EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
All But 32 House Dems Back Bad Wars, Big Banks
Thirty-two Democrats broke with the Obama administration and House Democratic leaders Tuesday to oppose a $106 billion supplemental appropriation to maintain the occupation of Iraq, surge more troops into the quagmire that is Afghanistan and fund the International Monetary Funds anti-social policies of forcing developing countries to sacrifice programs for the poor in order to bail out big banks.
But that wasn't enough to block approval of the measure.
The final vote was 226 in favor of the supplemental, 202 against.
The bill passed with Democratic votes -- 221 Democrats backed it, along with 5 Republicans.
The spending scheme was opposed by 170 Republicans. Most, although not all of the Republican "no" votes were cast for the wrong reasons of knee-jerk opposition to the Obama administration, foreign aid and environmental programs. (There were the usual exceptions, such as Ron Paul of Texas. John Duncan of Tennessee and Walter Jones of North Carolina.)
Joining the Republicans in voting "no" were the 32 Democrats, many of the them closely associated with Progressive Democrats of America, which aggressively lobbied against the supplemental.
The Democrats who broke with the administration were:
Arizona's Raul Grijalva.Californian's Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Brad Sherman, Jackie Speier, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey.
Colorado's Jared Polis.
Florida's Alan Grayson.
Maine's Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree.
Maryland's Donna Edwards.
Massachusetts' Michael Capuano, Jim McGovern, John Tierney and Nikki Tsongas.
Michigan's John Conyers.
Minnesota's Keith Ellison.
New Hampshire's Carol Shea-Porter.
New Jersey's Donald Payne.
New York's Eric Massa and Jose Serrano.
Ohioans Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich.
Texan Lloyd Doggett.
Vermont's Peter Welch.
Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin.
Notable names on the list of "no" votes are those of new members, such as California's Speier, Colorado's Polis, Maine's Pingree, Maryland's Edwards, Minnesota's Ellison, New Hampshire's Shea-Porter, New York's Massa and Vermont's Welch, House freshmen and sophomores who resisted intense pressure on newer members -- who may still be looking for leadership assistance when it comes to committee assignments and reelection races -- to vote the administration line.
Their opposition to the an exceptionally bad proposal was appropriate -- and perhaps even heroic in the face of threats by the administration and House leaders. But it was not sufficient to block an initiative that extends wars and global poverty.
Dozens of Democrats who were elected on anti-war platforms -- including 19 caucus members who opposed the supplemental when an earlier version came before the House in May -- cast disappointing votes. And those disappointing votes have consequences. Among the disappointing Democrats who caved to the pressure to "back the president" were members who have usually been in the anti-war camp, such as Hawaii's Neil Abercrombie and Illinoisan Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jan Schakowsky, all of whom were early and enthusiastic backers of Obama's presidential campaign.
Now, they are backers of Obama's wars. Indeed, as Jane Hamsher, who waged a spirited campaign to get Democrats to oppose the supplemental observed after the overwhelming majority fell in line with another misguided president: "Yeah. It's a Democratic war now."
It's also the Democrats bailout of some of the biggest banks in Europe. Those banks are in financial trouble because they made risky -- and ultimately unsustainable -- loans in Eastern Europe. But, with an assist from the Obama administration and a Democratic Congress, the foreign banks will get a bailout, with U.S. tax dollars funneled through the IMF.
As Dean Baker explains:
The basic problem is simple. The West European bankers proved to be every bit as stupid as the Robert Rubin-Citigroup crew in dishing out loans. The main outlet for their bad loans was Eastern Europe, where they made enormous loans denominated in euros.It is very difficult for the countries of Eastern Europe to maintain their exchange rates against the euro without large amounts of assistance. However, if they let their currencies fall against the euro, then the default rates on the loans from Western European banks will explode.
Of course West Europe is rich enough to bail out its own banks, but the governments in countries like France and Germany know that their people will not stand for this sort of handout. In steps the IMF...
With money from U.S. taxpayers, the IMF will protect the European banks, thus allowing the governments of France and Germany to spend precious resources on job-creation and social programs -- rather than bank bailouts.
And what do Americans who voted for Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress to end wars and focus on human needs rather than the demands of bank speculators? Another $106 billion in useless debt.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


32 Comments so far
Show AllThank you to Maine's Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud for representing Maine with courage and integrity. While you may have lost this round, you have won the support of many who see your stance as the right one.
Ted, hope you e-mailed her personally to let her know how you feel. I agree with you and did e-mail her. Not bad for a first-timer....
And for those who may have 'won' this round, you have lost my vote for the rest of this New American Cantury.
I don't really like to cross-post my comments on CD articles, but I'm making an exception here because I think it concerns an issue of profound importance to the future of our democracy, as that relates to freedom of the press, and freedom of the people to get a full reporting of news from the press. After posting the material below early this morning, I (or others) have noted that AP and CBS News, among likely many other news outlets, have joined the New York Times and ABC News in putting a blanket of non-coverage over the vote. With this in mind this morning, I opened my local daily newspaper, the Gainesville Sun, which relies almost exclusively on the Times and AP for its non-local news coverage. Sure enough, not a whisper about the vote in this morning's edition...a result I would expect to be replicated by hundreds of other newspapers across the country who similarly reprint as "news of the day" whatever is fed them by these and other syndicating news agencies. So, without further apology....
..........................................................
Am I just missing something? The following is a "headline" to be posted mid-morning today on my website, The Sun State Activist http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ It started last night when I heard nothing of the supplemental on ABC News; continued this morning with apparent near-blackout on NY Times and BBC. (Of course McClatchy covered it as did AFP from which the Common Dreams article this morning was taken.) So what gives: is this news too painful---or maybe just too pedestrian---to print (air?) Apart from C-Soan, what news coverage of the event have others seen? (Paul Whiting, comment above made same observation about last night's CBS News)
........................................
NEWS NOT FIT TO PRINT. As Congress votes to continue war funding, the New York Times omits all reference to the vote in its early morning online edition of 6/17/09 (except on its blog, The Caucus) Likewise, ABC News contains no reference to the event in its edition of the same date nor does that of BBC These media continue to give heavy coverage to the "issue" of Iran's elections and the fact that a U.S. senator had "admitted to having an affair. http://www.nytimes.com/
ABC NEWS: http://abcnews.go.com/ BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/
I think the failure of the corporate media to report on this is just another example of the decline and imminent collapse of print media, especially the daily newspaper. Whether it's the NY Times or your local paper of "record", they're all falling down the tubes. They have no reporters left to cover the beats in Washington and no foreign staff at all, in many cases.
Even if they do still pretend to cover these beats, the editorial staffs are basically a censorship board, blocking all critical commentary from ever seeing print. They've all fallen into line behind the interests of their advertisers. And the Washington press corps is virtually a corpse. They're as much lapdogs to this administration as they were to Bush/Cheney. If Obama wants a ramped up war on Afghanistan, so do they. If Obama wants a fraudulent health care reform, so do they. If he says we no longer torture when in fact we do, they go with the lie.
We have no representation, as Nichols' piece clearly indicates. Democracy is a chimera, not only in Iran but here in the land where it was supposedly born. We're at the mercy of these bastards until we stand up to them. Storm the barricades. Figure out how to do it, or we're doomed to sterile rage on blogs like this.
Ephraim: I very much agree with the general thrust of your inspiring statement about the lack of a viable press. I do take a bit of issue with the implication in the first paragraph that news coverage is so inadequate because news agencies don't employ "the staff" of reporters necessary to give adequate coverage to events. I think it's more a matter of allocation of those resources. On a night on the evening news when NBC had no "staff" to cover the war funding vote, they had the "staff" to produce a short segment dealing with the profound "news" that Barack Obama had "stopped" a fly mid-air during a news interview. They had the "staff" to do up a story of Senator Ensign's "admitting" that he had an affair with one of his own staff members. But nothing to report on the war funding vote.
Of course it's even worse with coverage in local newspapers. Your average daily newspaper is nothing more than a regurgitation of news stories from agencies the likes of AP and the New York Times, two agencies that provided only the most woeful coverage of the war funding vote. I found subsequently to my post that AP had created a brief story at 6:12 this morning but my survey of 9 "major" Florida newspapers this morning, all of them heavily served by AP, showed that only one of them (Palm Beach Post) had "picked up" that story, so for practical purposes Florida readers were blacked out of any such news from their newspapers as well as their network news casts. (If they were "cosmopolitan" enough to have read the New York Times, they were still blacked out of anything except an obscure blog, which may not have been in their print edition.) What was true in Florida was likely true throughout the U.S.A.
The mass media is twisted together with the two political dragon heads and all the puppet strings for the simple reason that the whole US establishment is taking a massive hit. It's on its knees. Its global influence is waning very fast, along with the value of the dollar, but most importantly the value of its ideas and ideals are kaput because the great McMonoculture experiment failed. The mass media is going to reflect that.
No argument here, Jerry, I fully concur. There's always enough reporters to go around for fluff and nonsense, whether it's Obama swatting a fly (his comments are irrelevant, except insofar as they provide good theater for 10 seconds) or Sarah Palin grandstanding over some perceived petty personal insult. The only real reporting that goes on now is like a boutique industry, meant only for "news junkies" and assorted nerds that take all this seriously. The general public couldn't care less about some House vote on war appropriations and US taxpayers bailing out foreign banks. It's just something else to bitch about and forget in two days.
"Democracy is a chimera, not only in Iran but here in the land where it was supposedly born."
H'mm, I guess our classics scholars are just shaking their heads.
If Americans had any courage we'd take to the streets as they are doing in Iran. Our government is utterly corrupt, self serving, and has betrayed us for money and power, time and time again.
When the likes of Nichols and his cohorts over at the Nation continually mute, play down, rationalize, or continually excuse Obama, it is hard to take seriously their demands that the people respond. Especially considering it was the Nation and other liberal groups who joined Michael Lerner's crusade in red-baiting & smearing ANSWER for anti-semitism during the original invasion of Iraq, thereby sabotaging the organizational effort of the peace movement. Now he sound mad. Glad he finally arrived.
Does anyone recall the abuse received by supporters of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney during the last election? Excuse me, but it is difficult not to say we told you so. Anyway, it should be clear by this time that we do not live in a functioning constitutional democracy, not even a "flawed one". The sooner our political discourse reflects that fact, the sooner we might join to bring fruitful political pressure on our corrupted government.
Tony Vodvarka
here here!
And I'll gladly join in the chorus!
Well Said...
I believe the social taboo of coming across as pompous or condecending for saying "I told you so" is the mythical fear meme conveniently being perpetuated in our collective consciousness...
This is not about gloating... nor even about needing to be "in the right"...
This is about a slick campaign based on think tanks and push polls to create an illusion, a smoke screen for everyone to project their own movie onto it... Obama is a DO-it-yourself Hologram that liberals and conservatives can project their own hopes and fears onto...
We have: "He's a Socialist!!!" In confused anger on one side... And "He's a Progressive!!!" in confused allegiance on the other...
It is an individuals own personal set of values and wisdom that creates the lens in which we view an issue or candidate..,
Like Madison avenue, Obama's managers did a spectacular job of tapping into the unconscious vanity of demagoguery and blind hope...
Hope that is pie-in-the-sky can never trump the reality on the ground... Just ask Icarus or Narcissus...
The sooner folks look at the substance of the candidate's agenda through issues and voting record and appointees and policy...
The sooner we can transcend the smoke and mirrors of indulging in flowery rhetoric and feel-good photo ops...
Sioux Rose
Love that "Do it yourself hologram." I call him the chameleon, speaks eloquently in legalese tongues, too.
Welcome to the traitorous lying Democraps. It's why I vote third party. They will tell you one thing and do the other. Here they vote to continue empire.
On other fronts, no restoration of civil liberties, no single payer, no global warming agreements, etc. All incredible national emergencies. Instead - war on Afghanistan and CIA-fomented faux revolution in Iran.
We are so cooked....
Republicans have always been chickenhawks. Now the Democrats have joined those ranks. Everyone who voted to support more war funding needs to strap on some body armor, pick up a gun and go get their own goddamn nuts shot off in support of BIG OIL and BIG BANKS.
Oh for heaven's sakes, stop putting party before the issues. Who cares if they're Democrat or Republican? And why should the author be surprised at all? If the Republicans were in the majority, they too would have voted yes but for their reasons and with a slightly different alteration. Big banks and bad wars have been toxic alliances for decades but perhaps it's now peaking. It's time to throw away the party label and examine the individual pols on the issues themselves. I even heard that close to election day, most of the major progressive blogs told us to overlook Obama's positions and just vote for him because he was Democrat. This is just plain WRONG WRONG WRONG ! If this is how the netroots are going to operate, then the Internet will be just as useless as the tellies in helping voters elect better pols.
That's just the point. The Democraps are liars. They cannot be trusted. At least with the RepubLICKlans, they'll tell you they are going to screw you and not think twice about it. Would you rather have a hypocrite or a straight talker screwing you? Neither party is satisfactory. Third parties are the only way to go and we should all stop throwing our votes down the toilet on these limousine liberals.
Since the majority of the Democrats voted to continue supporting the occupations then it should be assumed that the Democrats will not be urging that an honest and open investigation take place into what actually occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. It should always be remembered that without 9/11 the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq do not happen.
Nor would have happened the rescinding of habeas corpus, Patriot Acts I & II, the military commissions act, etc.
911 is the key to all of it. Cui Bono?
Obama and the Democrats are just trying to screw the opposition.
"The Opposition" are the people that elected them.
Not one member from Oregon opposed, and we have well over 13% unemployment, with many people's benefits beginning to end. Most of them are also opposed to Single Payer. So, there are two very important issues challengers can use to displace our duplicitous members of congress.
Problem is, displace them with whom? And we must remember why the two-party system is the way it is - money. They will have scads more money to challenge any independent who happens to run against them. We are all in very deep kimshi....
Money matters will soon, if they aren't already, become the ultimate political trump card. Another 100+ Billion was stolen from the citizenry and transfered to the Banksters and MIC Corporadoes, while millions are unemployed, homeless and starving. "Pocketbook Populism" works, which is why it's feared and so much effort is devoted to diffusing it. The "Fair Deal," "Square Deal," and "New Deal" were all forms of Pocketbook Populism that worked for their promoters. But we need something far more radical than either of the previous three "deals" that focuses of erecting Green Infrastructure and wealth redistribution, along with legal reforms and a whole new structure for the federal government. And I will say that we are almost to the point where such an agenda will actuaally entail combat to achieve. For as this vote shows, the reactionary forces are very strong, and as you note they have "scads more money," which makes it very difficult to create change.
Green infrastructure and wealth redistribution are certainly key but the kind of combat needed to achieve them is simply a change of individual choices in exchange/association. Support your local economies and starve the power centers. Everyone may participate, which is THE essential feature.
Obama, just like Bush before him, Clinton, and Bush Sr. before them, etc. is just a puppet. Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, the military industrial complex, and the elite of the elite not only from this country, but from the whole world pull his strings and he dances like Pinocchio. It's too bad his nose doesn't grow with every lie, because it would be too big to fit in one room already. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, BOTH PARTIES SERVE THE SAME INTERESTS. They call themselves different names, preach different ideologies, and even use different animals as their logos, but at they end of the day they both serve the same interests. MONEY. People who have it get what they want, people who don't suffer the consequences. You all know it, you can laugh it off for a while, play dumb, stick your head in the sand, but at some point you have to wake up to the fact that both parties are the same. It makes no difference who wins, because there are people who simply finance both sides.
there is no honor amongst thieves...now if we can just drop the export of fear, terror, lies, and competition maybe we can try and live on this planet like our source intended, with wonder and thankfulness and enjoy the miracles bestowed upon us everyday...don't wait until your last breath to realize this opportunity, too many do, have, and why we're in this realm of existence.
No matter how close to financial ruin this country is, STILL an imperial government and military with obama the biggest embarressment.
You're right. He really is becoming an embarrassment. 3 years and 7 months til R's control everything again.