep that pledge to defend choice, Obama’s deputy campaign manager — the guy that controls the cash — is threatening to run them out of office for doing so.

You’re not allowed to stand up for choice in the Democratic party any more.

For years we’ve been told that we have to allow anti-choice Blue Dogs into the party, because that’s how we get our fabulous Democratic majority that will protect choice. And we have to let them be corporate whores, because otherwise the Republicans are in charge, and you know how they feel about abortion. But as we stand here on the precipice of watching the Democrats deal the biggest blow to abortion rights since the passage of the Hyde amendment, let’s just remember what the language in the Senate bill actually does:

• Allows states to opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges, a clear violation of Roe v. Wade. Since some state medicaid programs cover abortion as long as it is paid for with state money, the Hyde amendment (current law) obviously does allow insurance to cover abortion as long as it is paid through a separate non-federal funds.
• Prohibits insurance companies by law from taking into account cost savings when estimating the costs of abortion care, which raises premiums, thus limiting access
• It includes “conscience clause” language that protects both individuals and entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortion.

If a pro-choice member of Congress wants to keep their promise and oppose these brutal setbacks to a woman’s right to choose, which actually tee up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, the President’s Deputy Campaign Manager is openly threatening not only her fundraising but also her seat.

Last week, Diana Degette tried to pretend that the Senate bill doesn’t do exactly what it does:

“The good news is the Senate bill will allow people to purchase insurance policies with their own money that will cover full reproductive rights,” said Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, a lead negotiator for abortion-rights backers in the House. “That’s current law. It also honors our compromise that we made in the House that we’re not going to have federal funds to pay for abortion. So it honors that compromise.”

Bullshit. It allows states to opt out.

So far DeGette has refused to release the names of the 41 members of Congress who have signed her letter. That’s bullshit, too. She need to release those names, or she shoudn’t have one more dime of pro-choice money. Ever.

I was at a big event with pro-choice donors in New York last week. Many pro-choice representatives — Betsy Markey, Ann Kirkpatrick, Gabby Giffords, Carolyn Maloney — were on hand to shake them down for cash for supporting choice.

If these members are abandoning choice now, when it counts, they should never get another dime.

We want to run online ads in Diana Degette’s district telling her to release the letter. And to stand up for what she says she believes in. . .:

We’re also running robocalls to likely 2010 pro-choice voters in her district, letting them know that DeGette won’t take a stand. Because all of the signatories are taking their lead from her.

If Diana DeGette didn’t want to lead on choice, she shouldn’t have stepped up. To be an apologist now for the administration by papering over what they’re trying to do is just wrong.

If Obama wants to run a campaign within the Democratic party against a woman’s right to choose, let’s do it in public. Let’s know where everyone stands.

Contact Colorado media and tell them to ask DeGette to release the letter.

Sign the petition, and donate to run online ads in DeGette’s district – stand up for a woman’s right to choose as part of the Democratic party platform. If this bill goes through without a fight from the pro-choice community, that’s it. Turn out the lights. It’s all over.

Tags: 2010 Election, Barack Obama, Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson, choice, CNN, Diana DeGette, reproductive rights, Roe v. Wade, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Steve Hildebrand, whip

Good morning! We are in Judge Vaughn Walker’s San Francisco courtroom again this morning; today at 10am Judge Walker will hear an appeal of Magistrate Judge Spero’s order regarding disclosure of materials from anti-Prop 8 groups, specifically Equality California (EQCA) executive director Geoff Kors.

First thing this morning (9:30am pacific time) Judge Walker is dealing with an unrelated criminal matter. I’ll begin liveblogging the Perry v Schwarzenegger appeal hearing as soon as it begins.

Criminal matter running a little long; as of 10:10 Judge Walker is still hearing the criminal matter.

10:25 criminal matter concluded; court taking break now.

12:20PM: Hearing concluded.

Lots of so-so lawyering from ACLU and EQCA as well as some crisp responses from Desseau (Plaintiffs take no position on the order to compel disclosure) and the P-I attorney. A number of good questions from Judge Walker, specifically with regard to the where the “clear error” of the magistrate’s order is. I’m not sure either ACLU or eQCA attorneys showed any error at all, although they argued the merits a lot.

Plaintiff-Intervenor thinks since they had to provide docs, so should these parties, although they are “syympathetic” to the first amendment arguments, having made and lost them with regard to their own doc production.

Finally, the ACLU attorney tried to get some more words in edgewise at the end, to very little sympathy from Judge Walker. At the end of this attempt, the ACLU attorney agreed with Dousseau that this would endanger the wonderful, awesome schedule Judge Walker kept for the entire trial, since this magistrate’s order would certainly be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit.

Judge Walker did not appear to be pleased to be reminded of the several times the Ninth Circuit has overruled his orders in this case, and said “Thank you” and left the bench.

Shortly thereafter, the Clerk announced that Court was in recess. Chatting with lawyers afterwards, no one seems to think today’s activity made a verdict appear any sooner, although there was some discussion that we could get one or two weeks advance notice of a date for closing arguments.

Stay tuned!

Tags: California, civil rights, EQCA, Gay rights, Jeff Kors, liveblog, Marriage Equality, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, prop 8, Vaughn Walker

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8)

The leadership says they have the votes, but projecting an aura of confidence has been a key to their pressure strategy. Bart Stupak says Democrats are 16 votes short, but pessimism has been, well, part of his strategy. So, I prefer to actually, you know, count the votes.

The last count had it at 204-208, if you include leaners. Where are we now?

• Gabrielle Giffords released a public statement saying “The legislation before us, while far from perfect, represents a needed step forward,” and saying that “when and if” her concerns are satisfied to her satisfaction, she’d be proud to support the bill. That’s as close as you’re going to get to a Yes in this atmosphere, so off the board she goes.

• Actually, you can get a bit closer to Yes – Dan Maffei said he’s voting for the bill, saying that “Doing nothing is no longer an option.”

• Riffing off of my whip count, Nate Silver gets some intelligence on Tim Bishop, who told constituents at a house party last week to write letters in support of reform. Combined with his votes and comments in the Budget Committee yesterday, I’ll move him to yes. (Interesting how the New Yorkers are coming off the board after the SEIU and the Working Families Party made their preference known.)

• I had Scott Murphy, a No vote last time around, listed as a yes, but his press secretary contacted me to say no, he’s truly undecided. Josh Schwerin, Murphy’s Communications Director, tells me, “he is literally reading through the Senate bill and making notes in the margins.” So I’ll put him back to a lean yes. I still think he’ll be there at the end, but this missive from the press aide sounded kind of anguished.

• I never put John Tanner, another retiring Dem and named by White House officials as a likely No-Yes flipper, in the lean Yes category. I’ll do so now.

• Glenn Nye, on the other hand, sounds like a lean No at best.

• Mike McIntyre’s a no, which is where I had him since I started these whip counts. The guy showed up at a right-wing “Prayercast” which was literally praying against the bill.

• There’s a third-hand report from the National Review about Tom Perriello being part of the Stupak bloc. I don’t really buy it. He’s been very tight-lipped about his vote, however, though leadership gave him the main sponsorship on repealing the industry’s anti-trust exemption. I’m thinking he’s a Yes, but I’ll put him in the lean Yes category for now.

• The Hispanic Caucus continues to make noises about voting no due to the immigration provisions, but they’re always leavened with talk of what a tremendous accomplishment this would be, and I just don’t see them not playing along on this.

• HCAN put some new pro-reform ads in rotation that have interesting targets. They include three members not on my board – Bill Foster (D-IL), Jim Costa (D-CA) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ). Targeting Costa also gets you Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), as they’re in the same media market. I don’t know why they’re doing this – I don’t see these votes in play – but you have to expect they have a bit more information. I’m confident on Costa and Cardoza, but I’ll put Foster and Mitchell into the undecided category.

UPDATE: I should maybe not take these targets so seriously. OFA just sent me a message telling me to call into the district of Republican Dave Reichert in Washington and get supporters of reform to call his office. Now, Dave Reichert is never, ever voting for this bill. Why in the world would any group target him when there are so many other votes out there to get? Probably because OFA is part of the DNC and they don’t want to pressure Democrats. Point being, I think I’ll de-emphasize targeting in my analysis. The advocacy groups appear to be flying blind.

Add all that up, and what do you get? Maffei, Bishop and Giffords are Yes votes; Murphy’s back to lean Yes, John Tanner moves to lean Yes, Glenn Nye moves to lean No, and Perriello, Foster and Mitchell go back onto the board (with Perriello as a lean Yes). So that means there are 190 Yes, 206 No, and there are 15 lean Yes along with 3 lean No votes. So pushing leaners, you’re at 205-209.

You can see why leadership is even looking at the hard No votes. They are still going to need to do a lot of work to get this done.

Raw totals (and one hot chart) on the flip. . . .:

Definite YES:
190 Democrats, including Jason Altmire (D-PA), who voted No last time, in November.

Definite NO:
178 Republicans, including Joseph Cao (R-LA), who voted Yes in November. He’s in the Stupak bloc.

Definite NO:
28 Democrats.

23 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon, Charlie Melancon, Tim Holden, Ben Chandler, Health Shuler, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Adler.

5 Democrats who voted Yes in November (confirmed Stupak bloc):
Bart Stupak, Dan Lipinski, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Steve Driehaus.

13 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes:

7 lean Yes:
Bart Gordon, Brian Baird, John Boccieri (Clyburn Three), Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, Scott Murphy, John Tanner.

5 undecided:
Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow.

1 lean No:
Glenn Nye.

22 potential Yes-No flip votes:

5 additional Stupak bloc (Stupak-curious):
Brad Ellsworth, *Marcy Kaptur, Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, *Marion Berry.

8 lean Yes:
Paul Kanjorski, Dina Titus, Betty Sutton, Baron Hill, Allan Mollohan, Bill Owens, Marcy Kaptur, Tom Perriello.

9 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Ann Kirkpatrick, Nick Rahall, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Bill Foster, Harry Mitchell.

2 lean No:
Mike Arcuri, Marion Berry.

Democrats need 26 of a combination of the 13 potential No-Yes flip votes and the 22 potential Yes-No flip votes. So they need 26 out of the remaining uncommitted 35. If you’re counting leaners, Democrats need 11 of the last 17 uncommitted.

Previous Whip Counts:

Tags: Democrats, Health care, House of Representatives, whip count

In what will probably become a major point of contention in the campaign, Lincoln claims that she voted against “giving more money to Wall Street,” which is technically true but not the entire story. Lincoln voted for the TARP bailout but voted No in early 2009 to deliver the second tranche of TARP money – $350 billion – to the Treasury Department for their use. That resolution of disapproval failed, and the money went to Treasury anyway. Also, interestingly all the numbers of her votes to “keep jobs in Arkansas” come from 2004 and 2005. Clearly, there’s been no need for job creation measures in the last 5 years. They come to your home to give you jobs these days.

I wonder how the votes on the lobbyist-written bankruptcy bill, or the opposition to ending bank subsidies in the student loan process, add up to “working for Arkansas.”

The spot prefigures what will be a contentious and nasty campaign, although hitting Halter for breaking his word about going negative because of an IE spot that he cannot control seems gratuitous. In fact, Halter’s campaign spots have been entirely positive. Here’s his latest one.

Tags: AR-Sen, Arkansas, Bill Halter, Bloanche Lincoln, jobs, Labor, primaries, TARP, unions

Dick Armey, the former Congressman from Texas and current teabagger, actually grew up in North Dakota — but he certainly sounds like he was educated by the Texas School Board.

“Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow,” Armey reported in his luncheon address.

No. Jamestown was founded strictly as a business venture by a group of entrepreneurial English noblemen looking to find gold. And the Jamestown colonists’ “look out for #1″ philosophy got a lot of them killed.

Armey seems to be referring to the Plymouth Colony, whose idealistic founders did not want to repeat the mistakes of Jamestown, and thus signed the Mayflower Compact, which called for “submission” to the “general good.”

The problem for Armey is that the for-profit Jamestown was an epic fail and the “socialist” Plymouth was a big success.

Armey is also confused about Alexander Hamilton.

“The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers,” Armey explained. [...]

A member of the audience passed a question to the moderator, who read it to Armey: How can the Federalist Papers be an inspiration for the tea party, when their principal author, Alexander Hamilton, “was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government”?

Historian Armey was flummoxed by this new information. “Widely regarded by whom?” he challenged, suspiciously. “Today’s modern ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case in fact about Hamilton.”

Ahem. Notes Dana Milbank,

Hamilton favored a national bank, presidents and senators who served for life and state governors appointed by the president.

Yes. As any high school student should know.

It is an ongoing fascination of mine that the very same wingnuts who are constantly bragging about how much they love this country are so frequently pig-ignorant of its actual history.

Tags: Dick Armey, Tea Party, teabaggers, Wingnuttia

After avoiding direct questions for months, Donna Edwards signed the July 31 letter  saying she would vote against any health care bill that didn’t have a public option. I caught up with her at  Netroots Nation and she asked me to have a fundraiser for all the members of Congress who signed the letter.

“Carrots, not sticks,” she said.

Blogs across the country came together and did just that — raising $430,000 to thank 65 members of Congress for promising to hold the line at something 80% of the public wanted.

Donna Edwards said the same thing to Cenk Uygur on the Young Turks: “at the very minimum,  a strong, robust public option has to be part of an ultimate, ultimate plan.”

Paul Jay of The Real News reported “Rep. Edwards to insist on public option.”

And as she told the Washington Post:

I’ve joined with 60-some of my colleagues who signed a letter to the president and to our leadership saying very clearly that if there’s not a public option in the final bill then I won’t support that bill.

They concluded, “In short, the public option remains a line in the sand for Edwards.”

Then she suddenly caught the #Rahmflu.  Less than two weeks after the fundraiser she was equivocating:   she “declined to speculate on whether she would vote against a conference bill without a strong public option….’That’s a long way down the line,’ Edwards said. ‘I am talking about the House vote.’”

Rep. Edwards should not have asked people to lead fundraisers of support for members of Congress who pledge their word if she’s not prepared to lead those members to honor it.  Call and ask her if she will keep her promise, or give the money back.

Tags: Donna Edwards, health care reform, Maryland

Just look what has happened in the last fortnight (or so): the president actually put his health plan on paper, the Senate leadership and the White House decided that budget reconciliation wasn’t such a bad idea after all, Democrats in both houses of Congress came together on a sidecar strategy, leadership has started whipping votes like there’s no tomorrow, President Obama has taken his show on the road in campaign-style events to sell his reform plan, and he, the president himself, is having one-on-one meetings with Democratic members (yes, that’s Democratic, not Republican) of the House to arm twist and horse trade. And, the great grassroots organizing forces of the left—from OFA to SEIU, from DFA to HCAN, from MoveOn to what the serious folks call “the liberal blogosphere” (not the marginal blogs, of course [smile])—have been mobilized in an all-out, no-holds-barred, damn-near scorched earth effort to move every last member of the House off the dime and on board the health care highway.

Hell, the White House is giving away NASA bases, and the SEIU is threatening primary challenges to anyone that votes against the “Senate-plus” health care overhaul—even if that means running kamikaze, third-party candidates. All to counteract the horrible, obstructionist, downright evil efforts of notorious Public Enemy Number One. . .

Dennis Kucinich.

Uh, yeah.

But, whatever—there are mountains to be moved here!

And look what they are moving mountains for.

It is strikingly educational to note that none of this was done last spring for single-payer. None of this was done last summer for a bill with a robust public option. None of this was done last fall for drug re-importation. None of this was done to stop the health care bill from containing the greatest threat to reproductive rights in a generation. Some yelled, some organized, some worked hard—a group here, a blog there (or vice versa)—but there was no massive, coordinated push, no hard sell, no “win one for the gipper,” and no demonizing of those who were then the obstacles to real, progressive change.

But, today—today everything is different. The White House has the bill it really always wanted. They have their deals with PhRMA, AHIP, and the Hospitals more-or-less unbroken (despite some of their protest-too-much carping); they have their real goal in sight.

The White House has their individual mandate—a law that will require those without coverage to buy from private health insurers under pain of penalty enforced through the IRS—they have their restrictions on drug re-importation and direct drug price negotiation still intact, and they have kept their word on the handshake deal that they made last spring with the medical industrial complex: no public option.

They have the Big Insurance Bailout and Medical Industries Profit Protection Act of 2010. If BIBMIPPA doesn’t sound good to you, it shouldn’t. This bill will not provide universal coverage, it will not provide universal access, it will not significantly bend the cost curve, it will not prevent draconian escalations in premiums or out-of-pocket expenses, and, upon signing into law, it will not do anything at all for the large majority of the 48 million uninsured for another four years.

What it will do is mandate an expansion of the customer pool for private insurance. What it will do is funnel taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the lobbying arms AHIP, PhRMA, and the various private hospital associations. What it will do is enrich and entrench the current powers-that-be at the expense of middleclass and poorer working Americans.

What it will do is make future efforts at reform much, much harder.

And for this, the Democrats have practically risen from the grave—and with the force of an army of hungry zombies, they will not stop until they have converted the whole village. And, today, it looks pretty much like they will.

So, behold: Democrats can get things done. When everyone comes together and whips in one direction they can take on any foe—FOX News, John McCain. . . even Dennis Kucinich. But is this really the battle Democrats should be fighting—is this the battle we should be proud of?

And, a note, too, to those that plan on complaining about and campaigning against Republican obstructionism—this week’s events render that strategy weaker by a furlong than that of the French at Agincourt. Even without the mythical army of 60 senators—or bipartisan support—the Democrats can get things done. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

That this will was to serve corporate interests, over and at the expense of the public good, is as sad as it is signature. And, I believe, it will be noticed and remembered by voters, maybe not from this day till the ending of the world, but certainly through November, and likely long past. Behold, the power of Democrats—and for what and whom they would wield it.

Tags: AHIP, Barack Obama, Blogosphere, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, DFA, drug re-importation, HCAN, Health care, health insurance, House of Representatives, OFA, phrma, public option, Rahm Emanuel, seiu, Senate, single payer, whip