Just now, the New Jersey Senate defeated marriage equality by a vote of 14-20. The defeat was not a surprise, but it is disappointing.
There are two things I want to get at before they start. The first is the likely chorus of "the Democrats have failed us! Primary them all!" that will come from advocates, since Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. The same thing occurred after the New York State vote in which 75% of the Democratic caucus supported the bill and 0% of the Republican caucus didn't. In truth, we would have never gotten as far as we did in either state without Democratic support. Republicans wouldn't have even brought up the bill. In New York, the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed the bill not once, but twice, by similar margins in terms of caucus support. In NY and NJ, the Democratic-controlled Senate leadership kept their promise for a vote. Saying "The Democrats" failed us is self-defeating for three reasons. First, it causes activists and voters to think there is no difference between the two parties on this issue. That is false and unhelpful. Second, it will help hand over control to the Republicans and destroy chances of another vote for some time. Third, it leads to a misuse of resources in thinking the solution to this problem is just to primary all the Democrats. There is a target-rich environment of Republicans, too.
That's not to say you can't go after Democrats. If you want to assign blame and draw up a list of targets, be specific in naming the people responsible, and then go after them. Legislative wins are coalition-based, not Party-based. Build a coalition.
The second thing is that no doubt, the "time to shift to domestic partnerships!" folks (whose arguments I debunk here and here) will add this to their misleading count of states which have defeated marriage equality in some form, and use it as evidence that marriage equality as a movement has failed. However, I believe it was dealt a significant blow when Corzine, who campaigned heavily on the issue, lost in November. A defeat in New York State (which actually is also part of the media market in New Jersey) also hurt prospects. We also had a pro-equality Governor and very likely had the votes in the Assembly- same as in New York State. Garden State Equality failed to effectively organize, but we were also dealt a bad hand, and came close anyway. As with California, Maine and New York State, this is not some resounding defeat that prompts a major shift. We lost by a field goal, not five touchdowns, and it is a stumble on the road to full equality.
The good news is that I spoke today to Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who told me Lambda Legal will announce it is going back to courts in New Jersey. As you may know, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006, 7-0, that legislators must either amend marriage laws to give same-sex couples full equality, or create a "parallel structure", which led to the New Jersey legislature legalizing civil unions. As has been demonstrated by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission set up to study how the new law was working, civil unions do not work.
Best of luck to Lambda Legal, and let's keep the fight up.
The news out late yesterday was that the National Equality March was endorsed by "over 140 leaders from all walks of life in the LGBT community."
What was interesting to me about this was (a) the timing of the announcement (b) the number of people who decided to get on board after leaning against the march publicly, or in some cases, expressed outright opposition. There have been concerns expressed by many that it was/is shaping up to be a disaster, and other concerns such as those I expressed earlier this week over resources being spread thin.
If you'll follow me across the flip, I have some background on the March, and a general strategy question for you all.
It will be weeks, if not months, before the analysis of 2009's off year election results fade from the forefront of political commentary, particularly among conservatives. While the White House spin machine is content with downplaying the results as purely a function of local issues, conservatives have attempted to paint these contests as a referendum on the Obama Administration, or more bizarrely, the next step in "the American people taking back their country". Most seasoned political observers know that off year, special and mid-term elections are characterized by low voter turnout and that party activists play a much greater role in determining the outcome. Viewed through that prism, the 2009 contests fall clearly into the pattern of typical off year elections. Thus, the primary question is this: If the 2009 elections exhibit all of the characteristics of other off year elections, how can they logically be seen as a referendum on the Obama presidency or the opening volley in some great populist uprising. After all, if the American people are so disgusted with the Obama Administration, would the rising chorus of conservative opposition not propel them to action and would we not observe a significant up tick in voter turnout?
Analyzing the Gubernatorial races first, it is impossible to deny that local issues dominated. Democratic strategist Steve McMahon pointed out that property taxes and the increase in insurance rates, both of which are state level issues, are a big part of why Jon Corzine was not re-elected. While not directly involved, scandals played a role in Corzine's demise as well, culminating in last summer's roundup of a cast of characters from politicians to rabbis. Corzine's affiliation with the investment firm Goldman Sachs and his aloof political style did nothing to endear him to the people of New Jersey. As one NPR reporter put it: "Corzine never mastered the art of retail politics." Political columnist A.P. Stoddard pointed on November the 3rd that if Corzine lost it would not be Barack Obama's fault as in New Jersey; Obama had an approval rating in the vicinity of sixty percent in contrast to Corzine's thirty nine percent. In the end, Corzine wound up losing by four percentage points to Chris Christie.
In Virginia, the issues that Republican Bob McDonnell focused on were improving the state's economy, job creation and solving longstanding statewide transportation problems. Of these, only job creation could conceivably be linked back to the Obama Administration. While many voters are skeptical as to just how many jobs the Administration's stimulus has created, most people still believe that Obama inherited a difficult situation, the blame for which cannot be laid at the door of his White House. In contrast to McDonnell, the Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds was a relative unknown who struggled with name recognition till the very end.
What is notable about both races is that the Republican winners eschewed the currently fashionable conservative think tank groupthink, which prescribes a political philosophy that hews to the hard right. As you will recall, following the defeat in the 2008 election cycle, most of the outspoken conservative commentators and theorists claimed that when the G.O.P. moved to the center it lost elections and that future electoral victory could only come by moving further to the right, the further, the better. Neither of the winners in New Jersey or Virginia dwelled on aspects of the "Culture Wars" nor did they resort to the now hackneyed rant about "a slide toward European Socialism." Moreover, both Christie and McDonnell ran upbeat, politically moderate campaigns, devoid of the shrill histrionics that have come to dominate rightwing talk radio or the "political commentators" currently practicing their craft on Fox News. In contrast both Corzine and Deeds ran very negative campaigns to which the voting public now turns an increasingly deaf ear.
Another big issue that can't be ignored is voter turnout. Political writer Paul Loeb summarizes voter turnout as follows: "In exit polls, Virginia voters under 30 dropped from 21% of the 2008 electorate to 10% this year and from 17% to 9% in New Jersey. Minority voting saw a similar decline. In both states, over half the Obama voters of a year ago simply stayed home, more than a million people in both Virginia and New Jersey. With this collapse of the Democratic base, even relatively modest Republican turnout could carry the day, and did." That said if this off year election is characterized by such low turn out levels, how could conservatives make an argument that there is such a dramatic rejection of the Obama agenda? Were the races in New Jersey and Virginia truly a referendum on Obama? If exit polls are any indication, they apparently were not. Edison Research provided a view as to whether or not Obama was a factor in people's decision to vote by way of these exit poll results:
New Jersey:
Support for Obama - 19%
Oppose Obama - 20%
Obama not a factor - 60%
Virginia:
Support for Obama - 18%
Oppose Obama - 24%
Obama not a factor - 55%
Thus in both races over 70% of those who answered exit polls said that Barack Obama did not play a role in their getting out to vote in what were essentially local elections. So much for the idea that the results of this past election constitute a rejection of Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have only moved up since the August Town Hall Follies. Meanwhile, the G.O.P. is polling its lowest approval rating since polling began and only twenty percent of Americans identify with the Republican Party.
Let's now turn to New York's 23rd Election District, where a Republican has held the Congressional seat since 1871. It is in the 23rd, a district that has all of the demographics that favor Republicans, that the newly energized national Conservative movement chose to show just how effective it can be in both defeating a Democrat, upending a moderate Republican and turning the tide on Barack Obama. Prior to the election the district was besieged with conservatives from all over the country including volunteers from prominent conservative grass roots organizations like, The National Organization for Marriage, FreedomWorks, of Tea Party fame, and the Club For Growth, which spent one million dollars backing the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. Such conservative luminaries like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who predicted a conservative victory, tried in vain to nationalize the election. The cause of Mr. Hoffman was championed by both the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and by the NeoConservative organ, the Weekly Standard. In the face of this unprecedented conservative effort, Bill Owens won by endorsing the Obama Agenda, in an economically depressed region where unemployment has been north of ten percent for some time. This is the second time since the election of Barack Obama, that a Democrat endorsing Obama's agenda has beaten a Republican with national conservative support in a district that demographically favored the G.O.P. The other instance is the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated Congressional seat earlier this year.
What the outcome of the election in New York's 23rd Congressional District shows is that beyond the world of right wing talk shows, the blogosphere, tea parties and grass roots activism, the appeal of the radical right may be much more limited than had been previously assumed. Could it be that the "August Town Hall Follies" with their tenor of rejection, vitriol and political dramatics have convinced few that conservatives have anything meaningful to offer an electorate that is essentially moderate, but that has been trending to the left over the previous two election cycles? It certainly leaves one to wonder just how effective Sarah Palin can be as a national political figure, seeing as she has yet to have any significant outcome on any race in which she has been involved. After all, isn't she the darling of the base, the one individual that can really turn out a crowd?
Don't get me wrong; there is a wake up call for the Democrats in the results of the 2009 elections and in 2010 there is no guarantee that they won't lose more seats, the incumbent party usually does. If it happened to Ronald Reagan, it can certainly happen to Barack Obama. Obama has clearly lost support among independents and people are rightly concerned about the upward growth in federal spending. At the same time, Americans know that this is no ordinary time and that the situation we currently find ourselves in is not the work of the Obama Administration. But those jumping to the conclusion that 2009 is all that meaningful should heed the words of Purdue University Professor of Political Science, Bert Rockman: "I see no particular harbingers for 2010. While people are deeply unhappy about current conditions, they are also keenly suspicious of Republicans." But the bigger takeaway from all of this is that as far as 2009 is concerned, rumors of Barack Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Based on the facts cited above, claims that a great anti-Obama populist revolution is underway cannot be substantiated. More to the point, the great citizen's revolt to "take back their country" seems only to be alive and well in the delusional fantasyland of tea parties, birthers and far right conservatives who can't seem to abide a climate of much needed political change.
The new Q-poll has Gov. Corzine down by only four points- a narrowing from 10 points from an earlier poll this month. This combined with the Democracy Corps poll last week (1 point down) is good news. The overall race has been narrowing for awhile:
Chris Christie, who recently said insurance companies should not be forced to cover mammograms for women in their 20s because those who get breast cancer "are an exception", has his worst favorability of the campaign in the poll- 38% favorable, 38% unfavorable. New Jersey law mandates that health insurance companies operating in the state are required to provide a minimum level of care- including covering mammograms- and Chris Christie, facing a right-wing primary challenger earlier this year, proposed letting insurance companies opt out of those.
It reminds me of what Rep. Alan Grayson said on the House floor yesterday, outlining the GOP health care plan- "Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly!"
If you haven't taken action for Corzine yet, we're in the stretch run on the campaign. You can watch and post this ad on your Facebook and Twitter account, send around to your friends in the state, and sign up to help defeat Christie and insurance company backers here.
The big news in the race is that Gov. Corzinehas taken a one-point lead over Chris Christie. If you don't count the Republican poll taken by the guy who polled for Christie's primary opponent, this is Corzine's first lead of the campaign since January, and first lead since Christie became the nominee. It's still a small lead, and could be an outlier considering the most recent numbers (graph below and Pollster.com's breakout numbers here), but it is good news, and I'm told Monmouth is a trusted and accurate source.
On the break-outs, Corzine is up to 77% among Democrats (from 74% in the Q-poll I wrote about here). The number of independents who are undecided is up 5 points, who could be trending towards Corzine, but that's also within the margin of error. He still has a long way to go (losing 38-42% among labor voters, getting hammered 43-24% on property taxes and losing on many of the rest of the issues voters name as most important), but this is a positive sign, and should help beat back a push for crap like this.
The latest TV ad from the Corzine campaign is out, and it's below. I spent part of the afternoon looking through all of the video the Corzine team has put together so far, and noticed a serious problem, and an opportunity.
Take a look at the ad below.
I think Corzine's handling of the economy is one of his strongest points and messages, but this is just too many words, and really weird music. And "But Chris Christie's soooo partisan..." is just a dumb line.
Now, check out the campaign's previous negative ad, and two negative web videos:
Same problem, right? Weird music (the last one awkwardly flipping to positive music for the Corzine campaign logo, kind of ruining the effect) grainy images, too many words on screen. And generally just the same old classic negative ads.
Some thoughts on these, and a change in approach, in the extended entry.
The news out late yesterday was that the National Equality March was endorsed by "over 140 leaders from all walks of life in the LGBT community."
What was interesting to me about this was (a) the timing of the announcement (b) the number of people who decided to get on board after leaning against the march publicly, or in some cases, expressed outright opposition. There have been concerns expressed by many that it was/is shaping up to be a disaster, and other concerns such as those I expressed earlier this week over resources being spread thin.
If you'll follow me across the flip, I have some background on the March, and a general strategy question for you all.
I have a good friend in southern California who is gay, helps out with some local causes, but not a politico activist by any stretch. He e-mailed me recently because he has some extra money to spend this fall, and needed some advice on whether he should go to Maine to help defend the recently-passed marriage equality legislation, or fly to DC to participate in the National Equality March, an LGBT rights march on The Mall this fall. On the one hand, he is still upset over Prop 8 and said he wanted to make sure the same result doesn't go down in Maine. On the other, he heard the March was extremely poorly organized (it is) and needed all the help they could get, and there were concerns about turnout given that it's being organized in five months' time and a glaring lack of national media coverage around it.
His question brought up a point I want to make about a problem I have noticed among progressive leaders.
There are other multiple fronts opening on LGBT rights this fall. As I wrote last night, Referendum 71 is now going to be on the ballot in less than two months' time in Washington State, stripping LGBT couples of pending rights regarding sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, and more. In New Jersey, Gov. Corzine is one of a few gubernatorial candidates I can remember who talks on the stump about marriage equality and his pledge to sign a bill, which finally has enough support in both houses of the legislature to pass. He talks about it even when he was down by double digits earlier this year. He is down 10 points in the Quinnipiac poll this morning. That is a major fight.
Here in DC, a local homophobe major domo is filing this morning to collect signatures to put a ban on marriage equality on the DC ballot for next year. On top of that, despite 12/13 of the DC Council members supporting marriage equality, along with Mayor Fenty, we still face a fight to make sure Congress doesn't overturn the law we pass. In California, activists may go back to the ballot in 2010 on marriage. For these two fights, we have to start pumping resources in now.
I keep being told that there are enough resources for both. I participate in weekly calls on Maine online strategy, and one participant in the call starting discussing plans for a significant event to help raise money online, and possibly doing offline events, too. I expressed concerns that trying to make an online-only event into house parties and other offline events would conflict with health care rallies between now and Labor Day, and that among probably 80% of my straight allies, their attention was so focused on health care. It would be hard to raise serious money without their commitment, and their time is limited. The participant proceeded to lecture me that there are enough resources for both, and people "should be" paying equal attention to both health care and marriage equality in Maine.
A few weeks ago, Robert Reich called for a march on health care on September 13 (a date he got by glancing briefly at his calendar) before being told it was absurd to think it would be successful in just a few weeks' time. But not before he was deluged with supportive e-mails, someone set up a website, a Facebook group, and a member of Congress announced support for it.
When the National Equality March was announced for October 11th, nearly every single LGBT organizational leader, activist and commentator I knew- national, state, or otherwise- said it would divert resources from serious battles coming up this fall. We were told that our movement can walk and chew gum at the same time. Well, as my colleague Steven Goldstein, who runs NJ's Garden State Equality, likes to say, "Well, you have to have money to buy enough gum for every state where there's a current or imminent battle, and our movement does not - and it forces you to make choices."
I encountered this on a real basis. I was forced to leave early from a health care messaging discussion last Wednesday night to make the Maine call. My friend only has money for a roundtrip flight to Maine and rental car or a flight to DC and hotel room. We are being spread thin, which is the right's strategy, and not every state is getting the resources it needs.
I am not saying this to reiterate how bad an idea I think the National Equality March is (a whole separate topic). I am saying this because progressive activists- straight or LGBT- have to stop and think before opening their mouth and assuming that in a recession, when people are losing their jobs, progressive foundations are closing or cutting their grants, non-profits are suffering, and people generally have less money and time to give, that there is some bottomless pool of resources. There isn't. We are being stretched intentionally, and face across-the-board losses because of it.
The news today in New Jersey is that the former top aide to Chris Christie while he was in the U.S. Attorney's office- Michele Brown- resigned amid revelations that she was still paying off a $46,000 personal loan to him. Brown was serving in the U.S. Attorney's office after Christie became a candidate raising questions about whether she owed him favors and would carry out investigations/indictments on his behalf.
On top of it, acting U.S. Attorney, Ralph Marra- who replaced Christie upon his resignation to run for Governor- complained that Gov. Jon Corzine's campaign successfully targeted the office with a Freedom of Information request for Christie's records on no-bid contracts he awarded during his tenure, among other incidents. He's also in some trouble of his own.
Marra, in the e-mail obtained by The Star-Ledger, confirmed he is facing an internal ethics inquiry over public comments he made last month. Justice Department officials are looking into whether Marra's statements during a news conference after a corruption sweep may have helped Christie's campaign for governor.
Maybe it's the original Rove connection, but something about this feels like another version of Fitzmas is coming, and like Joe says, that there's more to this sleazebag Christie coming down the pipe.
Jon Corzine is on the OpenLeft/BlogPAC Better Democrats page. Here's another few shekels to him for pure smarts on the FOIA request. And another couple to keep Christie out of the Governor's mansion.
At Netroots Nation last week, I saw a lot of friends of mine from various progressive circles, and one conversation-starter many of them ask me was "what's going on for you besides health care?" To which I talk about The Progressive Revolution (I manage the press, website and book tour) some other work I'm doing at Progressive Strategies, my boyfriend, etc. Lots of my friends ask what I think about Creigh Deeds' race, to which I kind of give them a funny stare. I think they're wondering because here in DC, I'm 10 minutes from Virginia. But in terms of a major race that I actually care about, it's not VA-Gov, where a conservative Democrat is running. It's NJ-Gov.
So I tell them that I'm concerned about Corzine, that he's way down in the polls, and why I think it's important to re-elect the only other major gubernatorial candidate I can think of in recent years- aside from Eliot Spitzer, my home-state governor, and Deval Patrick- who speaks on the stump about the importance of marriage equality and pledging to sign a bill. Oh, and Spitzer was doing it while he was on his way to winning with 69% of the vote, and Patrick on his way to an easy victory as well.
1) "Ehh, he'll be fine, Democrats always close late in New Jersey. Look at Menendez vs. Kean Jr. in 2006. New Jersey folks flirt with Republicans but always come back to the Democrat."
2) "Ehh, he'll be fine, he'll just dump another $60 million into the race and swamp Christie on TV."
More on why those two assumptions are wrong- and an announcement- in the extended entry.
Netroots Nation '09 is over. Of course, we are still up until 5:30am (again) working on footage. Today we filmed Valerie Jarrett's conversation with Netroots Nation attendees, a keynote panel with Governor Jon Corzine, Anna Burger, Kevin Drumm, and Dean Baker, the closing keynote with Senator Jim Ferlo, Richard Tumka of the AFL-CIO, and Darcy Burner of the American Proggressive Caucus PolicyFoundation, and four more panels.
We'll start off with a real quick video on an issue that means a lot to me...
Amid all the health care reform goings-on in the last few weeks, it has been fun to take a break from that and watch the walls (hopefully) closing in on Karl Rove. Today it's reported in all the major outlets that he was much more deeply involved in the U.S. Attorneys' firings than he said he was, and even Harriet Miers is pointing fingers at him. Whether or not this means Fitzmas or something close to it again, I am unsure, but he may finally be getting what's coming to him, even if it takes many more months.
The more immediate impact is on the NJ-Gov race, where progressive governor Jon Corzine has been trailing Chris Christie recently. There hasn't been much discussion at OpenLeft about the race, but Chris Christie is this supposedly apolitical U.S. Attorney who engineered prosecutions and convictions of many high-profile NJ politicians, Dems and Republicans alike. Well, as Sam Stein reports today, he wasn't really all that apolitical. Rove has been advising Christie on making connections to start his run at the governor's mansion.
In an on-the-record interview with the House Judiciary Committee on July 7, 2009, the former Bush strategist acknowledged that he had held several conversations with current GOP candidate Chris Christie over the course of several years regarding the possibility of running for the governor's chair.
Christie, Rove said, was interested in mounting a bid and "asked me questions about who -- who were good people that knew about running for governor that he could talk to."
This damning news sure as hell raises a lot of Nixonian questions about Christie (per the Corzine camp's ad), including how his gubernatorial strategy was linked to who he decided to prosecute. If even Harriet Miers says Rove called New Mexico Attorney David Iglesias a "serious problem" and that he wanted "something done" about it, what direction did Rove give Christie on who should have been prosecuted in NJ?
I'm at a Drum Major Institute event this morning with Governor Jon Corzine discussing New Jersey's new family leave insurance bill. After a severe car accident last year, he's now apparently running marathons and he looks slimmer and more fit than I've ever seen him. Corzine told a brief anecdote about how powerfully the Chambers of Commerce are opposing this bill even though it's "not a heavy lift on a financial basis" and their arguments are "BS".
The Paid Sick Leave/Family Care movement is working across the country, but it's just stunning to watch a pittance fought bitterly by the "business community" while taxpayers shovel hundreds of billions to the financial community with a massive bailout that is ongoing over the past year or so.
One of the things I have found most infurriating in New Jersey is the attitude that "corruption is a necessary part of politics". I'm not claiming that West Texas is a model of purity, but I've never understood how the most widespread reaction to corruption in politics can be a shrug and the explanation is, "Well, what do you expect?"
I expect public officials, regardless of political afffiliation, to uphold the basic minimum of public trust. That means they show up for their job and at least attempt to do it to the best of their ability. It means that they put personal honor and integrity above loyalty and ambition. It means they don't rip me off during the normal course of their workday.
I had hoped that change might be around the corner when Jon Corzine became Governor of New Jersey. "Hold me accountable" he said. I understand that there is a lot on his plate - our state is in horrible fiscal condition - but I'm of a mind that nothing takes higher precedence than ensuring the honesty and integrity of our governing structures. And that means that Jon Corzine's next action should be to fire Javier Inclan.
Since this is my week of getting stuff wrong, I'll come clean on some other observations. I've been following the new Northeastern governors - Deval Patrick, Jon Corzine, and Eliot Spitzer - as potential models of progressive governance. Corzine is managing to hang in there, though there is grumbling, but Patrick and Spitzer are disappointments. Patrick's administration seems unfocused and excessively business-friendly, seeking to bring in more gambling. I thought Spitzer would recover from his Bruno fight, and he did, but he failed to fix his political operation and smacked himself in the face on his clumsy immigration proposal.
The charts below just came out, and it shows that Spitzer has a negative approval rating among Democrats. He could turn this around, but he didn't do it after the Bruno fight. Maybe he'll learn now.
Ugh, I hate dealing with stupid and clumsy smear campaigns, but it's got to be done. This ignorant article is being circulated among right-wing bloggers purporting to find deep questions about Spitzer's campaign operation.
Just since the first of this year, Spitzer 2010 has taken in $5.6 million and spent $4.2 million on a campaign that doesn't officially start for at least two years. Among the largest reported Spitzer 2010 expenditures to date are payments totaling $3,161,112 to Global Strategy Group, a media consultant group, for "TV ads."
The wingnuts are asking why, if Spitzer is up for reelection in 2010, would he be collecting money this early. The answer takes a passing familiarity with New York politics; Spitzer spent $3 million plus in an ad war with SEIU over health care plans. The wingnutosphere has woken up and finally started grabbing onto the toenail clippings of this scandal, milking every last headline in what is rapidly becoming a show trial. Meanwhile, Spitzer keeps doing stuff like allocating more money for affordable housing and working to enroll more kids in the health plus program. Ack, these right-wing freaks are just awful.
Meanwhile, the wingnuts are also out to get the New York Times's excellent Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, concocting a fake scandal about her not wanting to appear on C-Span. This one's much stupider than the Spitzer smear. Spitzer's problems are at least a result of his administration's own mistakes, both ethical and political. This is just Linda Greenhouse not being told that C-Span was going to film a panel, and when she arrived at that panel, saying she would not be as comfortable expressing herself to a nationally televised audience as an intimate group of journalism professors. That's literally the 'controversy'. Slate has a rundown, as does the AEJMC forum.
I know and like Greenhouse and I like her reporting. She's accurate and passionate, which is probably why the right is going after her. Anyway, it's just important to get it on the record that she's being unfairly attacked.
Again, right-wing smear campaigns are really really irritating, often because the accusations are so stupid as to make them hard to rebut. You mean there was a controversy about C-Span cameras? No, there had to be more, right? No, in fact, there is nothing else here, except a right-wing witchhunt. Ack, these people are just freaks.
Captain Maria Ortiz was buried at Arlington National Cemetery yesterday afternoon. If you were in Washington DC then, now you know why the city was drenched with the tears of angels.
Last month, noweasels covered the death of Capt. Maria Ortiz in a beautiful IGTNT piece, "She Was The Jewel". There is little I can add to the story of her life. Instead, I want to take this opportunity to thank Governor Corzine for his executive order to fly the flags in his state at half-staff in her honor because her family now lives in New Jersey.
I think all flags should be flown at half-staff every day a soldier dies in Iraq to honor their sacrifice and also to serve as a protest against an administration that refuses to recognize their sacrifice except as an excuse to throw more bodies into the meatgrinder.
Today, we remember Maria Ortiz the way she will be remembered by her colleagues:
Her work wasn't finished until everybody was cared for.
What's been going on for weeks in New York state is part of the standard conservative 'kill them in the crib' strategy of destroying progressive icons and politicians. In this case, the target is rising progressive star Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer is considered especially dangerous to the right-wing, because he's a real populist who has taken on Wall Street in extremely high profile cases. He was so effective that a few years ago, the corrupt US Chamber of Commerce declared a 'war on Spitzerism' to reign in state attorney general officers that sought to aggressively enforce the law against corporate elites. The scandal that's taking place now, while ostensibly caused by Spitzer's mistakes, has more to do with these established enemies of populism combined with a peculiar set of incentives for local politicians and insider journalists in New York to pile on an anti-Spitzer frenzy.
Anyway, what happened today is that the Republicans themselves in the state Senate publicly investigated the behavior of the Spitzer administration, even though nonpartisan agencies with more credibility are already looking into what happened. There is no reason for state Senate leader Joe Bruno to be doing this except vengeance and the desire to drag out a scandal and prevent an investigation of Bruno's own corruption, as Rochester Turning notes (though perhaps Bruno just loves the attention, having preened around on national TV for days now).
Meanwhile, New Yorkers and leaders in the state are beginning to ask the government to, well, get back to work. Stuart Appelbaum, of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, is asking the state Senate to pass paid family leave and expand access to health care instead of engaging in these investigations. Both policies are Spitzer priorities. Spitzer himself is actually still governing, working to review and fix New York City's subway system that broke down simply due to thunderstorms. As the Cunning Realist put it, the 'Bloomberg is off the rose'. Having progressives govern makes a difference; years of Giuliani and Bloomberg in the Mayoral seat has of course led to decaying infrastructure, because cross-dressers or not, they are Republicans and Republicans cannot govern.
Many of us have become jaded by a lack of accountability by our politicians at the top, and so the notion that 'getting something done' should take precedence over grandstanding investigations sounds like spin. But in this case, it's not. Every day, I get an email from Michael Caputo of NYFacts.net bashing Eliot Spitzer, and Caputo is a former aide to George H.W. Bush, well-established in right-wing orbits, and obviously directing a smear campaign.
This is really a collection of insiders, press people, angry coddled legislators, Joe Bruno and right-wingers trying to destroy Eliot Spitzer's capacity to govern New York. They tried it with Deval Patrick in Massachusetts and Jon Corzine in New Jersey, and they'll try it with every progressive who takes on a political machine. In some ways, this is exactly what the right did in impeaching Bill Clinton, using Clinton's sloppiness and mistakes to try to overturn a popular electoral result. Destroying progressives is what the right does well, and it's in fact the only thing the right does well. This time, it's not going to work, since there are already investigations going on that are not grounded in Republican partisanship, the scandal has been on every paper in the state for weeks, and yet Spitzer is still pretty popular.
More than that, the public is paying attention and isn't falling for it. They are seeing, with the collapse of infrastructure in Minnesota and New York City, that people in government actually do have stuff to do.
I've been following the Spitzer nonsense in New York. Basically, Spitzer made a mistake, took a hit in the polls to a 48-28 approval rating (as if that's bad), but his archenemy Joe Bruno is immensely unpopular, at 33-40 approve/disapprove.
The state Senate Republicans are going to hold a hearing today to dig into Spitzer, so we'll see how aggressively Bruno goes out. Bruno's been all over the national news and the talk shows, so I can't imagine he'll be conciliatory. Nevertheless, he should be. He's deeply corrupt, and voters know it. He effectively hurt Spitzer, but he should beware of overreeach.
Despite the hyperventilating press, voters can see where the problem lies: 'Voters are more certain, 43 - 26 percent with 30 percent undecided, that further investigation will show Bruno did something wrong.'
Last month, 