Daily Archives: November 29, 2007

Uncategorized

Skelton vs. CGS

Disclosure: I do some work for Yes on 93.

In the LA Times today, George Skelton took on a basic assumption of the CGS study (PDF) on Proposition 93. Specifically: 

There's a new theory being raised about legislative term limits and it may be the nuttiest notion yet. It is this: The longer someone serves in the Legislature, the more likely that person is to become corrupt. (LATimes 11.29.07)  

Much of the CGS study is, in fact, focused upon this. That somehow term limits are a good thing because they prevent corruption by long-serving legislators. But that's far from a verifiable fact: 

That's like saying the more years someone puts in as a pharmacist, the more likely he is to start peddling illegal drugs. Or, that a commuter's repeated trips to a parking garage could turn him into an auto thief. My theory always has been that you're either a car snatcher or you're not. It doesn't matter how much time you hang around cars. Likewise, filling blood pressure prescriptions doesn't make you a crack dealer.

 
Look, it doesn't take much experience to sell your vote. The lobbyists are there from day one, I assure you that they know how to buy votes if they so desire. The dirty lobbyists are really the ones who need to be skilled, they just bring the legislator along for the ride. And where are the term limits for them? That would be a clever idea I suppose, but I don't see that on Poizner's wishlist, or well, being legal. But, in the end, this is the basic truth:

But trying to cast term limits as a cleansing agent for corruption is a comical reach.

 
By the way, speaking of Poizner, he says (I really hate linking to Chris Reed, but oh well)

"I would rather all 501(c)4s disclose" the source of their money, he said. Poizner said he has "no idea" who gave the $1.5 million to U.S. Term Limits. America's Finest Blog

But no need to actually make sure that U.S. Term Limits actually does disclose, b/c you know, that's "good money."

Uncategorized

Prop 93: Skelton vs. CGS

Disclosure: I do some work for yes on 93

Our Dear Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is bothered by corruption, but only the kind that doesn’t help him, or so it seems.  On the $1.5mil that was donated by U.S. Term Limits, he says (unfortunately, I’m going to link to America’s “Finest” Blog, which by the way, doesn’t let you deep link with any ease. Very annoying.)

“I would rather all 501(c)4s disclose” the source of their money, he said. Poizner said he has “no idea” who gave the $1.5 million to U.S. Term Limits.

But no need to actually make sure that U.S. Term Limits actually does disclose, b/c you know, that’s “good money” and corruption doesn’t come from good money.  Speaking of corruption, in the LA Times today, George Skelton took on a basic assumption of the CGS study (PDF) on Proposition 93. Specifically:

There’s a new theory being raised about legislative term limits and it may be the nuttiest notion yet. It is this: The longer someone serves in the Legislature, the more likely that person is to become corrupt. (LATimes 11.29.07)

Much of the CGS study is, in fact, focused upon this. That somehow term limits are a good thing because they prevent corruption by long-serving legislators. But that’s far from a verifiable fact:

That’s like saying the more years someone puts in as a pharmacist, the more likely he is to start peddling illegal drugs. Or, that a commuter’s repeated trips to a parking garage could turn him into an auto thief.

My theory always has been that you’re either a car snatcher or you’re not. It doesn’t matter how much time you hang around cars. Likewise, filling blood pressure prescriptions doesn’t make you a crack dealer.

Look, it doesn’t take much experience to sell your vote. The lobbyists are there from day one, I assure you that they know how to buy votes if they so desire.  The dirty lobbyists are really the ones who need to be skilled, they just bring the legislator along for the ride.  And where are the term limits for them? That would be a clever idea I suppose, but I don’t see that on Poizner’s wishlist, or well, being legal. But, in the end, this is the basic truth:

But trying to cast term limits as a cleansing agent for corruption is a comical reach.

Central Coast

Going the Wrong Way In Santa Cruz: We Need Rails, Not Roads

5 Comments

As anyone who’s had the misfortune to be stuck in a traffic jam on Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County knows, there’s a major traffic problem on the northern end of Monterey Bay. High housing costs in Santa Cruz have spurred growth over in Watsonville, where homes are (relatively) more affordable. When combined with the job engine of Silicon Valley just over the hill, this means there’s a LOT of traffic on Highway 1.

So what should be done? Widen the freeway? Take advantage of the rail line that connects Watsonville to Santa Cruz to provide commuter rail and take the pressure off of Highway 1?

Highway 1 widening has been very contentious – a 2004 plan to widen the freeway was shot down by voters – and so it is somewhat surprising to see that a Santa Cruz County transportation tax force has suggested trying again in November 2008, with another 1/2 cent sales tax that would largely go toward an additional freeway lane and only a pittance for rail.

Environmentalists and transit advocates, led by Friends of the Rail Trail and former Santa Cruz mayor and Democratic candidate for AD-27 (should Prop 93 fail) Emily Reilly, have denounced the proposal and vowed to fight for transportation alternatives.

What I want to do here is explain why they are right, why Santa Cruz needs to seize this opportunity to lead the state into a more sustainable and effective transportation future. Instead of trying in vain to keep the 20th century alive, we need to realize our limits and embrace a more sensible vision for the 21st century.

flickr photo by richardmasoner

In November 2004 a 1/2 cent sales tax was put to voters that would have provided some funding for public transit, but was largely about widening Highway 1 with an additional lane between Watsonville and Santa Cruz. The measure only got 43% support, as a combination of anti-tax, anti-development, and anti-roads voters rejected it. Although the county transportation commission believes voters will support this, it’s not clear this will fare any better now than it did in 2004.

This isn’t just bad politics. It’s an example of completely misplaced priorities. Santa Cruz has been trying to develop a commuter rail line to connect to Watsonville, paralleling Highway 1 and potentially clearing up the traffic problem without adding new freeway lanes. To do this, the county needs to buy out the Union Pacific line that runs alongside Highway 1, an effort that has been stalled in negotiations for several years, as the county believes UP is asking too high a price given the renovations that will be needed to make the route viable for passenger rail.

Supporters of the plan point out that Santa Cruz County is well positioned for rail:

“Half of the population in Santa Cruz County live within a mile of the rail corridor,” says Micah Posner, co-founder and board member of Friends of the Rail Trail.

“Two thirds of all trips in Santa Cruz are under five miles and one-third are under three miles,” Posner continues. “It’s amazing just in terms of global warming alone that a rail trail has the potential to solve all our problems.”

Friends of the Rail Trail have produced letters of support from private rail operators that suggest a passenger rail line would be profitable. One of them, Sierra Railroad Company, is led by Mike Hart, who further explained why Santa Cruz County is so well suited for rail:

Hart summed up Santa Cruz County’s readiness for public rail with three Cs: “concentration, combination and culture.”

He argued that the concentration of the county’s 250,000 residents around the rail corridor overcomes the overall population number, which is regarded by opponents of passenger service as too low for a viable service. “Combination” stood for his company’s proposal to continue freight service – mostly for the Cemex plant in Davenport – by creating a system that wouldn’t necessitate running freight only at night. “The overhead, logistics, insurance and planning all need one organization running it to be efficient enough,” Hart said.

Hart’s final key, culture, proved he knew his audience. Having already received applause for his statement that Sierra Railroad operates its trains only with biodiesel, he said, “The Santa Cruz County mindset is, if we can help the environment by using a train, we will. When you figure the overall cost benefit, you can’t just figure the people riding the train instead of their cars. You also need to take into account the thousands of people who will walk or ride their bikes to get where they need to go.”

Left unsaid is the historical connection. Both Monterey and Santa Cruz were products of passenger railroads. As anyone who’s been to the Santa Cruz Boardwalk knows, it is situated right alongside the rail line, which carried weekend visitors down from San Francisco and provided the transportation lifeline that made Santa Cruz viable. Same for us in Monterey – the Del Monte Express was critical in bringing visitors to one of the state’s first tourist destinations, as well as bringing supplies to town and providing regional business access to market.

For most Californians, rail stopped being a vital part of life after World War II, when cheap oil made us all believe that personal automobiles and freeways, not trains, would solve our needs. We let our excellent rail transportation network fall apart – from the Pacific Electric cars in SoCal to the end of the Del Monte Express in 1971. The 20th century California Dream emphasized cars and cars alone; the Beach Boys never sang about trains.

As I’ve explained before, that 20th century dream is dying, and it is time to redefine the California Dream for the 21st century. One reason that dream is dying is because the era of cheap oil that made the 20th century dream possible is drawing to a close. Peak oil and sky-high gas prices mean that driving will no longer be able to be the basis of our transportation system. Already Californians have started buying less gas, and Amtrak California ridership sets records every month.

Clearly the desire for new kinds of transportation is there. So is the awareness of climate change and the need to move away from global warming emissions that highway projects produce, as explained by Seattle’s Sightline Institute.

But roads supporters in Santa Cruz County prefer to ignore all of this. When the transportation task force approved the Highway 1 widening tax proposal, they also rejected a resolution that would have required an overall reduction in carbon emissions and that each project funded had to be carbon neutral – a rejection Emily Reilly rightly found to be “shocking.”

A small but vocal group of residents in Capitola and Aptos, which lie along the rail line, also oppose the passenger rail plan, concerned that it would hurt their property values. Friends of the Rail Trail believe that in fact, a combined rail line and bike/walk trail would help property values, as well as keeping local economies afloat and easing traffic congestion.

Ultimately, the opposition of these few homeowners and the transportation task force to a rail solution is a sign that they still believe, against all evidence, that the 20th century can continue. Maybe Highway 1 widening would have made sense in the 1980s or 1990s. Not now. With scarce public revenues, soaring gas prices, and the need to get serious about climate change, spending $300 million to widen a freeway is an insane waste of money. Santa Cruz County needs to instead embrace a more sensible future – a passenger rail future.

And in any case, the 1/2 cent sales tax for a freeway project is doomed to fail. Santa Cruz saw this in 2004. Earlier this month Seattle rejected a massive roads and transit project when anti-tax activists and those opposed to 180 miles of new roads combined to sink the plan. In 2004 Denver voters approved a massive rail and transit only plan, FasTracks, and this year Charlotte voters gave 70% approval to a light rail plan. Will Santa Cruz be left behind?

Health Care

Bankrupted by Health Insurance–AND Mandates

While politicians debate individual mandates-a/k/a forcing Americans to purchase expensive, unworkable insurance products from the very corporations who brought you our healthcare disaster-more evidence rolls in about how Americans are being bankrupted by their health insurance.

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

Remember as you look at these stories that the big insurance companies take one-third of care dollars off the top, for profits, lobbying, CEO salaries, bureaucracy and overhead.  Medicare, America’s single-payer system, by contrast takes 3% off the top for all that.  Not even the mafia takes a third.

A new report today finds that in the last year health insurance costs rose ten percent.  Yes, that’s higher than the rate of medical inflation-meaning insurers are grabbing and keeping more money for themselves.  Imagine the financial impact if insurers can mandate those double-digit annual rises on every single patient, not just the ones they now cover.

The Wall St. Journal (sub. req’d) looks at Americans who get sick, and then go bankrupt when they bump up against their insurance caps.  Think you’re covered?  Think again!

The Journal cited a study, the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, report that that 26% of Americans with health insurance had trouble paying medical bills in 2005 alone.  What did they do?

39% used up all their savings

28% covered it with credit cards

26% were unable to pay for basic necessities

11% took out a second mortgage or a loan

And THIS is the answer to our health care crisis?

Uncategorized

John Edwards wins Republican debate!!!

1 Comment

This was just too delicious not to share.

Last night the Republicans held the CNN/Youtube debate in Tampa Florida.  CNN invited 24 undecided Republicans to the debate to see their reactions and whether the debate would cause them to make a decision about who to vote for in the January 29th primary.  

At the end of the debate the undecideds were asked whether they had made a choice.  None had really made a choice among those they saw on the stage but one woman did make a definite statement of who she would vote for.

I was astounded.  She chose John Edwards.  Edwards has had little media exposure, especially in Florida which is seen to be Clinton country.  

Here is a partial transcript:

Sharon, you said you may have decided but probably not a choice that people expect. Who was that maybe? Do you have your…

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have my mike. I’m sorry.

Well, I think if the Democrats have John Edwards, I’d vote for John Edwards.

HILL: So you would consider — because nothing you heard tonight convinced you that any of these eight men are the right choice for you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There’s maybe three that could possibly be the right choice. But I’m really going to have to look a little closer at the three that — I had thought about — I had thought about Giuliani. I’d thought about Mitt Romney. Also Fred Thompson. I don’t care for his TV shows, but you know, I thought maybe him being an actor, that was just a facade, and it’s not.

HILL: OK. So none of them really worked out for you tonight. So it will be interesting so see what you actually do on January 29.

A little later they went back to the group.  Still no one had decided on a Republican.  Sharon spoke up a little more about what she liked about Edwards.  

Undecided Voter: “I wouldn’t vote for Fred Thompson now I didn’t like him on TV so I don’t like him in politics either I could not find anybody on there, I just really, maybe Hunter, Congressman Hunter, he’s the closest…”

Moderator: Earlier in the break you had said you would maybe lean toward John Edwards, though, and he’s not a Republican.

Undecided Voter:…yes, but at least he has opinions these guys keep saying the same things over and over again.

Moderator: So he’s the strongest one for you even though he’s a Democrat?

Undecided Voter: Yes.

As grannyhelen in her diary on Dailykos said

What does a candidate who takes strong positions, tells folks he won’t back down and whose campaign is fueled by a progressive populist agenda get?

Votes.

These video clips made me smile all through the night and this morning.  I really believe with John Edwards at the top of the Democratic ticket we would have a landslide win.  

Uncategorized

Whom in Congress does Lameduck Bush think are friendly?

1 Comment

Friends, things are going to get interesting. Since 9/11 changed everything, the Bush Administration’s approach to congress has been the steamroller/cement mixer/napalm bomb approach. But since last fall’s elections, the Republican Administration has focused on trying to ensure that they are not held accountable for everything they’ve screwed up. Case in point, the retroactive immunity law to give amnesty to the big phone companies who sold all of us out without a warrant. Think about that next time you pay your phone bill.

During the GOP domination years, they would have sold this by calling up their Joe Klein friends and scaring Democrats into support with threats from the “so-called left” voices and yelling that Rush Limbaugh was spot on. But that stunt was cut short when America realized that Social Security is not in crisis (disclosure, I ran the www.ThereIsNoCrisis.com campaign) and Democrats finally realized that solidarity for honesty could make our Party invincible.

Today, a judge says that our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation get to see how the Republican Administration moved to push amnesty for the big telecoms.

While the Nixon “Enemies List” was a badge of honor, I think the Democrats whom are named early on this time-frame will be wearing a different patch.

This will be an amazing insight into the thoughts of the Bush team’s post lame duck status. The early names will be the names of the Democrats the Bush Administration thinks will throw themselves on the sword for big business despite the little detail we call the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. And we get to know it all in a couple of weeks.

Predictions on who was the first call out of the California delegation?

Uncategorized

Tommorow Is Last Day To Double $$ On Kucinich

According to public, campaign finacning regulations tommorow, November 29th, is the last day to receive matching funds through public financing.

So if you make a contribution tonight or tommorow to Dennis Kucinich, this means that your $50 contribution becomes a $100 contribution, $200 equals $400 … up to $250.  

From the Kucinich campaign:

There are literally just weeks left before the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. We are proud of how far we’ve come, and the way the American people have embraced our message of “Strength through Peace.” According to recent polls we are in 4th place in New Hampshire. You could help put us over the top in New Hampshire by making a contribution today, and Double Your Impact, by taking advantage of the federal matching funds program.

Your support is essential as you can help us:

* Run advertisements and media

* Hire field coordinators and staff

* Provide housing for volunteers willing to come to New Hampshire to help get Dennis’ message out.

* Have all the resources we need to compete in New Hampshire and other early primary states

You know our campaign does not take contributions from corporations or from special interest groups. We have relied on people like you to help support our campaign. You have always come through during our end of quarter drives.

This is such an important opportunity for us and we cannot let it go by. Kucinich has disporpotiantely been supported by small donors and so the fact of doubling our contribution is something that we simply need to take advantage of. Even a small donation now becomes more significant. If you have already donated, I sincerely thank you. But, if you can make the extra committment for Mr. Kucinich’s leadership, it will go twice as far until tommorow.

Let us not forget what Kucinich’s leadership has been:

The only Democratic Candidate to oppose the War and the subsequent Occupation

The only Democratic Candidate to show the judgement and Constitutional integrity to vote against the Patriot Act

One of only six House members to vote against the Homegrow Terrorism Act

The only Democratic Candidate who is taking the threats to our Democracy seriously and actually holding this Administration accountable through Impeachment

The only Presidential Candidate offering a truly universal, not-for-profit health care system

The only Democratic Candidate who will cancel U.S. involvement in job killing, deficit building, human expoliting, environmental raping trade agreements, NAFTA/WTO

Really it goes on. We have seen this leadership. Kucinich has been the heart and soul of this party; the only Democrat willing to stand up for the party’s principles, rather than play party politics; the only one willing to put the Constitution and all Americans ahead of politics.

We need to support Dennis because he is speaking for us. And we need to support him now before it is too late. Please follow this link and make your contribution now.

Thank you for your support!

Uncategorized

Progressive Answer to Gov’s ‘Year of Education’

1 Comment

(Great diary by Jen.  She is dead on. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

Gov. Schwarzenegger has declared that 2008 will be the Year of Education. As Peter Schrag noted recently, this is a little more than terrifying. The Republicans’ answer to the public education crisis has thus far been to undermine public education by pushing private school vouchers, further segregating our students through “school choice” and pushing an economic agenda that is focused on de-funding government.

Most certainly, Schwarzenegger and the Right have shown they are unwilling to back up any claims they have about “reform” with actual funding for public education. The clear result of the “tax cut” mantra is under-funded schools – California is now 38th in per-pupil spending in the country. But it’s not just a lack of funding that our schools face. Fundamentally, Republicans and conservative Democrats like Gov. Gray Davis who preceded Schwarzenegger, have been unable or unwilling to get at the real heart of the issue in today’s public schools: the majority of California public school students are students of color, and the learning experience they get is simply not sufficient to prepare them for success.

Thankfully, the progressive movement has an incredible ally and asset in Justice Matters, a non-profit group that has been methodically studying the root causes of educational inequity, and proposing real and proven solutions. Justice Matters just released a groundbreaking new study, High Schools for Equity(PDF), and an accompanying Report Card tool(PDF) that will help all of us who want a progressive public education agenda navigate the upcoming policy battles. Susan Sandler, director of Justice Matters, wrote about these tools recently on California Progress Report. Throughout the Governor’s “Year of Education,” Justice Matters will be following and watching closely, using the report cards – based on findings from the study – to grade the Governor’s performance when it comes to dealing with racial justice in public education.

What I find most significant about the study is the fact that it looked at California public high schools where by a variety of measures – most notably graduation rates and numbers of students who went on to college – were doing right by low-income students of color. What I know from my time as an education reporter at the Los Angeles Times is that public education policy discussions are almost always focused on the problem, with few concrete solutions offered – in part because the problem is so large and daunting. In High Schools for Equity, you can see clearly how specific ways of structuring a school or presenting curriculum can make a world of difference for low-income students of color, and you can see how those solutions could easily be translated into statewide policy so that these exemplary schools are the rule, not the exception. Their approach is well summarized in this passage from the forward of the study:

Rather than assume that all schools can do what outliers do, the study assumes that there are reasons why they cannot. In the schools that are in the case studies, we want to understand what conditions they face that make it very difficult to do what they do. What must they overcome or get around? If they face conditions that are better than what most schools face, what are these better conditions and the set of supports that help them do what they do? And the ultimate question of our study is: What policies are needed to address the conditions that make it hard for the majority of schools to do what these exemplary schools are doing? What policies would make it easy to do what they do? In other words, what are the policies that would systematically bring about racially just education?

Transforming public education policy so that it is serving all California students is a long-term struggle. Justice Matters makes a compelling argument that the path toward a truly progressive education agenda lies in the on-the-ground experiences of those who are the most under-served by the current system, and I couldn’t agree more.

Uncategorized

Take action: Sen. Dianne Feinsten, Chair Art Torres and telecom immunity

8 Comments

(full-disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

Ok, so the attempt to censure Senator Feinstein failed, but it sure changed the conversation.  Everyone from the New York Times editorial board to Fox News chimed in.  Over 35,000 people and over 40 grassroots groups, clubs and organizations joined in.  It really hit a nerve and catalyzed a new discussion about what it means to be a Democrat.

Now it is time to do something positive and continue the conversation.

Next week the Senate will again take up the re-authorization of FISA.  Immunity for telecom companies will be a major battle within the larger re-authorization bill.  Senator Dodd has promised to put a hold and filibuster the bill to prevent the attempt to let the telecommunications companies off the hook for following Bush’s orders to break the law and spy on Americans without a warrant.  Heck, the bill as written would not even let us even look into what exactly they did and who they spied on.  Senator Feinstein has indicated that he will join this effort.  CDP Chair Art Torres said that this issue was “very important” to him and one that he discussed with Senator Feinstein.  Two Senators does not a sustainable filibuster make.  They need some friends.  We must hold the line together.

So today the Courage Campaign sent out an email to our members (available below the fold) asking people to sign on to a letter to Chairman Torres requesting that he convey the message to Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposing retroactive immunity for telecom companies.  Will you join us?

Full text of the email that went out an hour ago.

Dear Julia,

“What does it mean to be a Democrat?”

Over 1,000 of you have sent the Courage Campaign your passionate responses to this vital question, continuing the conversation catalyzed by your grassroots movement to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein for her regrettable Judiciary Committee votes supporting Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Judge Leslie Southwick.

While the California Democratic Party used parliamentary procedure to prevent a discussion or vote on the censure resolution, your 35,031 signatures succeeded in fundamentally changing the conversation inside the party.

The mainstream media is also taking notice of this unique grassroots and netroots movement for accountability, as exemplified by the editorial board of the New York Times:

“The censure motion may have failed, but Feinstein’s critics say they are not going away. Rick Jacobs, the founder of the Courage Campaign, vowed that if Ms. Feinstein continues to vote the wrong way, as his group sees it, ‘we’ll be back.'”

Senator Feinstein failed us all by not standing strong against the condoning of torture, homophobia and racism. To hold her accountable, we rallied the California progressive community in support of a censure resolution authored by Mal Burnstein, Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, and subsequently supported by 40 other Democratic Clubs and progressive organizations, including MoveOn and Progressive Democrats of America.

Now, we are concerned that Senator Feinstein will fail us all again on one of the most important issues currently facing the Senate — a likely floor vote next week on an Intelligence Committee bill re-authorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This Intelligence Committee bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies guilty of wiretapping Americans without a warrant, a violation of our fundamental constitutional rights.

“What does it mean to be a Democrat?” As many of you wrote to us, it means standing up for the Constitution and standing strong against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. If you agree, please click here to send a letter to California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres, perhaps the only person in California capable of convincing Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposition to retroactive telecom immunity:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/standstrong

Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Russ Feingold and several other Senators have recently said they will filibuster any legislation that contains retroactive telecom immunity.

However, to date, Senator Feinstein has failed to indicate that she will support such a courageous stand in defense of our Constitution.

Fortunately, California Democrats have a potential friend in California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres. He may not agree with us on censuring the Senator but he does agree with us on retroactive immunity for telecom companies. In a passionate speech defending Senator Feinstein at the CDP Executive Board meeting last week, the Chairman expressed his sincere opposition to censure and reported a conversation he had with the Senator about granting telecom companies retroactive immunity, indicating that it is an issue that is “very important” to him.

In the spirit of catalyzing an open dialogue about what it means to be a Democrat, the Courage Campaign would like to highlight the YouTube video of the Chairman’s speech, as posted by the California Democratic Party. Please click here to watch it and then sign our letter to Chairman Torres encouraging him to represent California Democrats in asking Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposition to telecom immunity:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/standstrong

As Chairman Torres said in his speech, “if we don’t have transparency in our rules, if we don’t have open discussions, and if we don’t argue with each other, we’re not the Democratic Party. We’re the Republicans.”

He’s absolutely right. And that’s exactly what many of you said last week when we asked you: “What does it mean to be a Democrat?” Over 1,000 of you responded with heartfelt, passionate statements expressing your core values as Democrats, progressives and Americans, including John W., who said:

“I don’t even want to talk about what it means to be a Democrat; I want to talk about what it means to be a good American who supports the Constitution and wants our country to act with integrity…”

“What does it mean to be a Democrat?” Click here to read the rest of John’s comment as well as other eloquent statements we’ll be sending directly to Chairman Torres. Then take just a few seconds more to sign the letter to the Chairman encouraging him to represent California Democrats in asking Senator Feinstein to stand strong against immunity for telecom companies:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/standstrong

The New York Times isn’t the only media outlet taking notice of your activism in collaboration with the Courage Campaign. From the Los Angeles Daily News and Fox News to the Huffington Post and community blogs like Calitics and Daily Kos, your movement to hold the Senator accountable has fundamentally changed the conversation.

But we can’t be satisfied with just changing the conversation. We also need to change the direction of California and our country. That means standing up for core American values that keep our nation strong, starting with the Constitution itself.

Please encourage the Chairman and the Senator to stand up for our Constitution and stand strong against telecom immunity today.

Thank you for taking action to keep America free and safe.

Rick Jacobs

Chair

P.S. The Courage Campaign does more than just hold our elected representatives accountable. From working to block Blackwater’s plans to build a mercenary base on the California border to our “NoDirtyTricks.com” campaign to stop the Republicans from stealing the White House, we are fighting for you on multiple fronts.

To build a people-powered progressive California, we need to build progressive infrastructure today. Please join with us in common cause by making a contribution to the Courage Campaign, in whatever amount you can afford:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/contribute