Any Democrat who does not vote for a "public option" insurance plan in health care reform must be challenged in a primary. And this includes any President who does not go to the mat and fight 100% for a public option.
Our elected officials gave away our opening negotiating position by refusing to even consider the popular "Medicare-for-All" plan. Had they started with Medicare-for-All they would have the option of giving in and compromising with a public option. In fact they could well have won with this because Medicare-for-All just makes more sense. It is simple, costs less, is easily explained and the public loves Medicare.
So here we are. Just like the stimulus fight, the administration gave away essential policy to please Republicans and appear "bipartisan" before even entering negotiations. Just like during the fight for a solid stimulus plan, the Republicans took that compromise as an opening position, whittled it away without having to exchange their wins for votes, and after reducing the plan to bad public policy won't vote for it anyway.
If -- let me emphasize that I am saying "if" -- the President is really backing away from the public option these are the lessons that will be learned:
Lesson learned for members of Congress who spent political capital and backed their President, going public supporting a public option: The President can't be trusted to be consistent and stand with you. So the lesson is don't go out on a limb to back him again.
Lesson learned for teabaggers who shouted down Democratic legislators as they tried to explain the advantages of a public option: Intimidation works, so ramp it up.
Lesson learned for big corporate interests who orchestrated the terrible lies and intimidation: Do more of this.
Lesson learned for the public: Why even bother to vote? You might win, but what does it matter if the leaders you elect feel free to do the opposite of what you voted for.
We need to fix this. We need to apply pressure the way it should be applied in a democracy. We need a credible threat to run solid progressive candidates in primaries against any elected official who lets us down, rewards the big corporate interests and enables and encourages the intimidation tactics of the teabaggers. We need to start now to find a candidate to run against Obama in the 2012 primaries if he does not step up and fight for us. If.
Drafted in preparation for panel discussion at Veterans for Peace national convention August 7, 2009, on topic of "Holding the Architects of Illegal Wars and War Crimes Accountable."
Seven years to the day after the Downing Street Minutes meeting at which top British officials famously discussed U.S. President George W. Bush's intent to launch a war against Iraq whether or not any means could be found to legalize it, on July 23rd, the United Nations hosted a discussion of ways in which wars of aggression are given pseudo-legal cover. Included were remarks by Jean Bricmont and Noam Chomsky. It is not hard to imagine how different such discussions would be were the architects of the Iraq War ever held accountable for it in any way.
One of the most troubling trends that foster prosecutorial misconduct is the failure of state bar and disciplinary agencies to take action against prosecutors who violate their ethical obligations.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (DOJ) took swift and almost unprecedented action after uncovering egregious prosecutorial misconduct in the case against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Holder promptly dismissed all charges against the Senator, and federal judge Emmet Sullivan ordered an independent, criminal investigation of the prosecutors responsible for intentionally failing to turn over important, exculpatory evidence to the defense. The DOJ has also promised an investigation through the Office of Professional Responsibility. The question now is whether these particular prosecutors will ever be held accountable.
Thursday, June 25, 2009, has been designated Torture Accountability Action Day by a large coalition of human rights groups planning rallies and marches in major U.S. cities, including a rally in Washington, D.C.'s John Marshall Park at 11 a.m. followed by a noon march to the Justice Department where some participants will risk arrest in nonviolent protest if a special prosecutor for torture is not appointed.
http://accountability4torture.com
Events are planned in Washington, D.C.; San Francisco, CA; Pasadena, CA; Thousand Oaks, CA; Boston, MA; Salt Lake City, UT; Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Las Vegas, NV; Honolulu, HI; Tampa, FL; Philadelphia, PA; and Anchorage, AK, with details available online:
http://tortureaccountability.w...
The evidence for the necessity to hold Bush administration officials accountable for the use of torture continues to grow. Light is being shed, not only on the acts of torture, but also on the indiscriminate and wantonly careless manner in which detainees were designated as such "high value" that they should be considered appropriate subjects for torture interrogation techniques.
On Tuesday, June 16th, the Washington Post reported (CIA Mistaken on 'High-Value' Detainee, Document Shows) that CIA documents confirm the Bush administration was mistaken about Guantanamo detainee Abu Zubaydah being a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda.
The Post report confirmed what Brent Mickum, one of Abu Zubaydah's lawyers, told a torture accountability forum on May 30th, that "Abu Zubaydah was never even a member of al-Qaeda much less a high-level member." Nevertheless, Zubaydah, a Palestinian, was held at a secret CIA facility after his capture in Pakistan in March 2002 and was subjected 83 times to waterboarding.
Mickum on his client Abu Zubaydah at torture accountability forum May 30th:
Mickum wrote about these mistakes by the Bush administration in a March 30th article "The Truth About Abu Zubaydah" published in the British newspaper Guardian.
The facts surrounding the handling and treatment of Abu Zubaydah that have so far come to light raise enormous doubts about Dick Cheney's assertions that the techniques he authorized were used sparingly, only on "high-value" suspects and yielded positive results. Closer to the truth is that the use of these torture techniques was reckless, in most cases based on implausible and mistaken information, and may involve a cover-up by the OLC.
One of the main activities Open Left has been engaged in during its two years of existence is working to hold Democratic candidates and elected officials accountable for conservative, anti-constituent actions. Last June, Mike Lux had some very smart things to say about holding politicians accountable, which helps clarify exactly what progressive accountability entails. Specifically, it is about building the power to deny politicians things they really value, unless their behavior falls within a range you deem acceptable:
For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don't think you can hold them accountable. I don't think saying bad things about them holds them accountable, I don't think holding a protest holds them accountable, I don't think starting a petition holds them accountable- unless it is affecting their ability to win an election or pass legislation.
I think this is exactly right. To help further clarify this thought, consider for a moment that many ways in which the Obama administration is able to hold politicians accountable should those politicians act in a way that the administration deems unacceptable.
Just in case anyone had their doubts about whether progressive groups are serious about holding Blue Dogs, conservodems, and other center-right Democrats accountable for supporting Wall Street and conservative groups instead of supporting their own constituents, doubt no more. The following video is the first paid media campaign from a large progressive coalition designed to hold Democrats accountable on mortgage bankruptcy reform, otherwise known as "cramdown."
It will appear over 250 times in Jonesboro, which is the largest city in the Arkansas 1st congressional district. Jonesboro is also a college town (home to Arkansas St.) It would have cost just as much to run the ad in smaller, nearby towns, so only Jonesboro was targeted.
It will run only on CNN, both in the daytime and during primetime. CNN was chosen because its appeals to news junkies and its viewers lean heavily Democratic (65%-26% according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports) and because MSNBC was not available in the area.
The ad will run over the next three weeks, starting today. By appearing over 250 times in one area, and over an extended period of time, local Democratic news junkies will see it often enough to remember it.
The ad placement cost $5,000, paid for by BlogPac. Such a low price was made possible by the new services offered by SaysMe TV.
Republicans hammered Barack Obama over his connection to ACORN during last year's election, but now ACORN is taking a swing at some Democrats - with the help of liberal activists at MoveOn.org.
The role reversal arises out of the groups' anger at moderate House Democrats who opposed a housing bill that has more generous bankruptcy rules for people facing foreclosure.
Next week this coalition will begin airing TV ads criticizing House Democrats who voted against the measure, which would for the first time give judges the authority to restructure home mortgages - a procedure known as a cramdown.
Hmmm... where did I hear about this before? Oh yeah:
An Ad To Run Against Dems Who Vote Against Cramdown
Sign a petition asking Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in war crimes. Sign now.
Collect signatures in the real world by printing out this PDF. Please enter the data you collect on the petition online and/or mail the completed (or partially completed) forms to JDS, 4407 Garrison Street NW, Washington DC 20016.
Phone and Email and fax the Office of the Attorney General at 202-514-2001 AskDOJ@usdoj.gov fax:202-307-6777 to request a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in war crimes.
On March 31st, there will be a special election to fill Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated seat in the House of Representatives. Her old district, the New York 20th, encompasses much of the Hudson Valley, centering near Albany. President Obama won the district 50.70%--47.70%, which is 4.25% below his national average but still provides the district a light-blue hue.
Glens Falls venture capitalist Scott Murphy is the Democrats' choice to take on Republican James Tedisco for the 20th Congressional District seat.
Democratic committee chairmen from 10 counties on Sunday chose Murphy from the narrowed-down list of four hopefuls at a meeting at the Gateway Diner in Colonie.
I am going to take a pass on this election, and take it pretty loudly (if this blog post counts as "loudly.") Best of luck Mr. Murphy, but you will get no resource assistance from this website. In the extended entry, I explain why.
Much has been written about the thousands of people denied access to Barack Obama's inauguration -- including the plight of those in the purple ticket line who stood in the 3rd Street tunnel for hours and others (including myself) in the blue line who saw the gates shut on them right before Obama's historic event.
Inaugural Chair Dianne Feinstein has promised an investigation. But, in reading over the quotes coming from various people, it appears that Feinstein will soon face a choice: accept the true version of what happened and hold the appropriate people accountable or allow history to be re-written in a way that covers up some gross incompetence.
The [inaugural] committee said it had based its plan on “historic precedent” and “calculations of the number of guests that could safely be accommodated in each area.” But the crowds were “unprecedented,” the committee said, and a “huge flow of unticketed people” made matters worse. [Bold added.]
Senate Sergeant At Arms Terry Gainer said he thinks there were a number of problems that led to the chaos. He said there may have been more tickets issued than they could handle. [Bold added.]
This narrative basically implies that the inaugural committee planned as well as could be expected, but so many members of the public came out that some folks at the back of the line inevitably got cut. Kind of sucks, but since 2 million people won't be coming to any events in the foreseeable future, no need to "blame" anyone...let's just move on.
Warning: this is one of those brutally frank posts that may well piss you off. Sorry about that
Having been trained by an associate of Saul Alinsky when I was still in high school, I have always had strong views about what it means to hold politicians accountable (I've written about holding Presidents accountable in the past here). I have a very different perspective on the matter than Matt Stoller and many of my friends in the netroots. (I hope we'll still be friends after I put this post up.)
Mr. Bush has officially informed us that recent success in Al-Anbar Province should convince us to "stay the course" in Iraq, despite the failure of every other aspect of his Iraq/Afghanistan/foreign policy initiatives-and the shifting nature of the definition of success.
Even more ironically, Mr. Bush now plans to become a crusader for fiscal responsibility, despite his failure to take this issue seriously in the past.
All of this has lead to a huge back and forth between those who claim this bit of recent overseas success and the current "strong economy" justify more of the same, as success is finally "just around the corner", and those who see this President's Iraq policy as essentially passing the problem on to the next President.
