It's been a few days now since we began a conversation that addresses the issue of how frustrated some number of LBGT voters are with the Democratic Party this cycle; this because they find themselves either frustrated at the lack of progress on the civil rights issues that matter to them, or because they see both the Democratic and Republican Parties as unreliable partners in the struggle to assure equal rights for all.
In an effort to practice some actual journalism, I assembled a version of an online "focus group" at The Bilerico Project ("daily adventures in LBGTQ"), with the goal of gathering some opinions on this subject in the actual words of those frustrated voters.
Part One of this story focused on "stating the problem", and today we'll take on Part Two: in this environment, with Election Day staring us in the face, what is an LBGT voter to do?
As before, there are a variety of opinions, including a very informative comment I was able to obtain from a genuine Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th District, and that means until the very end you won't hear much from me, except to help "set the stage" for the comments that follow.
Jonathan Capehart nails it. Log Cabin Republicans, who deserve all the credit in the world for launching the DADT lawsuit, are helping this cause with one set of hands and hurting it with another.
Of the 10 incumbent House Republicans endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans, six of them voted against the amendment that would repeal don't ask don't tell. File that under "hypocrites."
Then, on Monday the organization threw its support behind Mike Fitzpatrick, the Republican in a close race against Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the Iraq War vet who masterfully guided the repeal bill to passage. They did this despite Fitzpatrick's opposition to Murphy's bill -- and despite the organization's own extensive efforts to secure passage of Murphy's amendment. And another thing: I always thought Republicans were opposed to judges "legislating" from the bench. Don't ask don't tell is an act of Congress and it will take an act of Congress to get rid of it.
The LCR spokeswoman did the usual "we don't agree on every issue with a candidate we endorse". And frankly, that's true for lots of candidates- I have yet to find a perfect candidate, and I'm even raising money for those I don't agree entirely with. But to file this lawsuit, then help elect Republicans opposed to DADT repeal (seemingly just to have someone to endorse) when everyone knows the quickest path forward is legislative repeal, is the height of one step forward and two steps back.
For those of you who follow LGBT politics, you'll know there's a lot of what some call "infighting". Infighting over tactics, messaging, how much Obama should be supported vs. criticized, and the like. It can get distracting and sometimes very personal.
A few weeks ago, myself, along with Joe Sudbay over at AMERICABlog and Rick Jacobs at the Courage Campaign, were chatting about all this. We agreed that (a) while debate over tactics etc. can be healthy, the division can threaten to undermine votes for LGBT equality coming up on Election Day (b) Despite the headlines, this community is more united than divided. There are a lot of voices in the pro-equality chorus, and like brothers and sisters in a family, we all sing in our own unique way. But when push comes to shove, we are always singing the same song.
So we decided to ask some of the bigger names in all these headlines if they would set their differences aside and come together on a common cause: that cause being re-electing Rep. Patrick Murphy, who led the fight to pass repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the House.
Murphy, who stormed back from being down double digits in the polls to being up 46-43 in yesterday's The Hill poll, is in a tough fight in an economically depressed district. DC Conventional Wisdom told him to stop working on that gay stuff and focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Needless to say, he ignored them, worked side by side with those of us in the LGBT and allied community (online AND offline), whipped the votes, went on Maddow and anywhere else he could find to talk loud and proud about how important this cause is to him- a straight veteran- and got it done. He kept his promise.
So with the help of Dan Manatt at ManattMedia.com, we produced this video to send that message: that we're coming together to get Patrick's back because he got ours. Everyone was so excited that they recorded it right where they are, day of- wherever they could.
Please welcome Rep. Patrick Murphy for a live chat on LGBT issues, his tightly-contested campaign, and whatever else is on your mind. The chat will start at 1:30 PM EST.
Please join us tomorrow, Thursday October 21st at 1:30 PM EST, for a live chat with Rep. Patrick Murphy
One of the more interesting races to watch has been that of Rep. Patrick Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania. The Hill poll out today has him up 46-43 over former Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a remarkable swing from a poll that had him down double-digits just a few weeks ago. Murphy has always been of interest to me because he was the original co-sponsor and leader on the successful effort to pass repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the House- something stand-up for this straight veteran to do from a challenging district with a strong challenger lining up (despite the numbers on DADT, everyone was telling him to focus solely on jobs, jobs, jobs and stay away from those gay issues. Needless to say, he ignored them). He counted the votes and worked hard on the inside.
Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed him, and tomorrow morning will be final two debates. Afterwards, we're having him here on OpenLeft simultaneously with AMERICABlog, Pam's House Blend, The Bilerico Project, and Good As You for a live chat about his campaign, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and whatever else is on your mind.
Please join us tomorrow, Thursday October 21st at 1:30 PM EST, for a live chat with Rep. Patrick Murphy
This is the second in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country. Today, we examine Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional district -- Bucks County, Montgomery County, and northeast Philadelphia. Currently, the 8th CD is represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Patrick J. Murphy (D). Murphy is being challenged by Republican Mike Fitzpatrick.
Where does Rep. Murphy stand on clean energy and environmental issues? In 2009, Murphy received a 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Murphy also voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), about which he correctly says, it "will create millions of new American jobs, limit the pollution that causes climate change, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by investing in American-made clean energy." In addition, Murphy co-sponsored H.R. 890, the American Renewable Energy Act, as well as H.R. 2222, the Green Communities Act and H.R. 1778, the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) Program, among other excellent environmental legislation. Finally, Rep. Murphy touts the fact that "Bucks County is home to the fourth largest solar field in the United States – the largest east of the Mississippi River" and that "Nearly 1,000 people have been put to work building components for wind turbines and solar panels at the old U.S. Steel site in Fairless Hills in Bucks County."
In contrast, Mike Fitzpatrick says he "oppose[s] legislation currently being considered by [C]ongress that would implement a carbon 'cap and trade' system." Fitzpatrick also says he supports "a balanced national energy policy that includes safe, nuclear power, clean coal, responsible offshore drilling and economical, renewable energy." When he served in Congress, Fitzpatrick received a 61% League of Conservation Voters rating in 2005 and a 73% League of Conservation Voters rating in 2006. Fitzpatrick also was a co-cosponsor with Rep. Henry Waxman on the Safe Climate Act of 2006 – which would have cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 - but now says he is against "Cap and Trade."
We believe that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
Here is a Sunday treat that I am hoping to turn into a semi-regular feature: an unedited, forty-minute interview I conducted with Congressman Patrick Murphy. This interview is so unedited that you can hear my friend Mike and I setting up the recording equipment during the first twenty seconds of the interview:
Topics include Congressman Murphy's time in Iraq, his new book Taking the Hill: From Philly To Baghdad to the United States Congress, the Blue Dogs, FISA, life as a congressman, his relationship with the netroots, and much more. While I need to brush up on my interview style somewhat, I still it is absolutely worth a listen. And if you like these lengthy interviews, I'll try to set them up for Sunday listening on a regular basis. Perhaps it will be the start of my own Sunday show.
I'll be interviewing Rep. Patrick Murphy in about 45 minutes about his new book, Taking The Hill. I already have a few questions ready, but I wanted to see if Open Left readers had any questions of their own. What would you like to ask Congressman Murphy? Let me know in the comments.
Update: Just finished the interview, and thought it went very well. I'll post the audio file tomorrow. Your questions were great, and I asked almost all of them.
It is easy to get upset and frustrated when we lose important fights in Congress, especially after working so hard in 2006 to win us a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. We shouldn't forget that some of the people we fought hard for and gave money for have our backs now. The lesson of 2007 is that we need to fight even harder to keep the Representatives who have done good by us get more good people in Congress who share our values who have courage, integrity and honor, who will step up and speak for the American people, our troops and take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution. As kos wrote, "This is it. This is the way to change our party."
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.
Ever since the Democratic Congress capitulated over the bill passed to enable Bush and the 'unitary executive' to continue domestic spying on Americans, there has been deserved outcry over the Democrats that supported the measure. This has occurred in large part due to Bush's ability to peel off Democrats who belong to the Blue Dog coalition. Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller over at Open Left have now started a project to hold these 'Bush Dogs' accountable for enabling a working conservative majority on the most important issues of the day despite their official allegiance to the Democratic Party. I believe this is an important project; that being said, I'd like to remind everyone that not all Blue Dogs are bad Democrats.
In fact, I want to highlight one Blue Dog in particular who has been on the right side of national security issues each time a vote has come up. He won one of the closest races in the country in 2006, and he's going to need the continued support of the netroots community to hold the seat in 2008. I'm talking about Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th District.
STATE BLOGS
