Hello, this is Isaac of Free
State Politics, Maryland’s progressive community blog and member
of the 50 state blog network. For the past few weeks, one of us has
been compiling a digest of links from the blogs in the network,
highlighting important affairs going on under the national radar. I
didn’t see anyone put together a roundup for this week, however, so I
spent this morning taking care of it. Enjoy!

(P.S. My apologies to Square State, Fla. Politics, and Green Mountain
Daily for not including your contributions — for some reason, I
couldn’t access your sites this morning.)

See what’s happening on the state level below the fold…

Northeast

Connecticut's
Senate Minority Leader, Joe DeLuca (R), plead guilty last
week for possible mob-related activities, and My Left Nutmeg covered the local Republicans' attempts at damage
control.

After the telcos failed to gut net neutrality
in Congress last year, the fight has moved to the states; Downeasta at
Turn Maine Blue directs our attention to a possibly
successful net neutrality initiative in the Maine legislature.

At Free State Politics, we discussed whether Maryland Democrats should invest in winning
congressional seats even in the two strongly conservative areas of the
state, the western panhandle and the Eastern Shore.

At
Blue Mass Group, Bob and Charley
on the MTA take Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to task for
attempting to soften state testing requirements for high school
students.

At the request of Dean Barker, editor of
Blue Hampshire, former NH Democratic Party Chair
Kathy Sullivan writes about her effort to draft former Gov. Jeanne
Shaheen to run against John Sununu in the 2008 U.S. Senate race.

Hopeful at Blue Jersey writes to Sens. Bob
Menendez and Frank Lautenberg about their support last year for the
odious Military Commissions Act.

The Albany
Project urges Gov. Eliot Spitzer to keep pushing for campaign
finance reform in New York State, while Paul at The Daily
Gotham says the proposal for congestion
pricing in New York City would be more equitable than an increase in
subway fare prices.

Stanley of Keystone Politics notes the
announcement of Beth Hafer, daughter of famous Pennsylvania politician
Barbara Hafer, that she will run against Republican Rep. Tim
Murphy.

Clem of West Virginia Blue sounds the
alarm about Congress' attempt to give out massive subsidies to
carbon-spewing liquid coal technology, and highlights opposition to it
even in coal
country.

South

At Left in Alabama, mooncat investigates the
connection between the US Attorneys scandal and the prosecution of
former Governor (and Democrat) Don Siegelman.

In Georgia,
journalist Dale Cardwell is running against wingnut Saxby Chambliss
for U.S. Senate in 2008, but the folks at Tondee's Tavern aren't impressed.

BlueNC asks, "Who are our Progressive Senators?"

Burnt Orange Report implores the
Texas Democratic Party to step it up for the 2008 election, while
Scott at Texas Kaos reports on his success in getting the
Austin Democratic Party to put a referendum on Iraq on the primary
ballot next year.

Raising Kaine has been
covering the upcoming local legislative elections in Virginia, and here
are their endorsements.

Midwest

Illinois's state progressive blog,
Prairie State Blue, celebrated its
second anniversary this week.

Indiana continues to
grapple with the privatization of its toll roads: Thomas of
Blue Indiana comments on reports that highway
operators aren't paying local fire departments for cleaning up
accidents on their roads.

All those
rumors of Hillary Clinton skipping the Iowa caucus can be laid to
rest: according to desmoinesdem of Bleeding Heartland, she has been snatching up some of the top political
talent in that state.

The folks at Michigan
Liberal had a rip-roaring conversation about Rep.
John Dingell's attempt to weaken the states' ability to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Minnesota
Campaign Report interviews Richard Carlbom, former St.
Joseph Mayor and Political Director for Rep. Tim Walz's reelection
campaign.

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R) has been trying to
curry favor with the anti-abortion movement by, essentially, buying
off one of their groups, reports Fired Up! Missouri.

Ken Blackwell, formerly Ohio's Secretary of State, is spouting
right-wing talking points from the perch of Townhall.com;
modernesquire at Buckeye State Blog smacks
them down. Meanwhile, Mark of As Ohio Goes attacks Rep. Zack Space's defense of
corrupt Dem William Jefferson.

Mal Contends of
Uppity Wisconsin relates
the story of a Wisconsin Vietnam veteran in a protracted legal battle
with the VA over disability benefits.

West

AZNetroots is talking up Bob Lord,
who is challenging longtime Republican congressman John Shadegg, and
is already beating him at fundraising.

Amidst a flurry of
activity in the California legislature, dday of Calitics reports that a single payer health care plan has passed the
state Senate, which will likely influence Gov. Arnold
Schwartzenegger's plans for health care reform.

Jay of
Left in the West details the efforts of right-wing front groups to use the myth of "voter
fraud" to deny voting rights to American Indians in Montana.

Marshall of Wasatch Watcher decries a school
vouchers proposal in Utah, which will be decided by referendum.

Over at Washblog, Noemie Maxwell interviews campaign finance reformer David Donnelly.

I am perplexed when it comes to the newest Jarvis initiative on eminent domain reform. http://lao.ca.gov/ba…

Here’s the summary of the parts I support:

*Requires government to specify the public use it is taking property for

*Prohibits eminent domain for private use (except to reduce public nuisances or criminal activity).

*Private use includes not only transferring it to another private entity, but also taking it for a similar use to how it was used under the previous ownership

*If the public agency wishes to use it for a use other than the stated public use, it must give the original owner first refusal

*Rent controls cease to exist after whenever the current tenant has moved out. It also prohibits mandatory inclusionary housing that is found to “transfer an economic benefit” at the expense of the property owner. Though I don’t believe these two provisions belong in an eminent domain reform,  I still support them

*In any property owner challenge regarding the validity of a taking or reductions in value concerning his or her property, courts cannot grant deference to a public agency’s findings or limit its review to the information in the administrative record

*Entitles the owner to attorney fees if he/she sues and wins

Now here’s the part I’m perplexed about:
*In background “Other government policies—such as land use or certain business regulations—also could be viewed as potentially transferring economic benefits among private parties.”

*In proposal “Beyond [rent control and inclusionary housing], the extent to which this measure would constrain government’s authority is not clear. The range of policies that would be affected would depend on court interpretation of many of its provisions.”

To make it easier to understand, private use in this measure includes, “regulation of the ownership, occupancy, or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.”

Another thing: unlike Prop 90, for the fiscal impact, the LAO says, “Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would NOT be significant.”

I am perplexed on whether I will support this. What is your position? Again, respond to the proposal and issue, NOT the group

(I know y’all are probably tired of the Harman postings – but this really concerns Dems because it’s about changing the Iraq frame in the media so we can get hell out of there. Harman is one of those Dem’s reinforcing the current frame.)

As discussed previously at DailyKos as well as here at Calitics:

Jane Harman, unbeknownst to her constituents, was going to vote FOR the Iraq supplemental up until the last minute.  She’d voted Yes on a supplemental with timelines before.  This one was the blank-check version that Bush wanted.

She voted against it in the end and put out a press release that said the argument that this vote was about sending the troops the armor and equipment they need “rubbish”. 

But the truth is she was for it until practically the very last minute, and she herself equated not voting for the supplemental to not giving the troops the armor they need. 

And, to top it all off, even after having voted No, she said she hadn’t changed her thinking on that.
(more) 

Joe Klein’s subsequent post leaves no doubt that Harman said what he reported her to say, because he goes on the attack against bloggers by citing them for doubting him on that point.  Like his earlier posts, this post of his is disingenuous and deceitful in a lot of ways, but not on this point.  Harman did give Klein the quote he says she did.

Klein’s essentially saying: the fact that Jane Harman’s words sound so outrageous and untrue given the way she voted is not my fault, it’s hers. 

Remember, Jane Harman accuses people voting against the bill as so uncaring for troops that they would not give them the armor they need to protect themselves from frakking IED’s. And then she voted against the bill herself. 

But that’s not the worst of it.  The situation isn’t that she realized she was buying into pro-administration talking points and came to her senses at the last minute.  That would be bad enough to have to admit that what you believed a few minutes ago is wrong, because people would use it as ammunition to attack the position you now support.  That’s not what happened here – she didn’t “see the light” at the last minute.  Exactly the opposite, in fact.  She did what her anti-war constituents wanted; she didn’t change her mind. 

Even after her No vote and her press release that called such thinking “manipulation” and “rubbish”, she said she still stood behind what she said to Klein [that no vote = denying troops armor].  I surmise that she must reconcile herself to how her thinking clashes with her vote by looking to the fact that the bill was going to pass despite her voting no.  (There’s no way she thought that her vote would actually cause troops to go without armor – nobody could live with themselves if they held that belief and voted No.) 

Thus she has the luxury of having it both ways — letting her vote and press release say one thing, and having her statements to Klein assert the exact opposite.

But why does what she say matter, you may ask, when she voted the right way on the supplemental and even on the rules for debate that could have scuttled the bill.  The reason what she says matters is that it prolongs the war, despite her votes in this case 

The fact is that a supplemental putting real restrictions still would have been needed to be passed through the House and the Senate even if this blank-check was torpedoed by the rules of debate, and there simply weren’t the votes in the Senate to keep trying. 

To change that, the terms of the debate themselves needed (and still need) to change.  There never will be the votes to end this occupation so long as putting restrictions on funding = cutting funds for the troops. 

And Harman isn’t just not speaking out to counter that argument, she’s legitimizing these talking pointsto this very day to “concerned liberals” like Joe Klein who make the most of them to beat down Democrats.  The “facts” Klein makes up to support his view – like saying Obama and Clinton changed their vote on the supplemental for example – are not going to be damaging (other than to Klein’s reputation as a journalist) over the long run.  But when he’s got a real Democrat – especially a high profile Democrat on military matters – endorsing his “Dems are irresponsible” narrative with her actual (not made up) words, then Klein gets the “proof” that this narrative is truthful.  And that’s a lot harder to overcome. 

And because Harman can’t bring herself to renounce this thinking even after voting No on the supplemental, then she’s delaying the end of our occupation of Iraq instead of helping it to happen – no matter her No votes in this case.