There are two major benefits that would come from the Merkley-Udall Senate Rule reform proposal:
Filibuster reform.Biggest thing here is to shift the onus to maintain a filibuster onto the 41+ minority and away from the model of requiring 60 affirmative cloture votes to limit debate. But also very significant here would be making the motion to proceed non-debatable and ending secret holds. Much has been written about this, I think these are positive improvements and while I would rather just see the Senate move to actual overt majority rule, this is a significant improvement and would have led to a much better 2008-2010 for progressives.
Majority changing the rules at all. Like FDL, I think it would be very important for the Senate to pass changes to the Senate rules on a straight majority on the first day of the new Congress. It remains one of the most baffling self-delusions that the Senate and most Americans accept the fiction that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster or 67 to change the rules. I have tried to make the point that the 2005 "nuclear option" fiasco proves that the majority can in fact rule the Senate if they so choose, but it is a tough slog. Changing the rules on a straight majority would be a big step forward in forcing everyone to dispel this cherished fable of the "cooling saucer."
We're nearing the end of our first season and to finish it off we are providing a couple summaries relating to changing the filibuster. Today we look at what is called the "Constitutional Option," which applies only to the first day of a new session of Congress. This is expected to come up at the beginning of the 112th session.
Three developments that I'm aware of coming from Netroots Nation 2010 today:
Reid promises filibuster reform. In the Q&A after his address today, Reid was quite clear that rule reform is needed. He compared the filibuster to the spitball in baseball, which initially wasn't illegal, but was used only sparingly, but once it began to be abused, baseball had to ban it. Interesting metaphor. He didn't give any details of what reform he has in mind though.
Tom Udall promises Senate rule reform. In the filibuster session that followed Reid's remarks, Udall promised to move that the Senate adopt its rules by majority vote on the first day of the 112th Congress next January. He is aiming to have this rule change adopted by simple majority, not two-thirds.
Common Cause planning lawsuit. At the filibuster reform session, someone from Common Cause stood up to announce they will file a federal lawsuit against the filibuster as unconstitutional. Nothing on their site yet, but hopefully soon.
As a reminder on the filibuster front, by my research, 36 State Senates do not allow the possibility of a filibuster. If a supermajority of States don't need the filibuster, why does the national Senate? Table inside.
Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done. People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric. Let's just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.
A few weeks back, Marjorie Childress had a great article about net neutrality over at the Independent (the other place I write and actually get paid for).
Something interesting that I remember this weekend was seeing which candidates were the most net-friendly. I don't mean just showing up and glad-handing at Netroots Nation or sending staff, but also understanding net neutrality.
And the divide between Democrats and Republicans was as clear as the digital divide between the middle-class urbans and lower-class rural New Mexicans.
The New Mexico Independent was curious about what those who are running for federal office in New Mexico think about the issue. As it turned out, Democratic contenders were all informed on the topic and knew where they stood. Conversely, none of the Republicans running for Congress responded to the inquiry. They either declined to comment because of the complexity of the issue or declined all comment. First Congressional District candidate Darren White refused to respond despite several requests.
I got to speak to both Ben Ray Lujan of the Third Congressional District and Martin Heinrich of the First at length this weekend about various issues.
And of course, net issues came up (we were at Netroots Nation after all!). As Marjorie wrote, both Lujan and Heinrich were informed on the topic. And they both impressed me.
Senate candidate Tom Udall wasn't there, but his was the first I remember having a position on net neutrality. And he had two of his web guys there, mingling with the crowd and pointing out the candidates from other states that I didn't know by sight (turns out that's just about everyone but Darcy Burner and Donna Edwards). In my defense, I know their names and their stances on the issues... I just don't know what they look or sound like.
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.
An interview I conducted for New Mexico FBIHOP with one of our finest progressive Representatives soon to be one of our finest progressive Senators.
The folks at the Tom Udall campaign were nice enough to allow New Mexico FBIHOP a few minutes out of Udall's busy schedule to speak to him on the phone after he got off an airplane earlier this week.
We spoke about a number of issues, from Iraq to gas prices to what he will decide in endorsing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (no, he didn't say who).
Something that came up over and over: gas prices. As anyone who drives (and if you live in New Mexico, then you probably drive a significant amount) knows, gas prices have gone through the roof.
So what is to blame? What can be done?
"We should take a look at price-fixing," Udall told New Mexico FBIHOP in a phone interview. "This administration has been completely lax in looking at whether there is price fixing going on. I supported a price-gouging law. That legislation has passed the House it hasn't been dealt with the Senate yet."
We are in a unique situation in New Mexico. There is an open Senate seat as well as three open House seats. The other Senate seat is already held by a Democrat (Jeff Bingaman). This means four out of five federal seats are up for grabs. In other words, we have an opportunity to make a True Blue New Mexico.
Today, on January 23, the George W Bush administration, current and former employees alike, will do their best to get Republicans elected. Dick Cheney will hold a fundraiser in DC for Senate candidate Steve Pearce. He has already held a similar DC fundraiser for Heather Wilson. And none other than Karl Rove himself will headline a fundraiser today. Rove will be in Artesia, NM to raise money for the New Mexico Republican Party.
You can do your part by donating to great progressive Democratic candidates (no Bush Dog Dems here) at our ActBlue page
Yesterday, when I claimed that Marty Chavez was implying that Tom Udall was unelectable because he was a liberal by saying "the contrast in records between me and the Congressman won't situate him well for the general election," more than one commenter thought I wasn't giving Chavez a fair shake. Perhaps the quote was taken out of context, or I was simply reading too much into it. Well, today Marty Chavez has offered some clarification:
"I feel very strongly that this is going to be a Democratic pickup and I'm going to be that Democrat, because I'm a moderate Democrat," Chávez said. "I think the Republicans are more afraid of me than some others." (…)
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."
So yes, Marty Chavez is quite clearly stating that he is more electable than Tom Udall because Udall is a leftie, and he, Chavez, is a moderate. But here is my favorite part about Chavez:
"I think I get a bad rap from progressives," he said.(…)
"I have legitimate progressive credentials, but I am pro-business," Chávez said, adding he believes the two can go together.(…)
"I'm a moderate Democrat," Chávez said"
Note to Chavez: you don't get to be both a moderate and a progressive. Doesn't work that way. You can't be both a moderate and a conservative, or a moderate and a liberal, or a moderate and a fascist. If you want to be a moderate, call yourself one. If you want to be a progressive, then call yourself that. Trying to occupy two ideological positions at once is about as an overt sign of pandering as a politician could possibly concoct. Please explain how someone can be both a progressive and a moderate without simultanesouly explaining how those terms have no meaning.
And oh yeah: you might begetting a bad rap from New Mexico progressives for claiming that progressives can't win statewide in New Mexico. You might also be getting a bad rap from reality by claiming that you are more electable than someone who outperforms you in general election polls by 20 points. Just a thought, on both counts.
I'm kind of irritated by this, but mostly I don't get it. Marty Chavez seems to be trying to ward off a Udall entry into the New Mexico Senate primary by calling him a liberal:
"This will not be a sweet primary. It just won't," Chavez said during a telephone interview. "The contrast in records between me and the Congressman won't situate him well for the general election."
Yes, it is certainly irritating to hear a Democrat criticize another Democrat by calling him or her a liberal. As Swing State Project notes, that sort of Republican talking point isn't helpful to Democrats, to put it mildly.
But mostly, I just don't get it. Most voters in Democratic primaries are self-identified liberals and / or progressives, and surely that will be as true in New Mexico as it is almost all places in America that aren't in the south. So how, exactly, does attacking someone for being liberal help someone in a primary campaign? You might as well run for Governor of Massachusetts by attacking someone for being a Massachusetts liberal. Attacking Udall for being liberal will come off as an attack on liberals in New Mexico in general. Insulting voters you need to win doesn't make any sense to me.
It seems to me that electoral success of DLC-nexus types in primaries is dependent on self-identified liberals internalizing the argument that liberals and progressives are unelectable. You can't win too many Democratic primaries without liberals, and so attacks on liberals can only work in primaries if liberals themselves believe the attacks being sent their way. That certainly isn't going to work in New Mexico, where polls show Udall outperforming Chavez by 38 points against Steven Pearce, and 22 points against Heather Wilson. It also won't help when Chavez recently claimed that he is pretty much the same as Udall on the issues, stating "if you look issue by issue I doubt you'll find much difference ... You will find that we will vote together almost all the time."
One of the greatest dangers to the DLC-nexus and conservative wings of the Democratic Party is when liberals and progressives start believing they can actually win. It makes me think that the post-election narrative last year was mainly about conservatives becoming worried that such a belief might actually start to sink in. The last thing liberals and progressives need to hear is that Democrats are winning despite running on virtually the same exact platform as Walter Mondale, or that we have been undergoing a twelve-year shift in national demographics that significantly favors Democrats and progressives. After all, once the Democratic electoral problem is solved, the DLC loses all-purpose entirely. There is no need to keep telling a party that keeps winning elections how to win elections, and there is no need to frame every policy proposal you make in terms of electability when the electorate has a built-in slant in your direction. In other words, there is no role for a concern troll wing of the party when the party is winning.
None of us are in this to get Democrats better parking spaces. And the place with the most leverage right now is primary campaigns where we can ensure that a progressive runs against a Republican, instead of a centrist. That's one of the reasons I'm focusing a bit on reactionary DLC hack Marty Chavez, who is trying to wrap up the Democratic nomination for Senate in New Mexico. He is outright loathed by progressives, and this gives you a sense of why that is.
But perhaps an even bigger "oops" came with rumors that maybe everyone wasn't quite signed on with Chavez. That perhaps Chavez jumped the gun with the announcement of the team. Cope, Blanchard and Gonzales among others were rumored to not be on Chavez's side officially. And not amused that they were mentioned.
Heath Haussamen looked into it and found that Gonzales is not officially a member of his committee. Gonzales told Haussamen "I'm not a member of his committee. I notified his campaign staff of that yesterday afternoon but also notified them that I would continue to help the mayor raise money."
Gonzales went on to say he has agreed to help Chavez, but has also been helping Don Wiviott -- an opponent of Chavez in the primary -- raise money.
Cope and Blanchard did not comment to Haussamen.
But it grew worse when he tried to project confidence about the upcoming race.
He also said he is confident he would defeat Udall in a primary.
"Philosophically, he's so far to the left," Chávez said. "I'd rather not have him in the race, but that's a challenge I'd not shy away from."
Meanwhile, the Draft Udall campaign is hitting the Washington Post. Chavez is a nightmare. Because of his corrupt background, his legacy of reactionary policies, and his loathing of progressives, should he be the nominee there would be a Republican Senator from New Mexico one way or another. Hopefully we can get progressive Udall or Denish to run, and get to that 60 vote margin in the Senate that is within reach.
The word in New Mexico circles is that despite his announcement, Congressman Udall is still being urged to run for the Senate. If "Udall for Senate" gives you the same kind butterflies in your stomach as it gives me, please help urge him to run! Send Tom Udall the message that we want him as our next Senator by sending a small, $5 contribution to his campaign.
It seems like whoever you talk to in Washington and most importantly, in New Mexico, people agree that Tom Udall is our hero candidate. Obviously he needs to step up and run.
A move to run after announcing otherwise is not without precedent and you don't hear anyone complaining about the last guy who did it. In August of 2005, now Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown announced that he would not run against former-Senator Mike DeWine in Ohio. For the next two months, the grassroots urged him to reconsider his decision for the people of Ohio and for people across the nation. He eventually reversed his decision and went on to win the seat for Democrats, helping to give us control of the US Senate.
We need to send Congressman Udall that same message (here's another chance to donate that $5!). The people of New Mexico want him to run and people in Washington and across the United States hope that he'll help us to increase our majority in the Senate by turning Senator Domenici's seat blue!
Tom Udall is the best choice for New Mexico AND for the country as we work towards building the Democratic majority in the Senate. I already wrote a bit about his background, including a bit about his family and his cash on hand that he could use for his Senate campaign committee. But there are other, better reasons for Tom Udall to be the next Senator from New Mexico.
For one, he's a good progressive. He's pro-choice, an environmentalist, a defender of civil liberties and civil rights, and one of the great supporters for veterans in the Democratic Party today. In fact, during his time as a minority member in the Congress, he took the junior seat on the Veteran's Committee in addition to his regular committee portfolio.
In the first polling out about the race in New Mexico, Tom Udall beats both Republicans by 18 points! Governor Richardson is the only other New Mexican who polls as high. Representative Udall could afford to leave his safe seat in the north with these kinds of numbers, run hard for the Senate, and win. He could leave his House seat knowing that another Democrat (and there are many) could easily keep it in Dem control.
In terms of numbers, this just makes sense. Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) and Congressman Steve Pearce (R) are the two leading contenders to replace Senator Domenici on the Republican side (Pearce has formed an exploratory committee and will announce his intentions in the next two weeks, while Wilson declared less than 24 hours after Domenici's announcement and after weeks of traveling statewide). The numbers tell us that both beat current Dem candidates Chavez and Wiviott by small-to-wide margins. The following summary of the numbers comes from the Democracy For New Mexico blog.
Starting with Republican candidate Steven Pearce, Congressman from New Mexico's 2nd District:
* Pearce loses to Congressman Tom Udall by 18 points
* loses to Governor Bill Richardson by 24 points
* defeats Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez by 21 points
* defeats former Attorney General Patricia Madrid by 16 points
* and defeats businessman Don Wiviott by 35 points.
Now to Republican candidate Heather Wilson, Congresswoman from New Mexico's 1st Congressional District:
* Wilson loses to Udall by 18 points (same as Pearce),
* loses to Richardson by 27 points (Wilson runs 3 points weaker than Pearce),
* defeats Chavez by 4 points (Wilson runs 17 points weaker than Pearce),
* effectively ties Patricia Madrid (Wilson runs 15 points weaker than Pearce)
* and defeats Wiviott by 17 points (Wilson runs 18 points weaker than Pearce).
Someone needs to put these numbers on the Congressman's desk and tell him that it's time to run.
We know that Udall's numbers aren't fluff, either. He's run statewide before and won as Attorney General, twice! Since then, Udall has remained a proud defender of the Constitution and our rights. He was one of the original 66 Members of Congress to stand up with courage against the PATRIOT Act that was first railroaded through the House, forcing most Representatives to vote on a bill they had never read.
This is the kind of leadership and courage we should demand from our leaders and a primary reason why New Mexicans are asking Tom Udall to run for Senate.
Congressman Udall's voting record is solidly progressive. Help in the movement to Draft Tom Udall for Senate today by sending him $5 and the message that he's our best hope!
Like fellow progressive caucus member Peter DeFazio (Oregon) before him, Tom Udall (New Mexico) has opted out of a run for Senate. Both would have had excellent chances. A February poll for the DSCC found DeFazio already ahead of Gordon Smith 42%--38% in a pretty blue state. New Mexico is an open seat in a slightly lean-Democratic state, and Udall reports $712K cash on hand as of June 30th.
These were two seats where Republicans could have been replaced with very, very solid, progressive Democrats. In fact, despite their tendency to recruit Bush Dogs, these were even cases where the Schumer led DSCC would have been happy--if not eager--to have progressives in the race. As an active member of the Blue Majority fundraising page, I would have been personally eager to endorse either one, and I imagine the folks at Blue America would have felt the same way. Jonathan Singer, another member of Blue Majority, was active in both Draft DeFazio and Draft Tom Udall (I believe he founded the later). Basically, everything was in place for these two: very winnable races where they would start in the lead, plus lots of establishment and grassroots support to back them up along the way. They could have replicated Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in 2006, no problem. And yet they both passed.
At Open Left, we spend a good deal of time criticizing Bush Dogs. However, let me pause for a moment to criticize progressive caucus members. We simply can't build a more progressive Senate if progressive caucus members keep passing up opportunities to run for higher office. If progressives keep passing up on runs at higher office, should we be surprised that the Democrats who end up in higher office are often less than progressive? This is a failure of progressive leadership at the highest levels. I am well aware of the way conservative Democrats are often recruited for Senate by our existing leadership, but the DSCC does not share the entire blame here. In fact, in at least DeFazio's case, they really wanted the progressive to run, as demonstrated by releasing a poll showing the Defazio--Smith trial heat. I can't imagine they would have been opposed to Udall running, either.
We can't build a more progressive Democratic Party if progressive Democrats don't run for higher office. The double DeFazio and Udall let down are extremely disappointing. Honestly, it lowers not only my opinion of both men, but also of the congressional progressive caucus itself. This is a group of representatives who have a huge natural activist base and many great political opportunities to shine, but they consistently fail to step up to the plate. Media bias is not the only reason we hear more about the Blue Dogs than we hear about the caucuses in Congress. Part of it is that they are constantly trumpeting their own ability to stall legislation, their own ideology, and taking advantages of the opportunities presented to them to run for higher office. Progressives just are not doing the same things, at least to the same degrees. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is full of Democrats who could make activists feel a lot better about the party, but they are doing little to provide us with that feeling. They need to start stepping up more--a lot more-and one of the areas to start would be to take advantage of Senate campaigns where you would actually start in the lead.
Show some leadership, please. We are in desperate need of it.
STATE BLOGS
