(note: I work for Courage)

The Courage Campaign today became the first organization to push out the Responsible Plan to its members.  We sent out an email to our list this morning (see it on the flip) encouraging our members to endorse the Responsible Plan and almost as importantly, talk to candidates they know about endorsing the plan.

Over 50 candidates, including Debbie Cook, Ron Shepston, Cheryl Ede, Bill Hedrick and Mary Pallant here in California have endorsed the Responsible Plan.  It is key that we get your help to continue to build momentum for the plan.  That means getting as many people and candidates to endorse, so sign it and pass the link on to your friends.

This is about changing the conversation about the war.  When people ask what we are going to do about the war, this is our plan.  It is our roadmap to both ending the war and taking care of our veterans.  Rather than using the Republican frame on the war, focused mostly on the tactical, i.e. the surge as a strategy, we need to take control of the narrative.  Promoting the Responsible Plan is one way to do that.  

Framing the debate is only one site of the equation.  The movement behind the Responsible Plan also about electing Democrats who will run strongly on the war and end it when they take office.  We need more and better Democrats.

Dear Julia,

The war in Iraq will never end.

That’s right. This occupation will never end unless we change the conversation and change Washington.

Fortunately, there’s an unprecedented new movement of courageous congressional candidates, military veterans, bloggers, and activists teaming up on a plan to responsibly withdraw our troops from Iraq. Together, this unique alliance is pushing back on John “100 years” McCain and his fellow head-in-the-sand politicians and pundits.

And now, we’re bringing this movement for change to California.

It’s called the “Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq” — a comprehensive strategy endorsed by 50 congressional candidates, two generals, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and netroots activists across the progressive blogosphere (led by our friends at Open Left). And, as the plan gains momentum, it is provoking a predictable reaction from the right-wing, pro-war crowd and their sympathetic stenographers in the traditional media.

You can see it for yourself. In a less-than-shocking example of beltway blindness on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Cokie Roberts dismissively rolled her eyes at the “Responsible Plan,” proudly quoting John McCain’s tired talking points.

How do we change the national conversation today? By showing Cokie Roberts and her friends in the media that the American public is fed up with Washington’s failure to end the war. You can start now by signing on to the “Responsible Plan” after you watch Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation magazine, courageously challenge Roberts and her mimicry of McCain on ABC:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ResponsiblePlan

What is the “Responsible Plan”?

Arianna Huffington, in a piece for the Huffington Post, does an excellent job summarizing how it got started, what it says, and what it will mean come 2009:

“(The plan was initiated by) Darcy Burner, a Democratic challenger who is running for Congress in Washington state. Working with national security experts and retired military generals such as Major Gen. Paul Eaton, the officer in charge of training the Iraqi military immediately after the invasion in 2003 and 2004, (Burner) developed “A Responsible Plan to End the War,” a comprehensive approach to Iraq based on legislation already introduced in Congress.

The (plan) doesn’t just lay out how to end the war — it also addresses the institutional failures that led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This includes rebuilding the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, banning the use of armed military contractors like Blackwater, banning torture, promoting government transparency, and restoring accountability through the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution.”

… The idea is to band together a group of challengers running on a shared platform who, if elected, will be able to head into Congress armed with a mandate, supported by allies, and wielding a specific legislative agenda designed to end the war. Call it ‘A Contract to Restore America.'”

From the grassroots to Congress, the “Responsible Plan” is a people-powered campaign to flip the script on the right-wing cabal that started this disastrous war and continues to defend it. As you might expect, neo-conservative extremists are already waging attacks on the “Responsible Plan,” including one pro-war organization — founded by former Bush Administration officials — that called the strategy “surrender.”

The “Responsible Plan” has already been endorsed by 50 congressional candidates in just a few weeks, including five from California (click here to see who they are).

But that’s not enough. To stop the right-wing noise machine now, we need you to show your support and speak out. Please sign on, post a comment, and tell your friends — and your favorite congressional candidate — that they should support this responsible plan to end the war in Iraq:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ResponsiblePlan

Ending the war in Iraq does not mean just electing more Democrats. It also means electing better Democrats. The kind of Democrats who won’t cave in to the ridiculous rhetoric of neo-con extremists, Cokie Roberts, and the other shameless power-brokers and pundits populating our nation’s capital.

We have to keep up the pressure on our elected representatives as well as strongly encourage this year’s slate of congressional candidates to get behind the “Responsible Plan” now. Many of you have personal relationships with congressional candidates — both incumbents and challengers — across California. Can you reach out to them and ask them to take responsibility by endorsing the “Responsible Plan” now?

We know that we can end this war in Iraq — and prevent another war with Iran — if we build this movement together. But it’s going to take each and every one of you and your friends to make it possible.

Thank you for taking action today and making 2008 a new era for progressive politics in California. And the world.

Rick Jacobs

Chair

P.S. A few weeks ago, you helped us air “Yacht Party” TV ads about California Republicans refusing to close a multi-million dollar “yacht tax” loophole, despite facing a grim $16 billion budget deficit. Meanwhile, the federal government is diverting funds that would support housing and education in order to pay for endless war in Iraq.

Our elected leaders have their priorities out of whack. This has got to stop. You can take matters into your own hands today by signing on, speaking out, and telling your friends:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ResponsiblePlan

Rep. Jackie Speier’s congressional career began with some real fireworks.  Her first speech on the war made the Republicans throw a hissy fit and several of them walked off the floor.  Just a fantastic start.  When we talk about electing more and better Democrats, this is what it looks like.  Chron:

Newly elected Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of Hillsborough was sworn into Congress this morning and delivered a fiery speech criticizing President Bush’s Iraq policy that led some Republicans to boo and walk out of the House chamber.

Speier, who won a special election Tuesday to fill the seat of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, was always an outspoken lawmaker in her years as a San Mateo County supervisor, state Assemblywoman and state Senator. She served notice Thursday that she plans be just as aggressive as a member of the House.

“The process to bring the troops home must begin immediately,” Speier told fellow lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. “The president wants to stay the course and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one.”

While Democrats applauded, Republicans began a chorus of low boos. Some Republicans who had congratulated her just moments before, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), walked out of the hall in protest.

Of course Issa was one of the ones to throw a fit and walk off when she started saying something he didn’t agree with.  That is the congressional equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and sticking out his tongue.

Thank you Rep. Speier.  Just phenomenal work.  Keep it up.

We want more of this!  Maybe you can light a fire under the asses of a few of your new colleagues.

CapWeekly broke the news that the California Labor Federation passed a resolution demanding that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez give back the $4 millions the CDP transfered to his account back in November 2006.  Those funds have been the source of my derision by myself and other front pagers here at Calitics.  It was a symbol of what was wrong with the current political structure in the Democratic party, giving large chunks of money to one politician, rather than investing in campaigns and or building up the party infrastructure itself.  The Speaker currently has $5.1 million in his personal campaign account.  

The question is now, what will Nunez do with all of that cash?  The Labor Fed is concerned that it will be used to Nunez’s own benefit, perhaps a future political race, rather than benefiting the Assembly Democratic Caucus, which was the stated goal when the CDP transfered the funds in the first place.

“When the speaker asked for the money, it was for one purpose — to help elect Assembly Democratic candidates. It was not for a slush fund for the speaker. If he does the moral thing, he will return the money,” said Robert Balgenorth, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and a member of the Federation’s executive committee.

But haggling over the details of the resolution continued Tuesday. A Nunez spokesman said the language of the resolution directed the speaker to spend the money on behalf of Democratic candidates, and not necessarily return the funds to the party.  But sources at the labor convention said Nunez, subect to campaign restrictions, could not spend the $4 milion as originally promised because of the $3,600 limit per candidate.

This is something that Nunez should have known at the time, same goes for the CDP.  However, these campaign finance restrictions should not have prevented him from making independent expenditures.  That did not happen and the Speaker has only spent $1.4 million out of his account since 2005.  He has been hoarding it, but for for what.

Joe Matthews, formerly of the LAT, now at the New America Foundation has a post defending Nunez.  Matthews’ defense is fatally flawed.  The reasons he lists for Nunez retaining the cash are no longer an issue and in one way or another have been resolved. (check the flip)

Matthews argues that Nunez needs the cash on hand to govern, but forgets one inconvenient fact: Nunez is about to give up both his seat and his Speakership.

Labor is really angry at Nunez because they don’t like the way he’s governed recently — particularly in two policy areas. But the story of those policy areas shows precisely why he needs the cash.

1. Health care. Most of California labor opposed Nunez’s compromise on health care legislation with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The legislation passed the Assembly but died in Senate committee. But if it had survived, the financing provisions could not have passed the legislature, which requires 2/3 for tax increases, because of the opposition of Republicans. So Nunez would have had to sponsor and campaign for a ballot initiative to establish the financing. That would have required campaign cash.

2. Indian gaming. Nunez supported new compacts for Indian tribes that labor unsuccessfully opposed — via four referenda on the February ballot — because the agreements didn’t include promised protections for union organizing. The Indian tribes took care of supporting Nunez’s position in that case, but it shows again how a speaker needs campaign money to support his governmental decisions. And this year, even the budget may be on the ballot. With Schwarzenegger seeking budget and redistricting reform that will require voter approval as part of his budget push, it’s quite possible that the state budget will be negotiated as part of a legislative package that includes ballot measures that will go to voters in November. Nunez will need campaign money not only for Democratic Assembly candidates but also to defend whatever budget lawmakers negotiate.

The health care proposal is dead and gone.  Nobody is going to run a ballot campaign this year to raise funds and put a new system into place, not when we have a huge budget deficit, teachers are being laid off, and people can’t go to the beach because there aren’t enough lifeguards to keep them safe.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Californians already vote on the new gaming compacts?  The casinos are already installing their new machines.  This is no longer an issue for Nunez, other than labor has a long memory and they are still smarting from his part in the compacts’ passage.

So what is the Speaker going to spend the cash on?  This is an election year and every legislator in a competitive race should get the maximum he can transfer, same goes for all of the Democratic primary victors in the districts currently held by Republicans.  Then there are always the 2/3rds rules, for both budget passage and tax increases.  That would necessitate large amounts of cash for an initiative battle.  What about going after the corporate half of Prop. 13?  That would bring in some serious revenue.

You get my point.  There are plenty of ways that the Speaker can spend the $5 million sitting in his account.  It was never the CDP’s stated intention to give the Speaker cash to run for another office.  The money should go to bolstering Democratic party interests at large.

The Clinton campaign money troubles are pretty well known.  They have been delaying payment to increase their cash on hand and ability to pay for campaign activities rather than pay off their debts.  The media, particularly Politico, which brought me to this hilarious article by the local Sacto CBS station.

Bill Clinton may have charmed the crowd at UC Davis in January, when 7500 people showed up to see him, but charm has not covered the Clinton campaign bill.

The University of California in Davis is ready to take the Clinton presidential campaign to a collection agency if they do not pay back the thousands of dollars they are still owed.

The campaign owes UC Davis $6,350.  The Marching Band cost $500, cleanup $250 and $5,600 for the services of the UC Davis police.

“I’m more than willing to be held accountable for it, because that’s the way life is,” Hillary Clinton said to a Montana crowd on Monday. There is no word whether she’ll apply that philosophy here, or if she even knows about the outstanding debt.

CBS 13 tried to get a quote from the Clinton campaign, but no dice.

UC Davis is planning to put its final bill out this week, and if the debt has not been settled within a month, they are going to turn the matter over to a collection agency.

Something tells me that going to the press will speed up the payment.

When you show up to the district level caucuses this weekend, you may be in for a surprise.  Under the rules listed in the Delegate Selection Plan (pdf) the campaigns must file with the CDP chair by today at 5 pm a list of candidates for delegate that number at least three times the number of slots that they approve.  This is Rule 12. E(1) Reg 4.23.

There are 241 district level slots (121 females, 120 males) and there are over 2,350 candidates running.  Assuming that both campaigns take the time to go through the names and pick out only three per slot that means that there will only be 723 viable candidates this weekend.  The deadline to submit the approved names just passed, so we should know the deal some time soon.

This is all part of the process and it makes total sense for the campaigns to spend the time going through the names and double checking that they have strong candidates for their delegate slots.  While it seems unlikely that we will head to the convention not having a single candidates, the campaigns need to work hard now just in case.

Are you a delegate candidate that has been contacted by the campaign?  Any CDP staffers who want to weigh in here?  Don’t forget to go to the CDP website and see where your caucus is located this weekend.  I know they have been firming up locations.

[UPDATE] I have transcribed the relevant rule.

Each presidential candidate, or that candidate’s authorized representative(s), must then file with the California Democratic Party Chair by Monday, April 7, 2008, at 5 pm, a list of such candidates he or she has approved, provided that approval be given to at least three (3) times the number of candidates for delegate men and three (3) times the number of candidates for delegate women, and three (3) times the number of candidates for alternate men and three (3) times the number of alternate women to which the presidential candidate is entitled.

I read this to mean that candidates are required to hand in lists, but they could be all of the candidates who have filled out their forms.  They have a minimum, but not a maximum that they must submit to the CDP.