Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Two Good Progressives Are Retiring From Congress

>

Tom Udall and Jose Serrano

Yesterday, Congressman José Serrano (D-NY) and Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) both announced they would be retiring next year at the end of their current terms. Both have been excellent members of Congress and both have strong "A" grades from ProgressivePunch.

Serrano, who has described himself as being "to the left of the left," was first elected in 1990, bucking the corrupt Bronx Democratic machine. In 2008, when every single member of Congress from New York City voted to bail out the banksters, Serrano was the one "no" vote. Criticized by his colleagues-- who he embarrassed-- he shot back that he couldn't see showering taxpayer money on the millionaires and billionaires whose greed and avarice caused the financial collapse.

His south Bronx district-- which goes from Port Morris and Mott Haven up to the Bronx Zoo and Belmont-- is poorest congressional district in the whole country. Ethnically, it is 66.1% Hispanic, 28.1% Black and 2.3% White. It is also one of the bluest districts. Serrano was never reelected with less than 92% of the vote-- despite the Machine trying to oust him-- and Democrats always fare well there. In 2008, Obama beat McCain 95-5%. The voters like what Obama did and in 2012 they rewarded him a 96.7% to 3.0% win. Hillary trounced Trump-- 93.8% to 4.9%. The PVI is D+44, the best in the whole country. The last Republican presidential candidate to win the district was Calvin Coolidge in 1924; they were smart enough to have learned their lesson. NY-15 has been a haven for immigrants from Latin America, who have, in recent years, turned around the deterioration and put the area on a forward path.

In a press release, he said he is "living with Parkinson’s disease. After my diagnosis, I initially planned to continue my work representing the people of the South Bronx far into the future- a responsibility that brings me great joy. Although this disease has not affected my work in Congress, over the last few months I’ve come to the realization that Parkinson’s will eventually take a toll, and that I cannot predict its rate of advancement. Because of this uncertainty, I do not intend to seek re-election in 2020. I do intend to serve the remainder of my term in the 116th Congress."
“I plan to spend the rest of the 116th Congress fighting for the progressive values that I learned in the South Bronx. I will use my role as Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee to fight for climate change research, a fairer justice system, and an accurate 2020 Census count. There is still a lot of work to be done to stop the harmful policies of the Trump Administration, and I am proud to help lead in that effort as an Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman.

As I start to take stock of my career, I am extremely proud of the work we did to revitalize the Bronx River, to bring billions of federal dollars to our borough, to expand access to the ballot for language minorities, to increase STEM resources for minority students, to end the bombing of  Vieques, to make our immigration policies fairer and our foreign policies better, to provide legal services for the poor, and to push for a fair and accurate Census. 

I always tried to speak for those who are marginalized in our society-- to give them a voice and a vote here in Washington. Together, we fought to empower our community by seeking social justice and speaking truth to power.

I pledge to my constituents that I will be here fighting for you until my last day in office and beyond. I am grateful to all my colleagues for their dedication to our community, and for the years we spent working together on so many important issues. To my constituents-- it has been the honor of my life to serve you. To have gone from Mayaguez, to Mill Brook Houses, to the New York State Assembly, to the halls of Congress is truly the American Dream. I am honored to have had your trust over the years.
There should be a tough primary fight in this district (which borders on AOC's district). Serrano's son, also José Serrano, is a state senator but the only declared candidate so far is City Councilman Ritchie Torres (photo on the right), the first Bronx elected official from the LGBTQ community, who was gearing up to primary Serrano. I guarantee there will be more candidates tossing their hats into the ring.

On the Senate side, Tom Udall has been the most progressive of New Mexico politicians in Congress since being elected to the House in 1998 and then the Senate in 2008. New Mexico has been trending blue in the past couple of decades. When I was growing up, Republicans kept winning presidential elections there. After the Barry Goldwater debacle in 1964, Republicans kept winning-- Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush I. Because of a relatively big vote for independent Ross Perot in 1992 (165), Bill Clinton beat Bush. Clinton won again in 1996 and it's been all blue since then, with the except of Bush II in 2004. Even Hillary managed to squeak out a plurality-- 48.26% to 40.04%. Both senators are Democrats. All three House seats are held by Democrats, even the red-leaning one. Democrats have majorities in the state House (47-23) and state Senate (26-16) and control all 6 statewide offices-- governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state auditor and commissioner of public lands. Hector Balderas is extremely popular-- generally the state's top vote getter. This may scare Cheri Bustos but he was first elected to the state House by defeating a conservative, anti-Choice/pro-gun Democrat (Benji Regensberg) in a primary. The Beltway insider candidate is Ben Ray Luján. It would be awesome to see him give up his House seat and then get beaten by Balderas. The Republicans will probably put some crackpot up who will get around 40%.

In a message to New Mexico voters, Udal wrote:
When I first ran for Senate, I promised that I would give my all for the people of New Mexico. And I reminded myself that this Senate seat is not my seat. It is New Mexico’s seat.

I was proud to serve as New Mexico’s Attorney General, then in the U.S. House, and now two terms as your senator. I’m confident that we could run a strong campaign next year to earn a third term, because of all the work you and I have done together, along with my wife, Jill, and my incredibly dedicated staff.

But the worst thing anyone in public office can do is believe the office belongs to them, rather than to the people they represent. That’s why I’m announcing today that I won’t be seeking re-election next year.
Too bad it wasn't some of the ones who do believe the office belongs to them-- fossils who plan to die in office like Feinstein (85), McTurtle (77), Grassley (85), Shelby (84) and Inhofe (84).


Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Can Alan Grayson and Justin Amash Save America From Another Pointless War?

>

War... but  not as much as McCain

Boehner, Cantor and House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) are all backing Obama's flimsy excuses to rush to war against Syria but will they and their Beltway Establishment allies-- who have certainly tossed out the so-called Hastert Rule on this one-- be able to swing the majority of Republicans into Obama's corner? Not likely, not even with Daddy Warbucks dangling big cash under their snouts. Many Republicans view their House leadership as decrepit and as much a part of "the Washington problem" as the Democrats. And despite support from the regular corporate whores, Boehner's endorsement won't have much impact on that group, as it didn't when the Amash-Conyers anti-domestic spying Amendment came up in late July. It nearly passed, 205-217. 94 Republicans voted with Amash against Boehner on that one. 134 Republicans stuck with Boehner. Amash has to do better this time because there will be a lot of pressure on the 111 Democrats who backed his Amendment. (83 Dems-- including Pelosi, Hoyer, Israel and Wasserman Schultz-- voted with Boehner.)

There have already been departures from both camps. This week, for example, Blue Dogs Jim Matheson (UT) and Collin Peterson (MN), both of whom were on the side of domestic spying, have said they're bailing on supporting Obama on war against Syria. Democratic freshmen in tough races-- who usually do whatever Steve Israel tells them to do and voted in favor of domestic spying-- are worrying that if they back war and the Republican challenging them opposes war, they'll lose next year. They should worry. Ami Bera (CA), Julia Brownley (CA), Cheri Bustos (IL), Bill Enyart (IL), Elizabeth Esty (CT), Lois Frankel (FL), Pete Gallego (TX), Joe Garcia (FL), Ann Kuster (NH), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Patrick Murphy (FL), Scott Peters (CA), Raul Ruiz (CA), Brad Schneider (IL), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) are all in tight reelection races in swingy districts and all of them opposed Amash-Conyers and backed domestic spying. Many of them have either announced for or are leaning towards the pro-war position, putting their seats in grave jeopardy. Steve Israel will lead all of them into unemployment.

As Greg Sargent pointed out Wednesday morning in the Washington Post, Obama is working so hard to placate McCain, Graham and Netanyahu with harsher and harsher plans against Syria, that he could be alienating Democrats who haven't decided yet. His source: Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a member of the leadership is always backs the Establishment position but who tries to pretend he's open to a progressive vision. He's a crass careerist who would like to either advance in the House leadership or grab the Mikulski Senate seat when she retires. But as DCCC Chair, he presided over the catastrophic losses of 2010 and was, at least temporarily, sidetracked with a Ranking Member Budget Committee position where he can play footsie with Paul Ryan all day.
“You’ve got some members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the Senate, who would like to use this resolution to open the door to large scale U.S. intervention,” Van Hollen told me. “That would be a big mistake. So to the extent that the administration tries to placate those voices, they’re going to get a lot of resistance from those of us, like me, who believe the scope needs to be significantly narrowed.”
No one in Congress has worked more effectively across the aisle on behalf of ordinary working families than Alan Grayson (D-FL). How many years had Ron Paul's bills to audit the Fed languished before Grayson finally came along and teamed up with him. Grayson brought along scores of Democrats willing to stand up to their corrupt Beltway Establishment and Paul brought scores of Republicans willing to stand up against their corrupt Beltway Establishment-- and they passed it. I hope Grayson and Amash team up at some point but right now each seems, at least, to be working effectively for a goal they both believe it-- international noninterference and a non-aggressive foreign policy. How effective each man is will determine whether or not the transpartisan corrupt Beltway Establishment gets its way on ware with Syria (and, perhaps, Iran, the ultimate goal of the neoCons). Amash will have plenty of help from his party's anti-Obama fringe and yesterday the Heritage Foundation announced their opposition to bombing Syria. Yesterday's Deseret News indicates that their strategy seems to be working, at least in Utah. The state has 4 House Members: Jim Matheson (D), Jason Chafetz (R), Rob Bishop (R) and Chris Stewart (R). The 3 Republicans voted with Amash against domestic spying and Matheson, as we mentioned above, stuck with Obama's very unpopular NSA agenda. This time Matheson has switched sides and it looks like Amash may be able to hold onto his 3 GOP colleagues.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Tuesday he's opposed to President Barack Obama's call for missile strikes against Syria because he doesn't "want to send a Hallmark card" to the Middle East nation.

"If we're going to go to war, go with everything we've got and win. A pre-announced, limited strike, I don't know that solves the long-term problem," Chaffetz said.

But he said while last month's deadly chemical weapon attack tied to the Syrian government is "a tragic, awful situation," it does not appear to be enough to warrant a military response from the United States.

"If there is a clear and present danger to the United States, then of course I want the president to act, and swiftly. But I don't see that in this case," Chaffetz said, adding he has not heard support for U.S. action from his 3rd District constituents.

Utah's only Democrat in Congress, Rep. Jim Matheson, said he was "not convinced we should be doing this," even though he condemned the horrific acts in Syria.

"There are a lot of unanswered questions," Matheson said, including what the strikes are intended to actually accomplish and what the U.S. exit strategy for the conflict is.

Matheson said he's "hearing a hesitancy about moving forward" from his constituents in the 4th District. "This is a complicated issue, to be honest with you. It really is."

Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, said in a statement that he finds the situation in Syria "very troubling, leaving very little doubt that a critical line has been crossed."

But Stewart said before deciding how to vote, he wants more specifics on the strikes.

"Once I have all of the facts about the proposed military plan, I will make a decision as to the best way to protect our national security and strategic interest," the 2nd District congressman said.

Neither of Utah's senators have decided whether they support the action.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said he was pleased the president chose to seek congressional approval before proceeding with military action in Syria. Congress will be asked to back a resolution authorizing the strikes.

"Although I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that intervention in Syria is necessary to protect U.S. national security," Obama has "the chance to make that case to Congress and the American people," Lee said.
In 2012, Matheson beat Republican Mia Love 108,275 (49%)- 105,629 (48%). She's running against him again. Utah residents don't want another war, particularly not one led by a president they hate and distrust. If Matheson backed Obama, Love would win the seat hands down. This dynamic is going to play out all over the country. Any congressman who takes advise from Steve Israel on this deserves the fate they're courting.



A similar dynamic is playing out among candidates for Congress. Israel is advising DCCC candidates to lay low and not take any definitive public positions (and hope the voters are too dumb to notice). In the Massachusetts Democratic primary coming up October 15-- the winner of which will go on to Congress in December-- 4 of the leading candidates are ducking the question and refusing to take a stand. The one across the board progressive leader in the pack, state Rep. Carl Sciortino, has come out strongly against bombing Syria. Another Blue America candidate, Nick Ruiz in the Orlando area, sees it the same way as Sciortino. He's running against John Mica, a GOP old hack who's using the propagandistic phony-baloney rallying cry-- no boots on the ground-- to support Obama's position. Nick: "I just don't believe that a military strike now, and by us, is the right thing to do. We should engage the parties involved with stakeholders in the region, and collectively aid the displaced and victimized at the same time-- we can make a difference in the outcome in that way, and I believe we will have a more fruitful outcome, if we do. We have to evolve past the narrative of violence, as a global people. Which is not to say we should not defend ourselves or our neighbors if attacked. We should. The President is wrong on this issue-- but I respect our difference of opinion."

If you want to show support for candidates opposing an attack on Syria, you can do that here.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Is It Too Late To Take Back Our Democracy? A Constitutional Amendment

>



Grotesque Hobbesian characters Sean Duffy (R-WI) and John Fleming (R-LA) have whined publicly about not being able to get by, respectively, on a paltry $174,000 salary and a mere $400,000 annual income. The median household income in Wisconsin is $49,993, down from $52,094, since the GOP economic policies have kicked in. And the median household income in Louisiana, also down by over $1,000 a year, is $42,492. Americans tend to vote for candidates who are much wealthier than they are and have little in any understanding of, let alone sympathy for, for their day to day needs or interests. The political system seems rigged to come up with results like that-- and the system became considerably more rigged when 5 extreme right, corporate-oriented, democracy-hating Supreme Court judges ruled that the wealthy could virtually spend unlimited amounts of money on swaying elections any way they chose.

Yesterday 8 senators-- Jeff Merkley (OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Tom Harkin (IA), Tom Udall (NM), Michael Bennet (CO), Dick Durbin (IL), Mark Begich (AK) and Chuck Schumer (NY)-- all Democrats, introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United vs FEC. Here's the full text of their resolution, the concept of which is supported by most Americans, though, obviously, opposed by the 1% and their politicians. The Republican Party is expected to fight this to the death-- hopefully its own. The poster boy against the amendment is Mitt Romney with his weird assertion that "corporations are people." This is how Udall, while acknowledging that amending the U.S. Constitution is an extremely difficult process and an impossible one while the Republicans control the House, explained it to New Mexico voters Tuesday:
"Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks. It's time to put elections back in the hands of American voters, not corporations and special interests... The latest reinterpretation of the Constitution has left our political system vulnerable like never before."

In announcing its full support for the amendment, MoveOn made clear to its members that this is going to "be a strenuous, long-term endeavor but ultimately it is the only way to reverse the damage of the Citizens United decision. We've amended our Constitution before in moments when we needed to make fundamental changes to how our country works. Right now is one of those moments. It isn't ultimately about who's benefiting, Democrats or Republicans, it's about the fact that giving corporations the full First Amendment rights of people is threatening the integrity of our democratic process."

Every single Blue America candidate backs the amendment. No one will be endorsed who doesn't. Yeah... that important.

Labels: ,

Saturday, February 27, 2010

It Would Be Difficult To Abolish The Senate But Will The Abuse Of The Filibuster Damage That Body Permanently?

>


If most DWT readers started their lives after World War II had ended, an awful lot of years went by before there was even one Senate filibuster of a presidential nominee. There were none in Eisenhower's two terms, none before JFK was assassinated, none in Johnson's term and a half, none in Nixon's term and a half, and none in Ford's half term.

Johnson's nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas, an inordinately close friend and ally, to be Chief Justice caused a stir on the right. Ironically-- in light of the blatant corporatism of the GOP-- right-wing fanatic Strom Thurmond, claimed that Fortas had accepted speaking fees from business interests and that Fortas might not be objective if any of these businesses came before the Court. The weeklong debate-- an attack led by Republicans and their ConservaDem allies-- wasn't technically a filibuster, but when a vote was held to give Fortas an up or down confirmation vote, he only won it by a narrow 45-43, far short of what he needed if it would have been a formal filibuster/cloture, and he withdrew from consideration, though staying on the Court. (If you do want to count the Fortas debate as a filibuster, it would have been the first in history of a Supreme Court nominee.)

In 1969 Fortas resigned for some unrelated scandal, and Nixon made two of the most inept Supreme Court nominations since a long string of disastrous and unsuccessful nominations by John Tyler in 1844 and 1845. Nixon's first catastrophe was vicious South Carolina racist Clement Haynsworth, who was defeated 55-45, with 17 Republicans joining most of the Democrats to vote him down. Nixon doubled down and managed to find someone even worse, another Southern racist, G. Harrold Carswell, widely considered the stupidest man ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He hated blacks and women, and his primary defender, Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska-- his day's Ben Nelson-- claimed that the fact that Carswell was "mediocre" shouldn't be used against him because mediocre people "are also entitled to a little representation," presumably a little more than just the Nebraska senator. As in the case of Haynsworth, the Senate didn't bother to filibuster Carswell; they just voted him down, 51-45, with 13 Republicans joining most of the Democrats against him. (Two weeks later Carswell resigned his position as a Florida judge to run for the Senate and was soundly defeated in the GOP primary. A few years later he was arrested in a public toilet trying to commit fellatio on an off-duty police officer.) Through it all-- including two other near misses-- Nixon had no filibusters of his nominees. Neither did Ford.

The first president in our lifetimes to face a full-on filibuster against his nominees was Jimmy Carter, who faced two in his one term. Reagan also faced two filibusters over the course of two terms. (His nomination of bizarre right-wing extremist Robert Bork was defeated 58-42 without a filibuster, and his nomination of Douglas Ginsburg was withdrawn without filibuster when it was discovered that he had habitually smoked pot with his college law students.) Bush I had no filibusters against any nominees, but by the time he was defeated by Clinton, the GOP all-obstruction/anti-government ethos had taken form and they filibustered 13 nominees during his two terms. It opened a Pandora's box, and Democrats filibustered 7 nominees during Bush II's two terms. As you can see on the chart above, Obama's first year has resulted in 9 filibusters (with 20 more projected for his first term)!

Yesterday former Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) admitted the GOP is overusing the filibuster against President Obama. In fact, they filibuster everything besides naming post offices. That's because, regardless of his having won far more robust majorities than any other recent president, radicalized Republicans refuse to recognize him as a legitimate president, largely because of his race. As Rachel Maddow reported earlier in the week, 290 bills already passed by the House are being blocked from even being voted on by the GOP (see video below). This kind of anti-democratic obstructionism makes people wonder if what the British did to defang the House of Lords in 1911 could be done here in the U.S. a century later.




A REMINDER FROM KEN ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER NUMBERS

I'm sure everyone is keeping this in mind, but I just want to note for the record that with the procedural changes instituted at the same time that the filibuster-closing requirement was dropped from two-thirds to three-fifths in 1974, the threat of a filibuster -- assuming you have enough votes to prevent cloture -- is functionally the equivalent of an actual filibuster, though of course there are no statistics I'm aware of for "threatened filibusters." As Howie notes, since the Democrats at least nominally retook control of Congress in the 2006 election, the Republicans have transformed the filibuster from a last to a first resort. The only reason they require for threatening a filibuster is that "We're against it," and the only reason they need to be against it is, "They're FOR it."

Of course the GOP has further broadened its use of the "filibuster threat," which is what a Senate "hold" is supposed to be (the only reason for the Senate majority leader to honor a hold is that the holder is believed to have enough votes to prevent cloture) to cases where they don't have the votes to block cloture, as Howie and I have pointed out in the case of nominations that were "held" by obstructionist senators and when unheld garnered 70 or 80 votes. In fairness, maybe these shouldn't go in the "filibuster" column, because phony holds require the cooperation of the majority leader.
#

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

There Are Democrats And Then There Are Democrats... Take Bruce Lunsford For Example

>

Not all Udalls are equal

Lately I've has a lot of calls from friends of Bruce Lunsford. Some are Democratic Party insiders and some are genuine Kentucky grassroots activists. Generally they go like this: "Yeah, yeah, Lunsford is a nightmare and will vote like a Republican half the time, but the idea of getting rid of Mitch McConnell overshadows any other consideration. And, after all, McConnell votes like a Republican 100% of the time; half the time Lunsford may be with us."

My heart goes out to Kentucky activists who can almost smell McConnell's defeat. I want to smell McConnell's rotting political corpse as well. But Lunsford? First off, "half the time" is very arbitrary. Maybe Lunsford will vote with the Democrats 40% of the time or 60% of the time or, like Tim Johnson (D-SD) 39.57% of the time when it really counts. But, let's assume that Lunsford votes just like arch-conservative Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, an overly generous supposition based on what Lunsford has been all about politically. That means he'll vote with Democrats on most housekeeping and non-controversial bills and with the Republicans on many of the really keys issues that matter most to working families and people concerned about civil liberties and the future of our nation. Better than Mitch McConnell? Unquestionably. But there's more to it than that.

McConnell doesn't subvert progressive values and principles from within the Democratic Party and move it inexorably rightward. Ben Nelson does. Zell Miller and Lieberman used to. Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, Ken Salazar, Max Baucus can usually be counted on to shill for Big Business interests and pull the Democratic caucus rightward away from positions that are family-friendly. That's exactly what Lunsford will do doing.

This morning's CongressDaily has a story by Darren Goode called "Centrists Might Be Moving Party Leaders." Goode buys into the Beltway definitions of "centrists" and fails to see that what the reactionaries he's writing about are actually just pulling Democrats further away from populist and progressive stands. Otherwise, it's a good story-- except that he stains to prove-- with no evidence whatsoever-- that Republican "moderates" (mainstream conservatives) are also moving GOP extremists towards the center. They're not.
House and Senate coalitions of centrists that were formed to work on compromise plans on gas prices were built on growing frustration among the rank and file-- and voters-- over political gamesmanship employed by party leaders.

This might be leading to more access for these members to party leaders in the debate. House Speaker Pelosi met Tuesday with a group of oil-patch Democrats who recently voted against her "use-it-or-lose-it" plan targeting a lack of production on existing federal areas open for oil and gas production.

She met later in the day with a partially overlapping batch of Blue Dog Coalition members on how they could support a revamped use-it-or-lose-it package heading to the floor Thursday.

"I've seen a shift in leadership," said Texas Rep. Gene Green, who heads an informal batch of oil-patch Democrats and was among those who met with Pelosi Tuesday. "And I'd like to see even more of a shift."

So what is Goode extolling? That a bunch of bought off Democrats whose careers are financed by Big Oil can force Pelosi to bend to the will of Republican grandees? The use-it-or-lose-it bill, sponsored by Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) was defeated when virtually all Republicans were joined by the treacherous, bribed Blue Dogs.

I can certainly understand local voters casting their ballots against the worst servants of the Military Industrial Complex and against the authors of so much of the economic misfortune that has befallen our country. But, remember, it isn't just Republicans who fall into those categories. The attack on Iraq was a bipartisan affair-- even if a majority of House Democrats-- voted against it (while a majority of Senate Democrats voted for it). Democrats control both houses of Congress and the war rages on. Why? Because there are enough Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the DLC and the Blue Dogs basically-- who consistently vote with the GOP on substantive matters. Bush's contemptible and neo-fascist FISA bill-- giving him the right to spy on American citizens-- read our e-mails, listen to our calls-- without any kind of supervision or court order, would never have been given any serious consideration, let alone passed into law, without the active connivance of Democratic leaders who have been paid off-- gigantically-- by the Telecom industry. Of course the main target of the telecoms giants' bribes was John McCain ($365,955) but, not counting presidential candidates, the biggest telecom bribe takers were Senator jay Rockefeller (D-WV- $51,500), who led the battle in the Senate for retroactive immunity, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel ($49,950), who was able to bully enough Democrats-- reminiscent of his actions during the NAFTA debate-- to vote with the Republicans to pass the single worst piece of legislation to come out of this disgraceful Congress. Do we want more of this kind of "bipartisanship?" Or do we want brave and courageous independent-minded leaders who will stand up for American values and ideals-- men and women like Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Carol Shea-Porter, Tom Udall, Tom Allen...?

If you have all the money in the world to donate to candidates, I guess it makes sense to donate to reactionaries like Lunsford with the rationale that he's better than McConnell. But that would be premised on having maxed out to real Democrats first-- and their are hundreds of them. Or let's put it another way. The Udall cousins are both in the House and each is running against an extreme right wing lunatic for the Senate, Tom Udall in New Mexico and Mark Udall in Colorado. I want to see both the crazy neo-fascist Republicans lose. But Tom voted against FISA and has taken up the cause of defending constitutional government. Mark voted with the Republicans and has taken up the cause of abandoning principles to get elected. Who you think deserves support more?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 10, 2008

SAYING THANK YOU TO REAL AMERICAN PATRIOTS WHO STOOD UP FOR US

>


Yesterday the Blue America PAC started running a series of full page newspaper ads in GA-12, alerting John Barrow's constituents that although he campaigns as a Democrat in Savannah, Vidalia, Augusta, Milledgeville, and Statesboro, when he's back Inside the Beltway, he's been the single most dependable Democrat for George Bush and Dick Cheney and for the big money corporations looking for money-grubbing congressmen who will vote for their special interests. The week before that, the Blue America PAC took out a full page ad in the Washington Post and in every newspaper in Steny Hoyer's Maryland district, making sure his constituents knew about his shameful and decisive role in getting Bush's anti-constitutional FISA bill passed.

But over the last few days the Blue America bloggers, Digby, Jane, John and myself-- plus our colleague Glenn-- were mightily impressed by the courageous battle some members of the House and Senate and some candidates for the House and Senate, have waged against overwhelming odds and a sense of gruesome Insider inevitability. We decided that on behalf of the 5,969 donors who contributed $345,395.81 in the last few weeks we would pick a dozen and make symbolic contributions as tokens of gratitude to their campaign funds.

The first names to pop up, of course, where Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, the heart, soul and conscience of the Senate. Listen to Chris Dodd make his last ditch plea to the Senate yesterday. And take a look at excerpts from Russ Feingold's speech:
“…it could not be clearer that this program broke the law, and this President broke the law. Not only that, but this administration affirmatively misled Congress and the American people about it for years before it finally became public.”

“If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking. That’s why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the government face much more difficult procedural barriers, and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits.”

“I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.”

Those two were the easy ones because they were on the front line of the Senate every step of the way. It took us hours of e-mails and phone conversations to come up with the other 8, not because there weren't eight worthy progressives and patriots but because there dozens of them. It was painful narrowing them list down to just 8. Let me run down the list and give you a bit of rationale for each:

Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) was elected to the House on the same day that Susan Collins was first elected to the Senate. Collins, a reflexive Bush rubber stamp, was a big booster of warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity. We don't think it's a coincidence that only 2 senators not running for president received bigger donations from the telecoms than Collins. In 2008, her campaign chest has swelled by over $35,000 with telecom money while she was working diligently to grant them everything they wanted. (She's taken $87,621 from them since being elected.) Tom voted against warrantless wiretaps and against retroactive immunity despite pressure from powerful Democratic Party hacks Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. Tom didn't care about the telecoms contributions or about party leaders manipulations. He stood for principles that cannot be compromised. "I strongly oppose retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," he told us. "Neither the government nor large corporations are above the law. Individuals and corporations that break the law must be held accountable." Bingo.

Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) has a somewhat similar story. He's running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Pete Domenici, who voted in favor of wiretapping U.S. citizens. Worse yet, the right-wing extremist Tom must face in November, Congressman Steve Pearce, is equating giving his corporate donors immunity from Justice with national security. Although Tom's Colorado cousin, Mark Udall, buckled under right-wing pressure, Tom stood firm. This is what he had to say on June 20th when the House voted:
The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

Today's vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) has fought to protect the constitution and to respect the traditional New Hampshire motto: "Live Free Or Die." In her state people don't give up hard-won liberties for some tinpot would-be tyrant. Her opponent, a rubber stamp zombie she beat in 2006, is trying to make a comeback and is beating up on her by claiming her defense of the Constitution was... unpatriotic. She's fighting back... proudly and unapologetically. This is part of what she wrote in the Union Leader two weeks ago:
The foundation of democracy is individual freedom from government interference. I am willing to compromise on many issues-- but not on the Constitution. Being forced to choose between protecting our national security or protecting our Constitution is a false choice; we do not have to sacrifice one for the other. It is our responsibility as Americans to protect both.

Doug Tudor isn't in office. He's running against the third ranking Republican in the House, central Florida ideologue and extremist Adam Putnam. Doug is a 20 year Navy veteran and he takes the Constitution for which he fought and risked his life very seriously. His comments about the FISA battle were jarring for their straightforward, no holds barred directness:
“On five occasions during my Navy career, I raised my hand and affirmed ‘to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.’ Members of Congress take a similar oath. I believe that those members who voted in favor of HR 6304 did so in violation of their oath of office. I would have voted against this bill.”

Needless to say, Putnam was jumping up and down and eager as a little redheaded beaver for the warrantless wiretaps to be made legal for his campaign contributors in the telecom industry to have their minds set to rest that they would never have to answer for any crimes they may have committed.

Dennis Shulman is a blind rabbi in northern New Jersey running for a House seat currently occupied by the last radical right Republican left in the Northeast United States, Scott Garrett, who has taken over $9,000 from the Telecom industry this year and, of course, is gung-ho for wiretapping Americans. Dennis spent a great deal of time thinking this issue through. Here's what he told us:
"The House of Representatives, with the support of Republican Scott Garrett, recently passed a bill that would grant President Bush and future administrations unprecedented powers to spy on American citizens without a warrant or review by any judge or court. The new law would also let our nation's largest telecom companies off the hook for knowingly violating the law and releasing their customers' private information at the behest of George Bush.

"Our constitutional right to protection against unsupervised searches was written into our Bill of Rights for good reason by Founders whom we rightly celebrate.

"Neither President Bush nor Scott Garrett are as wise as James Madison.

"It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.

"The President, his advisers, and his rubber stamps in Congress, including Scott Garrett, have demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the laws of the United States. This bill not only immunizes telecom companies from lawsuits, but it would also block the American people from ever knowing the full extent of the Bush Administration's illegal behavior.

"I urge my fellow Democrats in the Senate to vote against this unnecessary and deeply troubling law.

"I believe that Congress must protect the rights of citizens and the laws of our country from career politicians in Washington too willing to cave to special interests and endanger the fundamental rights that we, as Americans, hold so dear."

State Senator Andrew Rice (D-OK) is running a strong campaign against one of the most extremist members of the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, who raked in $12,550 from the Telecoms this year and was determined to grant them retroactive immunity-- and positively giddy about giving the government the right to listen in to all phone conversations and read all e-mails without a court order. Andrew disagrees-- strongly:
“Congress must remain vigilant in order to protect Americans from another terrorist attack. However, the bill that is before Congress this week bargains away the privacy of law-abiding American citizens while protecting the companies that allegedly participated in the President’s illegal wiretapping program. The Senate should stick to the narrow fix it set out to accomplish by making it clear that the government does not have to obtain a warrant to listen to foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, this bill allows a significant expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that government can eavesdrop on the international communications of innocent American citizens. Since losing my brother on 9/11, I have vowed to improve America’s anti-terrorism capability without sacrificing the freedoms that so many Americans have died to protect.”

Rick Noriega is running in that big ole state just south of Oklahoma. His opponent, rubber stamp corporate shill John Cornyn has taken $15,250 from the Telecom industry this year and he is as eager as Inhofe to grant them retroactive immunity. Rick has thought about the issue more seriously and from a different perspective than just helping out campaign contributors.
“Many times throughout my lifetime I have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States . This isn’t a part-time Constitution. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they break the rules. It’s appalling that my opponent, John Cornyn, puts his special interest campaign contributors ahead of the Constitution. Texans have had enough.

Americans will not accept an abuse of power, and they will not accept corporations getting away with breaking the law.

We already have a law in place that balances national security concerns while adhering to the Constitution. This is not the time to compromise the privacy of the American people and not the time to disregard the Constitution of United States. I regret that the Senate has voted this way.”

Jim Himes is standing firmly with his state's senior senator, Chris Dodd on this issue. Fake moderate Chris Shayes is once again eager to rubber stamp the Bush-Cheney agenda, somehow trying to say that granting Bush the ability to wiretap all American citizens without a court order makes us "safe." Jim sees right through that craven, partisan posturing:
"In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide-- not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration's request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles."

Jon Tester (D-MT) was a populist underdog who ran for the Senate in 2006 against an Insider Democrat backed by Chuck Schumer and the Beltway Establishment. He beat him in the primary, beat an entrenched Republican incumbent in November and has gone on to represent the interests of regular Montana folks in DC. His statement about the this fight was an inspiration and may well have influenced his Montana colleague: "It deals with the freedoms that so many people have fought and died for. If we want to get serious about the War on Terror, we need to make the investments to fight the war on terror. We ought not be taking rights away from honest citizens. If we've got terror cells around the world, then let's invest in human intelligence. Let's invest in our Special Forces. Let's go after 'em, and let's be serious, and not get sidetracked by Iraq. Right now, we're taking rights away from honest people. If they think you fall into their list, you're a target. By the time they figure out there's a terror cell, they can get a warrant.... The government ought not be taking away our freedoms."

Darcy Burner is running against a corporate hack and rubber stamp in Washington, Dave Reichert, who is all about rewarding his corporate donors with retroactive immunity. Reichert took $6,000 for the Telecoms so far this year and thinks they should not be accountable for crimes they may have committed. Darcy has been one of the most outspoken opponents of this bill; watch the 30 second video. After the bill passed in the House, she didn't despair; she start rallying for action:
Like many of you, I'm incredibly disappointed with today's vote on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. I've made my position on this issue very clear, and I've been happy to be fighting to ensure that we uphold the Constitution through all of this. But the real question is what we do going forward. We need to make sure that we elect people to Congress who are going to defend the Constitution at the same time that the keep this country safe. I promise you, I will never let you down on that. It's time for us to elect more and better Democrats.

We're less concerned about the "more" and focussing on the "better." We will send each of these patriotic Americans a grassroots contribution for $1,000. If you haven't donated yet and would like to, please feel free-- right here. Let me leave you with a final thought from Senator Dodd. He's talking about you:
Lastly, I want to thank the thousands who joined with us in this fight around the country - those who took to the blogs, gathered signatures for online petitions and created a movement behind this issue. Men and women, young and old, who stood up, spoke out and gave us the strength to carry on this fight. Not one of them had to be involved, but each choose to become involved for one reason and one reason alone: Because they love their country. They remind us that the "silent encroachments of those in power" Madison spoke of can, in fact, be heard, if only we listen.



UPDATE: RUSS FEINGOLD ASKED US TO REDIRECT HIS CHECK

Senator Feingold isn't running for re-election in 2008. He was pleased that we're recognizing his service to the country and he asked us to send the $1,000 check to the Patriot Corps. He's been saying for years that a strong grassroots field program is the key to electoral victory. That's why his Progressive Patriots Fund created the Patriot Corps in 2006-- a way to support progressive candidates nationwide. In the lead-up to the 2008 election, the Progressive Patriots Fund will again be hiring, training and sending field staff to key races across the country. 

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 22, 2008

History? Get me rewrite! Does it count for anything that bizwhores like Colorado's Bob "Man of Much Wind" Schaffer have developed a bit of shame?

>

We bring you another touching vignette from the impossibly overworked (election year, you know) DWT You Can't Make This Stuff Up Department.

Over at ProgressNowAction, Alan Franklin is asking whether Bob Schaffer, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by Colorado superslug Wayne Allard "is lying on his bio again?" [Note: For a stirring note about our Wayne, one that's all but guaranteed to put a lump in your throat, or somewhere, see below.]

It seems that the bio of our Bob posted on the website of the employer he left on December 31 to make his Senate run, CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC, has mysteriously changed. "A few months ago," Alan explains, "we took a routine screenshot of Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's biography web page at his former employer's site, Aspect Energy. Here's what it said."

Bob Schaffer

CHx Capital - Vice President Emeritus

Bob Schaffer is Vice President for business development at CHx Capital, LLC where he is involved with a variety of energy, mining and education projects. Additionally, Bob is actively involved in international business development activities for Aspect Energy, including sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities for the Company. In 2007, Bob Schaffer provided notice to Aspect and CHx of his intention to run for the United States Senate. Bob Schaffer resigned his position with CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC effective December 21, 2007. We wish him the best of luck and offer him our congratulations for his contributions to energy and wind development efforts.

"Sounds about right, doesn't it?" Alan says. "I mean he doesn't come right out and say 'he led Aspect's delegation to Iraq in search of oil development contracts,' but it doesn't seem at first glance like he's hiding anything. Unless you read the bio they replaced it with a few weeks ago:"

Bob Schaffer

CHx Capital - Vice-president Emeritus

Bob Schaffer previously acted as Vice-President for business development at CHx Capital, LLC. Bob was involved in a variety of wind power investments, international energy opportunities, and education projects. Bob worked to improve the US Wind Industry. Specifically, he worked to increase entrepreneurial opportunities for small business owners by ensuring that wind-specific tax credits could be utilized indirectly by wind developers classified as small business owners. Bob helped educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. In 2007, Bob Schaffer provided notice to Aspect and CHx of his intention to run for the United States Senate. Bob Schaffer resigned his position with CHx Capital, LLC / Aspect Energy, LLC effective December 31, 2007. We wish him the best of luck and offer him our congratulations for his contributions to energy and wind development efforts.

Um, uh, say what? Our Bob is suddenly the wind-energy guy?

Here's Alan's take:
Amazing how quickly you can go from Aspect Energy's point man for "sourcing and development of international oil and gas exploration opportunities" to helping "educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil," don't you think? Were precautions against whiplash necessary?

From everything we hear, the Schaffer campaign appears to be a carnvial of banana peels, with the candidate slipping and sliding hopelessly. All the more reason to get behind the strong Democratic Senate candidate, Mark Udall.

(In case you have as much trouble as I do keeping track of all those Udalls, Colorado's Rep. Mark U is the son of the late 15-term Arizona Rep. Mo Udall, one of the most beloved figures in modern American politics. Mark's cousin Rep. Tom U, currently running for the New Mexico Senate seat being vacated--and not a moment too soon--by sad old Pete Domenici, is the son of another highly regarded public servant, Mo's older brother Stewart U, who served as secretary of the interior for the full eight years of the presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.)


NOW FOR THAT WORD ABOUT WAYNE ALLARD, MAN OF PRINCIPLE

To call retiring Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard "undistinguished" would be an understatement, or maybe an overstatement, considering how little there is to talk about. But just today our Wayne sounded a sentimental note. Howie of course has kept us up to date on the rousing triumph today of the incorporation of Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's long-overdue revamping of the GI Bill -- providing benefits to U.S. military veterans which most Americans probably thought they were already getting -- into the Iraq military appropriations bill.

The final 75-22 tally makes it sound like the bill was a shoo-in, when it was anything but. As we all know, thanks to the Senate "leadership" of Doctorbill "I'm a Whore for For-Profit Healthcare" Frist and Mitch "Show Me the Money" McConnell, two of the lowest life forms to slither the planet, you now need 60 votes to do pretty much anything in the Senate, and while it was thought that the 60 votes would be there for the Webb initiative, that assumed no slippage among the Blue Dog Democrats or among the hardy band of Republicans trying their hand at, for once, not being Bush-regime rubber stamps--on a vote that would have had them voting squarely against "supporting our troops."

As Howie already reported, once it became clear that the 60 votes were there, something of a stampede took place, among senators who--all but after the fact--decided that it would be better to go on record as supporting rather than spitting on the troops. I'm not sure that we have a definitive rendering of which Republican "yea" votes were which, but in general the Republican votes for the Webb initiative fell into two groups: incumbents facing reelection in this dangerous-for-Republicans election year, and Republicans who are retiring.

About this latter group, our colleague Marcy Wheeler observed just as the vote tallies were being made known, that all the Republican retirees save one voted the sensible way, suggesting that impending retirement had had a salutary effect on the clarity of their moral judgment.

And the exception? You got it: Wayne Allard! Whatta guy! One who doesn't let his sense of rightness be affected by petty electoral considerations. Not our Wayne. As a pol, a useless void of a human being, not just when the klieg lights are shining on him, but who to the bitter end can look at our military veterans and the sacrifices they make for their country and say to them:

"Screw you!"

Yessir, meet Wayne Allard, Man of Principle.
#

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 07, 2008

DAVID IGLESIAS BOOK LIKELY TO RUIN HEATHER WILSON'S SLIM CHANCE TO REMAIN IN POLITICS

>

Come on, Pete, tell us who put you up to it

Pete Domenici, wisely, is following the advice of friends, family and medical practitioners and retiring from the Senate before he further disgraces himself and his state. His protégé, Rep. Heather Wilson, on whose behalf he illegally harrassed and threatened U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, is not only unwilling to go voluntarily, she is seeking to move up from the House to the Senate. Heather Wilson fully intends to allow Domenici to take the fall but she participated in the outrageous interference with the U.S. Attorney's office and the political firing of one of New Mexico's brightest Republican stars, David Iglesias. Wilson is damaged goods-- very damaged. And a new book by Iglesias In Justice is not likely to help her longshot bid to hold the New Mexico seat for theGOP.

Today the McClatchy papers broke a story about a longtime Bush crony, Johnny Sutton (a Texas U.S. Attorney and Karl Rove lackey) telling Iglesias he was fired for political reasons and he should just "go quietly" and not fight it. This isn't likely to go away soon, although, no doubt, the Regime is eager to ardon everyone involved with this and every other scandal reminding voters that the GOP has been, first and foremost, a criminal conspiracy.

"This is political," Iglesias recalls Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton telling him shortly after he was ousted. "If I were you, I'd just go quietly."

Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, is one of nine federal prosecutors-- including Seattle's John McKay-- whose firings triggered a yearlong controversy at the Justice Department and led to the resignations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and 11 other Justice Department officials.

Iglesias cites the exchange with Sutton in his upcoming book, "In Justice," as further evidence that he was forced out because Republicans were displeased with his refusal to prosecute Democrats.

"I couldn't believe what I was hearing: a U.S. attorney all but admitting that a colleague was being hung out to dry for reasons that had nothing to do with performance or professionalism," he wrote in a draft of the book, which McClatchy obtained.

Sutton, who's the top U.S. attorney in San Antonio, didn't return phone calls Thursday seeking comment.

Justice Department officials said they couldn't comment on Iglesias's account because of a continuing investigation of the firings by the department's inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

And this isn't the only scandal dogging Wilson. There's a dirty little vote buying scandal in Bernalillo County that Wilson is trying hard not to deal with now. And then there's the best reason at all not to vote for her: her voting record. Even as she desperately tries to move up the political ladder she is still voting the selfish interests of the lobbyists and campaign donors instead of ordinary New Mexico families. Earlier this week she was one of the minority of radical right Republicans who refused to back the bipartisan Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The man she hopes to run against for the New Mexico U.S. Senate seat, Tom Udall, voted for the bill, as did all the moderate congressmembers on both sides of the aisle.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, January 24, 2008

TRUE BLUE NEW MEXICO

>

We're very lucky to be able to welcome a guest blogger to DWT this evening, Barbara Wold, one of the most effective and sensible voices in New Mexico progressive politics. Like so many of us, she came to be reinvolved with politics via the Howard Dean campaign. Now she blogs at Democracy for New Mexico and helps coordinate a monthly progressive Meetup in Albuquerque that's been active for about four years. She's also participates in local Dem Party politics, having been part of a successful "take our party back" effort that's resulted in dozens of progressives winning party offices including ward and precinct slots and seats on the County and State governing bodies.

It's an amazing situation this year in New Mexico politics. We have a chance to gain a U.S. Senate seat and two U.S. House seats, which would make our entire Congressional delegation blue. It's been a case of musical chairs ever since Sen. Pete Domenici announced his retirement late last year due to a brain disease, putting all three of our House seats and one of our Senate seats up for grabs in open contests.

With all of our state offices except Land Commissioner held by Dems, both houses of our legislature dominated by Dems and Bill Richardson as our Governor, we think a true blue New Mexico is a real possibility, which is why the local netroots has started an Act Blue fundraising page called just that:
True Blue New Mexico.


We've got excellent candidates in former Albuquerque City Councilor Martin Heinrich in NM-01, former Dona Ana Commissioner Bill McCamley down south in NM-03, and current NM-03 Rep. Tom Udall running for Senate. In NM-03 in Northern New Mexico, traditionally a Dem stronghold, we've got a bunch of progressive contenders including green builder Don Wiviott, NM Public Regulation Commission member Ben Ray Lujan and Jemez Pueblo member Benny Shendo -- so many we haven't been able to come to a consensus on who to support.

In NM-01, a Dem winner would replace faux-moderate Repub Heather Wilson. Heather edged out Dem Patricia Madrid last time out by fewer than 700 votes. The Repub contender this round is expected to be current Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, who chaired the Bush campaign in the county in 2004. He's never had to run a competitive race, and New Mexico's voters have definitely soured on everything Bush. Dem Martin Heinrich was instrumental in passing a minimum wage raise for Albuquerque, and is a conservation and environmental champion. He's known as a top-notch negotiator who uses common sense and honesty to bring people together to solve problems. He's a progressive through and through.

In NM-02, where the Las Cruces City Council was recently repopulated with progressive Dems after a long stretch of Repub rule, McCamley's running a truly grassroots campaign. With a master's in public policy from Harvard, McCamley is smart, informed and infectiously passionate. While on the County Commission, he led the fight to replace down and dirty sprawl development with a common sense planning process -- an issue that's recently turned many a voter Dem in the district. Meanwhile, the Repub Party in those parts is in disarray, with many less than stellar Congressional candidates emerging to fight it out for a chance at the Repub slot. If we have a Dem winner in the district, they'd replace the truly awful hard-right ideologue Steve Pearce, who's abandoned his seat to battle Heather Wilson for the Repub Senate nomination.

In NM-03, we expect to hold onto Udall's seat given the high percentage of progressive Dems in the district that includes Santa Fe, Taos and rural Hispanic Dem strongholds. The only question is which Dem among many candidates will get the nod. That's why we set up True Blue New Mexico to reward whoever wins the Dem nomination there.

As for the Senate seat, Tom Udall's popular all over the state and very well respected by New Mexicans of all political stripes. A true gentleman and a member of the illustrious, conservation-championing Udall family of the West, he was encouraged to get into the Senate race by the grassroots and power Dems alike. In Congress, Udall voted against both the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act, and he's been instrumental in helping us preserve many of New Mexico's beautiful and pristine landscapes. Nonetheless, a tough race against either Heather Wilson or Steve Pearce is expected this fall.

Why is the New Mexico netroots reaching out now for support?
First of all, we want top-notch, progressive candidates to get a head start on fundraising and garnering support. We want more Dems but we want good Dems, as the saying goes. And the GOP is already active in fundraising for their New Mexico cronies. Just yesterday, Karl Rove was in Artesia, NM raising money for the state Repub Party, the same day Dick Cheney was hosting a fundraiser for Senate candidate Steve Pearce in DC. Cheney previous held a similar event in Washington for Senate candidate Heather Wilson. It's evident that wingnut money machine will be heavily involved in trying to protect their seats here-- despite a big fall in support for all things Repub even in more moderate areas of the state.

Secondly, we wanted to reach out early both locally and within the national netroots community. New Mexico is economically challenged and sparsely populated in many areas of the state. Grassroots donations can be hard to come by given our rising cost of living and low salaries. In other words, we can use all the help we can get.

We hope you'll visit the True Blue New Mexico page at Act Blue and toss a few bucks into the collection basket. Even if you're not so inclined right now, we hope you'll keep the True Blue candidates in mind as election season moves forward, knowing that Blue America already has Martin, Bill and Tom on their radar. Our ActBlue page is an effort by local blogs including New Mexico FBIHOP and Democracy for New Mexico. Please visit our sites, poke around a bit and check out posts yesterday and the day before about this effort, as well as guest blogs by Martin Heinrich and Bill McCamley. We've just begun to fight.

-Barbara Wold

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

NEW MEXICO SENATE UPDATE

>


-by Alex Flores

Howie last invited me to write here about our Draft Udall effort in New Mexico on October 29. Since then, we've claimed success – on November 16, Tom Udall filed papers to run for the United States Senate. This cycle, we have the best chance to take this seat back from Republicans since Senator Pete Domenici first took the seat 35 years ago in the same election as when Richard M. Nixon defeated George McGovern.

Our mission continues, however. While Udall is favored in polls by wide margins over his primary opponent Mayor Martin Chavez, the Netroots need to stay heavily involved in this race. We have an opportunity here to show the Democratic party the kind of progressives we want in office.

I'm going to tell you now, after reading below, you're going to want to open your wallets for Tom Udall and make sure that DINO Marty takes a permanent vacation from politics.

This Primary race is a perfect example of why we work in politics: this race illustrates why we read, write, and work on behalf of progressives to change the Democratic agenda and elect more and better Democrats (and in this case, more and better Udalls!)

We're used to the national security narrative from Republicans – they call Dems weak on the military, weak in foreign policy, and weak on fighting terror.

On November 9, the NRCC posted a video attacking Tom Udall's cousin, Colorado Democratic Senate Candidate Mark Udall using the same frame. Here's a line straight from the video:
…putting American lives at risk. Why doesn't Mark Udall want US intelligence to have the tools they need to keep America safe. Call Mark Udall, ask him why America's safety isn't his first priority.

But we're not used to the same narrative from Democrats running in a primary.

In New Mexico, DINO Marty has come out in full attack mode against progressive Congressman Tom Udall (even during our Draft when Udall wasn't in the race) using national security and other right-wing frames to gain media attention.

If it seems like DINO Marty and the NRCC are reading from the same playbook, you're right. From the national security narrative to outright racism, DINO Marty thinks that his politics of hate will resonate with New Mexicans who already favor Udall by 62%-32%.

In a campaign email on Monday, November 26, DINO Marty beefed-up his GOP credentials and accused Udall of "Endangering our national security" by voting to cut funding for National Laboratories in New Mexico in a huge budget bill.

Here is Tom Udall's case, from a speech made on November 15:
Because nuclear weapons work is the core mission of the Lab, it stands to suffer in the upcoming fiscal years – unless it chooses a path of increasing diversification, growing new areas of research and work for the Lab…. I advocate for a path forward that supports areas of work including: alternative energy and energy independence, science research such as climate change modeling, intelligence research and analysis, nonproliferation efforts, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) projects, and nuclear counter terrorism.

Barbwire, a New Mexico blogger, has more details at her site including an on-point assessment that:
It's one thing to criticize your primary opponent's positions, but I think this kind of over-the-top rhetoric coming directly from Chavez can only serve to turn more Dem voters against him. Chavez already has a reputation for publicly and privately trashing fellow Dems on the Albuquerque City Council, supporting Repubs and their causes and vowing to vote for Repub Sen. Pete Domenici if he ran for reelection.

Do Chavez and his campaign team really believe that using inflammatory language like this to attack one of the most highly respected and popular Dems in the state will help him in his quest for Dem primary voters? Astonishing. Not only is it wrong, it's bad politics.

LP, another New Mexico blogger who runs NMFBIHOP, is thinking the same thing that you and I are: DINO Marty's language
…sounds like something straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.  Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce are probably filing that away for further use.

Barbwire and LP are right on. But it's not just a quest, DINO Marty is on a Quixotic mission. He has poll after poll after poll, New Mexicans prefer Udall by WIDE margins.

Mid-article break: If you're already convinced that DINO Marty needs an early retirement, please donate to the "Netroots for Udall" ActBlue page. Take ownership of this race and let's send a true progressive to the United States Senate!

And even though DINO Marty wants this race to stay in New Mexico, he has no problem giving racist soundbites to the New York Times:
[Chavez] said that Senators Schumer and Reid thought of Mr. Udall, the son of Stewart Udall, secretary of the interior under President John F. Kennedy, as their "fair-haired boy."

[Quick aside: Isn't it also odd that DINO Marty is so quick to badmouth the Majority Leader and the DSCC Chairman? If he won the nomination, would he flip-flop his way back into their grace for national support and party infrastructure?]

Is DINO Marty relying in part on being "Hispanic" to carry him to victory? Well, in the same NYT article, the author points out that DINO Marty
…is expected to emphasize his Hispanic heritage.

Thankfully, many Latinos are not fooled by racial politics. New Mexico pollster Brian Sanderoff said that race
could be an advantage in a state where, since 1994, a Hispanic candidate facing a white candidate in a statewide Democratic primary had won 9 times out of 10.

But I'm not sure that's true. In one of the most revealing polls of the race yet, Latin@s split down the middle. Sorry Chavez, being Brown doesn't mean that all of us Brown folk will blindly vote for you.

The choice here is clear. We're talking about supporting popular Tom Udall (a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus) over DINO Marty to carry New Mexico for Democrats and progressives in the state and across the country. Let's show both of them that the Netroots have voice and the infrastructure to make a difference in this race. Please donate to the "Netroots for Udall" page on ActBlue.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 11, 2007

TOM UDALL JUMPS INTO NEW MEXICO SENATE RACE-- LOOKS LIKE A PICK UP FOR THE DEMOCRATS

>

With the political demise of New Mexico Republican Senator Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici-- caught up the Department of Justice firings scandal-- and his subsequent decision to retire, New Mexico's U.S. Senate seat was suddenly in play. The two Republican House members, Domenici protege Heather Wilson-- involved in the exact same Department of Justice scandal (in fact, the cause of it)-- and extreme right-wing loon Steve Pearce, immediately jumped into the race. A long cast of lackluster Democrats also started eyeing the race. Grassroots Democrats began a persistent effort to draft Tom Udall, by far New Mexico's best known-- a former two-term state attorney general and the son of beloved former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall-- and most popular congressman. He declined. Democrats persisted. Yesterday he agreed to run.

He will face Albuquerque's unpopular Mayor Martin Chavez in a June primary unless Chavez withdraws before then. Polling shows Udall will win the primary handily and go on to beat either tarnished Republican in November.
Tom Udall - 50%
Martin Chávez - 30%
Don Wiviott - 2%
Undecided - 17%

In match-ups against both Wilson and Pearce, Udall comes out on top. No other Democrat does.
Wilson (R) 45
Chavez (D) 42

Wilson (R) 38
Udall (D) 55

Pearce (R) 40
Chavez (D) 39

Pearce (R) 37
Udall (D) 54

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, October 29, 2007

DRAFT TOM UDALL

>


Perhaps you'll recall that a couple of weeks ago Alex Flores wrote a guest post about the grassroots movement to draft Rep. Tom Udall to run for the open New Mexico Senate seat being vacated by disgraced Republican Pete Domenici. There have been some developments since then and I asked Alex to catch us up a bit. His report:

Back around the beginning of October, an idea was hatched to draft Congressman Tom Udall to run for the US Senate from New Mexico. Since then, the netroots have raised over $1,100 for the Congressman by asking for donations of only $5!

Now we're changing strategies to send an even stronger message. Many supporters of the draft emailed in applauding the efforts to collect $5 donations but lamented that they would rather not contribute to the Congressman's account unless he's really committed.

DraftUdall.Com is taking a new approach. The online petition now has a new question: How Much Do You Pledge to Give Tom Udall's Senate Campaign?

Since we started this new plan four days ago, another $1,200 have been committed. We think that can increase a hundred fold! Please help out.

Four other Democrats are running for the seat, one well-known in Mayor Martin Chavez and three lesser-known Dems, Don Wiviott, Jim Hannan and Leland Lehrman.

Heath Haussamen, a New Mexico blogger, wrote a bit recently about Martin Chavez's problems with progressives:
Securing big-name supporters and financial contributions is an important step for Chávez's senatorial campaign, but he has another problem to overcome: Progressive Democrats, at least those in the Albuquerque area, aren't his biggest supporters.

That's an understatement. After candidates and referenda backed by Chávez, or at least his staffers, were defeated in the recent Albuquerque municipal election, the unique coalition of Republicans and progressive Democrats who made it happen literally celebrated together.

It's also apparent that going to position himself in the center for this race. Contrasting himself with the more experienced and more progressive Tom Udall, Haussamen writes:
He also said he is confident he would defeat Udall in a primary.
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."

Angry? Sign the Petition and tell Congressman Udall how much you'll pledge to a real progressive if he runs for the US Senate ($2,300 is the Federal campaign limit).

Tom Udall already said he wouldn't run for the seat, but Chavez is running scared of the draft effort, doubtless aware that Tom Udall is the most popular Democrat in the state who can still run for the Senate.

Remember those SurveyUSA numbers? When Steven Pearce is the Republican nominee, moderate Mayor Chavez loses and progressive Congressman Udall wins; the spread is 39 points! When Heather Wilson is the Republican nominee, moderate Mayor Chavez loses and progressive Congressman Udall wins; the spread between them in this race is 22 points!
Starting with Republican candidate Steven Pearce, Congressman from New Mexico's 2nd District:
* Pearce loses to Congressman Tom Udall by 18 points
* defeats Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez by 21 points
Now to Republican candidate Heather Wilson, Congresswoman from New Mexico's 1st Congressional District:
* Wilson loses to Udall by 18 points (same as Pearce),
* defeats Chavez by 4 points (Wilson runs 17 points weaker than Pearce)


The Draft Udall movement is really picking up steam. If you haven't seen yet, we were on page A2 of yesterday's Washington Post and were recently given coverage in The Hill, a newspaper circulated in Washington, DC to every office in Congress. Help keep up the pressure, sign the petition and pledge money to Tom Udall today!

If you've already signed, please sign again, your old duplicate signature will be deleted.

See the "Draft Udall Around the Web page for more coverage.

-Alex Flores

Labels: , , ,