House Progressives To Keep Fighting

Despite enormous pressure against them and few institutional allies, the House Progressive Caucus will keep fighting for a public option.

Next week will be gut-check time for the bloc of progressives standing in opposition to any bill that doesn't include a public health insurance option.

The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plans a "whip count" for early in the week to gauge the strength of their coalition, caucus members tell the Huffington Post. The whip team will also approach members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses.

Democrats hold 256 seats in Congress and need 218 to pass a bill, meaning 39 progressives, voting together, could tank the legislation, assuming all Republicans vote nay.

The whip count will send a message to to the administration, said CPC co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.): "Don't cut deals with some elements of our party or with some elements of the Republican Party without including the progressives in that discussion," he suggested. "So we're going to count our votes, see how many we have and that's the number we're going to indicate to both the leadership and the administration."

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a member of CPC leadership, estimates that eighty to 100 members will make the pledge. The progressive caucus met on Thursday, following the president's speech, and members repeated their commitment to seeing the public option included in the bill, said Ellison.

Grijalva guessed the whip count would be lower than Ellison's estimate. "We need firm votes," he said.

I agree with Grijalva, the final number will be lower. However, there will be a number of conservative Democrats in states like Alabama and Idaho and Mississippi who won't vote for any kind of health care bill, because they're basically Republicans. So I would say that if progressives can find somewhere between 25-30 members to stand firm, they'll be able to block anything. They got 32 votes against the Afghan war, so it's not impossible.

While Senate moderates and, in all likelihood, the Administration are pushing hard for a trigger, Obama's own rhetoric in defending the public option works against him here. He acknowledged in his Wednesday speech that his conception of a public option would bring some choice but would be small, only bring in 10 million people tops, wouldn't use Medicare bargaining rates, and is only a small piece of overall reform. In that case, moderates should be able to live with it, since there's so much else in the bill they seek. But of course, that's never how the game is played in Washington.

However this turns out, that vaunted unity in the Democratic caucus doesn't seem to be there completely. And that's actually a good thing. There should be a range of opinions in the caucus, and those debates can work themselves out. If one side is constantly made to knuckle under, it doesn't actually allow for any ideological variance, and doesn't give much of a reason for that side, which reflects the Democratic base, to stay in the Party.

You Know It's Hard Out Here For A Likudnik

So Bibi Netanyahu will form the new Israeli government. Only he wants a unity coalition rather than the natural coalition made up entirely of parties from the right. And he's constrained by a new US Administration that wants him to stop expanding the settlements and work toward peace. With Kadima and Labour likely to reject his calls for a unity government, Netanyahu is actually in a precarious position.

Ms. Livni, the current foreign minister and Mr. Netanyahu’s main rival for the premiership, has so far refused the idea of joining a government led by Mr. Netanyahu and including several ultra-orthodox and far-right parties. Committed to the peace process with the Palestinians, she has said she would rather go into the opposition than serve as a fig-leaf for a coalition of the right.

Mr. Barak, whose Labor Party fared badly in the elections, has already said he would heed the will of the people and head into the opposition [...]

Shalom Yerushalmi, a columnist in Friday’s Maariv newspaper, described such a government as Mr. Netanyahu’s “nightmare.”

“The narrow government he formed in 1996 fell apart in stages,” Mr. Yerushalmi noted. “Netanyahu swore that he would not make a narrow government again, and would never again be the prime minister of half the people.”

And what's remarkable is that American politicians are feeling free to speak out about the situation in Gaza in ways I haven't seen before. Pushing from the American benefactors is the surest way to rein in Likud.

“The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering” said (Brian) Baird, “Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching – what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words.”

Inquiring about the status of relief efforts, the Congressmen learned that some aid material has been allowed in since the intensity of the attacks lessened a month ago, but much is still being blocked by the Israeli defense forces. Examples of aid that has been banned by the Israeli Government include: lentils, macaroni, tomato paste, lentils and other food. Basic building materials, generator fuel and parts to repair damaged water treatment equipment have also been kept out.

“If this had happened in our own country, there would be national outrage and an appeal for urgent assistance. We are glad that the Obama administration acted quickly to send much needed funding for this effort but the arbitrary and unreasonable Israeli limitations on food and repair essentials is unacceptable and indefensible. People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in” said Baird and (Keith) Ellison.

This is especially shocking coming from Brian Baird, the guy who supported the surge in Iraq and seemed to welcome thumbing his nose at doves in his own party.

I don't want to oversell this. The peace process is probably dead for a couple years. But Netanyahu clearly doesn't want to lead the way he did in 1996, because he knows that the same fragmenting would result. So this is a far-right government that wants to mask their far-right policies. If he's forced to do so, Netanyahu may not survive more than a year or two, and maybe we'll get a government that can move the process forward again. Either that, or Netanyahu will have to "go to China" and embark on a peace program due to internal constraints. I didn't think I would be hopeful about Israel/Palestine after the election, and I'm still not, but there's a road to hope.

The Hajj!!!

Why this isn't being run on a loop now on Fox News, I have no idea.

There was no fanfare, no press release when Keith Ellison made the pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city of Mecca last week.

"We weren't really trying to turn this into a political thing," said the Democratic congressman from Minneapolis. "This is just me trying to be the best person I can be."

Downplaying his role as the first member of Congress to make the Hajj, as the pilgrimage is known, Ellison called the experience "transformative."

He's the scariest Muslim in the history of Muslims. First Koranobama, and now this. The women will be wearing burqas by midnight.

/paranoia

Not Just An Old Election Problem

A lot of people are talking about these allegations about Karl Rove's role in stealing Ohio in 2004. Certainly worth paying attention to and following up. It's just as important to note that the right is not only continuing these tactics, but mainstreaming them.

At a little remarked-upon hearing this week, Rep. Keith Ellison grilled liberal blogdom's favorite punching bag Hans von Spakovsky over the voter ID laws he championed which led to disenfranchisement a couple months ago in Indiana:

ELLISON: Now here's something that happened on the May 7th Indiana election. A dozen nuns and another unknown number of students were turned away from the polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the United State Supreme Court. Mr. von Spakovsky, you wanna stop nuns from voting?

VON SPAKOVSKY: [silence]

ELLISON: Why don't you want nuns to vote, Mr. von Spakovsky?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Congressman Ellison, uh-

ELLISON: I'm just curious to know.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Those individuals, uh, were told, were- knew that they had to get an ID, they could have easily done so. They could have voted, uh, by absentee ballot- uh, nursing homes under the law are able to get-

ELLISON: ...Mr. von Spakovsky, are you aware that a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a-

VON SPAKOVSKY: They all had passports-

ELLISON: Excuse me.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They had expired passports which meant that they could have gotten-

ELLISON: Mr. von Spakovsky, do you know a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a sister who's in her order and who knew her, but had to turn her away because she didn't have a government-issued ID? That's okay with you?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Yes...

Okay with him? It's his most fervent dreams realized!

Ellison didn't let up there. He asked von Spakovsky pointedly about the greatest hits of US Attorney/voter fraud cases in Minnesota (where US Atty Thomas Heffelfinger was fired for ignoring voter fraud claims) and Missouri (the infamous Bradley Schlozman prosecution over a separate voter fraud case involving ACORN). Ellison basically accused him of lying to the committee and von Spakovsky became indignant. This guy was on the Federal Election Commission, just to let you know how far these completely bogus charges have progressed into the mainstream.

This voting stuff isn't going away, and if anything it's going to get more intense as Republicans get more desperate. I can't believe that this article didn't get more attention when it came out a few weeks ago. There's no question that this will became an enormous issue literally out of nowhere this fall.

Election officials worry that the state's home foreclosure problem will pose a problem this November for voters still registered at their former address, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Voters in pivotal Ohio with outdated addresses face possible pre-election challenges and trips to multiple polling places. They also are more likely to cast provisional ballots that might not be counted.

"It's a real issue," said Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in elections. He wonders whether foreclosures might explain the increasing percentages of provisional votes cast between 2004 and Ohio's latest election, the presidential primary in March.

Ohio provided President Bush with an 118,000-vote victory in 2004, giving him the electoral votes he needed to win the election.

All of a sudden you're going to hear that these families forced out of their homes and relocated across the country are actually fraudsters trying to steal the election for Obama. The very fact of vacancy at the addresses where these people are registered makes hundreds of thousands of people prime suspects for voter caging. And you can be sure that re-registering isn't paramount on their minds, either. In battleground states like Nevada, one out of every 120 or so homes is in foreclosure right now. This seems like a huge under-the-radar issue that is receiving literally no attention.

And there's a nexus here between these potential minefields and the voter ID laws conservatives are pushing.

Ohio's requirement that voters show identification at the polls makes it more important that they keep their registration information current, said Jeff Ortega, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's elections chief.

In 2004, the Ohio Republican Party challenged more than 31,000 newly registered voters statewide after letters it mailed out came back as undeliverable. The challenges failed, but Brunner said a new state law requiring counties to mail their own notices to all registered voters could lead to another round of pre-election challenges.

There may be plenty of illegal disenfranchisement, but is anybody paying attention to the legal version?

Counterpunch

This is the best way to deal with that awful Supreme Court decision on voter ID.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) are introducing legislation to help more Americans register to vote by allowing Election Day registration at polling places for all federal elections. The Election Day Registration Act addresses chronic problems with the American electoral process – low voter turnout and archaic voter registration laws. Election Day registration is also seen as preferable to advance registration since voters are actually present when they register, reducing opportunities for fraud. The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), who represent states that recently enacted Election Day registration, are also cosponsors of the bill.

Same-day registration ought to be a core election rights value. It raises turnout in every state where it's tried, it encourages new voters to get involved, and as the Minnesota Secretary of State notes it's far more secure:

Allowing Election Day registration can also address concerns about potential voter fraud. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has called Election Day registration a “no brainer” and has said it is more secure than advance registration because “you have the person right in front of you – not a postcard in the mail.”

Minnesota and Wisconsin have been running their elections this way for over 30 years. Same-day registration states beat their counterparts in turnout by 16 points (70-54) in the 2004 election.

Now, this wouldn't cure everything enshrined in that SCOTUS ruling - you'd still need some form of ID to present at the polls under Indiana's law, for example - but it eliminates all of the barriers to entry associated with registration, and it allows voter registration and mobilization activists to focus in the states on free ID programs and expanding access to photo IDs in underserved communities. The end result would be positive for our democracy, increasing participation and giving voice to everyone who wants it.

I think this should be a legislative goal as soon as possible.