Thomas Young's blog

Which party wears red?



I worked for a populist Senator who shied from using the word "fight."

I thought that was a stupid choice. That man is no longer a Senator.

Democrats need to brand themselves as the party that fights the robber barons.

Then, more importantly, Democrats need to FIGHT the robber barons.

Americans are a gloriously violent people. We respect fighters. Afterall, we introduced ourselves to the world by going guerrilla on The British Empire. We were only six years old when Jefferson sicced the marines on Tripoli. Hell, we committed genocide. (Which is a bad thing).

Be a fighter. Fight hard and play by the Chicago rules.

What's the point of the Democratic Party? I know that technically its job is to get Democrats elected to office. But what of it?

What is the point if Democrats don't use the power that they gain in holding office?

What is the point if Democrats give their power away?

What is the point if Democrats let themselves get played for suckers over and over again in the most predictable ways.

Salon.com: Democratic leadership: not just complicit but also self-destructive

The signs are unmistakably clear that what was always inevitable -- full compliance by the House Democratic leadership with Bush's demands on warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- is now imminent. House leaders spent the week floating their specific proposals for how they intend to comply in full, and yesterday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes went on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, refused to criticize the President or the Senate FISA bill, and repeatedly and meekly expressed his willingness "this week" to give what he called full "blanket immunity" to telecoms (C&L has the video of Reyes' astoundingly weak and incoherent answers in response to Blitzer's Bush-mimicking questions).

What is the point of feigning that you object to a single party government when all you do is help an Executive who thinks he is King.

What is the point of taking the flak that comes from the right wing when you refuse to cave, the threats that Democrats are making us less safe every day they delay -- when you have no intention of keeping up the fight?

What is the point of that when you just give in?

Do they think Republicans won't attack them for stalling?  Now that they've caved entirely, they're admitting that Bush was right and that they were putting America at risk by not letting George W. 19% illegally spy on citizens.

Republicans WILL attack them.  That's what Republicans do.  They consolidate power and use it for the purpose of the party's ideology and to continue it's health. 

If Democrats merely help Republicans do what Republicans want to do, then what is the point of the Democrats?

Democrats don't enforce their oversight powers. Even when the opposition has admitted to committing crimes. 
Democrats instead grant even more power to the lawbreaking Executive. Indeed, doing the very opposite of oversight, they grant retroactive immunity to the criminals for the crimes they committed.

And at the end of the day the Democrats will be attacked for not having completely caved fast enough.

What is the point of the Democratic Party?

Last week Attorney General Mukasey told Democrats to stick their subpoenas up their asses. And the response is, "Here's some more power."  What is the point of the Democratic Party.

By which I mean the Republican party. The Republican party of Lincoln. I've given up on the Democrats. There is no Democratic party.

Governments like ours work when factions operate in their own self interest - when the self-checking branches of government provide oversight on each other, or when political tribes draw differences and push against each other.

It's only in pushing against each other that there is balance.

You can't blame the modern GOP for trying to control every branch of government and put as much power as possible into the hands of their political operation any more than you can blame Franklin Delano Roosevelt for going ballistic on the Supreme Court in 1937 threatening to appoint 6 young liberals in what was called the most grave Constitutional Crisis of the 20th Century in order to push through the parts of New Deal they deemed unconstitutional.

Democrats don't have a unified principle that they can push back from anymore. To be a Democrat is simple - it is simply in their political interest to avoid being called names by Rush Limbaugh. If they can achieve that, then their political concerns is secure.

There is no Democratic Party in Congress. There are a slim majority of Congressmen and Senators who have banded together in order to gather money. They're not even very much concerned with gathering power and influence.

But they are most certainly not using any of the resources that they are gathering to benefit the groups and causes who worked to put them in power in the first place.

Republicans know this, and they will use this knowledge to pass the bills that they feel the country needs. This is why 2007 was such a horrible legislative year for the progressive movement - and why 2008 will be no better for progressives.

Democrats don't push back. Democrats don't fight for their rights. As legislators they gave away their power of oversight. As Executives they gave away their right to set an agenda.

The progressive movement needs a party. A party that acts out of principle since this is how progressives operate.

Since, Democrats no longer operate anchored in a principle of any sort (Anything, fucking something, whatever - Civil Liberties... Rule of Law... whatever, it really doesn't fucking matter. Name a cause, guys - anything) they are not the party for progressives.

I would have an easier time convincing Republicans, who are comfortable with the idea of fighting on behalf of a core set of principles, that they need to change their principles than I would with Democrats, who are incapable of fighting on behalf of core principles anyway.

Yesterday, when the Democratic Senators rose to speak on behalf of their amendments it was clear which of the speakers were men and which were clowns mice.

Chuck Schumer took his 10 minutes, asked that it be increased to 12 minutes because he had so much to say. This was interesting, we thought, maybe he's catching some of the passion that millions of Americans are trying to imbue into the Democratic caucus. Defending the Constitution, rejecting a criminal Administration, restoring checks and balances, protecting the rule of law, yes, this is something to feel passionate about!

Schumer then said that if he doesn't need all 12 minutes, then roll minutes over to his colleague. Whatever, get to it! And then, Schumer, on his feet in the middle of a debate over Bush's perversion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, introduced a resolution to praise a football team. He used over half of his time talking about sports. This Equals Clown.

Conversely, here is what Russ Feingold said of the issue:

How has the debate overall come to be framed so incorrectly, as you suggest?
One reason is that there’s been an inadequate response to the Bush-Cheney scare tactics. They’ve been successful every time—in the Iraq War, with the Patriot Act—[in saying] “If we’re not given these powers immediately, we will be attacked.” These are bogus claims. The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”
Supporters of the PAA say that if these calls and e-mails were subject to the regular FISA court, it would take hundreds of lawyer and analyst hours to prepare them for the appropriate review.
Listen, a criticism like that just shows no understanding of what’s going on here. Every time a foreign conversation runs through a transmitter in L.A., there was an archaic technicality in the law that would require individualized warrants [in order for the government to intercept them]. We all said, fine, we agree with changing that, but in cases when the program ends up impacting Americans, there has to be some oversight.
What’s the status of your amendments? It’s been suggested that in the consent agreement to allow debate, Republicans are allowing straight majority votes only on amendments they know will fail—including yours.
We’re trying to make a record here, and to show who voted for what. My prediction is this thing will go through; it will be challenged and go through the courts. And eventually a Supreme Court with something like seven Republican-appointed judges will strike down the worst parts of it. This is a long-term battle to protect the rights of the American people.
In the modern political climate you’re more likely to hear about amnesty with respect to undocumented workers than you are about the amnesty for the phone and Internet companies who helped the government break the law before the act was passed.
Oh, I think there’s tremendous feeling that there’s a problem here. In some ways I think it goes deeper than immigration. People see their own personal liberties affected. And we’ve seen that the telecom immunity does offend people. People may be nervous about giving a free pass [on immigration]. But what’s gonna bother them even more are the types of things I’m describing here: the level to which their privacy is being subjected to a “trust me” government that impacts their daily freedom and privacy. It really is disturbing to people with any kind of common sense at all.
from Newsweek, via the CREDOblog

Feingold: The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”

Yes. Those people are the problem.

NOBODY thinks that the problem with Schumer is that he fails to stand up and say that the New York Giants won a game, hip hip hooray. Give me G. Give me an I. Give me a A. ...No.

Give me a real Senator.

Right before speaking with the Senate today, Mukasey sent a lawyerly letter to Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy saying essentially, 'You're going to ask me about torture and I'm not going to answer your questions.' ("There are policy initiatives that the department supports that some members of this committee vigorously oppose, and vice versa. There also are situations where the interests of the executive branch and the legislature will be in some tension.")

Which is to say, 'as a member of the executive branch, now, my opinion about laws, as "top law enforcement officer in the land" is not as important as... well, providing cover for the executive branch, which is now my job. btw thanks for that sweet ass confirmation, clowns.'

Leahy reponded, "Attorney General Mukasey knows that this will not end the matter and expects to be asked serious questions at the hearing tomorrow." Oh my stars! Whatsoever shall happen?!

First up, Chuck Schumer who helped Michael Mukasey become Attorney General because Mukasey is from New York, and also because Chuck Schumer is a moron.

Schumer told Mukasey that he is disappointed in him because now that Mukasey is in the Cabinet, he won't stand up to the Bushists when it comes to telling the rest of the Administration that waterboarding is torture and it's "repugnant" and "cruel" (as Mukasey himself called the torture technique in his confirmation hearings where Schumer bounced in his chair and clapped, oh so impressed).

Schumer pouted and said "You have an opportunity here to be something of a leader, and you are going to be asked whether we should pass a law," Schumer begged of Mukasey. In response, Mukasey shrugged and told him that it's not his job as Attorney General to do anything on his own accord.

SCHUMER: I need to tell you how profoundly, in this particular situation, I disagree with you.

MUKASEY: I'm happy to hear that I lived up to expectations. I'm very sorry to hear that I lived down to them.

And with that, Schumer stopped the pursuit. Because Schumer is a moron and a coward. Come on! Asking a former judge to render a legal opinion based on a policy/political preference is a stupid line of questioning.

Waterboarding isn't repugnant, it's torture. A better line of questioning would hew to establishing that illegality. Based not on public policy--the province of the legislative branch, not the enforcement powers of the executive---but on legal precedent.

Biden fucked up in the same way, drilling down into the Nichomachean ethics of torture. Like anybody cares that Biden when to Catholic school and learned latin. To Biden's stupid questions, Mukasey said the DOJ would have to "balance the value of doing something (torture) against the cost of doing it." Cost? "I mean the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value.... balanced against the information you might get."  Information "that couldn't be used to save lives," he explained, would be of less value.

What this reveals is that Bush's DOJ has concluded that waterboarding is necessary and therefore must be not considered torture, so also it must not be termed 'cruel treatment' under the Consitution, Common Article 3... even though Mukasey admitted that it was "cruel" when he asked to be confirmed.

Biden responded, "You're the first I've ever heard to say what you just said.... It shocks my conscience a little bit."

Schumer is disappointed. Biden is shocked.  Big surprise, idiots.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who was a United States Attorney, on the other hand understood where all of the previous back and forths failed, he saw the endgame of the argument the Bush Administration was sticking to, and he wouldn't lay off.

WHITEHOUSE: You are the top law enforcement officer of the United States and prosecutors do look back. Prosecutors do investigate things that have happened in the past. They do dredge up the past in order to do justice...Now the president has said that we will investigate, prosecute all acts of torture and you've just said today, "if someone is guilty of violating the laws of the United States," they get prosecuted...There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited if the alleged offender is a national of the United States and a person who conspires to commit an offense under this section is subject to the same penalties other than the penalty of death..." So, we have a statute on point, you are, I believe, the sole prosecuting authority for that statute, correct?

MUKASEY: I am as the top of the Department of Justice, which is the sole prosecuting authority. [...]

When it comes to past conduct, one of the many questions involved in past conduct in addition to what was done, is, what authorizations were given, what authorizations were reasonably relied on. My current evaluation of the statute, if there is one, has only tangentially to do with that because if it has directly to do with that, then the message is, your authorization, you who did whatever you did, your authorization is good only for so long as the tenure of the person who gave it and maybe not even for that long...

WHITEHOUSE The message you send otherwise is that 'I was only following orders' is a fine response.

MUKASEY: It's not a fine response. It was a response at Nuremberg that was found unlawful, we both know. Ummm...

WHITEHOUSE: And yet it's the one that you're crediting right now. 'I had authorization and therefore I'm immune from prosecution.'" Isn't that where that analysis leads?

MUKASEY: No, it's, I had authorization and let's take a look at the authorization. If the circumstances under which it was given and what was done have a whole wide range of variables that I don't have before me.

WHITEHOUSE: Has that been done? Has there been a thorough, independent analysis under your administration of whether or not any national of the United States is potentially in violation of Section 23-40A as the result of...

MUKASEY: I don't, I don't start investigations out of curiosity. I start investigations out of some indication that somebody might have had an improper authorization. I have no such indication now. [...]

WHITEHOUSE I don't see how that resolves the Nuremberg defense problem. If the reason that you're giving us for investigating the destruction of the tapes, but not investigating the underlying interrogation, is that it appears that the interrogators were following orders and it appears that the destroyers were not, isn't that the Nuremberg defense?

MUKASEY: No, because you're assuming what was on the tapes, you're assuming that the interrogation was unlawful...

WHITEHOUSE: I'm not assuming any such thing, anymore than you'd be assuming that the destruction was unlawful. What I'm suggesting is that you should investigate it and there should be at least somebody who at least takes a look at this in a principled, thoughtful way, and if the answer that comes back is, no, there was not a crime and here's why, then we can lay the question to rest. But if you're telling me that this hasn't even been investigated although the destruction of the tapes is being investigated, it strikes me that there is a split standard there and I'm trying to understand why.

War crimes trials, anyone?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the White House for a peek at the records they are legally required to keep.

Lo and behold, there were gaps in White House e-mail archives that just happened to coincide with KEY DATES in the period when the administration was struggling to deal with the CIA leak investigation a congressional probe into Iraq intelligence manipulation. And even more damaging weeks of legal defense work.

They are being sued for destroying as many as 10 million White House e-mails, in violation of the Presidential Records Act, and are in court arguing that they can't be sued because the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to... the President.

Bush spokesman Tony Fratto denied that the White House had lost millions of emails today:

Q: Tony, on the subject, could you address the missing White House emails and the law suit? It is a subject of reports this morning. Are there in fact the emails missing? What's the likelihood of their recovery versus the --

MR. FRATTO: I think our review of this, and you saw the court filing on this, and our declaration in response to the judge's questions -- I think to the best of what all the analysis we've been able to do, we have absolutely no reason to believe that any emails are missing; there's no evidence of that. There's no -- we tried to reconstruct some of the work that went into a chart that was entered into court records and could not replicate that or could not authenticate the correctness of the data in that chart. And from everything that we can tell, our analysis of our backup systems, we have no reason to believe that any email at all are missing.

Q So where are they?

MR. FRATTO: Where are what?

Q Where are part of --

MR. FRATTO: Which email? Look, no one will tell you categorically about any system -- any system, whether it's your system at Bloomberg or our system here at the White House, past and present, categorically that data cannot be missing. All of our review of it and all of the our understanding of the way that the backup system works, it's a backup system that captures existing data, it captures things that are stored and archived. We have no reason to believe that there's any data missing at all -- and we've certainly found no evidence of any data missing.

Q So that would mean that if you were asked, you would be in a position to comply with a request to produce those documents?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, which documents? I mean, if someone has a specific request for documents and they would like us to search for particular emails, of course we could search for emails -- and we have. And we have been responsive to requests in the past.

Q And they have been produced? They do exist?

MR. FRATTO: We have produced emails upon request, either for our own internal review or sometimes in response to investigations that have taken place on the Hill. I mean, we have been able to go back and find email. The question is, have we been able to find a large mass of missing email? No, we have not located somewhere in the system the absence of something. We have not been able to note the absence of anything in our databases.*

Q You're saying they're there, you just haven't located them yet?

MR. FRATTO: No, I'm saying we have no evidence that shows that anything at all is missing. And you're saying, well, have you found the missing emails -- and we say we have no evidence that anything is missing.

Bad liars often say too much with too much certainty. This exchange was just such a case. The White House has previously told people, including Justice Department investigator Patrick Fitzgerald, that they had lost emails.

That's how they kept Jenny Mayfield and Cathie Martin out of jail for not turning over what appears to be email responsive to subpoena. So if you now say that there are no emails missing, it means all that legal testimony the White House has given--some of it under oath--is incorrect. It leaves the door open for response. Swooping in to find the truth came America's intrepid investigative journalists like Bill O'Reilly... I'm kidding. America's media was clutching their pearls about Britney Spears. But Democrat Henry Waxman did swoop in. With a letter.

Dear Mr. Fielding:

At today’s White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto was asked about allegations that White House e-mails have been lost from White House servers. He stated in response: “we have absolutely no reason to believe that any e-mails are missing.”

This statement is contrary to information that the White House provided to the Committee staff in a briefing on September 19, 2007. At this briefing, the White House showed staff a chart indicating that there were 473 days for which various entities in the Executive Office of the President had no archived e-mails. According to the chart, the days with no archived e-mails included:

For the White House Office: December 17, 2003, December 20, 2003, December 21, 2003, January 9, 2004, January 10, 2004, January 11, 2004, January 29, 2004, February 1, 2004, February 2, 2004, February 3, 2004, February 7, 2004, and February 8, 2004.

For the Office of the Vice President: September 12, 2003, October 1, 2003, October 2, 2003, October 3, 2003, October 5, 2003, January 29, 2004, January 30, 2004, January 31, 2004, February 7, 2004, February 8, 2004, February 15, 2005, February 16, 2005, February 17, 2005, May 21, 2005, May 22, 2005, May 23, 2005.

For the Council on Environmental Quality: 81 days, including the entire period between November 1, 2003 through January 11, 2004.

For the Council of Economic Advisers: 103 days, including the entire period between November 2, 2003 through January 11, 2004.

For the Office of Management and Budget: 59 days, including the entire period between November 1, 2003 through December 9, 2003.

For the U.S. Trade Representative: 73 days, including the entire period between February 11, 2004 through April 18, 2004.

The White House officials conducting the briefing took this chart with them. They also indicated that the White House was doing an additional analysis to determine whether the information in the chart was accurate. In a letter I sent to you on December 20, 2007, I asked for any new information or analyses about the problem of missing e-mails. I have not received a response to this letter.

Mr. Fratto’s statements have added to the considerable confusion that exists regarding the status of White House efforts to preserve e-mails. To help clarify the situation, I request your testimony and the testimony of Alan Swendiman, the Director of the Office of Administration, at a hearing on February 15, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

Now, Fred Fielding, who survived Nixon's 18 minute gap, is going to have to come and testify about why all the legal representations the White House made in the past about missing emails are no longer operative.

"Administration": Nothings missing.
Waxman: What about what you admitted was missing?
"Administration": Like what?
Waxman: How about October 3, 2003?
"Administration": Oh, yeah, that's missing.
Waxman: Hm
"Administration": What're going to do?
Waxman: Tsk Tsk.
Country: (pause) Impeach the bastards!

Again, the Administration is being sued for destroying as many as 10 million White House e-mails, in violation of the Presidential Records Act, and are in court arguing that they can't be sued because the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to... the President.

Well, thank God.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the good news coming from Tammy Baldwin's office:

On Dec. 14, I joined with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), in urging Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to conduct hearings on a resolution of impeachment now pending consideration in that committee.
[...]
The call to impeach is one I did not take lightly. But as we said in our letter to Chairman Conyers, the issues are too serious to ignore. We simply cannot discount or overlook numerous, credible allegations of abuse of power by the Bush administration that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our Constitution. To prove this, we must follow the form of the signers of our own Declaration of Independence who wrote, “let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

The fact is that the Republican-controlled Congress was adamantly against impeachment of Richard Nixon until what was revealed in the investigations made it untenable for them to support Nixon any longer.

The growing petition numbers at WexlerWantsHearings.com, makes the House leadership really nervous. Good. Know what makes the Republicans nervous? The names on that petition. Know what doesn't make them nervous? Those citizens' neutered Representatives. Excepting of course, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin.

Senator Jay Rockefeller is a liar. Glenn Greenwald goes to great length to point out that Rockefeller is a smug Bush crony:

When Rockefeller smugly announces that he "thinks we will prevail," the "we" on whose behalf he is so proudly speaking is Bush and Cheney, lawbreaking telecoms, and all Republican Senators. The only parties whom Rockefeller is so happily "defeating" are civil liberties groups and members of his own party. That is what is making him feel pulsating sensations of excitement and "smugness."

He is being allowed to win only because he is advancing the Bush agenda and those of his largest corporate donors, and waging war against members of his own party, acting to destroy the allegedly defining values of that party.

The worst part of Rockefeller's statement, the most infuriating and mendacious is when he paints telcos as some poor, "helpless" victims unable to defend themselves.

"If people want to be mad, don't be mad at the telecommunications companies, who are restrained from saying anything at all under the State Secrets Act. And they really are. They can't say whether they were involved, they can't go to court, they can't do anything. They're just helpless. And the president was just having his way."

The solution isn't to bar Americans from suing telcos (even when they break the law), the solution is simply to add a provision to FISA enabling telcos to submit that evidence in secret, the way classified evidence is submitted to federal courts all the time. 50 USC 1806(f) already says that, but even if it didn't, Congress could amend it to do so.

But that would be work. And it would anger Bush and Cheney. And Rockefeller works for them. Apparently.

Rockefeller's claim that telecoms can't submit exculpatory evidence to the court is a lie, an absolute lie. There is no other accurate way to describe his statement.

As Greenwald says, "Under FISA (50 USC 1806(f)), telcos are explicitly permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (in camera, ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. That section of long-standing law could not be clearer, and leaves no doubt that Rockefeller is simply lying when he says that telecoms are unable to submit secret evidence to the court to defend themselves."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) got a contempt citation passed in his House Judiciary Committee for both Miers and Bolten in late July, because, as the photo reminds us, when they were subpoena'd for testimony related to the U.S. attorney firings, they told Congress to go Cheney itself. They both, plus Rove to the Senate Judiciary Committee, claimed that executive privilege protected them from even having to appear in person to invoke executive privilege - hence the empty chair pictured above.

Conyers' contempt citation means exactly dick until it is passed by the full House. And as House leader Nancy Pelosi crowed, the most important thing about Democratic takeover in Washington D.C. was "subpoena power."

So it's no surprise then that as soon as Congress returned from summer recess, Nancy "subpoena power" Pelosi made sure nothing happened. Then a vote was supposedly imminent in November -- Conyers even issued a final warning to the White House. But the vote didn't come (it got pushed to December because Congress was busy caving to Bush on Iraq and FISA). Then it was supposed to come shortly after the winter recess. But, Nancy "subpoena power" Pelosi strikes again:

Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would “step on their message” of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks....

“Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves....

“When we have the votes, we’ll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there,” said one top House Democratic insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Ow, the stupid, it hurts. Firstly, the bipartisan "unity" of the stimulus package is simply this; on a bipartisan basis, Congress is passing 100% of the tax cuts that Bush wants.

So it's for that utter capitulation that James Madison's required checks and balances moves to the back burner.

And when will we pick "it" back up? Why, when the votes are there, of course!
What votes? GOP votes.

When exactly will Republicans vote to send fellow Republicans to prison?
Any day now! All that's needed is some more of that sweet bipartisanship.

Jesus Fucking Christ in a Chicken Bucket counting on these Democrats is like being forced to shave off your nipples... Which is merely to say that it's awful and painful, it mostly makes you want to vomit, and just the thought of it is infuriating, confusing and insulting.

Democrats need to distance themselves from this stimulus package - but they won't.

Democrats should have fought to include some measures that would have helped poor and middle class Americans - but they didn't.

On just about every single thing since the midterms in 2006 when America decided to stop the Conservative Agenda (and stop George W. Bush's ability to destroy any more) Democrats have failed to prove through their actions, that they deserve to govern.

Looking at the specifics of the package that the White House wants - and will get, one wonders what the point was of electing Democrats in 2006 at all.

The egregious part about this stimulus package isn't that about 10% of the households in the United States don't qualify, or that it includes classic "screw the blue states" tricks. The bill does nothing to address the relative disparity with why the poverty line is different around the country.

Democratic leaders are leaving out middle class people that live in high cost areas, ie blue states. I'll note also that this is precisely smack dab in the middle of the demographic status of creative class liberals.

Again, I ask what is the point of electing Democrats when they act like Republicans?