Regarding the Ohio Senate Primary between Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett … Mother Jones Magazine tossing out a large cover feature on and more or less endorsing Paul Hackett, which In These Times seemed to repond almost directly by doing the same for Sherrod Brown. But the American Prospect asks this question about the race, and the “blogosphere” in general: Given their prospective track-records and the image had of the blogosphere as a pack of ideologues, Why does the ‘liberal blogosphere’ support Paul Hackett over Sherrod Brown, when Sherrod Brown is undoubtedly the more liberal of the two?:

Moreover, Hackett is a friend of the blogs. In our conversation, he told me, “I just like them. I’m not afraid.” It’s a sentiment that may explain blogger Lindsay Beyerstein’s oft-quoted argument for Hackett: “When you get down to brass tacks, Hackett is an invaluable ally — he loves the blogosphere, understands how to harness the power of the blogosphere, and perhaps most importantly, he owes the blogosphere.”

Lindsay, in fact, may be voicing the most rational blogcentric argument for Hackett. The netroots are behaving as an interest group of sorts, supporting not the candidate with the most ideological overlap but the candidate most likely to give them a key to the congressional washroom. And that’s fine. But the question remains, assuming they can help elect Hackett and others like him, what will they demand in return? It’s all well and good to have your calls answered, but is the point really just to chat?

It probably is. That’s all the blogosphere really wants. The Blogging Revolution will end with a Congress, and eventually a president, who spends an inordinate amount of time sitting by a computer, typing out blog-entries at a whim pieced together by, sending out comments to their colleagues’ blogs acting as a mutual admiration society — “What a Great Post, Senator Wyden!”…, and engaging in endless flame-wars across the partisan divide. (Don’t take Reprsentative Schmidt’s bait.)

Paul Hackett may be a unique case study. The Democratic Party didn’t look twice at his race initially: it’s a hopeless cause, write it off to Jean Schmidt and be done with it… he gets no money. Enter the blogs, and by blogs I probably mean daily kos with an echo chamber surrounding it, and that’s who’s financing his campaign. And then… and he nearly wins it. Though, the key word here just might be ‘nearly’, which is to say … he doesn’t quite hurdle over the long odds, and it’s difficult to see him managing to with a second chance.

Second point is that the liberal blogosphere clicks to the idea of squaring round pegs, or getting a Democrat elected in heavily Republican areas. I note something I’ll surmise exists with every frustrated Republican district: “we need to find a Paul Hackett / Brian Schweitzer” — everything would be solved in the 60 – 40 district if only we could bus in either Paul Hackett or Brian Schweitzer, or perferably both.

Paul Hackett, for his part, is doing a bit of political shape-shifting once jumping onto a state-wide race. I spot a bit of political wind-shifting in his stance on the war in Iraq: he’s running statewide in Ohio, he’s for a withdrawal of some sort or other. He wasn’t when running in his uber-Republican district. And thus we get Paul Hackett saying of Schmidt’s attack on John Murtha, derided by most everyone: It’s the Jean Schmidt we’ve seen and heard for many years and obviously 52 percent of the people in the 2nd District like that. And a statement, made initially when Sherrod Brown decided to run, that Ohio isn’t likely to elect someone as liberal as Brown.
…………..
I guess Howard Dean is the original Blog-creation. Okay… watch this carefully:

JEREMY SCAHILL: Governor Dean, why did you say in March 2003 that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction? Governor Dean? Why did you say —

HOWARD DEAN: Maybe. I don’t know. Probably not the best time to talk about it.

Jermey Scahill has recently come back to that conversation in penning this qualm on the current war debate:

During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. “Talks with people who were knowledgeable,” Dean told me. “Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.”

How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was misled by….the Democrats. Dean’s candor offers us a rare glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of “rewriting history” on Iraq, he is right.

Sure, Bush is partly right, and there is a whole heck of a lot of political shape-shifting going on. (But, in defense of political hackneying: that is our only hope of moving forward in a decent direction, so sometimes if you can guage a politician’s future intentions correctly, you just kind of have to look the other way and wink and nod.) But the idea that the Bush Administration lied us into war based on cooked up intelligence and the idea that the official line on the threat of Saddam Hussein’s “WMD” program amongst “everybody that mattered” was wrong are not mutually exclusive. Quotation number one in my personal arsenal, Colin Powell with: “But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases,deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.” (I have previously misquoted him as saying “intentionally misleading”, which is why when you google that phrase with Colin Powell, a Skull/ Bones blog entry is the only item that pops up.)

But now take a look at the Democracy Now! transcript, and you will see why… I liked Howard Dean. John Kerry looks horrible in answering the question. John Edwards moved away from the issue, because he was initially outflanking Kerry on being pro-Iraq War due to his sense of inadequency of foreign policy credentials (Kerry was going to rely heavily on his Vietnam War experience), but he eventually had to move to a reliance on a sort of populist domestic message. Never mind Lieberman, who you will remember said this upon placing fifth in the New Hampshire Primary:

Based on the returns that we’ve seen tonight, thanks to the people of New Hampshire, we are in a three-way split decision for third place.

… if he felt he could get away with it, he would be on the newsmax bandwagon proclaiming both that we had uncovered mass quantities of weapons of mass destruction as well as they had all been moved to Syria and buried just moments before Coalition troops marched into Baghdad.

And Howard Dean’s answer… comes out cleanly. Further, it suggests a fundamental facet of the war with Iraq: the relatively paltry amounts of wmds that might be in Iraq (and, based on my reading I never thought Saddam had much… I also point to a cover-article in the pro-war New Republic in 2002 with a title of “Why Nuclear Weapons are the only WMDs that Matter” — and I myself never thought Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program — basically because the IAEA told me he didn’t.) — it’s still not worth a war in the eyes of Howard Dean. (Or, if you want to be a cynic, that’s a tenuable political position to spot yourself at.) Thus… beyond the war itself… a judgement call is made, and it is the right judgement. Limited by the conventions of the Establishment though he is stuck in.

Okay?

“You say you want a Revolution, we all want to change the world.”
“NO. You have that wrong. It’s ‘We don’t want to change the world.”

I was surprised that my brother said that. “No. It is definitely ‘we all want to change the world’. But with some caveats that he gets to later. ‘When you talk about destruction — don’t you know you can count me out?’ and the other one is, with the song’s protaganist getting annoyed at the would-be revolutionary ‘I’m not following Mao!'”

The Beatles have three ‘Revolution’ titles. There’s this Revolution, Revolution #1, which is the same as Revolution only with a bunch of “doo-wops” tossed in, and the infamous “Revolution #9”.

“Number Nine. Number Nine. Number Nine.”
Or, as the Be-Sharps have it, “Number Eight. [Burp] Number Eight. [Burp.]”
……………..

There was a thread on Free Republic a few years ago, where the anti-revolutionaries compiled a list of the Great “Anti-Protest Songs”. Revolution was chief among them. I don’t know whether they grooved to the idea that it was denouncing the percieved excesses of the 60s Counterculture — Mao and Violence in the name of anti-violence, or if they made the mistake of thinking the lyrics were “We don’t want to change the world.” Never mind. The Freepers don’t get to claim this song. Stick to “Bush Is Right” and “The Angry American”
…………………

The BBC’s Zaffar Abbas in Islamabad says it is a bizarre episode which has left education officials short of explanations.

The education ministry said it would remove the poem from the textbook and discipline the person responsible for including it.

THE LEADER by anonymous

Patient and steady with all he must bear,
Ready to meet every challenge with care,
Easy in manner, yet solid as steel,
Strong in his faith, refreshingly real.
Isn’t afraid to propose what is bold,
Doesn’t conform to the usual mould,
Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won’t do,
Never backs down when he sees what is true,
Tells it all straight, and means it all too.
Going forward and knowing he’s right,
Even when doubted for why he would fight,
Over and over he makes his case clear,
Reaching to touch the ones who won’t hear.
Growing in strength he won’t be unnerved,
Ever assuring he’ll stand by his word.
Wanting the world to join his firm stand,
Bracing for war, but praying for peace,
Using his power so evil will cease,
So much a leader and worthy of trust,
Here stands a man who will do what he must.
……………..

A triumph for the Bush-loving section of the blogosphere (and by blogosphere, I will sneak in any possibility that it came from a website not technically a “blog”). Or maybe a triumph for the CIA and their agents within the Packistani Ministry of Education. I don’t know.

The challenge, then, is to get a poem of “BUSHLIED” or “GEORGEWBUSHSUCKS” into the next edition of the Packistani textbook.

Naturally:

I see that I myself mentioned the esteemed former Republican Senator from the great state of Connecticut October 10, 2005; March 15, 2005; and March 1, 2005. See if you spot the October 10th burst upward… the blog entry surrounded the ripple-news that Joseph Lieberman was invited and attended the National Review celebration to the great William Buckley. Weicker was not the main topic, but he was dragged alongside Lieberman. Undoubtedly if you were to graph Lieberman, his ‘q’ rating for the day would pop upward by the same percentage as Weicker, but on a larger scale.

I think that the point is not whether Weicker can pull it off but rather that he has started the ball rolling and that at this point what is realistic is up for grabs. That is, Joe is seen as unbeatable and so no politician wants to take him on. While principled Weicker is a politician who likes to win so he thinks that he has some chance. And by hinting at a run makes this a live political issue. Following from this several scenarios could develop. But first there will be a detour. Bush will appoint Joe to a cabinet post for several reasons. Governor Rell will pardon John Rowland and appoint him to the Senate. Just kidding of course but this is Connecticut. She’ll appoint herself and that would be a good political move.
In any event by the time November rolls around we’ll look back and see
that Senator Weicker has let the genie out of the bottle.

I had to link to the wikipedia article on Rowland to clue people in on the joke.

But anyway… thus Joseph Lieberman becomes a figure of the Bush Administration, instead of a “key Democratic Leader” — or, the thought crept in when hearing what was in Bush’s speech yesterday: the new Judith Miller. (Where Dick Cheney could go on Meet the Press and say ‘Look what’s on the Front Page of the New York Times’, Bush can now say “Look what Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman said!”

It probably a better place for Mr. Lieberman to be, both for him and what he believes (I cannot say that he is any better or worse than Rumsfeld), and for the sake of a Democratic Party (one can only hope) uniting behind the scheduling of a withdrawal from Iraq, so that there may be some hope that the following calculi bear out:

#1: Nationalistic Insurgents see that the Americans aren’t occupying them, stop. (Here is the rub that Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Bush does not understand: there is not an exaustable supply of insurgents — a group they rename “terrorists”. Thus, as long as we’re there, we will be dying.)
#2: The al Qaeda contingent no longer has the support of these nationalistic insurgents, and we find out quickly, as suggested by various military top-brass on various talking head programs, that they are not natural allies.

See, Mr. Bush… I still have an optimistic bone in my mind that things might turn out okay in Iraq. I don’t know that the Tourism business will be booming in Iraq anytime soon, as suggested by his speech, but… maybe that project can be settled when tensions between the Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds settle down in the mid-term.

Getting back to the Weicker challenge: thus Lieberman can be brought out of office before 2006, so that a Democrat can challenge and win the Senate seat instead of a Republican governor appointing a Republican Senator.

And thus, the question “who owns Weicker” (he has ties with the WWE, so I guess you can expect kickbacks to Vince McMahn buried in an omnibus package when he becomes Senator) becomes moot. Weicker’s statement of interest in the Senate seat is begrudging… which is to say, he does not want to serve in the Senate, he just wants a serious anti-war challenger to bring the heat on Lieberman, and if it must be him — it must be him… but he hopes it’s someone else. Or so the statement that has caused the buzz for Weicker goes.

Ah well. I was going to thrust up a list of supposed “Endorsements” — the “Skull and Bones Baker’s Dozen”.

Two rumours have resurfaced. One: Joseph Lieberman is being tapped to replace Rumsfeld for Defense Secretary. Two: Lowell Weicker, former Independent governor of Connecticut, former Liberal Republican Senator who lost his seat to a National Review-backed Democratic challenger by the name of Joseph Lieberman, and a man who endorsed Howard Dean in the last Democratic primary, will run against Joseph Lieberman. (As for Joseph Lieberman’s “bi-partisan war cabinet” — HARDY HAR HAR. That would be what? The Jon Kyl — Joseph Lieberman “Committee on Present Danger Take Three” form of bipartisanship??? I am… wary of calls for “bi-partisanship”, which often is just a call to “SHUT UP!”, as with Joseph Lieberman saying:)

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.

No, Mr. Lieberman, Bush undermines the credibility of our nation. I acknowledge that Bush will be, barring a Nixonian or Lincoln-esque conclusion to his presidency, will be president — and thus “commander-in-chief” (and I’ve heard right-wingers use that phrase as a sort of defense-mechanism to stop any attacks coming at him) for three more years. And I prefer the Theodore Roosevelt bit on the matter of war opponents and critics to the Abe Lincoln answer.

With Joseph Lieberman, it both is and isn’t about the war. (Same thing with Howard Dean, actually, and I think I’ll get to a pro-Dean post that acknowledges his limitations in a later post). With Joseph Lieberman, it is about where that quotation came from — a darkly fascistic place. Which is to say: When Joseph Lieberman was tapped for Al Gore’s running mate (in large part to turn out Florida’s Jewish population, but sometimes I suspect a more sinister hand at work beyond everybody’s sight), I simply did not want to vote for that ticket. He validated Ralph Nader’s attack on the Republican-Democratic Duoplocy. His vote for the Iraq War Resolution and unwavering vote toward every line of torture and every John Bolton and everything that the Military Industrial Complex and the Neoconservative Military Honchos demand is simply an unsurprising and logical continuation of Joseph Liberman’s career.

It goes beyond his voting record, which is — for good or ill — mainline Democratic. (Deceptively so at times and with a corporatist tinge to the deception, as he recently voted against the Bankruptcy Reform Bill after voting it out of committee — thus able to satisfy his corporate coffers at the same time as getting the right vote for the liberal voting ratings to coalesce.) And even his unwavering and completely not hidden from view 200% supportive record for the Military Industrial Complex simply sits him with the cadre of conservative (red-state) Democrats.

Nay. It is how he carries himself into the media. How he moves the “center” of debate on the matter of war and peace to the most militaristic — and how this frames the debate. He speaks, it is recorded, and he supposedly speaks for a party, or how a party should be behaving if it were “sensible”. “Manufacturing Consent” to use the title of a Noam Chomsky book I’ve never read — and the classic Skull and Bones canard: limit the range of “acceptable” opinions a person may have to the point where it is “Stand Behind the Leader”. Recently Sean Hannity, praising Joseph Lieberman for a typical Wall Street Journal editorial, promised that he would help Lieberman raise campaign money. George Bush has cited him in a number of speeches as a “Democratic Leader” who “gets it”. These are simply continuations of his old William Buckley support. And another key to understanding Lieberman: he is extremely comfortable hob-nobbing with Sean Hannity, enjoying his positioning as a “sensible Democrat moderator”, against the “rabid Democratic attack Dogs”. (Remember, John Murtha has thrown himself into the “Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party”, nevermind that John Murtha largely acts as a sort of conduit for the Pentagon, nevermind that his position is pretty damned near that of the majority of Americans at the moment, and nevermind that John Murtha’s position doesn’t actually end the war in Iraq — it simply situates American military to nearby stand-by so that we can attack terrorists by the air when believed necessary and let nationalist insurgents believe that we are not there to occupy their nation.) It is that John Murtha’s opinion is nearly that of the majority of Americans at the moment that the powers that be need Joseph Lieberman.

So that’s Lieberman. Now, who the heck is this Weicker guy? I note that two messages crept into my comments box in an old entry on the man who would be dethroning Lieberman:

Congratulations to Sen. Weicker for recognizing how disgraceful the behaviour of Joe Lieberman has been. As a registered democrat I am sick of his pandering to this discredited, corrupt and ineffective administration. Lowell- please run againsthim .I and most of my fellow democrats are behind you.

AND

2-6-05

Sincerely
Joe Pendleton

Yes, but realistically: Can Weicker pull it off? I don’t know the answer to that question. I will say this: If he is serious, he has to have Bill Hillsman serving on the campaign… Bill Hillsman having torpoeded Paul Wellstone’s first Senate campaign and Jesse Ventura’s gubernatorial campaign.

I sit here, not having a vote in Connecticut and not exactly ripping off any campaign funds to the Weicker campaign, saying: “I’m game.”

8-29-1918
MISS RANKIN LOSING

Scattered returns from thirty-six out of fifty-three counties showed Dr. O. M. Landstrum maintaining his lead over Jeannette Rankin for the Republican nomination for United States Senator. The votes stood tonight: Landstrum, 10,004; Rankin, 6,582.
………………………

June 2, 1932
Peace Caravan Is Lead by Jeannette Rankin
Pilgrimage, Starting from Capital, Will Be Met by Others at Chicago Conventions

Miss Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to the House of Representatives, and Miss Emma Wold of Oregon, technical adviser to the American delegation at The Hague Conference on the Codification of International Law two years ago, left Washington at noon today on an automobile speaking tour in the interest of peace. They are to reach Chicago on the eve on of the national conventions. Half a dozen cars, bearing flags and banners pleading for peace, followed theirs.

The expedition is to reach Chicago in time for the national conventions and there meet similar caravans starting from various parts of the country.

The travelers will include not only representatives of numerous peace organizations but also, according to the sponsors, the “large unorganized peace vote throughout the country,” which will unite in demanding peace planks in both party platforms.

According to William Brown of Washington, a Cornell graduate, his university will be represented in the pilgrimage, as well as Yale, Colgate, Pennsylvania State, Rochester, Syracuse, Washburn College, Washington University, Wesleyan University and others.

The “Chicago Peace Plan” of which Miss WOld is executive director is directed by a group including Mrs. Edward P Costigan, wife of Senator Costigan; Mrs. Emily Newell Blair, former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Dorothy Canfield Fisher, Zona Gale, Kathleen Norris, Katherine Anthony, Mrs. Alice W Hunt and Mrs. Florence Brewer Boeckel.
………………………….

9-11-1933
“ROOSEVELT ASKED TO AID REFUGEES; Civil Liberties Union Urges Broader Asylum for Nazi Victims and Others. OUR TRADITIONAL POLICY Revision of Hoover Executive Order Suggested by 36 Signers of Memorial.”
(yes, signing the petition for easier asylum for Nazi victims is Jeannette Rankin.)
………………………………………

Apr 4, 1937
“NORRIS STANDS BY VOTE AGAINST WAR; Survivor of Six in Senate to Oppose It Declares After 20 Years He Would Do It Again DEPRESSION AS ‘HARVEST’ Nebraskan Declares Stated Aims Lost in Results of ‘Commercial’ Conflict Surrender to Money Power” Destructive Economic Ends” Cause of Present Suffering”

Twenty years ago tomorrow, the United States Senate passed the resolution declaring war against Germany. Only six Senators ventured to vote against the measure: La Fallette [sic] of Wisconsin, Norris of Nebraska, Lane of Washington, Stone of Missouri, Vardaman of Mississippi and Gronna of North Dakota.

Senator Norris alone survives to retell the tale to his younger colleagues. He is doing so at an unusual reunion in Washington of the twenty-five former mebers of the House or Representatives now living who, with twenty-five others since deceased, voted against war on April 6, 1917.

The dinner and reunion will be a private affair, with reporters excluded. Many of those invited, including Miss Jeannette Rankin former Representative from Montana and first woman elected to Congress, have not met each other since the adjournment of the Sixty-fifth Congress.

Seated in the Senate Office Building, Senator Norris, veteran Progressive, discussed in an interview the war and his opposition to it. Asked whether he had ever regretted his negative vote of April 4, 1917, or changed his view of the matter, the Senator replied quietly.

“In my service of nearly thirty-five years in Congress, I have undoubtedly made many mistkes, but I am more than ever convinced that my vote against the declaration of war in 1917 was not one of them.

“I am not sorry I opposed it. I should do it again if Congress were again confronted with that sort of problem in economics and moral decision . And I would not be along — or nearly so — today.

“I said then that we were surrendinger the policy of the country to the money power, and putting the dollar sign above the flag. And I have never seen any reason to withdraw the statement, but on the contrary, much evidence that confirmed it, as the years have passed.

“At the end of the war Woodrow Wilson publicly admitted that it had been primarily a commercial war, which was another way of saying what Senator La Follette and I had declared to be the facts.

“It was basically fought for, or occasioned by, economic and financial reasons and ends — and it was ruiniously destructive to every lasting interest of the American people.

“The large banking and business interests were making so much money, so fast, while we were nominally neutral that they sson discovered that they would have to lend money to the Allies in large quantities to keep up the game and keep our industries humming and expanding.

“When the Allies’ credit was stretched to the breaking point, and the private money-lenders had exhausted their resources, the next step was to open the Treasury of the American people, by a declaration of war.

“We went into that terrible war largely to collect the debts of the money-lenders, who were promptly paid out of the public treasury for what they had lent to their friends abroad and spent on all sorts of munitions in this country. But the queer thing about it all was that we were never able to collect the debts due this government.

“The terrible condition we are now in, and the wasting depression, in which all classes of our people are suffering, would affect us only in minor degree if we had kept out of that war. It was a war where no victory was possible. The vanquished suffered no more than the victorious.

“While thousands and millions of men were killing each other in France and Russia, other thousands, safe at home, were coining their blood into private gain and gold. It is always so. The rich were made richer, the poor poorer, here as in other countries.

“Fewer people own more of the wealth of the world today than ever since the days of the Roman Empire. If they are not to own all of it, this tiny minority, while the rest of us are reduced to the status of peasants and economic slaves, certain vital reforms are necessary at home, and war must be avoided abroad.

“Although I suffered some ostracism and much abuse, and was condemned by the foulest name of ‘traitor’ for my opposition to the war, I am still an optimist about life in America.”
…………………………………

11-7-1940
‘COMEBACK’ SCORED BY MISS RANKIN; WOMEN WHO WILL SERVE IN THE SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

After an absence of twenty-two years from the political arena, Miss Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a Republican, the first woman to be elected to Congress, achieved a “comeback” in yesterday’s returns which makes her the single addition to the feminine contingent amongst the lawmakers in the national capital. Eight woman will serve in the next session of Congress, five of whom are Representatives who stood for re-election on Tuesday.

“Miss Jeannette,” who will be remembered as one of the members of the House of Representatives who voted against the entry of the United States into the first world war (shedding tears as she did so) won a closely contested race against the Democratic incumbent from her district, Jerry J. O’Connell. The decision was amongst the last to be made, the issue remaining a long time in doubt.

Since her initial tenure, Miss Rankin has been a lobbyist for peace in Washington.
…………………………………….

Dec 9, 1941
“ASKS MISS RANKIN RECANT; Montana Republican Leader Says State Deplores Anti-War Vote”

Represntative Jeannette Rankin, Republican, of this State, who cast the only vote in Congress against war on Japan, was called upon by Dan Whetstone, Montana Republican National Committeeman, to “redeem Montana’s honor” by changing her vote.

Mr. Whetstons telegraphed Miss Rankin the following:

“As soon as word of the treacherous attack of Japan on American possessions reached this State, Montanans made the only decision possible for loyal Americans, to assert full support to the Administration in defense of this nation.

“Messages from all parts of Montana indicate disappointment over your attitude in failing to support the war declaration. I urge and bessech you to redeem Montana’s honor and loyalty and change your vote as early as possible.”
……………………………………

12-12-1941
“Miss Rankin Voted ‘Present’ in Weak Voice; Clerk Had to Call Her Name a Second Time”

In a voice so weak the clerk had to call for her vote a second time — and in a tone very different from her distinct “No” of Monday — the lone member of Congress who had opposed declaring war on Japan answered “present” today to the roll-call on accepting Adolf Hitler’s challenge to fight.

Miss Jeannette Rankin, Republican of Montana, long-time peace advocate who voted against fighting Germany twenty-four years ago, also answered “present” when the question of replying to Italy’s war declaration came around.

It had been a terrible week for Miss Rankin — and she showed the strain. When the House convened, and while the Representatives were waiting for the expected message from the President, Miss Rankin sat in the galleries, crowded with young persons, most of them looking as if they were secretaries and clerks from Congressional offices.

As the time neared for the President’s message Miss Rankin went onto the floor. Several members stood talking to her in the aisle.

When the clerk began to read she took her seat. Representative Everrett Dirksen, Republican of Illinois, sat on her left and talked to her for a time as the roll-call started. She shook her head.

As the clerk’s voice droned through the alphabet, nearer and nearer to “R,” Miss Rankin nervously clasped and unclasped her handbag.

Called the clerk: “Rankin of Mississippi.” Miss Rankin leaned forward. She was next.

“Rankin of Montana.” She spoke. There was a moment’s hesitation, indicating that the clerk did not hear her reply. She spoke out again. “Present.” She leaned back. There was no booing as on Monday.

The resolution on declaring war against Italy was introduced. The members on the floor grew restless, the galleries began to empty. It was a thrice-told story and it had lost its appeal. The Speaker halted the roll-call until order was restored.

Her name was reached. “Present”– a firmer voice this tiem.

Then she went into a cloak room off the floor. She was sitting in an armchair, eating an apple and drinking milk, when the House, by voice vote, approved the sending of armed forces anywhere to win victory for the country.
……………………………….

12-12-1941
“SILENT GALLERIES WATCH WAR VOTE; Hear President’s Message and the Roll-Call on Germany, but Refuse to Stay for Italy HOUSES ACT IN CONCERT Poll Members Simultaneously — McNary Presents Republican Pledge of Support”

Without hesitation and without debate, and as rapidly as parliamentary procedure would permit, the Congress cast two more war votes today to carry the United States formally and constitutionally into battle to the finish with the Axis on all fronts.

No member of either house voted “no” on going to war against Germany and Italy.

One, Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the 1917 declaration of war against Germany and who voted on Monday against accepting the Japanese challenge in the Pacific voted “present.”

Substitution, by unanimous House consent, of Senate texts to prevent procedural delays removed even this reservation.
…………………………..

12-13-1941
“LOS ANGELES SETS BLACKOUT RULES; Council Votes Jail and Fines for Violators — Police Transfer Japanese-American Clerks 6 CITIZENS UNDER ARREST One Is Quoted as Urging lmpeachment of President — Miss Rankin Hailed”

A drastic blackout ordinance, providing a six months’ jail term and a $500 fine for violators, wass passed by the City Council today as local and Federal officials moved on several fronts to tighten the city’s defenses and stamp out seditious actions.

Among other developments were the seizure of two French ships by the Coast Guard and internment of their crews; the transfer of six Japanese-Americans from key clerical positions in the records and communications division of the Police Department, and the arrest and arraignment of six American citizens on charges of “conspiracy to make false statements intended to interfere with operations of United States military and naval forces.”

The six arrests, the first made in this area since the start of the war, were of Robert K. Noble, 44, one of the original “ham and eggs” groups and admittedly a Hitler admirer; Ellis O. Jones, identified as a former eastern magazine editor and pacifist who went to Europe with Henry Ford’s peace ship during the last World War, and four of their followers, Leone Menier, 31, Mr. Noble’s secretary George Friend, 19, Mrs. Greta Robins, 40, and Mrs. Agnes Norman, 47.

They were arrested following a meeting of about 100 persons at which Mr. Noble was quoted as saying Japan had not attacked the United States and as urging impeachment of President Roosevelt.

The meeting gave a standing vote of thanks to Miss Jeannette Rankin for her vote against the war resolution. Arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents as they left the meeting, the six were arraigned before the United States Commissioner Head and held in $25,000 bail each for a hearing Dec. 23.

The French ships seized were the freighters Wisconsin and Vannes, which had been in the harbor since June, 1940. Their offices and crews, fifty-nine men in all, were confined to the immigration station at Terminal Island.

The country defense council, charged with coordination of all civilian defense agencies, discussed plans to standardize blackout and air-raid alarm signals, procedures and efforts to avoid confusion in any further crises that may arise.

There was no repetition last night of Wednesday night’s blackouts but the city had two alerts of about an hour’s duration, the first from 9:42 to 11 P.M. and the second from 2:30 to 4 A.M.

San Diego, site of the west coast’s biggest naval base, was blacked out during the early morning alarm, which was sounded there several minutes ahead of Los Angeles. “Unidentified planes” were reported over the city and off Point Loma, near San Diego.

There has been much speculation here as to the possible base of the “unidentified planes” which have been reported in the area the last two nights. Possibility that such a base might be located in sparsely settled Lower California, where border rumors have placed large concentrations of armed Japanese, have gained the most credence.

Local Mexican sources, although not discounting the possibility, doubt the presence of any great concentration of Japanese and express the conviction that Mexican authorities can handle the situation. Whether American aid in policing the area has been offered or accepted remains in official secret.
………………………………

12-15-1941
“Sabotage Death Penalty If Jury Asks It Is Voted”

The House today passed and sent to the Senate legislation providing an optional death penalty for sabotage endangering human life.

The bill would permit a Federal trial jury to recommend the death penalty in sabotage cases in time of war “if such offense resulted in death or serious injury to any other person or placed any other person in grave danger of death or serious injury.”

Representative Jeannette Rankin, who voted against war with Japan and did not vote on war with the rest of the Axis, tried unsuccessfully to block passage of the sabotage death penalty. Hers was the only objection. Three objections would have been required to block consideration.
………………………..

June 3, 1942
“Miss Rankin Not Present”

Today’s declaration of war against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania left the House with a record of only one dissenting vote on six war declarations. Representative Jeannette Rankin, Republican, of Montana, voted against the war declaration against Japan and was recorded as “present” on the German and Italian resolutions. She was absent today, and her secretary said she was out of town.
…………………………..

July 22, 1942

Senator James E Murray, Democrat and backer of Roosevelt Administration policies, will be opposed in the November general election by Wellington D. Rankin, Republican Senatorial nominee and brother of Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, who voted against United States entry into both World Wars.

Mr. Murray defeated Joseph P. Monaghan, former Congressman by a convincing margin in yesterday’s primary election.

Mr. Rankin, a former Montana Attorney General, pledged in his campaign that he would “vigoroulsy support every measure to win the war.” He won the nomination in a race with [several candidates whose names are lost to history.]
………………

1-124-1947
“US Heading to War, Miss Rankin Asserts”

Former Representative Jeannette Rankin, who cast the only vote against a declaration of war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack, declared yesterday that this country is again “going straight to war unless we change our course.”

Miss Rankin, a Republican from Montana, who ended her last term in Congress in 1943, arrived at Pier 84, North River, on the American Export liner Marine Carp after a tour of the Middle East.

The ship carried 842 passengers, including Dr. Calvin K. Staudt, founder and director of the American School for Boys in Baghdad, Iraq, and sity Egyptian students, here to study the petroleum industry.

“We’ve got to decide to get rid of the war method of settling disputes,” Miss Rankin said.

Replying to a question on when the next war would come, Miss Rankin said: “Unless we change, it will be as soon as we get another crop of men ready.” She added that war is a habit and the first step for this country to take is “to get out of the war habit.”

The former member of Congress, who also voted against war with Germany in 1917, described Gen. George C. Marshall, new Secretary of State, as a “good soldier, who will “take orders from those who decide the policy of the Government.”
…………………

Thomas Esposito’s campaign for the Legislature seemed to be following the usual pattern. The longtime Democratic mayor issued press releases, raised money and bought newspaper ads. Signs bearing his name popped up in yards around rural Logan County.

The real reason surfaced only later: The FBI had planted Esposito among the field of candidates to help find evidence of vote-buying in southern West Virginia.

The quest I have now is to find Thomas Esposito’s old campaign website. What was he running on? Was he pretending to be a “New Democrat” or a member of the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party”? (Come to think of it, the pretending to be one or the other or something else entirely makes him no different from the “real” candidates for office.) If he were on the ballot and his positions looked better than the other candidate, would it still be worth voting for him?

And to ponder whether this is worth it. What if Thomas Esposito had won? Who is to say that the entire Congress isn’t composed of FBI plants? I think Joseph Lieberman is a plant for some agenda or other.

The people who stuck up Thomas Esposito signs in their yard — are they disappointed?

Maybe the Tennessee Titans were plants — is the purpose of this struggling team simply so that in Week 13 of the NFL season they could dog a game and allow the Indianapolis Colts to continue their undefeated season?

My faith in the system is completely and utterly and irrevocably destroyed.