H.R.3793:

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated.

Sponsor: Rep Altmire, Jason [D-PA4]
(introduced 10/10/2007)

Cosponsors (219)

Committees: House Armed Services

Latest Major Action: 10/19/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

And that's why I wrote:

If any of the Democratic candidates who are actually in the Senate could tear their attention away from Tweety and Pumpkinhead and Bob Novak and MoDo and what the Village thinks, why don’t you use the fact that Reid left the Senate in pro forma session to introduce some legislation to stop this tomorrow?

Eh?

It totally frosts me that our guys have the biggest bully pulpit in the world besides the Presidency, and they never, never use it for Good (except for the Dodd filibuster). Yeah, I know that would mean open partisan warfare on the Senate Floor, fetch me my fainting couch....

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

but a couple of technical things.

The pro forma session doesn't allow for the transaction of any business, including votes on accepting and assigning proffered legislation, so there's that for a reason.

Also, all bills dealing with revenue, and with appropriations under the quaint notion that expenditures are somehow related to receipts, must originate in the House. This topic, directing the Secretary of Defense to disburse money, normally would come to the Senate from the House. The Senate might attach it as an amendment to some other bill but that leads to a whole other bunch of procedural problems; simpler to have it stay single topic and on the standard path. Should the Dem candidates be all over Bush and the Republicans for this travesty? Yep, they should, instead of chewing on each other.

My Rep, a decent guy who doesn't like to make predictions, has sort of obliquely suggested that the pace of investigations and legislative confrontation will start to pick up now, primarily as part of the politics of the election. He has little expectation that much in the way of controversial legislation will get passed over Bush vetos, but they want him to have a pile of those to hang around the Republican's necks. There is also little hope of forcing investigations very far as long as Bush is in office, everyone and everything incriminating will be hidden behind "national security" and "executive privilege", DoJ won't follow up and Bush would just pardon anyway, but there will be a lot of ground-laying for the future under hopefully a Democrat in the White House. And no, the Dems will not do anything that leaves them open to even marginally legitimate charges of shortchanging troops in the field or hampering “national security.”

Less than what one might want, tactically cautious to the point of seeming timid, risky that whoever gets the Presidency will continue the coverups and criminality, yes, yes and yes it is. But this is the strategy that's been decided on and unless somebody very high up in the Administration cracks, it likely won't change. The White House is everything, and I'll willingly eat a lot of crap between now and next November to see that won. Your tastes understandably may vary.

Happy Thanksgiving, Lambert. Next year this time I hope things will look a whole lot better to both of us.

I was hoping for some sort of tricky procedural move to get around it. Maybe one of the Senators can send a Sternly Worded Letter when they get back to vacation.

As for your dispatch from the Village on how the Democrat plan to pre-capitulate ("the strategy that's been decided on"--nice use of the passive voice), what do you mean, "seeming" timid?

Personally, I think this a recipe for at best a marginal win (certainly the consultants hope for that, since they make their money at the margin), and at the worst, disaster, because you can't beat something with nothing, a lesson Daschle might have communicated to the rest of the party when he bent over for Bush in 2002 and it didn't get him a fucking thing except abuse and a loss.

So, fuck their plans and fuck them--although any individual Dem can get out of the doghouse by producing actual outcomes, as Shystee would say, or changing their views. No money for the regulars, all money to insurgents.

A fine litmus test for outcomes would be no immunity for the telcos, IMNSHO, since last I checked, everybody who's ever had a dropped connection, a fucked up bill, or a contract they couldn't get out of--that is, most of America--hates them.

Bottom line for me is that the regulars can look forward to a very unpleasant year from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I'll certainly do my little bit to help out by inflicting as much pain on them as I can. Maybe it's not too late for somebody to figure out that you look better when you're not selling the country down the river.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

I’m no part of The Village, nor the recipient of any patronage or protection. What I related is what I think I have heard, caveats required because even my decent guy is a politician and speaks like one. The decisions were not mine, nor are they what I personally think would be best. Just passing along what I think I see has happened and what it means for the near term, nothing more or less than that.

A passive voice? Well, with regards to a past event over which I had no influence, I don’t see how an active voice would be more meaningful – or even appropriate.

What do I mean by “seeming” timid? Just that. Less than openly-in-your-face bold does not equate to timid, although it may appear so.

As to you, or anyone else, speaking however harshly as you please about policies with which you disagree, by all means do, absolutely the right thing and I have no criticism about that whatsoever, go get ‘em. Spreading the false notion that there is “no difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties or their leadership, however, is in my opinion harmful to progressive goals. Far more harmful are unsupported denigrations of individual character. It is easy to speak harshly in anger, and very difficult to repair the damage that such harshness can generate.

My wish is that divisiveness on the left does not enable further success by the authoritarian right; we’ve had far too much of that already. Perhaps that’s timid; perhaps I’m just sick to death of progressive fractiousness serving as a contributory means of rightwing ascendency. (No, I have not forgotten nor forgiven Nader – or those who voted for him; nice bit of right-wing enabling work, that.)

Differences in strategy for achieving the same mutually valued goal ought not to descend into name-calling or accusations of criminality. I just don’t agree that Harry or Nancy or any of the principle Democratic presidential candidates are part of the Plutocrat/Dominionist/Authoritarian/VRWC, either actively or passively, consciously or unconsciously – I just don’t see it based on the dots that are out there. All I’m suggesting is that we all ought to be very careful about those sorts of accusations unless the evidence is very clear. IM also NSHO.

Regarding (1) divisiveness and the differences between Democrats and Republicans; and (2) the timidity of Democrats.

(1) Divisiveness.

Democrats and Republicans are not the same considered institutionally, but on some issues there is no difference between them. On the FISA abomination, the evidence of unity of purpose between the Republican Party and Pelosi and Reid couldn't have been more clear.

What more evidence would one need for such unity on that particular issue than passing a Republican bill (named, God help us, the "Protect America Act") in the dead of night before leaving on vacation?

I agree that the Democrats and the Republicans are not the same, currently. However, it's not as if there were some permanent essence or level of personal integrity that makes Democrats less authoritarian than Republicans, forever and ever, amen, or immunizes them from the temptations of power. I'm sure there were factions in Rome when they lost their Republic, and kept their empire, as we may do.

Therefore, if we are not to see both parties become completely equivalent at some point in the not too distant future, giving rapid, immediate, painful negative feedback in the strongest possible terms to Democrats who act like Republicans comes under the heading of "best practices." It's not an option; it's a civic duty. So is rewarding good behavior. (And I would argue that sharpening the distinction between the parties, not blurring them, is not only principled, but electorally sound. In fact, the two go together. Both are about spine.)

Take FISA. My personal belief is that it was only a wave of instant outrage from dirty fucking hippies like me that caused Pelosi and Reid to even begin to backtrack on that one. (I don't know whether my post on calling Rockefeller* was enough to jam his switchboard all by itself, but the 10,000 hits before I throttled statistics gathering couldn't have hurt.) And what was the happy result? Our vehemence opened the way for Dodd to mainstream the issue, and fundraise on it, let us remember. If this be "divisiveness," let's make the most of it!

And that's problem with operationalizing vague, high-minded platitudes like avoiding "divisiveness on the left." They offer very little value-add in concrete cases. If a wish to respect the leadership and to play well with others had led us to suppress our outrage on telco immunity, then Dodd might not have raised the issue, the Fourth Amendment might already be gutted, and the rule of law would no longer apply to large corporations. (As it is, these things only may happen, depending on whether the Democratic leadership decides to act like Democrats, or like Republicans.) The bottom line is that we shifted the Overton Window left, and that's our job. Again, if this be "divisiveness," let's make the most of it!

I agree that there are factions within our ruling class; however, the faction that claims to represent me and the many like me needs to do a much, much better job. They could at least care enough to fake it. And maybe if they did, their polling numbers wouldn't be in the toilet. Or is pointing that out "fractious"?

NOTE * "Hi, is this the number I call to get retroactive immunity for my past illegal acts?"

(2) Democratic timidity.

This whole issue reminds me strongly of the argument that Hillary, once in office, will demonstrate the strength of character to stand for Constitutional government that she does not demonstrate as a candidate. (Which is a very odd idea, come to think of it: Electing somebody exactly on characteristics there's no evidence they have when they're running.) To recycle the metaphor I used then, the idea seems to be that, when elected, and only then the Democratic Party (again, considered institutionally) is going to jump into a phonebooth, toss away its nerdish glasses and, and emerge, garbed as Superman, with super powers. I don't believe it for a minute.

Take subpoenas. Please. Remember how great it was going to be when we had subpoena power? Well, last I checked, Conyers has written nine (9) -- that would be NINE -- Sternly Worded Letters -- pleading with the White House to do its legal and Constitutional duties and comply. I could see keeping your powder dry for three, maybe four times. But nine? How many letters does Conyers plan to write? Double digits? Triple digits? And it's not like Conyers is the only one being stonewalled. There's no other word for that than "timid." Well, there are other words, but I won't use them.

Other miscellaneous remarks:

1. Criminality. I don't see a reason to call Democrats criminals, unless they actually break criminal laws. (Of course, Bush did commit over 30 felonies in his warrantless surveillance program, according to Judge Jackson in ACLU vs. NSA, so if the Gang of Eight somehow got inveigled into that, then they're criminals, unfortunately for them. But that's the only exception I can think of, right now.)

2. Namecalling. See my previous remarks on "negative feedback." One of the tasks of this blog is to alter the discourse by introducing terms of invective. And if Leader Nance doesn't want The Department of Invective in The Mighty Corrente Building to invent creative bad names for her, then she should not do the things that cause us to spend our time doing that. (A Republican is always fair game; Democrats are only fair game when they fuck up.)

3. Personal attacks. If they're true, and they punish Democrats who act like Republicans, so what? More like that, please.

4. The passive voice. The subject of the sentence didn't have to be you; it would have been whichever Democrat or Democrats, if any, are setting the strategy. None really come to mind, nor does any overall strategy, for that matter, and it's not like I don't try to keep track. Perhaps that's a problem?

5. The Village. Perhaps I should not have said "dispatch from the Village," but "a dispatch that might as well have been from the Village," or, if I wanted to be snarky, "a dispatch not, geographically, from the village." The Democrats should stop fucking up. Then the furor will die down. I mean, it's not like we need to give them deference based on past performance, eh? Let alone present performance. Kos writes today:

Both Obama and Clinton like to talk about leadership, but they could show us what their style of leadership would look like if, you know, they led. It's truly like beating a dead horse, but the most frustrating thing about this primary race hasn't been the hyper partisans and their flame wars (though that's been bad enough), it's been the lack of real leadership from the frontrunners.

Talk is cheap. Action matters. And it's pretty bad that we can't get out of Obama and Clinton what seems to come very naturally out of Chris Dodd.

I agree. The same goes for Reid and Nancy "We are leaders. They are advocates" Pelosi.

NOTE To anticipate a charge of inconsistency on "leadership"--What sets my memedar off on the usage "leader" is a context in which the word is used generically, as a substitute for just titles of office -- as when, in a recent WaPo story, Petraues was to come back and help with personnel by choosing "leaders" for the Army, when in fact he's going to choose an officer class. In a society that's under the rule of law, different offices have different authorities and duties, and language ought to reflect that. It's clear that Kos is demanding leadership from candidates, and so my memedar is not set off. It's not so clear with Pelosi's statement; I'd need to check context.

[I come back to this thread where I am getting verbally pummeled over political strategy as a relief from the thread where I’m being verbally flayed for suggesting that cops aren’t all bad nor are tasers. Funny, I seem to be succumbing to some sort of normalization of emotional pain. Hmmmmm]

Long and eloquent piece, Lambert, ninety-some percent of which I agree with and whole-heartedly support. You seem to have again confused my position. Once more:

Criticism over policy is always good, regardless of political affiliation or position or anything else. Better is constructive criticism, with a suggestion of a better way, but just a stern “Don’t do that!” is sometimes all that time or circumstance allows.

Ascribing motivation is always a risky thing without a clear pattern of associated behavior. What the threshold is for intuited motive can certainly vary from you to me, and defensibly so. All I’m asking for there is a little consideration for the effect, a careful judgment of risk versus benefit, but by all means do whatever you feel comfortable with.

Calling out criminality isn’t something you, Lambert, have been doing but others here and elsewhere have – such as insinuating that Harry Reid, of all people, is somehow in thrall to unidentified criminal elements. That sort of thing is just flat wrong, and destructive, and damaging to progressive causes and helpful to the opposition.

Differences between the parties

Right now we have three parties; one might be called the Progressive Democrats; another is the domestically sometimes liberal sometimes not but internationally always aggressive Blue Dogs who might be called the Plutocratic Democrats; and third the despicable Republicans. Between the Plutocrat Democrats and the Republicans, there isn’t enough difference to matter. But between the Progressive Democrats on one hand and the Plutes & Pubs on the other, there is a lot of difference. It is an awkward piece of business to keep making that distinction, but it’s necessary. What I’m objecting to here is blaming the Progressive Dems for the behavior of the PluteDogs, or blaming the Progressive Dems for being unable to overcome the majority power of the Plute & Pub coalition.

That inappropriate blame happens all too often, and I’m not the only one who finds it objectionable. Here’s what Barney Frank has to say:

“Nancy Pelosi is not Glenda the good witch,” Frank said. “She can’t wave her magic wand and make people from all over this country vote however she wants them to vote.

“What troubles me is this notion, and not just on this issue, [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] it’s people on the left who are insisting on impeachment, it’s on people who say why haven’t you stopped the war,” Frank said.

Frank struck back at a much broader belief among many liberal voters and constituencies that the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill has failed to deliver as much as expected. He warned activists that they were in danger of a Terry Schiavo-style miscalculation, referring to Republicans who tried to cater to core voters by intervening two years ago in the case of a Florida woman on life support.

“This is a moment of truth as far as I’m concerned for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party,” Frank said.

“The question is: Can we govern responsibly? And governing responsibly means working with everybody, listening to and exchanging views with the people who care passionately … but then as you go forward with the goals, taking reality into account,” Frank said. “People who then denounce those who take reality into account … make it impossible for us to govern.”

But hell, maybe Harry has gone over to the Dark Side as too, and things really are desperate; if we’ve lost the fags, we have surely lost it all.

Again, all I’m asking for is a moment’s pause to evaluate the impact of what gets said. It’s a two-step process we're faced with: First, drive the Republicans from power; Second, reform the Democratic Party so progressives dominate. Trying to do both at the same time is to my mind problematic, to the point of being dangerous.