(From the diaries – promoted by James L.)
I’m really happy to announce the next endorsement on the Blue Majority page, Wyoming candidate Gary Trauner. Like several of Blue Majority’s candidates, Trauner nearly won in 2006. He was up against super-wingnut Barbara Cubin, and lost by only .5%, 47.8% to 48.3%, with the balance going to the libertarian in the race. Cubin, instead of running for reelection, has chosen retirement.
The Republican establishment in Wyoming is in disarray, with a probable field of 5-7 candidates vying for the nomination (the primary is in August). Possible Republican establishment choices include former state treasurer Cynthia Lummis and Cheney acolyte Tom Sansonetti, both of whom sought to fill the Senate position opened up when Craig Thomas died, and that John Barrasso now occupies.
Though Wyoming is a deeply red state, in 2006, about 25% of the Republicans in the state voted for Trauner over Cubin. A much higher percentage have voted for the well-liked conservative Democratic Governor, Dave Freudenthal, so this is a place where the electorate is willing to pull the lever for Democrats. A libertarian populist streak runs through the state, one that Trauner captures with his grassroots-driven and outspoken campaign.
In Wyoming, as in the rest of the country, people are looking for leadership. And that’s what Trauner is about. His blog is peppered with familiar arguments about the rule of law, media accuracy, secrecy, and core constitutional values. And he speaks out when it’s hard, not when it’s easy. Here is what Trauner said about the FISA legislation back in August.
Yesterday I announced my intention to run again for Wyoming’s lone seat in the US House.
On my long drive home, I had time to think about what really matters to me this election. And I kept coming back to 2 things: 1) my belief that we need true leaders who will “do the right thing” regardless of party or political calculation, and 2) my concern that the politics of fear is beginning to corrode our Constitution and our country from the inside out.
Which brings me to the current debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA), warrantless government intrusion and large corporations, specifically telecom companies. We hear a lot these days about National Security. Certainly, we must maintain a strong military to protect our Nation from external threats . However, there won’t be much left to defend if we fail to enforce the law and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. As one constitutional scholar recently wrote, “There is no such thing as a ‘patriotism exception’ to the laws that we pass. It is not a defense to illegal behavior to say that one violated the law for ‘patriotic’ reasons.”
Let’s review the situation: First, Congress – Republicans and Democrats – passed multiple laws to prevent the government from intruding in our lives by secretly getting information on American’s communications from private telecom companies. Next, Telecom companies proceeded anyway, in conjunction with our federal government, with the exact behavior these laws criminalized. Finally, the Administration vows to veto any bill that does not give retroactive blanket immunity to these companies.
Granting blanket retroactive legal immunity to large corporations who may have broken the law undermines, at its core, the very notion of American Democracy. It is a slap in the face to every law abiding citizen in this country who believes that laws should be applied equally to everyone, even powerful and influential corporations. Democracy and Constitutional freedom is hard work. Ben Franklin put it clearly as we were forming this nation, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither.”
Forget politics – this is about right and wrong, about what makes Wyoming and America great and what we need to do to keep it that way. Amending the FISA law to ensure our ability to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications for intelligence purposes is the right thing to do. Allowing companies, public officials or individuals to break the law and get away it is not. Ensuring our constitutional system of checks and balances is the right thing to do. Allowing one branch of government unchecked ability to determine, in its sole discretion, whether or not to intrude in our private lives or follow the law is not.
Blue Dog Democrats tend not to stand up for the Constitution because they think that the public is willing to let the government intrude into every facet of their lives. They think that convincing Republicans to vote for you is about pandering to fear. Gary Trauner stands this equation on its head by showing actual leadership. He actually fights for core Constitutional values, says no to fear, and is able to persuade Republicans to vote for him as a result.
Now, Wyoming is not an easy state for a Democrat, but there are several trends that make this race winnable. One, there is tremendous frustration with the war in Iraq, and a strong sense that there needs to be a change in strategy. Two, though Wyoming is an energy patch state and has a budget surplus, it also has one of the highest percentage of people working multiple jobs in the country. The people are struggling, and the benefits of high energy prices are going to large companies which don’t put their profits back into Wyoming.
Three, the ‘hook and bullet’ crowd of hunters, fishers and ranchers are beginning to see climate change and environmental damage as a real threat to their way of life. With more BTU’s of coal in Wyoming than BTU’s of oil in Saudi Arabia, the state is being physically gutted. Fishermen and hunters are noticing gas rigs in their favorite spots. And Gary told me that that when he goes to talk to ranchers, he is beginning to hear less about cheap beef imports and more about health care and climate change. Rancher families that have lived on the same land for five generations are noticing the extended drought and changes in weather patterns, and are beginning to realize something has got to be done to curtail carbon emissions.
Trauner is a businessman, and he likes to talk about Congress as a board of directors and the President as the CEO. He told me that any board of a company where the CEO had a bad strategy, used bad information, didn’t plan well, didn’t execute, and was unwilling to consider any other path to success would have a a fiduciary responsibility to put some restrictions on that CEO. Trauner said that “there is no way you can give someone like that a blank check”. He will carry this attitude forward in Congress as an aggressive Western Democrat.
The key to Trauner’s race is to appeal to the independent libertarian streak that runs through Wyoming. Voters are fed up with the establishment and with bad decisions coming from DC, and are looking for someone willing to authentically carve a different path forward. Trauner’s willingness to speak out on core constitutional principles and his aggressive grassroots campaign are important ways to build that narrative, and his track record in 2006 and ability to appeal to Republicans suggest he can win. He has after all already forced Cubin out of Congress.
That said, this is not a safe race. It’s Wyoming. And Trauner isn’t a milquetoast candidate with your standard political rhetoric. He’s outspoken and aggressive, not when it’s easy, but when decision-makers in DC just want to pass bad legislation, like blank check war funding and immunity for telecom companies.
And that’s why we need Trauner in Congress. Because he’s a leader. And with Trauner standing strongly for the Constitution in Wyoming and getting Republican support, it’ll be increasingly difficult for anyone to use the ‘oh the bill of right isn’t popular in my district’ excuse. The Constitution is popular everywhere, except, perhaps, in DC.
You can read more at his remarkable blog.
that Lummis, Sansonetti, Matt Mead, et. al. opt to challenge Senate-appointee Barrasso to a Senate primary rather than vie for the House seat.
Woohoo!!!! My favorite candidate of 2006! And so far, my favorite candidate of 2008!
I think I’ve mentioned Trauner several times over my hanging around here, and it took me a while to realize why I bothered to follow last year’s WY-AL race, despite the general lack of interesting news and/or polling data.
I’d read about Trauner on his website, and something clicked, probably about his philosophy of governance that he described. The willingness to look at things on a fundamental level, and to put partisan politics aside to do what’s right and to uphold the Constitution, to look at issues with an independent perspective and judge them on their merits, without a filter of party affiliation. His assessment of issues today, in terms of founding principles of the United States and the words of the Constitution, present a fundamental, yet fresh, look at the issues that matter to us today.
From what I can tell, Trauner is fearless about talking to people about issues, in ways that promote clarity and a fair view of the topic. And by issues I mean ones that actually DO matter. I see all content and no bull among his issues (and some of you can probably guess what I mean by “bull” in terms of issues that politicians tout these days…).
There’s some excitement based on simple fact that very strong Democratic candidates are stepping up to the plate and being very competitive in some of these “reddest of red” districts. But I think my excitement about Trauner goes beyond that. As I said, I like how he approaches how government should work and what should be done to improve it, and I like how he is willing to stand firm and talk plainly, and do so confidently, because he knows he’s doing the right thing.
(As a point of personal opinion, I feel that politicians’ general method and philosophy of governance is probably the most important thing (more than just positions on pet issues) for moving our country forward in the long term. Which is why I’m rarely an issue-pusher.)
GO TRAUNER!
I think this is a seat that could be a big surprise open seat on election night 2008. However, this could be destroyed by nominating somebody like Hillary Clinton for President, who could push many Republican leaning swing voters who would consider voting for Gary to the Republican column all the way down the ticket.
we don’t lose anything, he’s from the right region, not as controversal as Daschle, and wouldn’t overshadow hillary.