This year is going to see a Congressional landslide for Democrats, which means that primaries are particularly important. Blue Majority has endorsed progressive Leslie Byrne, the first Virginia politico to endorse Jim Webb in 2006. She's facing Gerald Connolly, a pro-developer business-y type running in the district as an antiwar liberal.
In his bid for Congress from Northern Virginia's 11th District, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly recently mailed a campaign flier demonstrating his opposition to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Among other things, the piece accuses the "Bush-Cheney Defense Department" of secretly awarding billions in no-bid contracts to war "profiteers."
Depending on who's talking, however, that last description could include Connolly's employer: Science Applications International Corp., a defense and intelligence contractor that has come under scrutiny for alleged mismanagement of several Iraq-related projects.
Distinguishing between genuine progressives and people likely to flip when the wind blows is something we need to work on in the remaining primaries that are left. VA-11 is a good place to start.
I was at a conference today called Freedom to Connect with Donna Edwards, Micah Sifry, and Alec Ross an Obama advisor and the head of One Economy (a rough transcript of my remarks is here). It was one of those conferences with open internet advocates who are incredibly empowered, quite progressive, but still in the Silicon Valley vaguely techno-libertarian mindset that is both conducive to both creativity and an anti-political organizing model. The dynamic between Donna and the crowd was fascinating, as it showed there's a real distance between the people fighting the intellectual and business fights for openness and those fighting the political fights.
In a lot of ways, we in the political blogosphere are the bridge between the political world and the world of tool creators. We understand that the people in Web 2.0 land and the sustainable energy industries are figuring out the tools and models for how to build progressive communities, while our job is to build the political power and policy apparatus to make that possible.
I attempted on the panel was to enlarge the discussion about technology to one of power, to show that a room of progressive white dudes who can build mesh networks have a responsibility as citizens to ensure that everyone has the same voice they have access to. And they are there, or at least much further along than they had been a few years ago.
Today is the last day of the fundraising quarter, and we are trying to get to 1000 donors for each Blue Majority candidate. If you haven't given yet, please give. We will never see another political environment like this in our lifetime, with so much capacity to put new and creative people into Congress with such independence and so little reliance on institutional deadwood. But your money, your $10, $100, $1000, matters, it will not only put these new people in there, it will put them in there with the independence to make progressive change.
And then all the wind power and solar experts and sustainable agriculture specialists and green job trainers will be able to work their magic and transform this great country. So throw in some coin.
I'll leave you with this message, from Donna Edwards, talking about how the K-Street lobbyists are already calling.
Two days ago, I woke up to the sound of cops outside my apartment. The door to the apartment across the hall was open, and my neighbor was sitting on the couch staring glassy eyed ahead while surrounded by police officers. I knew the couple in that apartment, a bit, chatting occasionally as you do with neighbors who share elevators. I'm on the eighth floor, and so I took the elevator down to go on my morning run. As I left the building, I saw the driveway cordoned off by bright yellow tape, and a body covered in a white sheet on the pavement in that area. It was clearly his girlfriend who had fallen off the railing. Now I don't know if it was an accident or a suicide, but it was jarring to see the body and to see my neighbors man's glassy eyed stare eight floors up as he pondered the death of someone so close to him. The firefighters, cops, and the building management cleaned the area with chemicals and then hosed it down, and I talked to one of the firefighters who told me that something like this happens once a year or so.
Now, there are many reasons that this was upsetting and tragic, but the most common response I got was 'Oh my God, are you ok'. And of course I'm ok. I'm a relatively well-adjusted man, and authorities came in and knew how to handle the situation. But the site was jarring and screwed me up a little bit, and if I encountered something like this all the time, I probably wouldn't be ok after awhile. And I keep going back to what it must be like to be a 7 year old Iraqi who sees this kind of thing every day, with no authorities around to help, or a soldier who sees this every day, and who basically is the authority supposed to handle it. That's what is happening, but it's out of our view to spare the political system from the force of our collective empathy.
After all, the shock I hear from friends and acquaintances when I tell them about this story is remarkable. It's not remarkable that they are sympathetic and shocked, that's just humanity speaking. What's remarkable is that they are sympathetic and shocked because a random tragedy happened so close to someone they know. But these kinds of events happen every single day in Iraq. Every single day.
As we work in politics, recognize that the policies and political leaders we elect do things that have huge impacts on the world around us. Whether it's a Cuban girl who can't get a lemon when she has a sore throat or violence halfway around the world, politics matters. It's not a game. It's not about liberals versus moderates versus conservatives. It's about the lives of the people around us, near us, and connected to us.
Now don't get me wrong, I love politics. I love the give and take, the negotiations, the arguments, the elections, the stories, even the sleaze. But that's not why it matters, it's just my fortune in being passionate about something I think happens to matter. When I give time and effort, it's because I feel a small measure of responsibility for the deaths in Iraq that I have helped cause as a citizen of this country, which chose to go to war in 2002, a war I supported for reasons that seem unfathomably immoral to me now. I will not make up for my earlier stupidity and craven ideas, but I can be a citizen again.
So every time I give to a candidate or a campaign, I consider it a privilege and an honor. I try to earmark it for candidates who by their election or service I think have a good chance of shifting our policies, because these policies matter deeply. But you never really know if it's going to work. Still, while it's jarring to see a body on the ground, and tragic for my neighbor across the hall and the overall community, we should not speak in hushed tones about these tragedies. I cannot pretend that because the body was in front of me it was more meaningful than the senseless deaths happening around the world. And it's equally cynical to take the approach that all we are doing is preventing tragedy, since there is so much joy and wonder that each of us within our communities create when we take responsibility for each other.
We are all connected by a fundamental sense of humanity. We can hide this through walls and media manipulation, but it will not stay hidden forever. And while Markos thinks that nagging is the right term to use when discussing fundraising for the end of the quarter, and maybe it is, I think there's something more meaningful about putting yourself on the line, even just a little bit, to make a political change in the world. That's how most politicians I know think about the problem as well. Every single day, Congressmen and women hear of funerals in their district of soldiers, every day they make decisions having to do with life and death in thousands of ways. And every day, many of them try to help as many people as possible, even as their day is sliced into ten minute segments, votes, and meetings with lobbyists, constituents, and advocates. So when you give $10 or $25 or $50 through Blue Majority or any other manner, recognize that what you are doing is taking a chance that change is possible.
Ever since the Blue Majority page was launched nearly one year ago, we at Blue Majority knew that we would add the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to the page. In my opinion, Barack Obama has now emerged as the presumptive nominee. With a pledged delegate lead of 162, a popular vote lead of more than 800,000, barring a spectacular collapse and / or a highly unlikely thwarting of the popular vote, Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. When he reaches 2,024 delegates, which at this point requires only 42.7% of the remaining delegates to be decided, he will control both the credentials committee and the majority of the non-disputed delegates at the floor of the convention. At that point, the only way that Barack Obama loses the nomination is if he decides that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee instead. In other words, Barack Obama has become the presumptive Democratic nominee, and it is time to start supporting him.
Importantly, my rationale for endorsing Barack Obama goes beyond his status as the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. As a progressive, there are two key ideological markers that I believe make Barack Obama a better choice than Hillary Clinton: the Iraq war and the DLC. First, Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, and rejected the neoconservative principle of pre-emptive warfare as one of his main reasons for opposing the war. Being able to identify the invasion of Iraq as a colossal mistake makes Barack Obama far more qualified to lead our country than candidates who both were, and still are, unable to recognize why the war was such a bad idea. Comparing Obama's and Clinton's statements on the death of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq, it seems clear that Hillary Clinton still believes in the neoconservative vision for Iraq, while Barack Obama does not. The second ideological marker is the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization formed to push the Democratic Party and the national political debate to the right on a variety of issues. While Hillary Clinton is a member of the DLC's leadership, Barack Obama has repeated refuses to be associated with the group.
There are numerous other reasons, too. Here are the four that mean the most to me:
Second, in terms of electability, in order to win the general election a candidate must first become the nominee. Simply put, I don't see many ways for Hillary Clinton to pull that off. Further, in order to win the general election, Democrats will need time to define McCain, and time to heal the party once the nomination contest is over. However, Hillary Clinton's only path to the nomination is through the convention in late August, and also through a intra-partisan civil war. In other words, Clinton's path to the nomination renders her unelectable in the general. There simply won't be enough time to heal the party and define John McCain.
Third, how a candidate campaigns is a strong reflection on how that candidate governs. For example, we could tell from the 2000 election that George Bush would govern through a series of power grabs, Orwellian language, and with a total disregard for popular opinion. Barack Obama, by contrast, is campaigning through unprecedented national grassroots organizing, speeches that are becoming the stuff of legend, and the manifestation of a new political coalition that moves us away from the political alignment of 1968-2004. Too often, I have heard from the Clinton campaign and its surrogates about states and demographic groups that don't matter. Such statements are a stark reminder of a recent version of the Democratic Party that takes its base for granted, and only campaigns in a select few swing districts. We need a Democratic Party that organizes and governs based on Barack Obama and Howard Dean's campaign styles, rather than one that is based on Hillary Clinton's and Terry McAuliffe's.
Fourth, coattails and movement building matter. In both of Blue Majority's victories so far in 2008, Donna Edwards in MD-04 and Bill Foster in IL-14, the energy and activism brought to bear by Barack Obama were key. The activism in support of Barack Obama has the potential to greatly enhance the political reach of the progressive movement, and also to provide Democrats with sweeping downticket victories. I once called this progressive movement symbiosis, and I still believe it is the most promising path to a truly progressive governing majority that I have seen in my lifetime.
It is for all of these reasons that I am happy and proud to endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States. I gave my first donation to his campaign today, and I urge you to do the same. Thrown in some money for the downticket campaigns, too, since we need more and better Democrats around the country and since the first quarter filing deadline is on Monday. Let's change America, and move closer toward fulfilling the promise of our new political movements: a progressive governing majority in America. Contribute to Barack Obama today.
Dan Maffei (D): 41%
Peter Cappuccilli (R): 29%
Undecided: 30%
Dan Maffei (D): 41%
Randy Wolken (R): 25%
Undecided: 34%
This is why it's good to support progressives in a wave year like the one that is shaping up. We could easily see a conservative Democrat in this seat, but instead we'll get a leader.
One month ago, the three blogs that form the Blue Majority Act Blue page, Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project, asked their communities if they wanted to endorse Barack Obama for President, or wait until a later date. While a super majority of the Daily Kos community thought it was a good time to endorse, by narrow margins a supermajority at Open Left and Swing State Project did not. As a result, we controversially we decided to not endorse at the time. However, tonight, in a non-binding, advisory straw poll, I am asking you for a second opinion.
Thirty days ago, I did not view endorsing in the presidential nomination campaign to be a major priority, and basically urged people to vote no in the straw poll. However, that has changed quite a bit, and I am ready to endorse Barack Obama now. Here are just a few reasons why, in no particular order:
First, by gaining delegates in March, Obama has become a virtual lock for the nomination. Obama will reach 2,024 delegates, not counting Michigan and Florida, on either May 20th, June 1st, or June 3rd, depending on the rate of superdelegate endorsements. He only needs 42.7% of the remaining delegates to pull this off. By contrast, Clinton needs to win 59.5% of the remaining delegates to reach 2,024 herself, even though she only reached 59.5% of the vote in one state, Arkansas. Once Obama reaches 2,204, he will control both the credentials committee and the majority of delegates on the floor of the convention, making him a lock for the nomination. In other words, unless Barack Obama decides that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee, then Barack Obama will be the nominee.
Second, the February 24-25th endorsement vote took place just before the Clinton campaign began arguing that John McCain was more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, significantly damaging the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination. Further, over the last two weeks, Obama has faced a vicious media assault that seeks to drive a racial wedge right down the center of the diverse Democratic coalition. While Obama himself responded beautifully in his speech last week, the continuing primary campaign made it difficult for the broader progressive and Democratic infrastructure to provide effective response. Overall, despite the outcome of the nomination practically being a foregone conclusion, the ostensible need for the party infrastructure to stay neutral presents Barack Obama with a serious structural deficit against John McCain in the general election, since the entire Republican Noise Machine is already gunning for him
Third, I have heard that fundraising for congressional candidates is starting to dry up. Partially this is because the Clinton and Obama campaigns are now raising about $2.5M a day online, and there just isn't much left over (and Clinton does not have much in the bank even with the amounts she is raising). However, even in the midst of lower online fundraising for congressional candidates, Barack Obama once again demonstrated his ability to bring coattails in the general election when Bill Foster when the special election for Dennis Hastert's old seat in IL-14. While the lengthy campaign is hurting our downticket campaigns, Obama is providing just about the only coattails we have left.
Here is the choice I think we face. On the one hand, we can pretend that Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination, and that the credentials committee and the majority of the delegates at the convention won't be controlled by some non-Obama power once Obama reaches 2,024. On the other hand, we can face reality that Clinton has no real chance to win the nomination because she further lost ground in March, a time when her own campaign admitted it needed to gain ground. Second, we can pretend that having prominent Democrats and the entire Republican Noise Machine use the same talking points on our presumptive nominee won't damage our general election chances, or we can start to build a united front against these attacks and succeed where we failed in 2004. Third, we can focus on the nomination campaign forever, or we can start to focus our attention on some downticket campaigns, too. From where I sit, the best path we can follow right now is to try and end the nomination campaign as quickly as possible, because Barack Obama is going to be the nominee and we desperately need some big wins in November up and down the ticket.
So, quite a bit has changed for me over the last month. Mike has already endorsed Obama, and I know that Matt is much more open to the possibility now, too. As such, I want to know where you stand. Should Blue Majority endorse Barack Obama now, or should we continue waiting until at least after the Pennsylvania primary? Take the advisory, non-binding straw poll in the extended entry.
update: If Clinton supporters really want me to push down the anti-Obama vote, I will happily split the poll into three options: Obama, Clinton or no endorsement. However, by combining the pro-Clinton and no endorsement vote into two categories, you stand a much better chance of making a good showing.
But hey, if it isn't democratic if I don't have all choices on the ballot, then surely we must seat the Michigan delegation as is.
I grew up in Miami, a region dominated by Cuba politics, so I have some knowledge of how significant Joe Garcia's candidacy is in South Florida. It is a direct challenge to the pay-to-play foreign policy apparatus of the United States, one where sugar interests and right-wing politics determines that we should have a pointless embargo against the Cuban people. But today I want to announce that we have another significant nomination for the Blue Majority page: Leslie Byrne for Virginia's 11th district.
Republican Tom Davis is retiring this year, and the district is a good pickup opportunity. Jim Webb won the district 55%-44% in 2006, Tim Kaine won the district 56%-42% in 2005, while John Kerry lost it by 50-49% in 2004. It is turning sharply blue; Tom Davis's wife, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, lost to Democrat Chap Petersen by 11 points in a race for state Senate.
With such a ripe pickup opportunity, the primary is ferocious. The Washington Post frames the primary fight within the Democratic party as follows:
Leading the pack are two of the state Democrats' biggest personalities: Leslie L. Byrne, a former congresswoman, state delegate and state senator with deep roots in the party's progressive wing, and Gerald E. Connolly, a Latin-quoting, pro-business Democrat who, as chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, represents one in seven Virginians.
Byrne is the long-time progressive movement candidate facing off against developer ally Gerry Connolly. Byrne's progressive credentials are first-rate; a liberal member of Congress from 1992-1994, she was an opponent of the war in Iraq from day one, endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, is a favorite of the local netroots, and endorsed fellow war opponent Jim Webb early on. That endorsement was critical and provided Webb's campaign with an early boost of legitimacy in his primary against lobbyist Harris Miller, who supported the war in Iraq and thought Bush's tax cuts were "a great idea". Webb defeated racist Republican George Allen narrowly because he presented a clear choice on economic inequality and the war in Iraq, and has turned around and endorsed Byrne's campaign.
Leslie Byrne has also been endorsed by Raising Kaine, Not Larry Sabato, Anonymous Is a Woman, 750 Volts, and Bryan Scrafford. To contextualize these endorsements, understand that the Virginia blogs are probably one of the most sophisticated group of progressive bloggers in the country; they helped put Tim Kaine and Jim Webb into office, and the state in play for 2008.
This is a nasty fight, with Connolly up by 22 in his polling and Byrne up by 10 in her polling. Connolly is generally seen as heavily tied to developers (see all the coming soon on his campaign's endorsement list), while Byrne's endorsement list is pretty impressive and shows her commitment to progressive values:
UAW Virginia, CWA, IUPAT, Ironworkers, Plumbers, Operating Engineers, Heating and Asbestos Workers, Washington DC Building Trades Council, AFSCME Virginia, Boilermakers, Operating Engineers, EMILY's List, UAW International, National Women's Political Caucus, and EMILY's List.
If she win the primary and the general, Byrne will be a great member of Congress. I emailed back and forth with her over our standard set of questions focusing on key moments of progressive leverage in Congress; the war funding vote in 2007, the FISA vote in 2007, and retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Here are her responses.
1) How would you have voted on the war funding bill that the Democrats passed in May?
I would have voted against the war funding bill. I have been on record since January,2003 as being against the war and the occupation of Iraq when a dozen former members of Congress and I sent a letter to President Bush not to embark on this foolhardy war.
2) What is your position on the Protect America Act that went through Congress in August, the bill that extended the President's eavesdropping power3?
I would have voted against it. Warrantless wiretapping, cutting courts out of the process and giving the power to the administration, under any fair reading of the Constitution should be illegal.
3) What is your position on retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies?
I'm against immunity. The telecommunications companies who complied (not all did) have some of the highest priced legal talent available. They should have asked for a court ruling before handing over their customers records. I was very pleased that the US House found their voice on this issue.
Byrne has also signed on to the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, showing leadership now as a candidate for office and facing withering attacks because she spoke out substantively to change the conversation on national security.
Even though many of us are political junkies, we don't get many chances to really impact politics in this country. Primaries, though, are the moments when our influence is felt most keenly, because it is at those times when Democratic activists and Democratic voters really shape the party's direction. It's hard to have a clearer choice than the one presented in this primary in Virginia, so if you want to put money to where it will really matter, give $50 to Leslie Byrne, and let's send another progressive Democrat to support the fight we started years ago.
UPDATE: Right now, Blue Majority is at 5534 donors. Since we started the page, here's what our candidates have done: Donna Edwards won a primary, Bill Foster is a member of Congress who was pivotal in the FISA fight, Al Franken is winning his primary, Joe Garcia is presenting a fundamental challenge to the fruitless embargo against Cuba, and Darcy Burner and Eric Massa have presented a substantive and responsible plan to end the war in Iraq. I'd say we got our money's worth.
One point to note is that these are the salad days of progressive change, with Republicans dropping like flies. We will not face an environment like this for years, so it is right now when your money matters. We've seen the change that our candidates are already making.
It's time to support them, so throw in $75 if you can. Blue Majority is setting a goal of getting to 6500 donors by the end of the quarter. If you haven't given, now's the time. I just threw in $100. And now, courtesy of Actblue's new feature set, you can store your donation history. Here's mine.
I grew up in Miami, a region dominated by Cuba politics, so I have some knowledge of how significant Joe Garcia's candidacy is in South Florida. It is a direct challenge to the pay-to-play foreign policy apparatus of the United States, one where sugar interests and right-wing politics determines that we should have a pointless embargo against the Cuban people. I'll get into Garcia's campaign more on Monday, because today I want to announce that we have another significant nomination for the Blue Majority page: Leslie Byrne for Virginia's 11th district.
Republican Tom Davis is retiring this year, and the district is a good pickup opportunity. Jim Webb won the district 55%-44% in 2006, Tim Kaine won the district 56%-42% in 2005, while John Kerry lost it by 50-49% in 2004. It is turning sharply blue; Tom Davis's wife, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, lost to Democrat Chap Petersen by 11 points in a race for state Senate.
With such a ripe pickup opportunity, the primary is ferocious. The Washington Post frames the primary fight within the Democratic party as follows:
Leading the pack are two of the state Democrats' biggest personalities: Leslie L. Byrne, a former congresswoman, state delegate and state senator with deep roots in the party's progressive wing, and Gerald E. Connolly, a Latin-quoting, pro-business Democrat who, as chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, represents one in seven Virginians.
Byrne is the long-time progressive movement candidate facing off against developer ally Gerry Connolly. Byrne's progressive credentials are first-rate; a liberal member of Congress from 1992-1994, she was an opponent of the war in Iraq from day one, endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, is a favorite of the local netroots, and endorsed fellow war opponent Jim Webb early on. That endorsement was critical and provided Webb's campaign with an early boost of legitimacy in his primary against lobbyist Harris Miller, who supported the war in Iraq and thought Bush's tax cuts were "a great idea". Webb defeated racist Republican George Allen narrowly because he presented a clear choice on economic inequality and the war in Iraq, and has turned around and endorsed Byrne's campaign.
Leslie Byrne has also been endorsed by Raising Kaine, Not Larry Sabato, Anonymous Is a Woman, 750 Volts, and Bryan Scrafford. To contextualize these endorsements, understand that the Virginia blogs are probably one of the most sophisticated group of progressive bloggers in the country; they helped put Tim Kaine and Jim Webb into office, and the state in play for 2008.
This is a nasty fight, with Connolly up by 22 in his polling and Byrne up by 10 in her polling. Connolly is generally seen as heavily tied to developers (see all the coming soon on his campaign's endorsement list), while Byrne's endorsement list is pretty impressive and shows her commitment to progressive values:
UAW Virginia, CWA, IUPAT, Ironworkers, Plumbers, Operating Engineers, Heating and Asbestos Workers, Washington DC Building Trades Council, AFSCME Virginia, Boilermakers, Operating Engineers, EMILY's List, UAW International, National Women's Political Caucus, and EMILY's List.
If she win the primary and the general, Byrne will be a great member of Congress. I emailed back and forth with her over our standard set of questions focusing on key moments of progressive leverage in Congress; the war funding vote in 2007, the FISA vote in 2007, and retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Here are her responses.
1) How would you have voted on the war funding bill that the Democrats passed in May?
I would have voted against the war funding bill. I have been on record since January,2003 as being against the war and the occupation of Iraq when a dozen former members of Congress and I sent a letter to President Bush not to embark on this foolhardy war.
2) What is your position on the Protect America Act that went through Congress in August, the bill that extended the President's eavesdropping power3?
I would have voted against it. Warrantless wiretapping, cutting courts out of the process and giving the power to the administration, under any fair reading of the Constitution should be illegal.
3) What is your position on retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies?
I'm against immunity. The telecommunications companies who complied (not all did) have some of the highest priced legal talent available. They should have asked for a court ruling before handing over their customers records. I was very pleased that the US House found their voice on this issue.
Byrne has also signed on to the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, showing leadership now as a candidate for office and facing withering attacks because she spoke out substantively to change the conversation on national security.
Even though many of us are political junkies, we don't get many chances to really impact politics in this country. Primaries, though, are the moments when our influence is felt most keenly, because it is at those times when Democratic activists and Democratic voters really shape the party's direction. It's hard to have a clearer choice than the one presented in this primary in Virginia, so if you want to put money to where it will really matter, give $50 to Leslie Byrne, and let's send another progressive Democrat to support the fight we started years ago.
UPDATE: Right now, Blue Majority is at 5534 donors. Since we started the page, here's what our candidates have done: Donna Edwards won a primary, Bill Foster is a member of Congress who was pivotal in the FISA fight, Al Franken is winning his primary, Joe Garcia is presenting a fundamental challenge to the fruitless embargo against Cuba, and Darcy Burner and Eric Massa have presented a substantive and responsible plan to end the war in Iraq. I'd say we got our money's worth.
One point to note is that these are the salad days of progressive change, with Republicans dropping like flies. We will not face an environment like this for years, so it is right now when your money matters. We've seen the change that our candidates are already making.
It's time to support them, so throw in $75 if you can. Blue Majority is setting a goal of getting to 6500 donors by the end of the quarter. If you haven't given, now's the time. I just threw in $100. And now, courtesy of Actblue's new feature set, you can store your donation history. Here's mine.
It didn't take long for Bill Foster to make an impact in Congress.
Foster, a Democratic scientist/businessman, won a special election Saturday to replace retired former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in the House. He was sworn into his seat representing the exurban 14th Congressional District on Tuesday afternoon. By evening, he was casting what was arguably the deciding vote on a white-hot ethics bill.
The bill, pushed aggressively by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), creates an independent, outside panel to investigate ethics complaints against House members. The House approved it last night, 229-182, with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed. That margin is deceptive: Before final passage, the bill first had to clear a much closer procedural vote, which gave House members a chance to kill the idea without, technically, voting against it.
The bill survived that test by a single vote, with Foster voting in favor.
Foster is also making a difference with FISA and retroactive immunity. A few votes either way will make the difference on that one.
Attorney Mike Ciresi said this afternoon that he is dropping out of the race for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Minnesota.
His decision leaves political satirist and commentator Al Franken and University of St. Thomas professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer as the leading Democratic candidates seeking to challenge incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.
I heard some variation of the line, 'Oh he's just a comedian' after the Blue Majority endorsement. Comedy writing and performance is extremely hard and involves nuanced truth-telling. It is in many ways the perfect training for progressive politics, since it is entirely organized around observing and articulating uncomfortable facts about ourselves in a way designed to acknowledge and empower us.
Al Franken is brilliant, hardworking, and substantive, and if I were Norm Coleman I'd be terrified. This is a guy who wrote 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' way before the rest of the Democratic world recognized what was going on.
In the poll of 517 likely special election voters, conducted by Survey USA exclusively for Roll Call on March 3 and 4, physicist Bill Foster (D) led dairy company executive Jim Oberweis (R) 52 percent to 45 percent. The poll had a 4.4-point margin of error.
Foster appeared to test particularly well with women and independent voters, who preferred him by a 3-2 margin. The survey also suggested Foster had locked down his party's base, taking 97 percent of likely Democratic votes and perhaps stealing 10 percent of likely GOP votes.
In contrast, Roll Call's poll suggested that 89 percent of likely Republican special election participants pulled the hypothetical lever for Oberweis, owner of a eponymous multi-state retail ice cream chain. The survey also showed that Oberweis drew dramatically fewer potential party switchers than Foster - just 3 percent.
Self-defined independents, who are expected to make up one-quarter of Saturday's electorate, picked Oberweis 38 percent of the time in Roll Call's hypothetical matchup.
Obama's favorable/unfavorable in the district is 49/35, which is good. But what really matters is whether voters are persuaded by Obama's endorsement, and the poll doesn't reveal that information.
It's a Republican district and a Saturday election, and in situations like that the incumbent party is at an advantage. This is a goo drace for two reasons. One, FISA and Iraq are core issues, and two, we'll get to see if Obama has coattails for other Democrats. According to the polls here, it looks like Foster is getting party switchers and independents. But the vote hasn't happened yet.
In less than a week, there's a special election to fill a Congressional seat in Illinois's 14th district. This one was the seat held by Dennis Hastert, former Republican Speaker of the House during the most destructive political period we may see in our lifetimes. Because of that legacy of failure, and because of the special dynamics of 2008, we might be able to turn this red district blue in a foreshadowing of the election in November. The Democrat, Bill Foster, and the Republican, Jim Oberweis, are pretty much tied in the polling. This is a race with potentially far reaching impacts, and it's one where some support from our communities can be helpful. Here's legal legend Larry Lessig, one of the coiners of the term 'net neutrality' who decided earlier this year not to run for Congress.
So just off the phone with Bill Foster, a physicist from Illinois, Democrat, running in a special election to fill Dennis Hastert's seat. When I started to think about this run, Foster was a model. A former researcher at Fermilab, and entrepreneur, he is precisely the sort a changed Congress would need.
"Seven hours a day" on the phone raising money. And with a Special Election just 10 days away, they're pushing to raise a final $200,000 to run an endorsement ad from Barack Obama.
Seven hours a day. Wow.
Foster is running for Dennis Hastert's old seat, a 55% Bush 2004 voting district. Despite the redness of the district, he is running clearly on the issue of Iraq with several ads calling for the end of the war (here's ad one and ad two on Iraq), and he has on his web site 'Businessman, Scientist, Democrat'. He is against retroactive immunity for telecoms, and his opponent is for letting lawbreakers off the hook. This is no shrinking violet running a vague anti-DC message, this guy is a Democrat running as a Democrat on the Iraq war and FISA in a red district.
And now Foster needs $200k to run an endorsement ad by Barack Obama in Illinois. This is a test run of the 2008 elections, and we'll know soon if Obama has the coattails to drive increased Democratic majorities in Congress. I don't agree with Foster on everything, and I don't expect any of us to be perfectly satisfied with any member of Congress. But taking Dennis Hastert's old seat with a proud scientist and Democrat running against the war and strongly for civil liberties under the ticket of the probable Democratic nominee in 2008?
That's a great Blue Majority candidate. Give a few bucks, it's a good chance to have
a meaningful impact. Since I can't volunteer for Foster in Illinois, I threw in $25.
This is a useful investment in changing the country and changing the party. If he wins, or even comes close, it'll be one more sign the House does not have to cave on FISA, and one more sign that the Obama wave will be able to build a more progressive America. If he doesn't, we'll learn and be able to shift messaging, like we did with Busby's special election victory in CA-50. Either way, it makes sense to be involved.
UPDATE: That's a big slug of donations! $2000 from 27 of you in a few hours. Progressive Democratic leader Jan Schakowsky is really excited about this one and will be door-knocking on election day. Also, Patrick Murphy's people are on the ground to help, so you're in good company.
I'm going to have more on this soon, but I think the lack of an overwhelming desire to add Obama to the Blue Majority page is a very interesting indication. Around 90% of liberal blog readers support Obama, but only two thirds wanted him added to the Blue Majority page. That means that roughly a quarter of Obama supporters do not want Obama on that page yet, which is fascinating.
The Blue Majority page has around 5000 donors, and is roughly based around the idea that progressives can pick better candidates earlier than insiders can. So far, the candidates we've picked: Darcy Burner, Eric Massa, Dan Seals, Rick Noriega and Donna Edwards have won their primaries, and Donna of course upset an incumbent. Mark Pera lost badly. And Al Franken, despite early controversy over the pick, is en route to capturing the nomination in Minnesota and has taken the lead in Senate polling.
We can afford to fail, and we can afford to be public about it, because we are ideological in how the campaigns we support; they must be people-powered and they must support Democrats at key moments in support of broadly important policy objectives (ending the Iraq war and ending illegal wiretapping). In the poll, we asked blog readers, though it might have been better to ask donors directly since that's who makes the Blue Majority page work.
Anyway, regardless of who wins the nomination, and I can't see Clinton taking it, but regardless of who wins it, we have to work towards getting a progressive Congress in there as well. And I hope the nominee makes that a key priority in their campaign. That's where I'm going to put a lot of my focus, that's what Blue Majority is about, and that is how we can exert more leverage given our relative size compared to the Presidential juggernaut.
After nearly 24 hours and just over 20,000 votes, at 8:15 p.m. the cumulative totals on the Blue Majority endorsement vote stood at 13,640 in favor, to 6,710 against. Overall, that is an extremely narrow margin in favor of endorsing, 67.0%--33.0%. However, there are a number of mitigating factors that have led us to decide to wait and not make an endorsement for the time being.
For starters, neither the margins at Swing State Project (63.2% in favor of endorsing) or Open Left (63.3% in favor of endorsing) met the threshold. Second, after starting at over 70%, the percentage in favor of endorsing has been trending slowly downward all day. Frankly, it seems like only a matter of time before the overall margin dips below 66.7%, or at least becomes so close that no clear outcome can be discerned. Third, part of the reason the vote is trending downward is because the majority of comments at all three sites are opposed to an endorsement. The arguments put forth by those commenters appear to be winning converts. In fact, while I reject the notion that an endorsement would result in any of our blogs becoming subsumed under the Obama campaign, and while I have always rejected the notion that we should be neutral in the nomination campaign, I was also persuaded by many of the comments, too.
So, we will wait on the endorsement until at least after the March 4th primaries. After that point, it is possible that we will have either a presumptive nominee or a revitalized Clinton campaign, both of which would render the endorsement question moot. No matter what happens, we will still roll out several new endorsements over the next couple weeks. Also, no matter who the nominee ends up being, we will help work to elect him or her the next President of the United States. It looks like we need some more time before we can connect the presidential campaign to the congressional campaigns this cycle, but I believe we will get there. And who knows, perhaps it is better start driving traffic to the page via the presumptive nominee only after all of the new congressional candidates have been added.
Thanks to everyone who commented and voted on the endorsement process. You have convinced us to hold off, for the time being. Personally, I had thought the vote would pass the threshold quite easily, but that is only one of the reasons why we actually hold elections. Ain't democracy and dialogue great? :)
Update: I believe that enough opposition was shown to the endorsement to put it off for now. In the end, the purpose of this poll was to gauge the opposition to such an endorsement. That is close, but not exactly, the same thing as determining if there is enough support to make the endorsement. It is a messy outcome, and I apologize.
The confusion surrounding the process is entirely my fault. If you want to blame anyone for it, blame me. I came up with the rules in about five minutes, and I clearly did not anticipate all of the possible eventualities. Reading through the comments, I did not even feel as though I explained my rationale behind an early endorsement very well, so I'm not surprised that such a close vote resulted in a disputed interpretation of the outcome. Some people even took the vote as three separate endorsement votes for each of the three blogs, even though it wasn't an endorsement vote for any of them. Blue Majority is a separate project on which all three blogs participate.
Again, I apologize. My lack of precision in developing the rules and explaining the process led to the confusion in this outcome.
With two hours to go, Obama is just hanging on to the 2/3 threshold on Dailykos, and has missed it on OpenLeft and Swing State Project. Obviously Dkos is the overwhelming leader in terms of raw numbers of voters, but even there about a quarter of Obama supporters don't want Blue Majority to put Obama on the page.
Perhaps on the blogs, there's still something of a separation of Obama the Presidential candidate from Obama the leader of the progressive movement sweeping in a whole group of progressive challengers. I think it's essential to put Obama together with a progressive Congress or we won't make real progress in 2009 and beyond. The reason to put the Obama Blue Majority endorsement up for a vote was to see whether this rationale made sense.
Apparently though the community isn't quite there with Obama leading a group of progressive challengers. I'm sympathetic to these reservations, deeply so, and I find them fascinating.
Tonight, we at Blue Majority are asking our readers on Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project a simple question: should we endorse in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign tomorrow, or should we wait until the nominee is certain?
There are two reasons we ask this question. First, we have always valued your insight and suggestions for which Democrats to place on the page. For an endorsement of this magnitude, a super majority of you, the supporters who make Blue Majority work, must approve. In order for us to place a presidential candidate on the page while the outcome of nomination campaign is still in doubt, two-thirds support from the community will be required.
Second, while we were always going to place the presumptive Democratic nominee on the Blue Majority page as soon as s/he emerged, over the next month several new candidates will be placed on the Blue Majority page in anticipation of the March 31st fundraising deadline. With the overwhelming majority of progressive, grassroots, electoral energy current focused on the presidential nomination campaign, we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page. And yes, you know which candidate we are talking about.
So far in 2008, Barack Obama is on pave to surpass all electoral records in terms of progressive grassroots support, even the high marks set by John Kerry four years ago after he became the presumptive nominee. If the energies of people-powered congressional candidates and that of the movement behind Barack Obama's presidential campaign were to combine, it could create a powerful symbiosis that can build the sort of governing majority we need to pass strong legislation in 2009. For example, in the Democratic primary for Maryland's 4th congressional district, the Donna Edwards campaign was able to convert the new wave of Obama voters into a decisive victory. We want to help translate that energy into even more big victories like the one we saw in MD-04.
Now, many in the community are ambivalent about the Democratic nomination campaign. Also, there are still many Hillary Clinton supporters within the community. Further, even many Barack Obama supporters have reservations about him, and I am sympathetic to those reservations. Here on Open Left, for example, I recently expressed my displeasure with the way Obama distanced himself from the term "liberal," Matt blasted Obama for his Harry and Louise mailers, and Mike blasted the Obama campaign for using Bush Dog Jim Cooper, who played a major role in sinking health care reform back in 1993-1994, as a spokesperson for health care. In fact, Matt and I even once appeared in a commercial attacking both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their plans to leave residual American military forces in Iraq. There are good, progressive reasons to be wary of Barack Obama, of which these are only a few.
So, we have decided to leave the decision to you. If two-thirds of the community approves, we will add Barack Obama to the Blue Majority page tomorrow, and roll out several new congressional candidates over the next couple weeks. If there is not two-thirds support for making an endorsement now, we will roll out the new congressional candidates anyway, and wait until there is a presumptive Democratic nominee before adding a presidential candidate to the page. And whether or not we add Barack Obama now, we will add Hillary Clinton to the page if and when she becomes the presumptive nominee.
So please, take the poll in the extended entry. Would you like Blue Majority to endorse now, or to wait until the nominee is certain? The deadline to vote is 6 p.m. eastern tomorrow, and the decision will be made based on the cumulative result across all three blogs. Take the poll.
There are four pillars to the working conservative majority in Washington D.C.: Bush, Bush Dogs, timid Democratic leadership, and a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate. Despite commanding an overwhelming amount of attention, the presidential election actually does not deal with many of these. In less than a year, Bush is leaving town on his own. Also, neither the Bush Dogs nor the Democratic congressional leadership will be impacted by the outcome of the primary campaigns. However, two immediate elections, the IL-03 congressional primary on February 5th and the MD-04 congressional primary on February 12th, will make a huge impact on both Bush Dog behavior and on the Democratic leadership. Further, these two primary campaigns are just about the last chance we have to influence the behavior of either Bush Dogs or the Democratic Congressional leadership for another two years.
Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority (Bush Dogs and timid leaders) don't care about what we write, but they do care about what David Broder writes. Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority don't care about low approval ratings among progressives, because they know the vast majority of us will vote for Democrats in the general election. Further, they don't even care about the small number of progressives who choose not to vote in general elections, because they are no threat to their dominance of the Democratic Party. Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority also don't care if we decide to stop donating to them, because now that they are in the majority there is more than enough corporate PAC money to make up for that lost revenue.
Throughout the Bush Dog campaign, we have seen that the only way to change the behavior of Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority is to spend resources on them. Four Bush Dogs flipped on SCHIP only when BlogPac and Blue America ran ads against them. Only two Bush Dogs, Dan Lipinski and Leonard Boswell, flipped their support on Iraq, and they also happen to be the only two Bush Dogs facing primary challenges. Although he is not technically a Bush Dog, the often conservative and corporate Al Wynn only joined the Out of Iraq caucus after Donna Edwards nearly defeated him back in September of 2006.
The only proven way for grassroots progressives to change Democratic behavior in this Congress has been to spend actual resources that make Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority feel a legitimate, left-wing challenge to their position in Congress. Simply put, we have had no success in flipping Bush Dogs against whom we have spent no money. This is actually a lesson we have known for some time, given that the progressive grassroots were not taken seriously until Howard Dean was a legitimate threat to win the nomination, and since Democrats only really started running against the war in 2006 after Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary. Nothing else has worked so far.
Now, only two weeks from today, two of the three legitimately threatening progressive primary challenges against Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority will be over. In other words, once the Donna Edwards and Mark Pera campaigns are over, our ability to influence the behavior of Bush Dogs and indeed the entire Democratic Congress will virtually evaporate. It is now, or never. Donate to Mark Pera and Donna Edwards today.
Concerning the direction of the Democratic Party over the next two years, these two primary campaigns are just as, if not more, important than the presidential nomination campaign. They are also two of our last chances to really influence the direction of the Democratic Party for quite some time. Make these opportunities count. Tell Bush Dogs and Democratic congressional leadership that they can't take you for granted, and that grassroots progressives will not be ignored. Donate to Mark Pera and Donna Edwards today.
Republican Rep. Jim Walsh of New York is expected to announce his retirement soon, according to a GOP aide familiar with the decision, giving Democrats another pick-up opportunity following a wave of Republican retirements this cycle.
The veteran appropriator had a tough reelection fight in 2006 and was expected to face another challenge in the fall.
It marks another surprise retirement for the GOP. Moderates Republicans have been particularly depleted in recent years, both through retirements and losses in the 2006 midterm. As a result, House Republicans have adopted a more conservative thrust during the 110th Congress.
Walsh's office could not be reached for comment.
Walsh was first elected to the House in 1988. Walsh's father, William Walsh, was mayor of Syracuse during the 1960s, followed by three terms in the House.
The NY-25 is a very blue district, with a partisan index of Democratic 3.4 (and growing). Walsh was faced both with the prospect of not receiving the conservative party endorsement because he wasn't crazy enough on Iraq, and the much more serious challenge from Democrat Dan Maffei. Two years ago, Maffei came within 1% against Walsh, and will now be poised to take the seat in 2008.
The Presidential campaign is exiting and important, and will have a major impact on the national party. However, underneath the national radar, another, equally important effort to change the Democratic Party is taking place: primary campaigns against Bush Dog Democrats. One of those primaries will take place in just twenty-two days on February 5th, as Mark Pera challenges Dan Lipinski. The 3rd congressional district of Illinois is the battleground, and it also happens to be the bluest district in the nation held by a Bush Dog. The simple, blunt truth is that if we can't win here, we are going to have a difficult time winning anywhere. This primary is a key test of progressive strength in the party, and as such will have a major impact on Democratic behavior in Congress. The case against
Deep Blue District: Lipinski represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district, with a partisan voting index of Democrat +10.3, and where Kerry won 59% of the vote in 2004. This is a blue district in absolutely no danger of falling into Republican hands. It should be represented by a strong progressive.
Nepotism Lipinski never had to campaign for the seat, not even in a primary. When he first won back in 2002, his father actually was the Democratic nominee. However, after his father won the primary, he stepped aside and had the junior Lipinski placed on the ballot in his stead. In other words, Lipinski has no real campaign experience, and only scored his seat in Congress through pure nepotism.
Until his dad crowned him a congressman, he spent 15 years out of town working at universities in North Carolina, Indiana and Tennessee. Somehow, while being a resident of other states, he managed to vote here, not by absentee ballot but in person. Election judges in his father's 23rd Ward marked him present in every Chicago election since at least 1990, according to official records.
Oddly, Lipinski, can't recall casting those votes. "I'm trying to think back to that time," he told me. "I honestly cannot remember."
Now the voter records are missing. This is clear voter fraud perpetrated by a local machine. Lipinski probably did not vote for over 15 years.
Bush Dog: Lipinski is a Bush Dog who voted with Bush on the war and on FISA. In fact, the IL-03 is by far the bluest district represented by a Bush Dog. We will never have a progressive governing majority if Bush Dogs occupy seats like this.
Hard Right Anti-Choice: In addition to being a Bush Dog, Lipinski is staunchly anti-choice. He has a zero rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He doesn't believe in family planning at all, in fact.
Not Progressive On Much Of Anything: In addition to his records on Iraq, FISA and choice, he also is below average for a Democrat on immigration, gets a big fat zero from Progressive Punch on GLBT issues, and only a 50% score from the Drum major institute on progressive family issues. Basically, he sucks at just about everything.
Already has a primary opponent: Recruiting a primary challenger against Lipinski isn't even necessary. Mark Pera has already signed on to run against him. You can compare some of their views here.. The simplest way to put it is this: Dan Lipinski is one of the worst examples of Democrats out of step with their districts. Mark Pera is a real progressive who has a good chance to defeat him. If we want to change the behavior of the Democratic Congress, this will be one of our very best chances to do so.
This is designed to be a blogosphere-wide push to help bring victory in IL-03. We are targeting 5,000 donors for Mark Pera on Act Blue, and we started today at about 2,300. Already, nearly 200 new donors have participated. Even thought I had already participated, I've chipped in, too. This is how we can make a better Democratic Party, but it won't happen unless we donate to all of the campaigns that campaigns that can change the party. The Presidential primary isn't the only way to make change, and through the IL-03 we can have a huge impact even before November rolls around.
The DCCC is going to be stack-ranking candidates at the end of the quarter and making priority choices based on fundraising totals. If you want to get progressives elected, there's leverage in dem dar hills. Support Blue Majority candidates, with any sized donation. It all helps, and this is where there's real movement to change our politics. The Presidential race is out of our hands, but the next Congress is not.
Donna Edwards and Mark Pera have February primaries, so they are high priority progressive primary races coming up soon. Rick Noriega, Darcy Burner, Al Franken, and Gary Trauner among others will genuinely change our politics and deserve support. You'll be proud of these ones, folks. And I've given to every one of them.
I grew up in Miami, a region dominated by Cuba politics, so I have some knowledge of how significant Joe Garcia's candidacy is in South Florida. It is a direct challenge to the pay-to-play foreign policy apparatus of the United States, one where sugar interests and right-wing politics determines that we should have a pointless embargo against the Cuban people. But today I want to announce that we have another significant nomination for the Blue Majority page: Leslie Byrne for Virginia's 11th district.
