An Open Internet Letter

An Open Internet Letter to:      

John Boccieri, Leonard Boswell, André Carson, Joe Donnelly , Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Gabrielle Giffords, Martin Heinrich, Baron Hill, Paul Hodes, Mary Jo Kilroy, Ann Kirkpatrick, Betsy Markey, Harry Mitchell, Carol Shea-Porter, Zachary Space, Harry Teague, and Dina Titus.

From:                                                                                                                        

wayoutonthesteppe, a Democrat in the hinterlands certain that many, many others like him could produce their own disparate list of addressees and support the core of this message

What I Have to Say:

I gave most of you $100 and the rest of you $200 in 2008, even though in that tough year I found myself not working, but instead personally providing my wife with 24/7 health care after her health insurance company pulled the plug on her.  In spite of the insurance company my wife is much better now.  Together she and I are contemplating what to do with our somewhat depleted resources in 2010.  

We support a single-payer system, but are mindful that a “public option” is about as much as may be possible now.  And we are paying attention to the health care reform fight.

You all have tough districts to one degree or another.  You all have many partisan Republican constituents to be concerned with.  Moreover, you can try to deflect criticism by pointing to the leadership and its abysmally bungled effort to date.

But my wife and I and many other grassroots supporters quietly count on you to do the right thing.  Please do not disappoint us.

Richard Benson

100 SE 9th Street, Apt. 606

Topeka, KS 66612

Three who have to go.

I favor Democrats working to field the best possible candidate in every Congressional district and to mount the strongest possible campaign in each.  Hand-in-glove with that effort, Democrats also need to think ahead to and visualize success next election day and in future elections and to plan backwards in time from those successes to assure that all that needs to happen to assure those successes does happen.

So I am thinking about less than a handful of Congressional districts where Democrats should make exceptional efforts to take out Republican incumbents in 2010, both because a challenger could imaginably win and because the districts consist of territory that is important to a Democratic future.  These are the Iowa Fourth, the Nebraska Second, and the Ohio Twelfth.  These districts are respectively represented by Republicans Tom Latham of Ames, Lee Terry of Omaha, and Pat Tiberi of Columbus.  Barack Obama carried all three districts, and each district played a constructive role in his Electoral College margin.

And Latham, Terry, and Tiberi need to go.  

Today I looked at how interest groups evaluated the three, and (while, because of my haste in checking, I acknowledge certain limitations vis a vis timeliness as well as some potential for mistake) I believe I have identified several broad themes that tie the three men to each other.

Abortion.

On abortion Latham, Terry, and Tiberi support Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/) zero percent of the time and the National Right to Life Committee (http://www.nrlc.org/) one hundred percent of the time.

Czars of Financial Institutions.

On financial institutions Latham, Terry, and Tiberi have been one hundred percent for Financial Executives International (http://www.financialexecutives.org/eweb/startpage.aspx?site=_fei).

Energy and the Environment.

Latham, Terry, and Tiberi have at best very spotty records on energy and the environment.  Those records are perhaps best illustrated by zero percent scores on energy legislation supported by the Campaign for America’s Future (http://www.ourfuture.org/) and for supporting continuing dependence on fossil fuels as evidenced by 100 percent scores from the American Coalition for Ethanol (http://www.ethanol.org/).

Families and Children.

On family and children’s issues Latham, Terry, and Tiberi scored 100 percent with the American Family Association (http://www.afa.net/), but zero percent with American Family Voices (http://www.americanfamilyvoices.org/).

Guns.

On gun issues Latham, Terry, and Tiberi are rated “A” by the National Rifle Association (http://www.nrapvf.org/), but all get zeros from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (http://www.csgv.org/site/c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509205/k.BDBC/Home.htm).

Health Care.

On health care Latham, Terry, and Tiberi get zeros from organizations like the American Public Health Association (http://www.apha.org/), the AIDS Action Council (http://www.aidsaction.org/), the American Nurses Association (http://www.nursingworld.org/), and the National Rural Health Association (http://www.ruralhealthweb.org/).

Justice.

On justice and the entire question of what kind of country we want to be, Latham, Terry, and Tiberi have scored zero with the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/) and the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/), although I acknowledge that Latham recently moved up and delivered (for him) a very good year for peoples’ rights with eighteen percent from the ACLU and five percent from the Human Rights Campaign.

People Who Work for a Living.

As to labor, Latham, Terry, and Tiberi have received scores of one hundred percent from the Business-Industry Political Action Committee (http://www.bipac.org/page.asp?g=bipac_new&content=startpage) and of zero percent from organizations like the Communications Workers of America (http://www.cwa-union.org/), the United Food and Commercial Workers (http://www.ufcw.org/), and Workplace Fairness (http://www.workplacefairness.org/).  

Us v. Them.

On matters of us v. them Latham, Terry, and Tiberi scored zero with Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/).

Conclusion.

I nominate the Iowa Fourth, the Nebraska Second, and the Ohio Twelfth for very early consideration by bloggers and internet activists thinking about 2010.

2008: One strategy among millions that changed the world.

I have been a state party legislative director and a political consultant to organizations friendly to Democrats.  Also a County Chair.  But in recent years I have been just a country lawyer.  A year and a half ago I found myself with a small, unexpected pot of money and urgent concern about what might become of the Republic.  

Insofar as it seemed clear to me that if things did not change no pot of money would survive, I decided to try to apply what I thought I had learned from a lifetime in politics, develop my own strategies, and deplete my little pot of money to staunch W’s hegemony of evil.

Factors in the strategies I developed include (1) Tom Schaller’s Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South (or as much of it as I actually read, and more so by a talk or two with a friend who had read it in its entirety), (2) what I thought I had learned from my own deep roots in a slave-holding southern family and from fighting Republicans in an overwhelmingly right wing local milieu, and (3) my own organic over-reliance on what I conclude are the lessons of history until something different happens.

One of the notions I applied was not overlooking the fact that whatever a district’s demographics there is a 100% chance that there will be a change in representation when an incumbent dies or retires.  

A second is that party and legislative leadership funds and pacs are as inefficient as the dickens when it comes to getting dollars into growth opportunities.  That cannot be overstated.

A third is that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are best driven indigenously by local candidates, particularly state legislative candidates.  That has urban application in that really only local candidates can predict (and thus effect) the course of a door-knock interaction on a particular front porch on any particular block in their district.  It has application in a variety of ways in rural settings, such as in certain Amish communities where in a given election substantially nobody votes or everybody votes.  And where, when a community does turn out, it will vote overwhelmingly on one side or the other (depending on why they are all voting that cycle).  Somewhat analogous voting behavior is found from time-to-time in some Native American communities.

In 2008 this latter notion that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are best driven by local candidates proved to be an example of my over-reliance on what I concluded was a lesson of history.  The Obama voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts produced the political equivalent of an earthquake.  Still I will not count on Washington producing similar results again (especially without Dr. Dean in the mix).  

My major strategic thrust became one of supporting competitive Democratic candidates in non-slave-holding states that Democrats lost in 2000 and/or 2004, but where we might hope to be competitive in 2008.  So I targeted a list of states that grew to New Hampshire, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska (to the extent of its Second Congressional District), South Dakota, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska.

I learned as much as I could about what was happening on the ground in state and local races in those states.  I learned all kinds of things.  All kinds of things.  For example, who knew that with $180 I could be a fat cat donating the legal maximum in some Montana races?  (btw … I did not in fact max anybody.)

I found that within my target states I could help support the slightly questionable reelection prospects of several Members of Congress (and especially several who were facing reelection in historically Republican districts for the first time).  I could help State House and State Senate candidates where control of the House or Senate was in question.  I could help in competitive gubernatorial and United States Senate races, both those involving incumbents and those involving challengers.  I found a Secretary of State challenger I believed to be important.  But mostly, I found I could support Democrats running for Congress in Republican-held districts.

Then I donated to my target races online.  I sent checks.  I kept up on the changing landscape.  I kept identifying races, kept targeting, kept donating online to the very end; kept sending checks to the very end.  

Of course, we did not win because of the plan I executed.  But Democrats did win a broad victory (a map-changing victory, if you will) in part because of my efforts yolked to the efforts of tens of thousands and millions of other ordinary people who also did their own thinking and did everything they could, whether their participation was online or at their union hall, at their church, or through a neighborhood association.  Other entrepreneurial, inventive activsts, for example, targeted Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.  Thank god they did.  Still others focused on registering and turning out core Democrats wherever they live.  Thank god they did.  Losing was not an option.

Just before election day, Harry Teague invited my wife and me to his rural New Mexico Election Watch Party.  Later, somebody or other invited my wife and me to inaugural festivities in Montana (and Washington, DC).  Those things were neat.  

And now I have some hope that the Republic is not yet lost; some hope that I can work hard, rebuild my retirement savings, and re-retire.  That, too, is neat.  

In the future I intend to use this diary to record my personal process of planning and executing a strategy for 2009 and 2010.  That process will involve a number of factors, not the least important of which will be reading other blogs and taking in the thoughts, plans, and expectations of others.