This is more of a sports metaphor, but h/t to Jerry Sullivan, one of my favorite Buffalo News writers, for the title
Some items of note around the country today:
I just got an e-mail from Rep. Eric Massa with the ominous title "An Important Announcement About The 2010 Election", with the text:
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representative as the People's House, and as such the citizens of this great Nation have the duty to elect their member of Congress every two years. While people sometimes get sick of campaigns, this cycle of frequent elections gives the people the best and most immediate tool possible to hold their member of Congress accountable and make their voices heard.
Accountability is a value that I hold near and dear, and it is with this spirit of service that I write you today.
On Saturday, 10/10 at 10:00 am, I will be making a formal announcement about the 2010 election. I would like to invite all of you, friends of old and new, to join me at Centerway Square in Corning NY on this morning.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve the families of this region and I hope to see you on Saturday in my hometown of Corning.
I called Massa's comm people for comment, and they declined to do so initially. Will update if warranted.
I don't like the sound of it, though. Massa knows it's a tough district (he lost his first race in 2006, which I worked on for a bit, and it's my grandpa's district), so perhaps it's just to prime the pump for a big crowd for his re-election announcement. I can't imagine he's running for higher office- certainly not Gov or Senator, and I don't really see him in something like a primary for comptroller or AG (or even qualified). The worst possibility is that he's not running again, something that would really disappoint me. I've been a huge fan of Massa's, particularly on his pushing for the House health care bill to be more progressive, and on his very strategic ways of talking about health care to constituents. He spent 45 minutes with a group of us NYers at Netroots Nation talking about that, and also hit some nails on the head when speaking at panels, too.
But one term and done would really piss me off, considering how hard the district is and how hard many of us worked for him, and that many of you contributed close to $1 million overall on ActBlue- including several thousand for standing firm on a public option. I hope he stays.
At the polar opposite of one term and done, former four-term Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is running again. I asked former Iowa political operative Mike Lux for comment, to which he replied "I thought we got rid of that m*****f*****."
Last night, the defense authorization bill with the LGBT hate crimes amendment beat a motion to recommit (an effort by the Republicans to strip out the amendment), 178-234. Those are solid numbers, in addition to the fact that the Senate version already has it in by amendment. So we should be all set. HRC reports the conference report should be voted on in both houses by the end of next week before going to Obama's desk. We're close to the first major legislative achievement for LGBT rights in this term.
Glenn Greenwald has a fantastic piece documenting how Anne Kornblut violates the WaPo's own rules by using anonymous sourcing sixteen different times in one piece on the Obama Admin's national security policies, and journalistic ethics in general, as well as some on national security issues.
Yesterday, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would legalize marriage equality in the District, was introduced with much fanfare and 10/13 councilmembers co-introducing it. If you're looking for legislative and process details going forward, I wrote a piece last week on it here, and my friend Michael Crawford of DC for Marriage also has a piece today.
If you live in California, there are two LGBT bills before the Governor- one that would recognize Harvey Milk Day (which he's vetoed before, prior to the movie I believe) and one that would clarify that same-sex couples married out-of-state before Prop. 8 are recognized in CA, and that couples married after Prop 8 are entitled to the same rights. I know a lot of LGBT couples who marry in other states and have talked about moving to California one day- this would ensure they are entitled to marriage recognition. Equality California has phone numbers here of your local office- call Arnold and tell him to sign the bills.
Robert Harding at TAP reports the Rochester D&C is running another column by David Sirota, his latest on Afghanistan, which is a great sign. I wrote a bit last week on the D&C, a staid, center-right newspaper with far too many right-wingers on the ed page and a center-right ed board in a solidly Dem city with some hubs of progressivism. They're considering adding David permanently to the ed page. Take a second and drop an e-mail to Editorial Page Editor James Lawrence at jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com and tell him that you want to see David Sirota's column made permanent.
There are conventions, customs, and words, thought to be complementary. Consider; Fat and jolly. Short and sweet. Tax-and-spend-liberal. These words, while often far from tantamount, are in the minds of many, inexorably tied.
I was fat. However, I did not feel jolly during those days, months, and years. I am short. Sweet? I am not especially so; nor am I sour. Balanced might better describe me, which takes me to the next paired, or triad of adjectives. I like my taxes progressive, my spending minimal, and I am a liberal.
However, I do not support the oft-titled tax-and-spend-liberal Democratic President's appointment, Timothy F. Geithner. Perhaps, some would say, I do not appreciate the need for an economic expert. This duo of descriptive qualifiers, I believe, can be an oxymoron, just as the others might be. It seems those farthest "Left" on the political aisle may concur.
Russell Feingold [Wisconsin Democrat], Thomas Harkin [Iowa Democrat,] and Democratic Socialist, Bernard Sanders [Vermont Independent] voted nay when asked to approve Timothy Geithner for Secretary of Treasury.
It was 11:22 Ante Meridian, on January 21, 2009. I did as I rarely do. I stood silently and watched television. As one who listens to what is aired, and does so from another room, this was an unusual occurrence. However, the Cherokee wisdom of wolves, an illustration that represents the internal strife within every human being beckoned me.
Then, at the very same hour on the very next day, again I was compelled to do what is odd for me. I did not say a word as I glared at humanitarian actions took place on the screen. President Barack Obama proclaimed, by Executive Order, the United States would not torture. Nor would we, as a nation, detain presumed "combatants" without a just trial. On each occasion, I was in awe as I gazed upon what I had not imagined would come to pass. Upon reflection, the two events seem to be related.
In an article in today's New York Times, unnamed Obama advisers float a Tom Daschle trial balloon for Chief of Staff in an Obama administration; he's already been widely mentioned for other senior policy positions.
Appointing Daschle, who's pulls in around a million dollars a year as a "Special Policy Advisor" (not a lobbyist) for the law firm Alston and Bird, would be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of Obama's pledge that lobbyists "will not run my White House" or his administration, one of the hallmarks of his platform and one of the main way he differentiates himself from John McCain's lobbyist-riddled campaign.
Although Daschle technically avoids lobbying requirements, here's how Bob Dole described the reasoning behind recruiting Daschle to join him to the Washington Post:
"He's got a lot of friends in the Senate, and I've got a lot of friends in the Senate, and, combined, who knows -- we might have 51," Dole joked. "It's going to work fine. You need some flexibility and diversity. I don't think any successful firm is all Democrat or all Republican."
(Sent to me by a friend in South Florida who wishes to remain anonymous...)
Florida Congressman Tom Feeney gave a fake apology over his ethical troubles in the Jack Abramoff scandal, here are the facts, mixed into the original television ad...
The July firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan by Gov. Sarah Palin, who was announced as John McCain's running mate on Friday, has unearthed a stream of soap-opera-like details about Palin, her husband, her family and top state appointees. The controversy has also cut against Palin's reputation for holding an ethical line and standing up to colleagues in the Republican Party over matters of principle.
This is the Sarkozy strategy that Gingrich talked about last year. In this vein, Palin is designed to help McCain on ethics, and in distancing McCain from governing Republicans. The idea here is that she was able to win the Alaska Governorship in 2006, a Democratic year, by making corruption charges in her own party, and defeating an incumbent in a primary. Look for McCain to start trumpeting his role in exposing the Abramoff scandal now, too. It could be an effective message, as it makes McCain look willing to stand up against his own party and take a hard line on ethics. I worried about this message last month.The problem for Palin is that she is now embroiled in a nepotism scandal.
Obviously, designed to help McCain with PUMA's and wavering Clinton supporters. The decision was probably made after Clinton was not chosen as VP, and during all the coverage of Clinton supporters during the convention. However, for that purpose, the pick probably came too late. Most of Obama's current bounce is from that exact same group. McCain should have announced on Sunday to peel off more of those supporters.
For all of the reasons listed above, it is designed to make McCain look "mavericky." Picking someone from Alaska, picking a woman, picking someone who ran against her own party, picking someone who wasn't talking about that much, picking someone who, at least at one time, fought corruption in her own party--in many ways, it is exactly the right pick for McCain to bolster his image.
The key to fighting Palin is to hit her on the scandal she is in now, to point out McCain hypocrisy on experience and "being ready to lead," and to use a lot of Hillary Clinton.
I admit that Palin and Condoleezza Rice were the only two possible picks that ever actually worried me on the Republican side. Now, however, after Palin has been picked, it just feels kind of lame and obviously political. The only reason that McCain picked Palin is that he thinks she will help him get elected. The pandering electability of it all should appear obvious to just about everyone. Clearly, McCain didn't care about or believe in the attacks he was making on Obama's experience. He just wants to win.
Last' week's double capitulation on Iraq and FISA has spawned a stream of articles in the progressive blogosphere urging activists to not give up or throw in the towel on this election, because the stakes are too important. Personally, I think such fears are overwrought, and any threat of grassroots activists sitting on their hands is way overblown, although Obama's May fundraising numbers might indicate otherwise. Sure, people are upset with the Democratic Congress, but everyone knows that a narrow congressional majority with Bush (or McCain) still in the White House is fundamentally different than a wide Congressional majority with Obama in the White. And, after the last eight years, it is hard to make the "it doesn't matter" argument with a straight face.
Still, among the "let's keep working anyway" articles, one last Friday by Alfonso Nevarez was particularly noteworthy in that it raised the specter of blame for progressives who are not sufficiently active in defeating Bush. The key graphs:
An admission: I supported and voted for Nader in 2000. Gore was a "sell out" as far as I was concerned. I halfheartedly supported Kerry in 2004, whose leadership skills at the time make Obama look like the second coming of FDR.
And I have nobody but myself to blame for the rotten stinking mess we're in.
That's right. I am to blame. My ideological rigidness prevented me from doing the right thing in both circumstances. I indeed have blood on my hands. I let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis get slaughtered by our leaders. I stood by and allowed Kerry to be defeated by Gergoe W Bush in 2004 while thousands of military servicemen and women were being sent around the world to be killed or maimed in a war that had no legitimacy.
Yeah I may have protested before and during this horrible war. I may have wrote letters, made phone calls, changed careers, and moved across the country, all in an effort to put an end to this war on terror. But when I had a chance to prevent a first Bush term I undermined his opposition in high minded defiance, and when I had a chance to prevent a second Bush term, I passed on engaging myself with the opposition.
The relevant ethical question this passage raises is: to what degree a citizen of a republic is culpable for governmental policy that s/he opposes?
This is actually something I wonder about fairly frequently. For example, even though I vigorously opposed the Iraq war, as an American citizen, to what degree am I still to blame for what happened in Iraq? Back in 2002 and 2003, I still have strong memories of attending several protests, knowing both that my actions were probably futile but also that one my main motivating forces in attending the marches was to publicly state, as loudly and clearly as possible, that I opposed what was about to happen. I had a burning desire to make that as clear as possible, and I was particularly drawn to the "not in our my name" slogan at the time.
But really, how much did my actions before, or since, the start of the war alter my culpability, or lack thereof, in the Iraq war? The country I am still a citizen of, and to which I pay taxes, is still in Iraq. While I have worked really hard to elect Democrats over the last few years, and anti-war Democrats in particular, how exactly does that absolve me of responsibility for my country's actions? Then again, how was I to blame in the first place, since I personally had nothing whatsoever to with building up the case for war, with authorizing the war, or with staying in Iraq indefinitely? My connection to the war is extraordinarily indirect.
It isn't a question for which I have a clear answer. Sometimes, I feel very responsible for all of the good and bad things that my country does, while at other times I feel so small and insignificant that I share no blame at all. Either way, I am pretty sure that I was wrong back in 2002 and 2003, and that Alfonso Nevarez is wrong now. Whether or not a citizen of a republic is personally shares responsibility for governmental policy that s/he opposes, there is no magic line of activism against that policy in which one can engage in order to absolve oneself of that responsibility. There is no amount of door knocking, letter writing, envelope stuffing, or petition signing in which someone can engage in order to be transformed from "personally responsible" to "not personably responsible." As a citizen, either you are responsible or you are not responsible for governmental policy you oppose, and your personal actions to not figure into the equation.
This is starting to feel like a Good Works vs. Grace argument, ala Catholicism and Protestants. Anyway, on a slow day like today, I wanted to throw this question out there.
It didn't take long for Bill Foster to make an impact in Congress.
Foster, a Democratic scientist/businessman, won a special election Saturday to replace retired former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in the House. He was sworn into his seat representing the exurban 14th Congressional District on Tuesday afternoon. By evening, he was casting what was arguably the deciding vote on a white-hot ethics bill.
The bill, pushed aggressively by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), creates an independent, outside panel to investigate ethics complaints against House members. The House approved it last night, 229-182, with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed. That margin is deceptive: Before final passage, the bill first had to clear a much closer procedural vote, which gave House members a chance to kill the idea without, technically, voting against it.
The bill survived that test by a single vote, with Foster voting in favor.
Foster is also making a difference with FISA and retroactive immunity. A few votes either way will make the difference on that one.
Given the complete and utterly appalling failure of the Congressional ethics committees to do anything to police members in the recent tidal wave of Congressional corruption, it is great to see the House finally pass a measure creating an independent ethis panel. Through all the blatant corruption of the past few years- Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Jefferson, Ney, Doolittle, Renzi, Foley, Craig, Vitter, Sherwood, Gibbons, Lewis, Weldon, Frist, Burns, Sweeney, and God knows who else I'm forgetting or that we don't know about yet- the ethics committees have done virtually nothing. And members of both parties have liked it that way.
A friend of mine who consults for a Congresswoman, whom I can't name or my friend will get in trouble, told this consultant to back off on helping me push ethics reform in the 2006 election because "she liked going on junkets." Pelosi came under enormous pressure to back off on pushing this bill, and had to keep the voting machines open to round up the votes. And members of Congress were blatant in their attacks on it: Congressman Tiahrt said, "If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no."
Getting this done yesterday was a good thing. Pelosi and the groups that kept pushing on this in the face of really intense opposition deserve a round of applause.
Michael Kieschnick, one of the most brilliant organizers and thinkers that I know at the higher levels of the progressive movement, has an important question on the surging market for Democratic lobbyists, former staffers leaving their positions of influence to make money working to influence policy on behalf of wealthy interests for as much as a million dollars a year. Kieschnick is stark; this kind of influence peddling is wrong. I agree, as it is also incredibly perverse in terms of incentives for decision-makers. And yet, these people are competing with corporate law partners, hedge fund managers, corporate titans, media pundits, or other top tier credentialled social stars as senior operators at the top of their game.
The problem is big and complex, because expecting virtuous moral self-deprivation isn't reasonable. Rahm Emanuel left the Clinton White House for a few years, made $20M as an investment banker using his earned contacts, and became a Congressman in 2002. There's nothing you can do with ethics legislation to prevent that kind of path to wealth and influence. The only real solutions involve a progressive tax code, open legislative processes, and public financing of elections.
I can think of at least three ways that, by announcing his retirement now, Trent Lott was able to stick it to Democrats. First, it sidesteps new ethics laws:
A senior Republican source close to Lott said one reason for the decision is the new lobbying restrictions on former lawmakers.
A law kicks in on January 1 that forbids lawmakers from lobbying for two years after leaving office. Those who leave by the end of 2007 are covered by the previous law, which demands a wait of only one year.
Second, it comes about three weeks after the Governor's election in Mississippi, thus preventing making his replacement a campaign issue. Haley Barbour will appoint a Republican.
Third, it means that Lamar Alexander will be the new minority whip. This means that there is basically no chance Alexander will retire now, and that his new, more powerful position will put his seat out of play once and for all. the only poll on the campaign in Tennessee, which I cannot find right now, already showed Alexander ahead 60%-29%.
So, Trent Lott has managed to give Democrats one final fork in the eye as he leaves. At least he will be gone, and his replacement will have to face re-election next year. I don't know if we can make that seat competitive, but I do know that whoever we nominate in Mississippi almost certainly isn't going to be a progressive anyway.
"You're weak on terror," screamed the Republicans.
"You're spineless," yelled progressives.
"You make decisions on purely political grounds," sniped the mainstream media.
No love. True, Democrats did cave to President Bush in a particularly craven manner when they signed off on his drastic expansion in warrantless spying on American citizens. And they've yet to summon the backbone to meaningfully confront him on the Iraq War.
But, though you wouldn't know it from listening to most progressives or the mainstream media over the last month, Democrats actually made major steps forward on other parts of the progressive agenda in the final months of the summer session.
They passed (and President Bush signed) legislation to enact many of the recommendations of the September 11 commission; Congress defied President Bush and voted to increase health coverage for needy and working class children; the House and Senate each passed energy legislation that represents the first significant federal action to tackle the climate crisis; and Congress passed major ethics legislation that will significantly limit the influence of big money on politics. Progressives have responded to all these successes like a nagging spouse. Instead of celebrating Democratic victories, most progressives take them for granted and ignore them. Then they go and trash Democrats for their shortcomings, often reinforcing Republican claims that the new Democratic majority isn't actually getting anything done.
Meanwhile, with no one touting the Democrats' achievements, congressional approval numbers have plummeted to below those of President Bush.
