The al-Qaeda wing of the GOP

What do you suppose the Right-Wing Noise machine would be blasting today if Mark Siljander happened to be a Democrat?

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday on charges of working for an alleged terrorist fundraising ring that sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about being hired to lobby senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

The 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying _ money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The charges paint "a troubling picture of an American charity organization that engaged in transactions for the benefit of terrorists and conspired with a former United States congressman to convert stolen federal funds into payments for his advocacy," Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said.

Siljander, who served in the House from 1981-1987, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.

Siljander was one of the very first conservo-freaks elected to Congress, preceding the post-Reagan wave of ultra-right-wing extremists, led by LeRoy Gingrich, that took control of the House in 1994. The same brand of extremism that is so common today it's almost mainstream.

Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay? All Johnny-Come-Latelies compared to Siljander. No less domestic terrorists, however.

More about this traitor:

Once in Congress, he became one of the most radical wingers, someone who in today's Republican caucus would fit in. For instance, in1984 he unsuccessfully tried to amend a civil rights bill "to define the term ''person'' under the bill to include ''unborn children from the moment of conception.'" But back then, in the early days of the radical religious right's takeover of the GOP, he attracted a lot of attention, too much for some, so in 1986 plutocrat Fred Upton defeated him in a Republican primary, helped by the crazy news that Siljander had issued a tape recording to fundies asking them to "break the back of Satan" by fasting and praying for his victory.

Their prayers weren't answered. He lost, but Reagan cushioned his landing by appointing him a position at the United Nations.

And apparently al-Qaeda in America supports Duncan Hunter. Whooda thunk?

"Incidentally, I met Duncan Hunter in the Members Dining Room in the House about a year ago. I was having lunch with Rep. Hunter's old friend and former Michigan congressman Mark Siljander, and the three of us stood there in the middle of the dining room, along with two of Duncan's San Diego constitutents (one active military and one disabled in Iraq and recently relieved from active duty) and we all held hands and prayed together while other diners gave us curious glances. At that moment I knew that Duncan Hunter was the right man for the White House, and I doubt if he'd seriously considered running for president at that point. A man with the courage of his convictions; what a great asset for a leader."

I know I was moved by this story and reassured that Duncan Hunter is the right man for the Presidency! If we pull together we can help make this great man our next president!

Back to DHinMI for the executive summary:

Let's review. Mark Siljander was one of the original creations of the fundamentalist right wing. Had he won his seat from a less moderate area than Southwest Michigan, he might still be in Congress. Hell, he'd probably be in leadership. So he was shunted aside for a while, but he continued to move in the interconnected world of fundamentalist religion, rightwing politics, and lobbying and financial malfeasance.

In short, Mark Siljander is a archetypal radical rightwing politician. They espouse patriotism and fundamental values, but really, they're just ignorant, intolerant, greedy and don't care about America.

Any questions?

NV voters/debate watchers pick Edwards

Frank Luntz is the wildly gesticulating Republican pollster in this video snapshot:



You can purchase Edwards bumper stickers, signs, shirts and more at the website (but wait until this Friday, when it counts as part of the $7 million drive).

Congratulations Mittens!

You couldn't have done it without us.

Now your Democratic constituents expect you to speak out against Mike Huckaboob's ridiculous assertion that we change the Constitution into the Bible.

John Edwards, Nevada, and $7 million this Friday

First, it's a three-way tie in Nevada:

A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's (January 19) caucus.


Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

The poll was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 13 , with samples of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers statewide by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4.5 percent.

A win in Nevada would be part of the Edwards re-emergence (I'd like to have been able to use "surge", but you know why I can't). The action plan is to break Ron Paul's online fund-raising record this Friday, the day before Nevada votes:

What I want to know is this: If Paul can do it, why can't Edwards? Edwards has far more support than Paul and he ought to be able to mobilize his supporters to attempt to set a new fund raising record. I don't know if Edwards has anything like this in mind but there is no reason his supporters can't embark on this on their own.

Care to help out?

I see we've touched a nerve

My SDEC account apparently upset one of my blog hermanos:

The blog coverage from the January State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC) meeting this past weekend is weak. We have only heard from David Van Os and Open Source Dem about their disappointment over the failure of John Courage’s proposal to place language on the March primary ballot statewide, blaming the “First Spear Centurion” for inaction on a resolution that was introduced into the wrong committee. Courage’s proposed referendum is a great idea, and it is a terrible disappointment that the motion was brought to the wrong committee.

First of all thanks for the linky love, dembones. That might be a first (excepting our mutual Roundups and Wrangles).

But to his objection: it's always useful to understand why someone cries when the status quo is challenged. I don't know if he has a dog in this hunt or whether -- in the admonishment "quit bitching and get to work" -- he's only interested in playing schoolmarm. But it's obvious in his archives that paying attention to what the SDEC is up to isn't high on the posting priority.

Which is certainly fine with me; they've done excellent research on the T Don Hutto scandal and the toll road concerns and have been the leader in Williamson County reporting for quite some time.

But if he didn't like that last one, he sure isn't going to like this one, either:

This time the Chairman -- a combination of Caligula's Horse and Ceasar's Wife -- "referred" the motion to the Monsignor Ken MOLBERG legalism committee. This is one of two committees, the other is "Rulesmanship", where anything progressive or simply innovative goes to die. It got tabled there because Monsignor MOLBERG made it clear enough that "the Crown" (who knows who that is actually, certainly it is not the elected State Chairman, a spokesmodel, not a principal) did not want it on the ballot.

But then at the end every one of the Palace Guard on that committee did not just table it, they refused even a minority report. Actually, you cannot be on the so-called Nominations/Legal Committee without being a member of the Palace Guard. It is the party's main organ of self-perpetuation. In fact Monsignor MOLBERG gave John Courage a lot of time to make either a substantive or procedural case. John, a school teacher, was high on substance but zero on process.

Monsignor MOLBERG specializes in long drawn-out tedium. Not torture actually, but with the same result.

(When John brought his motion up again to the full SDEC it was in his usual well-intended but pitifully illiterate and narcissistic parliamentary style. Here's a clue, John: it is not just or even mostly about you or Zada.)

Then it got really funny, because the Chairman did not really know what to do either, then mumbled something about "out of order" and fled the podium, relying on a Palace Guard scrum, phalanx of pseudo-parliamentarians, and more of the mumbo-jumbo squad to cover his ass and come up with a bizarre motion to "sustain the chair".

That's the Tom Craddick analogy, for anyone who's been paying close attention. Continuing:

As usual, the actual Vice Chair (a minority, not a lawyer) did not vice chair. The elected chair, bypassing her, threw the hot potato to House Slave, Dennis Speight.

This is the Democratic Party, folks: our poor, pitiful minorities are pandered to relentlessly and used as decoration "inclusively". But the party is actually run by white male lawyers and really smart, but kinda mean, old women -- legal secretaries or what the Pentagon calls "gray ladies".

Finally the coup de grace was delivered in a moment truly reminiscent of the Craddick House: the Vestal Virgin of Rules marched in and delivered a "ruling" in support of the Chair, whatever it was he did exactly. Actually in the Texas House, some member of the SDEC, as surrogate for the chair, would have read the ruling/opinion of the parliamentarian. Parliamentary law is about self-government, not clerical intimidation and usurpation.

Let's wrap it up by coming 'round to echo dembones' point about party finance:

Finally there is the matter of party/campaign finance. This party has no actual party finance. It is "barefoot and pregnant" -- funded, in part, by the GOP Secretary of State in return for being subservient and fawning, especially in dealings with Hart InterCivic.

And it is funded by corporations, unions, PACs, and the DNC on conditions that it hire certain people, set aside seats on the SDEC and DNC for certain individuals, procure this or that for particular vendors, match corporate funds with campaign contributions, and apply the campaign contributions, or not, to races and consultants the corporate interests and PACs dictate.

Sorry, we do not need a "New Jesus" or even a new state chair.

We need an entire SDEC with a disciplined and proficient majority of Democrats who can build "a real party", not a ladies auxiliary for an Austin political establishment that is and has been washed up, utterly unequal to the challenges we face or opportunities we have.

Well, maybe we'll just have to settle for a new Chair.

We endorse

From the TPA press release yesterday:

Rick Noriega, United States Senate. On March 4, Texas Democrats have a clear choice for their nominee for U.S. Senate: Rick Noriega. Noriega has the experience necessary to defeat Bush lapdog John Cornyn in the fall. Faced with three token primary opponents, only one of whom is running what could be considered a legitimate campaign. Noriega is the clear choice not because he is right on important issues such as the war and CHIP, but because he is a true progressive with a proven record of accomplishment for the people of Texas.

Joe Jaworski, State Senate, District 11. Joe Jaworski (D-Galveston), a former Galveston City councilman, has taken a very strong stance on environmental issues, especially important in SD-11 and statewide. Jaworski faces token primary opposition and will likely face Sen. Mike Jackson (R-LaPorte) in the 2008 general election. Jackson has one of the worst environmental records of any legislator in the entire Texas Legislature and has failed for several sessions to make any meaningful legislative headway on issues important to his constituents.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, Texas House, District 147. Coleman (D-Houston) is, of course, one of the leading progressives in the Texas House, and has been at the forefront of important issues including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, women's reproductive freedom, and gay rights. A member of the House leadership, re-electing Coleman is key to ensuring that the 81st session of the Texas Legislature has a strong liberal voice. Coleman faces a marginal primary opponent whose ballot status has been denied.

Rep. Jessica Farrar, Texas House, District 148. Farrar (D-Houston) is another strong progressive voice in the Capitol. She was a leader in the 80th Legislature on issues including the HPV vaccine, stem cell research, and against Rick Perry’s arrogant Homeland Security power-grab. Farrar is one of a handful of Democrats who voted against Speaker Tom Craddick in 2005 and as a result was relegated to the Agriculture Committee (an insult for a veteran legislator in an urban district). She faces in the primary a former staffer from her office who is believed to be supported by anti-progressive forces in Austin. Farrar is one of our progressive stars and Texans across the state need her back in 2009.

Rep. Paul Moreno, Texas House, District 77. Moreno (D-El Paso) is the dean of the House and one its strongest advocates on civil rights issues. A seasoned veteran of many progressive struggles, Moreno faces an unknown opponent with no experience in government. Moreno deserves re-election, and Texas needs his continued leadership on civil rights and Democratic issues in the Texas Legislature.

Armando Walle, Texas House, District 140. Walle is seeking to defeat Rep. Kevin Bailey (D-Houston) in the Democratic primary, who has been ineffective for his district on progressive issues. Unseating him is a necessary step toward picking a new Speaker. Walle has worked for Congressional members Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green, and, we believe, will be a better voice for HD-140 than Bailey.

Brian Thompson, Texas House, District 46. Thompson also squares off in the primary against Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), who has cast a number of votes against the interest of her constituents. A changing of the guard here is yet another step toward electing a new Speaker in 2009. Thompson, an attorney, has strong ties to the community and will be a much needed progressive voice in this Austin district.

To view the 2008 TexRoots slate, or to make an online contribution, please visit the ActBlue TexRoots page.

A report from this weekend's SDEC Austin conclave

... from Open Source Dem. He provides as always a biting yet cogent view:

====================

As usual, the SDEC meeting was … dysfunctional and dismaying for Democratic candidates and supporters -- for any citizen or patriot who might have witnessed it.

Please forgive me for not getting as depressed at this as some, but my son is dealing with the problem of self-government in northeast Baghdad. Now that is much worse. But don’t pity me, or him. He is young, fit and welcomes the challenge. He may be foolhardy but he is also learning political cunning and small-unit leadership skills.

It is winter here now, but republican democracy can blossom in Texas overnight. That is not true in most of the world, where our armed forces are being squandered by GOP idiots and Democratic cowards.

No business of consequence was conducted publicly in Austin Saturday. No big surprise.

The good news is that Lloyd CRISS got a precedent-breaking resolution past the Palace Guard. It is not an silly plea but a directive from the SDEC to its staff to mount a statewide GOTV campaign. That is not what the DLC/DCCC want. It is what they should have done in 2006. But it is also a precedent in demonstrating both the power and responsibility of the SDEC.

Otherwise, underneath the time-wasting and empty ritual, the Praetorians killed everything and began hinting at a new quest to kill off various “caucuses” that threaten professional control of the party. An exciting new concept was unveiled: not adopting, amending, ignoring or enforcing rules -- not even the usual ignorance, especially of Robert’s Rules -- now Rules Committee First Spear Centurion Bill Brannon has introduced the concept of “trumping” the rules with a mish-mash of parliamentary malarkey. This is less the usual mumbo jumbo than outright humiliation and intimidation of SDEC members.

The matter of applying for recognition by and membership on an Advisory Committee established by party rules will be difficult to conclude inasmuch as there appears to be a regular and an ad hoc committee each with the same name and “trumping” the rules. That is absurd, but what is new about that?

Here are my and David VAN OS’ comments at Texas Kaos.

To revisit the complaint, while party insiders claim to be “winning elections”, they actually minimized party performance in the 2006 Blue Wave -- essentially opting out of the DNC fifty-state strategy and adhering strictly to the DLC/DCCC “targeted campaign” effort. The TDP set new $/vote consultant-subsidy records and delivered two new “Bush Dogs” (Nick Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez) committed to prolonging the war in Iraq and extending it to Iran.

The TDP is also collaborating with TEAM implementation. That is the only tool we have for turning out new and unlikely voters. But that is not what consultants do: they are only interested in commissions from “likely voter” media and the Voter Activation Network is the only tool they have. It substitutes for direct TEAM access. So the TDP – solidly aligned behind the DLC/DCCC and governed by a remarkably unsuccessful gaggle of pimp-consultants -- has helped to reverse the “New Direction” promised by Nancy PELOSI and articulated spectacularly by Jim WEBB.

Thanks to a state party establishment rented out to the Texas Trust, Rahm EMANUEL is effectively Speaker of the House and Joe LIEBERMAN is actually the Senate Majority Leader. Matt ANGLE is effectively State Chair(man) and Martin FROST is Cardinal-Protector of the PACs. Super-rich donors -- out of state or, in the case of property-managers and concession-tenders, foreign -- have now created a Congressional majority that mimics the SDEC: it is less popular than even George W. BUSH and a drag on all Democratic campaigns. But the TDP is going all out (a) to maintain that death grip on this party and (b) to tie up and deliver a delegation of mind hostages -- drones, if you prefer -- to the national convention.

In 2008 the party elite are, again, protecting Craddick Democrats, leaving key GOP seats uncontested and remaining indifferent to, if not scared of, the populist uprising evident all across the country. They are using “McGovern Rules” (hard quotas) and sheer deception -- “rulesmanship” -- to hide control of the party by a handful of white male lawyers operating behind a velvet curtain of “inclusiveness”.

The simple fact of the matter is that both the Democratic and GOP party establishments would rather lose elections than lose control of their respective parties.

The sort of populist upwelling of political participation we now see is infrequent -- absent for intervals of 20-40 years -- as most voters pursue lives far removed from the deal culture of elite-controlled, collaborative parties. But, when populism is manifest, look out: populism is culturally driven, interest-constrained, and constitutionally operational. When the people -- in droves, as seen in Iowa and New Hampshire -- return to politics it is out of dire concern, expressed as either hope or anger but focused on what they consider to be their heritage, birthright, and posterity and not the petty, often corrupt, obsessions of political elitists.

Still, the dynamic is different within each party. Today’s GOP coalition of Trotskyites (neoconservatives), Darbyites (religious right), and Thatcherites (tax shifters) is self-destructing and radiating hate-filled absurdity, even as it collapses into a, well, “white hole”. But don’t smugly cheer: the center of the Republican Party today –- the federal, state, and local officials, not to mention a slew of Cold War paramilitary organs -- is now pumped up with 'War on Terror' and Homeland Security funds. These include not a few of the hard men -- absent Generals Rove and DeLay -- who think of politics as war itself, still well-trained and -funded to “do whatever it takes” to hold power, not least to set aside what is left of the Constitution. Whatever polls or for that matter our clap-trap elections say, this hard core of the GOP will not relinquish control gently.

The latent majority of Democrats -- a huge majority in Texas –- are in fact intensely patriotic, more frustrated than angry, filled with hope and not hate, and constructive, patient, and considerate; not destructive, desperate, or violent. Yes, we are confused by and annoyed with our party establishment. Yes, we need to get smart, replace them quickly, and move on to competitive rather than collaborative politics. That takes a real party; not plush offices in Austin, not an official entourage of young, pretty personal assistants, not kickbacks of free hospitality suites and limousines at state and national conventions run as over-priced “beauty pageants”, not a two-bit “likely-voter” campaign tool, scaled for individual House races, where a statewide get-out-the-vote program should be.

Once again the state party establishment is spending capital and mortgaging the future in a bid to boost its individual members up the patronage chain into state and federal appointed positions. They talk about winning elections, but all they are doing is currying favor with lobbies and aggrandizing themselves personally. Theirs is an exit strategy from politics that is, simply, more competitive than collaborative. The state party establishment is not really prepared or fit for competition.

What this calls for is a progressive populist caucus that has a plan and resources to take over the state convention, to inform delegates, to manage their time competently, to exercise plenary power of the state party, to exploit historic developments well underway, and to restore republican democracy to a fine party.

Our party is the first republican party in North American, the oldest democratic party in the world, but a decrepit and nearly inconsequential shell of its former self in Austin.

Sad as that is, parties are very lightweight institutions. All the Presidential candidates are talking change -- the easiest change of all being the discarding of a state party establishment of sycophants, toads, and fools. Actually, it is a good thing to be on the fringe of a party so badly run as ours in this state.

It makes the housecleaning more obvious and vital, for one thing.