Call for an Independent Investigation, Join McCain

On Tuesday Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for an independent investigation of the Foley scandal rocking the Republican party and the Congressional leadership. via ABC News;

In Michigan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., broke from the Republican Party line and renewed a call for an independent investigation of the House page scandal. "We cannot tolerate the intolerable," McCain said, adding that congressional leadership should have called for an outside group of highly respected former congressmen to get to the bottom of inappropriate contact Foley may have had with pages and whether anyone in the House leadership erred by not doing something sooner about the problem.

Rep. Vito Fossella should come out and support this, instead of his "Stay the Course" the leadership did nothing wrong in covering Foley's matter attitude that he has. It isn't working in Iraq and it certainly is no way to handle this kind of abuse of minors. And if he needs another reason to have compassion and reason guide his actions there is this;

McCain's was not the only voice embattled Hastert may not have been happy to hear Tuesday. The Foley scandal continued to distract from issues the GOP leadership would rather control and has further instilled an impression that the House leadership tried to cover up Foley's behavior. In an ABC News poll released this week, 64 percent of those surveyed said they believed the GOP House leadership tried to cover up the Foley scandal...

SNIP

Hastert spent some of the day Tuesday meeting with evangelical leader K.A. Paul, founder of the Global Peace Initiative, who prayed with the speaker at Hastert's Plano, Illinois, home. Paul said he had hoped to convince the speaker to step down, since the Foley scandal had become such a distraction.

Harrison picks up three new club endorsement

Interesting. Steve has a post over at The Albany Project where he mentions the following campaign news;

In the last week we've had over FIVE HUNDRED new donors on the Internet. The Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID), Lambda Independent Democrats (LID) and Jim Owels Liberal Democratic Club have joined our already impressive list of endorsers. They all come with great volunteer support.

I hadn't heard about those endorsements previously. Definitely some positive movement for the campaign. They join three other clubs who already endorsed;

* American Heritage Democratic Club
* Democratic Organization of Richmond County
* Staten Island Democratic Assocaiton

Innamorato endorsements

via the SI Advance;

The Staten Island Independence Party has endorsed Democrat Manny Innamorato in the Feb. 20 City Council special election.

"We think Manny is the best choice for independent voters and independent-minded voters," Independence borough chair Sarah Lyons said at a press conference in the St. George Ferry Terminal yesterday.

At the same event yesterday, Innamorato was backed by Russian-born Brooklyn Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny, an endorsement that Innamorato hopes will help him with voters who are members of the South Shore's growing Russian population.

via the SI Advance also;

"We're happy to endorse Manny," Capt. John Dunne, representing the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said on the steps of state Supreme Court in St. George. "He comes from labor. We believe he is the best person to represent us in the City Council."

"We're happy to endorse Manny," Capt. John Dunne, representing the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said on the steps of state Supreme Court in St. George. "He comes from labor. We believe he is the best person to represent us in the City Council."

More on why Fossella needs us in Iraq

In the first edition of this thought, we explained that Rep. Vito Fossella needs the US to stay in Iraq for as long as possible because his mantra of support the troops would be exposed should they return home and focus shift to his numerous votes against troops and veterans; against healthcare for reservists and national guard, against pay increases for our troops, against requiring they are trained before sent into war, and against veteran access to educational benefits.

Today, let's revisit his speech on the floor of the House before voting against the Supplemental bill Bush is now threatening to veto;

I ask if we surrender this battlefield, which battlefield will our enemy choose next?

New York…Los Angeles…Washington?

I mention this because on Friday, April 6, there is a McClatchy article that starts;

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.”

It is amazing how similar both Rep. Vito Fossella and President Bush think on the issue of Iraq, despite Vito's repeated claims that he is an independent thinker for the island, unless that means independent of what his constituents think. The article goes on to address Bush's comment that the war will come here if we don't fight them over there, so by default they also address Fossella's claims of the same thing. Here is what think tanks from his own party and what our own military are saying;

“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,” said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.”

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

So support the military, just don't listen to them is what Rep. Vito Fossella must be telling us.

While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

“There are very few foreign fighters who are going to be leaving the area because they don’t have the skills or languages that would give them access to the United States,” said Benjamin, who served as the National Security Council’s director for transnational threats from 1998 to 1999. “I’m not saying events in Iraq aren’t going to embolden jihadists. But I think the president’s formulations call for a leap of faith.”

"The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America," said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. "If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

So should Congress revoke the war powers granted to the President, and should Congress bring our troops safely home, once again Fossella is left with his own words haunting him. As long as our troops are stranded in Iraq, Fossella can run around crying wolf and telling us the terrorists will follow us here if we leave, despite what military and policy strategists who address these issues are saying to the contrary. And thus ends another installment of the 'Hypocrisy of Fossella.'

Weak Republicans = Independents

via Survey USA;

In all four of these districts, we observe significant movement away from the Republican incumbent and towards the Democratic challenger, with the Republican's lead decreasing by between 9 and 13 points. Furthermore, all four districts show a shift in the party distribution of likely voters, with the Republican-Democrat difference changing towards Democrats by between 4 and 11 points. Two possible explanations for this shift are:

1) Republicans are becoming less likely to vote, and Democrats are becoming more likely to vote;

2) Some "weak Republicans" are now identifying themselves as Independent, while some left-leaning Independents are now identifying themselves as Democrats.

It is unclear at this time which of these explanations is more significant, or how persistent the shift will be. But the consistency of the pattern suggests that the movement in these 4 contests may be driven by a nationwide trend affecting all House races, rather than by factors specific to the individual districts.

While this excerpt wasn't referring to the NY13 race specifically, it is not a far fetch to apply their findings. After all Rep. Vito Fossella started running away from his Republican party and declaring himself an Independent months ago.

Vito's Hastert problem

via Brooklyn Papers;

Rep. Vito Fossella has donated $1,000 he received from disgraced ex-Rep. Mark Foley to a Staten Island charity for abused children, and now, Fossella’s Democratic rival for Congress is demanding that he return the $7,000 he’s gotten over the years from embattled House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

“You don’t want to show support for someone who has not been diligent in his duties as Speaker of the House,” said Stephen Harrison, the Bay Ridge attorney running against Fossella, New York’s only Republican congressman, for the seat that covers Staten Island and Bay Ridge.

Hastert has been engulfed in accusations that he knew about Foley’s sexual harassment of male pages, but took no action against Foley, who resigned abruptly two weeks ago after ABC news aired his raunchy instant-messages to House pages.

Fossella has received $7,000 from Hastert’s Keep our Majority PAC since 1997 — but a $5,000 contribution came in June 2005, after the Clerk of the House says he told Hastert’s chief of staff about Foley’s behavior.

“Hastert was aware there were problems for months,” said Harrison. “He should have investigated and done something about it.”

But Fossella is standing firm.

“He is not returning Hastert’s money,” said campaign manager Matthew Mika.

Harrison paints Fossella’s refusal to return Hastert’s donation as a sign of his blind obedience to the Republican party and to President Bush.

“What we have is a congressman who says he is an independent, but will always rally around the Republicans, rather than do the right thing,” Harrison said.

Call for Independent Investigation, Join McCain
Possibly Legal Trouble for Republican Leadership

Vito and Dick Cheney BFF

Rep. Vito Fossella really needed a new BFF after that fallout with Rep. Foley (R-Land of Child Predators). So whom better for "Independent" Fossella, than Vice President Cheney. From a dinner VP Cheney and Vito had together;

We're going to continue making progress for the American people, and in that work we could not ask for a better partner than Congressman Vito Fossella. (Applause.) Once again, I want to thank all of you for your commitment to the cause we share, and for electing Vito to Congress. Every time you vote for this man, you're voting for a better America, and for a strong, effective, patriotic Congressman who never forgets who sent him to Washington. The President and I look forward to working with Vito for a good many years to come.

Aww how sweet. It is amazing that the VP would associate with such an independent and non-partisan like Fossella. Then again the White House likes those other independents; Hastert, DeLay, Ney.

hat tip to Daily Gotham

Voters dislike Republicans in 2006

I just got an email from the DCCC, not my favorite organization, but always good to know what they are up to. Their language is quite similar to what I have been saying here for a while;

So what would provoke Republicans to make such a show of pretending to be independent? Let's consult the polls -- here are some recent results on the "generic ballot" question, i.e. whether a voter would generally prefer a Democrat or a Republican for Congress:

Gallup (9/7-10/06): Democrat 53% Republican 41%
Pew (9/6-10/06): Democrat 50% Republican 39%
ABC (9/5-7/06): Democrat 50% Republican 42%
CNN (8/30 - 9/2/06): Democrat 53% Republican 43%

Non-partisan Congressional analyst Stu Rothenberg takes another stab at evaluating the state of play. The good news for Republicans is that, according to Rothenberg, it's not an "anti-incumbent" election as is often said. The bad news is that...

"Instead, what is developing is a classic political wave of voter dissatisfaction about the direction of the nation and the performance of the president... Republican incumbents are in trouble not because they are incumbents, but because they are Republicans."

Judging by how rarely Republicans mention their party affiliation in their ads, they may have already come to understand that.

Remember Rep. Vito Fossella thinks he is an independent. I wonder why?

Vito working hard for ski trips, er funding

A break from the voting numbers. Today we look at Vito Fossella's campaign site where he is an independent. And by independent we mean a Republican scared of his own party and his own voting record.

Under his About Vito section we get this great talking point:

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Vito remained a key leader on national security issues. He wrote the bill to the end pork-barrel distribution of homeland security and bioterrorism funding, which would send hundreds of millions of additional dollars to New York City.

Maybe this is just recycled text. Or maybe he has already forgotten that he is so inept as a member of Congress that homeland security funding for NYC was slashed by $83 million this year, a 40% reduction. Of course there was no pork-barrel distribution of homeland security funding.

Via ABC News we find out that the list of terror targets in Indiana effecting the calculation of its funding includes a popcorn factory. A petting zoo in Alabama. A parade in Tennessee.

"I think it's funny," Lehman said. "I think it's some kind of mistake."

The popcorn business is basically a barn in a cornfield with five employees.

"The last news people who were looking for us drove right by us," Lehman said. "They couldn't find us."

Vito Fossella skis while Indiana gets our homeland security funding.

Fossella and his hypocrisy towards our troops and administration

For the past several days the floor in the House of Representatives has been open to every member to debate for five minutes the resolution on the floor opposing President Bush's troop escalation. For the past three days members of both parties took to the floor to present their opinions and stances on the matter, all the while Rep. Fossella remained unseen and unheard from because he had yet to make up his mind. In that time at least 11 Republicans have spoken out vociferously against the President's plan. While the country is at war Rep. Fossella has no problems addressing other pressing issues such as honoring Alexander Hamilton on his 250th anniversary of his birth. However ask him to present a strategy for improving the safety of our troops in the Middle East or ask him a possible more black and white issue such as, should we send more troops or should we start bringing our troops home and this politician's thought process draws to a halt. While the citizens of this country made a clear case opposing Bush's handling of the war when they went to the polls in November, Fossella seems unmoved about what they think. While military generals such as General Colin Powell, General Abizaid, and members of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group have come forward to oppose this troop escalation, Fossella again remains unmoved. In fact all week news sites have been reporting that Fossella remains undecided on his stance towards the President's policy of sending even more troops into Iraq, when he disregarded similar suggestions from military leaders in the past.
In 2003 General Shinseki and General Zinni called for several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq, yet that request fell on deaf ears.

However Fossella is not undecided on this issue as it would appear. As with foreign policy and the war in Iraq during his re-election campaign, he is just avoiding it and pretending it is a non issue. He knows his stance full well, and that is as an 'independent' as he characterizes himself, his job is to wait for marching orders from the decider-in-chief President Bush and to abide by them irregardless of what his constituents or what our military leaders may say. Clearly the military strategy of this President out shines those of our own military generals.

This is so clearly a situation where Rep. Fossella espouses empty rhetoric of 'supporting our troops' in order to push a very partisan issue. While I could easily debate Rep. Fossella's logic and his allegiance to this President over the security of our troops and our country, I think his own words devistatingly show his true nature.

In 1999 President Clinton presided over the US military involvement in Serbia, while participating in a NATO authorized mission. Seeing the chance to attack, in nothing short of thinly veiled partisan jabs, the President, the Commander in Chief, Rep. Fossella laid out his attack as follows; [via Rep. Fossella's April 30th 1999 press release]

Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY) today reiterated his continued support of air strikes against Serbia but challenged President Clinton to provide a clear vision of the military campaign.

Fossella said his vote earlier this week against a resolution on air operations was an attempt to focus attention on Clinton's failure to provide leadership as Commander-in-Chief and to clearly articulate a strategy for victory.

So Rep. Fossella has indicated his ability to on one hand support the ongoing military opperation while simultaneously challenging the President's strategy. He used his office and his vote on the House floor to stand up to what he perceived was a potentially flawed strategy, yet never let down his stance that the opperation was necessary. The parallel is that today, when there is little doubt that President Bush's strategy is not just flawed but an absolute danger, Rep. Fossella has the track record to again support the war should he choose but challenge the President's strategy by voting for the resolution on the floor. However he has not done so.

"While their concerns [those of his constituents] are uppermost in my mind, I have a responsibility to all Americans as we make these difficult decisions. But President Clinton has failed the test of leadership since this military action began. In the past, I have supported the President as Commander in Chief in military actions against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. But in this matter, he has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security to Kosovars. The President has a responsibility to articulate America's long-term strategy before placing even one soldier in harm's way. He has asked the Congress and the American people to follow his lead, but he has shrouded in darkness where that road will take us. Leading military and foreign policy experts have questioned why the Administration won't define the mission and what plans are in place for us to withdraw." [edited text my own]

Again Rep. Fossella sets the stage for opposition to President Bush's failed leadership, as he so accused President Clinton. He can stand by Bush's decisions on the war in Afghanistan while criticizing and asking for a revised strategy for the war in Iraq. He has done it before and will not be seen as partisan cheer leading by attacking Clinton and then congratulating Bush on both of their leadership opportunities. Yet there is no press release, there are no speeches on the floor of the House that Bush, as he accused Clinton, "has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security" in Iraq. The glaring statement that closes that thought is his audacity to invoke foreign policy experts and he even dares to request plans for withdraw. Just this past fall when similar critiques were lobbed at Rep. Fossella and President Bush by Democratic challenger Stephen Harrison, Fossella chastised him for his failure to support the troops and his desire to 'cut and run.' The egg appears to be on Fossella's face, which may be what is blinding his foresight today.

Fossella said that after only six weeks of military action, the American people are already seeing the fallout of the Administration's ambiguous strategy and failure to plan for victory.

So what do the American people see now after nearly four years in Iraq? Rep. Fossella, did you hear the question because we have not heard your reply...

"It was shocking that the White House and NATO failed to realize that the bombings would lead to a mass exodus of Kosovars from their homeland,"

via MSNBC;
Redmond said his staff were seeing 2,000 people a day enter Syria from Iraq. More are believed to be entering other countries but UNHCR has not recorded those movements.

Up to 1.6 million Iraqis now live outside their country — mostly in Jordan and Syria, and in increasing numbers in Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf states and Europe, Redmond said.

snip

“This displacement amid the ongoing violence in Iraq is presenting an enormous humanitarian challenge and extreme hardship for both the displaced and the Iraqi families trying to help them in host communities,” Redmond said.

“The enormous scale of the needs, the ongoing violence and the difficulties in reaching the displaced make it a problem that is practically beyond the capacity of humanitarian agencies, including UNHCR.”

Is this still shocking? Is this what the President meant by 'shock and awe'?

Fossella also voted for a bill this week that would require President Clinton to seek Congress' approval before committing ground troops to combat.

Rep. Fossella the opportunity again is before you. Tell this President, just as you told the last one that you will not support committing more troops to such a failed policy. Demand the President present his case before Congress clearly stating the benchmarks of his strategy to justify his escalation request, otherwise stand up and vote to oppose committing more troops as you did before.

"It would be unwise for Congress to issue the President a blank check to wage war," Fossella said. "We learned only to well the dangers of gradual escalation. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution started a bombing campaign against North Vietnam that resulted in an 11 year quagmire, over 57,000 Americans killed in combat and some 600,000 American ground troops. That resolution became President Johnson's blank check to troop waves of new soldiers into combat. To many Americans, the war in the Balkans bears striking similarities to Vietnam. The President must have a frank discussion with the American people as to what our military's mission is, when victory will be achieved and how it will be achieved."

Rep. Fossella, you authorized a new blank check for a new President which has created a new quagmire. You saw the dangers of escaltion in Serbia, yet you are deaf to your own words of advice. Rep. Fossella you issued this entire press release on April 30th, 1999, only 38 days in the military opperation in Serbia. You clearly laid out your case for why the President at the time failed to adequately provide a strategy to win and a plan for withdraw in your opinion. You made the case for why you can support the war if you wanted, however you could vote down troop escalation and you could vote in favor of resolutions condemning the President's strategy or lack thereof. You asked the hard question of "whether the Administration was caught off guard or of it lacks a clear vision of how we will wage and win this war" yet you seemingly have no reservations of such today. Rep. Fossella you stood up as a member of Congress to a 38 day old war that you saw as so grievously ill-prepared for, yet now four years into this war in Iraq you barely appear to have an opinion one way or another. Rep. Fossella you stood up for our troops in a war in Serbia where the US military had no casualties, yet today we have buried 3,125 3,128 Americans because of this disastrous policy the President has provided for us in Iraq. Rep. Fossella I can understand the pain you feel when a role model of yours lets you down so terribly hard as President Bush must have done to you, however as you questioned President Clinton, I must wonder are you asleep at the wheel with your leadership? Is your failure to create or support any sound strategy for our troops an indication of your leadership abilities? Or in the end is this just a partisan issue where there is no opportunity for you to grand stand and in reality you could care less about our troops, because that Rep. Fossella is what you are telling us.

UPDATE
Rep. Fossella votes NO to the resolution and stands firmly behind President Bush and his strategy for Iraq. Vito Fossella continues to show us his 'independent' mindset. Read his speech here.

DFNYC opening endorsement voting

Tonight was the candidate forum hosted by DFNYC, Stonewall Democratic Club, Three Parks Independent Democratic Club, Village Reform Democratic Club and Truth 13. The featured guests were to be Steve Harrison and Domenic Recchia. As of late this afternoon only Harrison had confirmed his attendance.

Tonight is also the opening of the endorsement voting for DFNYC in this race. Unlike many of the political clubs in the city voting members of DFNYC have attendance requirements to become a voting member, so this is not something that can easily be stacked. Harrison seems to be well received so far by members of the organization who have held events and fundraisers for him. Most of this support comes from his participation and progressive and grassroot outreach that is coming on strong this election. I have a hard time seeing how he does not easily win this endorsement and add it to his list. Here was my analysis of a DFNYC endorsement following Harrison's PDA endorsement;

PDA could bring invaluable volunteers into this race and if I had the option of having the volunteer advantage or the fund raising advantage I would gladly take the volunteers. You can buy ads and literature all you want, but if you don't have a ground game distributing those, talking to voters and getting them to the polls they are useless. If Democracy for America (DFA) follows suit and gets involved in this race on Harrison's behalf, which would not surprise me given DFNYC's involvement, I would think Harrison would quickly have the advantage in this race. I would also give him a sizable and experienced volunteer advantage. DFNYC enthusiastically campaigned for Barbaro in 2004 so they do have some history with this district and wanting to take out Fossella.

Check out dfnyc.org for voting information. Also this is another reason to join their mailing list if you have not done so alredy. You can signup at that link as well.

Bush follows Fossella's lead, opposes insuring children

Yesterday we covered a recent NO vote by Fossella on a bill to extend health insurance coverage to millions of children currently uninsured, as well as providing additional support to Medicare for senior citizens. Well it turns out President Bush agrees with Vito Fossella and is now threatening to veto the bill. If it is not clear, Bush is just as independent of a thinker and leader as Fossella.

Clearly insuring children threatens the fabric of our nation and it must be stopped at all costs or so that is the message of the Bush/Fossella plan. The Bush/Fossella plan suggests that uninsured Americans get insurance! It is simply brilliant in its simplicity and yet pathetically selfish in its caving to corporate interests. Since when did we start listening to private insurance companies financial interests over allowing a child access to a doctor?

He [Bush] favours a system of tax breaks that encourage uninsured people to take out private insurance.

I recently was without a job, although financially better off that those considered low-income households in America, and in Fossella's district. I paid out of pocket $600 a month for basic insurance coverage, not including deductables and co-payments. The Bush/Fossella plan calls for those who work at jobs such as Wal-Mart, which Fossella is actively helping bring to Staten Island, that does not provide insurance for its employees, to buy their own insurance. A worker would be looking at two weeks of work to have the income to pay for one months worth of insurance at the rate I paid into my COBRA plan. So the Bush/Fossella plan calls for tax cuts to help those Americans pay for their insurance. I know the last time President Bush talked tax breaks I certainly didn't see any money, so I find it ominous to ask my neighbors to trust them this time. Further, even if there are tax breaks, are these families really paying 25% of their income in taxes, and are they then going to see a full 100% tax break, because otherwise the tax break on $30,000 a year really does not cover the $7,200 annually I was paying into private health insurance. And that was just for myself, no children to cover.

The alternative is the bill that passed, despite Fossella's opposition.

The scheme grants federal money to help states cover the health insurance costs of families who are just above the earning limit for the state sponsored Medicaid but don't earn enough to pay for private insurance. It is estimated this will continue coverage for 6 million children and extend it to another 5 million or so uninsured children. [via Medical News Today]

You can not support the needs and build a better future for our children and support Rep. Vito Fossella.

Does Fossella support 9/11 first responders?

In a March 2004 interview on CNN, Rep. Vito Fossella and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D - Manhattan and Brooklyn) were brought on to debate President Bush's campaign ad using September 11 references;

ZAHN: Congressman Fossella, I'm going to start with you this evening. The head of the International Association of Fire Fighters has called this ad "disgraceful," and went on to say this, "Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign."

How do you explain to some of the families from your district why you're not opposed to this kind of ad?

FOSSELLA: The president of the United States happened to be George W. Bush. I personally believe that he responded in a -- and has responded in a steady and consistent way, has been a true leader for not just this country but has engaged the war against terror.

...

FOSSELLA: The president should be proud of his record of fighting and leading in this war against terror. And we can't just ignore the reality of September 11, if we're going to move forward as a nation.

...

But at the same time, I think we need to understand, as a nation, if we're going to go forward against this war on terrorism -- because there are those who are out there who still want to bring carnage and wreckage and evil and spread it throughout this country [note: this though has since been debunked yet Fossella continues to use it] and throughout the free-loving people of this world. We have to understand that we can talk about these things and acknowledge the truth. This isn't a representation, this is the truth. This is a tragedy that actually occurred...

ZAHN: Jump in there, Mr. Nadler. We've got to do it in 10 seconds.

NADLER: We can debate what Bush did after and before and we should, and we can debate why they still won't pay for the medical treatment of the firemen and the other firefighters who were injured in the first response. But whether you like President Bush or not, we can debate his actions before and after. But to exploit this emotionally, the way these ads are doing, is, frankly, disgusting.

Bold text and note are my own

So while Rep. Vito Fossella used his sound bites to say terror! as often as possible, it wasn't until Rep. Nadler (D) spoke second, that he brought up the point about President Bush refusing to cover the costs of medical tests and treatment for our own firemen. Given the chance to use his appearance to demand funding medical coverage for these first responders, Rep. Vito Fossella instead used his time to praise President Bush.

Rep. Vito Fossella, Independent of his constituents needs since 1997.

Vito Fossella still has no thoughts on Iraq

Take your pick. More of the same failed strategy on Iraq or some new ideas from people who like most of us are tired with solutions coming from DC.

Military leaders are concerned Fossella's war in Iraq is causing some strain on our troops and could create problems for us trying to militarily be involved in theaters elsewhere, via USA Today;

Behind the Pentagon's closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush Wednesday they are worried about the Iraq war's mounting strain on troops and their families. But they indicated they'd go along with a brief halt in pulling out troops this summer.

snip

The chiefs' concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.

Making matters worse The Washington Independent brings us this bad news, well good for Fossella bad for the average American;

As if to offer denial in the face of disaster -- and commit the U.S. to losing many more soldiers and Marines -- the Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office.

On the other side of this denial that we need to stay in Iraq longer and risk the lives of more troops is the Washington Post picking up a story on A Responsible Plan, endorsed by our own Steve Harrison;

More than 40 Democratic House and Senate candidates have endorsed a document stating that "there is no military solution in Iraq" and calling for an end to the war and the removal of all U.S. troops from the country, though not according to any specific timeline.

snip

The plan was crafted without the input or endorsement of the House and Senate Democratic leadership. Burner said "this was not driven inside the Beltway" and complained that "people inside the Beltway don't seem to get how big an issue this is for voters" in the rest of the country.

To date there is still no news about what Vito Fossella's plan for Iraq is or if he has one. The choice is yours.

see also: More on A Responsible Plan

Vito Fossella's recent legislative votes

Overriding the Veto of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 House Roll Call No. 117
Vote Failed (225-188, 17 Not Voting)

The House fell far short of the 276 votes needed to override President Bush’s veto of this intelligence bill that would ban interrogation methods like waterboarding and mock executions.

Rep. Vito Fossella voted NO


Establishing within the House of Representatives an Office of Congressional Ethics HR 895
Vote Passed (229-182, 4 Present, 15 Not Voting)

The House narrowly approved a new ethics rule to create an independent office that would consider ethics complaints against House members.

Rep. Vito Fossella voted YES

note: see my write up about Fossella's attempts to kill this bill and his opposition to it prior to being forced into voting for this.
Vito Fossella opposes House Ethics Panel


Budget Resolution, FY2009 House Roll Call No. 145
Vote Passed (212-207, 12 Not Voting)

The House passed this $3 trillion budget resolution setting spending priorities for the 2009 fiscal year.

Rep. Vito Fossella voted NO

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 House Roll Call No. 145
Vote Passed (213-197, 1 Present, 20 Not Voting)

The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.

Rep. Vito Fossella voted NO

note: This bill removed retroactive immunity for telephone companies caught wiretapping domestic phone lines without court ordered warrants at the request of the Federal government.

NRCC still not coming to Straniere's defense

Swing State Project has their latest update to independent expenditures and the NRCC has yet to spend any money in New York State let alone NY-13.  The party has given up on this race but we haven't.  Get out and talk to your neighbors.  Make sure McMahon wins this race.  

Vito Fossella brings Dick Cheney to NYC for help, protests Monday

via Truth13;

Progressive groups protest Dick Cheney/Koch Industries’ Vito Fossella fundraiser

Truth 13 and other progressive groups are organizing a protest Monday morning [April 21] outside a fundraiser for New York City’s only Republican House member, Vito Fossella, organized by Vice President Dick Cheney and polluters Koch Industries (pronounced Coke)..

Fossella’s Democratic opponent Steve Harrison is scheduled to appear.

When: 10 AM Monday April 21
Where: 740 Park Avenue (71st Street). [Google Maps]

About Truth 13: Founded in 2007, Truth 13 is an independent group of concerned citizens dedicated to removing New York's 13th Congressional District representative Vito Fossella from office. Their mission is to educate voters of the 13th Congressional District about their Congressperson's track record of voting for the interests of organizations like Koch industries instead of those of his constituents.

Here is another example of Fossella's vulnerability. Dick Cheney has a 15% approval rating, meaning a majority of his own party disapproves of him. Fossella clearly believes Cheney's money is far more important to his campaign right now than worrying about being associated with this administration. Fossella has had Cheney raise money for him before, but never has he openly flaunted his regard for Dick Cheney.

update: Democrats.com are joining the protests and just sent out an email to supporters asking for their participation;

Vice President Cheney will be in town shilling for cash for NY Congressman Vito Fossella. They'll be hosted by NYC's wealthiest resident, David Koch, the billionaire head of Koch Industries, a conglomerate with hugely polluting oil and gas holdings. Koch Industries is the second largest privately-held company in the U.S. and a major contributor to Republican campaigns.

Let's tell the luncheon guests: Fossella must go!

Support Stem Cell research by opposing Bush

Recently Rep. Vito Fossella choose bipartisanship over more Bush support. He was one of a handful of Republicans to cross party lines and vote with nearly every single Democrat in favor of a Stem Cell bill. Normally we criticize Fossella for the mockery he makes of his "independent" partisan identification he ran on in 2006 as he votes time after time ideologically with President Bush. This time however is different, and we commend his trip to this side of the aisle and his support of a successfully passed bill.

President Bush has since used only his second veto in nearly seven years in office to veto this bill that would provide much needed research access to stem cells in hopes of curing some of humanities most horrible diseases. Rep. Fossella's son has Type I Juvenile Diabetes, and stem cell research seems the only promising route to any cure. That research now looks as though it is delayed at least another year, or until this bill or a similar bill can come back to the House floor.

In a letter he wrote to his Congressional Representative, who happens to be his father, Dylan wrote, “The U.S. Congress has always been supportive of diabetes research and I hope for that support to continue. I am very grateful for those who are dedicated to finding a cure.” He added, “Let’s all try to team together so that none of us have to go through what we do every day of our lives.” [via BrooklynEagle.com]

In 2006 we saw Fossella run away from his party and from President Bush, but in reality there was little in the way of his voting record or public criticism that showed this. Today he has a chance to reverse this. We know Fossella speaks with President Bush, he flew on Air Force 1 with him after all, so we encourage him to use his bully pulpit and call out the President and his veto of this bill for what it is, anti-life. In a 2005 press release praising his work along side Rep. Castle to introduce a stem cell bill Castle proclaims:

One more day wasted, is another day a cure or treatment isn't found. We cannot hold up hope any longer.

Rep. Fossella, two years has past, and the President has stayed the course. Two years have past and there is no new movement or hope for stem cell research. I urge you to stand up to President Bush and explain what his veto is doing to hope for so many Americans. If we want change we can not continue supporting President Bush and hoping this time he will act different.

DFNYC endorses Harrison

via DFNYC email;

Democracy for NYC recently held a forum and endorsement vote in the Democratic Primary in NYC's 13th Congressional district, currently represented by incumbent Republican Vito Fossella. Steve Harrison has won our endorsement with an unprecedented 100% of the vote!

We look forward to working with Steve Harrison to defeat Vito Fossella in the 2008 elections. To learn more about Steve, check out his website:
http://www.steveharrisonforcongress.com

DFNYC voting members, those who have been to three events in the past year, were eligible to vote. Ballots could be downloaded at our website and mailed in, or turned in at events, between April 15th and April 29th.

On Tuesday, April 15, Democracy for NYC, Stonewall Democratic Club, Three Parks Independent Democratic Club, Village Reform Democratic Club and Truth 13 held a candidate forum for the Democratic primary in the 13th Congressional District: Both candidates were invited. Steve Harrison attended the forum. Councilmember Recchia did not attend.

Harrison has previously been endorsed by;
* Democratic Organization of Richmond County
* Staten Island Democratic Association
* American Heritage Democratic Club
* Progressive Democrats of America
* Democratic Advancement PAC

Fossella and Foley, the donations revisited

Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl) as you may recall, abruptly resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 amid allegations of potential sexual misconduct and communications between himself and House pages, some of whom were underage at the time. As you should also be aware of by now, Rep. Vito Fossella had taken $1,000 in contributions from Rep. Foley, dating back to his 1998 election campaign.

On October 14, 2006, the Brooklyn Paper ran a story that lead with a report that Rep. Vito Fossella had donated Rep. Foley's contribution;

Rep. Vito Fossella has donated $1,000 he received from disgraced ex-Rep. Mark Foley to a Staten Island charity for abused children

All appeared to be well and good, as Rep. Vito Fossella parted with the contributions and thus distanced himself from the Foley scandal. After revisiting FEC reports, new questions seem to arise.

1. How much was donated?
While the Brooklyn Paper and FEC reports indicate Rep. Fossella received $1,000 from Rep. Mark Foley, the Politicker via a statement from Fossella's campaign indicates they made a $2,000 donation, equivalent to what they say Rep. Foley had given the campaign;

I also donated $2000. in contributions from Mr. Foley to organizations in Staten Island and Brooklyn.

This potentially is an incorrect statement from the campaign, as records only show $1,000, however the second part that donations were made to organizations in Staten Island and Brooklyn appears to be false. The Brooklyn Paper quote, and records below indicate that donations were only made to one organization, and that was in Staten Island.

2. The donations.
If we consider the $1,000 amount to be correct, there should be an easy trail through FEC records showing disbursements totaling $1,000. Going through the October Quarterly, the Pre-General and Post General filings by Fossella's campaign, there appears to only be two donations;

09/22/06 - $500 to Staten Island Children's Campaign
09/29/06 - $250 to Staten Island Children's Campaign

These totals if accurate would indicate $750 of the $1,000 donated.
Taking a look at his disbursements (contributions) in the three filings covering the time the Foley story was public and he resigned, through election day, there appears to be no indication that this $750 total is incorrect. In his October Quarterly filing, which covered (08/24/06 - 09/30/06), we find just the two donations to Staten Island Children's Campaign noted above. There were no donations made during his Pre General filing, which covered (10/01/06 - 10/18/06). In the next report, the Post General filing, which covered (10/19/06 - 11/27/06), there are only four donations made, none of which to Staten Island Children's Campaign.

3. The time line.
CNN has a time line outline for reference. ABC first reports on the email exchange between Rep. Mark Foley and House pages on September 28, 2006. Rep. Mark Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006. However, if we go back and look at the dates of the disbursements from Fossella's campaign relating to the money he received from Foley, the first donation was dated six days prior to the first media report on the Rep. Foley scandal. This indicated that Rep. Vito Fossella was quite aware of the situation developing with Rep. Foley. While Fossella made statements such as "If the allegations are true, Mr. Foley should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" to politically cover himself, he spent no time waiting to find out if the allegations were true to part with his money, although apparently only as an empty symbolic gesture.

If in fact Rep. Vito Fossella knew of the emerging Foley scandal, the next question is why did he do nothing about it? He took the time to cover himself, however what action was taken to assure that Rep. Foley had absolutely no interaction with anymore underage House pages during those six days, if not well before that. If he sat on this information for the sake of protecting his party from the fallout he committed an unforgivable travesty.

Maybe Stephen Harrison had the most astute observation after all;

“What we have is a congressman who says he is an independent, but will always rally around the Republicans, rather than do the right thing.”

UPDATE
Editorial Note: In addition to this story Rep. Vito Fossella has a larger ethical problem. He has taken a total of $10,000 from Rep. Tom DeLay and his political action committee ARMPAC and has thus far refused to return any of it, despite Rep. DeLay's resignation from Congress and his indictment on money laundering.