The Minnesota governors race is heating up. This is the DFL's best chance to at long last elect a governor. The last time that happened was 1986, over 20 years ago. And we can elect a progressive governor who will do us proud and bring a strong campaign to voters in 2010. I believe this candidate is Minneapolis's Mayor R.T. Rybak. That's why I'm helping organize the Draft Rybak grassroots movement. Let me explain why for a bit and invite you to our kickoff.
He can win: The latest poll of the race showed Rybak as the strongest candidate, leading Norm Coleman and with the best favorability rating of all DFL candidates. A earlier poll showed him as the second strongest candidate behind Mark Dayton. Obviously polls do not mean much this far out. But Rybak has shown he is a tough campaigner, good debater and can effectively communicate a clear and effective message to the public. He can bring that statewide, he's already campaigned around the state for Barack Obama and other DFL candidates. He is the strongest candidate on our side running for governor. He can win. And he should win beacuse he's great on the issues.
The fundraiser for Fallon is going incredibly well, with all of us pitching in. I chipped in $45 when the amount on our page hit $955, so we could hit $1000 cleanly, and now we're at $1745. You guys are amazing, but also dedicated. It's important to understand that we may lose this primary, but that what is important is that we are willing to take risks to support candidates who stand up against the status quo. And that is Ed Fallon.
This is the kind of shit we're dealing with from his opponent, Leonard Boswell.
That's a mailer sent out by an anti-Fallon 527 run by a developer who will reap rewards from one of Boswell's earmarks. It criticizes Fallon's vote against residency restrictions for child sex offenders; Fallon was the only legislator in Iowa to vote against them. Even though prosecutors of these crimes say these laws don't work. The pandering on the fears of the middle class and the creation of a fear-based atmosphere is a key hallmark of a politics that doesn't work, and it's precisely this kind of fear-mongering that is paralyzing our political system.
If you want to stop child predators, there are many ways of doing it. The politicians who voted for this law really didn't care about stopping child predators, just as the developer who paid for this mailer and the corporate PAC backers of Boswell are just seeking standard legislative favors.
I spoke with Fallon's campaign manager yesterday, and she told me that they are going to use the money we raise for response mailers to this piece. I thought we'd hit $1000, which would pay for about a tenth of what it would cost. We ended up going beyond that in only a few hours. If you'd like to contribute, you can do so here.
The Obama campaign is doing well because it is rejecting these kinds of divisive and unproductive political attacks. That is why, you might have guessed, Fallon endorsed Obama, and Boswell endorsed Clinton.
The Representative from Washington's Congressional District # 3 is a member of the Democratic Party who has backed George Bush on several matters of critical importance to U.S. citizens in general and progressives in particular: 1) support for the occupation of Iraq, and, especially, support for 'the Surge'; 2) approval of the Peru Free-Trade Agreement in late 2007; and 3) an affirmative vote for the construction of 700 miles of fence/wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.
Consequently, I have been searching for a progressive opponent for Baird in the August primary election. This is the story and result of that search.
Last week we launched Change-Congress.org. After that event, I made my first call on a Member of Congress, to ask him to join. I knew he was a supporter of at least some of our ideas. I had come to many of my own ideas about how Congress needs to change after long conversations with him.
I am very proud to announce today that Congressman Jim Cooper (TN-5) (Dem) has become the first Member to join the Change Congress movement. (He supports planks 2, 3, and 4). Congressman Cooper is a "blue dog" Democrat.
http://campaign-archive.com/ar...
I am not sure how I feel about this. More below the jump.
Tim Walz is the only candidate from the netroots page that ended up a Bush Dog, voting for both the blank check bill in April and the FISA extension in August. Now the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is running ads in his district attacking him for not voting for retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Here's his response.
"This ad is reckless with our national security. Implying that America's surveillance against terrorists is crippled is a lie. What's worse, this group has encouraged terrorists to think our country's surveillance system is weak, when nothing could be further from the truth. Why on earth would any group go on television and claim that America's intelligence agencies can't do their job?"
As a result of recent court rulings, special-interest lobbying groups like this one now have the ability to raise and spend unlimited amountsof money to say whatever they want through paid advertising to advance their political agenda. "
This lobbying group's so-called 'issue ad' is a new low," added Walz. "Citizens in southern Minnesota aren't fooled by this fear-mongering but they do deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and where they are from."
Prior to this Congressional recess, Walz urged the President and Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to stay in Washington and reach an agreement to permanently modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), properly balancing the government's intelligence gathering needs with safeguarding the very liberties that millions of Americans have fought and died for.
"As a 24 year veteran of the National Guard, I understand better than this group that this is a dangerous world," concluded Walz. "My message to those terrorists who seek to do our country harm is: We still have the tools in place to intercept and disrupt what you may be planning --and we can act lightning fast -- because there is no disagreement in our country about protecting the America people."
There's plenty of wiggle room in there to let Walz wiggle out and vote for retroactive immunity. But if he doesn't, I'm inclined to remove him from Bush Dog status. Calling a right-wing group like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a pack of liars is pretty strong stuff. And if he doesn't go along with immunity, then that is enough to make up for the August vote.
(Incidentally, Democratic superdelegate Donna Brazile and Democratic Congressmen Eliot Engel and Jim Marshall are on the advisory board of the FDD. They should strongly consider resigning.)
UPDATE: In the comments there are a variety of people arguing that Walz should never have been on there in the first place. The standards for being a Bush Dog are very clear. One, the member voted for war funding without restrictions for Bush. Two, the member voted for the FISA extension to authorize Bush increased spying power. Walz voted for both of these, therefore he is a strong enabler of George Bush. It is Congressmen like Tim Walz that keep the war in Iraq going, period. So those of you who are whining, and yes, it is whining, that he does not deserve to be on there are simply susceptible to a cult of personality and unwilling to hold him accountable for the moral cripple he has chosen to be in the House.
Tim Sackton pointed out that he voted against the PAA extension, which was a priority for people who wanted to defeat retroactive immunity. So this guy's a Bush dog through and through until he shows himself differently.
Here's Ed Fallon, who is challenging Leonard Boswell in Iowa's third district. Boswell is in a Blue-ing district and has signed a letter supporting retroactive immunity for the telecom companies for breaking the law. Fallon has this to say.
I am opposed to giving immunity to the telecom companies. This is an area where Boswell has repeatedly sided with Bush and against his fellow House Democrats, as when he voted for the Protect America Act and the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I am critical of his record because I believe such legislation is too sweeping in granting new police powers to the government and, as a result, infringes on the civil rights and liberties of Americans.
"We weren't designed in Article I of the Constitution to be the ATM machine for the president." U.S. Rep. TIM WALZ, on the congressional role in setting foreign policy, to the Star Tribune Editorial Board.
That's a great point from Tim Walz (D-MN1), who voted for the blank check bill in the Spring that funds Bush's war spending while attaching no restrictions to it. I wonder, though, if Walz means that Congress wasn't designed that way as a suggestion Congress shouldn't fund the war, or as an observation of a design flaw in Congress.
If it's the latter, Walz and his Bush Dog cohorts that fund everything Bush asks for can pat themselves on the back for fixing Congress so it is in fact an ATM. Good job, Tim!
Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson is simply awful.
Collin Peterson, chairman of the House of Representatives agricultural committee, says the farm sector that raises organic produce and grass-fed beef for local consumers needs little federal help. 'It is growing, and it has nothing to do with the government, and that is good,' he told the FT. 'For whatever reason, people are willing to pay two or three times as much for something that says 'organic' or 'local'. Far be it from me to understand what that's about, but that's reality. And if people are dumb enough to pay that much then hallelujah.'"
The district has a strong Republican PVI (+13), but it's not a traditional Republican district. It's very rural Minnesota, a place where ethnic loyalties are incredibly strong and there are still Scandinavian accents. People in Peterson's district think that taxes are too low, and are exceptionally populist in that one world model that fears the NAFTA Superhighway.
Peterson is the reason the Farm Bill is going to subsidize agribusiness and cut out money for conservation (way to go Democratic Congress!). The sustainable agricultural community, as far as I can tell, isn't organized in any sort of union with people like me who like tasty food and will pay higher prices so I don't get poisoned and don't have to emit as much carbon. I go to Farmer's Markets and the producers there are progressive, but they tend to talk like conservatives. They hate government regulations, which basically just punish small farmers who want to grow and sell high quality foods, and tend to distrust and dislike the political system.
Agribusiness has driven a truck through this wedge for fifty years now, but I get the sense that with some real organizing, the small farms could really have a big impact. It's not just that the farms are growing sustainable food without subsidies and against a hostile regulatory structure and growing their business, it's also that more progressive solutions on energy and land use policies will help these farms and their communities as well.
Meanwhile, if anyone has lived in Peterson's district and knows the DFLers around there, let me know.
So I feel like the Dems fell for a distinctly Karl-Rovian tactic today. Rove is well known for his divide and conquer tactics using controversial wedge issues to chip away at the Democratic base while whipping the Republican base into a froth.
I think that is what the MoveOn resolution was about.
Not only did it help the Republicans shift the debate for a day or two off their failed policy, but right now the Democratic base, or at least the progressive base is furious with the Dems for voting against MoveOn and free speech.
So now the question I am torn between is this: do we add a new category to the BushDogs and start watching those Dems very closely who voted against MoveOn and free speech (and possibly fall into the Rovian trap of splitting even further from them), do we let it slide, or what do we do?
I for one think those Dems who voted against MoveOn and free speech need to never hear the end of our anger over this. But I also fear falling into the Rovian trap of abandoning them come election time.
I think MoveOn and the netroots should launch a campaign to unseat the author of the anti-MoveOn bill: Cornyn http://cornyn.senate...
Below is a complete breakdown of the votes as linked here.... http://www.senate.go...
Brad Ellsworth represnts Indiana's famous (or is it infamous) "Bloody Eighth" Congressional District. The District covers the southern half of Indiana's western border and includes Evansville, Terre Haute and Vincennes. It's a classic blue collar, white district: 94.2% white, 3.7% black, 0.9% Hispanic and 0.6% Asian. While the percentage of high school grads is slightly above the national norm, college degrees and graduate degrees are somewhat rare (15.6% for college vs. over 21% nationally; 3.7 for grad degrees vs. over 6%). The result is fewer "poor" people but family and per capita incomes some 10 to 15% below the national average.
Ellsworth's father was a crane operator for Alcoa. Ellsworth worked his way through a local college by working in the paint and hardware department of the local Sears. This was not "Grease" territory or anything like it. Ellsworth entered the County Sherriff's office and began working his way up the ladder. This meant getting a masters degree in Criminology at Indiana State (in the district at Terre Haute; best known as Larry Bird's school although John Wooden started his college coaching career there). It also meant, eventually, being elected the local sherrif (1998, re-elected in 2002), in Ellsworth's case as a Democrat.
In 2006, the Sherriff took on the local Republican Congressman, John Hostettler. Hostettler was kind of unusual. He voted against the Iraq War Resolution (AUMF) and refused to take PAC funds, In fact, he generally spent small sums and relied on a network of churches and anti-abortion types to turn out the votes. Ellsworth, in a sense, was the perfect candidate. Where Hostettler was not much of a fundraiser, Brad proved to be good at it. He was Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-drug, and the personification of law and order. Brad Ellsworth not only won, he won the largest victory of any of the 30 Democrats who took over a Republican seat with 61.5% of the vote in a district carried by George W. Bush with 61.02%.
Henry Cuellar may seem like a familiar name to many blog readers. He should. Cuellar was the early, less successful challenge a la Joe Lieberman. In his case, the net roots were energized not by "The Kiss" but by a similar W gesture at the 2006 State of the Union address: W squeezing Cuellar's cheeks.
Cuellar, of course, has a bad history with George W. Bush. He endorsed him fpr President in 2000. At the time, Cuellar was only thinking about running for the House. But that was before Tom DeLay's redistricting. In fact, Cuellar ran with the active support of neighboring congressman Ciro Rodriguez but lost to Republican Henry Bonilla in 2002.
Following the DeLay redistricting, Cuellar found his home town of Laredo (yes, that Laredo) in the district of his sponsor Ciro Rodriguez. In a highly controversial move, Cuellar ran against Ciro and defeated him in the primary and then cruised to an easy 59%-39% victory in the 2004 general election.
The Bush Dog campaign has more or less achieved its first step: compiling profiles of all those designated as 'Bush Dogs' by the criteria Matt laid out.
Some of the profiles are positive, some are negative (largely based on who authored them) and there is certainly room for more profiles to provide a more nuanced outlook, but the overall picture is in place. Now the question arises of what to do with them.
In the netroots there has been rather more caution, stemming not only from the traditional emphasis on partisanship but also from fear of strengthening a Republican Party which is almost entirely made up of Bush rubber-stamps.
Nevertheless, in general we can divide those on the list into 3 groups:
1) Bush Dogs in safe Democratic seats. It would be nice if they suddenly changed their positions, but frankly it's probably smarter to primary them and replace them with someone who doesn't have to be pressured into making the right votes. The best example here is Lipinski (IL-03) and it also seems fair to consider challenges to Costa (CA-20) and Cooper (TN-05) although the latter will quite definitely be the most difficult of the three.
2) Bush Dogs in seats with a PVI close to 0. Primary challenges here are riskier, but possible in the last resort. In general, however, the safer option is to make sure that any open seats in this category are occupied by progressives and in the meantime to try to bring the current occupants into line with their constituents.
3) Bush Dogs in blood red districts. Nobody in their right minds thinks that we can primary this lot and win a general election. Hell, we'd be lucky to win the primary. Whilst there might in theory be some value to a primary challenge here to put the fear of the netroots into the right wing of the party, it would essentially be a cynical and most likely foolish sacrifice of a seat, so I don't see there being sufficient support for that kind of enterprise. A more subtle approach is needed here.
Read on, and I'll suggest how we can put real pressure on the Bush Dogs, tailored to individual seats, without unduly biasing our chances in a general election.
Albert Benjamin "Ben" Chandler III is the grandson and namesake of A.B. "Happy" Chandler, a former Kentucky Governor (twice) and U.S. Senator who also served as Commissioner of Baseball during the period it integrated. Happy Chandler was a noted supporter of Jackie Robinson and probably lost his job as a result.
Ben Chandler's path to his current job is ironic. He served as State Auditor (1991-95) and Attorney General (1995-2003) before running for Governor. Chandler lost to Republican Ernie Fletcher but then won the special election for Fletcher's seat in February 2004. Ben Chandler easily won re-election in the fall election with 59% of the vote. In 2006, Chandler faced no Republican opponent and coasted home with 85.5% of the vote against LIbertarian Paul Ard. These days, it is Fletcher who seems likely to be ousted in the fall following a scandal plagued administration while Chandler looks to have Fletcher's old seat for life.
Ben Chandler's voting record was predictably Blue Dog for the first two plus years in office but took a dramatic turn to the left following the election of a Democratic majority in 2006. Chandler's Loyalty Score is an impressive 94.3% this session. Chandler's career Progressive Punch score is 79.22 but rising this term. This is clearly better than average for a Blue Dog Bush Dog.
I have been watching this Bush Dog campaign with both a sense of amusement and some fear. I happen to be one who takes a generally anti-primary attitude believing that except in extreme cases running a primary against a sitting member of Congress is simply bad for any host of reasons. I am going to however take the leap with you and say Bush Dogs are generally very bad and a lot need to go. Lets go further and let's say that just as there are Democrats and Republicans, there are also Progressives and Conservatives. We at Openleft chose to ignore the party distinction and focus simply on the distinction between Progressive and Conservatives. We also assume that The Bush Dogs are all Conservatives. So Conservatives hold 241 seats to Progressives 194. Therefore for Progressive to have a majority in Congress, Progressive needs to pick up 24 seats. This is obviously very simplified but lets start here. You are the Progressive Strategist, where would you put your resources? Here is the list of seats.
Meantime, Baird has so many requests for interviews that he already has offered a two-hour media availability Monday, after Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, testify before the House.
The House leadership is collapsing on Iraq, but it's possible to stop the limpid compromise in the Senate. Meanwhile, Baird continues to get lots of press for his new position.
STATE BLOGS
