Cross posted at Daily Kos

Yesterday Senator Bernie Sanders managed to get an amendment accepted that takes a 5,000 fee, a minuscule drop in the bucket of total labor arbitrage profits from using cheap labor, to fund scholarships for Americans to go to college.

Yet, Corporations, who claim we need to invest in America whine that they shouldn't have to give back to America while they ship our jobs offshore.      

Compete America, a Cheap Labor lobbyist group, blasted the Sanders amendment claiming it is:

an outrageous and onerous tax increase on our nation's most innovative companies, and could make the H-1B program cost-prohibitive, especially for smaller businesses.

There's more...

This is exactly what we need from members of Congress, and I hope we see more of it.  Congressman Pascrell, who didn't have a great voting record on Iraq, now supports Murtha's position.  He also apologized and is a fire-breather against Iraq.

Most importantly, he's participating in the debate as it's happening by pointing out that Hillary Clinton is just engaging in theater by refusing to admit her mistake.

I said a year and a half ago that I made a mistake.  I mean, I confessed.  But I mean, regardless of whether it was done in good faith, I did not blame George Bush for my mistake, either, although I think he has lied and deceived the American people.  I have to be responsible for my own actions.  I made the mistake.  I apologized to my constituents.  They accepted that apology.....

I certainly think a lot of Hillary but I think that this is theater more than anything else.  You gotta fess up if you make a mistake.

Clinton took every position possible on Iraq.  She argued against preemptive war even as she voted for it, and then was silent on preemption for years until she got pressure from the left.  She said that a vote for the war would decrease the chance it would happen.  She criticized the competence of Bush while doing nothing to pressure him.

Above all, her argument on Iraq, for five years, is 'nothing can be done'.  If you claim that Hillary took a specific position on Iraq, it's easy for her research shop to send you information on how she in fact criticized that particular approach.  She did.  But that's because she criticized every position on Iraq.  Look at this incoherent dribble from her speech authorizing the vote on the war.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

She's making three mutually exclusive arguments.  One, her vote for authorizing force makes war less likely.  Two, she's framing a vote against the war as being the vote of someone who 'pretends the problem will go away with delay'.  Three, she's arguing that a vote against the authorization means that you don't support inspections through the UN.

Now she's able to say that she wanted inspections, she didn't want war, and the critics of her vote misunderstood her.  Clinton took all sides of the issue in her arguments, but her vote was crystal clear.  She voted for war.  Lots of other people did too, but at least they aren't lying to us about it and have learned something.  

We're all tired of this theater.  Good for Pascrell.

UPDATE: Credit where credit is due. Here's Clinton just now on Iran:

It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization.

Nor should the president think that the 2002 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.

More please.

There's more...

Cross-posted from Blue Jersey

With the announcements that neither Chris Christie or Mike Ferguson will challenge Senator Frank Lautenberg in 2008, the Republicans' chances to take that seat are very weak. This is not because Christie or Ferguson are better candidates than Senator Lautenberg -- they're not (especially Ferguson, who knows he cannot win statewide). Rather, these were the two candidates with the ability to raise the kind of money that is required for a competitive statewide contest.

Think about it: a total of $35 million went into the 2006 race between Senator Menendez and Tom Kean, Jr. Governor Corzine has spent tens of millions on his two statewide runs. The media markets are expensive and so is the field operation. Only certain people can raise this kind of money, and none of them are in this race.

Lautenberg has to be happy with this news. Just last month, Chuck Todd rated Lautenberg as the 10th most vulnerable incumbent Senator:

Despite Republicans' dismal track record over the past 30 years, they never completely punt on Senate races here. But there's a big difference between keeping a race technically "competitive" and actually winning.

Everyone thought Lautenberg would go into this race with an advantage, but who knew it'd be this big? The departures of Christie and Ferguson make his choice to seek re-election an even easier one. (Chuck Schumer basically confirmed that Lautenberg is running earlier this week.)

Still, others might find Lautenberg's good fortune to be somewhat disappointing: Reps. Rob Andrews, Frank Pallone, Rush Holt, Steve Rothman, and Bill Pascrell. It's not that they bear ill will toward their senior Senator, but they were hopeful he'd opt out of running again. They, like Menendez once did, have been building their warchests to best position themselves to move up to the Senate, and with Lautenberg's re-election, they will likely ride the bench until 2014.

But our ambitious representatives should look on the bright side: their loss can be the House Democrats' gain. If it becomes clear early on that their Republican challengers are merely nominal (as they were in 2006), the 'Use It or Lose It' campaign can be kicked into gear. In 2006, NJ candidates had less than three weeks to benefit from 'Use It or Lose It' -- this time they can have more than three months. This will bolster candidates in New Jersey's 7th, 5th, and 3rd districts. It will put Republicans on the defensive in a year they want to spend attacking Democratic freshman.

As with Republicans statewide, money is an extremely important qualification for Democratic candidates in these districts. In the 7th, Linda Stender lost by a point, so the DCCC and other national organizations will be back to help her. But for candidates in the 5th and 3rd where Democrats lost by 11 and 17 points, the DCCC will not be rushing to their aid. Early money from safe Democrats may be their best chance to succeed.

Luckily for them, Lautenberg is holding his seat down, and there should be plenty of money to go around. New Jersey's Congressional Democrats should remember that they'll have another 6 years to build their warchests, but only so much time to expand their caucus.

There's more...