Harry and Louise

It strikes me as much easier to scare people about government-run health care than it is to muster the leadership to get universal health care (or, in the current iteration of Democratic proposals, universal access to affordable health care coverage) passed. As no one is actually proposing universal health care, I think the explanatory barrier to overcome fear mongering from any side is actually higher now than it would be with a simple Medicare-for-All proposal. Fear mongering is going to be more effective when the plans being proposed are complex and complicated.

Questions about MoveOn’s Endorsement of Obama

Yesterday’s MoveOn member poll showed Barack Obama winning decisively over Hillary Clinton, 70% to 29%. Matt Stoller has the news at Open Left. MoveOn had set the threshold for endorsement at 66% and Obama comfortably got enough votes to meet that standard.

But there are a number of questions that I would be curious to see answered.

MoveOn cites the votes totals as Vote results:

Obama: 197,444 (70.4%)
Clinton: 83,084 (29.6%)

That’s a total of 280,528 votes cast in 24 hours, a very impressive number. But MoveOn has 3.2 million members. Only 8.7% of them participated in the poll. Only 6.17% of MoveOn members voted for Obama, yet he will receive their endorsement and support.

Now, comparing vote totals to total membership is not exactly a fair comparison to adjudicate the merits of the endorsement. But it’s the information I have at hand.

What would be more helpful to know in evaluating these numbers is this:

  1. How many people opened the email?
  2. How many people went to the voting landing page linked in the email and decided not to vote?
  3. How many people previously participated in MoveOn’s Virtual Town Halls on Iraq and the environment?

Knowing the answers to these questions would give us a better sense of how MoveOn members thought about the vote between Clinton and Obama. I don’t expect to find out #1 and #2, as most organizations keep that information secret. I asked for the answer to from #3 by Ilyse Hoque of MoveOn, here’s what she provided me with:

Iraq Town Hall: 42,896 votes cast

Climate Town Hall: 95,284 votes cast

She also provided me with the individual candidate breakdowns for both votes, but I don’t think those numbers are relevant to the question at hand. It’s the totals that concern me.

MoveOn saw a 294% increase in participation in the straw poll from the larger virtual town hall to the endorsement vote. That huge increase makes me think that concerns about participation in proportion to list size for the endorsement vote are not valid. They clearly had a major portion of the active members of their list participate and the result was clearly decisive.

I’ll be curious to see how MoveOn members work to help the endorsement have an impact beyond a press release. Will Obama be able to count on nearly 200,000 MoveOn members to man the phones for him in the coming days and weeks? Will MoveOn ask their members to donate to Obama’s campaign? Will Obama’s campaign try to do an acquisition email to MoveOn’s members who voted for him? I’ll be looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Jim Himes Beats Chris Shays in Money Game

This is huge news. Jim Himes is a progressive Democratic challenger to long-time Republican incumbent Chris Shays in my home district, the CT 4th. Shays has been one of Bush’s biggest cheerleaders, from the Iraq war to taking the side of Blackwater contractors.

It’s now clear that not only has Himes outraised Shays, they have more cash on hand than him.

Congrats to the Himes team, which is populated by a number of Lamont veterans.

Check out Himes at his campaign website.

Facebook Causes Giving Challenge Post Mortem

The Challenge is over and Students for a Free Tibet came up just short. 4,522 individuals donated to SFT at least once over the course of 50 days. Remarkably, over 2,500 of those donations came in the final 24 hours. Even more remarkably, SFT received between 500-600 donations in the final hour, a number that would have put them somewhere between 7th and 12th place for the entire competition, had they received no other donations.

All told, SFT raised $93,944 over 50 days through small dollar, grassroots supporters around the world. At least a third of that money came in the closing 24 hours and they are still to receive a $25,000 donation from the Case Foundation for coming in second place for the competition. That total – $118,944 – is over 25% of the money SFT raised in their last fiscal year.

The whole process was a phenomenal success for SFT and the Tibet movement on whole. They proved that they are just about the most savvy online organizing group on Facebook, turning a student network into a major fund raising source in a matter of days and keeping pace with an organization that is at least four times larger. Kudos to all the SFT staff, Board, volunteers and supporters who turned this into one of the most – if not the most – successful and memorable giving campaigns in the organization’s history.

Thanks to all my friends, family, and readers who took the time to donate as well.

Huge Facebook Causes Growth for SFT

final hour

This is incredible. In the last 23 hours, Students for a Free Tibet has had at least a 100% increase in their total number of donors in the Facebook Causes Giving Challenge. It took 49 days to find the first 1,943 donors. The next 2,082 were found in just over twenty-three hours. This is remarkable, viral, grassroots work being done online.

If you haven’t given yet, please take a moment to donate $10 to help SFT win $50,000. The contest closes at 3 PM Eastern and there’s $50,000 at stake. I’ll tell you right now, this will go down to the final minute. Your donation could make all the difference.

Donate to SFT through Facebook Causes: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/view_cause/47691 

Thanks,

Matt

Big Media Jessica

Another day, another friend in the New York Times. Today the Times profiles Jessica Valenti, author and blogger at Feministing. The article is in the context of how feminists are dealing with presidential politics, but it’s a great tribute to the impact Jessica has had in contemporary feminism that her work and her efforts at Feministing are a key example of how feminists are responding to this year’s campaign. To make things even better, the Times article actually does a good job of showing how hard Jessica works as a blogger and how thoughtful and important the commentary written by her and other authors at Feministing is to contemporary debate.

Tempering Enthusiasm on the FISA Amendments Agreement

I’m waiting for a response from Dodd’s Senate office about whether or not he could or would filibuster final passage of the SSCI bill, if it were to contain retroactive immunity. Contrary to what has been reported, getting a vote on the Dodd/Feingold amendment has never been a substitute for a filibuster. As a germane amendment to the underlying bill, Dodd/Feingold always deserved a straight majority vote. Going back to December, the expectation had been that Dodd filibuster after his amendment to strip retroactive immunity failed.

Also, I think this piece by Paul Kiel gets what this agreement means wrong. Agreeing to unanimous consent on which amendments get votes does not necessarily constitute agreeing not to filibuster. I don’t know how setting time limits for debate on certain amendments impacts whether a filibuster is possible or when in the process it would be able to take place.
It’s not that the GOP caved (to some extent they did) and the Dems didn’t. Caving just isn’t the right term for the process from an outcome standpoint. This particular round of negotiations is just that – a round of negotiations on process. The process is rigged because the SSCI remains the underlying bill. This has not changed and getting a raft of amendments to improve the bill is no real achievement. All the good amendments would have to pass to make the SSCI bill look like the SJC bill or the House RESTORE bill. And all of the amendments are not going to pass, so we’re still likely going to be stuck with retroactive immunity and expansive government surveillance powers in legislation coming from a Democratic-controlled Senate.

This slate of amendments is going to serve as a fig leaf to cover the Democratic caucus in the event that a still-bad SSCI bill is passed with some Democratic support. Democrats offered amendments, the amendments got votes, the votes failed. But in the end, it has to come back to the underlying bill.

Glenn Greenwald and Christy Hardin Smith have pointed this out already and I’m sure Tim Tagaris is thinking the same thing.

That said, we will have a very clear target on retroactive immunity: the Dodd/Feingold amendment getting 51 votes. The surest way to make a filibuster unnecessary would be to win on this amendment. Take action now through CREDO Action’s email tool!
Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.

FISA Debate Moves Forward

Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate has reached an agreement about a slate of amendments to considered for the SSCI bill, as well as the voting requirements for each amendment and time allocated to debate. Here’s a run down of Democratic amendments that will be considered, via Senator Reid’s office.

Here’s the list of amendments that will require a simple majority (51 votes) to pass:

  • Dodd-Feingold: Striking retroactive immunity
  • Feingold: Sequestration – prohibiting the use of illegally obtained information
  • Feingold: Limit bulk collection
  • Feingold: Prohibit Reverse targeting of US citizens
  • Specter-Whitehouse: Substitution of the government as the defendant in telecom cases

These amendments would require a supermajority (60 votes) to pass:

  • Whitehouse: Minimization, a key in oversight of intelligence activities
  • Cardin: Sunset provision on the legislation at four instead of six years
  • Feinstein: Exclusivity of FISA – reiterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance (This is the good Feinstein amendment)
  • Feinstein-Nelson: The “good faith” amendment to move civil cases against telecoms to the secret intelligence courts (This is the bad Feinstein amendment)

Cboldt has a detailed summary of the timing breakdown and the unanimous consent agreement. Booman Tribune has more details on what each of the Democratic amendments listed above will do.

The Republicans will also have a number of their amendments included for consideration. One key amendment from Senator Bond would actually make it easier for the government to conduct warrantless surveillance if WMDs are involved; this will only require 50 votes to pass.

There is good news and bad news. The good news is that key amendments by Democrats will be able to receive votes and, if the full slate of these amendments pass, the bad SSCI bill will start looking more like the good SJC bill. The bad news is that most of the vote requirements have been set outside the number they will likely be able to achieve. It is unlikely that there will be 51 votes to stop retroactive immunity (probably in the 40s at most), so even when the Dodd/Feingold amendment gets “fair” treatment, it isn’t likely to cause Bush and Cheney to break a sweat. The rest of the Democratic amendments to improve this legislation are unlikely to all pass, so it is quite possible that this is all going to serve as nothing more than window dressing on a bad bill.

Debate on the amendments is expected to begin on Monday, with voting potentially starting as early as Monday night. The whole process of debating and voting on these amendments would probably take two to three days in whole.

Christy Hardin Smith makes a good point before calling her readers to action:

It is worth saying, again, that a lot of this could have been avoided had Majority Leader Harry Reid opted to use his power under Rule 14 to use the SJC bill as the base bill — or the House-passed RESTORE Act, which includes the good amendment provisions already.

We’re in a situation now where there will be a tremendous amount of work to get things to come out in a decent place. Senator Reid failed to set the table for victory. We’re where we are now because so many people have stood up and joined the work of Senators Dodd and Feingold to stop retroactive immunity. Sure, today things could be worse and the Intel bill could have already been passed without improvement. But there was always a better way to do this.

Nonetheless, we now know that we have an opportunity to vastly improve the legislation before the Senate. Email your Senators through the CREDO Action tool. Here’s a list of key senators that need to receive calls telling them that we expect them to vote against retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. Make sure that the Senate continues to hear from us as we approach these critical votes.

Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.