(full disclosure: I’m working for Courage Campaign)

While Giuliani’s minions scramble around gathering signatures (holler in the comments if you have seen signature gatherers), Courage Campaign is ramping up again to beat the dirty trick initiative AGAIN.  We had pivoted on to Blackwater and are now waging two big battles at once: making sure the Republicans don’t steal the White House and keeping Blackwater from opening a mercenary training base in Potrero.

These battles take resources and by that I mean money.  We are dedicated to running a new style campaign, for and by the netroots.  Where these guys are getting million dollar checks from big funders, we are running hard on ActBlue.  We have set a goal of 1,000 contributions on ActBlue all time for No Dirty Tricks.  We knew it would be a reach.  We started the day at 619 donors and we are now at 820 donors. Can you help us reach our goal? You can contribute via the Calitics ActBlue page.

Below the fold is the email we sent to Courage Campaign members today.  On Halloween we will have a surprise from Courage friend and dirty trick foe Bradley Whitford.

Dear Julia,

I am very angry.

One month ago, your amazing activism killed a right-wing dirty trick to steal the White House in 2008. This unprecedented ballot initiative — robbing 20 Electoral College votes from California for the GOP’s presidential nominee — collapsed under intense pressure from the grassroots and netroots.

So, why am I angry? Well, as the Los Angeles Times reports, a ghoulish gang of out-of-state Republican donors and consultants is bringing this dirty trick back from the dead, just in time for Halloween.

But there’s another reason why I am upset about this devious Republican power grab: Progressives are now being forced to fight a two-front war in California with right-wing extremist outsiders spending millions to battle us on the ballot — and on the border.

As you may know, after the first dirty trick died, I dedicated our staff and budget to a very time and resource-intensive campaign — helping the people of Potrero block Blackwater’s planned mercenary base in San Diego County. And now, with the dirty trick rising from the grave, our organization’s finances are stretched thin and our staff is maxed out.

Let me be blunt: We need your immediate financial support to beat back Blackwater AND this new cabal of dirty tricksters. Can you dig deep and donate $20, $50, or $100 or more by Sunday, November 4? Your contribution will help us reach our mission-critical goal of 1,000 “NoDirtyTricks” donors on ActBlue:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

While I am not the least bit shocked by this new dirty trick, I am very angry that Karl Rove’s cronies are forcing it on the people of California again.

The desperation of these right-wing consultants would be laughable if they weren’t so frighteningly effective at stealing elections. Just like they did in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, they want to steal the presidency in California in 2008. And the consequences could be catastrophic for our country and the world.

Iraq. Iran. Global warming. Health care. Civil liberties. The Supreme Court.

The next President of the United States will fundamentally change the course of human history. That’s why these desperate right-wingers are hell-bent on subverting the Electoral College rules to lock down the White House for decades.

Are you angry now?

Then do something. With a vital contribution of $20, $50, or $100 or more, you can help us immediately re-launch our NoDirtyTricks.com campaign AND block Blackwater as well. Please help us reach 1,000 donors on ActBlue by Sunday, November 4 — exactly one year before the 2008 presidential election:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

We are a new kind of organization, waging a new kind of campaign, practicing a new kind of politics. By closely collaborating with some of California’s leading bloggers and grassroots activists, the Courage Campaign is changing the landscape of policy debate under the traditional media and political establishment.

A few months ago, for example, we worked with the netroots to relentlessly re-frame this sneaky ballot initiative as a “dirty trick” — creating a ubiquitous buzz in the blogosphere that prompted journalists and opinion leaders like Howard Dean to use “dirty trick” as a default description of the initiative.

The upshot? Instead of spending a fortune on focus groups run by top-down insider political consultants, the Courage Campaign is people-powered, working closely with grassroots and netroots activists to impact politics from the bottom-up.

That’s why we are setting a new kind of goal — donors instead of dollars. Can you help us defeat the dirty tricksters and beat Blackwater by making a small donation of $20, $50, or $100 on our ActBlue page? Your quick donation will help us build a people-powered movement of 1,000 “NoDirtyTricks” donors by Sunday, November 4:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

You are on the ground floor of a new movement led by the Courage Campaign to synergize the netroots with the grassroots to achieve a progressive vision for California. Now, as we battle Blackwater and the dirty tricksters, we need your help to make that vision a reality.

Thank you for everything you are doing to build our people-powered movement for progressive change in California and the country.

Rick Jacobs
Chair

P.S. On Halloween, Emmy Award-winning actor Bradley Whitford (“Josh Lyman” of “The West Wing”) will be sending you a special message with a special treat. For now, check out Brad’s YouTube video right here:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

Meanwhile, can you help us by forwarding this email to two friends? Getting two more friends involved will help us put an end to politics as usual in California. Thank you so much.

John Edwards gave an amazing speech today at St. Anselm’s College, Manchester, New Hamphshire and has solidifed for me the reason I’ve chosen to support him as the nominee for President.  He’s saying things that are right but not easy to say.  He’s been consistant on these things and I think he makes it clear that he asked himself all the right questions.

Please take the time to read his remarks, they are amazingly candid, lucid and beautifully empathetic to the trials of those who are slipping right out of the middle class.  Their fight is everyone’s fight, we are in this together and it’s time to rid ourselves of the “Screw you, I’ve got mine” politics that have been going on for far too long.

He celebrates the victories of this Country of ours, it’s patriotic without pandering and it’s honest without being patronizing.  “As Americans we are blessed — for our ancestors are not dead, they occupy the corridors of our conscience. And, as long we keep the faith — they live. And so too the America of idealism and hope that was their gift to us.”

Remarks by Senator John Edwards
St. Anselm’s College, Manchester, New Hamphshire
October 29, 2007

Many of you know that I am the son of a mill worker — that I rose from modest means and have been blessed in so many ways in life. Elizabeth and I have so much to be grateful for.

And all of you know about some of the challenges we have faced in my family. But there came a time, a few months ago, when Elizabeth and I had to decide, in the quiet of a hospital room, after many hours of tests and getting pretty bad news — what we were going to do with our lives.

And we made our decision. That we were not going to go quietly into the night — that we were going to stand and fight for what we believe in.

As Elizabeth and I have campaigned across America, I’ve come to a better understanding of what that decision really meant — and why we made it.

Earlier this year, I spoke at Riverside Church in New York, where, forty years ago, Martin Luther King gave a historic speech. I talked about that speech then, and I want to talk about it today. Dr. King was tormented by the way he had kept silent for two years about the Vietnam War.

He was told that if he spoke out he would hurt the civil rights movement and all that he had worked for — but he could not take it any more — instead of decrying the silence of others — he spoke the truth about himself.

“Over the past two years” he said, “I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silence and speak from the burning of my own heart.”

I am not holier than thou. I am not perfect by any means. But there are events in life that you learn from, and which remind you what this is really all about. Maybe I have been freed from the system and the fear that holds back politicians because I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul.

Especially right now, when our country requires so much more of us, and needs to hear the truth from its leaders.

And, although I have spent my entire life taking on the big powerful interests and winning — which is why I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or political action committees — I too have been guilty of my own silence — but no more.

It’s time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They’re right.

As I look across the political landscape of both parties today — what I see are politicians too afraid to tell the truth — good people caught in a bad system that overwhelms their good intentions and requires them to chase millions of dollars in campaign contributions in order to perpetuate their careers and continue their climb to higher office.

This presidential campaign is a perfect example of how our politics is awash with money. I have raised more money up to this point than any Democratic candidate raised last time in the presidential campaign — $30 million. And, I did it without taking a dime from any Washington lobbyist or any special interest PAC.

I saw the chase for campaign money at any cost by the frontrunner in this race — and I did not join it — because the cost to our nation and our children is not worth the hollow victory of any candidate. Being called president while powerful interests really run things is not the same as being free to lead this nation as president of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If protecting the current established structure in Washington is in your interest, then I am not your candidate. I ran for president four years ago — yes, in part out of personal ambition — but also with a deep desire to stand for working people like my father and mother — who no matter how hard things were for our family, always worked even harder to make things better for us.

But the more Elizabeth and I campaigned this year, the more we talked to the American people, the more we met people just like my father, and hard working people like James Lowe. James is a decent and honest man who had to live for 50 years with no voice in the richest country in the world because he didn’t have health care. The more people like him that I met, the more I realized something much bigger was stirring in the American people. And it has stirred in each of us for far too long.

Last month Ken Burns — who made the great Civil War documentary — launched his newest epic on World War II on PBS — and what a story it tells.

At the cost of great suffering, blood and enormous sacrifice, within four years after Pearl Harbor it is incredible what this nation achieved. America built the arsenal of democracy worthy of our great history. We launched the greatest invasion armada in the history of warfare against Hitler’s fortress Europe, and, with our allies, we freed a continent of suffering humanity.

At the same time on the other side of the globe we crossed 10,000 miles of ocean and liberated another hemisphere of humanity — islands and nations freed from the grip of Japanese militarists. While at the same time succeeding in the greatest scientific endeavor ever undertaken — the Manhattan project — and topped it off with building the Pentagon, one of the largest buildings in the world in a little over a year.

It is incredible what America has accomplished. Because no matter what extraordinary challenges we have been faced with, we did exactly what America has always done in our history — we rose to the challenge.

And, now, as I travel across America and listen to people, I hear real concern about what’s going on. For the first time in our nation’s history, people are worried that we’re going to be the first generation of Americans not to pass on a better life to our children.

And it’s not the fault of the American people. The American people have not changed. The American people are still the strong, courageous people they have always been. The problem is what our government has become. And, it is up to us to do something about it.

Because Washington may not see it, but we are facing a moral crisis as great as any that has ever challenged us. And, it is this test — this moral test — that I have come to understand is at the heart of this campaign.

Just look at what has happened in Iraq. What was the response of the American people to the challenge at hand? Our men and women in uniform have been heroes. They’ve done everything that’s been asked of them and more. But what about our government? Four years after invading Iraq, we cannot even keep the lights on in Baghdad.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the American people were at their best. They donated their time and their money in record numbers. There was an outpouring of support. I took 700 college kids down to help — young people who gave up their spring break. But what about our government? Three years after hurricane Katrina thousands of our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters, are still housed in trailers waiting to go home.

There’s no better example of the bravery and goodness of the American people than the response to the attacks of 9/11: firefighters and first responders risking and too often giving their lives to save others, charging up the stairs while everyone else was coming down; record bloodbank donations; and the list goes on. But what about our government? Six years after 9/11, at Ground Zero there sits only a black hole that tortures our conscience and scars our hearts.

In every instance we see an American people who are good, decent, compassionate and undeterred. And, American people who are better than the government that is supposed to serve and represent them.

And what has happened to the American “can do” spirit? I will tell you what has happened: all of this is the result of the bitter poisoned fruit of corruption and the bankruptcy of our political leadership.

It is not an accident that the government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people, because it is no longer our people’s government — and we the people know it.

This corruption did not begin yesterday — and it did not even begin with George Bush — it has been building for decades — until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy.

While the American people personally rose to the occasion with an enormous outpouring of support and donations to both the victims of Katrina and 9/11 — we all saw our government’s neglect. And we saw greed and incompetence at work. Out of more than 700 contracts valued at $500,000 or greater, at least half were given without full competition or, according to news sources, with vague or open ended terms, and many of these contracts went to companies with deep political connections such as a subsidiary of Haliburton, Bechtel Corp., and AshBritt Inc.

And in Iraq — while our nation’s brave sons and daughters put their lives on the line for our country — we now have mercenaries under their own law while their bosses sit at home raking in millions.

We have squandered millions on building Olympic size swimming pools and buildings that have never been used. We have weapons and ammunition unaccounted for that may now be being used against our own soldiers. We literally have billions wasted or misspent — while our troops and their families continue to sacrifice. And the politically connected lobby for more. What’s their great sacrifice — higher profits.

It goes on every minute of every day.

Corporate executives at United Airlines and US Airways receive millions in compensation for taking their companies into bankruptcy, while their employees are forced to take cuts in pay.

Companies like Wal-Mart lobby against inspecting containers entering our nation’s ports, even though expert after expert agrees that the likeliest way for a dirty bomb to enter the United States is through a container, because they believe their profits are more important than our safety. What has become of America when America’s largest company lobbies against protecting America?

Trade deals cost of millions of jobs. What do we get in return? Millions of dangerous Chinese toys in our children’s cribs laden with lead. This is the price we are made to pay when trade agreements are decided based on how much they pad the profits for multinational corporations instead of what is best for America’s workers or the safety of America’s consumers.

We have even gotten to the point where our children’s safety is potentially at risk because nearly half of the apple juice consumed by our children comes from apples grown in China. And Americans are kept in the dark because the corporate lobbyists have pushed back country of origin labeling laws again and again.

This is not the America I believe in.

The hubris of greed knows no bounds. Days after the homeland security bill passed, staffers from the homeland security department resigned and became homeland security consultants trying to cash in. And, where was the outrage? There was none, because that’s how it works in Washington now. It is not a Republican revolving door or a Democratic revolving door — it is just the way it’s done.

Someone called it a government reconnaissance mission to figure out how to get rich when you leave the government.

Recently, I was dismayed to see headlines in the Wall Street Journal stating that Senate Democrats were backing down to lobbyists for hedge funds who have opposed efforts to make millionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as every hard-working American. Now, tax loopholes the wealthy hedge fund managers do not need or deserve are not going to be closed, all because Democrats — our party — wanted their campaign money.

And a few weeks ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1,000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special “treat” — the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of the homeland security committee. That presidential candidate was Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton’s road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington — and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.

When I asked Hillary Clinton to join me in not taking money from Washington lobbyists — she refused. Not only did she say that she would continue to take their money, she defended them.

Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party — more money than any Republican candidate.

She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.

She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined.

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

We have a duty — a duty to end this.

I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, and candidate who takes their money — Democrat or Republican — will lose this election.

For us to continue down this path all we have to do is suspend all that we believe in. As Democrats, we continue down this path only if we believe the party of the people is no more.

As Americans, we continue down this path only if we fail to heed Lincoln’s warning to us all.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected,” he asked, “if it ever reaches us it must spring up amongst us. It can not come from abroad. If destruction be our lot — we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

America lives because 20 generations have honored the one moral commandment that makes us Americans.

To give our children a better future than we received.

I stand here today the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards. The father of Wade, Cate, Emma Claire and Jack — and I know, as well as you, that we must not be the first generation that fails to live up to our moral challenge and keep the promise of America.

That would be an abomination.

There is a dream that is America. It is what makes us American. And I will not stand by while that dream is at risk.

I am not perfect — far from it — but I do understand that this is not a political issue — it is the moral test of our generation.

Our nation’s founders knew that this moment would come — that at some point the power of greed and its influence over officials in our government might strain and threaten the very America they hoped would last as an ideal in the minds of all people, and as a beacon of hope for all time.

That is why they made the people sovereign. And this is why it is your responsibility to redeem the promise of America for our children and their future.

It will not be easy — sacrifice will be required of us — but it was never easy for our ancestors, and their sacrifices were far greater than any that will fall on our shoulders.

Yet, the responsibility is ours.

We, you and I, are the guardians of what America is and what it will be.

The choice is ours.

Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.

It is the easier path. It is the path of the status quo. But, it is a path that perpetuates a corrupt system that has not only failed to deliver the change the American people demand, but has divided America into two — one America for the very greedy, and one America for everybody else.

And it is that divided America — the direct result of this corrupt system — which may very well lead to the suicide Lincoln warned us of — the poison that continues to seep into our system while none notice.

Or we can choose a different path. The path that generations of Americans command us to take. And be the guardians that kept the faith.

I run for president for my father who worked in a mill his entire life and never got to go to college the way I did.

I run for president for all those who worked in that mill with my father.

I run for president for all those who lost their jobs when that mil was shut down.

I run for president for all the women who have come up to Elizabeth and me and told us the like Elizabeth they had breast cancer — but unlike Elizabeth they did not have health care.

I run for president for twenty generations of Americans who made sure that their children had a better life than they did.

As Americans we are blessed — for our ancestors are not dead, they occupy the corridors of our conscience. And, as long we keep the faith — they live. And so too the America of idealism and hope that was their gift to us.

I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Like them, like you, I believe in people, hard work, and the sacred obligation of each generation to the next.

This is our time now. It falls to us to redeem our democracy, reclaim our government and relight the promise of America for our children.

Let us blaze a new path together, grounded in the values from which America was forged, still reaching toward the greatness of our ideals. We can do it. We can cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We can liberate our government from the shackles of corporate money that bind it to corporate will, and restore the voices of our people to its halls.

This is the cause of my life. This is the cause of our time. Join me. Together, we cannot fail.

We will keep faith with those who have gone before us, strong and proud in the knowledge that we too rose up to guard the promise of America in our day, and that, because we did, America’s best days still lie ahead.

(Crossposted at dailykos.com and thanks to all who got it on the recommended list all morning.)
Uncle Miltie Friedman wrote in 1982

Only a crisis?actual or perceived?produces real change.  When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.  That, I believe, is our basic function:  to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

This is the statement that lies at the heart of what Naomi Klein calls “The Shock Doctrine” in her new, brilliant, courageous and genuinely frightening book on Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys’ repackaging of feudalism.  Shape shifters, she calls them.  (I’ve been a fan of Klein’s gift for wording things since I discovered her in 2004.)  From the atrocities in Chile that began on September 11, 1973 to Iraq to the Tsunami to Katrina, Friedmanomics has shape shifted, Klein says, into “disaster capitalism”.  But whatever shape it takes it remains committed to the unholy “policy trinity” of “the elimination of the public sphere, total liberation for corporations and skeletal social spending.”

I am officially freaked out.  Naomi Klein’s book “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” is the perfect book to read for Halloween.  It will set your hair on fire.  The first chapter alone “The Torture Lab:Ewan Cameron, the CIA, and the Maniacal Quest to Erase and Remake the Human Mind” will have you running for a stake and a cross.  The descriptions of torture in the bowels of McGill University in the 1950’s that are still taught and practiced today are bone chilling.  The second chapter, “The Other Doctor Shock” focuses on Milton Friedman deep down in his  economics lab in the basement at the University of Chicago. It will fill you with dread as you watch him develop his science of selfishness with his Changelings from South America.  They waited restlessly for the world to fall out of love with John Maynard Keynes and one of his successors, John Kenneth Galbraith, and their annoying responsible and reasonable versions of capitalism.

But they finally got their chance and Chapters 3-5(States of Shock, Cleaning the Slate, and “Entirely Unrelated: How Ideology Was Cleansed of Its Crimes)  will have you sweating and looking behind your back furtively searching for green Ford Falcons coming to whisk you away, Ha Ha.  These are the tales of kidnappings, beatings, and killings of thousands of social workers, union leaders, college students, soup kitchen workers, musicians, artists; well, just about anybody who got together in a group to change things as simple as students protesting bus fares or doctors in clinics for the poor.  One doctor said that they told him “The poor won’t have any goody-goodies to look after them anymore” as they applied electric shocks to his gums, nipples, genitals, abdomen and ears.”  It was literally the idea of kindness that they wanted to destroy.

These are the chapters where Klein shows how Uncle Miltie and his Chicago Boys were complicit in the terror and death that came with the coups in South America in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  This is Klein’s most important achievement connecting the economic theories of Friedman to reigns of terror necessary to implement his theories.  Unlike the Nobel Committee that awarded Friedman a Nobel Prize for economics in 1976 and then a year later awarded Amnesty International the Nobel Peace Prize for exposing human rights violations in the countries that embraced Friedmanomics, Klein connects the two.  Friedman continued to claim that he only offered “technical advice” to Pinochet and others.  When he visited Pinochet after the coup of September 11, 1973, “he called the economic experiment ‘a miracle'”. If it was so great, then why did they need all the repression and cruelty? 

But brave people tried to disprove this.  Orlando Letelier, who had been President Allende’s Ambassador to Washington when the coup occurred, exposed Pinochet and Friedman in an article for “The Nation” in 1976.  He said that the “establishment of a free private economy and control of inflation a la Friedman” cannot be done peacefully. It had to be enforced, and in the Chilean context that could be done only by the killing of thousands, the establishment of concentration camps all over the country, the jailing of more than 100,000 persons in three years… Regression for the majorities and ‘economic freedom’ for small privileged groups are in Chile two sides of the same coin.” And most chilling of all he wrote that there was “an inner harmony” between the “free market” and unlimited terror (Shock Doctrine: page 99). One month later he was blown up on his way to work in Washington D.C.

Aristocrats or Democrats, said Thomas Jefferson
“There is no humane way to rule people against their will”, Klein says paraphrasing Simone de Beauvoir.  It’s not just about excesses and abuses, but about an “all pervasive system.”  Sergio Tomasella, “a tobacco farmer and secretary-general of Argentina’s Agrarian Leagues who was tortured and imprisoned for 5 years” described what happened most eloquently when he testified on human rights abuses.
 

“Foreign monopolies impose crops on us, they impose chemicals that pollute our earth, impose technology and ideology.  All this through the oligarchy which owns the land and controls the politics.  But we must remember?the oligarchy is also controlled, by the very same monopolies, the very same Ford Motors, Monsanto, Philip Morris.  It’s the structure we have to change.  This is what I have come to denounce. That’s all.”

What we need is a good ad campaign
Klein quotes an ad in “Business Week” written by Burson- Marsteller who did PR for the Argentine Junta  in 1976.  “Few governments in history have been as encouraging to private investment…We are in a true social revolution, and we seek partners. We are unburdening ourselves of statism, and believe firmly in the all important role of the private sector.”  Victor Emmanuel, the Burson-Marsteller guy in charge of selling Argentina’s new Junta controlled economy said,  “A lot of innocent people were probably killed, but given the situation, immense force was required.”  Yes, Klein says, it takes cataclysmic change “when people, with their stubborn habits and insistent demands, are blasted out of the way” for the kind of freedom that Friedman longed for but the kind of freedom that has no love of democracy.

I’m going to stop here. I’m about a third of the way through the book.  I want to come back to the phrase that Naomi Klein picks out as the theme; “the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”  Which ideas are lying around now?  Which ones should we use for the coming deepening crisis?  Which presidential candidates have the right ideas for our times right now?

For my money, it’s Edwards with his fresh takes on the ideas that made  Democrats the party of “The four freedoms” and “the fighting faith”. How did we used to define freedom? What did we have faith in?  The free market?  No, we had faith in our work made with the sweat of our brows. We had faith in our ability to take risks and achieve much. We had faith in our community. We had faith in our family and its future.  We had faith in each other to be there in a crisis whether it was fire or flood or marauders. We had faith in our nation to preserve our freedom of thought and speech. Most of all, we had faith in ourselves to do the right thing but also that we could do the harder work of loving our neighbors as ourselves. Can we revive this fighting faith?

What are the ideas that inspire you?

Randy Shaw wrote the following article for today’s Beyond Chron.

The absence of a competitive mayor’s race in San Francisco has left some with pent-up energies demanding an outlet. This became clear with the imbroglio at the Milk Club last week, as passions reached a boiling point over a June 2008 State Senate that is actually three elections away. Why such a furor around this race, and what is it really about? Is the race a proxy fight between pro and anti-Newsom camps, a fight for the “soul” of the gay, lesbian and transgender community, and/or a litmus test on the morality/value of challenging incumbent Democrats? Is it a question of which candidate is more aligned with corporate San Francisco, and/or the fabled Brown-Burton political machine? The Leno-Migden struggle has been defined as all of these things, but the contest should really only be about one issue – which candidate will more effectively serve the district.

Last week’s hijinks at the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club made for great political theater. I don’t think the Club has had such a fight over membership “stacking” since the 1987 Mayor’s race, when Carole Migden and Harry Britt endorsed Mayor Feinstein-backed Jack Molinari -while most progressive gays and lesbians supported Art Agnos.

Those were the days when Club endorsements really meant something. And given the high stakes of the heated battles in 1987, and to a lesser extent in the 1995 Mayor’s race, was not surprising.

But a State Senate race?  I am very involved in state legislation, and would bet that many of those who attended the Milk Club fracas have never been in a State Senator’s or Assemblyperson’s office trying to secure a vote.

With most San Francisco activists paying little attention to Sacramento politics, why the uproar over the Migden-Leno race?  I’ve read many reasons.

Migden vs. Leno=Progressives vs. Newsom:

One is that Migden-Leno gives progressives the opportunity to send a message against Mayor Newsom by defeating his alleged proxy, Mark Leno. This has been the rallying cry of Supervisor Chris Daly, who makes no secret of his strong dislike for San Francisco’s mayor.

Daly’s argument allows activists still smarting over the lack of a serious progressive challenger to Newsom to channel their disappointment into working to defeat Leno. The only problem with this line of reasoning is some stubborn facts.

For example, Newsom has not even endorsed Leno, and has no plans to do so. And Leno has among the most progressive voting records in the entire State Legislature.

Try as he might, Daly cannot turn Mark Leno into Newsom’s hand-picked former District 6 candidate, Rob Black. And there are many people who strongly back both Migden and Newsom.

A Battle for the “Soul” of the Community:

Migden backers emphasize her leadership in the Milk Club during the 1980’s, and imply that she, far more than Mark Leno, represents the activist legacy of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement. And there is no question that Migden has activist roots that Leno does not have, and a powerful grassroots history.

But Mark Leno’s historic State Legislative leadership on marriage equality also connected him to a grassroots base, and he helped mobilize this base. Meanwhile, the Carole Migden of the 1980’s and the Carole Migden of 2007 are quite different in their relationship to the grassroots.

Many have commented how infrequently Migden was seen in the community in recent years until Leno announced his candidacy; now she is everywhere.

Incumbent Democrats Should Not Be Challenged:

Migden backers argue that Leno’s candidacy is destructive because it diverts financial and activist resources away from battling Republicans. In other words, Democrats should not challenge incumbent Democrats, particularly when the incumbent votes progressively on core issues.

What’s interesting about this argument is that it coincides with the longtime defense of the fabled Brown-Burton machine. The machine avoided nasty fights among Democrats by deciding who would run in certain races, and where resources would go in others.

Ironically, one of the biggest beneficiaries of a San Francisco Democratic Party political machine long scorned by the Bay Guardian and other progressives has been Carole Migden. Since leaving the Board of Supervisors in 1996, Migden has won a string of uncontested races for the Assembly, State Board of Equalization, and the State Senate.

Maybe this is a good thing. Money might have gone into progressive causes that would otherwise have been donated to Migden’s contested elections.

But maybe always running unopposed can make one lackadaisical about delivering for one’s constituency. And a political machine that serves as a traffic cop for aspiring candidates can harm the democratic process, creating the impression that political leadership is decided in the backrooms, rather than by the people in an open process.

Since the June 2008 State Senate primary does not coincide with partisan races, the argument that Leno is diverting resources from fighting the real enemy falls flat. And opposition to the biggest threat on that ballot—a statewide initiative to eliminate rent control in California—will be helped in San Francisco by the large turnout spawned by the Migden-Leno race.

Alignment With Corporate-San Francisco:

Of all of the attempts to frame the Migden-Leno race, the weakest may be the notion that one of the candidates’ is more of a “tool” of downtown interests. Since neither has the personal wealth to self-finance their campaigns, both have had no choice but to turn for support to people and groups that are not progressive.

Supervisor Daly, who appears to have made the Migden campaign a top political priority, has long argued that Leno’s campaign consultants—Barnes, Mosher & Whitehurst—are the same people launching hit-pieces against progressive supervisorial candidates. He is correct.

But what makes this such a fun argument is that many of the most outrageous hit-pieces, such as those targeting Gerardo Sandoval, were funded in part by GAP founder and Republican billionaire, Donald Fisher.  Fisher is a major donor and close ally of Carole Migden.

When one examines Migden’s long and close relationship with Willie Brown, who represented the heart of evil for Daly and others until Gavin Newsom came along, the notion that she is somehow the anti-corporate, anti-downtown, anti-machine candidate is laughable. And Mark Leno also has close ties to forces in constituencies that are often hostile to progressive interests.

That’s why focusing on funders and campaign consultants makes less sense in a race like this one where the candidates have a history of legislative action that can be evaluated.

Who Will Best Serve San Francisco:

For me, this should be the only question. I know that tenants are not the only San Francisco/Marin/Sonoma constituencies that need help from the State Legislature, and the district needs a State Senator who will most effectively represent these interests.

Wouldn’t it be great if the debates at the Milk Club and elsewhere were about the candidates’ effectiveness in Sacramento, rather than the current roster of non-issues?
Bay Area voters routinely complain about the important issues left out of presidential debates, and we have only ourselves to blame if we allow the Migden-Leno race to descend into personal attacks that only demean the candidates and their supporters.

Send feedback to [email protected]

John Nichols, writing for “The Nation”, has just written a kind of intellectual “call to arms” regarding, what is quite possibly, the most important issue facing the United States right now: Iran.

Those echoes that Americans are hearing in the noisy-and-getting-noisier debate about Iran are from 2002 and 2003, when members of the current administration were busy spinning the fantasy that the United States needed to attack Iraq.

George “Uranium From Africa” Bush sure sounds like he wants to attack Iran. Just last week, the president said, “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from (obtaining) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Dick “Greeted As Liberators” Cheney sure sounds like he wants to attack Iran. This week, the vice president declared: “Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza “Mushroom Clouds” Rice sure sounds like she wants to attack Iran. “Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon…” Rice said on Thursday, as she announced drastic new sanctions against the country that serious analysts say poses little threat to its neighbors and no real threat to the U.S.

Astutely pointing out the similarities to the pre-war spin on Iraq, to his credit, Nichols has the integrity to go further and point us towards the one and only Democratic candidate possessing both credibility and leadership on Iraq and Iran:

And, as in 2002 and early 2003, the most rational response is coming from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who says, “After the lies and deception used to lead us to war in Iraq, the belligerent Bush Administration cannot be given leeway with statements that suggest a preemptive attack on Iran is necessary,” says Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod who deserves a much better hearing that he has been afforded so far by the media and Democratic power brokers. “We are systematically destroying every available route to restoring peace and security in the Middle East,” he adds.

As Kucinich is the only candidate to oppose the invasion from the beginning and consistently oppose the occupation in its entirety, and further been willing to lead on Iran throughout his campaign, Nichols assesment is dead on.

“He’s right”, Nichols states, only to follow with sad lamentation and ominous warning:

But being right is not always enough in tenuous times.

Being heard is what matters.

And so, to his credit, Nichols is doing his part in enabling Kucinich’s voice of clarity to be heard. Will we listen?

If the prospect of a further aggressive action without legitimacy isn’t enough, consider Nichols’ fundamental argument in the closing of his short essay:

The point here is not a political one… This is about the most fundamental question in a democracy: At a time when talk of war is growing louder, will we hear a real debate or merely the exaggerated echoes of those who have never gotten anything right?

The answer could well be measured by the extent to which Dennis Kucinich and those who stood with him in 2002 and 2003 are afforded the forums that their record of having been able to cut through the spin of the past should afford them in the present.

Nichols is not soliciting votes, supporting Kucinich’s Campaign or endorsing him for our highest office, however, he has managed to isolate the essential basis for all three. Kucinich’s candidacy is nothing less than our opportunity to reclaim our Country and its Democratic Principles in total. Will we accept?