Swing State Project

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Many Voter Registration Deadlines Looming

Posted by DavidNYC

Matt Stoller notes that voter registration deadlines in many states are very, very soon. If you haven't yet registered to vote, please do so! And if you aren't sure of your registration status (you've moved in recent years, etc.), please call your local board of elections to check. If you are already registered, then your mission should be to register at least one other person in time for election day. With web-based tools, it's easier than ever:

Pro-Net Neutrality Voter Registration Tool

Standard Voter Registration Tool

The first link takes you to a site which will tally up how many people register with the goal of supporting net neutrality. If for whatever reason that doesn't interest you (or your friends or relatives you're trying to sign up), follow the second link.

Posted at 11:03 PM in 2006 Elections, Activism | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Friday, April 21, 2006

DNC 50-State Canvas Is Next Weekend

Posted by DavidNYC

We here in the blogosphere spend a lot of time typing, talking, surfing, debating. But the real battles are won and lost when we get out of our chairs and pound the pavement. That's why next weekend's 50-state DNC canvas is so important.

There are over 900 events scheduled nationwide. If you haven't yet signed up, just click the link, type in your ZIP code, find an event and follow the sign-up instructions - super-easy. You will have fun, do good things and meet great people. This is what being an activist is all about.

Posted at 02:58 PM in Activism | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

The Democratic Farm Team

Posted by DavidNYC

Over at MyDD, Big Dog has an important diary about building our Democratic "farm team." If we want to win at the federal level, we've got to start by building up a good crop of candidates at the truly local level. That doesn't mean Congress, or even state legislatures. That means starting off small: school boards, county offices, city councils. Obviously, this approach takes patience. But it's what creates good candidates - candidates who know how to organize, run a campaign, raise money, pass laws, work with legislative bodies, etc.

I know I've put a lot of emphasis on seeing every Congressional race filled. And I grant that we aren't going to see established politicians running for every seat in the land - there will always be a need for some newcomers to run at the Congressional level (and in some states, even at the Senatorial level). But this mission fills a different goal - expanding the playing field is different from (and in many respect, non-overlapping with) trying to win races.

And if we want to win races to the US House, we've gotta win races to District Water Board #3. As of 1992, over 50% of House members (PDF) previously held state lege seats (up from just 30% half a century earlier). I wouldn't be surprised if the proportion today is even higher - and I'd also be willing to bet that many of these state legislators-cum-congressmen also held a lower office before getting to the state capital.

Let's call it the Branch Rickey approach: If you're thinking about taking the plunge into elective office, definitely think local.

Posted at 12:15 AM in Activism, Democrats | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Kerry and Clark Coming TONIGHT!

Posted by DavidNYC

Today's Band of Brothers event on the mall was AMAZING. Sen. Cleland was absolutely inspiring. And it was just tremendous to see so many Fighting Dems arrayed together. I'll have some pictures later.

But I also wanted to tell you some very exciting news: Two more veterans are coming to tonight's fundraiser at the Frederick Douglass House. You may have heard of them: John Kerry and Wesley Clark. I'm tremendously excited. If you were wavering about coming, now you have no excuses! See you there!

UPDATE: Wow! What an exhilirating day. Tonight's event was great. Tim has an awesome post up at the DNC blog on the rally this morning, complete with pics and video.

Posted at 01:48 PM in Activism, Band of Brothers | Comments (2) | TrackBack (3) | Technorati

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Support Max Cleland & the Band of Brothers in DC Tomorrow

Posted by DavidNYC

For all you DC-area folks, a reminder:

Rally with Sen. Max Cleland & Forty Fighting Dem Candidates

When: 10am, Wednesday, February 8th
Where: 7th st. SW betw. Madison Dr. & Jefferson Dr., on the National Mall

As I've said before, if you're angry about the swiftboating of Rep. Murtha, the lack of body armor for our troops, cuts in veterans benefits, and the simple, undeniable fact that George Bush has made us less safe, this is your chance to help make a difference. Let's make this a major media event and make sure these issues stay on the table throughout the 2006 elections and beyond.

(P.S. Please note the location change. This rally will be held on the Mall, not at the Capitol.)

Posted at 04:28 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Band of Brothers | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

House Dems: Pay Your DCCC Dues!

Posted by DavidNYC

This, my friends, is unacceptable:

Democratic House Members anted up more than $11 million in dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005, but there remain 21 Caucus members who have not contributed a dime in the 2006 cycle and 13 others who have given less than 10 percent of what the DCCC is seeking from them.

While the numbers suggest that Democrats are making progress toward compliance, they are still $20 million short of the $32.1 million they would reap if every member meets his or her obligations.

...

In addition to Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the DCCC’s chairman, just four of the 201 Democrats have paid in full: Reps. Nita Lowey (N.Y.), Steve Israel (N.Y.), Bill Delahunt (Mass.) and Tom Udall (N.M.). (Emphasis added.)

This is, as I say, just a totally unacceptable state of affairs. We need the DCCC to be flush if we want to compete - and yet House Dems have only contributed one-third of the total they are obligated to pay in. It's rarely my style to go after fellow Dems, but come ON, people! We need to be team players on this one. So I'm going to call out the deadbeats, as listed by Roll Call:

Rep.	District	$ Given	$ Due	Committee	Warchest
Jesse Jackson, Jr.	IL-02	$0	$150K	Appropriations	$1.1M
José Serrano	NY-16	$0	$150K	Appropriations	$46K
Sherrod Brown	OH-13	$64K	$250K	Commerce	$2M
Jim Davis	FL-11	$0	$150K	Commerce	$27K
Ted Strickland	OH-06	$0	$150K	Commerce	$498K
Edolphus Towns	NY-10	$0	$150K	Commerce	$221K
Julia Carson	IN-07	$0	$150K	Financial Services	$271K
Emanuel Cleaver	MO-05	<10%	$150K	Financial Services	$194K
Harold Ford	TN-09	$0	$150K	Financial Services	$1.7M
Darlene Hooley	OR-05	$0	$150K	Financial Services	$548K
Gregory Meeks	NY-06	<10%	$150K	Financial Services	$146K
Brad Miller	NC-13	$0	$150K	Financial Services	$210K
Ben Cardin	MD-03	$0	$150K	Ways & Means	$299K*
Pete Stark	CA-13	$1K	$150K	Ways & Means	$400K
Robert Brady	PA-01	$0	$100K		$841K
Tim Holden	PA-17	$0	$100K		$329K
Jim Marshall	GA-03	$0	$100K		$626K
Ike Skelton	MO-04	$5K	$100K		$600K

Now, a few things: First, I'm sure these aren't the only Dem reps who are short on their dues - they're simply the ones listed by Roll Call. If you come across any reputable sources which indicate that there are other Dems who are in arrears, let me know, and I'll add them to this list. Also I'm not saying that any of these guys are bad people - they just need to fulfill their obligations.

So, to that end, if you live in any of these districts, call & e-mail your reps and politely ask them to pay what they owe the DCCC. Take a look at those warchests - for many, this is couch change, so there are no excuses. That a well-funded D-Trip benefits us all is so obvious as to be not even worth mentioning.

(A couple of notes about the table: 1) Members on five select committees - the four listed here plus the Rules Committee - are required to pay extra. 2) Warchests reflect cash-on-hand as of 9/30/05, except for Jesse Jackson, Jr., whose cash-on-hand figures are current as of 12/31/05. 3) Ben Cardin's total cash-on-hand is unclear, as his House and Senate campaign committees reflect different totals. His Senate committee shows a cash-on-hand of $1.5M. 4) The "amount due" that I list for each member is based either on specific Roll Call figures or on general DCCC dues rules. Where I have employed the latter, some of my numbers may be off, probably to the low side.)

P.S. Dennis Kucinich was also mentioned by Roll Call, but from the article's language, it wasn't clear how much he had already given, so I did not include him in the table.

Posted at 10:34 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Democrats | Comments (10) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Politics of Billboards

Posted by DavidNYC

Back in November, GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt slandered war hero Rep. John Murtha on the floor of Congress. When we sought to take the fight straight to her back yard, Lamar Advertising refused to run the DNC's billboard, on the grounds that it constituted "negative advertising." (Nevermind this.) That really (once again) dogged my cats. Anyhow, this is what the Schmidt billboard looked like:

To kick off the new year, the Campaign for America's Future has launched a big-time ethics assault on the already-indicted Tom DeLay and the soon-to-be-indicted Bob Ney (OH-18). One feature of this campaign also includes a billboard, stating the simple truth about Bob Ney:

Clear, direct, to the point - and nothing hurts quite like good old Mr. Truth. CAF says that this billboard is already up, "located above the east bound lanes of Rte. I-70 at exit 126, one mile west of State Rte. 37 in Heath, Ohio where Rep. Bob Ney lives." So a pat on the back to CAF, but an obvious question remains: Why were they able to get their billboard up while the DNC was not? Oh CAF, share with us your secrets, so that organizations across the land may torment powerful kleptocrats for the entire election season!

Posted at 09:41 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Ohio | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Friday, December 02, 2005

CA-48: Call to Action - Final Weekend Push

Posted by DavidNYC

On Tuesday, California will hold another special election - this time, to fill the vacant House seat in CA's 48th CD. Our candidate is Steve Young. Here's how you can help him for the final weekend push:

• Virtual phone banking. This can be done by anyone, anywhere. The campaign sends you a list of names and numbers of district residents, and you call them to help get out the vote. Fun and easy, and if you have a cell phone with free nights and weekends, it only costs you your time. To join in this effort, send an e-mail to ca48@easyco.com.

• Volunteer. If you leave in or near the district, contact the campaign and help pound the pavement. You can sign up on this page, but your best bet at this point is to call the campaign directly at (949) 640-4400. You can also send an e-mail to marion@steveyoungforcongress.com with your availability. The district is in Orange County - the HQ is in Irvine. In other words, not too far for those of you in LA or San Diego to come up for a day. The weekend weather looks quite pleasant.

• E-mail your California friends. Tell them about this race. Even if you aren't sure if they live in CA-48, they probably know someone who does. Word of mouth is key.

• Keep an eye on BigDog04's diaries. He's our source for info straight from the campaign.

Let's do this thing!

Posted at 03:33 PM in 2005 Elections, Activism, California | TrackBack (1) | Technorati

Thursday, December 01, 2005

OH-02: Billboard Rejected

Posted by DavidNYC

Go read what Tim has to say about the DNC's Schmidt billboard. And be prepared to grit your teeth.

Posted at 09:22 PM in Activism, Ohio | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Raise a Ruckus: Bush Fundraising for Steele

Posted by DavidNYC

Sorry for the late notice, but tomorrow morning at 10am, Marylanders will protest Bush's fundraising appearance for Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. As I say below, it's important to make sure that the media and the public realize exactly who supports Steele - and whom he supports.

I like the idea some Arizonans had when Bush came to town for Jon Kyl just last night - they formed a human chain from Kyl's office to the location the fundraiser was held to demonstrate the "link" between the two men. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any photos of that bit of guerilla theater. So Marylanders, if you've got any tricks like that up your sleeve tomorrow, please take pictures. And raise a ruckus!

Follow this link for complete details. Thanks to Nick in comments for the info.

Posted at 09:51 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Activism, Maryland | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Volunteering on Election Day

Posted by DavidNYC

Tuesday is election day. If you are interested in volunteering, here are links to help you get involved with some of the top races:

• Virginia
• New Jersey
• Ohio
• California
• New York

If you have volunteer links for other races throughout the country, please post `em in comments.

Posted at 02:53 PM in 2005 Elections, Activism | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Washington Democrats and Iraq

Posted by Bob Brigham

David Sirota has been leading a charge against Washington DC Democrats who refuse to acknowledge Iraq as an issue. Now the Democrats' most credible and trustworthy voice on Iraq is stepping-up to lead the charge. From Blog for America:

Every day, more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq. The violence and attacks on innocent Iraqi citizens continues to go unchecked. Billions of dollars have been spent, yet, we have no coherent exit plan.

As a Marine, I witnessed first-hand the devastation and destruction of this war. The mistruths and deception of the Bush administration have created a quagmire. That's why I signed the pledge to only send responsible leaders to Washington. And I'm asking you to do the same.
I pledge to only support candidates who:

1. Acknowledge that the U.S. was misled into the war in Iraq
2. Advocate for a responsible exit plan with a timeline
3. Support our troops both at home and abroad

It's time for leaders to step up to the plate and face the Iraq mess head-on because the situation only keeps getting worse. But, before we can fix it, Washington must first acknowledge the crisis we are in. You can help. Take a stand and sign the pledge to hold candidates accountable on the Iraq war.

www.democracyforamerica.com/iraqpledge

I served my country on the front lines in Iraq and saw the consequences of failed leadership up close. We need new leadership in Washington that will face this crisis with courage.

Join me and tens of thousands of Americans by standing up and telling Washington to start planning our exit now. Sign the pledge today:

www.democracyforamerica.com/iraqpledge

Thank you,

Paul Hackett

P.S. When you view the pledge map, you can learn about other patriotic Americans who've signed the pledge in every corner of the country. Take a look, and then sign the pledge:

tools.democracyforamerica.com/local

It will be interesting to watch the dots fill up on the pledge map. I'm guessing it won't take long for there to be even more dots than the overwhelming number of dots on the Hackett Donor Map.

Posted at 12:58 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Democrats, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

ActBlue Poll Results

Posted by DavidNYC

Last week, we wrote about ActBlue's poll to decide which states it should deploy in next. Ben Rahn of ActBlue explains the results - and the action plan:

Last week, Chris Bowers ran this poll to decide where ActBlue should go next, and the results are in! We're now focusing our fire on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Montana. (We had originally planned on just going with four states, but with a statistical tie between Texas and Montana for the #4 spot we're including them both.)

Check out the the full background, but in brief, when we've activated ActBlue in these states:

• Every Democratic candidate for every state legislative and executive office can immediately accept contributions online.
• Every supporter can immediately fundraise online for the Democratic candidates and party committees of their choice.

There's just one catch: we need the resources to do it. The most challenging part of bringing this huge strategic advantage to Democrats at the state level is the legal side - the staff time and lawyers, Lawyers, LAWYERS, required to do this right are going to cost on average $10,000 per state, at least for the first set of states we take on.

So we're asking: can you help make it happen?

This isn't like supporting a single candidate: funds invested now will be returned many times over to candidates in crucial races across the country. So this is about leverage. This is about building a lasting piece of infrastructure for online politics, and bringing lasting strategic advantage to Democrats where it matters most.

Please support these states today.

Go help `em out if you can.

Posted at 04:53 PM in Activism | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Help ActBlue Pick Its Next Four States

Posted by DavidNYC

As we've mentioned before, the indispensible ActBlue is moving into state races. ActBlue already covers all federal races, but that's comparatively easy - you're talking about one legal regime for all 535 House & Senate candidates. For the states, of course, you've got to deal with fifty different sets of campaign finance laws. It's a major hassle, and ActBlue expects, at least in the early going, that it will cost around $10,000 to set up each state.

What that means, though, is that every candidate for state office - Governor, Attorney General, state legislatures - will be able to raise money through ActBlue. One state has already been launched, Virginia, which holds all of its state races this year, so you can see why it was made a priority. ActBlue needs your help now to decide which four states it should expand into next.

To do that, they are conducting a poll, which you can find here.

IMPORTANT: Please do NOT simply vote for your home state! This is NOT a popularity contest. You should vote for the state or states where you think an improved fundraising infrastructure will make the most meaningful difference in the near term. Some possible factors to consider: Does the state have a legislative body or bodies which the Democrats have a reasonable shot at taking control of - or have a very tenuous hold on right now? And are there important, competitive statewide races - and not just Governor, but Attorney General (think Spitzer in NY) and, importantly, Secretary of State (think - ugh - Blackwell in Ohio)?

In New York, for example, Eliot Spitzer is going to win the governorship with or without an assist from ActBlue. But the Dems are very close to taking back the State Senate here, and candidates in close races could definitely benefit from the increased exposure (and, obviously, increased fundraising ability) that ActBlue would provide. So I think I might vote for NY. But if you've concluded your home state is hopeless, you can do a little research on other good states before casting your vote. Here's one site that can help you out a bit.

So go ahead, vote - and vote wisely. I'm told the balloting ends Friday, so we should know the results right then (though ActBlue may not consider them binding).

UPDATE: New York ain't even on the list. Oh well. Back to the drawing board!

Posted at 08:21 PM in Activism, Netroots | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Thursday, October 06, 2005

MO-07: Roy Blunt Exposed as Central Figure in GOP Culture of Corruption

Posted by Bob Brigham

In 1998, the Democrat challenging Republican Congressman Roy Blunt in Missouri's 7th District didn't raise or spend a dime. In 2000 and 2002, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn't even field a candidate against Blunt, allowing Blunt to focus on his "Battleground 2002" project which moved $5.6 million to Republican House candidates. In 2004, Democrats at least bothered to field a candidate, but Blunt had a 15:1 cash advantage and wasn't pinned down, allowing him to raise money for other Republicans to the point where he is now Republican Leader in Congress.

But, the rising profile for Congressman Blunt is a double-edged sword, because he just got busted by the AP for his role in laundering money with Tom DeLay (who is currently facing life in prison for illegally laundering money):

Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Congressman Roy Blunt needs a strong Democratic challenger willing to expose Blunt's "Culture of Corruption" and pin him down in Missouri so he isn't raising money for candidates in targetted races.

Blunt's crooked transactions with DeLay deserve an investigation:

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the
Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.

None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.

Check out Blunt's spin and tell me he isn't vulnerable.

Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.

"We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates," said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.

Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.

Whoops, the fact that money ended up going to Blunt and DeLay family members was an accident...

Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

Blunt is just as crooked as DeLay:

Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as
President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.

The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.

DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.

Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.

Blunt claims he had no clue he was crooked:

Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group. [...]

Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. "They are unrelated activities," he said.

When Congressman Roy Blunt runs for re-election, he needs to be met with a full court press. The voters deserve a choice.

Posted at 12:29 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Culture of Corruption, Missouri, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown Runs Against Major Paul Hackett in Ohio Senate Primary

Posted by Bob Brigham

Unfortunately, Congressman Sherrod Brown has decided to challenge Paul Hackett for the Democratic nomination in 2006. If Sherrod Brown wanted to run for Senate, the nomination was his. We urged him to run. But he chickened out. So Paul Hackett did what he has done time and time again: stepped up when duty called. Ted Strickland wouldn't run against Senate Mike DeWine, Sherrod Brown wouldn't run against DeWine, Tim Ryan wouldn't run against DeWine -- so Major Hackett offered to serve his country once more, this time in the U.S. Senate.

And now, on the eve of Hackett's kickoff, Sherrod Brown goes back on his word and says he is going to run against Hackett? A flip-flop? WTF?

Congressman Brown is going to waste a great deal of Democratic resources, but I can't comprehend the math necessary for Brown to win the primary. It looks like the Democratic Party is going to lose one of our best leaders in congress for no reason.

But it doesn't matter, Paul Hackett will be the Democratic Party nominee. After all of the scandals in Ohio, the last thing the voters want is another politician who can't be trusted.

The Top 10 Reasons Why Paul Hackett Will Be the Democratic Party Nominee

10. Sherrod Brown is already being mocked by the press for his waffle (or Decision Consistency Agility as you glass is half full types would say)

9. Paul Hackett's straight talk is loved by the press

8. Congressman Tim Ryan encouraged Hackett to run

7. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee urged Hackett to run

6. Hackett positioned himself behind the other Democrats, but has a nation-wide base

5. The Democratic Blogosphere delivered for Hackett -- even winning the Political Play of the Week

4. Hackett has a 70% pt. lead in the netroots

3. Unlike Brown, Hackett has great timing

2. Hackett can win in rural Ohio

1. In a nation at war, a Marine Major outranks a Washington Politician -- Congress needs an Iraq War Veteran

Sherrod Brown is a waffle, Mike DeWine is toast, and Major Hackett is hungry.

Posted at 08:15 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Democrats, Netroots, Ohio | Comments (12) | TrackBack (2) | Technorati

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

TX-21: John Courage is an All-Star

Posted by Bob Brigham

Having worked with two congressional campaigns endorsed by DFA, I realize that their support is like winning the lottery. So too will John Courage, who is the first "grassroots all-star" DFA candidate for 2006.

From Blog for America

We have the power to elect new leadership in this country.

We've proven over and over again that when we make a race competitive—no matter the district—we can win. But the only way to make every race and every district competitive is with your support.

Two weeks ago, we asked DFA supporters to help kick-off the campaign to take back Congress by voting in our Grassroots All-Star competition. Tens of thousands of DFA members voted for candidates in every corner of the country. After tallying the votes, we're excited to announce the DFA Grassroots All Star: John Courage, from San Antonio, Texas.

Courage says:

I am so proud to have won the support of DFA and the first Grassroots All-Star Endorsement for the 2006 Election Season. My campaign has very strong grassroots, and they were essential in winning this endorsement. This endorsement in TX-21 is sending a strong national message to the GOP congressional "leadership" that in 2006 they can run, but they can't hide - even in Texas.

All of us should be proud of the way the poll was run, the way the candidates were all presented and the way Democrats around the country were given the opportunity to let their voices be heard. It was great to know that 60 Congressional candidates applied for DFA's endorsement! It is through participation like this, that we will win back the House of Representatives.

This endorsement has special meaning for me because my wife and I have been DFA meetup hosts and activists for the past 2 years. I know that receiving the support of DFA is important because I've seen the grassroots strength first-hand.

There's been an overwhelming response in Central Texas to my call for reining in the budget deficit, developing an exit-strategy for Iraq, restoring ethics to Congress and supporting policies that meet the needs of mainstream working families, not just millionaires and Tom DeLay. The local excitement about a change in Congress helped produce a DFA victory this week and will carry me to victory next November.

Visit John Courage's website.

Posted at 05:20 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Activism, Netroots, Texas | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

MT-Sen: Max Baucus Runs from Democratic Party

Posted by Bob Brigham

Montana Senator Max Baucus is a skittish senator known for bolting and running. In fact, Senator Baucus has quite a reputation for running. On November 22 of last year Baucus was running from something for 50 miles when he hit his head on a rock and needed urgent brain surgery. I'm no big city doctor, but I think Baucus lost his fucking mind:

WASHINGTON -- Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, said Tuesday he will vote for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. [...]

Baucus is breaking with his party's top senator in deciding to vote for the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.

Why is Max Baucus running from the Democratic Party? Instead of running away, why can't Max Baucus play with the team? Call each number below and ask.

Washington D.C.(202) 224-2651
Billings (406) 657-6790
Bozeman (406) 586-6104
Butte (406) 782-8700
Great Falls (406) 761-1574
Helena (406) 449-5480
Kalispell (406) 756-1150
Missoula (406) 329-3123
Washington DC Fax (202) 224-0515

Thanks for taking 10 minutes to make those quick 8 calls. If you have 2 more minutes, use the email form.

I am totally fuckin' pissed at Baucus. Senator Reid is from a redder state, but he isn't running from what he cares about. Why is Baucus chicken?

Baucus isn't even up until 2008 and (hopefully) won't be running for re-election. Senator Baucus doesn't need to go around acting like a dipshit coward, but this isn't the first time. Matthew Yglesias explains (2.1.04):

As a result, literally none of the president's signature initiatives -- from tax cuts to the resolution authorizing war in Iraq to the Medicare bill -- garnered sufficient GOP support to pass without cooperation from some Democrats, cooperation that the White House has largely succeeded in obtaining.

Among the defectors, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) has tended to attract the lion's share of media attention for his florid denunciations of his ostensible party. But the practical effects of Miller's histrionics have been rather limited compared with the betrayals of his more low-key colleague Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). As the ranking member (and, for a period, chairman) of the Finance Committee, arguably the Senate's most powerful, Baucus, who underwent successful brain surgery on Jan. 9, has not only voted for many pieces of Republican-backed legislation but actually taken the lead in authoring much of the president's domestic-policy agenda. During the 2001 tax-cut debate, Baucus cut a deal with committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the White House to co-sponsor a slightly watered-down version of the president's proposal. In doing so, he not only gave the GOP his vote but, more importantly, his support for the tax cut effectively handed the White House the staff and other committee resources under his control.

Fellow Democrats were even more aggrieved, however, by Baucus' behavior during the Medicare battle with which Congress closed last year's session. The Senate initially passed a compromise bill with support from Republicans and some liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), while the House put forward a much more partisan piece of legislation on a narrow vote. A conference committee composed of members of both chambers was convened, but the Republican leadership, in a sharp break from precedent, said that though Democrats could be officially appointed to the committee, none would be invited to the meetings where the substantive negotiations would take place and the actual bill be written. None, that is, except for Baucus and the similarly cooperative John Breaux of Louisiana, who will retire at the end of the year.

By lending this farce a veneer of bipartisan credibility, Baucus and Breaux essentially denied the Democrats what was not only their best chance of defeating the bill in question but the party's last hope of putting a stop to a long string of Republican provocations aimed at reducing the minority party to window-dressing status. (emphasis mine)

WTF? Call each phone number and let your rage be heard. This is totally fuckin' unacceptable and you can quote me on that.

Posted at 09:30 PM in Activism, Montana, Netroots, Scandals, Supreme Court | Comments (5) | Technorati

Supreme Court: I Oppose John Roberts

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Feminist Bloggers have announced opposition to John Roberts and I posted in the comments my signature to their letter and urge you to also.

The political optics are very simple: when Roberts drives the court away from Americans, Democrats need to be able to have clear contrast.

This is especially true for Democratic presidential candidates. Roberts will have a couple of years to do his worst before the primary heats up. Any presidential candidate who votes for Roberts will be blamed for Roberts.

As for rank and file Democrats, the play is easy to see. If you are on the judiciary committee you damn well better vote with your team. If a senator is going to make a comment other than opposition, don't. STFU.

Democrats win when we play as a team (i.e. Social Security). We need that now more than ever. We're watching to make sure every Democratic senator plays off the Democratic playbook;

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has told associates he intends to oppose confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice, Senate sources said Tuesday as rank and file Democrats began staking out positions on the man named to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist. [...]

As party leader, Reid had urged fellow Democrats not to announce their positions until the conclusion of last week's confirmation hearings for Roberts.

By stating his own position first, Reid likely would set the stage for strong Democratic opposition to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.

We're watching.

UPDATE: And we're talking. From MSNBC:

Bob Brigham, a Democratic blogger who writes for Swingstateproject.com said Democratic activists are following the Roberts battle more closely than they did the 1991 Clarence Thomas saga.

“With the decentralization of politics and the blogs, there are a lot more people paying attention. The Democratic base is following this very closely,” Brigham said.

If he is confirmed, Brigham predicted, “Roberts is going to have a chance to hand down some serious decisions before the 2008 presidential race heats up. And every bad decision he makes will be blamed on any Democratic senator who votes for him. Democratic senators will be held accountable individually for the bad decisions he makes between now and 2008.”

Democratic Senators need to do the right thing.

UPDATE: Full statement from Leader Harry Reid:

“One of the Senate’s most important constitutional responsibilities is to provide “advice and consent” with respect to a President’s nominations. The task is especially important when the nomination is of an individual to be the Chief Justice of the United States.

“No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person. But at the end of this process, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position.

“The stakes for the American people could not be higher. The retirement of Justice O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist have left the Supreme Court in a period of transition. On key issues affecting the rights and freedoms of Americans, the Court is closely divided. If confirmed, Judge Roberts, who is only 50 years old, will likely serve as Chief Justice and leader of the third branch of the federal government for decades to come.

“The legal authority that we will hand to Judge Roberts by this confirmation vote is awesome. In my view, we should only vote to confirm this nominee if we are absolutely positive that he is the right person to hold that authority. This is a very close question for me. But I must resolve my doubts in favor of the American people whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turns out to be the wrong person for the job.

“Some say that the President is entitled to deference from the Senate in nominating individuals to high office. I agree that such deference is appropriate in the case of executive branch nominees such as Cabinet officers. With some important exceptions, the President may generally choose his own advisors.

“In contrast, the President is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary. The Constitution envisions that the President and the Senate will work together to appoint and confirm federal judges. This is a shared constitutional duty.

“The Senate’s role in screening judicial candidates is especially important in the case of Supreme Court nominees, because the Supreme Court has assumed such a large role in resolving fundamental disputes in our civic life. As I see it, any nominee for the Supreme Court bears the burden of persuading the Senate and the American people that he or she deserves confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Court.

“Let me start by observing that Judge Roberts has been a thoughtful, mainstream judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But he has only been a member of that court for two years and has not confronted many cutting-edge constitutional issues. As a result, we cannot rely on his current judicial service to determine what kind of Supreme Court justice he would be.

“I was very impressed with Judge Roberts when I first met him, soon after he was nominated. But several factors caused me to reassess my initial view.

“Most notably, I was disturbed by the memos that surfaced from Judge Roberts’s years of service in the Reagan Administration. These memos raise serious questions about the nominee’s approach to civil rights.

“It is now clear that as a young lawyer, John Roberts played a significant role in shaping and advancing the Republican agenda to roll back civil rights protections. He wrote memos opposing legislative and judicial efforts to remedy race and gender discrimination. He urged his superiors to oppose Senator Kennedy’s 1982 bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act and worked against affirmative action programs. He derided the concept of comparable worth and questioned whether women actually suffer discrimination in the workplace.

“No one suggests that John Roberts was motivated by bigotry or animosity towards minorities or women. But these memos lead one to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil rights struggle. He wrote about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as a flesh and blood reality for countless of his fellow citizens. The memos raised a real question for me whether their author would breathe life into the Equal Protection Clause and the landmark civil rights statutes that come before the Supreme Court repeatedly.

“Nonetheless, I was prepared to look past these memos, and chalk them up to the folly of youth. I looked forward to the confirmation hearings in the expectation that Judge Roberts would repudiate those views in some fashion. Instead, the nominee adopted what I consider a disingenuous strategy of suggesting that the views expressed in those memos were not his views, even at the time the memos were written. He claimed that he was merely a “staff lawyer” reflecting the positions of his client, the Reagan Administration.

“Anyone who has read the memos can see that Roberts was expressing his own personal views on these important policy matters. In memo after memo, the text is clear. It is simply not plausible for the nominee to claim that he did not share the views that he expressed.

“For example, there is a memo in which he refers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as “un-American.” If Judge Roberts had testified that this was a twenty year old bad joke, I would have given the memo no weight. But instead, he provided a tortured reading of the memo that simply does not stand up under scrutiny.

“In another memo Judge Roberts spoke about a Hispanic group that President Reagan would soon address, and he suggested that the audience would be pleased to know that the Administration favored legal status for the “illegal amigos” of the audience members. The use of the Spanish word “amigos” in this memo is patronizing and offensive to a contemporary reader.

“I do not condemn Judge Roberts for using the word “amigos” twenty years ago in a non-public memo, but I was stunned when at his confirmation hearing he could not bring himself to express regret for using the term, or recognize that it might cause offense.

“My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened by the fact that the White House rejected a reasonable request by Committee Democrats for documents written by Judge Roberts when he served in the first Bush Administration. After all, if memos written twenty years ago are to be dismissed as not reflecting the nominee’s mature thinking, it would be highly relevant to see memos he had written as an older man in an even more important policymaking job.

“The White House claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents is utterly unpersuasive. Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Gonzales for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the matter and was turned down. This was simply a matter of stonewalling.

“The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any Senator to oppose this nomination. The Administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences.

“In the absence of these documents, it was especially important for the nominee to fully and forthrightly answer questions from Committee members at his hearing. He failed to do so adequately. I acknowledge the right – indeed, the duty – of a judicial nominee to decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the court to which the witness has been nominated. But Judge Roberts declined to answer many questions more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.

“Finally, I was very swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women’s rights leaders against confirmation. When a civil rights icon like John Lewis says that John Roberts was on the wrong side of history, Senators must take notice.

“I like Judge Roberts. I respect much of the work he has done in his career, such as his advocacy for environmentalists in the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago. In the fullness of time, he may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

“Based on all of these factors, the balance shifts against Judge Roberts. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination. Nonetheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nominee when the Senate debates the matter next week.”

Posted at 02:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Site News, Supreme Court | Comments (1) | Technorati

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Katrina: Live from Houston, TX

Posted by Bob Brigham

I'm at the Houston airport, waiting for a flight into Birmingham, then driving south.

During Paul Hackett's campaign, I think we proved that being on the ground is a great fulcrum. "Showing up maximizes" the leverage and we need it now, more than ever. Bush failed America, so now the burden falls to each American to help do what needs to be done.

My specialty is using the internet, which is a perfect vehicle. From ABC News:

"When I put the listing on the Web site in the evening, I had five or six families respond by the morning," van Gelderen said while he was sending out e-mails to his friends challenging them to help. Van Gelderen had his entire staff mobilizing relief efforts, rather than focusing on business. "The private sector has to start doing just as much as the government."

Van Gelderen listed his available housing through Moveon.org, a liberal-leaning non-profit political organization.

MoveOn launched its hurricane housing site on Thursday afternoon, and within 25 hours received offers for 45,000 beds — 11,500 within driving distance of New Orleans, according to MoveOn president Eli Pariser.

"Basically we were just racking our brains trying to figure out how we could help our members provide some help for victims," said Pariser. "We have a direct line to 3 million people and there might be a lot who might be able to open up their homes."

At Swing State Project, I will continue to examine the electoral implications of the second disaster: the response. When Bush's poll numbers dropped below 40%, I didn't think they could go lower. I mean, he would always hold the Republicans, wouldn't he?

Apparently not...

The right wing realizes Bush's decision to continue his vacation kick-started a chain of events that will haunt the Republican Party for a long time. Geographically, Bush's incompetence has put the entire south in play. As the harvest forces tough conversations about transportation, the Midwest will also come into play. Not only is the Republican congress corrupt, but voting Republican gives another vote to the incompetent Republican Administration.

Bush fucked up. And even rabid right-wingers know it. The Washington Times knows it; Fox News knows it. Hell, even the Bull Moose is talking about impeachment. These organizations have propped Bush up for years and now they are cutting him loose, realizing that it is impossible to defend Bush's response – it is a credibility killer.

The hurricane was a disaster, but Bush's vacation-based reaction has been the real catastrophe.

So I'm going in. We're bringing in a SUV full of supplies, I also have my laptop and video camera.

Please sign up for Hurricane Housing.

Additionally requests will be coming.

Posted at 03:26 PM in 2006 Elections, Activism, Culture of Corruption, Republicans, Scandals, Site News, Texas | Comments (2) | Technorati

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

MT-Sen: Tester's Email Fundraising

Posted by Tim Tagaris

I got another one today. An email from a candidate asking for money. It's common knowledge that the more a campaign uses its email list to ask for money, people will open less of their emails down the road, and their list will become burned.

But the email I received today was different, and frankly I have never seen it before. I sign up for all kinds of campaign emails, and I am not sure I can remember a time a candidate, in the middle of a campaign, asked people to give their money to something else. Something of a more immediate concern. Something more important than one campaign.

As I write this, waters continue to rise in New Orleans, where entire neighborhoods have been flooded. Biloxi, Mississippi has been hit hard. More than 37,000 Americans are already seeking shelter in American Red Cross centers all along the Gulf Coast. And the director of FEMA says tens of thousands more will likely require shelter for weeks, if not months.

So why is a U.S. Senate candidate from Montana asking you to help out?

Because it’s the right thing to do. Because this campaign isn’t just about politics—it’s about all of us pulling together to bring Montana values to Washington, D.C. and to the rest of the nation.

And in Montana, we help a neighbor in need. And sometimes that neighbor is very far away.

So please do what you can by supporting the efforts of the American Red Cross to help those affected by this disaster:

https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.asp

Thank you for helping out.

Jon Tester
Montanans for Tester

P.S. Please forward this on to your families and friends. Lives really are at stake, and your efforts can make a difference.

What really amazes me with this appeal is that for many, this is the first email they received from Jon Tester. Given his recently online publicity on the front page of Kos and MyDD, he made decision to make his first contact with many an attempt solicit contributions for a greater good than his campaign.

It makes me even more proud that my second ever contribution to a political campaign was John Testers, and it speaks volumes about the man.

UPDATE: (Bob) I was blown away when I opened the Tester email -- Tester is the real deal. I also got an email from Jon Corzine asking for help. As we come together online, our networks have value far beyond any election. Together, we can make a difference regardless of the challenge. The internet allows us all to act neighborly.

UPDATE: (Bob) I just received an email from a source close to the Chris Bell gubernatorial campaign in Texas. It appears that Bell's campaign was in the middle of an online fundraising drive to mark the launch of his campaign earlier this month. Bell suspended it earlier today and will be sending an email solicitation for the Red Cross tomorrow in place of the fundraising email that was scheduled. The website says:

Priorities
I read the news today, oh boy. The Chris Bell for Governor campaign is calling off our online fundraising drive out of respect for the hurricane victims. Please do what you can for those who can't do for themselves. Please do as much as you can, and then please do more. We're taking down our fundraising thermometer and putting up the link to the Red Cross...

UPDATE: (Bob) And Howard Dean, full email after the jump...

This week millions of Americans fled Hurricane Katrina. Across the South families abandoned their homes and businesses, not knowing what would be there when they returned.

Many stayed behind and suffered devastating loss and injuries -- nearly a hundred have died that we know of, and hundreds of thousands need our help.

America is at its best when we realize that we are one community -- that we're all in this together. That means that each one of us has the responsibility to do what we can to help the relief effort.

The Red Cross is a great place to start:

http://www.redcross.org

They are already moving people and resources into the region to help. Donations will provide clean water, food, and shelter for disaster victims. The Red Cross web site also has important information for victims and their relatives across the country.

Many local Red Cross chapters are organizing volunteers to travel to affected areas -- doctors and nurses to provide medical care, workers to build shelters, first responders to assist in rescue operations.

You can find your local chapter here to learn what you can do:

http://www.redcross.org/where/chapts.asp

We are still learning the full story of the devastation, but there is no time to wait. Please do something now.

Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Posted at 07:00 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Activism, Montana, Netroots, New Jersey, Texas | Comments (2) | Technorati

Monday, August 29, 2005

Kentucky: Impeach Governor Ernie Fletcher

Posted by Bob Brigham

I was shocked to hear this was happening, but Governor Ernie Fletcher has abused his position by seeking to cover-up a corruption scandal before he testifies tomorrow. It is unknown whether Governor Fletcher will take the 5th, but it is certain that he has created a gigantic political scandal. Bluegrass Report has been the source on this and Bluegrass Report has a legal source who understands Section 77 of the Kentucky Constitution:

Section 77 relates to retrospective acts only -- the Governor is empowered to nullfy punishment. This was the ruling (dicta) of the Kentucky Supreme Court in Anderson v. Commonwealth, 107 S.W.3d 193 (Ky. 2003) -- opinion by Johnstone -- all concur! In the opinion (p. 196) the Court looked to the US Supreme Court's decision in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) for guidance from the English common law in construing a President's power to pardon under Article II. The Schick Court observed that the Constitution gives "plenary authority to the President to "forgive" the convicted person in part or entirely." Id. at 266. The Governor just has no authority to pardon indicted persons because there is no fine to remit, no sentence to commute and no punishment imposed from which to grant a pardon or reprieve. There sure as hell is no authority to pardon persons who "might" be indicted!

No wonder serious legislators are talking about impeachment. And now, the suspects -- who were potentially illegally pardoned -- will be compelled to testify and can no longer take the fifth.

Posted at 09:23 PM in Activism, Culture of Corruption, Kentucky, Republicans, Scandals | Comments (2) | Technorati

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Attention College Students

Posted by Bob Brigham

Judging by our traffic logs, we have people from universities across the country who stop by Swing State Project for their political fix. Thanks for reading, now it is time to mobilize. I just received an urgent communique from General J.C. Christrian that included my orders. If you are a college student, your mission can be found here. Godspeed.

Posted at 11:58 AM in Activism, Netroots | Technorati

Thursday, August 25, 2005

San Francisco: Michela Alioto-Pier vs. Jonny Moseley

Posted by Bob Brigham

As a civic minded blogger, from time-to-time I feel it necessary to intervene in local affairs. Today's announcement that San Francisco Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier was successful in her bid to hold-up Jonny Moseley's 30th birthday gift to The City provides an opportunity for me to adjudicate a compromise.

BACKGROUND

Olympic Gold Medalist Jonny Moseley has spent more than a year organizing "Icer Air 2005" as a birthday gift to San Francisco on the day Moseley turns 30. Moseley envisioned using his name to draw dozens of world class names to San Francisco for a televised event featuring trucked-in snow creating a ski jump on one of San Francisco's legendary hills.

As is often the case in San Francisco, an opportunistic, third-rate politician stepped in at the very last minute to...cancel Jonny Mosely's birthday. From the San Francisco Examiner:

Entertainment Commissioner Terrance Allan was disappointed, saying these type of quirky events give San Francisco its reputation and draw tourists and visitors. He also said it was unfair to cancel the contest after organizers had spent more than a year applying for three separate event permits.

"Every neighborhood contributes to the vitality of the international persona by hosting street fairs like the Castro Fair or the Folsom Street Fair," Allan said. "All of that contributes to the mystique and allure that draws visitors to San Francisco. I find it disingenuous that one neighborhood would feel aloof and detached from making our city great."

That neighborhood is represented by Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier. The San Francisco Chronicle asked her about her push to cancel Jonny Moseley's birthday:

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who represents Pacific Heights, was also pleased that the competition had been called off.

"This is the only responsible thing to do,'' she said.

That Michela would pull a hold-up maneuver is not surprising in the least bit, she is known as the champion of fluff issues. There seems to be no bounds to the lengths Alitio-Pier will go to in her quest to score cheap political points, which makes sense considering she lost and kept losing as a candidate until she was appointed to her seat on the Board of Supervisors.

Michela Alioto-Pier is best known for her opposition to smoking outdoors and her tear-drenched tantrums that result whenever somebody says a bad word that is overheard by her socialite ears.

While Alioto-Pier lacks the ability to get anything done on the real issues, she excels at making a big deal out of fluff-issues. And she was successful in her battle against Jonny Moseley. But Michela only won the first round. Which wasn't exactly a win when you consider the extreme financial backlash that could result from Michela's hold-up job.

DECISION

If Jonny Moseley isn't sick of politicians like Michela Pier-Alioto, he should be given all available help to reschedule the event at the earliest possible date. In return, there should be no swearing or smoking by any of the fans or participants. If, for example, an athlete were to crash after flying 70 feet in the air and accidentally mutter the word "crap" – the perpetrator would need to immediately recite 5 Hail Marys. Ten for the word 'shit' and the f-bomb should result in 20 Hail Marys. Unless the F-bomb precedes "Michela Alioto-Pier" –- in that case it is justified.

Posted at 12:44 PM in Activism, California, Culture of Corruption, Economy, General, Netroots, Scandals | Comments (1) | Technorati

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Democrats: Time to Fight

Posted by Bob Brigham

Chris Bowers has a great map of the new SUSA 50 state numbers. Bowers seems to think it is time to fight:

There isn't a single corner of this nation where Democrats are not more in line with Independents than Republicans. That's a fact. That's fifty-state potential. That's a tidal wave.

But we can't win if we don't have a candidate on the ballot. The DC crowd needs to realize this year could be tidal, but only if Democrats are ready to fight with leadership. Sirota says:

Finally, one of the top 2008 Democratic presidential contenders has the guts to take a major stand on the Iraq War. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is announcing his support for the United States to set a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Though that is a position that polls show a majority of Americans support, high profile Democrats have been unwilling to come out and make that stand. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the Democratic campaign committee in Washington is actually trying to pretend the Iraq War doesn't exist. [...]

Democrats would be wise to follow Feingold's lead, instead of either parroting right-wing lies themselves like Sen. Evan Bayh (D), or cowering in a corner on Iraq because they believe any support for withdrawal will mean they will look weak on national security. That just isn't the case. Polls show Americans believe the Iraq War has made this country less safe. That means trying to end the war and get out of the situation as Feingold is calling for is a credible pro-national security position in the eyes of the public.

Big bold move by Feingold. Speaking of big bold moves, Moveon really stepped up last night.

On Wednesday, August 17, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625 vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son, Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq—and their moms and families.

I don't know what the DCCC was doing last night, but I was at my neighborhood's Moveon vigil. Some Democrats get it, not suprising where you find them. From Montana's Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Dozens of people gathered in front of the Gallatin County Courthouse Wednesday to silently protest the war in Iraq during a candlelight vigil co-sponsored by the Gallatin County Democrats. [...]

Local Democrats sponsored the vigil along with Moveon.org, a liberal organization that opposed Bush's re-election. But the party invited anyone to participate, regardless their political affiliation. [...]

The vigil was mostly a silent affair with protesters holding lighted candles during a moment of silence that stretched several minutes. The names of soldiers who died in Iraq were projected onto a white screen set up below the giant yellow ribbon that has become a permanent display at the courthouse.

Tracy Velázquez, vice-chair of the Montana Democratic Party, provided protesters stickers with the names of fallen troops. When asked, she said she wasn't worried the vigil would be used by the party's opponents to portray it as against the soldiers.

Some Democrats aren't scared. Progress is coming from the ground up, people are tired of relying upon DC. Distributed models allow scale that is just beginning. The Gallatin Democrats' website is updated every morning. We need to fight, in every precinct in every district in every state. Tidal.

Posted at 11:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Montana | Comments (5) | Technorati

Friday, August 12, 2005

Nebraska's 93 County Strategy

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Nebraska Democratic Party gets it:

Our red-state strategy, the "93 County Strategy", kicked-off this week with two local Meetups and grassroots training in Hershey, Nebraska on Saturday. And we just had a fantastic article written about our progress. [...]

Remember the blogswarm to support Howard Dean and change the Democratic National Committee's approach to politics? Well, here's the beef: Nebraska is one of the first states in the "50 State Strategy" to get organizers on the ground.

Now that we've got the people -- and more and more Nebraskans are coming on board every day -- it's time to reach out to everyone inside and outside of the state so they can participate.

Thats why we've put a post up to catch your ideas about what needs to happen here in our State

I noticed an interesting comment over at Daily Kos:

Hanging On My Wall...

...is a copy of Tim's first post "My ATM Pin Number" to serve as a "must read" to everyone who comes into my office and wants to talk about online fundraising.

Nice. People need to read Part I and Part II.

Props to the Nebraska Democratic Party for "getting it" enough to go after all 93 counties. Way to grow the base.

Posted at 11:42 AM in Activism, Democrats, Nebraska | Comments (1) | Technorati

Monday, August 08, 2005

MoveOn: Loose Lips, Pink Slips -- FIRE KARL ROVE

Posted by Bob Brigham

Personally, I'm a big fan of Open Source message creation. If we care more about the content than the source, then collectively we can usually find a better message than a handful of political consultants. If not, Open Source will allow the political consultants' message to prove it is the best by rising to the top.

At Swing State Project, we often write about onling campaigning in the post-broadcast era and open source message creation is a big part of the puzzle. Take the Ohio 2 race for example. Tim Tagaris nailed the message in a blog post. It turned into a viral video ad and then ended up in an email from the DNC to 4 million Democrats (see paragraph 4). Political message has turned into a discussion and the days of talking at people are over.

Democracy for America Open Sourced Tom DeLay a few months ago for a successful billboard campaign.

Now, MoveOn has done it to Karl Rove. Bonus points for the pic component. Full email after the break...

Dear MoveOn member,

It has been a busy week in the Karl Rove CIA Leak scandal. Columnist Robert Novak was suspended by CNN after he swore profanely and then walked out of the CNN studio rather than answer questions about his role in the CIA leak.1 The American Prospect reports that jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller met with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, and discussed Valerie Plame six days before Plame's undercover status with the CIA was revealed.2

Finally, after a week and 17,740 entries from MoveOn members we have a winner in the Fire Karl Rove Slogan Contest. And the winner is...

"Loose Lips Deserve Pink Slips. Fire Karl Rove."

Now that we have the slogan we need to get it out there. We've designed a downloadable poster from the winning slogan. You can print it easily on a desktop printer and it's perfect to place in your window, hang on your refrigerator, and tack on a bulletin board at home, work or in your community, in a gym locker or anywhere else that makes sense. Take a minute right now to click on the link below to download and print the poster (you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader).

http://political.moveon.org/firerove/poster.html

After you've prominently hung up your photo send us a digital photo of where you've displayed it or a photo of you or your friends holding the poster. Just e-mail it as an attachment to:

rovephotos@moveon.org

Use the subject line to give your photo a title, and the body of the email to give it a description. Please include the location (venue, city, state) in the description.

The author of the winning slogan is Mary Thornquist, a MoveOn member from Catonsville, Maryland. Mary has been a MoveOn member since 1998. We asked her to write about the slogan and the Karl Rove CIA Leak scandal. Here is what she wrote.

Tom—

Thanks for letting me know my slogan was chosen. As I said, I was really impressed with many of the entries. It's clear that a lot people are disappointed with the current administration's lack of integrity on this and other issues.

My entry, obviously, derives from the World War II slogan, "Loose Lips Sink Ships". The patriotic message then was clear: divulging information, intentionally or not, aided the enemy and put our armed forces at risk. The President's promise to fire anyone in his administration found to be involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame was consistent with the spirit of this message. Now we see this was mere patriotic posturing.

The Right's real message about patriotism keeps re-emerging: that disagreein