Friday Morning Update: Politico reports that Speaker Pelosi is conducting a "public" whip count of the entire Democratic caucus on the Medicare +5 bill this morning, "behind closed doors in the Capitol basement."
---
Roll Call reports that House Democrats have are confident they have the votes they need to pass a "robust" public option:
House Democratic leaders sounded bullish Wednesday after launching an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a "robust" public insurance option in their health care bill.
"We think we have the votes now," Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) told reporters. "We have the votes to pass a robust public option."
Larson cautioned that the details were still being worked out, and Democratic aides said Members were still being whipped at press time and did not release a tally.
If true, this is encouraging news for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that progressives in the House led by Speaker Pelosi have stood their ground, helped by the fact that the "robust" public option reportedly came back scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit more than any other plan:
This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month....
Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.
The whip effort described by Larson is an internal one, making it difficult to discern who the holdouts in the Democratic caucus are. And as Larson points out, the count is still ongoing, making this one of the very last moments in the process in which pressure can be effectively applied before the House bill goes to the floor.
Open Left has attempted to compile a list of Democratic targets in the House on the "robust" public option -- Representatives who are deemed to be undecided or either "leaning" yes or no on the matter.
While the provenance of the Open Left target list is unclear, it's all activists have to go on at this point. The only "undecided or leaning" name from Connecticut on the list (pdf here) is Jim Himes. While this does not at all signify that Congressman Himes would vote against a "Medicare +5" plan, he did seem to indicate in his op-ed on health reform in August that his preferred approach was the "level playing field" public option.
Reached for comment today, Rep. Himes' Communications Director Liz Kerr confirmed that he is still undecided on the Medicare +5% public option:
"The Congressman, as he has stated before, supports the inclusion of a public health insurance option that operates on a level playing field with private insurance companies. He is still studying this specific proposal."
We are at the point in the process where every lawmaker's opinion and every moment counts in order to makes sure the House passes the strongest possible bill going into the inevitable conference committee compromise.
If you want to urge Rep. Himes to support a House health care reform bill with the robust Medicare +5% public option, you can call his DC office at (202) 225-5541.
Connecticut Rep. John B. Larson, chairman of the Democratic Caucus, said he would "encourage" Grayson to apologize.
"I wouldn't have used the words that Mr. Grayson has," Larson said. "I would encourage Alan to apologize. We should keep in mind the rules of the House and the way we speak to one another," he said.
Today, 57 Democratic members of Congress signed a letter to House leadership stating that the Blue Dog compromise on the public option in the Energy and Commerce Committee was "fundamentally unacceptable." Here is the full text of the letter, which includes a clear line in the sand:
Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.
Missing from the list of signatories? Any single Member of Congress from Connecticut, including Progressive Caucus member Rosa DeLauro.
August will be a long month of citizen lobbying, insurance industry spending, and message maneuvering on health care thanks in large part to the delay of the House floor vote that was also a key part of the Blue Dog compromise. There is still a long road ahead, but what happens in August will be key.
All of Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, Chris Murphy - will be in their districts next month. They will certainly be hearing from the insurance industry. They need to hear from their constituents too. Ask them to pledge to vote against any legislation that does not include a strong public option.
As the August recess looms, the state of health care reform in the House of Representatives is changing by the minute.
Today, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman appears to have possibly called the Blue Dogs' bluff and set the stage for passing the House health care legislation before the recess without the right-wing Dems in his committee getting to vote against it.
Also today, the ranks of progressives in the House who are standing tall and saying they refuse to vote for any legislation without a robust public option - on the floor, or after it comes back from conference - is growing.
Minutes ago, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who had previously refused to commit to voting against any reform-in-name only bill without a public option, changed her tune dramatically:
I have always been a strong supporter of the public option (including co-sponsoring single-payer) and pledged to you several weeks ago to fight like heck to make sure a public option will be included in any health care reform bill. But, having watched the debate evolve over the last week or so, I want to make sure all of you know that I have decided I will not vote for a health care bill in the House that doesn't include a real public option and I Pledge to uphold the public option principles agreed upon by the Progressive Caucus.
And here's Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), saying largely the same thing in a statement today:
"I'm not going to vote for any House bill that doesn't include a robust public option without any triggers or coops -- that's a must-have for me. I also believe that it's vital that there be a vote on the bill before the August recess. Delaying will only give entrenched special interests time to do everything they can to defeat it."
We specifically asked if "House bill" also meant conference report, and she indicated that it did.
Meanwhile, Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, and Chris Murphy - still have not stood up to declare that they will vote against meaningless reform-in-name only.
As Rahm Emanuel unilaterally declares a public option not to be a necessity for the Obama administration (for the second time in two weeks), and President Obama himself finds himself walking back his chief of staff's comments from halfway across the globe, the need for a progressive bloc in the House of Representatives who will stand together and pledge to vote against reform-in-name only, making a real public option a necessity for any health care bill's passage this year, gets only clearer and clearer.
In CT, Joe Courtney is the latest Connecticut Representative to refuse to commit to voting against any health care plan without a workable, robust public option. Campaign Silo has the audio from his appearance last week on WNPR's "Where We Live":
This echoes Courtney's recent comments at a town hall meeting with constituents in DC, where he also refused to commit to vote against a health care bill without a public plan.
Our representatives need to know that at this point in the legislative process, voicing "support" for a public option means very little. What we need desperately are Democrats committed to real health care reform - like Jerry Nadler in New York - with the courage and the conviction to say loud and clear that a bill without a public option will be dead on arrival in the House.
Joe now joins Rosa DeLauro in refusing to be part of this effort. Apparently "Where We Live" will be hosting Rosa and the remainder of the Connecticut House delegation in the coming days and weeks (Chris Murphy was on yesterday), so constituents can continue to call in.
Here's how the citizen whip count of targeted progressive representatives (specifically, whether they will pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide (2) on day one and (3) accountable to Congress and voters) stands as of today. You can contact your representative using the info here and report their response using the whip count tool here.
Previous "Whipping the Public Option in CT" posts:
("The CT #healthcare09 delegation arrives in @jahimes office." by CCAG via TwitPic)
Today, Beau from CCAG is twittering the huge Health Care '09 rally and lobby day live from DC. You can follow CCAG's twitter feed all day here, photo updates here, and video updates here. This is by all accounts the largest national healthcare reform lobby day in history, and it comes at a crucial time. You can follow CCAG on twitter throughout the day for updates on meetings between Connecticut voters lobbying for meaningful health care reform - including a robust public option - and their representatives.
While most recent attention - and pressure - on healthcare legislation has been focused on the opaque workings of Senate committees and the huge egos and twisted priorities at work therein, this week Firedoglake and nyceve from Daily Kos launched a public whip count of progressive Representatives asking them for a firm commitment to vote against any health care "reform" legislation that does not include a public option that is "1. Available nationwide, 2. From day one," and "3. Answerable to Congress and the voters."
As Ben Smith from Politico points out, public whip counts like this are one of the most powerful tools available to online activists who want to influence legislation:
Legislative vote counts are one of those things that the Web can transform. They're typically closely held - counting is an insider's art - and deliberate ambiguity is a key negotiating tactic. Legislators who would prefer to vote no, for instance, might be willing to be the last vote, for a price. So while this has the effect of pushing members toward Obama's position, it also shines a spotlight on members who might prefer to stay uncommitted, or to wait for details and compromises.
Getting only 40 progressive Representatives to commit to voting against meaningless "reform" legislation without a public option may be the best way to force the Senate's - and White House's - hand on the public option. The Firedoglake whip count tool is here, but it only targets 100 progressive Representatives who they believe to be the lowest hanging fruit. Only one Rep from Connecticut - DeLauro - is on the list, and she has yet to respond. Yet Connecticut has 5 Democratic representatives who are all signatories to the Health Care for America Now "core principles" -- 3 of whom were elected to replace Republican incumbents in 2006 and 2008 based in large part on their support for real health care reform.
There's no reason not to ask CT's entire House delegation to commit to oppose meaningless reform-in-name-only that does not include a workable and robust public option. Contact your Rep at the phone number below and ask them to pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide, (2) on day one, and (3) accountable to Congress and the voters, and report any response to the FDL whip count tool here.
(Ironic that Republicans who called previous voters against supplementals traitors or defeatist now vote against it, and Democrats vote for it. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
When it comes to a major opportunity to stop the wars, as Edwin Starr would sing, Absolutely nothing!
All the members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation--Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, John Larson--voted for the war supplemental. Several of these pols have presented themselves in their campaigns as being committed to a less warlike foreign policy. But when the chips were down and there was an opportunity to stand up and really cut the funding that fuels this bloody mayhem, they voted for war.
Today, March 31, marks the end of another FEC filing deadline. If your Congressman is anything like mine, you've already received several emails asking for money. Here's my response:
Dear Congressman,
There's a new law being proposed called the Fair Elections Now Act that will end your fundraising problems forever. If, over the next few months, you work as hard at passing this campaign finance reform law as you normally spend asking donors for money, you will never need to raise money like this ever again.
Please, pass the Fair Elections Now Act. This legislation is a lot like Connecticut's Clean Elections bill. It creates a pool of funds Congressmen can use to pay for their campaigns. The pool is supplemented by relatively small contributions from donors -- in amounts of $100 or less.
To reduce the influence of big donors over federal elections. Under current law, individual contributions are limited to $2,300 per candidate per race, a level far beyond the means of the vast majority of citizens - and bundlers are often able to acquire unparalleled access to members of Congress when they combine individual contributions to present candidates with bundles of anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 or more.
Our current, corrupt system puts every Congressman at the mercy of big donors. The new system makes Congress accountable to you and me.
The bill already has many supporters in Congress, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson. So, dear Congressman, let's get this law on the books.
As soon as the law is passed, I'll be the first in line with my $100 contribution.
UPDATE The Fair Elections Now Act was just introduced! Wow. That was fast. See comments for more info.
As DavidNYC noted in his Orange-to-Blue endorsement post of Jim Himes yesterday, Chris Shays has a history of pretending to be a "moderate" while voting again and again for Bush's policies.
This morning, Shays joined many in both parties in Congress by standing with Bush again on the FISA "compromise".
(Here was Jim Himes's statement in opposition to the FISA "compromise" yesterday.)
Thankfully, Connecticut has four out of five Democrats in our House delegation, and all four - John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy - stood up and voted against both the war supplemental and against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies included in the FISA bill.
Let's show them that we have their backs. Send a thank you note to all four CT Dems for their vote today here:
(Keep the reports from the conventions coming! - promoted by ctblogger)
I did not see any information in the Hartford Courant this morning regarding the First Congressional District Democratic Nominating Convention last night even though it was held at the Bushnell, a mere two or three blocks from the Courant's location. Nothing in this afternoon's Manchester Journal Inquirer although Rep John Larson's hometown of East Hartford is located in their delivery area and next door to Manchester. And nothing on MLN so I guess it is up to me to share a bit.
Since
last
fall's review of the spending habits of Congressional
campaigns, the state's candidates
have continued to find thrifty, questionable and downright foolish
ways to spend their money between October and March, several months
before voters start paying attention to them.
Democrats
in ostensibly competitive districts (Courtney, Himes, and Murphy) have
spent much less of a percentage of their income on average than
their Republican counterparts.
Chris Murphy's campaign, a
disciplined machine, has raised and saved the most and, not
coincidentally, has the lowest and most consistent burn rate.
John
Larson is the only candidate spending more than he is
raising. He
was actually left with less cash on hand at the end of March
than
when he started this electoral
cycle.
Sean Sullivan is the worst GOP candidate of the
year. (Tony Nania would compete for the title if he were for
real.)
Jim
Himes nearly matched Chris Shays in cash on hand, in large
part
because of Shays' pattern of big spending and Himes' past thriftiness.
But Himes raised less and spent more than Shays early this
year, diminishing
his progress.
CD
Candidate
Cash on hand
Jan 1 07
Raised
Jan 07 -
Mar 08
Spent
Jan 07 -
Mar 08
Cash on hand
Mar 31, 08
Burn
rate
Jan 07-
Sep 07
Burn
rate
Oct 07-
Mar 08
Total
burn rate
1
Larson
236,969
652,432
682,850
179,552
87%
155%
109%
2
Courtney
47,599
1,465,808
318,722
1,194,685
20%
25%
22%
2
Sullivan
-
230,450
101,462
128,988
23%
72%
44%
3
DeLauro
16,124
624,773
473,024
167,873
83%
66%
76%
4
Shays
61,544
1,608,255
532,072
1,137,726
37%
29%
33%
4
Himes
-
1,379,992
274,781
1,105,212
11%
27%
20%
5
Murphy
50,703
1,791,612
297,675
1,544,639
16%
18%
17%
5
Cappiello
-
654,655
232,039
420,316
24%
43%
35%
5
Nania
-
31,989
21,943
10,046
-
77%
77%
Burn rate = (total spent + debt)/ total raised.
More on the spending
habits of each candidate, and an update on April spending below.
(Another good piece from the man with the 40 year plan. - promoted by ctblogger)
After talking to the third most powerful Democrat in the United States House of Representatives, Congressman John Larson, about impeachment for 15 minutes last week, I felt like banging my head against the wall.
To lessen my pain, I called attorney Steve Fournier, Hartford's main man on impeachment.
Thanks to a column by the Hartford Courant's Rick Green, Larson called Fournier and the two sat down for more than an hour a month back to discuss impeachment as the sole remedy for the lawlessness of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
I figured that Larson, when I corralled him at a fundraiser he threw for Jim Himes at Arch Street Tavern in Hartford, was the same Larson Fournier talked to in a Congressional office surrounded by aides.
But when Steve and I compared notes, we found reason to celebrate, as Larson seems to have taken baby steps towards holding the executive branch accountable for its many unconstitutional missteps.
Mind you, Larson the political persona is still miles from espousing outright impeachment. Nevertheless, his evolution towards a point of view of upholding the rule of law is worth documenting.
John Larson once again has a Republican opponent, Joe Visconti of West Hartford, who will stand on the shoulders of such political giants as
Scott MacLean, 26% of the vote (2006)
John Halstead, 27% (2004)
Phil Steele, 33% (2002)
Bob Backlund, 28% (2000)
Kevin O'Connor, 41% (1998)
Says GOP Chair Chris Healy,
If Joe Visconti plans to run, John Larson better get on the stair master.
When he isn't working out at the gym, I imagine Congressman Larson's electoral anxiety will drive him to dine out even more than usual this year.
Visconti's claim to fame is his unsuccessful opposition to the Blue Back Square development in West Hartford center. He ran as a petitioning candidate for the West Hartford Town Council in 2005 and lost, receiving the fewest votes of any candidate. Rejected by the local GOP in 2007, he primaried his way onto the anemic Republican slate and was elected, receiving the lowest number of votes of any elected Councillor. He's also flexible about his political philosophy:
"I'd be a liberal Democrat anywhere else, but this town is so upside-down." Visconti made this observation the day he announced his candidacy [...] for the town council.
So far this week, Joe Courtney, John Larson, and Chris Murphy have come to Iowa to campaign for Chris Dodd. Megan Lubin, our Iowa blogger, and I have been able to speak to them and record their explanation as to why they're in Iowa campaigning for Chris Dodd And the fourth CT Democrat in Congress, Rosa DeLauro -- she's national co-chair of the Chris Dodd for President campaign.
Congressman John Larson (CT-01)
Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-05)
Clearly Chris Dodd is someone who has earned the respect and support from his colleagues back home in Connecticut. Many of his staff members in Iowa are people from CT who have known him for years. What greater sign of Chris Dodd's record of accomplishments than the people he's spent a career representing dedicating themselves to helping him attain the highest office in our land? As Congressman Courtney makes clear, it is what Chris Dodd has done and what Chris Dodd will do that makes him the best choice to "turn this country around."
The purpose of raising campaign money is to spend it
- in a timely,
targeted, and effective manner. Some candidates focus on the
first half of that guideline and neglect the latter
portion. If campaign donors critically examined the
spending habits of some Connecticut candidates, they might have second
thoughts about contributing again.
To get a sense of how much
and how well funds are being spent, take a look at Congressional
campaign "burn rates" - how much of their incoming funds federal
candidates are spending in these early days of their campaigns.
Dist.
Candidate
Cash on hand
Jan 1, 2007
Raised
Jan-Sept 2007
Spent
Jan-Sept 2007
Cash on hand
Sept 30, 2007
Burn
rate
1
Larson
236,969
419,857
364,142
292,684
87%
2
Courtney
47,599
898,294
178,128
767,765
20%
2
Sullivan
-
132,384
30,686
101,698
23%
3
DeLauro
16,124
367,265
303,795
79,594
83%
4
Shays
61,544
838,489
306,242
593,791
37%
4
Himes
-
617,676
70,976
546,699
11%
5
Murphy
50,703
1,057,795
166,914
943,583
16%
5
Cappiello
-
268,802
64,434
204,368
24%
Burn rate = (Total spent during 2007 calendar year + debt as of Sept.
30)/ Total raised during 2007.
As
the biggest spender in a competitive district, Chris Shays is shedding
37% of his contributions as he goes. This is more than three
times the spending rate of Jim Himes, the most frugal and efficient
federal candidate in the state, who has departed with only a small
fraction (11%) of the funds he has raised. Despite Shays'
long
head
start, Himes has nearly as much cash on hand as his opponent.
If this pattern continues, Shays will soon fall behind his
challenger, in large part because of his wasteful spending.
Himes
Shays
Himes advantage
Average raised per quarter
308,838
279,496
Raised 29,341 more
Average spent per quarter
35,488
102,081
Spent 66,592 less
More on what they're
spending all that money on below.
Joining the campaign for clean elections is Congressman John Larson (D-CT), who sent a "Dear Colleague" letter asking fellow Representatives to cosponsor the Fair Elections Now Act. This bill is similar to Connecticut's "Clean Elections" bill that takes effect in 2008. It enables members of the House and the Senate to publicly finance their campaigns, with amounts based on the state populations.
Meanwhile, over at Sacred Heart University, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward provided some "unique" insights into the Bush Administration. The title of the talk was "State of Denial." After reading some of Woodward's comments, it's not clear who's in a greater state of denial, Bush or Woodward:
Bush suddenly told him what he felt was the main purpose of the war in Iraq. "He said, 'I believe I have a duty to free the people and liberate the people,' " Woodward said.
The statement, he said, showed a certain kind of idealism about the war. Even today, Woodward said, a few months away from the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, that idealism persists.
Seventeen additional Democrats have signed on to the letter to President Bush pledging to vote against any funding for the Iraq war that is not tied to a firm timeline for withdrawal. Unfortunately, none of them are from Connecticut. Here's the text, according to Greg Sargent:
Dear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
Chris Murphy is still the only representative from CT to sign this letter, which is still being circulated for signatures and will be sent to Bush next week.
(Video of Bill Clinton talking about MoveOn on CNN tonight via Oliver Willis.)
That's the amount of hard-earned money the members of MoveOn.org - many of them constituents, volunteers, and ardent supporters - contributed to efforts to elect these two freshman Democrats when they were candidates last year. (H/T Larkspur.)
(b) It is the Sense of the Congress that the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the service of General David H. Petraeus, as well as all other members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing, in the defense of the United States and the personal sacrifices made by General Petraeus and his family, and other members of the Armed Forces and their families, to serve with distinction and honor;
(2) commits to judge the merits of the sworn testimony of General David H. Petraeus without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;
(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus;
(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm's way, as well as their families; and
(5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding request or any policy decisions regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to intellectual integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.
Chris Murphy was the #1 recipient of MoveOn support among freshman Dems. Joe Courtney was #13. They were joined in their vote by Rosa DeLauro and John Larson.
This is how Chris Dodd responded when a similar resolution was up in the senate - by voting no:
It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war.
Pretty simple.
Why Murphy and Courtney - to say nothing of Larson and DeLauro, who have their seats for life if they want them - couldn't have responded similarly is a question for them to answer. But it's pretty clear that for whatever reason, they have decided they neither need nor particularly want the support of committed progressive activists anymore.
1. Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy are leading a charge this week to repeal provisions of last fall's Military Commissions Act and restore Habeas Corpus rights for detainees in an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. This push started back in February, but it really all comes down to this week.
Update: Here's a really awesome "citizen whip count" tool the Dodd campaign is using to track the number of votes they have (as of Tuesday afternoon, Lieberman is still a "maybe" on whether he will vote to restore the Constitution this week.):
2. Howie Klein writes today about something I also brought up last Friday: Chris Murphy's leadership on refusing to support funding for the war not tied to timelines.
Murphy was one of nine freshman Democrats to sign a letter to Bush dated September 12th with the following statement on funding:
We are writing to inform you that we will not support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq unless a firm date is given to begin safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq.
Courtney did not sign the letter. And, somewhat amazingly, no other Connecticut representative has signed a similar eletter from Rep. Lee's office stating the Democratic case for change Bush's Iraq policy in even more direct terms:
We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Email them here and ask them to follow Chris Murphy's and Chris Dodd's lead and pledge to vote against any additional funding for the war that is not tied to firm timelines, or call their offices and ask them where they stand on this simple question:
Joe Courtney: (202) 225-2076, (860) 886-0139
Rosa DeLauro: (202) 225-3661, (203) 562-3718
John Larson: (202) 225-2265, (860) 278-8888
Chris Shays: (202) 225-5541, (203) 579-5870, (203) 357-8277
Since
After talking to the third most powerful Democrat in the United States House of Representatives, Congressman John Larson, about impeachment for 15 minutes last week, I felt like banging my head against the wall.
John Larson once again 
MLN is powered by