Comprehensive Immigration Bill Passed The Senate... Now What?

Today, just after noon, the Senate broke the last-ditch attempt by the GOP racists and bigots to filibuster the bill. The vote for cloture was 68-32, Chambliss and Portman voting with the bad guys. A few hours later a solid majority in the Senate-- every Democrat and 14 Republicans-- overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill 68-32. Democrats, of course, over-compromised to get more GOP votes-- militarizing the borders, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on bullshit that the Republicans insisted on and confiscating the Social Security contributions of millions of undocumented workers. Senate Republicans who voted for it, absolutely insisted on their pound of flesh. Democrats, as usual, were too weak and lame to fight back effectively.

These were the Republicanos who voted with the Democrats:

• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• Kelly Ayotte (NH)
• Jeff Chiesa (NJ)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• Bob Corker (TN)
• Jeff Flake (AZ)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Orrin Hatch (UT)
• Dean Heller (NV)
• John Hoeven (ND)
• Mark Kirk (IL)
• John McCain (AZ)
• Lisa Murkowski (AK)
• Marco Rubio (FL)

One of the most progressive members of the Senate, Brian Schatz (D-HI), fought hard to make the bill better. Right after teh vote, he said "While this bill does not accomplish everything I hoped for, it will move us much closer to where we should be as a free and open society, bringing 11 million people out of the shadows and giving our economy a boost. Now, as the bill heads to the House and, hopefully, to President Obama’s desk, I was proud to cast my 'yes' vote-- but I am also proud to recommit to fighting for legislation that will make this bill a better one for Hawaii, in particular by passing stronger protections for family reunification."

Now the bill goes over to the House, where teabaggers and other racists have made it clear that they will depose Boehner as Speaker if he allows a vote on it.

“There gets to be a point in time where there is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) said Wednesday, arguing that if Boehner violates the Hastert Rule again on the issue, “I think that a lot of members in the conference would probably be frustrated to the point of looking for new leaders.”

Speaking at a Capitol Hill panel organized by the Heritage Foundation, Salmon said there’s “great unrest” among Republicans about the violations of the majority-of-the-majority principle this year. GOP leaders have this year brought up four bills without the support of most House Republicans-- including legislation to avert the fiscal cliff, provide aid to Hurricane Sandy victims and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) issued the same threat.

“The American people elected a Republican majority to the House of Representatives,” McClintock said. “Were a leader of that majority to use his authority to circumvent that majority would be cause for removal in my judgment.”

...Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) said Republicans are “running around like chickens with our heads cut off thinking that we have to do [immigration reform] for political reasons.” He said the farm bill fiasco last week was “very instructive” for Republicans, arguing that the legislation failed because GOP leaders relied on Democrats.

“So our leadership needs to take a lesson from this: Stop negotiating with Democrats,” he said. “Start doing what is the right policy-- the right conservative policy for America.”

Salmon said he’s organizing an internal GOP petition to codify the Hastert Rule and that he’s making good progress. “I do believe most members of our conference will believe that legislation that we pass should be majority legislation,” he said.

Is Boehner worried? Well, you tell me. This is what he said yesterday at a press conference, following orders from Bill Kristol: “For any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the House, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members." That's very bad news for everyone who wants to see immigration reform because a majority of the House-- a big majority-- favors it, but a majority of House Republicans are dyed-in-the-wool racists and xenophobes and they oppose it. Even with Republican leaders like Cantor, McCarthy and Ryan urging Republicans not to commit part suicide by opposing this, most Republicans are paying attention to extremist groups, Hate Talk Radio hosts and bigots inside the caucus like Bachmann, Gohmert, King, Broun, Gingrey and the other House hatemongers. So, yeah, it's great that the Republican filibusters were beaten back in the Senate and great that the Senate finally passed the whole bill, but... now what? Will Boehner kill the dreams of millions of Americans and make it official that the GOP is anti-immigrant-- just because he's a wretched political coward?

Right after the vote Congressional progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, fired a warning shot over Boehner's bow: “This is a time to move together on a bipartisan basis and really do the people’s business. Speaker Boehner can show some leadership or keep playing the same political games that have Congress’ approval rating at a historic low. The American people are watching every step of this process very closely, and the next step is letting the House take a vote. Hiding and making excuses are not on the table.”

And a statement from El Presidente... putting mucho pressure on Señor Boehner:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I-- and many others-- have repeatedly laid out.

If enacted, the Senate bill would establish the most aggressive border security plan in our history. It would offer a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally-- a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, and then going to the back of the line behind everyone who’s playing by the rules and trying to come here legally. It would modernize the legal immigration system so that it once again reflects our values as a nation and addresses the urgent needs of our time. And it would provide a big boost to our recovery, by shrinking our deficits and growing our economy.

Today, the Senate did its job. It’s now up to the House to do the same.

As this process moves forward, I urge everyone who cares about this issue to keep a watchful eye. Now is the time when opponents will try their hardest to pull this bipartisan effort apart so they can stop commonsense reform from becoming a reality. We cannot let that happen. If you’re among the clear majority of Americans who support reform-- from CEOs to labor leaders, law enforcement to clergy-- reach out to your Member of Congress. Tell them to do the right thing. Tell them to pass commonsense reform so that our businesses and workers are all playing by the same rules and everyone who’s in this country is paying their fair share in taxes. 

We have a unique opportunity to fix our broken system in a way that upholds our traditions as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. We just need Congress to finish the job.

Read More

Hanabusa at a Crossroads-- Will It Lead Back to Congress?

Murmurs on the Coconut Wireless

The Hawai'i Democrats have a conservative wing too

If you live in Hawai'i you probably noticed and if you don't, chances are you didn't. But last week, Star-Advertiser columnist Richard Borrecca weighed in on the current state of Rep. Colleen Hanabusa's Senate candidacy-- after the powerful Hawaii Government Employees Association joined the growing coalition of more than twenty unions and progressive organizations that have endorsed Democratic Senator Brian Schatz.

Borrecca, keenly diagnosing Hanabusa, wrote:

"For Hanabusa, the campaign is at something of a crossroads. For it to go forward, she will have to do more to start a discussion about why she wants the Senate seat. While Hanabusa is just as ambitious as Schatz, she has yet to flesh out a reason for the promotion from the House to the Senate."

And Borrecca is a longtime Hanabusa booster! Speculation continues as to why, beyond personal ambition and an apparent sense of personal destiny, Hanabusa chose to force a Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Does Hanabusa feel "entitled" to the seat, given her association with the late Senator Dan Inouye? Does she simply resent not being chosen to replace Senator Inouye when his Senate seat opened up last December? Is this a grudge match?

Does Hanabusa regret not running for Senate in 2012, when Democrat Mazie Hirono trounced former Republican Governor Linda Lingle to succeed retired Sen. Dan Akaka?

Who really knows? But leave her motivations aside for a minute, and consider this: A growing number of Hawaii activists and politicos-- already frustrated and troubled Hanabusa chose to abandon her CD-1 seat in the U.S. House-- are actively speculating that Hanabusa may eventually abandon her Senate candidacy and re-file as a candidate for Congress. Only one, Honolulu City Councilman Stanley Chang, has filed. Yesterday I asked him if the expected rush of primary opponents were holding off because they suspected Hanabusa would give up the Senate run. He's admits he doesn't understand why no one has entered the race yet but is uncertain about why.

Hanabusa's Senate campaign is not exactly off to the whiz-bang start she likely assumed it would be. Nearly every one of the 24 unions and progressive groups endorsing Schatz for U.S. Senate had previously endorsed Hanabusa for Congress. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has fully embraced Schatz and fellow senators have rallied to his cause. He raised over $1 million in just the first three months of 2013. And Schatz continues to receive favorable reviews from Democrats and progressives as he ably serves Hawai'i in Washington, emboldened by the Senate-seniority "head start" a Hanabusa victory would literally erase. Because of the timing of Senator Inouye's passing and Schatz's ascension to the Senate seat last December, Sen. Schatz leapfrogged a number of his fellow Senators to rank 85th out of 100 in seniority; if anyone else were to replace Schatz, this seniority is non-transferrable. This has always been a big deal in Hawai'i.

To say the least, Schatz's current good standing and performance leave Hanabusa grasping for a legitimate rationale to challenge him.

Moreover and more importantly, Hanabusa's decision to run for Senate has serious consequences for Hawaii: By forsaking her hard-won seat in Congress, Hanabusa has opened the door for a Republican to steal her seat (anyone remember GOPer Charles Djou's 8-month stint as congressman?). Word is, leaders at the DCCC in Washington have Hanabusa's now-open CD-1 seat on their "watch" list-- as if they don't have enough to worry about as Democrats try to win back control of the House.

And Hanabusa's decision to willfully vacate Congress means Hawai'i loses her post as a member of the powerful House Armed Services Committee. Not sure what else needs to be said about that, given the primacy of military operations and construction to Hawaii's economy.

Meanwhile, it's very telling that no discernible field of would-be congressional candidates has truly begun taking shape in CD-01. Given how rare an open seat in Hawaii's small congressional delegation tends to be, you'd expect candidates from both parties to be leaping into the Hanabusa void. There was early interest from Ikaika Anderson, Will Espero, Mark Takai and perennial ConservaDems Ed Case and Mufi Hannemann. Yet, to date, things are eerily quiet on the CD-01 front... just Councilman Chang all alone.

This could be the surest sign that growing talk of Hanabusa abandoning her Senate bid, and seeking re-election to Congress instead, is more than just murmurs on the coconut wireless.

Given where things stand today, going back to the U.S. House may be Hanabusa's best political move. And it would be the best thing for Hawai'i, too. You can contribute to Senator Schatz's reelection campaign here.

Read More

Hanabusa Cozies Up to Defense Contractors

by PaiaGirl

Hanabusa: Using bipartisan coziness with defense contractors to tout China Cold War and promote military spending

When given the chance, Hawai'i voters reject candidates who favor a hawkish foreign policy. Despite the military playing a major role in the local economy, Hawai'i residents don't want to see more war or unnecessary defense spending.

In 2004, Hawai'i gave John Kerry 54% of the vote in his effort to remove President Bush, despite Vice President Cheney's fear mongering.

In the 2006 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, reactionary Congressman Ed Case sought to oust Senator Daniel Akaka on the basis of the incumbent's opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Akaka's pro-peace agenda was rewarded with 54% of the primary vote (he cruised to re-election against token opposition in the general).

In 2008, Hawai'i voters rejected the McCain-Palin agenda of interminable war by giving the Obama-Biden ticket its highest margin of victory of any state. Obama got 70% of the vote.

In 2012, Hawai'i voters emphasized their distaste for pro-war politics, as Case was again defeated in a Democratic primary (this time by progressive Mazie Hirono, who crushed him in the primary and Republican Linda Lingle in the general, by 17 and 25 percentage points, respectively) and Obama again received 70% of the vote over aggressively pro-war Mitt Romney (once again making Hawai`i his best state).

Given Hawaii's strong (and apparently increasing) preference for peace, it's strange Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Senator Brian Schatz by stoking a cold war with China and lavishing praise on her defense-contractor benefactors.

Then again, considering that Hanabusa chairs the National Security Task Force of the right-leaning New Democrat Coalition and Buck McKeon's Congressional Drone Caucus, her tack is perhaps not so surprising.

Cold War with China

There's nobody in Congress more committed to maintaining and increasing military spending than Republican Randy Forbes of Northern Virginia. He has a robust section of his Congressional website dedicated to raising fear of the risk to America without more spending on weapons systems and defense contractors. He's shrewd enough to recognize that non-state terrorist threats don't justify traditional forms of military spending, so he founded and chairs the Congressional China Caucus.

The caucus is composed of conservative Republicans and Democrats and promotes the wildly unlikely possibility of another Pearl Harbor attack, this time from China, and similar military risks.

Incidentally, Forbes also founded and co-chairs the Congressional Prayer Caucus (co-chaired by Blue Dog Democrat Mike McIntyre), whose members include Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Virginia Foxx, and Joe Wilson. There aren't many prayers for peace emanating from that group.

This may the reason the U.S. military is stocking up on littoral combat ships ('LCS' for fighting on the China coastline) and may explain then state senator Hanabusa teaming up with Sen Inouye and Republican Gov. Linda Lingle to exempt the Hawaii Superferry from environmental review. That corporate handout to presidential candidate, John McCain's defense advisor, John Lehman's company left the taxpayers whistling for almost $200 million in MARAD and state loans.

Opponents of this corporate hand-out maintained that this project was actually a prototype test for the military's new littoral ship design and was unsuited for civilian transportation between islands. Lo and behold, the Navy did take them over as LCS after Hawaii Superferry went belly up.

Hanabusa spent last week supporting Forbes in his effort to generate more interest in spending on weaponry to beat China and to chastise the Obama Administration for not doing enough to prepare for World War III.

Here's a press release issued by her office:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01) and J. Randy Forbes, Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommitee [sic], delivered remarks at the release of a new study from the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments entitled “Shaping America’s Future Military: Toward a New Force Planning Construct.”

The study, authored by CSBA’s Mark Gunzinger, develops insights from the Department of Defense’s previous force planning constructs, and then builds on them to identify elements of a new construct that could help the U.S. military to prepare for the future.

"This report comes at a particularly significant crossroads for our nation's defense forces,” said Hanabusa. “Our shift to the Asia-Pacific region [i.e., Cold War with China] will call for a fresh look at not only our defense posture, but how we integrate concerns for economic and diplomatic stability as well. We face vital strategic choices and must have the clarity to look beyond budget concerns [emphasis added; message: "spend, spend, spend!] to a long term strategy to deal with a changing world and emerging threats. This is not a partisan issue; it is the question of our nation's future. I am pleased and proud to join Chairman Forbes in fostering this discussion."

“The failure of the Defense Department to adequately prepare for the threat of sequestration is just the most recent example of the importance of long-range strategic planning, a discipline which seems nearly forgotten in today’s Washington,” Mr. Forbes said. “I’m pleased to join with my Armed Services Committee colleague, Congresswoman Hanabusa, at the release of CSBA’s newest report offering a detailed plan for the future of America’s military. Nothing could be less partisan than the long-term health of the U.S. Armed Forces.”

Hanabusa and Forbes share a foreign-policy vision and a love for one another's intellect:

What could be more nonpartisan than a new cold war two decades after the last one ended and a dozen years after 9/11? Obviously, something new is needed to help at-risk defense contractors.

Hanabusa previewed her joint appearance with Forbes by issuing a press release a few days earlier that extolled the new National Defense Authorization Act and its support for "the U.S. pivot to the Asia Pacific region" and for keeping open all existing U.S. bases. In the release, though, she lamented that the NDAA doesn't authorize enough military spending:

"Unfortunately, the NDAA does not address the unthinking across-the-board reductions that arise from sequestration, and once again demonstrates the importance of removing those draconian cuts. The House Armed Services Committee has heard defense officials describe over and over again the harsh impacts these across-the-board cuts have on to our military; we have already seen some of the damage. Continuing to do nothing is not a responsible alternative. We have a job to do, and things won’t get better unless and until we finally address the problem. I am confident my defense savings reporting requirements in this legislation will help outline a path forward for dealing with sequestration. "

As a backup measure, Hanabusa even buttressed her case for more military spending by raising the specter of war with India earlier this spring:

Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, U.S. Representative Colleen Hanabusa spoke at the Brookings Institution, one of the nation’s most influential think tanks based in Washington, D.C., about the United States’ strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.

Hanabusa, member of the House Armed Services Committee, reiterated that U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region will represent additional capabilities. “This new force can take on greater humanitarian missions,” she said, “allowing the United States’ military presence in the Pacific to have implications far beyond what we classically consider within our defense posture. Clearly the role of the military will no longer be simply that of a fighting force; it will also bear a diplomatic and humanitarian face and, as a stated purpose, enable trade and economic growth in the area. As President Obama has said, the Asia-Pacific region will largely define whether the 21st century will be marked by conflict or cooperation.”

Hanabusa also pointed out that current prosperity in the region demonstrates both a need and a product of the U.S. presence. “Continuous U.S. presence in the Asia Pacific is needed to balance the emergence of rising powers-- rising powers that benefitted the most from the international order that was established by this US presence post WWII.  The dynamic environment in Asia as a result of maintained peace has most recently propelled countries like China and India to remarkable growth.”

Increasing the U.S presence in the region also offers technological and economic benefits, said Hanabusa. “Military technology is our equalizer, and the edge that we have in R&D will keep us viable in the manufacturing industry.  China and India may have an advantage in labor costs, but they hold none of the abilities we have in highly advanced defense technologies. If we can merge this military edge back to the private sector, we can take advantage of the edge we possess and maintain our status as the world’s greatest nation.

Give her credit for consistency, back in 2011 she was advocating for more military spending in Roll Call, contending that war with somebody in Asia was inevitable:

"The Pacific is undeniably the theater of the future."

Coziness With Defense Industry

According to the ACLU, "BAE Systems (is) a multi-billion dollar military contractor that profits from the exploitative labor of people behind bars."

According to the FEC, BAE Systems is also a major Hanabusa campaign contributor.

According to Hanabusa's official website, BAE Systems is deserving of congratulations.

She used her bipartisan military-spending credibility to convince a Republican-led Congressional committee to hold a "Defense Industry Roundtable" in her district last year and to convince House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (of defense-contract-rich Maryland) to hold a high-dollar D.C. fundraiser for her Senate campaign last week.

Shortly before she announced her run for Senate, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (headed by former Blue Dog and defense-contractor-friendly Steve Israel) hosted a Hanabusa fundraiser. Considering that her Congressional district is one of the most heavily Democratic in the nation, the DCCC's interest in ostensibly supporting her House campaign seemed a little odd.

She showed her loyalty to her No. 2 contributor Northrup Grumman in 2011 by traveling to Pennsylvania to participate in a House Armed Services Committee hearing on how to make defense procurement easier for contractors. She proudly touted her participation on her Congressional website.

So, give her points for transparency. Her website is replete with tributes to defense contractors and military spending. For that and other actions, she's been rewarded by the industry.

It's hard to believe she'll be similarly rewarded by Hawaii's electorate in the primary on August 9, 2014. But she does have more than a year to use that contractor money to tarnish Senator Schatz.

Even with this defense-contractor money, things look bleak for Colleen Hanabusa.

Every Hawai'i candidate who is endorsed by both labor and environment wins. She's lost labor and although the big environmental organizations like Sierra Club have not yet endorsed, observers think that Schatz is a shoo-in for their support.

Hanabusa went up against the Sierra Club in their lawsuit over the exempting of the Superferry from environmental review (and lost) and she angered environmentalists by voting with the GOP to exempt coal-fired boilers from increased EPA standards.

Sen. Brian Schatz, on the other hand, has made climate change a key cause. Add in peace and progressive groups plus Schatz's powerful fundraising and Hawaii's distaste for conservative war hawks and Hanabusa's future is looking mighty shaky.

You can judge for yourself if you're going to the Netroots Nation in San Jose this week. Yep, the CISPA and FISA-loving Chair of the New Dems' National Security Task Force, Colleen Hanabusa, will be hanging out with progressive bloggers. Strange bedfellows.

People from the mainland often look at Hawai'i Democratic primaries and try to say that they break on ethnic politics. Although ethnicity does play some role, ideology and values are actually the decisive point, which is why progressives have been beating conservatives. Recall, that in 2004, Dennis Kucinich actually won Hawai'i's Second Congressional district (caucuses)-- a direct reaction to the Iraq War, and a sign that progressives were beginning to gain traction. In 2006, besides Akaka over the reactionary Case, Hawai'i-observers also saw progressive Mazie Hirono defeating corrupt conservative Colleen Hanabusa in the primary to replace Case in his congressional district. And then in 2010, voters also chose progressive Neil Abercrombie over conservative Mufi Hannemann for governor, and Brian Schatz over conservative Norman Sakamoto for Lt. Gov. If you'd like to help reelect Senator Schatz and defeat a corrupt conservative challenger, you can do it right here at the Blue America Senate page.

Read More

So America Decided To Turn Itself Into A Surveillance State?

The Patriot Act should have been repealed the second the Democrats won control of Congress. Instead, many Democrats worked with Republicans to keep it in place. Same for FISA. Now people are demanding Congress investigate the NSA's and Verizon's indiscriminate, bulk spying on American citizens. Congress? Investigate? What a joke! Congress is responsible for this-- and in a very conservative consensus ("bipartisan") way. Lindsey Graham, hardly an Obama apologist, was just on Fox saying "I’m sure we should be doing this.”

Yesterday, the NY Times slapped the Obama Administration down big time:

Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive-- whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism-- especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.

...This stunning use of the act shows, once again, why it needs to be sharply curtailed if not repealed.

When FISA came up for reauthorization last year it passed the House in a landslide, 301-118. 74 Democrats joined 227 Republicans in favor, including Hoyer of course, but also, very disappointingly, Pelosi. Meanwhile 7 Republicans joined the 111 Democrats who opposed it. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison, rallied votes against it. The one member of the Democratic House leadership who bucked that leadership and voted "no" was Xavier Becerra (CA). It's worth noting that then-Senate candidates Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) voted "no" and were elected and wretched New Dem Shelly Berkley (NV) voted "yes" and was defeated.

Bernie Sanders wasn't as surprised as he was ready to tear someone's head off. "As one of the few members of Congress who consistently voted against the Patriot Act, I expressed concern at the time of passage that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent United State citizens and provided for very little oversight or disclosure. Unfortunately, what I said turned out to be exactly true. The United States should not be accumulating phone records on tens of millions of innocent Americans. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what freedom is about. Congress must address this issue and protect the constitutional rights of the American people."

Voting with the Republicans in favor of reauthorizing FISA was one of the last votes in the dreadful careers of Jason Altmire (Blue Dog/New Dem-PA), Joe Baca (Blue Dog-CA), Howard Berman (D-Israel), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA), Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY), Mark Critz (PA), Kathy Hochul (New Dem-NY), Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC), Silvestre Reyes (TX), Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR), and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC). Ed Markey (D-MA), who will face Massachusetts voters June 25, voted against reauthorizing FISA. The Republicans in opposition to Boehner and Obama on this included libertarian-leaning conservatives like Walter Jones (NC), Ron Paul (TX), Jimmy Duncan (TN), Tom McClintock (CA) and Justin Amash (MI).

And I might add that corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, currently challenging progressive Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, was a proponent of FISA, voted for it and continues to be one of the most shady Democrats when it comes to taking legalistic bribes from the worst players in the Military-Industrial Complex President Eisenhower warned us against. Hanabusa has been a real problem in the House and she wants to get into the Senate-- where she can do even more damage. You can help keep her out of the Senate by backing Schatz's reelection bid. He has a very different approach to domestic spying than Hanabusa:

"My first vote as United States Senator was against the FISA Amendments Act because it failed to provide transparency, accountability and reasonable limits when the federal government conducts surveillance for intelligence purposes. While I recognize that the FISA Amendments Act has helped to produce useful intelligence, I fear that we do not have a full understanding of the impact that this law has on the privacy of Americans. We need a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act to ensure that Americans’ privacy and civil liberties are protected."

Not just different... better, much better.

Read More

Will Hanabusa's Political Cowardice on LGBT Issues Come Into Play In The Hawai'i Senate Race?

Last week we took a look at a contentious Senate race shaping up in Hawai'i between progressive incumbent Brian Schatz and more conservative (and corrupt) Colleen Hanabusa. At the time I mentioned that "she can be counted on to vote with Democrats on issues like Choice (though not marriage equality)." I've had some pushback from the Choice community claiming she's not been a good ally on women's health issues-- and we'll get to that in another post-- and some pushback from Hanabusa's own allies saying she's a good ally on LGBT issues. "She's evolved," goes the refrain-- so, basically, a follower, not a leader-- and where Schatz has been a dependable leader on a tough issue that's taken some political courage. Yesterday's Honolulu Star-Advertiser compared the two candidates on LGBT issues, Gay-marriage stance dogs Hanabusa.

In December, when U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa applied for the appointment to replace the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, she told Democratic Party activists she supports marriage equality.

The congresswoman had previously said she always held that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She also had said the definition of marriage should be a matter for the states to decide.

...Hanabusa's evolution places her in line with the Democratic Party's platform, which favors marriage equality. It also puts her in harmony with U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, who was appointed to replace Inouye and is her opponent next year in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Schatz has consistently supported marriage equality.

Her conversion, however, is a potentially sensitive issue for gay-rights activists and their allies in the party's progressive wing. Progressives, along with environmentalists, have become among the most vocal about enforcing fidelity to the party's platform. Marriage equality is a raw subject for many who believe that Democratic politicians have repeatedly let them down.

Gay-rights activists have filed complaints with the party against several state House and Senate Democrats who introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would have asked voters in November 2014 whether marriage in Hawaii should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. The constitutional amendment failed at the Legislature, but the complaints are pending.

...[A]s recently as last summer, as Hanabusa was campaigning for re-election in urban Honolulu's 1st Congressional District, she had said the definition of marriage has always been a matter for the states to decide.

Last spring, after President Barack Obama announced that he supported marriage equality, completing his own evolution on the issue, Hanabusa had said she had always believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Michael Golojuch Jr., chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered caucus, said Hanabusa had the ideal chance to disclose that she changed her position when she was running for re-election or when Obama made his own announcement. Instead, he said, her revelation did not come until December, when she wanted the appointment to fill the Inouye vacancy.

"It was like pulling teeth to get a statement from her at Christmastime when we were looking at replacing Senator Inouye," he said.

Several gay-rights advocates also blame Hanabusa-- who has sought to distinguish herself from Schatz based on her experience, including, among other things, the heavy lifting she often did on legislation in the state Senate-- for the failure of a civil unions bill in the Senate in 2009.

The state House had approved a bill that would have allowed gay couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights as marriage under state law. Hanabusa and other Senate leaders initially indicated there were enough votes in the Senate for the bill, but that support wobbled after public protests from religious conservatives.

After the bill stalled in a divided Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, Hanabusa and others suggested the bill could be pulled from the committee.

But Hanabusa, an attorney, also warned other senators that the bill would likely lead to a lawsuit by gay-rights advocates who would demand marriage equality, citing the successful legal challenge to a civil unions law in Connecticut.

At the last moment, as supporters finally got the bill to the Senate floor, Hanabusa and other Senate leaders engineered an amendment that expanded the legislation to also cover heterosexual couples. The amendment killed the bill as time ran out on the session.

The Senate, under Hanabusa's leadership, did approve a civil unions bill that applied to both gay and heterosexual couples in 2010, legislation also passed by the House in a dramatic end-of-session vote before being vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle. A similar bill was signed into law by Gov. Neil Abercrombie in 2011.

"From my historical perspective, Hanabusa was not our friend when it came to HB 444," Golojuch said of the civil unions fight in 2009.

As her excuse for dragging her feet on marriage equality, Hanabusa whines that "It has taken the nation time to arrive at this point." But the real story is that it has taken Colleen Hanabusa time to arrive at this point. A friend of mine in Honolulu pointed out that "when Hawaii was using its traditions of tolerance and inclusion and Aloha for all, to lead the nation on marriage rights-- Colleen Hanabusa stood in the way. Why choose a politician who waits for the winds to shift, when Hawai'i already has a Senator who helps lead the way? Why choose a politician who changes her position only when the future arrives, when Hawaii already has a Senator who helps shape the future in Hawaii's image?"

You can probably guess that my friend in Honolulu is voting for Schatz, who you can now find on the Blue America Senate page with other progressives fighting off conservatives in the 2014 election cycle.

Read More

Sleazy New Dem Colleen Hanabusa Challenges Progressive Hawai'i Senator Brian Schatz

Lately I've been bombarded with e-mails from sleazy New Dem Colleen Hanabusa, who's giving up her House seat to challenge progressive Senate incumbent Brian Schatz. Thursday it was "Today, Colleen will make a very important announcement about the future of Hawaii and we wanted you to be the first to know." Yesterday it was "After months of careful consideration, meeting with my friends and family to talk story and listening to people from across Hawai'i, I was proud to share with you a few days ago that I am beginning my campaign for the United States Senate... But before I can have the honor of serving you in the Senate, I must ask for your support now."

Oh, sure! Schatz's lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 94.12, a sterling record. Hanabusa's score is a blah 81.99. What does that mean in the real world? Here's an example: Schatz has been a vocal opponent of CISPA.

Hanabusa, who never strays far from a line laid out by her Big Business supporters, voted with the Republicans-- both in 2012 and again this year-- in favor of CISPA.

Sure, she can be counted on to vote with Democrats on issues like Choice (though not marriage equality) but when it comes to roll calls where she smells money... that's when we see the kind of Democrat Hawai'i doesn't need. This is how bad she is: Colleen Hanabusa was one of the only Democrats in Congress to vote with the GOP against the Environmental Protection Agency and to actually join Buck McKeon's sickeningly corrupt Drone Caucus, along with a freak show of some of Congress' most crooked and extremist Members, like McKeon himself, as well as Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Don Young (R-AK), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-SC), and Mo Brooks (R-AL). No one assigned her this; she chose to associate herself with this group of misanthropes in the hope of ingratiating herself with the arms industry and getting some cash for her ambitious politician plans. And that's worked out well for her-- and for the drone manufacturers. She pushes their agenda inside the Democratic caucus and they keep a steady stream of legalistic bribes flowing in her direction.

All of the big drone manufacturers give to pro-war politicians in both parties but all of them give way more to Republicans than to Democrats. Hanabusa has been one of their favorite Democrats and the arms manufacturers are helping finance her challenge to Schatz. Of the half dozen biggest drone makers, all 6 gave money to Hanabusa last year.

• Northrop Grumman's 2 PACs- $20,000
• BAE Systems- $10,000
• Honeywell International- $7,500
• General Atomics- $$1,000
• Raytheon- $6,000
• Lockheed Martin- $7,000

Very few Republicans-- otherside of McKeon himself, of course-- have collected as much cash from the drone makers as Hanabusa. All of these companies are traditional honeypots for right-wing Republicans. She's very comfortable in those circles.

UPDATE

If you'd like to help make sure Brian stays in the Senate... we have a new addition.

Read More

EMILY's List Up To No Good Again-- In L.A... And In Hawaii?

Sen. Brian Schatz, City Councilman Eric Garcetti-- too progressive for EMILY's List

On election day eve, late summer 2008, long after mail-in ballots had been sent in, EMILY's List sent out a bizarre message to its members in Tennessee. They withdrew their endorsement from the corrupt, conservative Democratic woman they had recruited and backed all year, Nikki Tinker, a cog in the Harold Ford political machine who was taking on progressive incumbent Steve Cohen, a 100% pro-choice ally. Tinker, was the quintessential candidate of the new EMILY's List: conservative, Blue Dog, corrupt to the bone, allied to Big Business... but she stepped over the line as her campaign turned more and more virulently anti-Semitic and upset EMILY's List's Jewish donor base in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Cohen, meanwhile had been endorsed by progressive women's groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and by Planned Parenthood and was way ahead in the polls.

EMILY's List's unendorsement of their candidate had no impact. But Tinker's vile ads did. Cohen won with 79.34% against Tinker's 18.64%. Before Tinker let loose with her barrage of vicious, racist, Republican-like negative ads Cohen was only leading with 65%. Negative ads work with Republican voters, not so much with Democratic voters. "It says Memphis has come a long, long way and that people who were counting on racial voting to prevail are thinking of a Memphis that doesn't exist anymore," Cohen said. "The people of Memphis are more sophisticated voters that deal with issues and someone's record and not simply race."

In the race for L.A. mayor, EMILY's List, predictably, picked the more conservative and sleazy candidate, ex-Republican Wendy Greuel, while progressive women's groups like NOW are backing proven ally and pro-Choice stalwart Eric Garcetti. No one expects anything more from EMILY's List. They back conservative, pro-choice women. But what people do expect is that they refrain from the gutter politics that have gotten them in trouble in the past. Yesterday many of us found this shady mailer from EMILY's List attacking Garcetti by objectifying women:

As Wendy Greuel and her allies unleash unwarranted attack after unwarranted attack on Garcetti, Los Angelenos have grown more and more angry, angry at Greuel and angry at EMILY's List. Garcetti, who was in a dead heat with Greuel after the first round primary has now pulled ahead by double digits. EMILY's List never learns that the Republican strategies it uses in Democratic primaries don't work among Democrats. They didn't work for Nikki Tinker and they're failing to work for Wendy Greuel. And they won't work for EMILY's List's latest conservative recruit, New Dem Colleen Hanabusa, who's running against progressive Senator Brian Schatz.

Hanabusa, an opportunist burning with ambition, was first elected to the House in 2010. She joined the conservative, Big Business-aligned New Dems and ran up a mediocre record as a backbencher with little to no influence. Rather than follow the trail being blazed by fellow congresswoman Mazie Hirono, a progressive champion, Hanabusa stuck to a path to nowhere started by much-disliked right-wing former Democratic Congressman Ed Case. Yesterday she announced she will give up her House seat to run for Brian Schatz's seat in the Senate.

Hanabusa had been considering primary challenges to either Schatz or Abercrombie. A source close to her campaign said Monday that Hanabusa had decided on a Senate campaign and was informing close allies.

A primary between Schatz, 40, and Hanabusa, 61, would evoke generational as well as political fault lines within the Democratic Party. Schatz, a progressive, has the potential to build seniority in the Senate over a generation. Hanabusa, a more traditional liberal, will contend that her experience prepares her to have an immediate impact.

By "traditional liberal," they mean corrupt conservative. The only mark Hanabusa has made in Congress, other than being a lap dog for K Street and a predictable New Dem, was pioneering a way around ethics rules to make money personally from her campaign. Hanabusa "collected significant amounts of money in interest from personal loans she made to her campaign. In addition, her campaign reimbursed her husband thousands of dollars in expenses."

“With the interest rates Rep. Hanabusa is charging for loaning her own campaign money, she could be confused for a loan shark,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. “Most Americans open a savings account when they want to earn a little interest on their money. Instead, Rep. Hanabusa is making a killing by investing in her own campaign.”

Campaign records show Rep. Hanabusa made two loans to her campaign committee, totaling $125,000, in 2006. Since then, she has charged more than 9% interest on these loans, resulting in over $30,000 in interest payments. At the end of the 2010 election cycle, less than $3,000 of the principal on these loans had been repaid. Additionally, campaign records show that Rep. Hanabusa’s campaign committee reimbursed her husband, John Souza, almost $9,000 for food and other expenses during the 2010 cycle.

A few weeks ago, I called Honolulu City Councilman Stanley Chang when I saw he had filed the paperwork to run for Hanabusa's 1st district seat. I was excited that someone was going to offer her a primary challenge. He told me that it was an open secret in Hawaii that Hanabusa would not be running for reelection but would try to climb the political greasy pole, either by running against Governor Neil Abercrombie or against Senator Brian Schatz, both progressives. Since being appointed to Congress, Schatz has run up a 94.12 ProgressivePunch crucial vote score, the 11th best in the Senate, almost as good as Mazie Hirono's 96.30. Schatz and Hirono are both co-sponsors of Tom Harkin's bill to take Chained CPI off the table. Hanabusa is keeping her mouth shut on where she stands on Chained CPI. Schatz is exactly the kind of Democrat EMILY's List thrives on attacking and smearing. We'll be watching.

Read More