Better Democrat Sam Bennett misspoke at a debate, citing two banks that had gone under who were actually fine. Now the Republicans are running an ad attacking her based on this simple flub. I don't know if this will work, but I doubt it. It's like how Reichert used Darcy's 'FISA sucks' line; most people watching it have no idea what it is and why it is relevant to anything.
What's weird about the whole Republican meltdown is how they really just have no idea what works anymore, they are completely unmoored from the public they once got on a gut level. It's sort of like watching a dog that has just forgotten how to eat and nap. Weird.
Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY's List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa's fourth Congressional district.
I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY's List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to knock any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.
However, after comparing Greenwald's race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY's list is not more involved in IA-04.
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.
Whenever a newly elected Democrat turns out to be a disappointment on a key vote, media messaging, or other campaign, there is a long-standing, knee-jerk response. In such situations, some variation of "well, I suppose you would rather have a Republican in that seat instead," is often brought up to quell dissent and keep the troops in line.
However, in Congress, there are now more than more than enough Democrats instead of Republicans to form a majority. To be precise, there are 236 Democrats in the House in seats that could otherwise be held by Republicans, and 49 Democrats in the Senate (plus two others who caucus with Democrats). Further, all indications are that in November, these majorities will grow substantially, providing Democrats will clear majorities in both branches of Congress of such size that Republican opposition could be rendered inert. In this situation, we are past the point of needing more Democrats in Congress. Now, unless we want a repeat of FISA and Iraq on virtually every issue, even under a vast Democratic trifecta, we have to work to make sure that we elect better Democrats.
It is with this principle in mind that today Open Left is introducing its first multi-candidate Act Blue page, simple entitled Better Democrats. In 2008, progressives do not have to, and should not, work to just elect any and all Democrats in every district across the country. Instead, we need to focus our efforts on those candidates who will be strong progressive voices in Congress, whose victories will help define the 2008 elections as a progressive victory, and whose victories will help ensure a long-term Democratic majority for years--maybe decades--to come.
Starting with our first seven candidates, Better Democrats will endorse those candidates whose victory, in our best estimation, will have the largest progressive impact on Congress as a whole. While there is no single criteria for our first seven candidates, there are several important factors we took into consideration. Endorsing The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq helps. Being from a blue district that will be easier to defend helps. Also, being a woman and / or a minority helps, given that the vast majority of conservative in the Democratic Congress are white men. Even though it is a generalization and not a hard rule, electing more women and minority Democrats to Congress means electing more progressives. Further, Willingness to speak out against Democratic capitulation on issues like Iraq and FISA helps. Yet further, running a primary campaign against a conservative Democratic in Congress really helps. The candidates who most closely match these criteria will end up on the Better Democrats page.
Our first seven candidates are:
Donna Edwards, the newest member of Congress from Maryland's 4th Congressional district. In February, Representative Edwards defeated incumbent Al Wynn in the Democratic primary, but she will surely face strong, more conservative competition in 2010.
Darcy Burner, Democratic nominee from Washington's 8th Congressional district. Darcy is a long-time netroots favorite, even a blogger herself, and hails from a very winnable, very blue district. She is also the organizer of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.
Jeff Merkley, Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives. After a hard fought primary that was waged largely online, not only is Merkley from a blue state, but he is the only Senate nominee to endorse the Responsible Plan.
Regina Thomas, State Senator from Georgia, who is challenging Bush Dog John Barrow in the July 15th Democratic primary for Georgia's 12th congressional district.
Sam Bennett, Eric Massa and Tom Perriello, who are respectively running in the lean-blue Pennsylvania 15th, the lean-red New York 29th and the reddish Virginia 5th. All three were among the original ten endorsees of the Responsible Plan. Not only will they be a step up from the Republicans who currently hold those seats, but they will also be a step up from the many Democrats who capitulated to Bush on FISA and Iraq last week.
More candidates will be added as time goes on, but for now we will start with these seven. Dollar for dollar, you won't find seven candidates who will create more progressive change for your money than these. Make progress happen--give today.
Darcy Burner (WA-8), Chellie Pingree (ME-1), Donna Edwards (MD-4), Jared Polis (CO-2), Tom Perriello (VA-5) and Sam Bennett (PA-15) will be in attendance at the unveiling of a detailed strategy document at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC. The release of the document will take place at:
Palladian Room
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert St. NW Washington, DC
5:30 pm EST
Other challengers .participating in the effort but unable to attend include Eric Massa (NY-29), Larry Byrnes (FL-14), George Fearing (WA-4), and Steve Harrison (NY-13).
Originating outside the Beltway and based on consultations with retired generals and other national security experts on a path forward to end the war, the challengers' document lays out a series of actions for Congress to take to end United States military involvement in Iraq, strengthen America and improve our standing around the world, restore accountability and checks and balances to our government and work toward energy independence.
"I wholeheartedly endorse this plan as a responsible and forward looking plan for ending the war in Iraq. As Burner and her colleagues correctly note, bringing our troops home is the first, but not the only step that must be taken to ensure a debacle like Iraq never happens again," said Dr. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "This plan addresses the root causes that allowed the Bush Administration to lead this country into this mess, and sets us in the right direction. I applaud their efforts on this ambitious and sound strategy. This is progressive strength on national security in action."
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters reject amnesty for phone companies that may have violated the law by selling customers' private information to the government, preferring to let courts decide the outcome. Again intensity favors opponents of amnesty, with 48% "strongly" opposed. Fewer than 1-in-3 (31%) support amnesty for the phone companies, with just 1-in-5 (22%) strongly supporting amnesty.
Opposition to amnesty is also widespread, cutting across ideology and geography. Majorities of liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree that courts should decide the outcomes of these legal actions (liberals:67% let courts decide, 28% give amnesty; moderates: 59% let courts decide, 28% give amnesty; conservatives: 52% let courts decide, 37% give amnesty). Large majorities in every part of the country also reject amnesty: 60% in the West (29% give amnesty), 61% in the Northeast (32% give amnesty), 59% in the Midwest (33% give amnesty), and 57% in the South (30% give amnesty). Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats and 61% of independents say let the courts decide. Republicans are evenly split (45% give amnesty, 44% let the courts decide) with equal intensity on both sides of the divide.
And again, spread across the ideological and partisan spectrum, people want individual warrants.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters oppose allowing courts to issue blanket warrants for wiretapping American citizens that would not have to name any specific individual, with a near majority (49%) "strongly" opposing blanket warrants. Fewer than 1-in-3 (31%) support blanket warrants.
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.
