Thank You Congressman Perriello - New Ad

Americans United for Change has just released this ad thanking Tom Perriello for his courageous vote in favor of health care reform. As many Virginians know, Perriello won an upset victory in the conservative 5th District. Throughout August there were countless teabagger protests at his district offices and protesters disrupted his town hall meetings. Perriello met with the protesters numerous times, earning a reputation for grace under pressure as he listened respectfully to their objections and engaged them in civil conversation.

In the end, he voted his conscience, kept his promises to his constituents, and voted for the best interests of his district and the country.

I will admit that I have a sharp disagreement with Mr. Perriello over the Stupak amendment, which would prevent women from purchasing coverage for abortions, even with their own money, from private insurance companies, which will be on the new exchange. But Perriello promised his constituents that he would never vote for funding of abortions. Again, I disagree with him on this, but I respect him and the fact that he is keeping his word in a district where that is the majority view. If we don't like it, let's try to change hearts and minds with civil and well reasoned arguments rather than blaming a congressman for doing his job and keeping his promise. Anyway, here is the video from Americans United for Change.



Thank you, indeed, Representative Perriello. Everybody knows you have had a target on your back from the national Republican Party from day one. Congratulations for your grace and courage.

And on another note, my own congressman, Gerry Connolly, is also under siege from teabaggers. I received a robocall tonight from Americans for Prosperity inviting me to attend a protest at Connolly's district offices in Woodbridge and Annandale tomorrow afternoon.

Let's not forget that most of those in Congress who voted for health care reform have spent months under siege from extremist groups who have exhibited rude and insulting behavior, comparing those with whom they differ to communists and Nazis (I believe you can either be a communist or Nazi but not both since they are diametrically opposite groups - one being extreme left and the other extreme right - but let's not apply logic here).

So, please show your support for those in Congress who stood up and supported us. Once again, in Virginia that includes Gerry Connolly, Jim Moran, Bobby Scott, and Tom Perriello. We need to remember and see that their courage is rewarded in the midterm elections.

In any case, all those who voted to make health care reform possible have my profound appreciation.

Thank You Connolly, Periello, Moran, and Scott

I spent most of last night watching the C-SPAN debate and the votes for the historic health care bill, which passed with the public option. Lowell, has up an excellent "Cheers and Jeers" post and I agree with his assessments.

Last night, some on Twitter expressed anger at Tom Perriello for voting yes on the Stupak Amendment, limiting access to funding for abortion (those in the health exchanges would not be able to use federal funds or subsidies to pay for insurance that covers abortions). But Perriello has taken fire in his district, including a bruising summer meeting with teabaggers and holding townhalls meetings throughout his district. I believe he actually has spent more time dealing with angry citizens than most of his counterparts. He's put himself in the line of fire. Here's what Lowell said.

Cheers
Tom Perriello (5th CD): It wasn't easy, but in the end he did the right thing on the overall bill, voting "yes." More than that, Tom Perriello proved himself a courageous leader when he faced dozens of angry "town hall" meetings in August, presented his views firmly but respectfully, listened to his constituents, read the bill, thought long and hard about it, and then voted the way he thought was right. That's extremely admirable, and I just wanted to thank Tom Perriello for being a thoughtful public servant who takes his job extremely seriously.

I heartily concur with that assessment. Personally, I strongly oppose the Stupak Amendement and will do all I can to encourage Congress to remove it in conference. If that fails, I will continue to work behind the scenes to help create more understanding of why this is bad law and needs to be changed. But we couldn't let a good bill be shot down by one bad amendment. The old cliche that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good applies here.

That said, a productive response is to move on, pass the bill, but know that our work is not over. There is nothing to prevent us from continuing to press for a change in law down the road.

Others who deserve our thanks include Gerry Connolly, my representative; Bobby Scott; and Jim Moran, all of whom voted for the health care bill and also voted no on the Stupak Amendment.

On the other hand, two Virginia Democrats voted against the health care reform bill, Glenn Nye and Rick Boucher. Again, I agree with Lowell, who writes:

Glenn Nye (2nd CD): Arguably, the biggest disappointment among any Democrat in the House of Representatives, Glenn Nye added a "no" vote on this historic legislation to his previous "no" vote on historic climate and clean energy legislation. Unfortunately for Glenn Nye, voting over and over against history could make him...well, "history" in 2010. Bad, bad mistake, both on substantive policy as well as political grounds by Nye. I'm already hearing serious rumblings of a potential primary challenge to Nye. Stay tuned... [Note: in fairness, I should mention that Nye voted "no" on the Stupak amendment, but that hardly makes up for his vote against the overall health reform bill]

And of Boucher

Rick Boucher (9th CD): For years, many of us progressive activists figured that Boucher was simply the best we could get from a tough district politically. And, indeed, Boucher votes about 98% of the time with his Democratic colleagues. Still, last night's vote by Boucher against health reform was not good. Not good at all. [Again, in fairness, Boucher voted no on the Stupak amendment.]

In cases like this, I would defer to the best judgment of local progressive grassroots and netroots activists on what they want to do about primarying local electeds based on votes. Based on last night, I've been hearing more anger at Nye, whom Lowell called "arguably the biggest disappointment..."

For now, we have more to be happy about because this long fought for bill passed one of its biggest hurdles - making it out of the House. Next, the Senate takes it up and then it goes to conference. So, our work isn't finished by a long shot, but let's take a moment to savor one victory down. And to thank our local congressmen who helped make it happen.

Delegation Introduces Measure to Authorize Dedicated Metro Funding

I just received this press release from Congressman Gerry Connolly's office:

Delegation Introduces Final Measure to Authorize Dedicated Metro Funding Resolution is Last Step in Establishing Federal and Local Commitment Over Ten Years

WASHINGTON, DC – The Members of the Washington Metro Area’s Senate and House Delegation – Senators Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner, and Reps. Steny H. Hoyer, Frank R. Wolf, James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Chris Van Hollen, Donna F. Edwards and Gerald E. Connolly - introduced a resolution today to ratify the amended interstate WMATA Regulation Compact in accordance with legislation enacted last year authorizing $1.5 billion in federal Metro funding over ten years.

The measure, which follows a formal request submitted last week by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, is the final step required in the authorization process and will obligate the three jurisdictions to provide matching funds for federal appropriations.

“The Washington Metro Area Delegation has long recognized the need to provide Metro with a dedicated funding stream to ensure the safety and efficiency of a system that serves millions of residents and visitors. Given the fact that Metro is the primary public transit system serving our federal workforce, as well as the millions of visitors to our Nation’s Capital each year, we believe the federal government must be a partner in providing that investment.

“We succeeded last year in establishing that commitment with legislation authorizing $1.5 billion in federal funding over ten years to be matched by the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. That legislation required the local jurisdictions to amend the WMATA Regulation Compact to reflect the dedicated funding requirement, establish an Office of Inspector General, and provide for Federal representation on the WMATA Board. The three jurisdictions fulfilled this obligation and last week formally requested Congressional approval of the amended compact - the final step in the authorization process.

“In light of Monday’s tragic accident, we believe that this funding is even more critical to provide for the safety of our citizens. We look forward to quick consideration of our resolution in the House and Senate, and will continue to fight for approval of our request for $150 million in federal funds for Metro for Fiscal Year 2010.”

Together, the region’s delegation has requested $150 million in federal funding this year for capital and preventive maintenance projects for the maintenance and upkeep of Metro. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress and signed by President Obama in February included $200 million to meet Metro needs in operations systems, IT, maintenance and repair equipment, passenger and maintenance facilities, safety and security, and vehicle servicing.

The authorization for dedicated Metro funding was included in the Rail Safety Improvement Act (H.R. 2095), which was passed last fall and signed into law by President Bush.

As somebody who frequently rides the Metro, I recognized several years ago that Metro needed a dedicated funding stream. Metro carries millions of passengers, including federal employees, employees of private industry, and tourists. Usually it does so safely, efficiently, and relatively comfortably. When I first moved to DC 18 years ago, local residents pointed to the Metro system with pride. It was clean, quick, and safe transportation that was affordable.

The system is now aging. Repairs are needed. But it is still a system worth being proud of. But yesterday's terrible tragedy has shown us just how much we need this system to work properly and safely. Kudos to our Senate and House delegations for stepping up to the plate in a bipartisan effort to benefit our entire community and the tourists who visit us.

We Endorse!

Members of the community Northern Virginia progressive bloggers proudly endorse the following candidates in their primaries on Tuesday, June 10th:

Leslie Byrne, 11th CD Congressional candidate

Judy Feder, 10th CD Congressional candidate

Jim Moran, 8th CD Congressional candidate

RK has an excellent write up on each of these candidates and the reason why Blueweeds, Bryan Scafford, Leesburg Tomorrow and Not Larry Sabato are joining me and RK in this joint endorsement. Here is our joint endorsement.

Jim Moran - 8th
While the corporate media only seems to focus on Jim Moran when he makes a misstatement or a mistake, the truth is that Jim is working hard for Northern Virginia and the nation on a wide variety of issues everyday. Jim was an early vote against the war in Iraq and has continued to oppose the war, even moving away from his former DLC allies over this and other issues (e.g., "free trade" vs. "fair trade"). Jim has been a strong voice for Northern Virginia on the House Appropriations Committee, has done great work on the BRAC issue, and is a strong environmentalist. In addition, Jim and his office have been great friends of the netroots and the Virginia progressive blogosphere. In contrast, Jim's opponent is an unknown who has made no case for replacing the 9-term incumbent. Elections are not about achieving the perfect, they are a choice between the candidates on the ballot. In this matchup, it's Moran by a mile.

Judy Feder - 10th
The 10th CD primary offers Democrats an easy choice. In 2006, Judy Feder gave Frank Wolf the toughest race he's seen in more than a decade. This year, Judy is building on what she accomplished the last time around. For 2008, she has started earlier, is raising more money, and has built a highly capable campaign team -- all in a district that is trending blue and in a year which has seen record Democratic turnout across the country. Needless to say, the Republicans are worried, and justifiably so; perhaps that's why they've already begun attacking Judy.

Electability is essential, but Judy offers much more. First and foremost, she is one of the leading experts in this country on health care. This could prove to be a tremendous asset to President Obama as he works to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable, universal health care coverage. In addition, as a veteran of the health care battles of the 1990s, Judy will help President Obama and the Democratic Congress avoid past pitfalls in getting this done.

In addition to health care, Judy believes in balancing the federal budget, paying as you go, getting out of Iraq responsibly, ending our oil addiction, and protecting our environment. As a member of Congress, she will bring her tremendous work ethic and intellectual rigor to these and other issues. We strongly and enthusiastically endorse Judy Feder for Congress!

Leslie Byrne - 11th
We join Jim Webb, Chap Petersen, Donald McEachin and many others in enthusiastically endorsing Leslie Byrne for Congress.

Leslie is a proven winner, having carried the 11th district in 2005, with 55% of the vote. Leslie is a strong progressive, something she has proven her entire career. Leslie is effective, having introduced and passed more legislation than any other freshman representative while in Congress. Leslie has principles; in 1993, she voted against NAFTA out of concern for labor rights and the environment. Leslie has guts; she did the politically risky thing and voted for President Clinton's tax package. Several Democrats lost their seats because of this vote, but it was the right thing to do, leading to balanced budgets and contributing to the years of prosperity in the 1990s. Finally, Leslie has her priorities straight, fighting for working people as opposed the powerful special interests and the super-rich. We strongly urge all Democrats in the 11th CD to vote for Leslie Byrne on June 10.

This is the last weekend before the June 10th primaries in NoVa. I urge you to get out and work for any of these fine candidates in this last GOTV effort the rest of this week and this weekend. And certainly, get out next Tuesday and VOTE!

Doesn't Look Like an Anti-Semite To Me

I’ll be the first to admit that Jim Moran sometimes suffers foot and mouth disease and makes statements that even his most loyal supporters cringe at. And I’ll also grudgingly give Colbert King the benefit of the doubt. He’s supposed to be a highly respected Washington Post columnist. But he’s dead wrong about Jim Moran in last Saturday’s column.

King asserts that Moran’s criticism of the powerful AIPAC Israel lobby, made in an interview Moran gave to Tikkun magazine, which appears in their September October issue, is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Ok, let’s look at exactly what Jim Moran said to Tikkun:

“AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is very unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it’s the best-organized national lobbying force. The National Rifle Association comes a close second, but AIPAC can rightfully brag that they’re the most powerful lobbying force in the world today. Certainly they are in the United States. Not in Europe obviously…

Then in answer to another question, Moran continues:

You’ve touched on a quandary, and it particularly applies to the Jewish American community. Jewish Americans, as a voting bloc and as an influence on American foreign policy are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as Jewish Americans. But AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, because they are so well organized and their members are extraordinarily powerful – most of them are quite wealthy – they have been able to exert power.

King and others imply that because Moran criticizes a powerful lobby that happens to be comprised of wealthy Jews, he is playing into the ugly stereotype that all Jews are wealthy and control the media and the government. And that they put the interests of Israel before that of their own country, the United States.

But is that what he is really saying?

I don’t think so. If you read the interview carefully, Moran goes to great lengths to point out that AIPAC does not represent most of the Jewish community and that most mainstream American Jews have been in the forefront of opposition to the war in Iraq.

I happen to disagree with Moran and some other progressive Jews about how influential AIPAC really is, but you can’t fault those AIPAC critics for anti-Semitism. They are simply criticizing one group of rich citizens who have undue access to media and government because of their wealth. That they happen to be a Jewish group that supports right wing policies in Israel is beside the point. The fact is there are many Israelis who also disagree with AIPAC.

But most telling is the context from which Moran’s quotes were taken – I always say context is everything. Moran was giving an interview to a very liberal Jewish publication whose editorial policy agrees with Moran. Jim Moran was speaking freely to friends, who, by the way, happen to be Jewish progressives. The Tikkun crowd dislikes AIPAC and considers them rivals. Tikkun, and its affiliates, have a different view of Israel and Middle Eastern policy, one which seeks reconciliation with Palestinians and a humane, two state solution that protects Israel’s sovereignty while also being mindful of Palestinians’ legitimate rights to self-determination.

I personally think they have a beautiful, idealistic, and naïve point of view. Without believing for a minute that Israel is some blameless, perfect society, I could argue that the biggest stumbling block to peace in that region is Palestinian intransigence. Incrementalism and building trust just aren’t part of Hamas’ plan. All or nothing – victory over Israel and pushing it into the sea versus utter defeat – is their agenda. The problem with some liberals is they don’t pay attention to what groups like Hamas actually say. They should.

But while disagreeing with them about the odds of a genuine reconciliation (I’m just more skeptical by nature) I’d hardly call them self-hating Jews or anti-Semites.

King, however, challenged Moran to name specific names and cite specific examples of AIPAC's undue influence and power. Ok, Jim Moran didn't do it. But I will right here.

Let me give you one more quote – and I’m not going to tell you up front by whom it was said:

Let's zero in on AIPAC. It is controlled by right wing, rich Jewish neo-conservatives. As one manifestation of the truth of this assertion one merely has to look at its annual meeting this past month. At a time when Vice President Cheney's popularity has dropped below 20 percent, the 4,500 delegates to the AIPAC convention gave him a standing ovation for almost a minute before he even opened his mouth and then proceeded to give him 48 rounds of applause in a 35-minute speech. (As my colleague Leonard Fein pointed out, that's once every 43.7 seconds). Considering that 75 percent of American Jews voted for Kerry, it is obvious that these people are out of the mainstream of Jewish thought.

At the same conference, preceding the recent Israeli elections, these delegates were addressed by Ehud Olmert (Kadima), Amir Peretz (Labor) and Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) by video link from Israel. Olmert and Peretz received polite applause. The AIPAC delegates cheered enthusiastically for Netanyahu, especially when he presented his hard line that was overwhelmingly rejected by the Israeli electorate. Once a great organization, today AIPAC does not even represent the feelings of the average Israeli, let alone the average American Jew.

This American Jewish neo-conservatism is unhealthy not only for America but for Israel as well. A prime example: The Israeli press reports that Israel is trying to find a way to deal with the Palestinians while not dealing with Hamas. Official public statements aside, they realize that they cannot cut off all contacts with the Palestinians and that the world cannot discontinue financial help; otherwise Israel will find a million starving Palestinians on its border, and this will not lead to peace or security for Israel. Privately, the Israeli government was against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (the Ross-Lehtinen-Lantos bill) which recently passed the House of Representatives. It would cut off all American contacts with the Palestinian Authority, even with its president Mahmoud Abbas, who is a moderate seeking peace. Despite Israel's private reservations, AIPAC not only pushed this bill, it was instrumental in writing it. Even though the AIPAC candidate lost in Israel, he won in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hopefully, the Senate and the White House will correct this.

Another example: 400 rabbis, including myself, signed a letter sponsored by Brit Tzedek v'Shalom that appeared in the Forward this past month. It was a mildly liberal statement that proclaimed that "we are deeply troubled by the recent victory of Hamas," but went on to urge "indirect assistance to the Palestinian people via NGO's, with the appropriate conditions to ensure that it does not reach the hands of terrorists." Pretty mild stuff. Yet pulpit rabbis across this country who signed the letter have reported a concerted effort to silence them. The letter has been branded a "piece of back-stabbing abandonment of the Jews of Israel." Synagogue boards have been pressured to silence their rabbis by that loose coalition called the "Israel Lobby."

Just another example of the Jewish establishment stifling any discussion of Israel that does not conform to the neo-conservative tenets of AIPAC and its cohorts. Beware of these self-appointed guardians of Israel and Jewish values. In the end they will destroy everything that makes Judaism a compassionate religion, and if in their zeal they do not destroy Israel, they certainly will not make it more secure.

Satisfied yet, Mr. King? Because basically, the author of those words backs up Jim Moran’s contention. And I’d be willing to bet that King, in his take no prisoners style, would love to accuse him of anti-Semitic remarks too.

Unfortunately, Rabbi Bruce Warhsal, publisher emeritus of the Broward Jewish Journal, respected rabbi and still a columnist for that paper, wrote those words. He felt that pressure from AIPAC first hand. He’s a Jewish progressive to be sure. But anti-Israel – never!

He is, in fact, one of the most respected rabbis and writers in Broward County, Florida, home to one of the nation’s largest Jewish populations.

Indeed, there is a debate going on in the Jewish community between neo-cons, who comprise a minority, and progressives, who, as Rabbi Warshal pointed out, voted in droves for John Kerry in 2004, about what is the best policy to secure Israel’s security, as well as the most moral position on the Middle East. Many Jews argue that rapprochement and reconciliation with Palestine and an equitable two state solution would stabilize the Middle East and provide the real security that Israel and a Palestinian state need to prosper. It may be an unattainable goal. And it’s certainly fair to argue about it.

But AIPAC and its allies – often unwitting allies at that – would rather resort to ad hominem attacks on their opponents than engage in a real dialogue about the best solution. But its opponents – and those who are critical of the so-called Israel lobby, i.e., AIPAC – are not anti-Semites. Just as Democrats, and the vast majority of Americans who oppose our involvement in Iraq are not cut and run defeatists. But the sad thing is that those who resort to slurs, smears and attack have already admitted that they’ve lost the real argument, the one based on facts, evidence and logic. They are up the proverbial creek with only one paddle. When confronted with arguments they can’t respond to, their answer is to batter their critics over head.

Unfortunately, Colbert King took that paddle to Jim Moran. But as I said, he’s dead wrong this time. Because if he’s not, that makes the 75% of Jews, who as Rabbi Warshal noted, voted for John Kerry, consider themselves Democrats, and oppose AIPAC, equally anti-Semitic. And that’s not true.

Mr. King, I respectfully submit that AIPAC is not the Jewish community and represents only a minority view even among Israelis. And, yes, they do assert undue pressure on their perceived opponents. If you haven't felt it personally, it's because you've never been one of their critics. That's ok. But it doesn't make you more pro-Israel than those who don't share AIPAC's particular viewpoint.