I want to follow up on Robert’s post about SF Weekly and Matt Smith. First, look at the treatment of the story to the right. That is a lie. An outright lie. And should be retracted.
Like when Matt Smith says I’m a, “Political blogger turned Internet strategy consultant.” That is another lie, unless by “turned” he meant to say, “Bob Brigham has been working in politics for more than a decade and began specializing in online strategy prior to when he began blogging. Otherwise, it is just a lie. In a piece where he lectures people about ethics.
And here’s another lie:
The site’s pro-Leno editor and publisher Brian Leubitz was also hired to work on the campaign; both men received press credentials to “cover” the state Democratic convention.
No, we did not receive press credentials. We received “internet media” credentials. Another lie and this is only the fifth paragraph.
So now we can thank Leno’s Web team for making misleading political strategists who blog for pay another reason to hate the Internet…
Except people don’t hate the internet. People love the internet. And the misleading thing isn’t the fact I’m a strategist, it is this entire pile of garbage.
For political professionals, hiring bloggers seems to have become yet another aspect of the ever-evolving business of politics.
Or, Matt Smith could have said, for political professionals, having the ability to move message online is another aspect of the ever-evolving business of politics. Or Matt Smith could have pointed out that part of the “internet strategy” was Mark Leno’s social networking operation and his website and his email campaign. Or that part of the “internet strategy” was Mark Leno’s online fundraising:
The victor in that contest, Mark Leno, raised more than $227,000 from 600 donors, an ActBlue record for a state race.
It isn’t like he didn’t have all of this explained to him, using small words. Instead, he decided to slime Mark Leno, his campaign, and Brian and I personally. In the end, what Matt Smith doesn’t get is that bloggers aren’t journalists. And if this crap is any indication, neither is he. As for me, I am a political consultant. That’s what I do. Yes, I do specialize online and I made that transition following working on Mayor Newsom’s 2003 race — before I began blogging. And yes, I was proud to work for Mark Leno.
And finally, I think Jim Ross gives us too much credit when he says:
“What happens on these Weblogs affects which state donors get into the race, how opinion makers decide who to support and not to support,” Ross said. “I think a lot of the work the Leno campaign did that made it credible – that they could beat Carole Migden – that was done online.”
No, the reason Mark Leno was a credible candidate is because he is Mark Leno. He’s a great candidate who translated his longstanding involvement in the community online. It resonated with the netroots. Is it why he won and by 15 points? No. Did it help? Yes. That would have made a great story, but it would have required a writer who does not “hate” the internet, but understands it and politics. All kinds of people have written that story about Obama, but Matt Smith has no clue about online politics, only about projecting when it comes to who is posing as a journalist.
I’m down at San Francisco City Hall for a special meeting of the Rules Committee to consider putting the San Francisco Clean Energy Act on the Novermber 2008 ballot. The act would:
Establish San Francisco as a green leader in the movement from fossil fuels with a mandate for 100% clean, renewable energy by 2040
Make a smart investment in Green Collar workforce development
Tim Redmond goes more in-depth at the SFBG. Clearly, relying on PG&E guarantees that they will focusing on greenwashing instead of renewables, profits over safety, and we’ll continue to have their lack of investment in infrastructure result in explosions and flying manhole covers while their fossil fuel reliance contributes to climate change.
Last summer, the northwest passage opened up. This summer the North Pole may not even be covered in ice. The time for bold action is now, yet the Chamber of Commerce and PG&E are already trying to scare people with made-up numbers to protect their profits.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi gave a strong opening, citing this as following the best practices of other municipalities and the need to lead the on green power. When the intro ended, one of the PG&E political consultants left.
There are a number of speakers in favor. SF Tomorrow is supporting. ACORN is supporting. A. Phillip Randolph Institute has concerns, worried about taxpayers. A speaker is worried about taxes (despite the fact this helps the city budget while lowering rates). A speaker on how you can’t do worse than PG&E. Debra Walker supports and points out PUC has done a great job for 80 years. Another Randolph Institute doesn’t get this is how you close SF’s fossil fuel plants. Supervisor and Calitician Chris Daly clarifies Board position on Mirant.
Brandon Hernandez for PG&E claims it isn’t for sale, but then says now is not a good time and cites a $4 Billion price tag to open negotiations.
Supervisor Mirkarimi asks when would be a good time to take over. Hernandez doesn’t answer.
Mirkarimi asks why cities want to divorce themselves from PG&E. Hernandez says voters are informed.
Mirkarimi asks for a list of organizations PG&E funds. Hernandez says when he gets back to the office.
New speaker is 100% in favor asks for leadership.
Young Workers United discusses why this is important for youth.
John Rizzo supports. Another tax question.
Rob Black for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce says they have issues (shock).
D3 candidate Tony Gantner compares current situation to Iraq. He supports.
Bay Area Council opposes. Mirkarimi questions, speaker spins.
This is going to be an important election this fall. Gotta go speak.
San Diego pay attention! ATF raided Blackwater’s North Carolina mercenary base and seized 34 machine guns. The backstory is involves yet another example of Blackwater using third parties to get around regulations they don’t think they need to follow. In this case, they paid for 34 automatic weapons via having them registered to the Camden County Sheriff’s Department to skirt federal law. Interestingly, there are only 19 deputies to which Blackwater CEO Gary Jackson answered, “They are very well equipped.”
The weapons in question are 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters. I’ve been unable to find info on which model of Bushmasters are involved, only that they automatic. This should be of particular interest for Californians as Blackwater’s website notes their San Diego base offers a “Bushmasters Weapons Course” that is open to the public ($450 for two days, includes lunch). As for the AK-47’s which have zero law enforcement value, Blackwater justifies the purchase by claiming:
Jackson and Erik Prince, Blackwater’s owner, said Blackwater used the AK-47s in training to familiarize police officers or members of the military with a foreign weapon that they might come across while making an arrest or on a battlefield.
On the “battlefield” known as Camden County, the last decade has seen two murders and three robberies.
Even though Senator Dianne Feinstein never went to law school, somehow or other she managed to get a seat on the Judiciary Committee. The disasters of the Bush Administration in no small part were facilitated by her lack of understanding why Article I has primacy in the relationship to Article II. But let’s look at the Bill of Rights, numerically.
2nd Amendment: Today, she is screaming in bold font against the 2nd Amendment. Not surprising, as she once famously told 60 minutes following the Brady Bill vote, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it.”
3rd Amendment: To her credit, as far as I know she seems OK on the quartering of troops, but that may just be because it hasn’t come up. If it did come up, there would probably need to be thousands of calls to her office as she vacillated on the issue since it centers on privacy rights.
4th Amendment: Just yesterday, she caved on the part about, “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” And she’s been a cheerleader for the Patriot Act.
5th & 6th Amendments: Due process and right to a fair trial have not been her strong suit, either. On her support of the Graham-Levin Amendment, the ACLU writes, “by stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay of the ability to file habeas petitions and other claims in federal court, it unconstitutionally removed the system of checks and balances for persons seeking protection against the government’s use of torture and abuse and other denials of due process.”
7th Amendment: She doesn’t seem to have a problem with findings of fact to be decided by a jury.
8th Amendment: She totally shot to hell any credibility on “cruel and unusaul” during her disgraceful caving on Michael Mukasey
9th Amendment: If she refuses to support the rights that are specifically enumerated, not so much one to trust on all the rest. Which is how she ended up on the wrong side of history by attacking Mayor Gavin Newsom for supporting Marriage Equality.
10th Amendment: If she agrees with state’s rights, she supports them. If not, she doesn’t.
I’m sure I’m missing a number of additional references. Yet my question isn’t so much why it is so difficult to keep track of all her attacks on civil liberties, but why she is on the Judiciary Committee.
Boy, lameduck CDP Chair Art Torres sure looks like shit. All that smoke he blew up the asses of the E-Board about how DiFi listens to him and so she shouldn’t be censured — well it was all crap. He stuck his neck out to vouch for DiFi on an issue as simple as upholding her oath of office and by doing so made an ass of himself and made himself look irrelevant at the same time. Didn’t think it could get any worse than the scandal over the $4 million payola to Fabian Nunez, but Torres sure out did himself on this one.
Also not surprising, Senator Barbara Boxer fought to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies like Senator Dianne Feinstein. And fortunately for her, she’s putting together a strong re-election campaign that won’t rely upon the worthless CDP during the time we are recovering from the Torres dynasty.
Kos has an important post on 2010 marking a pivot for the grassroots and netroots from trying to take back the federal government from Republicans to reforming our Party and holding Democrats accountable.
If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don’t expect help from the local party establishment, they’ll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They’d love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women’s groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment … you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.
Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.
Indeed. The activists that meet campaigning this fall will form the core of next cycle’s primary efforts. Kos suggests looking at The Capitulation Caucus with emphasis on those who are also Blue Dogs. In California, that means:
Joe Baca, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, and Adam Schiff
Kos also praises Loretta Sanchez as one of only four Blue Dogs who didn’t cave on defending the Constitution from retroactive immunity. And remember, Ellen Tauscher was a member of the Blue Dogs until she saw the successful primarying of Joe Lieberman and occupies a district designed for a challenge from the left (and west).
The great statement by Senator Barbara Boxer on how those who vote for retroactive immunity, “are perpetuating a cover-up” is good news for everyone who defends the Constitution. While Sen. Boxer has yet to vow to join the Feingold/Dodd filibuster, the thinking by many seems to be that Boxer will fight hard for what she believes in so many activists I’ve talked to are excited by anticipated aggressive maneuvering by Boxer to stop retroactive immunity.
As for the other senator…there is a great deal of concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein will capitulate. While defending Senator Feinstein against the push to have her formally censured by the California Democratic Party, Chair Art Torres said:
I said I think it’s important that you hear this from me because there’s also concern about the telecom immunity issue which will come before the senate judiciary committee. Don’t believe me, ask my friend Senator Dodd, who will tell you that she led the effort along with him to make sure that that wasn’t in the FISA bill that emerged from the senate judiciary committee. That bill as you know does not include the telecom immunity issue, which was a very important issue for me, and I’m proud that she listened, because she does.
Does she? (202) 224-3841
If not, she is likely to again face a censure push by CDP activists seeking to hold her to account.
We are writing with great concern regarding reports the Democratic leadership has struck a deal which will further erode civil liberties by circumventing the original FISA laws, and we ask that you not only oppose this new FISA bill but that you filibuster its advancement in the Senate.
We are deeply disappointed in our Party and its leadership for capitulating to the Bush administration with this utterly unnecessary legislation–but you are our Senator, from the great and progressive state of California, and as your constituents we have a right to expect better leadership from you.
We wish to note that in an official statement regarding a previous FISA bill, you defended the telecom industry, stating they had no choice but to break the law–but in this you were incorrect: They did have a choice, proven by the fact Qwest chose to obey the Constitution rather than wiretap without proper FISA warrants. We would also remind you the telecoms’ illegal activity began well before the attacks of 9/11.
We need better answers and better representation from our senior Senator. It was with great pain that, last year, we moved several California Democratic Party caucuses to censure you for your approval of an Attorney General who condoned torture, and for your previous support for telecom immunity. We would prefer not to censure you again, but to instead applaud you for doing what is right and protecting our Constitution rather than protecting corporations and the Bush administration. We ask you to stand with the vast bulk of your constituents who side with the rule of law.
Thank you,
Yours,
Michael Jay, Delegate, California Democratic Party, 42nd Assembly District
Ricco Ross, California Democratic Party, 42nd Assembly District
Co-Chairs, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles
Linda Sutton, CDP Delegate, 41st AD, Vice Chair of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles
Last time, the push for censure united an amazing array of organizations in less than a week, including:
Endorsed by the Courage Campaign, MoveOn.org Political Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Women’s Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Irish-American Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Steering Committee of the East Bay for Democracy Democratic Club, Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, the Coordinating Committee of SoCal Grassroots, San Diego Democracy for America, the Steering Committee of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, Sacramento for Democracy, DFA-Orange County, Santa Cruz County for Democracy, Trinity County Democratic Central Committee, Diablo Valley Democratic Club, Ventura County Committee to Stop the War, Progressive Democrats Sonoma County, the Inyo County Democratic Central Committee, the Torrance Democratic Club, San Mateo County Democracy for America, Castro Valley Progressives, the Whittier Area Peace & Justice Coalition, Santa Barbara Impeach Cheney & Bush Meetup Group, Democracy for America – Marin (DFA-Marin), Valley Democrats United, the Executive Board of the West LA Democratic Club, Progressive Democrats – San Francisco, Greenwood Earth Alliance, Hammering the Issues, Westchester Democratic Club Executive Board, Young Democrats of UCI, the North (San Fernando) Valley Democratic Club, Lassen Progressives, Castro Valley Democratic Club Executive Board, Progressive Democrats of Marin, Progressive Democrats of America – Metro San Diego Chapter, Sonoma County Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats of America Orange County, and Progressive Democrats of America Ventura County.
And Rick Jacobs made the teevee (I do so work for Courage Campaign):
As the focus intensifies over this bill, here are some of the emails I’ve received as of late.
The House passed a version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) last week that included retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that conspired in Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. And now, as the bill heads to the Senate, it looks like we have one last chance to stop this massive erosion of the rule of law.
Thankfully, we have a few champions, like Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, who look poised to fight this to the very end, but they can’t do it alone. They need both strong support from progressive senators and the vote of those senators currently sitting on the fence. This is where you come in.
Sen. Feinstein could be the deciding voice and vote on stopping retroactive immunity. Please take a minute right now to give her a call and ask her to strip the retroactive immunity provision of FISA.
Senator Feingold effectively summed up the insanity of retroactive immunity yesterday by saying, “It doesn’t simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law. It may prevent us from ever getting to the core issue…which is the president ran an illegal program that could’ve been an impeachable offense.”
I hope that you’ll join me and do what you can to help prevent this from happening.
Over the last 8 months, you and I have stopped Congress from granting retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who illegally spied on Americans for the Bush administration — at least three times.
On Friday, Democratic Leadership in the House of Representatives decided to stand with President Bush instead of with America. They voted for a so-called “compromise” to let AT&T, Verizon and the entire Bush administration off the hook for lying to America and illegally tapping our phone calls.
If this bill passes the Senate, then Americans will never be able to hold President Bush accountable for warrantless wiretapping.
We need to take action to stop this horrible bill. Last time immunity came up for a Senate vote, Senators Dodd, Feingold and Obama each said they would filibuster to stop it from passing. They will need 60 votes to keep a filibuster going and stop the Senate from caving to pressure to support this fake “compromise”.
Call your Senators right now and demand they support a filibuster of any Senate bill that will ultimately grant retroactive immunity to telecoms who spied on innocent Americans.
Barbara Boxer
(202) 224-3553
Dianne Feinstein
(202) 224-3841
Suggested Text:
“I calling to demand Senator (Boxer or Feinstein) support a filibuster of any bill that will ultimately grant immunity to telecommunications companies who spied on innocent Americans. Can I count on the Senator to stand up to President Bush and his fear mongering?”
Let’s call a spade a spade. This bill is a complete capitulation to Bush and the telecom lobby. We need all the support we can get in this fight to uphold the constitution.
The vote is scheduled to happen this week. We need to act today. Please make your call right now.
No Immunity for Telecoms that Illegally Spy on US!
Last Friday, the House of Representatives granted de facto amnesty to the phone companies who cooperated with the Bush administration’s illegal spying on American citizens. Our final opportunity to prevent this from becoming law lies with the Senate. We must stop the Senate from making the same terrible decision, a decision that chips away at one of our most fundamental and progressive values-the right to privacy.
Please call your senators right now and tell them to vote against any bill that lets the Bush administration and these telecom companies off the hook for shredding the constitution.
We cannot let the Senate give the phone companies and the Bush administration a free ride for past and future violations of our basic civil liberties. If we join together and ask our Senators to stop this bill by supporting a filibuster and voting NO against a bill that gives the phone companies amnesty, we can protect our privacy rights from this assault by conservative forces in Congress.
Call Your Senators Today.
The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121 (see below for a list of direct numbers). Tell them your state and ask them to connect you to your senator. Be sure to speak with both senators from your state. When you complete your calls, let us know what happened using this report form.
In addition to giving phone companies a free pass, this bill fails to restore adequate judicial review for future surveillance, which will continue to put our privacy rights at risk. Protecting our privacy rights is a core progressive value. Don’t let them slip away. Take action by calling your senator today. And don’t forget to report back to us.
Thanks,
Alan and the CAPAF advocacy team
P.S. We are excited to tell you that we will soon be launching our new advocacy website, IAmProgress.org. IAmProgress.org will be the home to all future CAPAF advocacy campaigns. So look out for the announcement and help us make IAmProgress.org a success.
Direct Phone Numbers to Senators (Listed by State)
[…]
California
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) (202) 224-3553; (202)228-2382
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) (202) 224-3841; 228-3954
On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1
This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the “deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.”2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, “It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.”3
Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”4 We need him to honor that promise.
Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you’re counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.
Obama’s presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008
Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:
These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving “immunity” to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it’s done, it can’t be undone. That’s why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.
Supporters of the House bill say it doesn’t guarantee immunity-it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that’s deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:
“It gives [Bush’s] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn’t spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a ‘permission slip’ from the president is not court review.”5
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group working with the ACLU to hold these companies accountable, adds, “whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called ‘compromise’ on immunity for phone companies that broke the law is anything but a compromise…no matter how they spin it, this is still immunity, period.”6
President Bush and the phone companies know that the facts are against them. A judge appointed by President Bush’s father already wrote one opinion finding that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”7
But we’ll never know how far their illegal actions went unless we fight back now. Can you tell Barack Obama you’re counting on him to keep his word and block any compromise that gives immunity to lawbreaking phone companies?
Obama’s presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008
Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:
Despite the outrage coming from a broad coalition of concerned citizens, by tomorrow night the House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to gut the Constitution and give immunity to phone companies who broke the law and spied on Americans.
We have to act now. Even if you’ve emailed, called or visited your members of Congress about FISA, we need you to contact them again today.
Congress is moving so fast and so secretively that we only got a copy of this bill this morning. I can tell you it’s horrible. It contains vacuum cleaner style surveillance that sweeps up the phone calls and emails of Americans. And it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that this is legislation that benefits a few of our country’s largest corporations while taking away basic rights from the rest of us. And it is unacceptable.
I’m going to spend the rest of the day on the phone calling Capitol Hill trying to stop this bill. I hope you will spend whatever time you can to make the voice of freedom heard in Congress — make calls, ask your friends and family to call — please do whatever you can.
Put Congress on notice that the American people don’t want a “compromise” that sells out our rights. Act now. We’re hearing the vote is tomorrow, so we could have less than 24 hours.
Believe me, no matter what happens, the ACLU will continue fighting this — if necessary, in the courts.
Thank you for all you have done through this fight. Your dedication has truly inspired me and all of us at the ACLU. Now, let’s hit the phones!
The following California Democrats caved on retroactive immunity and disregarded their oath to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic”:
Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Pelosi, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Ellen Tauscher
Pete Stark did not vote. This is the list of those who are potential targets of the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity which as of now has raised $310,673 to, “fund accountability for congressmembers supporting retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps.” This money isn’t going to send thank you cards to the members who did defend the constitution, this is primary money and cold cash to dump Steny Hoyer from leadership (Rahm Emanuel also capitulated).
As the battle moves to the Senate, all eyes are on Barack Obama nationally and Dianne Feinstein locally [(202) 224-3841].
As for 2010 primaries, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Carole Migden’s 3rd place finish showed that entrenched politics matters less in a modern media environment. Ellen Tauscher is again practically begging to be primaried and in that district she’s walking on thin ice. Joe Baca deserves particular scorn as the only Californian to sign the Blue Dog letter to Pelosi pushing capitulation (and a primary of Baca could probably receive significant institutional support from former members of the Hispanic Caucus). McNerney has outdone himself in contracting a full-blown case of Potomic Fever during his first term, every time he makes a move I think about asking for a refund. And Harman and Berman voting to cover-up warrantless wiretapping isn’t going to do much to quell the rumors that they are pushing this because they are worried about their own culpability on the issue.
If you live in one of this districts, please call your member and ask them why. Comments and diaries with responses are highly encouraged.
In his latest look at California’s 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial primary, Steve Maviglio writes about Dianne Feinstein:
Why she’s not being touted as a possible Veep choice I don’t know; she’d be the perfect fit.
Don’t worry SacGuy, she’s touting herself, but if her husband’s sketchy financial dealings were enough to sink her as the VP nominee in 1984, all the war profiting from a war DiFi supported means this will never happen. Plus there’s the whole problem with all of her support for Bush, specifically on the Judiciary Committee. And with news that the losers in our Party are trying to cave to the President on retroactive immunity, DiFi should be worried about another push to censure the senator. And there is the whole problem with her not just being a liability, but bringing nothing to the ticket. In short, this would be a perfect fit just like the $4 million refund from the CDP to Fabian Nunez was a perfect move (Maviglio cites, “several million dollars in his campaign account” as why the “Speaker Emeritus” may be a contender for governor).
However, the Vice Presidential pick could usher in a new era for the Democratic Party geographically. In fact, look at the states Obama wants to put in play:
Plouffe also has been touting Obama’s appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.
The problem is, the public short lists of potential nominees don’t include anyone from a state western state with mountains other than Patty Murray.
When it comes to a true perfect fit, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer belongs at the top of the list. Hands down. The Schweitzer takeover of Montana in 2004 is known as the “Montana Miracle” and set the stage to take down Conrad Burns in 2006 — giving control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats. Some potential choices put a state in play, Schweitzer puts the entire Mountain Time Zone (and Alaska) in play. OK, maybe not Utah but he would give McCain a run for his money in Idaho and Wyoming. The same reasons Schweitzer is best choice for the Denver Convention keynote speech are the reasons why he would be a perfect fit. Of course, along with Al Gore he is the only person in the Democratic Party for who VP would be a step down.
Another good fit from the Mountain Time Zone (not right now, but again by election day) is Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. Sure she won as a clean money candidate, has a long and distinguished history, and “gets it” when it comes to winning in the inter-mountain west. But the best thing about choosing her is the message it would send when it comes to the 50 State Strategy. Putting Napolitano on the ticket puts John McCain on notice that we’re going to go after him in his home state. By extension, this puts every Republican on notice that we are going to go after them, also.
Today, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon will once again make history by having the state recognize their more than half a century of commitment…this time for keeps! It is going to be an exciting day and I can’t wait to feel the energy of equality, and progress, and Love that engulfed the City four years ago when then new Mayor Gavin Newsom made one of the coolest moves I have ever seen in politics.
This isn’t a battle we wanted to wage, the quest for equality is an obligation, it is a necessity — not a choice. Yet how we arrived at today offers progressives our first major Overton Window victory in the new millennium.
When I first entered politics in 1996, the idea of equality for the LGBT community was almost universally considered unthinkable. I tried to take a long view of history approach and hoped it was something I might see in my lifetime, but a part of me figured that would be more a factor of advances in medicine than societal progress. That summer my small, hometown in Montana hosted our state’s first major Gay Pride Parade, a single act that moved the needle so far that it gave me an entirely new outlook and faith in my neighbors.
KKK fliers began targeting local business, I remember specifically the used books store that sold jazz LPs, because teh gays are literate and listen to music or something. And the community responded and rallied against the hate. I was a security volunteer and in the training noticed that almost every person learning how to deal with what we feared would be an inevitable confrontation were hetersexual, good people choosing to spend their time to let the LGBT community try to enjoy their day. In the end, there was no violence and our town took a giant step forward. Equality was no longer unthinkable, just radical.
In the next few years, the idea of domestic partnerships went from unthinkable to acceptable. And when Newsom made his bold move, it advanced to be considered sensible and even popular policy in California. Now, even Marriage Equality is considered acceptable in the state and this fall’s hate amendment and the fact the world won’t end today may prove it sensible this year and soon popular.
That process, from unthinkable to sensible in a decade holds powerful lessons for progressives in areas beyond civil rights. We’ve already seen it with Iraq, we have only the final stage of policy to achieve on that front. We are seeing progress in the area of health care, also.
This holds important lessons for Democrats. Despite DLC fears, the Democrats who put Marriage Equality on Schwarzenegger’s desk in 2005 weren’t thrown out of office and the votes for justice actually increased when the bill was again passed in 2007. Iraq is even a better example, cowering to the conservatives on Iraq was a disaster politically in 2002 and 2004, yet when Democrats stood up and fought in 2006 we captured both houses in a landslide year.
So enjoy today, and tomorrow, think about the what needs to be done, but is considered unthinkable.
I want to follow up on Robert’s post about SF Weekly and Matt Smith. First, look at the treatment of the story to the right. That is a lie. An outright lie. And should be retracted.