The “No False Choice in Middle East” Awards

-

trophy.jpgFormer Senator Chuck Hagel‘s strong statement made in a Brookings speech some years ago that the United States could not afford a false choice between our strong relationship with Israel on one side and Arab and Palestinian interests on the other continues to be the sensible frame through which I look at the region and US policy.
But there are many Congressmen and Senators who allow their own false choices to dominate, when their should be balance.
A new start-up political action committee, called a New Policy PAC, has just issued this morning a scorecard of House Members which the organization states is “based on their support for an American foreign policy in the Middle East that best serves the national interest and brings a swift end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
115 Members of the House of Representatives score at least one point in the new survey.
Heading the roster are Reps. Keith Ellison (MN), Brian Baird (WA), Stephen Lynch (MA), Jim McDermott (WA), Nick Rahall (WV), Raul Grijalva (AZ), and Barbara Lee (CA).
The entire roster can be reviewed here in pdf format.
Ultimately, scorecards can be slippery things and depend entirely on the legislative actions through which Congressional Members are being screened.
The New Policy PAC folks admit as much but share their four measured items:

1. House Resolution 34, which passed on January 9, 2009
The resolution passed during Israel’s invasion of the Gaza strip and at the height of international criticism as well as domestic public outcry decrying Israel’s human rights abuses during the invasion that resulted in the death of more than 1400 Palestinians in the span of three weeks. House Resolution 34, essentially, assured Israel of its right to defend itself and lay the blame for the death of civilians squarely on Hamas, absolving Israel of any responsibility during the bombardment. There was no mention of Israel’s illegal use of cluster bombs and white phosphorus in the highly dense Gaza strip.
The voting for House Resolution 34 was given double the weight of House Resolution 867, another vote used to score Congressmen on this issue, due to the large amount of pressure that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies put on Congress, as well as, the small number of dissenting lawmakers. The five Nay votes were given four points, the 38 Congressmen who abstained or voted present were given two points, the 390 Yea votes were given zero points.

2. House Resolution 867, which passed on November 3, 2009
House Resolution 867 demanded that President Obama’s administration “oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.”
The text of the resolution was so full of factual errors and misrepresentations of the Goldstone report that both Congressmen Keith Ellison and Brian Baird felt compelled to write critiques of the resolution. Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who authored the report, took the unusual step of issuing a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the report, addressing its inaccuracies and willful omissions. The 36 who voted Nay were given two points, the 52 who voted present or did not vote were scored 1 point, while the 344 Yea votes were given zero points.

3. Congressional visits to Gaza
While largely a symbolic action, a few Congressmen visited the Gaza strip since the invasion by Israeli in January of 2009. These visits show an interest in the plight of the Palestinians living in dismal conditions in Gaza for more than a year now, where little is allowed to enter the strip, including basic necessities such as medical supplies and building material.
Due to the meaningful significance of this gesture, the Congressmen who went to Gaza in the name of human rights, equality, freedom, and justice are recognized in this report. Although as many as 8 members of the House might have made the trip to Gaza in the past year, ANewPolicyPAC was only able to confirm 4 members due to the reluctance of others to announce their plans to visit the strip. Congressmen Keith Ellison, Brian Baird, Stephen Lynch and Bob Inglis were all given four points for making the trip to Gaza.

4. Open Letter to End the Siege on Gaza
The Congressional letter to end the siege on Gaza was signed by 54 members of the House and was addressed to President Obama, stating that “the unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East Peace.” The letter was a clear indication by a still small but determined minority in the House of Representatives to push for real reform in America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and to finally implement our longstanding positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 54 Congressmen who signed the letter were each given two points for their brave stance, while the leaders of the initiative, Congressmen Keith Ellison and Jim McDermott, received 4 points.

As the scorecard authors point out, there are a lot of ways to measure the geostrategic seriousness of a group of legislators, and there may be better, perhaps less subjective, ways to see how a gaggle of Congresspersons think about the region.
My own hunch is that there are significantly more Members who are not “false choicers” than this survey indicates — but this is a start.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

20 comments on “The “No False Choice in Middle East” Awards

  1. nadine says:

    “Nadine, you seem to have this idealized image of Jews. Can you get your head around the concept that we are no different than any other members of the human race? You complain that Hamas wants to drive the Jews out of Israel. Do you understand that Begin’s goal was to drive the arabs out of Israel?” (jdledell)
    jd, I think you’ve got Begin on the brain. Do try to regain a sense of proportion. The Irgun was a splinter group in the 1930s and 1940s, disapproved of by most, and brought to heel by Ben Gurion, who disapproved of their tactics. It’s not running around today. Yes, I know some of the settlers are wack jobs. But they don’t run Israel.
    On the other hand, Arab groups like Hamas and Hizbullah with openly expressed genocidal intent operate freely today, and rule Gaza and Southern Lebanonon. Fatah, which is ruled by its mostly hardline central committee, is also committed to destroying Israel. They rule today; they are preventing peace.
    You’re missing the forest for the trees. Jews are different from Arabs in this: if Hamas or Fatah had Israel’s weapons, and Israel had Hamas’ or Fatah’s weapons, there would in short order be no Jews anywhere in Palestine. If they had to kill off the Jews, they wouldn’t mind a bit.
    Yet Israel has not killed off the Arabs; does not want to kill the Arabs; and has been trying since 1948 to arrive at a peace treaty with its neighbors, while the neighbors have refused to recognize Israel or sign the treaty, and have tried to destroy Israel a number of times.
    At the most basic level, this is a difference.
    I think it’s you who must have idealized Jews: you can’t get over your shock that the Irgun should ever have existed, or that lots of Israelis make racist remarks about Arabs. Somehow for you, that deprives Israelis of the right to stick up for themselves.
    “Understand where I’m coming from. My grandfather fought for Israel’s existence. I fervently believe in Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Yet the path Israel is currently taking will end in despair unless we abandon our greed and selfishness and seek justice for all the peoples of the Land.”
    I’m glad to hear it. But I feel just the same about your path. There aren’t any takers on the Arab side for a two state solution. I think Oslo proved that quite well. They don’t want it. It’s not a new pattern for the Palestinians: for them, it’s the whole loaf or nothing. Their “justice” is no Jews in Palestine. How does that co-exist with your “justice”? They won’t compromise unless they have no choice; and of course the whole world rushes to save the poor dears from such a predicament.

    Reply

  2. Carroll says:

    Posted by nadine
    And if you were a German in the 1930s you’d be a member of the SS. You’re not fooling anybody. Israel is just your excuse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Acutally if I been had a German in 1930’s I would have been one of the ones against Hitler just as I have been against the US neocon warmongers and the US assault on the ME and Muslims.
    On the other hand what we see in zionist like yourself is that if they gain any power at all they use it the same way and become exactly like the nazis in trying to exterminate their undesirables…which at present are the Palestines and anyone else who doesn’t capitulate to the zionist.
    Of course mainly I think the whole zionist israel things is about hubris, greed and revenge.
    Except who the zionist really hate is us Europeans and Americans who they blame for the holocaust and everything else.
    But not being able to wage war on us without being wiped out entirely they take out the revenge part on a less powerful group, the Palestines and Arabs.

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “ANewPolicyPAC”……..
    Thank you for responding. I will take a gander at your PDF. I am distrustful of “PACS” marketed by “progressive” personalities, think tanks, or organizations, due to the obscene support Israel recieves from the left side of the aisle.
    I imagine, should your efforts appear to be close to bearing fruit, that it won’t be long before you are the victim of trumped up accusations of ties to terrorism, anti-semitism and anti-americanism, and serious efforts are launched to shut you down for good.

    Reply

  4. ANewPolicyPAC says:

    PissedOffAmerican, please check the entire list of Congressmen.
    Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both score a relatively high 6, mostly
    because neither one has visited Gaza. They would tie with 17 other
    Congressmen for 7th place with six points.
    https://newpolicy.org/2009CongressionalScorecardByScore.pdf

    Reply

  5. Carroll says:

    I would like to see or find a study on why, or what it is in, some people that make them religious fanatics of mostly hate.
    Anyone know of one?
    It’s got to be some mental or emotional deficit that makes them latch onto something mystical like religion in a twisted way.
    How else do you explain it other than some inherant quirk in certain individuals.
    I had a Jesuit priest tell me once that not all people are “born good”..quite a radical statement at the time. But now I think he was alluding to something like the part genetics plays in determining an individual’s character.

    Reply

  6. David says:

    ” Why can’t you, and ALL religious fanatics, of ALL faiths, just stay under your rocks and leave the decent folks alone?”
    Unfortunately, such is not the sectarian fanaticist’s imperative, and there are way more of those folk than is good for this planet and its inhabitants. And because decent folk are just that, these bastards too often are able to seize the initiative and set the terms of the debate, not to mention wreak death and destruction on the defenseless, as was the case in Gaza. Actually, in the case of Likud, it is the same imperative that drove our forebears and their “Manifest Destiny,” which of course included God on their side.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And if you were a German in the 1930s you’d be a member of the SS. You’re not fooling anybody. Israel is just your excuse”
    You are the most obnoxious, most bigoted, most despicable excuse for a human being that has EVER frequented this site, Nadine. In truth, you have no right to make such a statement. Whats more, almost virtually everyone that comments here realizes it, (if their comments to you are any indication).
    It is YOU that “isn’t fooling anybody”, Nadine. It is YOU that have been caught here in numerous lies. It is YOU that has refused to admit to even one small iota of Israeli wreongdoing. It is YOU that has condoned, justified, and rationalized the nazi-like behavior of the Israeli leadership. It is YOU that belittles and scoffs at the hardships, trials, sufferings, and deaths of Palestinian women and children.
    You’re scum, Nadine. Openly racist, callously indifferent to human suffering, and overzealous in your propensity to use propaganda, talking points, and outright lies to advance a fanatical and murderous religious and ethnic ideology. You and your ilk are equally as dangerous as the most radical of the Muslim fanatics, and pose just as big a danger to mankind.
    We suffer for people such as you, and this planet, and mankind, would be far better off without you and your age old hatreds and prejudices. Why can’t you, and ALL religious fanatics, of ALL faiths, just stay under your rocks and leave the decent folks alone?

    Reply

  8. jdledell says:

    Nadine – Why do you refuse to acknowledge Jewish terrorism in the name of resistance? You have to admit it was very successful. Please expain to me how the approach used by Begin and Shamir was any different than Meshaal and Haniyeh? Similarly, Marwan Barghouti is serving multiple life sentances for 5 murders yet Begin would have laughed at such a puny total.
    Nadine, you seem to have this idealized image of Jews. Can you get your head around the concept that we are no different than any other members of the human race? You complain that Hamas wants to drive the Jews out of Israel. Do you understand that Begin’s goal was to drive the arabs out of Israel?
    You complain about the Palestinians naming a square in Ramallah after their terrorist Mughrabi. Is that really worse than Israel handing reigns of the government to the Jewish terrorists, Begin and Shamir?
    You complain about Palestinian TV yet you are silent about the words spoken at shul virtually every shabbat. Have you ever listened to what is said there about the arabs? This occurs not only in the settlements but also within Israel. Some of the most vile language I’ve heard in my life occurs in a House of prayer and reflection.
    Nadine, do you speak Hebrew? If you don’t please try to learn and spend time listening to what Israeli politicians and regular Jews say about the “situation”. I guarantee it will be a real eye opener.
    Understand where I’m coming from. My grandfather fought for Israel’s existence. I fervently believe in Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Yet the path Israel is currently taking will end in despair unless we abandon our greed and selfishness and seek justice for all the peoples of the Land.

    Reply

  9. nadine says:

    “Can you imagine if the KKK published a book titled “A Guide to Killing Jews”…lol..the NYT would be headlining..”Second Holocaust Coming in US”!”
    In the old days, maybe. Today they would spike the story just as they spike the story about Hamas and Hizbullah’s genocidal intent.
    Rabbi Shapira is a nut who is on trial in Israel for having torched a mosque. The genocidal maniacs of Hamas run their government. That makes a difference.
    PA TV extols Jew-killing every Friday. “Moderate” Abu Mazen just named a square after a female terrorist who murdered 40 civilian in the 1970s.
    “If I were a Palestine in Gaza I would be with Hamas…or worse.”
    And if you were a German in the 1930s you’d be a member of the SS. You’re not fooling anybody. Israel is just your excuse.

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    I think I know where nadine gets some of her zionist philosophy.
    I was looking for site that translated Hebrew to English and found one (http://coteret.com/)
    and then saw mention there of a book called a “Guide to Killing Non Jews” written by several Rabbis…the head one a settler Rabbi.
    I though it was most likely a spoof so I googled it and saw that it was actually written.
    Can you imagine if the KKK published a book titled “A Guide to Killing Jews”…lol..the NYT would be headlining..”Second Holocaust Coming in US”!
    These people are crazy but they serve Israel’s purpose I suppose.
    Here is a full translation of an article in the Maariv newspaper of Israel about the book.
    http://didiremez.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/
    Ma’ariv 09.11.09 (p. 2) by Roi Sharon –
    When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching—INT], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.
    Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.
    Throughout the book, the authours deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authours are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.
    The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and then justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts—INT]
    “When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”
    The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”
    One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”
    Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
    In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.
    In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directed mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.
    Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”
    In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.
    “A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”
    Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”
    Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directed only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”
    One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where RabbisShapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”

    Reply

  11. Carroll says:

    If I were a Palestine in Gaza I would be with Hamas…or worse.
    And you know all those bible spouters and gun toting evangelical christian zionist?…they would the first ones to start lynching Jews if they so much as pouched on their rabbit hunting territory, much less started stealing their land.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    OA makes an interesting point. Truth is, this list, for not including Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, becomes just another insincere bit of fluff.
    “Nadine, you seemingly are unable to treat this issue as anything but black and white. Such thinking is indicative of a paucity of intellectual rigor”
    You are too kind in your assessment of the nasty bigoted wretch.

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    jdledell, let me alter your statement slightly:
    “You really don’t do nuance, do you? To you, all KKK members are equally rabid white supremacists. In reality, KKK membership is not close to a majority of white southerners. Furthermore, KKK members exist on a continuum from minimal identification with the group’s goals and methods to full support and involvement.”
    This would have been an entirely truthful statement about the nature of the KKK in most American states, especially at the height of its membership. Many reasonable and only moderately white supremacist young men joined to further their career ambitions, such as the future Senator Robert Byrd.
    So, would it have been reasonable to have accepted a KKK takeover of any American state? Or should one have protested the persecutions and lynchings that followed by some kind of sanctions or blockade, even if it harmed the livelihoods of some innocent white people in the state? Would you have supported sending in Federal troops to restore Constitutional rule?
    This is not an idle comparison. The official KKK platform was more moderate than Hamas’. The KKK didn’t want to kill all the blacks, just to keep them down. Hamas does want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews and is propagating this viewpoint.
    That some of its members are just careerists and not as bloodthirsty as others does not impress me; you could have said exactly the same thing about Nazi party members.
    The ideology of the decision makers matters a lot more. I have seen ZERO evidence that Khaled Meshaal has moderated one iota, despite Steve Clemons’ efforts to help him sound moderate in English. If Hamas wants to impress me with newfound moderation, let them un-renege on the treaties signed by the PA with Israel.

    Reply

  14. jdledell says:

    Nadine – You really don’t do nuance, do you? To you, all Hamas members are equally rabid terrorists. In reality, Hamas membership is not close to a majority of the Palestinians in Gaza. Furthermore, Hamas members exist on a continuum from minimal identification with the group’s goals and methods to full support and involvement.
    I’ve met with and had extensive discussions with some Hamas members at Sari Nusseibeh’s forums at Al-Quds University. Some of the Hamas members were reasonable and some made my skin crawl. I can say the same thing about Jews. I have an old picture my grandfather took of Begin standing over the bodies of a British soldier and two arab men that he killed in an ambush. In the picture, Begin is standing triumphantly, grinning from ear to ear, looking like a hunter proud of his kill.
    We are fortunate that the British did not treat all Jews like they would have, and should have, treated Begin, Shamir and hundreds of others including my grandfather. The British could have sent their bombers in and leveled Tel Aviv, like Gaza. They certainly were sufficiently provoked. Yet they did not and I am unaware of any time they imposed collective punishment.
    Nadine, you seemingly are unable to treat this issue as anything but black and white. Such thinking is indicative of a paucity of intellectual rigor.

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    “House Resolution 867, which passed on November 3, 2009: The 36 who voted Nay were given two points, the 52 who voted present or did not vote were scored 1 point…” (Steve Clemons)
    Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to the “New Policy PAC” or to Steve Clemons that sometimes House Members don’t vote on a bill simply because they are genuinely unavailable. While voting *present* is an affirmative declaration of a legislator’s feelings about a bill, not voting is an affirmation of nothing.
    Don’t believe it? Let’s look at some of the House Members that the “New Policy PAC” and Steve think agree with them about eschewing “false choices” on the basis of one point obtained by not voting on H-Res 867:
    Artur Davis (R-AL)
    Mark Souder (R-IN)
    Bart Stupak (D-MI)
    Michelle Bachman (R-MN)
    Frank Palone (D-NJ)
    Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
    Zach Wamp (R-TN)
    Not one of these Representatives voted “present;” none of them voted at all.
    In fact, had those seven Representatives been present in the House Chamber that evening, they would virtually certainly have voted in the affirmative for the resolution; everything about their voting histories demonstrates it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    In fact, 30 Representatives were not in the Chamber that night to vote on a bill that did not require their presence because it was sure to pass overwhelmingly. The vast majority of these members received no points for voting on the other measures in a manner that Steve and the “New Policy PAC” support.
    The conclusion is inescapable; most of those Steve lauds because they received one point don’t support his views; they oppose his views.
    It’s obvious to anyone who knows how to read. Why the obfuscation?

    Reply

  16. nadine says:

    So this “New Policy PAC” is staking its ground: It’s for Hamas. It wants to legitimize Hamas and whitewash Hamas, just like Goldstone tried to do.
    You won’t make any friends with Egypt that way, never mind Israel.
    If you look at Mideast policy and ask yourself, “what would radical Islamists like to happen now?”, it’s just what the new Left want to do.
    All in the name of human rights. Support the terrorists for human rights! It would be a joke if it weren’t so insane.
    The Gazans aren’t laughing; they’ve learned the costs of supporting terrorists who are ready to make you an “involuntary martyr” (this is really what they call it when they kill Gazans) for Allah.
    At least Obama seems to have followed up his stunning, brilliant unprecedented discovery that Mideast peacemaking is hard, with a desire to leave it alone.

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    I wonder when the “New Policy PAC” is going to release its scorecard for the United States Senate. When it does, I guess it won’t be issuing any points for voting against the Iran sanctions bill.
    After all, it passed last night by a vote of 100-0 (or to be more precise it passed on a unanimous consent request).
    As for the House ratings, they are rather interesting. Only two House members made it into double digits; Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and Brian Baird (Democrat-Washington). I guess the “New Policy PAC” decided not to deduct points for supporting George W. Bush on Iraq; as it turns out, Brian Baird was one of a very small number of Democratic House members to vocally support the Bush “surge” in Iraq.
    Speaking of false choices, it looks like Brian Baird is wise enough to recognize a false choice when he sees one; in his case, it’s the false choice of pretending he could defend his voting record to his contstituents; he’s retiring at the end of this term (at the ripe old age of 54).

    Reply

  18. Outraged American says:

    Wow, these brave people are putting their political careers, if not
    their lives, at risk. Where are Paul, Kucinich and Abercombie?

    Reply

  19. Don Bacon says:

    Scorecards may be slippery things but I applaud them for doing it. We need more scorecards to keep track of what the congressional clowns are doing.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    Opps, I jumped the gun and posted this in the prior post before Steve put this post up.
    Call toll free number for all their offices
    1-877-762-8762
    Raul Grijalva
    Lois Capps
    Sam Farr
    Bob Filner
    Barbara Lee
    Loretta Sanchez
    Pete Stark
    Michael Honda
    Lynn Woolsey
    Jackie Speier
    Diane Watson
    George Miller
    Jim Himes
    Andre Carson
    Bruce Braley
    John Yarmuth
    Elijah Cummings
    Donna Edwards
    Michael Capuano
    William Delahunt
    Jim McGovern
    John Tierney
    John Olver
    Stephen Lynch J
    ohn Conyers
    John Dingell
    Carolyn Kilpatrick
    Keith Ellison
    Betty McCollum
    James Oberstar
    Donald Payne
    Rush Holt
    Bill Pascrell
    Yvette Clarke
    Maurice Hinchey
    Paul Tonko
    Eric Massa
    David Price
    Mary Jo Kilroy
    Marcy Kaptur
    Earl Blumenauer
    Peter DeFazio
    Chaka Fattah
    Joe Sestak
    Peter Welch
    Jim Moran
    Jim McDermott
    Adam Smith
    Jay Inslee
    Brian Baird
    Nick Rahall
    Tammy Baldwin
    Gwen Moore
    Glenn Nye.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *