Gov. Lingle of Hawaii, amazingly, still hasn't made a decision on whether to sign or veto a same-sex civil unions bill that passed several weeks ago. If she plans to veto, she has until June 21 to announce it, and until July 6 to actually sign it, veto it, or let it become law without her signature.
According to a University of Washington poll, 74% of Tea Party supporters say they agree with the following statement: "While equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it."
And 52% agree with the statement "compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power." Overstatement of the year.
Want to go to the Netroots Nation? If you're a marriage equality activist, OpenLeft and Freedom to Marry is offering 3 scholarships (travel + hotel + registration) to the best out there. I wrote up some of what we're looking for here, and the deadline to apply is coming up- Monday, June 7th. Applications can be submitted here.
I don't usually like Peter Beinart's stuff, but he has a really excellent piece on Zionism and how the next generation views it (it's from a few weeks back but I just found time to read it today). I 100% fit into the focus group demographic Luntz describes at the beginning of the piece.
Washington City Paper has a good cover story on the DC Voting Rights Act and some backstory on what ended up happening with the NRA screwing it over at the end when it looked like there would be a compromise. As one friend on the board of DC Vote put it to me, they essentially wanted everything except making it law that every newborn leaves the hospital with a Social Security card and a gun. I wanted that bill passed badly, but as a resident, considering the scope of what the NRA wanted, I realize lives are more important than one more vote in Congress. So the right decision was made here, and we'll just have to keep working.
Rep. Chellie Pingree from the coastal state of Maine blogs on why BP should pay royalties on the legislation oil they spill, not just that which they recover, refine and sell (current law). The royalties would be used to finance clean ocean-based energy projects. Her office tells me she plans to introduce legislation on the topic.
Chellie and Rep. Honda also just started the New Media Working Group of the House Dem Caucus, in an effort to make sure the Democrats never have a Ted "series of tubes" Stevens in their caucus. In all seriousness, I participated in a "speed dating" event with 5 other blogfolk last year, attended by about 60 House Dem communications directors and press secretaries. It was fascinating. I would say 8/10 people who rotated at my table didn't understanding of how to work with bloggers or online activists in general, and I bet a fair number didn't have a sound grasp of how to engage Twitter or other new media tools. Hopefully this will help.
There's been a lot of discussion about this McDonald's gay-themed ad, which is running in France until June 21st.
I actually think it's very positive for the community. A number of colleagues of mine disagree. What do you think?
A new poll from KCCI TV in Iowa shows that for what I believe is the first time, a majority of Iowans support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples- 53% in favor with 41% opposed. I am ever more interested in how this will play out in the 2012 Republican primaries. I'll even go so far as to bet that one of the candidate will get their pander machine running when an adviser tells them it's the "sleeper issue" to winning Iowa, and he/she comes out in favor of the freedom to marry.
Over at The Bilerico Project, Bil Browning has a 3-part series looking at the fairly new LGBT activist group, GetEqual (known best for chaining themselves to the White House fence, interrupting Obama at the Boxer fundraiser, disrupting a House Ed and Labor Committee hearing, etc.) New Managing Director Heather Cronk, formerly of New Organizing Institute, has responses up. I have mixed feelings on GetEqual, and probably will write a longer piece about all that sooner or later. True to that, I think there are some fair points and counterpoints on both sides. You can find all of the pieces so far here.
(Was going to write something different, but think that this piece with Matt's original post (check out the entire piece at MyDD) and Rep. Pingree's project sum up what I think about tax day today. - promoted by Adam Bink)
One of my favorite posts by Matt Stoller back at MyDD was one in 2007 on April 15th- tax day- titled Paying for America, regarding how taxes are an investment in the public infrastructure of America. He writes:
Our tax code is the DNA of our nation's moral compass. I am proud to pay taxes because I take pride in America, and paying some tiny burden to keep our society running is an extremely small price to pay for being able to call myself an American citizen. The old expression 'you get what you pay for' is apt for all sorts of situations.
The Teabagger types- and often, the general public- view taxes and spending as wasteful "pork" (of course, only until Rep. Slaughter back home obtained money to improve the local farmer's market, in which case everybody thought, "oh, well, that's different..."). One of many problems is that there isn't much understanding of why the money is being spent, along with a lack of coverage around the project in other parts of a state or region.
During the No On 1 campaign, I had the pleasure of working closely with Karin Roland, the campaign's online director. She's now back working for Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and helped put together a cool transparency project on funding requests to Pingree's office. Every organization submitting a request is required to submit information and film a short video, which is posted on YouTube, explaining why the funding is important for Maine's first district. All of the requests are posted on Pingree's website with the sponsor's information listed and the amount requested, and people can leave comments. While members of the general public may find funding requests they think are wasteful, that may not always be a bad thing, and I think overall it will broaden the public's perception of the how and why of public investment, and perhaps build greater support.
Below are two examples- one funding request to address the shortage of physicians in rural Maine through scholarship funding, and one from the University of Maine to explore the potential of tidal power for renewable energy/jobs purposes.
Hopefully these kinds of projects result in greater public support for what Matt's talking about- paying for America.
This is the third in the series of Grassroots Reports we are providing over the final few weeks of the campaign to let the blogosphere know what 21st Century Democrats is doing in several key battleground states. This week we're focusing on Maine which has suddenly become a targeted state in the Presidential race and has seen a tightening in the Senate and Congressional contests. After 21st Century Democrats helped force John McCain from Michigan, he redirected some of his staff to Maine in the hopes of winning a single electoral vote there.
Michael Brennan -- 250 votes - 15 percent
Adam Cote -- 369 - 22 percent
Mark Lawrence -- 34 - 2 percent
Stephen Meister -- 10 - 1 percent
Chellie Pingree -- 741 - 45 percent
Ethan Strimling -- 260 - 16 percent
Obviously this is early.
Update 1: With 32% reporting, Pingree is at 44%, followed by Cote at 28%, Brennan at 13%, and Strimling at 11%. It looks like the progressive vote collapsed into Pingree, and that Cote's conservative change message worked but did not bring him far enough.
I have to run out, but I do want to note that there are important Congressional primaries today.
The first is in Virginia, pitting defense contractor and local public official Gerald Connolly against former Congresswoman and progressive Leslie Byrne. Connolly got the endorsement of the Washington Post, and turnout is extremely low. I would back the antiwar Byrne over Connolly, though he does have some good urban planning ideas. If you have a vote in this district, use it. In Fairfax City, out of 14,000 votes, by 8am the registrar reported less than 150 votes recorded. The internets can swing this one.
The second is in Maine, in a six way race on the Democratic side. Chellie Pingree and Ethan Strimling are the progressive candidates, while Adam Cote is the conservative in the race. If you have a vote, it's probably best to go for Pingree so as not to split the progressive vote and let a Bush dog slip into a progressive seat.
In these races, Pingree is the favorite in Maine and Connolly is the favorite in Virginia. It's a useful test to see if progressive older women can defeat conservative hawkish men. I really have no idea. I had thought this was going to be a really good year for women to be running, so I guess now we'll see.
Iraq war veteran Adam Cote, a former Republican who has sought to portray the six-candidate contest as a battle between himself and front-runner Chellie Pingree, was lambasted in an e-mail Tuesday by the campaign of Portland state Sen. Ethan Strimling as "a Republican in Democrat's clothing."
Strimling campaign manager Corey Hascall wrote that Cote has received substantial financial backing from Maine Republicans and support from BIPAC, "a big business group whose board of directors include(s) officials from Halliburton and Exxon Mobil."
Soliciting donations for Strimling in her "Dear friends" e-mail, Haskell said, "I am writing today to ask that you help us stand up for Democratic values and stop our party's nomination from being hijacked."
I blogged last Monday about a conservative Democrat named Adam Cote running in Maine's first district, an open seat that should go to a Democrat. Running in that race are a bunch of good progressives, including Responsible Plan endorser Chellie Pingree and progressive Ethan Strimling. The only other person in the race is Adam Cote, an Iraq vet who is making a play to the far right of the primary.
He's opposes raising the minimum wage in Maine, and was endorsed by the hard-right business lobbying group BIPAC, which favors tax cuts for the wealthy, tort reform, subsidies for oil companies, and free trade. Cote is the only Democrat running for Congress endorsed by the group, and it is funded by, among other companies, Halliburton.
Today, CULAC, the Credit Union PAC put a little over $23,000 in direct mail on behalf of Cote. This brings to around $90k in total outlays on his behalf by this group. To give you some perspective on what this means, CULAC also supported Joe Lieberman in 2006 precisely because of his vote for cloture on the Banktrupcy Bill.
Cote also takes money from the New Democrat PAC, a key group that pushes pro-corporate legislation through the Democratic Party. So here we have a Halliburton, BIPAC, and CULAC funded Republican running in a Democratic primary for what should be a progressive blue seat.
One of the biggest political problems we're going to face in 2009 is the bevy of conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats in Congress that want to fund war and tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting social programs.
The Blue Dog caucus is already preparing for huge growth, and with little infrastructure on the liberal side, this is a problem we're going to have to handle during the 2010 cycle with primary challenges, and the environment will not be as conducive as it is today. The Blue Dog caucus is the heir to the Dixiecrat segregationist tradition in the Democratic Party, and have become tightly wedded to the corporate backers of the right. Many of their members blocked mortgate reform, fought against SCHIP, and worked to pass the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005.
Bill Foster, Don Cazayoux, and Travis Childers are all going to be new Blue Dogs, and they come from conservative districts. But this is not a regional problem - Adam Cote in Maine's first district is basically a Republican in waiting, and he's using progressive infrastructure to try to get elected in an open seat that should go to a progressive. He's against opposes raising the minimum wage in Maine, and was endorsed by the hard-right business lobbying group BIPAC, which favors tax cuts for the wealthy, tort reform, subsidies for oil companies, and free trade. Cote is the only Democrat running for Congress endorsed by the group, and it is funded by, among other companies, Halliburton.
Cote is also an Iraq veteran, and is backed by VoteVets. So here we have someone who is basically a Republican - opposing the minimum wage is pretty bad stuff - running in an open seat backed by Wall Street and defense contractor money. Conservatives like Cote should be understood as ideological warriors for the right-wing and the business community who are enwombing themselves in the Democratic Party because that is where power is going to flow.
This should be a seat going to a real Democrat. Cote isn't even that, he was apparently a registered Republican until 2006. I'm sure if he got into Congress, Cote would be a mediocre member of the Democratic caucus. He would vote for the GI Bill, and he would follow along and vote for timelines when it was safe to do so. He would be a Blue Dog, or a New Democrat.
But what we need in Congress are liberals, people who were correct about Iraq in the first place, people who know that the minimum wage doesn't hurt job growth but the lack of the minimum wage hurts people. I've written about the need for a liberal EMILY's List style organization. In the meantime, if you're a Mainer, watch out for Adam Cote.
3500 people and more than 50 Democratic congressional candidates have endorsed a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. I've been asking these candidates all day what they would ask Petraeus were they in Congress. Here are some of their questions.
Darcy Burner, Democratic candidate for WA-08:
Gen. Petraeus, in March 2007, a few weeks after taking charge of U.S. military forces in Baghdad, you said, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq." More than a year later, rockets are still falling in the Green Zone and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are fighting each other for power in Baghdad and Basra. The political reconciliation the surge was intended to foster has not happened, nor has any significant diplomatic breakthrough been achieved. So, given that we agree that there is no military solution to the problems we face, is our costly open-ended military commitment to Iraq really making the Unted States safer?
1) The hope of the surge was that it would create the space for political reconciliation and compromise in Iraq. But the Iraqi government and other power centers in the nation remains mired in disagreement with little real progress. Last week, it was the Iranians that reportedly brokered a truce between the Iraqi government and Sadr's Mahdi Army. The level of violence has settled back to 2005 levels. Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?
Jill Derby, NV-02:
"The question I would ask Gen. Petraeus is this: 'The Army is saying that more than 25 percent of soldiers on third or fourth tours suffer mental health problems and Army Chief Of Staff General Casey called the Army "out of balance." What are we doing to help our troops, vets and their families deal with these issues?'"
Donna Edwards, MD-04:
My first question for the General is: When are you prepared to discuss and implement a multi-tiered approach to Iraq that includes economic, diplomatic, and political options to bring stability and sustainable progress to Iraq? Has the war in Iraq made the United States safer? Is the current U.S. force level in Iraq covering up the lack of political progress in the country and isn't that troop level unsustainable? Doesn't the violence of the last several weeks demonstrate that the central government is weak and that the Iraqi forces are not trained or prepared to defend against the insurgents?
I believe "The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" is a critical step in the right direction and is the kind of discussion we need to start having in Washington and across the country."
"The question that needs to be asked is how is our current policy making us safer and why we wouldn't be better off spending that money to address problems at home?"
Don Wiviott, NM-03:
Has the War in Iraq actually made America safer?
What plans are in place to both get our troops out of Iraq and give the Iraqi army a chance to step up to the plate and protect their own country?
Since there is no military solution in Iraq, what steps are we taking to ensure Iraqi officials are working together and moving towards lasting political reconciliation?
The President and other top officials talk about winning the war. What criteria constitutes "winning" the war in Iraq? How will we know when we have "won"?
Leslie Byrne, Democratic candidate for VA-11:
General Petraeus: Since our National Security is at risk from a "broken military" according to many of your peers, how do you plan to salvage the military, given the lack of political and economic progress in Iraq, which after all you said was the purpose of the "Surge"?
Chellie Pingree, ME-01:
The number one question General Petraeus should have to answer is this: Has the war in Iraq made America safer?
Eric Massa (NY-29):
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
After five years in Iraq, are we really any safer?
Tim Cunha (FL-06):
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Steve Harrison, Democratic candidate for NY-13:
1. General do you believe advocating for a withdrawal from Iraq necessarily indicates either a lack of support for our troops, or a lack of patriotism?
2. General, troop withdrawal is a military operation. Given the current conditions in Iraq, in your expert opinion, what would be a reasonable time frame for complete withdrawal assuming the planning started tomorrow?
3..General, Prime Minister Maliki's surprising attack on the Sadr militia last week showed great weakness in the government's ability to provide security as well as weakness in the government's political ability to unite the country. It also showed great lack of judgment in the capabilities of his military. The Iraqi situation shows no signs of near term stability and it does not appear American military presence has facilitated that goal. In the absence of being able to meet that political goal, what other military goals, in your opinion justify American military presence in Iraq?
"If the United States removed the combat forces in Iraq, would there be any direct threat to the United States? If any threat, what would it be and how could it be mitigated?"
In July of 2006, The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion. According to Opinion Business Research, those estimates have risen to over 1 million dead. General Petraeus, how do you ascribe the term "victory" in these circumstances? Additionally, how do these deaths make America safer?
The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.
The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.
Brandon Friedman at VoteVets thinks that the rate of troop loss, 25 in two weeks, is more significant than the 4000. He points to signs of a political unraveling in Iraq and writes of an email from a friend in the Green Zone who actually slept in his body armor.
As I have said before, the violence in Iraq is cyclical and will remain so until we remove the bulk of our forces. And with 25 dead in two weeks, we are not headed in the right direction.
It's time to take responsibility for ending this war. We can do it.
It's an interesting list, candidates from red states like Kentucky, Idaho, and North Carolina to swing states like Florida and Oregon to blue states like Maryland, Washington, and New York.
There will be more sign-ons, and Republicans are having a tough time dealing with the framing, veering from attacking the plan as too liberal to having their moderates basically agree with it (while voting against the specifics in the plan, of course).
Meanwhile, 50 military leaders led by Anthony Zinni just called for a strong investment in nonmilitary tools to reorganize our national security. The framing works quite well, because changing the conversation around national security makes a lot of sense at this moment in history.
Both Chellie Pingree (ME-01) and Jared Polis (CO-02) are being criticized by primary opponents for signing on to the Responsible Plan. Pingree is being attacked for signing on to this plan because it doesn't include timelines or defunding. War supporter Adam Cote is accusing her of inconsistency, and the long-shot Ethan Strimling is proudly saying he refused to sign on to the plan because it is "inconsistent with my belief that we need to leave Iraq now." I invited Strimling to sign on, and his campaign chose to respond through the press.
It's important to understand that the critiques from both the long-shot candidates like Strimling and the war supporters like Cote are essentially the same, and the consequence will be to prolong the war. If Congress were to successfully impose a timeline, the war would continue, it would just continue by increasing the use of mercenary soldiers and covert operations. Only by doing a comprehensive approach - diplomacy, ending the funding of Blackwater, ending torture, restoring checks and balances - can we actually end this war. And only by doing so with a band of other challengers, so there will be a strong group coming into Congress as a group, can these policies be implemented.
In a lot of ways, it is the institutional momentum from both the traditional liberal messaging and the conservative establishment that is keeping the war going. Jared Polis in Colorado's 2nd is also facing a criticism from establishment Democrat Joan Fitz-Gerald on the lack of timelines in the plan. Of course, like Pingree, Polis supports timelines, and there's nothing in the plan inconsistent with that. The disingenuous messaging from Strimling, Fitz-gerald, Cote, and others is to be expected, as these are elections and they are trying to win against a very powerful argument.
More significant is the debate that we have to have about changing the conversation on national security and moving it away from simple tools like timelines and towards more comprehensive approaches that actually restore our constitutional checks and balances. For instance, if the next President rejects a timeline and moves money from other parts of the military to support the war, what then?
And indeed this is a very real danger. Politically, the easiest scenario for the next President to take is to withdraw most of the troops and substitute in a dirty war using firms like Blackwater. Tom Hayden has warned about this possibility. Only a responsible approach, which looks at all our institutional problems, can avoid this scenario. That is why this plan makes sense, and why timelines aren't and cannot be enough to end the torture, use of armed contractors, and incentives for an irresponsible national security state.
The Responsible Plan that our progressive challengers all over the country yesterday endorsed is already getting some pushback from right-wing challengers who want to stay in Iraq forever, as well as some bloggers.
Adam Cote, the Republican challenger running against Chellie Pingree for Congress in ME-1, had this to say:
March 17, 2008
For Immediate Release
Portland, ME - First District Congressional Candidate Adam Cote released the following statement today:
"On the most important issue facing our country, the War in Iraq - with lives and the health of our economy at stake - I honestly don't know what Chellie Pingree believes...
I respect and understand people who want to cut off funding and pull our troops out of Iraq immediately, as Chellie has argued for a year. What I don't understand is how Chellie can say one thing at the Veterans for Peace Forum last Tuesday in Portland, consistent with her views over the past year - and then endorse a different approach, written by someone who is running for Congress in Seattle, while she was in Washington DC this Monday.
Chellie has opposed the war since she ran for Senate in 2002 and has consistently spoke out in favor of a timeline for withdrawal. This plan only confirms her responsible stance against keeping us in Iraq forever. Cote should admit this.
Meanwhile, we have our first two Senate candidates endorsing the plan, Jeff Merkeley and Steve Novick in Oregon.
Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to pounce on the Democrats' plan.
"This so-called plan is nothing more than the same liberal talking points we have been hearing for the last year," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain. "Clearly, their plan is to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-led Congress."
Reichert aide Mike Shields said, "I think both sides would agree we have the same plan: We want our troops home as soon as possible."
But Reichert "wants them to withdraw based on the situation on the ground," Shields said. "This plan wants them to withdraw based on the domestic political situation in the United States."
Reichert opposes committing to an immediate drawdown of U.S. troops, Shields said. And Reichert also is against massive U.S. spending in Iraq, an oil-rich country that has plenty of resources of its own, he said.
But Reichert agrees that diplomacy should be explored more widely, Shields said. Not only that, Reichert has actively supported many of the legislative measures touted in the plan and favored a bill to adopt all of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission, Shields said.
Reichert has supported George Bush on Iraq every single time he was given the opportunity, so this is a straight up lie. And lying is a good strategy for Republicans and people running on this plan. Jared Polis, who is running against 2003 war supporter and establishment Democrat Joan Fitz-gerald, faced this criticism.
"This plan has no timelines for withdrawal from the war in Iraq. On this the 5th anniversary of this war, the soldiers, their families and the American people deserve a straight answer on this most important issue," the Fitz-gerald campaign said in a release. "This plan clearly contradicts everything Jared has previously stated about his stance on funding for the war without a firm timeline for withdrawal."
As the establishment choice, Fitz-gerald supported the war in 2003, and she's now lying about Polis and the plan. Timelines and defunding are obviously on the table, and their use heavily depends on the next President. Fitz-gerald's statement is irresponsible, but it is characteristic of establishment candidates. In 2003, she supported the war, now she's attacking a responsible antiwar candidate from the left, and if she wins, I'm sure she'll start discussing the success of the surge. That's what anti-leaders do.
Meanwhile, the DCCC is fairly neutral about the endeavor.
"Iraq will continue to be an issue this cycle with John McCain running for a third Bush term," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Doug Thornell. "As Gen. David Petraeus said, Iraqi leaders are not making sufficient progress. Voters are looking for a new direction in Iraq and Democrats will continue to work to bring our troops home responsibly."
I'll have a lot more on this soon, for the rest of the day I'll be at Take Back America doing meetings. The reception of the plan has been overwhelming. Candidates are jumping on board, and opponents are having to resort to lies to deal with the political strength of the argument. That is a bad position to be in. It is much better to be on the trail and make the argument, 'I have a responsible plan to get us out of Iraq'.
STATE BLOGS
