We have to act fast. Five Democratic Members of Congress from New York are putting the brakes on President Obama's historic campaign to reform our broken healthcare system.
Legislation that would expand healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans is gaining steam in Congress. But these five New York Representatives are stalling the bill because it pays for reform with a modest tax on the rich.
This is our best chance for healthcare reform in a generation, but now these five Democratic Members of Congress are putting real reform in jeopardy - even though less than 1% of all New Yorkers would be affected by the tax. Healthcare is too important to sit on sidelines.
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it's been all over the map. I'll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the "good guys" are.
First, let's start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it's their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
Dan Maffei (D): 41%
Peter Cappuccilli (R): 29%
Undecided: 30%
Dan Maffei (D): 41%
Randy Wolken (R): 25%
Undecided: 34%
This is why it's good to support progressives in a wave year like the one that is shaping up. We could easily see a conservative Democrat in this seat, but instead we'll get a leader.
Speaking of Blue Majority, Mark Pera's primary against Dan Lipinski is in just 11 days time (February 5th), and Donna Edwards faces off against Al Wynn only one week later. The time to give to them is now.
Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.
"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."
There is no one in the Senate who I respect more than Senator Feingold. While I disagree with him on this one, I have to admit that Edwards did not engage the big fights he needed to while he was in the Senate.
President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century."
Whatever. "Fundamental change" is not something that can be immediately wiped away by the next President. Outside of Kosovo, I can't think of anything that Bill Clinton did, against Republican objections, that Bush has not entirely reversed. Considering that "Clintonian" has come to mean a series of incremental, targeted government programs, I can't see how anyone would think that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the country.
Now that we are down to just three candidates, primary straw polls become much simpler. So, I have included one in the extended entry. I'm interested to know where Open Left readers stand.
This is an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.
Republican Rep. Jim Walsh of New York is expected to announce his retirement soon, according to a GOP aide familiar with the decision, giving Democrats another pick-up opportunity following a wave of Republican retirements this cycle.
The veteran appropriator had a tough reelection fight in 2006 and was expected to face another challenge in the fall.
It marks another surprise retirement for the GOP. Moderates Republicans have been particularly depleted in recent years, both through retirements and losses in the 2006 midterm. As a result, House Republicans have adopted a more conservative thrust during the 110th Congress.
Walsh's office could not be reached for comment.
Walsh was first elected to the House in 1988. Walsh's father, William Walsh, was mayor of Syracuse during the 1960s, followed by three terms in the House.
The NY-25 is a very blue district, with a partisan index of Democratic 3.4 (and growing). Walsh was faced both with the prospect of not receiving the conservative party endorsement because he wasn't crazy enough on Iraq, and the much more serious challenge from Democrat Dan Maffei. Two years ago, Maffei came within 1% against Walsh, and will now be poised to take the seat in 2008.
I know it is short notice, but starting just after noon eastern, Democracy for America's Jim and Blue Majority candidate Dan Maffei will be around for about thirty or forty minutes to answer any questions you might have for them (they are doing an event today in Syracuse, my hometown). You can read the introductory post for Dan from last month here, read the NY-25th archive here, and watch his introductory video here:
The new FISA bill, the anniversary of the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq, and the looming attempt to override the S-Chip veto, are obvious topics, but you can ask Jim and Dan anything you like.
This is also an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.
I'm starting to collect candidate statements on the FISA fight in reaction to Bush's call for amnesty for the phone companies that broke the law and spied on Americans and the expansion of powers Congress is considering making permanent.
Maybe it is because it is very early in the morning and the entire day seems ahead of me, but I have a sudden burst of optimism regarding the Iraq blurring strategy I have often fretted about. The simple fact is that a "centrist" or "compromise" position on Iraq is actually the least popular position of all. Like most DLC-nexus / Bush Dog proposals, it does not actually have a real base of support. About 60% of the country wants troops out of Iraq now, 30% wants Iraq to go on forever, while only about 10% believe that there actually is some form of compromise to be found. Consider, for example, that in NY-25, Jim Walsh's faux opposition to the war has not earned him any new friends among anti-war supporters, while angering the conservative party in the district:
But in the end, Walsh's move was met by little more than continued criticism from anti-war activists and silence or disappointment from his supporters.
John DeSpirito, chairman of the Onondaga County Republican Party, was in the unusual position of being almost speechless Friday when asked about the 10-term congressman.
"I'd rather not comment," said DeSpirito, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam. "I don't have anything to say at this time."
The chairman of the Onondaga County Conservative Party, Austin Olmsted, said Walsh's decision could put him at risk of losing its endorsement for the first time.
"I wasn't shocked or stunned by his remarks," said Olmsted. "It's kind of what I expected from him. He looks at his position in Washington as a career path. He's not serving in a capacity as our congressional representative. He's serving as a career. Most of the people I spoke with feel the same way. It's a very sad event."
If Walsh loses the conservative party endorsement in the NY-25, it is game over for him. Dan Maffei will cruise to victory, as Walsh immediately drops at least 8% of the vote in a district he only won by 1.5% in 2006. He isn't going to make that up within an electorate that is angry over the failure of the both Bush and the Congress to end the war, especially since he still apparently opposes a timeline for withdrawal, has offered no specifics on exactly how his position has changed, and has only voiced support for the toothless Castle-Tanner proposal. From the same Post-Standard article:
"As far as specifics, he's not going to commit to anything yet," Gage said. "We have to wait and see what legislation is offered. So it's premature which bill he would support. I think Mr. Walsh is open to everything."
Walsh plans to join discussions Tuesday with other Republican House members who support a compromise bill on Iraq, Gage said.
Walsh is interested in a bipartisan approach being pushed by Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and John Tanner, D-Tenn., Gage said..
Wow, that is a really strong stance coming from Walsh-he doesn't even know how his position changed, and doesn't know what he supports. That will really win him a ot of votes. Unless more Republicans are willing to go as far as Jim Ogonowski in MA-05, and I seriously doubt that many will, this could be a pattern we see in many other areas. With an electorate angry that the war continues unabated, and a conservative base ready to dump any Republican who favors serious, meaningful opposition to the war, "compromise" solutions are basically just going to piss everyone off. The many Republicans who narrowly survived in 2006 will lose far more support from their conservative Republican base than they will gain from an electorate that is angry more hasn't been done to stop the war do far.
Ironically, the failure of the Democratic Congress to make a dent in the war might actually torpedo the political effectiveness of any "compromise" blurring strategy before it starts. When it comes to vague, toothless promises to end the war, the electorate has already been there and done that. At this point, voters don't want Congress to do less to end the war, they want to see more done:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). April 20-23, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
"What concerns you more -- that Congress will go too far in pressing the President to reduce troop levels in Iraq, or that President Bush will not make enough changes in his Iraq policy?"
Congress will go too far: 31%
Bush Won't Make Enough changes: 61%
This poll was taken after Democrats had already passed a bill with a binding withdrawal timeline through both the House and the Senate, and only 31% of the country thought that went too far. The idea that pulling back will appease them is ludicrous. Essentially, these compromise bills are just like pretty much everything else that comes out of the center-right, pro-elite, media and political establishment: it pisses everyone off, and has nothing in it that anyone likes at all.
Connecticut voters who fell for the blurring strategy in 2006 now feel a real sense of buyer's remorse. Even beyond Lieberman, around the nation, after an election that turned on the Iraq war was immediately followed by an escalation in American troops levels in Iraq, we might be past the point where voters are willing to hear out any "compromise" proposal to end the war. Simply put, at this stage, there just might not be any compromise to be had on Iraq. In fact, it could actually be a great opportunity not just for Democrats, but for progressive Democrats. Most Democrats in key districts will still take a position to the left of Republicans on the Iraq war, and those who do will prosper. Those who don't, well, then it will be their own damn fault if they lose. If Democrats in key districts are willing to call out the blurring strategy for the fake end to the war that it is, and if they are led by a Democratic nominee who says the same thing about what will almost certainly be the Republican nominee's faux promises on Iraq, then the electorate situation should be fine. The key, of course, is finding enough Democrats who are willing to take that position, which will require a lot of effort in upcoming primaries.
Jean Shaheen has entered the Senate race in New Hampshire. From what I am told, I am pretty sure this means both Katrina Swett and Steve Marchand will drop out. As for Jay Buckey, I honestly don't know, but I hope he stays in. Not only do I like Buckey, who is both an astronaut and a progressive (two of my favorite things), but the last thing Shaheen needs now is an uncontested primary. While polls show her ahead of Republican incumbent John Sununu by anywhere from 16-28 points, I do not have a lot of confidence that those enormous leads will hold. At the very least, Shaheen needs to be pushed to become a better campaigner in the primaries. Hopefully, such a primary will also force her to adopt a more progressive outlook (seriously, check out that link)
Now, even if he stays in, I am under no particular illusions that Buckey would have anything more than a moonshot to actually defeat Shaheen in the primary. However, to be perfectly frank, I feel like Shaheen is one of the many, many Democrats who first helped lead the party into simultaneous minority and pro-war status back in 2002-2003, but who is now capitalizing on the favorable electoral stage that was prepared mainly by the progressive movement during four years of intense guerilla warfare against conservatism from 2003-2006. While the Jean Shaheen's and Rahm Emanual's of the party were supporting things like the Bush tax cuts, the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and legislation to support Terry Schaivo, it was the netroots who were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in opposition to Republicans. I feel like they are capitalizing on what we rightfully earned, and both dissing us and preparing to destroy all of our work in the process. They are pretenders to the new Democratic majority.
Why am I so pissed at Democrats lately? Simply put, it feels like many Democrats are taking something that does not belong to them--their excellent 2006 and 2008 electoral advantages--and then thoroughly ruining it. And why am I so convinced they will ruin it? Because, as a progressive Democrat, I have already seen the blurring strategy on Iraq successfully used against my candidates by centrists from my own party. The most graphic example was Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Senate general election. While nutmegers now regret falling for that strategy, it still worked, and Joe Lieberman is still in office. Now, with even Bush supposedly promising withdrawal by next summer, with the country grossly misinformed about withdrawal plans, with supposedly "anti-war" Republicans not being forced to vote on anything that will actually end the war, and with Republicans starting to capitalize on Democrats refusing to say how many troops they will leave in Iraq and for how long, I can see how it will broadly be used against progressives in 2008. Bush Dogs will be empowered. Progressives will find "moderate" Republicans much more difficult to defeat. Our chances for sweeping gains in the House might be wiped away. Even our advantage in the Presidency might disappear, as long as our nominee ends up supporting an indefinite amount of American troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. And so, like a nightmere version of Groundhog Day, those same, pretenders to the new Democratic Majority could very well lose because they shat on their base, and refused to take stronger stances on Iraq.
Sometimes I wonder if this problem is a combination of the progressive movement growing too effective too quickly, and Bush policies creating national and international disasters even more rapidly than expected. It takes a long time to build a bench. We are talking at least four years to build a member of the US House, and probably more. It takes ten years to build a US Senator, and often more. To build a President, it takes at least fourteen years, and often more. In the five year period from 2002-2007, the movement simply did not have enough time to build up a series of candidates and professional activists to replace the pretenders in Congress, in the party leadership, and throughout the progressive establishment. So, we set the table, but most of the people available to sit down and eat were the same Democrats who screwed everything up so badly from 1994-2004. And so, Jean Shaheen loses in 2002 while supporting the war and the Bush tax cuts, is floated as a "stop Dean" candidate for DNC chair in late 2004, but then gets to re-enter the Senate in 2008 largely because of the work of other progressives who she largely opposed. However, many other Democrats could easily end up losing in 2008 because of a blurring strategy on Iraq that Democrats like Shaheen will facilitate.
That, in a nutshell, is why I am directing so much vitrol at members of my own party right now. It feels like pretenders have usurped our new majority. Right now, I feel like a wave of primary challenges and trying to put an end to the blurring strategy is practically a last ditch effort to keep the situation from growing even worse. The Iraq blurring strategy is largely engineered by Republicans Bush Dogs as a means of keeping the conservative working majority in place. In order to break the conservative governing majority, that strategy must be smashed.
We're going to have an exciting announcement soon, the first Bush Dog primary challenge to an incumbent since the Bush Dog campaign started. But I want to talk about Dan Maffei and why it's so important to support progressives at the same time we're going after reactionary Bush Dogs. You can give to Maffei here, but the short story is that if you want withdrawal from Iraq after 2009, we damn well better be sure we have people like Maffei in Congress.
And now to the Bush Dog campaign. We've put up primary challenges on the Blue Majority page before, and we love doing it. Donna Edwards, for instance, took on 2006 Bush Dog Al Wynn, and is going after a much more frightened Wynn this cycle. But the Bush Dog campaign is not just about primary challenges, though there will be several this cycle and my prediction is that there will probably be very few Bush Dogs in Congress by 2010. The point is to create criticism, an environment of accountability, and to get to know the people who are enabling right-wing policies.
With that in mind, I'll point out that step one of the Bush Dog campaign is nearly complete. Every Bush Dog except Bob Etheridge (NC-02) and Nick Lampson (TX-22) has been profiled. We've learned that John Tanner (TN-08) is a rarely challenged opinion leader, that Henry Cuellar has moved left since his primary challenge, and we've begun to understand the role of Emily's List in electing Melissa Bean and Stephanie Herseth Sandler. The number of mentions of Bush Dog Democrats on Google continues to increase, as does media coverage of the term. And we've had our first victory, with Darcy Burner's fundraising from the netroots forcing her conservative primary opponent, Rodney Tom, to drop out.
The key to the Bush Dog campaign is to have a carrot and stick strategy. We need to offer sticks in the form of primary challenges and criticisms, and carrots, in the form of support for progressive candidates that stand up for our values. We need to be building a stronger party at the same time as we offer criticism from within. That's why people like Dan Maffei and good Democrats in Congress are so important.
So you know, we're trying to be a little judicious with Blue Majority this time because we now have the majority, and we don't want our values to be sold out and our candidates to 'go DC'. Bloggers don't have an ideological policy checklist, because that's easily gamed and not a useful lens for people-powered strength. Instead we are trying to gauge whether our candidates will be there when it really counts. There's no way to know for sure, but every candidate we've chosen so far - Al Franken, Donna Edwards, Darcy Burner, Charlie Brown - has a demonstrated record of progressive political courage. And I can guarantee you that if Chris Bowers likes him, Dan Maffei is a guy who will push extremely hard to get us out of Iraq, regardless of how many residual troops the next President will try to leave in there. Here's Chris:
Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn't exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.
Character in politics matters, and so does putting in a new generation of leaders. Maffei is part of the trend of putting new and more aggressive progressives into Congress, people who will lead and puncture the stale and ridiculously calcified conventional wisdom. Give if ">you can. You'll be proud you did as Dan kicks ass in Congress in your name.
I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn't exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.
Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:
Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of "wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn't that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?" If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh's announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, "compromise" bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.
Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.
Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush's policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush's policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a "goal." Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won't vote for mandated troop withdrawal.
This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won't do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush's policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.
In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can't let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.
Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.
Yet, while voting again and again to give President Bush a blank check for Iraq, Walsh incredibly claims that President Bush "should not have a blank check to continue the conflict." After voting against hearings on President Bush's policy on Iraq, Walsh had the audacity to claim that he would not abdicate his "responsibility to provide needed oversight."
In other words, he has said that he opposed Bush on Iraq before, and then voted in lockstep with him.
I was also struck by how there was no mention of timetables in the article where Walsh supposedly makes his big break. So, I called Walsh's Syracuse office to see if he was now in favor of a timetable for withdrawal (my driver's license is still registered in the district). While the person answering the phone said that he did not know for certain, his impression was that Walsh would not favor specific timetables, and was actually in line with what Petraeus said yesterday about a gradual drawdown of troops starting next summer. I also asked if this meant Walsh would sign on to any bill apart from the one he already is co-sponsoring that suggests withdrawal should be a goal, but does not actually mandate any withdrawal. The person answering the phone said he did not know.
Looking for further guidance, I turned to Jim Walsh's House website and campaign website. The House website does have a news release from yesterday, but instead of it focusing on Iraq it is about bringing home money to the local fire department. This was released the same day as his big break with Iraq, which one would think would also be worthy of a press release. On his campaign website, there is no mention of Iraq, or any issue, in the issues section, and there hasn't been an update to the news section in almost four months.
So, what does Walsh's big break mean, exactly? It does not seem to mean that be favors a timetable for withdrawal. It is not clear whether it will mean he will support any legislation apart from the bill that suggests withdrawal would be a good idea, but does not actually mandate it. It might very well mean that he agrees with Petraeus about troop reductions, which is to say the escalation should end in July of 2008, one month before it would have ended anyway simply because we would run out of troops to send to Iraq. And this is all coming from someone who, since he narrowly won re-election in 2006, has been talking about withdrawal, oversight and "no blank checks," but during the 110th Congress has voted with Bush every step of the way on Iraq (source).
I am from the Syracuse area, and I remember growing up how Walsh was regularly credited with being a moderate who broke with his own party. However, as time went on, I started wondering if it was all rhetoric, since I could not find all that many bills that Walsh actually broke with his party on, from New Gingrich to George Bush. He talks a good game, like he has been talking withdrawal since December, but whatever actually happens? It is hard for me to decide if voting to continue the war makes me angrier if those votes come from people who claim to oppose it, than if it comes from those who claim to support it. I'll believe that Walsh is now opposed to the Iraq war the moment he becomes a co-sponsor to, or voted in favor of, a piece of legislation mandating troop withdrawal, not just suggesting it. Until that point, about the only thing I can imagine this "break" with Bush on Iraq accomplishes is to assist Walsh's re-election chances.
