Open Left - activism

At 50th Birthday Party, Geov Parrish Announces New Lobbying Career

fake consultant — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:20:00 GMT

SEATTLE (FNS)--Longtime activist Geov Parrish unexpectedly revealed to the crowd gathered to celebrate his 50th birthday Friday evening his impending plans to end his decades-long career as a public issues advocate in exchange for new opportunities in the field of corporate communications management and image development.

The announcement appeared to be even more shocking to the glitterati gathered for Parrish's 50th birthday extravaganza at Seattle's tony Rainier Club than the fact that the event was sponsored by longtime Parrish nemesis Frank Blethen, publisher of the "Seattle Times" and a frequent target of Parrish's acerbic criticism regarding the state of corporatocracy and its negative impact upon the state of the Nation.

A new commercial venture and three new business relationships were unveiled: a corporate communications consultancy, tentatively to be named "I Am The State!", is to be opened in the next few weeks, after suitable office space is located, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and The Seattle Times Company as the first two business associates; additionally, Parrish will be joining the Board of Directors of the Strangelove Foundation, an organization devoted to maintaining the purity and essence of our precious bodily fluids.
A book deal was also announced.

Parrish, who among his other work was a founder of Seattle's alternative newspaper "Eat The State!", was in an ebullient mood as he explained the thought process behind his decision:

"After spending so many years fighting for affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans-all to no avail-I've decided to focus my efforts on getting myself high-quality health care, no matter what the cost...and considering, on the one hand, that my projected income next year from just the US Chamber of Commerce and Seattle Times operations are going to be somewhere in the range of $2.5 million dollars, and, on the other hand, that when my company pays for my new gold-plated executive health insurance plan it's fully tax-deductible, I'm thinking the cost of health care is probably not going to be a problem for me going forward.

And then I thought: what better day to make the announcement...than Friday the 13th?"

Apparently channeling Dave Chappell, Parrish then offered the crowd a certain single-fingered gesture before shouting:

"I'm rich, bitchaaas!"

In an exclusive interview, Frank Blethen explained to me the rationale behind the surprising new relationship:

"There was a time when we could afford to ignore publications like "Eat the State!", but as conditions for traditional publishers continued to deteriorate we found ourselves having to face the uncomfortable reality that last year Parrish's paper was actually more profitable than "The Seattle Times", and it was at that point that the Board and I decided to approach Parrish with an offer of employment."

Parrish declined the offer, citing his unwillingness to be anyone's employee. Blethen, however, would not be dissuaded:

"...we were determined to have him, in whatever capacity we could, and finally we hit upon the idea of hiring him as a consultant. We still couldn't come up with enough of an annual retainer for Parrish to be fully persuaded, so I made a quick call to Tom Donohue at the Chamber, which is how we came up with the proposal to have him advise not just The Seattle Times Company on media outreach and branding strategies, but, through the auspices of the Chamber, to provide those same services to other companies that could use 'the Parrish Touch'."

As the Obama Administration's plans for a new energy policy begin to become more certain Parrish's I Am The State! is also expected to provide services to companies outside the media community.

I was able to confirm this with a quick call to Exxon/Mobil spokesman Harry Paratestes, who told me that:

"...we are one of several companies that are seeking to reinvigorate our corporate image ahead of any new energy legislation that might be forthcoming from this and future Administrations.

Parrish's ability to successfully position his own media property while simultaneously destroying three competing papers-first, the "Seattle Weekly", then, Hearst's "Seattle Post-Intelligencer", and finally, the "Seattle Times"-gives us the confidence we need to invest in his ideas and every expectation of a profitable and mutually satisfying outcome."

Based on a recommendation from Tom Donohue, Center Street Publishers is rumored to have offered a $3.5 million advance for the rights to Parrish's new book documenting his change of circumstances, "The State Can Eat Me!"; it is anticipated that distribution will be not only through traditional retail channels, but also through Conservative websites such as Human Events, which is currently offering books by Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin at deep discounts to entice new website subscribers.

A number of times during the evening I attempted to obtain a comment directly from Mr. Parrish regarding these developments, but due to my inability to penetrate either the cordon of sunglass-wearing security personnel or the ever-present entourage that now surrounds him that effort proved to be impossible.

In a written statement, Parrish's people informed us that his next move will be to visit the Columbia Tower, Carillon Point, and the South Lake Union area to identify a suite of offices that can be redesigned to meet his specific requirements (which, I'm told, include an indoor shooting range, a cafeteria operated by the local "Popeye's" chicken franchisee, and the largest organ in the State of Washington); during the period of construction, we were informed, he will be in residence in either the other Washington, at the Hay-Adams Hotel, or Atlanta, Georgia, at the Omni Hotel at CNN Center, where, despite the fact that he was initially recruited by the "Times'" Blethen, he will be doing his first consulting work for other members of the Chamber.

How to End Wars

davidswanson — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:56:11 GMT

Around the United States, peace groups are engaged in effective campaigns against proposed new military installations, local funding of weapons companies, and the routine destruction of the environment and of workers' health by such companies. Activists are building better media outlets, educating young people, educating old people, keeping military testing and recruiting out of schools, and discouraging the Army from building real-weapon video arcades in shopping malls. But when it comes to stopping our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, our citizens are less clear how to go about it.
The peace movement was defunded and demobilized by the absurd belief that an election alone would make a difference, and now there is widespread desire to tell everyone that it didn't. Certainly, it didn't. We have a larger military budget, bases in more nations, and more troops and mercenaries on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq combined now than before the election. We need to understand that this was entirely predictable and predicted. Those who expected something from an election alone need to be clear that such expectation was entirely - not just partially - misguided. Disappointment with a president needs to be replaced with acknowledgement of strategic error. The latter generates less despair and allows clearer thinking about strategy going forward.

There is still and will always be a role for journalists, bloggers, authors, and pundits to expose the abuses of any and all government officials, including the president. But the primary role of peace activists should have nothing to do with presidents, or with senators. We have virtually no ability to influence them. When you're invited to discuss these wars on a television show, by all means expose what the president is doing. But asking members of an activist group to spend their time writing or calling the White House is a waste of energy that could be better used. It should be directed at the House of Representatives.

And when we look at the House, we see that the easiest way to quickly generate a large list of cosponsors is to propose bills. This pleases our closest allies in the House and impresses funders and allies in Washington, D.C. But it is not the easiest way to use the House to actually end wars. A bill with no teeth to it instructing the Pentagon to produce a plan to exit Afghanistan someday is something that one could almost imagine passing the Senate and being signed by the president. At best that process might move public opinion a bit more in the right direction. But it would further enforce in the public's minds, and Congress's, the idea that when and where wars are fought should be determined by the president or the Pentagon.

Passing a bill barring the spending of any money on an escalation in Afghanistan shifts the discussion to one of opposing an escalation rather than demanding withdrawal. This has led many peace groups to self-censor their demands for withdrawal. And passing such a bill through the Senate and persuading the President to sign it, or overriding a veto is a beautiful fantasy, but a far, far, far more difficult undertaking than a simpler and more direct approach.

If you want to stop funding wars, or even just the escalation of wars, the easiest way is to just not fund them. This can be done in the House alone. The Senate is not needed. The president is not needed. Rather than passing a bill stating that you won't fund wars, and then dreaming about getting the Senate to pass it too, you can choose to not pass bills that fund the wars. If the House makes clear that it will not fund an escalated war, then the war cannot be escalated. If the House makes clear that it will not fund a continued war, then the war cannot be continued.

The process of signing congress members onto a bill against funding or a bill requiring an exit plan is not counterproductive. It nudges them in the right direction. It creates a discussion about the possibility of including such measures in funding bills. It identifies lists of congress members to target in lobbying for stronger commitments. But when these bills are all we ask for, then they are not compromises or middle-ground. They are harder to move forward when they are all we ask for. And moving them forward without a broader vision of how we actually end the wars doesn't get us anywhere in the end.

Our primary demand must be: publicly commit to voting no on any bill that funds these wars. If unrelated measures are included in such bills, they must still be voted down and those other measures passed separately. If your representative is worried about funding a withdrawal itself, assure them that a bill to fund purely withdrawal has our support. If they are worried about abandoning foreign nations, assure them that we support diplomacy and aid. But we need them to join the list of their colleagues who have committed to voting no on bills that fund the wars. And we need them to lobby their colleagues to join them on that list.

By moving our focus to Congress we do something else useful. We allow people to protest wars who refuse to protest a president. By identifying wars with a president, we grant all future presidents the power to make wars, and we discourage participation in citizen activism by people who fantasize about the president being their friend or who think it's not wise to protest a popular president.

Our focus on Congress should include their responsibility on Iraq as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Congress has now required the Pentagon to provide it with monthly reports on its progress toward fully withdrawing from Iraq by the end of 2011. When those reports are not forthcoming or do not credibly suggest progress toward that goal, congressional committees must be forced by us to subpoena Secretary of "Defense" Robert Gates. And in fact, the House Judiciary Committee must be compelled by us as soon as possible to restore the checking power of impeachment by opening an impeachment inquiry into Jay Bybee, a federal judge who, while employed by the Justice Department, signed memos purporting to legalize torture and aggressive war. At the very least, Bybee must be subpoenaed, and Congress must use the Capitol Police to enforce that subpoena rather than futilely asking the Justice Department to do it.

If Congress asserts the power to hold war criminals accountable (which, again, can be done without the Senate or the president), we will be in a far better position to deter further wars and escalations, and Congress will be in a better position to cut off funding.

In June, 32 congress members voted No on war funding. They should be thanked and rewarded. But they should, above all, be asked and pressured to make a commitment to join this list of members committed to voting No from here on out: http://afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said that he'd like to see another $50 billion passed in another supplemental war spending bill in the next few months. This is money to fund an escalation that we are supposed to believe has not been decided upon yet. This must be stopped. Some congress members are speaking against it. Even the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee David Obey has suggested he might oppose this. He very much needs to be encouraged by people around the nation to not put our money where his mouth isn't.

I just had the privilege of speaking at a rally in Portland, Maine, where an enthusiastic crowd of Mainers demanded the actions I'm proposing here. Their two congress members voted the right way in June, and they are working to win their public commitments to continue that practice and to lobby their colleagues to join them in that commitment.

Resources to help in this effort (and a place to report your results) in your congressional district can be found at http://afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars. Here's a flyer on ending the war in Vietghanistan: PDF. Here's how to step up your activism. Here's what's needed instead of bombs and guns. Here's a way to nonviolently resist.

Here's a very useful list of top targets and multiple ways to contact them. You can help with that even if they are not your representative.

What I am proposing is not easy. It's just the easiest path we have. It will be easier, the more of us get involved, the more of us refrain from discouraging each other with our knowledge of how hard the struggle will be, and the more of us who are willing to go beyond lobbying to nonviolently disrupting, including by sitting in our congress members' offices and refusing to leave until they agree to leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These wars, like all wars, are Congress's wars. The blood is on their hands and they represent us.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.

Hey Kissell, can we have our $485,795 back?

Chris Bowers — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:53:18 GMT

With a vote looming on Saturday night, the whip in the House for the health care bill remains very close. According to the whip count at The Hill, 43 Democrats are no, leaning no, or undecided. With 258 House Democrats, if every Republican votes "no" then 41 Democratic defections will defeat the bill.

One new "no" vote that just appeared, and is not on the list at The Hill, is freshmen Democrat Larry Kissell. This is noteworthy, given that in 2006 and 2008, Larry Kissell raised $485,795 on Act Blue. Some of that was raised directly by the campaign, but most of it came in through blog-organized fundraising pages.

Larry Kissell is a terrible fundraiser, and has always struggled with it. His Republican challenger already has more cash on hand than he does, which is a real rarity for Democratic incumbents. It might be a nice bit of pressure tomorrow to call his campaign office tomorrow, letting him know that a vote against the health care bill will not only slow donations, but will result in thousands of people asking for refunds.

If you happen to have given money to Larry Kissell in the past, go ahead and contact his campaign office tonight, letting him know how you feel about his opposition to health care reform with a public option. The number is 1-877-428-4048, and the email is info@larrykissell.com.

Training Tuesday with the DFA: Recruiting Volunteers

Rusty5329 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:06:31 GMT

originally posted by Mitch Malasky at Sum of Change

This week, Training Tuesday will focus on another very important constituency: volunteers. As an organizer, building a strong volunteer base is your most important responsibility. The quality and quantity of the effort you get from your volunteers can make or break a campaign. They not only are giving you work for free (but don't tell them this!! See 'seizing an opportunity' below) but they are your direct representative to your most important constituency: voters. So their work is not only necessary, it must be done to a high standard and you must take it upon yourself to insure they are up to the task. From the Democracy for America (DFA) training manual:

You are a leader. Your job is to get your staff and volunteers to follow you. You set the tone. An energetic and enthusiastic leader will beget a focused and motivated volunteer base."

Our videos today will cover some of the basics of recruiting volunteers and building a lasting network. The DFA is truly an authority on this subject, so without further ado...
--Be Happy When You Ask For Volunteers

--Volunteers Are Seizing an Opportunity, Not Doing You a Favor

--The Volunteer Ask and the 5 Cs

That's all for this week. Don't forget to check back at the Sum of Change Training Tuesday page next week at 6:00pm for Matt Blizek's tips on how to run an effective email program!

"Trick or Treat or SINGLE PAYER" - put your kids to work on Halloween

metamars — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:02:57 GMT

Well, boys and girls, I had another or my peculiar brainstorms....

There is a diary on Docudharma called Remember Mischief Night? It's back, and it could get us statewide single payer in PA

It calls for actions in the near future to get single payer healthcare in Pennsylvania.

I riffed on the idea via a comment entitled "Trick or Treat or PENNSYLVANIA SINGLE PAYER", wherein I called for parents to get their kids to carry around healthcare flyers (including from the PDA), and distribute them.
With any luck, this could become a national tradition.

Here is my comment:

Why not ask parents to ask their kids to stuff some flyers into their trick or treat bag, and say
"Trick or Treat or PENNSYLVANIA SINGLE PAYER"
Of course, even when the kids get their candy, they can still "treat" the homeowner with a single payer flyer.
Also, while they're at it, they can distribute flyers from the Progressive Democrats of America., e.g. the "Healthcare NOT Warfare" flyer.

Training Tuesday with the DFA: 'Your Field Plan: Vote Goals, Targeting, and Field Strategy'

Rusty5329 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:39:41 GMT

originally posted by Mitch Malasky at Sum of Change

This week, we have a few clips from another session at Democracy For America (DFA) Campaign Academy's 'Grassroots Campaign Training' held September 26th and 27th at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, PA. This session, called 'Your Field Plan: Vote Goals, Targeting, and Field Strategy', explains how a campaign can best prepare their own operation for electoral success by creating a specific and detailed field plan.
According to DFA:

The field plan is the campaign's blueprint for victory. The field plan is the series of strategies and tactics a campaign uses to gather the necessary votes to win an election. The media plan, the finance plan, and all the campaign's administrative capacity serves one goal: support an operation capable of gathering the number of votes necessary to win the campaign. The field plan is that operation.

To this end, we have three clips for you. In the first, our new trainer, Kendra-Sue Derby, a longtime progressive campaign manager and advisor, explains how it is 'All About the Numbers'. As obvious as it sounds, the best way to win a campaign is to have the most voters, so keeping a plan of every voter and voting district and working off of that plan is the best way to win your campaign. In the next two videos, Kendra-Sue discusses some specific of how to best implement your plan by 'Targeting Your Voters'. In part one she outlines how a campaign should classify different kinds of potential voters while in part two she goes into how to approach, or not approach, each group...

For more information about the DFA Campaign Academy trainings, go to http://www.democracyforamerica.com/training. Unfortunately, the 2009 training season has ended, but you can contact DFA about having one in your area in 2010.

Please check out our Training Tuesday page for more Campaign Academy content, and come back every Tuesday @ 6:00 for more Training Tuesday videos.

On Using Mr. Bullhorn, Or, DC Health Summit Thursday: Come Say Hi...Loudly

fake consultant — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:35:31 GMT

It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.

Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.

So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?

By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.

Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
There are two important bits of setting up that are required to make this story work; and the first is to explain who the PCPCC is, exactly. To quote their website:

"The Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative is a coalition of major employers, consumer groups, patient quality organizations, health plans, labor unions, hospitals, clinicians and many others who have joined together to develop and advance the patient centered medical home. The Collaborative has well over 500 members.
The Collaborative believes that, if implemented, the patient centered medical home will improve the health of patients and the viability of the health care delivery system. In order to accomplish our goal, employers, consumers, patients, clinicians and payers have agreed that it is essential to support a better model of compensating clinicians."

The "patient centered medical home"?

Is that anything like "precious bodily fluids"?

Actually, the original idea was to create a "home" where a patient's scattered medical records could be gathered. Forty years later, the concept has evolved to a "home doctor" who coordinates all your health and wellness care from all your providers.

This is a huge shift in how care is delivered (and how healthcare dollars would be distributed), which is why the Collaborative has so many members...including seven of the top ten health insurers in the country.

I've been getting emails that tell me CEOs such as Stephen Helmsley of UnitedHealth and Angela Braly of WellPoint (insert booing and hissing here) will be present-and these are the exact people that you should be giving a "Town Hall-like" welcome of their own when they hit Washington.

Groups such as Democracy for America and TrueMajority will be working together to bring people who have been personally affected by the insurance crisis to the meeting-even though we're not invited inside to support something like, oh, I don't know...maybe a public option?

They want you to attend as well, to make lots of noise, and to send the message that we won't be ignored. It's a critical time in the debate, as there are Democrats yet to be convinced, and if you can be at this meeting it will capture media attention that could help move those Democrats to our positions.

The event takes place in Washington DC all day Thursday (from 9-4:30) at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, conveniently located at 801 Mount Vernon Place NW; just six blocks from the Executive Office Building and the White House complex...and, on its south side, just 50 feet from K Street, the "Glitter Gulch" of lobbying.

There's a handy Metro station, and if you walk to the south end of the Convention Center (the Mt. Vernon Square end of the building) you'll find that the American Federation of Labor occupies a building across the street from the Square on the west side-and National Public Radio occupies a building diagonally across the Square on the east side.

So if you're planning to be in Washington Thursday-or you've been looking for an excuse to visit-make a day of it: stroll by the White House, see lobbyists and unions and National Public Radio at work...and most importantly of all, make sure the CEOs of the health insurers in attendance get the same kind of rousing "Town Hall" welcome at the Convention Center that they spent millions of dollars to create in our own home towns.

In other words, bring Mr. Bullhorn-and the extra batteries.

Of course, I don't want to make this too much of a hard sell.

After all, it's not as if your life depends on you attending some-hey, wait a minute...actually, I guess it kind of does.

Training Tuesday: Online Organizing DFA Style

Rusty5329 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:01:32 GMT

originally posted at Sum of Change

Matt Blizek, of Democracy for America (DFA), was kind enough to allow Sum of Change to bring a camera to the recent DFA Campaign Academy in Gettysburg, PA. The Campaign Academy was founded in 2004, and serves to "focus, network, and train grassroots activists in the skills and strategies to take back our country," We will be bringing you highlights from different panels for the next several Tuesdays, but for this first Training Tuesday we have something special. This is the only training session that we will be airing in full. We will still bring you highlights from many other trainings, but if you would like to see more of them in full, you will have to attend a DFA Campaign Academy.
Online organizing has sent shock waves through the political community over the last five years. And DFA was on the front lines throughout. So, without further ado, I present to you, Matt Blizek and Online Organizing:

This first video is the entire panel, it is an hour long but definitely worth the watch if you are doing any online organizing:

From the highlight reel, let's start with Matt's story about his first political contribution:

Matt Blizek on online message delivery:

Here, Matt talks a little bit about the national reach of the internet:

We'll be releasing more videos from DFA's Campaign Academy every Tuesday for the next several weeks at Sum of Change. Check back Tuesday at 6:00pm for the next installment. You can also sign up to get an email alert when we release new Sum of Change videos. And please look into DFA's Campaign Academy.

Weekly Diaspora: A Reason to Reason

The Media Consortium — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:24:55 GMT

By Nezua, Media Consortium Blogger

After the shadowy Bush years, the emergence of reasonable policy can be a little surprising. Immigration law has suffered from a lack of planning and is often influenced by fear rooted in the Sept. 11 attacks. But the national dialogue on immigration has begun to grow healthier. Activists, immigration advocacy groups and Latino and Asian American communities dug in and are working toward reform. Right wing and anti-immigration voices have less sway. This week we see two tangible and positive developments on this front: An announcement from the White House regarding detention policy reform and a letter against aggressive enforcement sent to the White House from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

The White House's latest announcement on immigration detention reform is encouraging, as it finally addresses the abysmal conditions of the detained, who include families and children. Though, as Michelle Chen muses for RaceWire, what is the overall purpose of these proposed improvements in detention facilities and policies? Are they simply to make the general public more comfortable? After reviewing the latest reform proposals for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers, Chen finds a lot of hype and not many details. She writes that despite any makeover, "the central, defining reality of detention remains the banishment of hundreds of thousands for violating a system of rules that is itself guilty of systematically violating rights." So reason may be returning, but in some cases, it may only be turning the corner, and hardly arrived as of yet.

On the heels of a recent letter to the White House that demanded an end to aggressive enforcement policies, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has weighed in. The lawmakers sent President Barack Obama a letter that underlined the connection between racial profiling, civil rights abuses, and the 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement with border patrol powers. The caucus called on the administration to "immediately terminate" the program. They wrote that in their collective experience, "state and local law enforcement officials actually use their expanded and often unchecked powers under the program to target immigrants and persons of color."

The "tough" angle of U.S. immigration policy can be traced, of course, to the national response to the attacks of September 11. This was when enforcement began to take an aggressive, combative shape. But does it serve us today? Instead of viewing the changing demographics of the nation as a phenomenon deserving a military response, it is more helpful to have a dialogue like The American Forum's Rev. J. George Reed and Chris Liu-Beers, who discuss the root causes of immigration. Harsher enforcement has little value, according to Reed and Liu-Beers. The conversation must include "American trade policy (including NAFTA)," the economic conditions and lack of opportunity in "sending" countries. They also assert that the idea of somehow deporting 12 million people from our country is but "ugly fantasy."

Sometimes reasonable conversation on the immigration issue arrives as studied fact, taking the form of reports such as the recent Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class: 2009 Edition, which Michele Waslin reports on for Alternet. "The myth that immigration is bad for U.S. workers has sulled the immigration debate for far too long," writes Waslin. And the study reinforces one of the more benevolent notions in the U.S. national identity: that our social body so often nourished by immigration, benefits from this cycle. Immigration reform, properly planned (based on reason, and not fear) can "harness the positive contributions of immigrants, thus improving the lives of middle class Americans." However, under the current system, "undocumented workers are vulnerable and exploitable, living at the mercy of their employers," and to the detriment of all of us.

Last month, Lindsay Beyerstein pushed back against a bogeyman used by those of the Joe "You Lie" Wilson ilk for In These Times. She asks "Why Not Cover Undocumented Migrants?" Beyerstein explains why allowing the undocumented to buy into insurance would be better for all of us. "As a group, migrants tend to be young and healthy," and this is a desirable demographic to insure, on the part of the health insurance industry. Migrants often "return home before they get to the inevitable 'old and expensive' phase of life." Additionally, inherent to how insurance works, it simply makes economic sense to spread the risk to a larger group of people. All in all, Beyerstein writes, "there's no good economic reason to make eligibility contingent upon immigration status."

The changing dialogue benefits from independent reporting, like Wiretap's coverage of FBI informant Ahmad Afzali. The facts are not all in, but according to the FBI, Afzali, who had been working with the U.S. government agency for over a year, is accused of tipping off alleged terrorist Najibullah Zazi. Afzali's attorney claims this would be a ridiculous action to take on a line he knew was tapped. Meanwhile, the Muslim community where Zazi lived feel that he is not being fairly treated, his own words being "distorted and used against him." Whichever way this goes, we can only hope that Muslim communities in the U.S. are afforded a bit more peace of mind in the years ahead. It certainly is one group that has suffered at the hands of wartime hysteria and aggression.

We can't exclude reasonable consideration from any one group of humans. We can not withhold humane treatment, nor an identification with any group in our nation. That is how national ID laws get passed-an "othered" group is used first. Then, it comes to the rest. This is also why certain youth are punished, even though laws were passed long ago to protect other youth from such fates. We see where the insistence of anti-immigrant irrationality leads us: To building "national security" walls in the desert that eat up billions of a national budget just to patch the holes, and accomplish just as much death on that lonely trail to opportunity.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Video Coverage of Anthem v Szakos

Rusty5329 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:37:49 GMT

originally posted at Sum of Change

Written Coverage (from Tuesday, September 22nd article):

Joe Szakos, the Executive Director of the Virginia Organizing Project (VOP), appeared in court today, Tuesday September 22nd, in Henrico, VA. Mr. Szakos was arrested at Anthem's headquarters on July 24th while attempting to contact the insurance company regarding recent premium hikes. The VOP, as an employer, is a customer of Anthem and had received an email from the company asking the customers to urge their members of Congress to oppose health care reform.
The VOP provided us with a copy of the email that they received from Anthem. In it, Anthem states their opposition to the public option, and touts their claim to "strongly support reform that builds a strong, sustainable private-sector health care system." Anthem urged customers to sign up with the Health Action Network, who, coincidentally, supports building a "a strong, sustainable private-sector health care system." The email also asked customers to contact Congress, stating that "As our elected officials debate health care, they need to hear directly from you." The VOP received this email while Anthem was raising their premiums by 14%. Mr. Szakos was outraged that customers had to pay more, all while Anthem continues paying lobbyists to fight against the reforms proposed in Washington, DC.
The day ended with a continuance since the Commonwealth's main witness, Anthem's representative who ordered the police to arrest Mr. Szakos, was absent the state, although a subpoena had been issued. The key point argued today were subpoena's for Anthem CEO C. Burke Kind and Director of Public Relations Scott Golden to appear as witnesses. The defense argued that the CEO of Anthem had to answer for the actions of the company, specifically for arresting Mr. Szakos. Mr. Szakos' attorney also claimed that Mr. Golden has told him he was in the lobby during the event. The prosecution argued that the VOP was only calling the CEO for political reasons, as a form of protest. Mr. Szakos flat out rejected that accusation. Ultimately, the Judge accepted the motion to quash a subpoena for Mr. King to appear, but ordered Mr. Golden to obey his subpoena.
Mr. Szakos returns to court on November 23rd.

Open Left Beats the RNC!

Chris Bowers — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:49:11 GMT

On Wednesday, Open Left launched a petition (the petition link is now inactive) urging Harry Reid to keep the public option in the health care bill that goes to the Senate floor. As I reported yesterday, we gathered 15,688 signatures in 24 hours. On Monday, CREDO Action will deliver the signatures to Harry Reid.

Yesterday morning, just after midnight, the Republican National Committee launched their "Stop The Side Show" petition. More than 24 hours later, they only have 11,776 signatures-barely two-thirds of what you guys did. You single-handedly bested the RNC!

That's pretty cool, although I have heard a rumor that some of the people signing the RNC petition have actually claimed 2,000,000 signatures. They even have photos of those two million people to prove it.

Public Option Petition Update

Chris Bowers — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:29:47 GMT

Yesterday, we launched Open Left Action with a petition to Harry Reid to keep the public option in the Senate version of the health care bill when it is brought to the floor. I didn't know what would happen when we launched this new endeavor, but what did happen blew me away: in less than one day, 15,688 of you signed the petition. On Monday, CREDO action will deliver the petition to Harry Reid.

Now, 15,688 may not seem like a huge amount compared to what some online communities out there can accomplish, but I am thrilled with this in our first effort. Nearly 20% of you who took part in one of our previous actions signed this petition on the first ask. Thank you so, so much!

This is just the beginning. Our community is growing, and so are our capabilities. What would you like to see Open Left Action do in the future? Continuing the public option campaign is a must, but there are other campaigns besides health care--not to mention a future of action after health care. There are also other actions we can take besides the petitions and whip counts we have focused on over the summer. I have always thought that this community has a wealth of knowledge and insight, and I would love to hear your thoughts on moving forward.

Right now, our health care fight continues. Howard Dean and Democracy for America have launched the next step in the public option campaign--America can't wait. Based on research that you guys have been instrumental in providing, we can now show that there are majorities in favor of a public option in both branches of Congress, and the procedural options to use those majorities. And so, as Howard Dean wrote today, it is time to demand that Democratic leaders pass the public option and stop waiting. Go take part--we are entering a new phase of the fight.

Finally, one of the activists in our community who signed the petition yesterday put together a cool music video in favor of progressive health care reform. Like the progressive netroots in general, it is both DIY, and a demonstration of the creative energy we all have together.

So, what should we do next?

Why Johnny can't (productively) Democratize

metamars — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:18:05 GMT

(By "Democratize", I want to communicate "participate in an authentic democracy")

This following is a copy of an email I sent to Nancy Bordier this morning. (With minor edits.) Nancy is thinking of writing a "Progressive Voter's Party-Building Manual" The idea I present is basically to provide motivation for moving to vote-bloc technology, which would be simple enough to target young people.

Throw together a booklet, which sums up (for the most part, indirectly) why something like Citizen's Winning Hands is needed. The booklet would be entitled:
Why Democracy Doesn't Work in the US, and How the Efforts That You Have Made to Fix It Has Wasted Time, Energy, and Money

A Guide for 7th Graders (and older)
============================================
This idea basically came to me in a dream, though it wasn't until I woke up that I realized that the advice that I was giving to the guy in the dream was well suited (and probably intended, by my subconscious mind) to promote your web site. (And, I suppose, mine, and anybody else's who is trying to fix democracy).
The idea is to write a book, not only suitable for children, (in large part targeted to them but ultimately for everybody), about how they are mis-informed about our 'wonderful' democracy. The structure of the book will take the form of following the life of a young, well-intentioned boy (or girl; let's assume a boy named Joe), starting in the 7th grade, who is actually a little ahead of the curve, in terms of his civic-mindedness. After a brief discussion of Joe's textbook understanding of democracy when he is 12-years-old, we will read a story of Joe's budding good citizenship, centered around efforts of his at certain stages of his young life.
However, while conceding Joe a small pat on the back (for his good intentions), we will basically show how each of his efforts was WASTED - and why.
Quite possibly (and preferably), you will not need to write much of this book, yourself. Some of the chapters of Joe's wasteful efforts have been covered by bloggers, and if you let them co-author chapters which are basically riffing off of diaries that they have already written, you will not only spare yourself the effort, you will give them an opportunity make their home web site better known.
Here is a sketch of stages/chapters that readily come to mind:
7 th grade
===========
Lifestyle activism. Planet keeps dying. Joe changes a few light bulbs in his house. Author would be educationaction, who posted "Self-Delusion and the Lie of Lifestyle Activism (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)" at OpenLeft
9th grade
===========
Letters to his congressman. Joe gets interested in healthcare reform after his uncle goes bankrupt after a serious illness, even though he has insurance. He starts writing letters to his Congress critter, because he wants to "make a difference". Joe gets back nice, fuzzy form letters, which do NOT explain how his Senator needs to raise $20,000/day for his re-election, and is spending about 30% of his time schmoozing with lobbyists. Those lobbyists include ones from Big Pharma. (Dave Sirota could write this chapter.)
11th grade
===========
Mistakenly supports GW Bush's invasion of Iraq, even though young Joe has a strong sense of right and wrong, and generally seeks peaceful solutions. Joe, of course, has been suckered by not only the propaganda directly spewing out of the Bush Administration, but also the echo chamber it finds in Main Stream Media. For example, the crap that Judith Miller published in the NY Times. Some quotes from Noam Chomsky on "manufacturing consent". (Gary Null could write this chapter.)
21 years old
===========
Joe helps elect Democrats in 2006, because he now views Iraq as a huge mistake. Democrats use their new power to..... make excuses and keep funding the war. (You could ask the PDA to supply this chapter. Norman Solomon, I suppose.)
23 years old
===========
Joe gets serious (so he believes) about change, joins some liberal organizations, and helps get Barack Obama elected. Meanwhile, he's got $70,000 in education loans, and can't find a decent job. Obama turns out to be mostly change that a fool could believe in, but Joe is in denial, even if uneasy. After all, he's not hearing much criticism from the Left, including against the continuing lack of transparency over financial bailouts. (Obviously not a reader of OpenLeft :-) ). Discussion of cooption of reform organizations.
(The person who should write this chapter is definitely Jane Hamsher, who recently wrote "Van Jones: A Moment of Truth For Liberal Institutions in the Veal Pen". You should definitely read it, if you haven't, already. Gary Null could also write this chapter.)
24-25 years old (Epilogue)
==========
This is the chapter that you would write, if you decide to add it. Of course, it would describe how vote bloc technology finally started making the efforts of Joe (and the millions of other Joes out there) PRODUCTIVE.

I Am Why Single-Payer Hasn't Passed

Chris Bowers — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:37:49 GMT

In case you were wondering why single-payer hasn't passed into law, I wanted to let you know that I am the reason. Even though I support single-payer health care, I have not spent much time on Open Left advocating for it. As such, single-payer has not passed because of me.

Here is what could have happened:

Progressive blogs and email organizations advocate for single payer all the time every day;
This advocacy leads to millions of progressive activists attending rallies and contacting members of Congress on behalf of single-payer;
Members of Congress are so scared of these activists, they pass single-payer into law.

The path was pretty straightforward. It is common knowledge that there is an unstoppable corps of left-wing activists who can force Congress into passing left-wing legislation. However, in order to mobilize that corps, bloggers need to advocate for positions that corps likes. Once they do, the left-wing activist corps will spring into gear and get the job done. But they won't do it until bloggers advocate for it.

I first noticed this when I appeared on Hardball criticizing President-elect Obama for loading his cabinet with moderates. The marches on Washington, D.C. that resulted my appearance left him no option but to appoint real progressives from there on out. I could have done the same thing for single-payer, but I didn't. Here is what I did instead:

I convinced the tens of millions of progressive activists who are familiar with the work of Jacob Hacker that, while Congress was not going to pass single-payer, Democrats could pass a public option that would cover 130 million Americans. Like most public option advocates, I wrote about that all the time during 2007 and 2008, just around the same time that Hacker was becoming a household name.
While I was unable to voice my opposition to Hacker's proposal at the time due to his overwhelming popularity among progressive activists, I was engaged in behind the scenes maneuvering with the chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees to introduce legislation with a much weaker public option. Since I can't stomach 130 million people being covered by the public option, I instead successfully persuaded the committee chairs to introduce legislation that would only cover around 10 million Americans. It was necessary for me to do this behind the scenes, because otherwise the Hacker legions would know that I was using them.
By lying to the Hacker legions like this, I was able to harness some of their activism on behalf of the weaker public option. Unfortunately, most of these activists saw through the lie and as a result we were out organized in town halls in August anyway. Foiled again!

Snark tags off in the extended entry.
Actually, that isn't what happened at all. It does seem to be what some single-payer advocates think happened, but it isn't.

If you are upset at me because I am a single-payer supporter who didn't do much single-payer advocacy, well I'm sorry about that. I wish I knew how to pass single-payer into law--or a carbon tax, or to end the war in Afghanistan, or an expansion of Social Security--but I don't. That isn't bullshit--I really wish I knew, but I don't.

I have spent the last few months trying to increase progressive power in Congress. This effort is centered around a new strategy I call "The Progressive Block," and yes the k is intentional. Basically, the strategy is for House Progressives--reinforced by the netroots--joining with Republicans to block must-pass Democratic legislation unless we get some real concessions in return for passage. I didn't develop this strategy--it bubbled up from discussions online about drawing a line on health care early in 2009, and from earlier online discussions about building progressive power. In March, the new House Progressive co-chair, Raul Grijalva, brought the idea to the single-payer advocates of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who then voted to draw that line on a Medicare-like public option. At around the same time, Darcy Burner was brought in to help organize the effort both short-term and long-term. A test run of sorts took place in May and June on Afghanistan war supplemental funding. At that time, House Progressives, aided by Fire Dog Lake and other bloggers, worked to remove IMF funding from the supplemental bill. It didn't quite work, but in delaying the Democratic leadership by a couple weeks it did at least show potential.

In addition to selling the strategy, my part of that effort has been working with Democracy for America, HCAN and state bloggers to try and show that 50 Senators support a public option. Combined with the Progressive Block in the House--which Blue America, MoveOn and many blogs are working to reinforce--and combined with primary challenges to key Senators like Michael Bennet and Arlen Specter, our goal is to make it easier to pass a public option into law than to not pass a public option into law. As of two weeks ago, 34,827 activists have taken action in our part of that effort. I am humbled, excited, and honored by everyone who did so. Thank you!

This is the best idea and the broadest effort I encountered to try and make the federal government more responsive to progressives in the long-term, and to try and improve the health care bill in the short-term. It certainly struck me as more attractive and workable than just writing blog posts explaining why single-payer is so great. Feel free to disagree with that assessment. In fact, feel free to disagree with strategy discussions altogether. If you think what I did was somehow wrong, I can live with that. I honestly believe I am involved in the best effort progressives have going right now, and I also believe I did the best I could to help make it happen. If you think I somehow hurt the cause, then I am sorry. If it turns out not to be successful, then I am really, really sorry about that. Maybe we should have gone in a different direction, but we can't turn around at this point in this particular fight. There will be time for re-evaluation afterward, but for now we can only keep pushing ahead.

Let's Find The Final Five

Chris Bowers — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:30:00 GMT

At its core, the fight over a public option is not just about health care, but about who runs our country: the American people or powerful corporate lobbies. It has been easy to tell who has been charge for quite a while, but as David wrote this morning, with this fight we are on the verge of changing the power dynamic in D.C.

With 45 Senators on the record supporting a public option, we are close to winning this fight. I sound like a broken record by now, but if Progressives in the House can keep any bill without a public option from passing that chamber, and if 50 Senators are on record supporting a public option, then the easiest path for the leadership to pass health care reform is to force a strong public option through reconciliation. Getting five more Senators on the record supporting a public option brings us to that important tipping point.

The campaign to reach 50 ramps up today. You can participate by sending a fax to each of these five Senators, asking them five specific questions on where they stand on a public option. It is quick, it is easy, it is supported by a range of other actions, and it is important

Send a fax to Mark Begich, asking him if he supports the public option!
Send a fax to Tom Carper, asking him if he supports the public option!
Send a fax to Jon Tester, asking him if he supports the public option!
Send a fax to Mark Warner, asking him if he supports the public option!
Send a fax to Ron Wyden, asking him if he supports the public option!

Your actions are layered by media requests to each Senator from local bloggers, new field staff from Democracy for America, and mass emails to Stand with Dr. Dean members in each of these five states.

We can win this, changing not only health care, but the whole country in the process. Please, no matter where you are and what time you are reading this, send out faxes to these five Senators now.

Latest Public Option Whip Count

Chris Bowers — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Despite near implications to the contrary, a public health insurance option is not dead yet. In fact, through the tens of thousands of emails you sent on the Stand with Dr. Dean campaign, HCAN, DFA and Open Left now have 43 Senators on record in favor of the public option, and 18 are either "maybes" or "unknowns."

Public Option Support Breakdown
Yes-43; Maybe-16; Unknown-2; No-2

Among the twenty Senators who are still left to target (only 63 total Senators are even potentially reachable on this issue), they break down into the following groups:

Conservadems (11): Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Tom Carper (DE), Herb Kohl (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL), Mark Pryor (AR), Mark Warner (VA). Overall, eleven of the fifteen Senate "conservadems" are either on the fence, or publicly opposed.
Other Democrats (6): Max Baucus (MT), Robert Byrd (WV), Kent Conrad (NF), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Jon Tester (MT), and Ron Wyden (OR).
Republicans (3): Susan Collins (ME), Johnny Isakson (GA), and Olympia Snowe (ME).

With 43 supporters of the public option, we only need seven of these twenty Senators to flip in order to pass the public option through reconciliation. Even amid the din of right-wing astroturf protesters and a media giddy at the prospect of health care reform failure, meaningful health care reform is very doable in 2009.

If it is at all possible for you, find an event targeted at one of the twenty Senators listed above, and attend it.

Overall, there are 63 potential supporters of meaningful health care reform. Produced through your over 20,000 emails, a complete breakdown of what all 63 have said about the public option can be found in the extended entry.

The 63 Supporters and Potential Supporters of the Public Option

STATE/SENATOR	Public Option?	Available Day One?	Nationally Available?	Can Bargain for Rates?
AK - Begich (D)	Maybe (via email)	Maybe (via email)	Maybe (via email)	Maybe (via email)
AR - Lincoln (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
AR - Pryor (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
CA - Boxer (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
CA - Feinstein (D)	Yes	Yes	Maybe	Dodges (via email)
CO - Bennet (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)
CO - Udall (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)
CT- Dodd (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
CT - Lieberman (I)	No	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
DE - Carper (D)	Maybe
DE - Kaufman (D)	Yes
FL - Bill Nelson (D)	Maybe (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
GA - Isakson (R)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
HI - Akaka (D)	Yes
HI - Inouye (D)	Yes
IA - Harkin (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
IL - Burris (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
IL - Durbin (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
IN - Bayh (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
LA - Landrieu (D)	Maybe	No	No	No
MA - Kerry (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
MA - Kennedy (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
MD - Cardin (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
MD - Mikulski (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
ME - Collins (R)	No	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
ME - Snowe (R)	Maybe
MI - Levin (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
MI - Stabenow (D)	Yes
MN - Franken (D)	Yes (HCAN signer)
MN - Klobuchar (D)	Unknown
MO - McCaskill (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
MT - Baucus (D)	Maybe
MT - Tester (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NC - Hagan (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
ND - Conrad (D)	Maybe	Yes	No	Yes
ND - Dorgan (D)	Yes	Maybe	Yes	Yes
NE - Ben Nelson (D)	Maybe
NH - Shaheen (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NJ - Lautenberg (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NJ - Menendez (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NM - Bingaman (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
NM - Udall (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NV - Reid (D)	Yes
NY - Gillibrand (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
NY - Schumer (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes
OH - Brown (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
OR - Merkley (D)	Yes	Yes (via email)	Yes (via email)	Yes (via email)
OR - Wyden (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
PA - Casey (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
PA - Specter (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
RI - Reed (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
RI - Whitehouse (D)	Yes
SD - Johnson (D)	Unknown
VA - Warner (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	No	Dodges (via email)
VA - Webb (D)	Yes
VT - Leahy (D)	Yes
VT - Sanders (I)	Yes	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
WA - Cantwell (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
WA - Murray (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill))
WI - Feingold (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
WI - Kohl (D)	Maybe (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
WV - Byrd (D)	Unknown
WV - Rockefeller (D)	Yes		Yes

Group Targeting Dems Tells Groups To Stop Targeting Dems

Chris Bowers — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:35:02 GMT

The White House apparently doesn't like progressive groups spending resources against Democratic members of Congress on health care. This is pretty confusing, given that President Obama's political operation appears to be doing exactly the same thing.

Like most people reading this blog, today I received a message from Organizing for America urging me to call my Representative:

Your representative, Chaka Fattah, has been fighting hard for real health insurance reform. Can you call the local office in Philadelphia? Let the person who answers know that you're a constituent. Then tell them: "Thanks for working to enact real health insurance reform this year. Voters like me support your efforts."

This is a direct call to contact Democratic members of Congress. About the only difference I can tell between this call to action and the calls to action from other progressive groups is that it urges me to be nice to Representative Fattah. However, yesterday OFA urged me to visit Senator Specter's office, and left it open as to whether or not I should be nice and thank him (emphasis mine):

Click below to sign up for an Office Visit for Health Reform:
http://my.barackobama.com/OfficeVisit

Wherever you live, these visits matter: Many representatives are pushing hard toward reform, and they are taking a lot of heat from special interests. They deserve our thanks and need our support to continue the fight. But those who are still putting insurance companies and partisan point-scoring ahead of their constituents must know that voters are watching -- and that we expect better.

So, OFA is not only urging me to contact Democratic members of Congress, but it leaving it open-ended as to whether or not I should thank them or telling them I expect more. Given that they explicitly told me to thank Representative Fattah, I wonder if there is an implied subtext here.

It is also curious that the email from Sunday specifically urged me to contact Senator Specter, rather than Senator Casey. While it is possible this was purely random, and some Pennsylvania members of OFA were asked to contact Senator Casey, it is also possible that OFA is specifically targeting Specter because he is viewed as a more difficult swing vote than Senator Casey.

Exactly how OFA's activities differ from other groups spending liberal dollars to target Democratic Senators on health care reform is a pretty fine line. Like other progressive organizations, OFA is running ads in Democratic districts. Like other progressive organizations, OFA is urging their volunteers to contact specific Democrats. Like other progressive organizations, OFA is telling its volunteers to thank some members of Congress, and tell other members of Congress to do more. The only difference is that OFA isn't always making it clear which members of Congress need to be thanked, and which members of Congress need to be told to do more.

It is hard to even classify this as a meaningful difference, given that it would be politically dangerous for the White House to specifically say which Democrats need to be told to do more. Such specific targeting of Democrats from OFA would reveal more about the ongoing negotiations than the White House would like, and would also create a process story about the White House specifically targeting one or more Democratic members of Congress. Leaving it open-ended is as far as OFA can go without causing problems for the Obama administration.

I guess the bottom line from the White House it that is pretty f*cking stupid for progressive groups to be spending resources against fellow Democrats, unless those groups leave it open-ended as to whether those ads are meant to pressure or thank the Democrat in question. Because that is a huge difference.

Where the Tech-Rubber Meets the Activism-Road

ProgressiveMews — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:09:00 GMT

The health care reform debate is heating-up in DC, and it's become overwhelmingly clear the special interests are taking over the conversation AND the process. The reports that there has been $1.4 million dollars per DAY spent by the private health industry on 350 lobbyists who are former members of Congress (and staffers) to swarm their former colleagues. Bill Moyers' interview of Wendell Potter (former CEO of both CIGNA & Humana) was very revealing as to how monstrous the campaign against reform truly is too. At first the AMA had rejected President Obama's health care reform proposal; so when the AMA's announced they now approve of the reform (bill H.R. 3200 the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act"), I couldn't help but think that THEY are winning the battle for OUR health care reform! Indeed, if you read into the bill it looks more like "The Aetna/Pfizer Preservation Act" - just as the tobacco legislation was essentially be "The Phillip Morris Monopoly Act." What I find strange is that while you'd think these two industries have nothing to do with each other, you'd be wrong.

I've also heard the more progressive members of Congress (Senator Sanders & Rep Kucinich) practically begging Americans to get more involved by contacting Congress and by getting out in the streets amongst other things. In this interview with Rep Dingell, I was surprised to hear his unequivocal support of Single Payer followed by his statement that Congress doesn't have the votes for it, because they are hearing equally from proponents as they are from anti-reform constituents. This tells me the private insurers' PR team has been equally successful in mobilizing the public to contact Congress on their behalf. I've felt this same nearly desperate desire within me to see an en masse action from pro-reform advocates too; but I've been quite frustrated because of the shoddy or otherwise absent leadership out there. We need the kind of leadership that's required to bring the People's Voice into the media, and most importantly, to DC!

Don't get me wrong, I'm also feeling like there is a giant monster working against us in DC, and I'll admit it is daunting - to say the least. As a Single Payer advocate, I feel even more at odds with the process too, and to speak those words in DC seem to be almost forbidden. But instead of allowing this monster make me believe this it is a futile fight, it pushes me the opposite direction. I truly believe we need to fight for health care reform like we are fighting for our very lives! The truth is, we are doing exactly that; and there is no such thing as an appropriate excuse for apathy when it comes to this issue as far as I'm concerned. As Senator Sanders often says, "Despair is not an option!" I also expected the barrage of lobbyists long before they came though too, and so I started to take a serious look at the different ways to go about combating it a few weeks ago.

Every time I'd seen notices for a rally or some other type of gathering for health care I thought, "Definitely needs to be done, but that's ONLY in DC; and it won't be big enough or strong enough to get the attention it needs and deserves." I believe rallies can be a powerful means of activism, but in order to be truly effective I think there must be enough "noise" that the media simply cannot ignore it. That's why I was looking for a nationwide rally, in every major city on the same day for example. When I began to explore which organization might actually to take on such a task, it became clear to me there are just as many positions being taken by the numerous organizations as there are policies being proposed in DC. My point being, that even the advocates for reform are too divided amongst themselves to come together for something as important as health care reform. Yet, in spite of this policy division, they can ALL agree there's a serious problem that needs to be resolved. In a way, it's the specific policy of the pro-reform organizations that is driving their actions; and they are fractured in the same way the lobbyists are who are fighting each other in DC to have their own interests be met!

Now again, I can also understand the impassioned desire to "stick to our guns" when it comes to the specific policy we each stand behind, because the clock is running out on us to get it done (perhaps we have a little more time than expected). On the other hand, I think we all know that the true power lies in the numbers. I think the timeliness of this issue means we are essentially dependent upon our ability to utilize any and all means that are already at hand, and will bring as many of us together as we possibly can.

As we all know, the internet has proven to be an incredibly valuable tool for activism, especially when it takes nationwide unity to get something accomplished; precisely by utilizing the power in numbers. I've witnessed some significant progress being made via the internet on the health care issue, and I would say they are by far the most promising and effective movements. There have been calls to actions such as faxing, calling or emailing our representatives on a particular day or week for example.

In my state of California, I have seen these measures prove to be effective in pushing our reps to take a policy stance one way or another. Even Senator Baucus admitted he had caught hell from his constituents for not allowing a Single Payer advocate join the private insurers at his committee's hearing on reform; and when they had showed up anyway to state their objection, he had them arrested for disrupting the hearing! Senator Baucus' constituency had made it clear to him it was unacceptable to eliminate Single Payer from the discussion, and he said he was wrong for doing it. As a result of constituent feedback, he had invited those very same people he'd arrested previously, to sit before his committee to speak. I'm not going to suggest this means Senator Baucus is going to start acting on The People's behalf, because I simply don't believe it to be the case at all. However, this incident did tell me We the People can certainly influence the direction of the discussions taking place on health care reform, and maybe we can even influence the results too - that is, IF we are actually heard!

Consider the kind of press coverage a successful live event can attract, and then add to it the power and effectiveness of the internet. This would be ideal, wouldn't it? It became increasingly obvious to me the problem was that We the People didn't really have the kind of leadership we can ALL depend upon, nobody we can trust to simply carry our voices to DC and be heard. Nor do we have a coalition of pro-reform organizations, all willing to pull together for the sake of being included in the debate on health care reform. Or do we?

Well, I believe we do indeed have a leader who took the initiative to bring the Voice of the People directly to DC! He's also utilizing the power of the internet - AND other devices of modern technology - in order to bring all Americans together, precisely for the purpose of fighting the special interests in DC so we can demand real reform. Not only has it proven to gather Americans from all perspectives together who believe strong reform is needed, but it has begun to snowball in the press and is beginning to attract DC's attention as well!

All thanks to Dr. Ogan Gurel for his recognition that all we needed was this type of leadership, and for taking the "Walk for Healthcare" - a 700 mile walk (~24 miles per day) from Chicago to DC in 30 days, and he just left Pittsburgh. The doctor (who prefers to just go by Ogan) had also been looking for an effective means of becoming active in the reform debate, but also found a lack of the kind of leadership needed to compete with what he had seen as a special interests' takeover of the debate. Ogan knew somebody had to do it, so he did! Ogan isn't taking sides with any particular policy either, because he believes the one thing we can all agree on is the dire need for strong health care reform. He is collecting the health care stories from every American that wants to share them along the way, and he is taking them straight to Congress to be heard. There are very few people that haven't fully embraced this opportunity to have their tragic stories told too; whatever their opinion on reform policy, the expression for serious reform as a necessity has been absolutely unanimous. I think my favorite picture Ogan that took of a sign a supporter had put on the roadside inviting him to stop in for a glass of lemonade, says a lot about our desire to be heard and our appreciation for Ogan's willingness to make it happen.

Clearly Ogan understands the importance and power of "feet on the ground" activism, and he has combined the Walk with an incredibly wide variety of technological features designed for us all to take the journey with him. No matter what your internet-poison is, he's got your dose!

Walk4Healthcare.org

Twitter: @walk4healthcare

YouTube Chanel

Facebook:
Personal Page
Group
Press

PayPal (donations)

And it gets even BETTER... Throughout each day Ogan's GPS tracking reveals exactly where he is, while the pictures that accompany the updates shows the things he sees, and the people he meets with too! On the website, in what he calls "dispatches" he also tells the stories that he has been given full permission to share. All these things combined really do give you the sense of taking the journey with Ogan.

Of course, these web pages are also used to organize gatherings along the way, and recently there was a call to action for supporters to contact their members of Congress to encourage them to meet with Ogan during the week after he arrives in DC, on the 26th. He already has some appointments set, but there really needs to be as many of them as possible taking the time to listen to what Americans have to say about their health care needs.

Because Ogan took the initiative on his own and (I believe) due to his not endorsing any particular policy on reform; all the costs have come out of his own pocket and logistics have been tricky at times. There are a couple other volunteers besides me, who have arranged some free hotel stays, supporters have made donations, and some people he has met have been generous with their hospitality as well. However, there is a bit of uncertainty from day to day with various details, and he's about to enter into the Appellations - a very remote area, and especially unfit for somebody on foot! Just to give you a little idea of what this Walk for Healthcare entails, here are a few things that happen daily: Morning prep includes treatment for his blistered feet, a "courier" drives him to the next hotel to drop off his bag and then to the point where he stopped the night before, walking along the Lincoln Hwy (HWY 30) means there may not even be shoulder-space to walk on, he meets with about a dozen people throughout the day, speaks with reporters from both newspapers & local news stations, occasionally attends events too, and all ending with a ride back to the hotel or host-home where he uploads the day's news and then to sleep.

We are more optimistic than we had been about his being able to gain the extra support he will need while traveling this next treacherous bit of his journey, because of a rather interesting development of late that was a result of this well-interconnected movement. The night Ogan left Pittsburgh there had not been a ride arranged back to his next resting stop. So Ogan Twittered that since this was the case, he had decided to tread on into the night onto to his next stop. One of his followers had seen the post, and drove out to the highway where Ogan was to give him a ride to his next destination! It's clear that this could not have happened without the ability to share it so readily with the entire group of Walk for Healthcare supporters.

I believe that by the time Ogan arrives in DC on the 26th, considering the amount of press and steady increase of supporters this brilliantly orchestrated movement has already had; The Hill will not be able to ignore the Voice of the People.

I've finally found a health care reform movement that incorporates all the elements of activism that I know actually work, and I hope everybody reading will join in support of it too. This really is where the tech-rubber meets the activism-road.

And I dare say, I believe, "It's just what the doctor ordered!"

Denuncia Rush

Chris Bowers — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings begin today. There is every reason to expect she will sail through. However, there is still a great Sotomayor-related campaign we support to make Republicans pay a heavy political price for the racially charged attacks many of their most prominent pundits and elected officials have been using against her.

Back in late May, I suggested that we find a way to run anti-Republican, Sotomayor related ad sin key congressional districts with high percentages of Latino voters. Specifically, the idea was to run ads on Spanish language media repeating the racially charged attacks some conservatives and Republicans were making on Sotomayor. The ads would ask local Republican candidates and elected officials to denounce those attacks, but really the idea is to further exacerbate Republican problems among Latino voters.

Today, two emerging progressive netroots organizations, Presente and the PCCC, have turned this idea into reality by producing the following ad:

Now, we need to get this ad on the air. You can donate to that effort here. The ActBlue page also allows you to donate to Alan Grayson, a strong progressive from a swing district in Florida where nearly 15% of all voters are Puerto Rican. Grayson also has a deep connection with Open Left, as he now employs our co-founder, Matt Stoller.

Help get this ad on the air! There are so many good things about this project, from the organizations running it, to the progressive Democrats it will support, to the rare, long-term branding opportunity it offers, that it would be truly phenomenal for it to get some real air time.

Senators Say Stuff: John Kerry Edition

Chris Bowers — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Senator John Kerry's office has responded to our push to get all Senators on the record for a strong public option. The response is a resounding "yes."

1. Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
Yes.

2. Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
He supports a public option that will be available immediately.

3. Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
Sen. Kerry supports a robust public plan, that like Medicare, would be
available to everyone from coast-to-coast.
4. Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?
Sen. Kerry believes a public plan will meaningfully transform our delivery system through its lower administrative expenses and bargaining power. These efficiencies will provide affordable coverage to those enrolled in the public plan and due to increased competition could lower costs in the private insurance market.

That brings us to 40 Senators in support of a public option. Only ten more to go.

Keep emailing your Senators here. Check out the updated targeting chart in the extended entry.

Update: Count Feinstein in, too. Great work by commenter carson002!
Generic Public Option Support
Yes--41; Maybe--15; Unknown--5; No--2

Senate Public Option Whip Chart

STATE/SENATOR	Public Option?	Available Day One?	Nationally Available?	Can Bargain for Rates?
AK - Begich (D)	Unknown
AR - Lincoln (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
AR - Pryor (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
CA - Boxer (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
CA - Feinstein (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Dodges (via email)
CO - Bennet (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)
CO - Udall (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)
CT- Dodd (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
CT - Lieberman (I)	No	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
DE - Carper (D)	Maybe
DE - Kaufman (D)	Yes
FL - Bill Nelson (D)	Maybe (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
GA - Isakson (R)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
HI - Akaka (D)	Yes
HI - Inouye (D)	Yes
IA - Harkin (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
IL - Burris (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
IL - Durbin (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
IN - Bayh (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
LA - Landrieu (D)	Maybe	No	No	No
MA - Kerry (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
MA - Kennedy (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
MD - Cardin (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
MD - Mikulski (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
ME - Collins (R)	No	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
ME - Snowe (R)	Maybe
MI - Levin (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
MI - Stabenow (D)	Yes
MN - Franken (D)	Unknown
MN - Klobuchar (D)	Unknown
MO - McCaskill (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
MT - Baucus (D)	Maybe
MT - Tester (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NC - Hagan (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
ND - Conrad (D)	Maybe	Yes	No	Yes
ND - Dorgan (D)	Yes	Maybe	Yes	Yes
NE - Ben Nelson (D)	Maybe
NH - Shaheen (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NJ - Lautenberg (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NJ - Menendez (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NM - Bingaman (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
NM - Udall (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NV - Reid (D)	Yes
NY - Gillibrand (D)	Yes	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
NY - Schumer (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes
OH - Brown (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
OR - Merkley (D)	Yes	Yes (via email)	Yes (via email)	Yes (via email)
OR - Wyden (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
PA - Casey (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
PA - Specter (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
RI - Reed (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
RI - Whitehouse (D)	Yes
SD - Johnson (D)	Unknown
VA - Warner (D)	Maybe	Dodges (via email)	No	Dodges (via email)
VA - Webb (D)	Yes
VT - Leahy (D)	Yes
VT - Sanders (I)	Yes	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)
WA - Cantwell (D)	Yes	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
WA - Murray (D)	Yes	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill)	Yes (supporting HELP bill))
WI - Feingold (D)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
WI - Kohl (D)	Maybe (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)	Dodges (via email)
WV - Byrd (D)	Unknown
WV - Rockefeller (D)	Yes		Yes