Category: Democrats

Stop Fighting

D-Day makes a plea for his parents the blogosphere to stop fighting. The use of strike through text aside, I think he’s raising a valid concern here:

The tactics are eerily reminiscent of our friends on the right, and how they use character assassination to discredit our candidates. I don’t understand the circular firing squad here. The candidates are generally as decent as a couple of cautious, centrist politicians can be. They were pushed to the left by John Edwards, and garnered massive followings that can be mobilized to hold them accountable. Either way it’ll be up to us in the end to facilitate that mobilization. Do we really want half the ‘sphere to react to some capitulation by the next President with a bunch of I-told-you-so’s? To say nothing of the possible nightmare scenario of a brokered convention and superdelegates picking the nominee.

I don’t know if there’s a way to stop this; the snowball is rapidly moving downhill. But there ought to be something. The primary itself is not negative; online it’s a sewer, however. And the movement isn’t old and robust enough to already be cracking at the seams.

I’m no fan of pie fights, but I would say that for the most part my impression is that they aren’t taking place in the way  that D-Day fears in a systemic way by bloggers. Rather, they seem to be more perpetrated (or perpetuated?) by diarists and commenters. While D-Day picks out a number of instances where respected bloggers delve into the muck when talking about the presidential candidates, that’s hardly representative of the bulk of the coverage.

Moreover, while I think Clinton and Obama are both acceptable candidates that most Democrats, online and offline, will be content with, there’s no reason for the online community to hold fire when they do stupid things like accept debates on Fox News or skip key votes on the Constitution.

So yes, while I do wish the discourse in some corners of the blogosphere about the candidates was less rancorous, I’m not terribly concerned about it being as systemic as D-Day. That said, please stop.

Lieberman’s Not A Super Delegate

There’s been a lot of traffic in the last 24 hours on the fact that Joe Lieberman has been stripped of his status as a super delegate in the Democratic Party. Mark Pazniokas reports:

Lieberman’s endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.

I’ll be honest – I had thought this was decided a while back, though I can’t find the link to back that up. Maybe it’s just being widely reported now because these strange super delegate creatures are suddenly important. I know there was a lot of talk of this happening on the CT blogs back in December, when Lieberman endorsed McCain for President. State Chair Nancy DiNardo had condemned Lieberman for campaigning in CT with McCain earlier this month.
The real question now for me is if and when Lieberman will make it official and caucus with the Republican Party? If I had to guess, I’d say post November, when the Democratic majority grows and he is no longer relevant to our majority.

Dem vs GOP Unity

I have a lot of issues with today’s Times editorial on the divisions in both parties. At ground, though, is the notion that the Democrats face the same post-nomination hurdles as the Republicans with regards to the winning candidate bringing the loser’s coalition along with them.

The splits between Democratic voters over Obama and Clinton do not seem to reside in ideological segments. It’s not as if all the union voters are with one candidate and all of the anti-war voters are with another and the Democratic coalition faces an irreparable division as a result. Rather, while both Obama and Clinton are securing some unique demographics, the reasons for the splits seem more around what the candidate offers as opposed to ideology. In the end, I imagine both candidates’ Democratic supporters staying with the Democratic nominee.

The opposite is true on the Republican sides. Major Republican figureheads like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and James Dobson have said they won’t campaign for McCain or would prefer Hillary Clinton to him. Huckabee is pulling Southern, evangelical “values” voters. Romney is taking a share of conservatives and and big business Republicans. This is a divided party and they will have major hurdles to overcome to have John McCain put together a winning coalition if he is the nominee.

Until Democratic talking heads and icons like Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, James Carville, and Jesse Jackson announce they won’t vote for one candidate or the other, I find it impossible to see the Democrats facing anything close to the divisiveness that the Republicans are staring at come the McCain nomination.

Update:

I’m trying to find similar results showing this elsewhere, but CT is an example of how Dems like their candidates and will be content with who ever gets the nomination. DemFromCT at Daily Kos notes:

As it happens, 72% of CT D primary voters will be satisfied if Clinton wins, and 73% feel the same about Obama. There’s no deep divisions and poison in CT Dem circles. The candidates don’t despise each other the way McCain and Romney do, although it wouldn’t matter if they did.

Update II:

OK, Steve Benen has the national exit poll numbers I mentioned above showing how happy Dems are with their candidates:

Despite rumors to the contrary, Democratic voters are not bitterly divided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — 72% of all Dems said they’d be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee, and 71% said they’d be happy with Obama.

Update III:

Here’s D-Day’s take (via D. Aristophanes):

That’s what I see when I talk to actual Democrats, particularly those who don’t spend all their time on the Internet. Not only do Democrats like both candidates, not only do they think they are going to get to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the Republican this year, but the primary is improving that view.

All of this just goes to show that (a) the Times editorial board made a comparison that falsely equated the Democratic and Republican electoral situation and (b)  from a statistical, anecdotal, and editorial stand point, Dems are pretty happy with where we are right now.

“The End is Near on FISA”

Late last night there was an exchange on the floor of the Senate between Senator Harry Reid and Republican Senator Jon Kyl that revealed the sad state of affairs in the FISA debate. If I ever had any doubt that Senator Reid does not care to get good FISA legislation passed, this exchange confirmed it for me.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I said it was my own personal view that we would not be wasting the American people’s time to have a debate on the stimulus package and to have a vote on it on Wednesday. Obviously, I am not speaking for any of my other colleagues, and we would obviously have to do that, but if the leader is concerned about not having people come back for votes tomorrow, which is a perfectly reasonable concern, given the importance of tomorrow on both sides–there are Senators who are out campaigning, and I understand that is a very important proposition–then I think it is appropriate to wait until Wednesday to have a vote on the stimulus package.

Mr. REID. We only have three Senators out campaigning, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, and it was my suggestion that tomorrow, if the Republicans don’t want votes, then shouldn’t we at least have the ability to see if we can complete the offering of amendments on the FISA legislation? We can intersperse that with people who want to talk about the stimulus. They can do that.

I am happy to set a time certain on Wednesday so McCain, Obama, and Clinton know when to come back on Wednesday. I am happy to do that.

I understand my friend is saying that he is speaking for himself, and I appreciate that, but he is the second ranking Republican leader in the Senate. What I would suggest, Mr. President, is that he talk to whomever he needs to speak with–I am sure the Republican leader–to see if what he suggests is doable, and we will get that worked out tonight. And that is tomorrow we can come in, people can talk about the stimulus package all they want, and set a time certain on Wednesday to vote. That would save me having to file cloture on it either tonight or tomorrow night, which will happen. If I file it tomorrow night, the vote will have to be on Thursday. In the meantime, we have to wipe out a lot of time.

I think it is very important we get FISA done. The end is near on FISA. We have worked out an agreement to finish that bill.

So I say to my friend, if I came and offered a consent agreement in keeping with what your suggestion is, do you think you could get it approved tonight?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, obviously, our colleagues are not here. I would not object to that kind of agreement. I don’t know what others would do.

To be fair, did I represent the distinguished majority leader correctly, that you had assured Senators they would not be voting on the stimulus package tomorrow?

Mr. REID. Yes, I have said, starting at 2 p.m. today–I might even have said it last week–that I have two

Senators, Obama and Clinton, whom I would try to give at least 1 day’s notice when a vote was to occur. That is why it is important to me, and I would think it would be important to Senator McCain also, that we have a time certain on Wednesday to tell them when they have to be here. If we can’t do it by agreement, then the only thing I can do, if the Republicans are going to waste all the time on 30 hours postcloture, I will have to, before midnight tomorrow, file cloture so we can have a Thursday cloture vote.

Mr. KYL. If I can respond, obviously, the majority leader knows I can’t make that agreement here on the floor, but I will pass that on to the minority leader and consult with our colleagues and see what can be agreed to in terms of an agreement.

I think the majority leader is exactly correct. As a matter of courtesy to Members on both sides, it is probably not the best idea to have votes tomorrow. It is an historic day in American history.

Mr. REID. If I can interrupt my friend, on FISA, I think we can easily have votes tomorrow. There would be no problem with that, because those votes, most of them, aren’t going to be that close anyway. I think we need to work through that. I have told all my Senators we would do our best to try to have votes on FISA tomorrow.

Now, maybe this has been in the works for a long time, because one of my Senators told me she was coming over and one of the reporters said: No votes tomorrow, right? She said: What are you talking about? They said: Senator McConnell has told his Senators there will be no votes on Tuesday.

So maybe this has been in the works for some time, that there would be no votes on Tuesday. But we may have a couple anyway, to make sure we have some. I do have that ability, to have votes. It may not be much on substance, but it will be votes, and it will be counted on Senators’ voting records. (S588-589) [Emphasis added]

Let’s be clear on what’s happening in this exchange.

First, Reid tells us that he does not want to hold a vote on the stimulus package without giving Senators Obama and Clinton one days notice to return and vote. The economic stimulus vote is too important to take place without all the presidential candidates there to make their position known. But the same can’t be said about warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity. In fact, FISA votes are so unimportant that Reid suggests they continue to take place in absence of presidential candidates (and possibly their surrogates) as a way to kill time while waiting for Super Tuesday to be over and the opportunity for real, important business to arrive.

Second, this is a reflection on what the presidential candidates are making their priorities for the rare trips back to DC. I was not going to place the blame on Senators Clinton and Obama for the Senate “deal” including a schedule that originally put the main debating and voting days on FISA on Monday and Tuesday of this week. It is really unreasonable to expect them to be in attendance in the Senate on the two largest days of the presidential campaign. However, it is also now clear that they are in close communication with the Majority Leader’s office. They have talked with Reid about being in attendance for the stimulus package, while giving the stamp of approval for him to schedule votes on FISA while they are absent from Washington.

Now, again, I don’t have any problem with Clinton and Obama not being in DC today and yesterday. And I do hope they come back to vote on the economic stimulus package. But as I’ve always said, if Obama and Clinton wanted to set the agenda on FISA votes, they probably could. If one of them demanded that Reid not schedule FISA votes without giving them adequate notice to allow their return, I have no doubt based on Reid’s statements about the stimulus package, that Senator Reid would grant them this courtesy. It appears that they have not asked this of Senator Reid.

Third, Reid wants FISA over and done with, even though it is now clear, per Reid’s statement above, that Democrats will not have the votes to pass amendments needed to improve the SSCI bill. His concern is not that the FISA legislation facing the Senate grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies that broke the law and helped the Bush administration spy on American citizens without warrant. His concern is not that the SSCI bill grants massive new powers to the executive branch, while denying needed oversight to the legislative and judicial branches. Harry Reid’s only concern is political – that Republicans will accuse him and other Senate Democrats of failing to give the President a bill to sign, thereby making America less safe and killing adorable kittens, or something equally absurd.

I don’t doubt that the Republicans will attack Dems for obstructionism. Nor do I doubt that they probably want to draw out the process to limit the amount of time available for the House and conference committees to report out a single bill. But Reid’s focus solely on political concerns, now for weeks on end, while ignoring the potential to actually improve the legislation or whip his caucus to ensure that we can reach 51 votes to strip retroactive immunity and stop reverse targeting, bulk collection, and sequestration is beyond infuriating. Instead Reid has conceded that the raft of amendments needed to make the SSCI bill a good bill will not pass. Reid simply wants to get votes on them so he can say, in bad faith, that he and his colleagues did all they could to regulate warrantless wiretapping and act as a check to the executive branch’s power.

Last week there was a great deal of back patting when the Democratic leadership struck a “deal” with the Republican leadership on what FISA amendments will receive votes. We were told the Dems didn’t cave. I had my doubts at the time that that was an accurate representation of the “deal,” but am sad to say that my doubts have been fully confirmed. Reid does not expect the Senate to pass good FISA legislation (though he virtually assured this when he set the SSCI bill as the underlying bill in this debate). He does not expect them to remove retroactive immunity from the SSCI bill, something that he says he wants to do. He has thrown in the towel and all we see happening now is a rear-guard action to cover him from criticism by the base. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks his fig leaf of a “deal” will protect him from any criticism by those of us who actually care about defending the Constitution or standing up for the rule of law over the rule of men.

Mr. Reid says, “the end is near on FISA.”  No doubt he is right. And no doubt with that end, which will be brought about by hasty votes cast by mostly apathetic Senators under the milquetoast leadership of Mr. Reid, we will find ourselves in a country where the rule of law is shuffled aside at the request of the most powerful companies with the assistance of their morally corrupt partners in Congress. We will have granted our government unprecedented authorities to invade our privacy and violate our civil liberties. Our Senate will have passed a bill that is almost certainly unconstitutional. And the work that so many of us have done for so long to assure our rights be protected will have been brushed off by the decisions of people like Harry Reid to not act in good faith to ensure that legislation worthy of our country’s values and dignity is passed by the Senate.

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.

More on Bloggers & Endorsements

I wanted to add another layer to my response to Bob Cesca’s call for blogger endorsements of Barack Obama.

One of the reasons we probably haven’t seen more blogger endorsements of the presidential candidates is that, contrary to media narratives about our field, this is not the greatest assembly of Democratic pols ever. Yes, there are true celebrities in Obama and Clinton, experienced hands in Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, and a man who did all he could to make economic populism a national platform. But all of them have weakness, from a lack of experience (or a lack of the right kind of experience), to recently found progressive ideals, to a history of corporatist principles, to being too senatorial and so on. There are things I deeply respect and admire with every one of our candidates, but as far as it goes, I think no one was really offering the complete package grassroots and netroots activists were looking for, which is the best explanation for why we haven’t seen more endorsements.

By contrast, I look at our farm team for the next couple of elections and I see candidates that may well be more exciting and dynamic, with a wide range of backgrounds than our current crop. Governors Eliot Spitzer, Martin O’Malley, Ted Strickland, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brian Schweitzer, along with Senators Jim Webb and John Tester are all people worth looking at seriously. There’s also always the hope that progressive lions like Russ Feingold, Al Gore or Howard Dean would consider running for the presidency.

It’s hard to look at any Democratic politician and see perfection. I never thought Chris Dodd was perfect, but I saw him as the best person for the job. I worked hard for him, but we didn’t win. I’m not prepared to endorse now that it’s a two person race any more than I was prepared to endorse when it was a three or four person race.

I’m left wondering, if you’re not willing to give your full support to a candidate, is it worth it endorsing for the sake of endorsing?

Al Wynn Secures Place As Punchline to Jokes for Years to Come

Memo to Al Wynn: desperation is not an attractive cologne. Voters can smell it from a mile away. And when the traditional press runs stories that come this close to calling you a liar and a moron, you know you’ve gone too far.

Matt Stoller provides the background:

I’m reading through this complaint the Al Wynn campaign just filed against Donna Edwards with the FEC. He literally accuses SEIU, the League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, Anna Burger, EMILY’s List, the Arca Foundation, ACORN, and the Tides Foundation of campaign finance violations, though as you can see it’s kind of hilarious what independent experts think. I hope you’re proud of your endorsee, Speaker Pelosi. And I hope the rest of these groups come out forcefully against Wynn, mocking him mercilessly for his nonsensical claims.

What’s remarkable is that after reprinting wins vinegar-soaked bluster, the Baltimore Sun actually provides space for an independent analysis of Wynn’s charges. What follows is one of the most hilarious takedowns you’ll ever see aimed at long-time incumbents by the press.

An attorney with the independent Campaign Legal Center in Washington who was asked by The Sun to review the complaint said it didn’t appear to contain any facts that would constitute illegal collaboration.

“Interestingly, and unlike most complaints filed with the Federal Election Commission, there’s not a single provision of federal campaign finance law directly cited in the complaint,” attorney Paul Ryan said. “Several of the allegations, in my view, make clear the complainant doesn’t really have a clear understanding of what constitutes coordination under federal law.”

Talking to some people that know, Paul Ryan is a top elections law attorney and he wouldn’t be lining up on the side of “no violation” if it wasn’t air tight. He’s calling bullshit on Wynn’s charges: the complaint has no argument in it and Wynn’s campaign doesn’t know what the law says.

This FEC complaint is an effort to create the appearance of impropriety in Donna Edwards relationships with a wide range of progressive, grassroots organizations. The reality is that this sorry tactic is only necessary because Al Wynn is facing possible defeat at the hands of Donna Edwards and her people-powered movement.

Donate to Donna Edwards through ActBlue.

Lack of Collegiality Having An Impact in FISA Debate

Last week I argued that the Senate Republicans had gone too far in their obstructionism on FISA, to the point that they were alienating their Democratic allies who have joined them on the wrong side of retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping. In effect, the GOP went beyond the pale and offended senators who want to work on contentious issues while maintaining a high level of collegiality.

That dynamic is playing out right now on the floor of the Senate. Jay Rockefeller, author of the retroactive immunity-granting Intel bill, is arguing against the GOP obstructionism and against cloture on his own bill because the Republicans have taken it hostage as part of a political ploy.

Rockefeller has said he will vote against cloture on the Intel bill, a very good sign that we will be able to defeat this afternoon’s cloture vote on it. He has also said he will vote for a 30 day extension to the PAA to continue fruitful discussion of renewal legislation.

Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.