A key U.S. senator has told the Blade that he opposes repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at this time.
In a brief exchange on Capitol Hill, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Tuesday he would vote against an effort next week to overturn the law. He said he wants to adhere to guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen on holding off on repeal.
Asked whether he would vote in favor of a repeal measure, Nelson replied, "No, I want to follow with the advice and the suggestions of Secretary of Defense Gates to have the study that is underway right now before we make that final decision - because it's not a question of 'whether,' it's a question of 'how.'"
[...]
Asked whether he would be open to such a measure, Nelson appeared to be unaware that such an approach to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been under consideration, but was reluctant to support the idea.
"I don't know," Nelson said. "I haven't seen that legislation. I know there's probably some support for that, but I think it's been made pretty clear by Secretary Gates that we shouldn't take any action until the study is completed, and that's my position. That's where I'm going to stay."
As I noted early this morning, and as described in the piece, Nelson (NE) was one of six key swing Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee, along with Bayh, Brown, Byrd, Nelson of Florida and Webb. Several sources I checked in with close to both Nelson's office as well as the DADT repeal process put him as very unlikely to come around.
On Webb, things are also difficult:
Asked this week whether he's made a decision on how he'll vote should an amendment come before him, Webb replied, "I think we need to respect the process that Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen put in place."
Webb had a similar response when asked whether his position would be any different for delayed implementation legislation.
"I think we should honor the process that they've put in place," Webb said. "I think people should understand that it's a pretty significant historical event in terms of what Adm. Mullen said during that hearing in February."
The rest still haven't committed or indicated leaning, publicly.
202-224-3121 is the Capitol switchboard. Constituents are especially important. Please take a second and contact these Senators if you are a constituent, or drop a quick line to a friend who you know is. Like I wrote earlier, it will be a serious blow if repeal is voted down in the SASC. We need to get those votes.
In the next few weeks, the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham clean energy bill will come up for consideration on the Senate floor. While we do not yet know what is in and what is out of the bill, the NRDC Action fund has begun a campaign to ensure that Senators hear from their constituents on this vitally important legislation.
As long as we're going to dump most of our money into wars and the military and Wall Street and health insurance bailouts, students are going to have to go into debt to afford college. But it would cost the students less and the government less, if private companies were not permitted to act as middlemen profiting off public loans to students.
One of the companies so profiting, Sallie Mae, is based here in Virginia and funnels millions of dollars from its profits into lobbying to make sure the free money keeps flowing. Senators Warner and Webb have chosen to side with the parasites rather than the students, but disguised their choice as one of concern for jobs, the jobs of the loan sharks who could find respectable work in a better educated society. I grew up in Reston, where Sallie Mae's jobs are, and I know there are people there who will find a way to publicly say thank you for Sallie Mae's help in driving our nation deeper into ignorance and debt.
Jim Webb's vote in favor of the McCain motion to commit was not a lapse of concentration, apparently:
I voted in favor of the McCain amendment because I do not believe it is reasonable to cut back on Medicare funding at a time when the pool for Medicare is going to expand as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement age. Further, I am a long-time supporter of Medicare Advantage programs which have in my view greatly improved services in rural areas such as Southside and Southwest Virginia.
Now, I'm no expert in this, and I'm open to the possibility that the Medicare cuts which are paying for a lot of the cost of the bill will hurt patients. Other centrist Dems weren't persuaded, though.
drug-makers have embraced a startlingly simple tactic for fending off competition from generic brands: paying them off. In a nutshell, the company that holds the patent on a profitable drug strikes a deal with the maker of the cheaper generic brand: you hold off on marketing your generic for several years, and in return, we'll give you a share of our profits on the drug.
After getting a fair wind from the FTC under Bush (with judicial backup), this practice is now being targeted by the FTC (but this needs a SCOTUS decision to reverse existing caselaw, so...).
However, Kohl has an amendment to HR 3590 down (SA 2862) to beef up the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 to kibosh the practice legislatively (reminder to self of Chris's list of amendments with links).
This will collect 60 votes when hell freezes over; and, in case you're wondering,
The White House - despite its well-publicized deal with PhRMA - is said to be supportive, but has a host of other pressing priorities for the health-care bill.
Via TPM, apropos to Chris' agenda below, it looks like we can watch Jim Webb for some hopeful legislation on prison reform:
This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."
Krugman explains that the executive branch had to originate this complex financial rescue because Congress couldn't. And Paulson screwed it up, but something had to be done, and the bill became 'better than nothing, but not good'.
So am I for the bill? Yuk, phooey, I guess so. And I'm very angry at Paulson for putting us in this position.
What did he expect? Paulson is a Bush administration official.
Jim Webb pulled his usual 'I'm a populist and don't like Wall Street' line earlier in the debate, and then voted for a piece of reactionary legislation. A bunch of Rs said no to this bailout, truly an odd bunch. On the bright side, Dorgan, Feingold, Wyden, Tester, Cantwell, and Sanders voted no.
Though it's good Jim Webb beat George Allen in 2006, he has been mostly a major tool of conservative interests in the Senate on such issues as economics, war funding, and civil liberties. On drilling, coal, and nuclear energy, he's no different.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), fresh from his GI Bill victory, said that he is now making energy a major priority. "We need to look at all our assets," he said, suggesting a large package including expanded offshore drilling, alternative energy, nuclear power and technology to make coal cleaner.
Drilling? Clean coal? Nuclear? Really?
Get used to this kind of mushy DC elitist crap for the next few years.
Ah, and remember in 2007, when Webb promised to show leadership on Iraq if Bush refused to change course?
"Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.
Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Joe Biden (Sen-DE)
Wes Clark (Gen-AR): Recent semi-scandal
Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
Chris Dodd (Sen-CT): Recent semi-scandal
James Jones (Gen-MO): Supports McCain
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
John Kerry (Sen-MA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)
Jack Reed (Sen-RI)
Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS)
Mark Warner (Gov-VA)
Jim Webb (Sen-VA): Absolutely declines interest
It probably also makes sense to remove John Kerry from the list, since that would be a truly strange and "not change" sort of pick. Warner also doesn't make much sense, given that he is running for Senate. This leaves us with only eight leaked possibilities: Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Kaine, Murray, Nelson, Nunn, Reed and Sebelius. It is probably a good idea to throw on Janet Napolitano, AZ-Gov, for good measure, since I heard that many on Obama's staff consider her to be a probable short-lister.
Seems like pretty slim pickings, but there are still a few decent options. In the extended entry, take the poll on which one of the remaining nine you would like to see selected.
Picking up on my last post on the need for a strong female archetype, I'm going to weigh in on chatter relating to this about Jim Webb as VP. In a lot of ways, Webb is considered the candidate typifying the new Democratic Party, the one strong enough to wrest control from the Republicans in 2006. And I suspect that is why Webb is being touted as a possible VP choice. The narrative goes like this; he can persuade white working class voters to pick Obama, shoring up Obama where he is weak. And he is a powerful progressive on issues that are little noticed, like prison reform, income inequality, and national security. I actually sat in on a meeting where a very well respected pollster gave this exact argument about Webb. Webb shares other traits that excite liberals; he is a truly magnificant writer and speaker. His response to the State of the Union, in 2006, was one of the most exciting speeches I had ever seen. In it, he directly called out Bush for lying, took on the issue directly of income inequality, and demanded that Bush change direction on Iraq, and said that if he did not, Democrats would show him the way. It was amazing, and I remember chattering with my brother as we both felt inspired by a person who seemed to finally fill the void of Democratic leadership.
In spite of the fact that sexism has been such a prominent dynamic in this campaign, the thrust of public conversation is that Obama should pick a Republican or conservative Democrat to balance the ticket. Even when we're talking about Democrats, that almost always means someone willing to occasionally defenestrate women's rights or health. I don't want to get started on what a slap the anti-choice Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would be.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons a person might have had to support someone besides Hillary Clinton for the nomination. They were both good candidates, there's no need to assume anything about why anyone supported one of them.
The only major demographic group still supporting Clinton to the tune of 51% or more is women aged 50 and older. This group's preferences have changed little during May, at the same time that Clinton's support among younger men (those 18 to 49) has declined by nearly 10 points. - Gallup
... Pundits debated whether Clinton's tears were "real" or "manufactured" -- that is, whether she was some weak sob sister who couldn't hack the rough-and-tumble of a man's world, or just a power-grabbing witch who would do anything to hang on to her broomstick.
A few, such as San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, offered more cogent appraisals. She pointed out that female voters didn't seem to be responding to Clinton's tears so much as to their outrage at men's reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media). ... - Susan Faludi
Well, no not really, but I bet I got your attention and you started reading this diary planning to argue emphatically against me. However, I'm going to argue that a Democrat like Bob Casey is the proper choice as running mate for Barack Obama (who, I am assuming, will be our nominee).
By now, you have probably seen the poll showing that while Clinton supporters want a Clinton-Obama ticket, Obama supporters do not want an Obama-Clinton ticket. Gallup:
Only 42% of Democrats nationwide want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee if Barack Obama wins the presidential nomination, while 55% think he should pick someone else. By contrast, the majority of Democrats -- 58% -- would like to see Obama nominated as vice president if Clinton heads the ticket.
The reason for the disparity is that a relatively small number of Obama supporters -- just 29% --favor Obama choosing Clinton as a possible running mate. Seventy percent say they'd rather he choose someone else. In contrast, a majority of Clinton supporters -- 53% -- would want Clinton to choose Obama for vice president if she is nominated.
Similar percentages (a majority of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters) say they would want their own candidate selected for vice president should the other candidate win the Democratic nomination for president.
The reason for this, I think, is quite simple, and relates to my longstanding argument that the Democratic nominee should choose a "reinforcing" choice for vice-president, rather than a "balancing" choice. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly floated the idea of Obama being her Vice-President, and as such her supporters are following her lead in thinking he would be a good choice. By the same token, Obama has never floated Clinton as his Vice-President, and has even repudiated the idea of a "dream ticket" on multiple occasions. As such, his supporters are following his lead, and looking elsewhere for a a possible VP choice.
Presidential nominees really are leaders, no matter what we hyper-engaged activists might think of them. When many people support a candidate, they also tend to support many subsequent arguments that candidate comes to make, including who would make a good Vice-President. This is one of the reasons why it is essential that the Democratic nominee chooses a Vice-President who makes sense according to the broad campaign arguments that candidate used to win the nomination. If you are running on experience, then choose a nominee who fits that profile. If you are running on change, early opposition to the Iraq war, and national unity, then choose a Vice-President who embodies those qualities. If your supporters are going to follow your arguments, amek sure that those arguments make sense.
Which Democrats makes sense as Vice-President according to the arguments that Barack Obama has put forth during this campaign? While here are many factors to consider, the most important ones are to pick someone who opposed the war from the start, someone who has an aurora of "change" about him or her, and someone who has a bi-partisan track record. Here are the strongest possibilities I can think of:
Brian Schweitzer, MT-Gov: Among the disappointing small number of Governors, Senators, and members of the House leadership who opposed the war from the start, Schweitzer really sticks out as having the most change and unity cred. This is a man who talks of needing a shower after spending too much time in D.C., and who picked a Republican as his Lt. Governor. He also has both progressive movement backing and appeal to the old Perot style voter. I have no idea what his relationship with Obama is, but he certainly makes a lot of sense given the Obama campaign message thus far.
Jim Webb, VA-Sen: Jim Webb fits the anti-war and bi-parisan criteria pretty well. As a 60-something white dude from Virginia, the "change" cred it lacking a bit, to say the least. Another huge mark against Webb is that he just isn't the most energetic campaigner. I was talking to someone very familiar with Web's 2006 Senate campaign the other day, and he said that the idea of Webb as VP was pretty laughable given Webb's campaigning style. A lot of people like this pick on a structural level, but on a personal level Webb himself doesn't make much sense as a Vice-President.
Sherrod Brown, OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown remains one of my three personal favorite picks (Pelosi and Feingold are the others), given that he would help win Ohio, provide an economic populism necessary in an election such as this, and that he would give a progressive face to the future of the party. His bi-partisan and "change" image are less clear than either Webb's or Schweitzer's, however.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: Pelosi has the anti-war and "change" cred, but probably not so much "bi-partisan" cred. Obama picking Pelosi makes sense as a May or June early announcement, since it would pretty much lock down the nomination for Obama. Otherwise, this would actually be a big step down for Pelosi, given that she is too old to run for President in eight years. Also, do we really want Steny Hoyer as Speaker? I think not. Still, she does make sense as a way to bring the nomination campaign to an end.
Kathleen Sebelius, KS-Gov: I have no idea where Sebelius was on the Iraq war before it started, but she does have strong change and bi-partisan cred. On the bi-partisan front, she convinced numerous Republicans to actually switch parties, and has worked with a Republican legislature during her six years as Governor. If she was against the war, and if she could improve her campaign style, she might make sense.
Russ Feingold: Feingold is an interesting pick, because even though he has been in D.C. for a while and even though he is thought of as the ultimate progressive fighter in the Senate, he actually has real bi-partisan (McCain-Feingold, Patriot Act reform, good government proposals) and change ("outisder") cred. Also, I would love for Feingold to be VP, and Pelosi to be Speaker. I triple dog dare Republicans to try and impeach President Obama in that circumstance, what with their two worst nightmeres as second and third in line, respectively. Also, no one in the Senate has more anti-war cred than Feingold.
Those are the choices that seem to make the most sense right now, even if they make sense in different ways. Maybe I am just dreaming by throwing Feingold in there, since there is no one in the country who I would rather see as President. But hey, he does fit the Obama campaign argument, he comes from a swing state, and he has endorsed Obama already. Obama-Feingold 2008?
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.
STATE BLOGS
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.
