We have to act fast. Five Democratic Members of Congress from New York are putting the brakes on President Obama's historic campaign to reform our broken healthcare system.
Legislation that would expand healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans is gaining steam in Congress. But these five New York Representatives are stalling the bill because it pays for reform with a modest tax on the rich.
This is our best chance for healthcare reform in a generation, but now these five Democratic Members of Congress are putting real reform in jeopardy - even though less than 1% of all New Yorkers would be affected by the tax. Healthcare is too important to sit on sidelines.
It is pretty rare that a freshman member of the U.S. House leads a successful fight to make a tangible difference in the lives of his or her constituents after only three months in office.
It is equally rare that progressive grassroots activism is adopted by a member of Congress, and then quickly translated into a successful, governing victory.
Last week, freshman Representative Eric Massa, who I have been pretty hard on in the past, achieved both at the same time. In so doing, Representative Massa demonstrated that his election to the U.S. House was an important step toward "closing the rootsgap"; that is, the gap between the progressive grassroots and the Democratic leadership. That is big news, both in terms of the open media victory Massa helped secure, and in terms of proving a successful model for grassroots activism to turn into governing policy.
How often does Congress vote on spending bills that only impact one congressional district? The answer is almost never. Members of Congress almost always write and vote on legislation that impacts the entire country, not only their own personal district. In fact, the entire reason we have a federal Congress is to pass laws that impact more than one state. If there were no such laws, there would be no need for a national legislative body.
Here is another question: when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, would it have been appropriate for members of Congress not from the Gulf Coast to vote down all spending for relief and rebuilding efforts, because such efforts disproportionately benefited districts in the Gulf Coast? Should members of Congress from outside the New York and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas have voted down 9/11 relief effort because their congressional districts did not receive proportional benefit from the aid? Should we not have declared war on Japan in December of 1941 because they only attacked Hawaii?
And here is another question: did Congressman Eric Massa serve in the Armed Forces only because he thought such service would disproportionately benefit New York's Southern Tier? And when Captain Massa ran for Congress, did he refuse all contributions from people living outside his district, including help from the DCCC and other groups which are not based in his district?
And when 8,100,000 American families are facing foreclsoure over the next four years, is it appropriate for a member of Congressto vote against a housing bill because his district is facing only 7,048 foreclosures, which is less than 1 out of every 435 of all foreclosures? As I discuss in the extended entry, this is not a hypothetical question.
Randy Kuhl is on the death list of Republicans against Better Democrat Eric Massa in New York's 29th. Massa is not just in favor of universal health care, he's in favor of straight up single payer health care. NY-29 is also the most Republican district in New York state.
But you know, universal health care isn't popular so whatever.
And we're shooting for a goal of 100 new donations by tomorrow, and here's why. In two weeks, money will start to become less valuable for candidates because they won't be able to buy enough advertising time.
Our Better Democrats page is flush with great people who will make you proud in Congress. Jeff Merkley will be an aggressive progressive Senator in the Wellstone model; the NRSC has decided to stop spending in all races except Oregon and North Carolina, so let's help him out. Mark Begich is in a dogfight against the execrable but hilarious Ted Stevens, Eric Massa, a single payer advocate in the most Republican district in New York state, is leading Randy Kuhl, Annette Taddeo is standing against the bailout, Perriello is creeping up on the racist Virgil Goode, Alan Grayson is beating up on his opponent and proudly running as a liberal in central Florida, Dennis Shulman just got added to Red to Blue, and of course, Darcy Burner is finally leading against Dave Reichert.
Next year, the fight is going to shift from defeating the Republicans to winning over more Democrats to our agenda. With strong Congressional majorities, the fight within the party is the one we can set up for with this amazing wave.
So give and give deep. It will matter, and it will matter in the best way possible.
"Randy Kuhl, my opponent, flip-flopped and yielded under pressure from corporate special interests in the Bush administration to make sure he voted for this bill and it's a very sad day for the American taxpayer," said Massa.
Kuhl's congressional challenger, Eric Massa, says changes to the bailout plan only added pork and corporate tax breaks. He says he would have voted against it both times.
Incidentally, environmental groups were lobbying to pass the bailout bill because it had tax extenders for renewable energy.
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it's been all over the map. I'll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the "good guys" are.
First, let's start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it's their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
3500 people and more than 50 Democratic congressional candidates have endorsed a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. I've been asking these candidates all day what they would ask Petraeus were they in Congress. Here are some of their questions.
Darcy Burner, Democratic candidate for WA-08:
Gen. Petraeus, in March 2007, a few weeks after taking charge of U.S. military forces in Baghdad, you said, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." More than a year later, rockets are still falling in the Green Zone and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are fighting each other for power in Baghdad and Basra. The political reconciliation the surge was intended to foster has not happened, nor has any significant diplomatic breakthrough been achieved. So, given that we agree that there is no military solution to the problems we face, is our costly open-ended military commitment to Iraq really making the Unted States safer?
1) The hope of the surge was that it would create the space for political reconciliation and compromise in Iraq. But the Iraqi government and other power centers in the nation remains mired in disagreement with little real progress. Last week, it was the Iranians that reportedly brokered a truce between the Iraqi government and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The level of violence has settled back to 2005 levels. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?
Jill Derby, NV-02:
"The question I would ask Gen. Petraeus is this: 'The Army is saying that more than 25 percent of soldiers on third or fourth tours suffer mental health problems and Army Chief Of Staff General Casey called the Army "out of balance." What are we doing to help our troops, vets and their families deal with these issues?'"
Donna Edwards, MD-04:
My first question for the General is: When are you prepared to discuss and implement a multi-tiered approach to Iraq that includes economic, diplomatic, and political options to bring stability and sustainable progress to Iraq? Has the war in Iraq made the United States safer? Is the current U.S. force level in Iraq covering up the lack of political progress in the country and isn't that troop level unsustainable? Doesn't the violence of the last several weeks demonstrate that the central government is weak and that the Iraqi forces are not trained or prepared to defend against the insurgents?
I believe "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is a critical step in the right direction and is the kind of discussion we need to start having in Washington and across the country."
"The question that needs to be asked is how is our current policy making us safer and why we wouldn't be better off spending that money to address problems at home?"
Don Wiviott, NM-03:
Has the War in Iraq actually made America safer?
What plans are in place to both get our troops out of Iraq and give the Iraqi army a chance to step up to the plate and protect their own country?
Since there is no military solution in Iraq, what steps are we taking to ensure Iraqi officials are working together and moving towards lasting political reconciliation?
The President and other top officials talk about winning the war. What criteria constitutes "winning" the war in Iraq? How will we know when we have "won"?
Leslie Byrne, Democratic candidate for VA-11:
General Petraeus: Since our National Security is at risk from a "broken military" according to many of your peers, how do you plan to salvage the military, given the lack of political and economic progress in Iraq, which after all you said was the purpose of the "Surge"?
Chellie Pingree, ME-01:
The number one question General Petraeus should have to answer is this: Has the war in Iraq made America safer?
Eric Massa (NY-29):
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
After five years in Iraq, are we really any safer?
Tim Cunha (FL-06):
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Steve Harrison, Democratic candidate for NY-13:
1. General do you believe advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq necessarily indicates either a lack of support for our troops, or a lack of patriotism?
2. General, troop withdrawal is a military operation. Given the current conditions in Iraq, in your expert opinion, what would be a reasonable time frame for complete withdrawal assuming the planning started tomorrow?
3..General, Prime Minister Maliki's surprising attack on the Sadr militia last week showed great weakness in the government's ability to provide security as well as weakness in the government's political ability to unite the country. It also showed great lack of judgment in the capabilities of his military. The Iraqi situation shows no signs of near term stability and it does not appear American military presence has facilitated that goal. In the absence of being able to meet that political goal, what other military goals, in your opinion justify American military presence in Iraq?
"If the United States removed the combat forces in Iraq, would there be any direct threat to the United States? If any threat, what would it be and how could it be mitigated?"
In July of 2006, The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion. According to Opinion Business Research, those estimates have risen to over 1 million dead. General Petraeus, how do you ascribe the term "victory" in these circumstances? Additionally, how do these deaths make America safer?
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
Tim Cunha (FL-06) sent a letter to Democratic House leaders.
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Alice Kryzan (NY-26) in a heavily contested primary has a video.
The amazing organization VoteVets is having a contest to see which candidate gets $5k in PAC. VoteVets endorses military veterans, a group that needs more political representation, and the leader of the organization, Jon Soltz, argues aggressively for smart national security strategy on cable news channels in a way most of wish Democrats would. He takes it to the Republicans every day on Iraq and on smart uses of the military, breaking us out of the stultified national security conversation.
The group was essential in beating George Allen, and ran effective ads on body armor in 2006 that were extremely powerful. They are having an endorsement contest to see which veteran gets a $5k PAC donation.
I've been meaning to sign up for their alerts anyway, so I signed up here and voted for Eric Massa, the only VoteVets guy to endorse the Responsible Plan.
The Iraq debate is going to be heating up for the next eight months. Tom Andrews of Win Without War just sent an open letter to Congress calling for an end to Congressional funding of the war. Significantly, the call is not just to cut off funding for the war effort general, but to cut off funding for permanent military bases, military contractors, and any long term status of force agreements with the Iraqi government that will tie the hands of the next President. Andrews is also calling for the funding of a diplomatic offensive in the region.
It's a turn for the Iraq campaign, and a way to broaden the conversation away from the ridiculous notion that this war can be stopped in one fell swoop. You can co-sign the letter here.
Darcy Burner (WA-8), Chellie Pingree (ME-1), Donna Edwards (MD-4), Jared Polis (CO-2), Tom Perriello (VA-5) and Sam Bennett (PA-15) will be in attendance at the unveiling of a detailed strategy document at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC. The release of the document will take place at:
Palladian Room
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert St. NW Washington, DC
5:30 pm EST
Other challengers .participating in the effort but unable to attend include Eric Massa (NY-29), Larry Byrnes (FL-14), George Fearing (WA-4), and Steve Harrison (NY-13).
Originating outside the Beltway and based on consultations with retired generals and other national security experts on a path forward to end the war, the challengers' document lays out a series of actions for Congress to take to end United States military involvement in Iraq, strengthen America and improve our standing around the world, restore accountability and checks and balances to our government and work toward energy independence.
"I wholeheartedly endorse this plan as a responsible and forward looking plan for ending the war in Iraq. As Burner and her colleagues correctly note, bringing our troops home is the first, but not the only step that must be taken to ensure a debacle like Iraq never happens again," said Dr. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "This plan addresses the root causes that allowed the Bush Administration to lead this country into this mess, and sets us in the right direction. I applaud their efforts on this ambitious and sound strategy. This is progressive strength on national security in action."
I know that the media keeps insisting that nobody cares about Iraq anymore. But when I talk to voters in my district, they don't seem to have gotten the memo. Instead, they almost always ask as one of their first two or three questions, "How are you going to end the war in Iraq?"
I thought it might be a good idea to give them a real answer.
Speaking of Blue Majority, Mark Pera's primary against Dan Lipinski is in just 11 days time (February 5th), and Donna Edwards faces off against Al Wynn only one week later. The time to give to them is now.
Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.
"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."
There is no one in the Senate who I respect more than Senator Feingold. While I disagree with him on this one, I have to admit that Edwards did not engage the big fights he needed to while he was in the Senate.
President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century."
Whatever. "Fundamental change" is not something that can be immediately wiped away by the next President. Outside of Kosovo, I can't think of anything that Bill Clinton did, against Republican objections, that Bush has not entirely reversed. Considering that "Clintonian" has come to mean a series of incremental, targeted government programs, I can't see how anyone would think that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the country.
Now that we are down to just three candidates, primary straw polls become much simpler. So, I have included one in the extended entry. I'm interested to know where Open Left readers stand.
This is an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters reject amnesty for phone companies that may have violated the law by selling customers' private information to the government, preferring to let courts decide the outcome. Again intensity favors opponents of amnesty, with 48% "strongly" opposed. Fewer than 1-in-3 (31%) support amnesty for the phone companies, with just 1-in-5 (22%) strongly supporting amnesty.
Opposition to amnesty is also widespread, cutting across ideology and geography. Majorities of liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree that courts should decide the outcomes of these legal actions (liberals:67% let courts decide, 28% give amnesty; moderates: 59% let courts decide, 28% give amnesty; conservatives: 52% let courts decide, 37% give amnesty). Large majorities in every part of the country also reject amnesty: 60% in the West (29% give amnesty), 61% in the Northeast (32% give amnesty), 59% in the Midwest (33% give amnesty), and 57% in the South (30% give amnesty). Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats and 61% of independents say let the courts decide. Republicans are evenly split (45% give amnesty, 44% let the courts decide) with equal intensity on both sides of the divide.
And again, spread across the ideological and partisan spectrum, people want individual warrants.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters oppose allowing courts to issue blanket warrants for wiretapping American citizens that would not have to name any specific individual, with a near majority (49%) "strongly" opposing blanket warrants. Fewer than 1-in-3 (31%) support blanket warrants.
I'm starting to collect candidate statements on the FISA fight in reaction to Bush's call for amnesty for the phone companies that broke the law and spied on Americans and the expansion of powers Congress is considering making permanent.
Eric is a true netroots favorite, evidenced by the tags NY-29 and Eric Massa being the most common tags for a congressional race and congressional candidate respectively, on MyDD. Eric is extremely energetic and hard working, as I have seen upclose in my visits to the district on several occasions. His energy rubs off on his grassroots supporters, who were able to close off a corporate Democratic primary challenger this past summer through relentless blog pressure, securing the support of virtually every local precinct captain in the district (including two family members of mine who joined the silent revolution in Update New York), and lots of small-donor, in-district fundraising. Now, he is set to take on Randy Kuhl who, separate occasions, has threatened both his ex-wife and his constituents with firearms, even though he claims he was just joking about the later. But he seriously doesn't like his constituents:
This is the "reddest" district in New York, which Bush won with about 56% of the vote in 2004. However, is it turning blue, like the rest of New York state. But Eric Massa is not your typical red-district Democrat who will let you down. As a progressive, he will fight for you, pledging to oppose FISA and watered-down withdrawal from Iraq, something few Democrats from a district this "red" have done. After losing by only 4% in 2006 despite no help from national committees, Massa is well poised to take the seat in 2008.
Frustration at the top, energy from below. I've been doing these e-mail newsletters since 2003 when it was limited to the Draft Clark Campaign. This is the biggest one ever, even without factoring in presidential campaigns (and I'm open to listing events from all of the Dem. campaigns if I get plenty of lead time). It's interesting that despite the stagnation about stopping the war in Congress, there a rising tide of energy for change at the grassroots level -- H. Park.
Truthout has an excellent article detailing the struggles faced by progressive and grassroots Democrats in key US House primaries last year: CA-11, FL-13, FL-16, and IL-06. At the time, Republicans held all four seats, but considering the 2006 political environment all four would quickly become competitive for the Democratic nominee. The central argument of the piece is that in "lean Republican" districts, Rahm Emanuel favored conservative and wealthy candidates in Democratic primaries, and assisted them against progressive, grassroots candidates in violation of the DCCC's policy of neutrality. This assistance did not come in the form of direct support, but instead was largely in the form of better connecting preferred candidates to an elite group of fundraisers and media types. For example, in FL-13, Jan Schneider, the 2004 Democratic nominee, was not included in fundraising materials the DCCC published on the district:
Schneider claims that Emanuel broke this policy during the 2006 primary race. "Emanuel caused the Schneider campaign to be removed from the DCCC website and circulated solicitations for contributions to Democratic candidates indicating that there was no [Democratic] primary in the Florida 13th," according to a memorandum Schneider prepared.
Schneider blames the DCCC for misleading Senator John Kerry (D- Massachusetts) into thinking that Jennings was running in the primary without any competition from within the party. Kerry gave a $1,000 donation to the Jennings campaign, which was publicized by Jennings as an endorsement. When Schneider confronted Kerry about this donation, Kerry apologized and said that he donated based on assertions by Emanuel that the race was "a targeted race with no primary," and that he never meant to interfere with an intra-party contest, according to Schneider. Congresswoman Shelly Berkley (D- Nevada) says that the DCCC sent her a letter asking her to contribute to races where there was no primary. The letter listed the Florida 13th as a race with only one Democrat pursuing the party's nomination.
This was a pattern that I saw repeated in other DCCC fundraising materials, including documents that did not list Christine Cegelis as a Democratic candidate for the primary in IL-06. Apparently, the problem was widespread for the Cegelis campaign:
Tim Bagwell, a grassroots activist and Cegelis campaigner, said that Duckworth was "hot-wired" into the national media and fund-raising circuit by the DCCC. George Stephanopoulos, who served in the Clinton administration with Emanuel, interviewed Duckworth on his Sunday morning ABC News program, elevating her to national prominence.
According to Spidel, the Cegelis campaign was prevented from accessing Democratic fund-raising and Political Action Committee lists held by the DCCC. Cegelis said that many of the potential donors she contacted had been instructed by the DCCC not to give her campaign money. She felt that she was locked out.
The key point here is that it is not necessarily the DCCC that directly makes decisions on who becomes the Democratic nominee in key US House districts, but rather a small group of fundraisers and media types that can propel one candidate to the nomination by providing them with superior monetary, media, and advocacy organization resources. By providing one candidate with greater access to this network of PACs, wealthy individual donors, elected officials, established media pundits, and advocacy organization leaders, that candidate is essentially crowned the nominee by an elite group of decision makers who collectively have a tremendous amount of influence over the process. This elite network can effectively determine the outcome of primaries before votes are cast, and key Democratic figures like Emanuel can provide candidates with favorable access to that network.
The reason I bring this up is that over the past month, in at least two circumstances the progressive blogosphere, grassroots and netroots has demonstrated that it can actually function in the same manner as this established group of elite decision makers. In WA-08, through a large, nationwide blogosphere fundraiser, the blogosphere effectively chose Darcy Burner as the Democratic nominee for the district. Although it was accomplished through thousands of small donations and earned, straight talking independent media instead of through a top-down group of elite donors and advocacy organizations, the result was the same: Darcy Burner was able to leverage her support from this network into an early end to the primary campaign. In June and July, much the same took place in NY-29, where for a while Eric Massa was facing a competitive primary David Nabchar. However, Massa also won the primary before it began by locking down the support of the local blogosphere and netroots, every local Democratic committee, and a sizable amount of small donor, grassroots fundraising. Again, a network of grassroots progressives effectively played the same decision-making role to force an early end to a primary that PACs, wealthy donors, established media types, elected officials, and advocacy organization leaders have played in many other Democratic primaries. The grassroots network of small donors, blogs, and local precinct captains leveraged such an enormous amount of support for Eric Massa that there was no way for other, more elite networks to overcome it.
