Monday is a big day in Virginia’s 5th Congressional district, as the results of the race between incumbent, Republican Virgil Goode and democratic, challenger Tom Perriello will be certified by the Virginia Board of Elections.
According to the State Board of Elections, with over 316,679 ballots counted, Perriello holds a 745 vote advantage in the race. That amounts to about a quarter of one percent, meaning it is well within the threshold necessary for a recount.
Goode’s team has told CBS 9 that they will seek a recount.
I’d be really surprised if a recount changed the result, given that there haven’t been reports of the kind of widespread problems which might lead a reasonable soul to question the results. And while the margin is similar to Norm Coleman’s on election night, the total number of votes cast in this race is not even a ninth of the number in MN-Sen, so the odds of a sufficient shift are far lower.
Important update: VA BOE repots a HUGE jump in Tom Perriello’s lead this afternoon from 30 votes to 834 votes. Goode has picked up a few votes here and there in Campbell and Pittsylvania County since, bringing Tom Perriello from +834 to his current total.
Firstly, get comfy. We are winning this election, but I get the feeling this battle will take days, if not weeks to settle.
Secondly, progressives should be both eager and proud about working to win this race. Tom Perriello is a legitimate progressive phenomenon with a record of diplomatic work in conflict zones like Darfur and Afghanistan, and a natural ability to communicate to “real Virginians.” (not you commie types in NoVA!)
Perriello has made such an impression in VA-05 that he is now leading a 6-term Republican incumbent in an R+6 district by 30 votes with 100% reported.
Here’s whats happened in VA-05, and what we can expect in the coming days…
The battle for VA-05 (in yellow):
Winning the fifth district would turn a majority of Virginia’s Congressional seats blue.
Barack Obama is a natural organizer, and that’s how he ran his campaign. Tom Perriello is the same way. Early on, the campaign invested in field operations, organizers, and GOTV apparatus. This was mostly in the southern, rural part of the district in places like Danville, Martinsville, and Bedford. Nobody had ever organized so heavily in southside. Tom saw that this would be necessary, and he set up an A+ field team and GOTV operation. State Senator and Gubernatorial Candidate Creigh Deeds said “I have never seen such local organization in my entire political life.”
Round 1, Tom.
Round 2 Goode Helps Us Close.
Tom’s momentum was helped in the last two weeks because of collosal screw-ups by Virgil Goode mis-using his office resources to promote a gay film. (Sultry full story here Goode was also running incredibly nasty attack ads distorting Tom’s skin color and making him look foreign, and calling Tom a “New York Lawer” (he never practiced law in New York.) Tom ran engaging positive ads like this one.
Election week polls showed the race to be within the margin of error.
Round 2, Tom.
Round 3 Election Day
Tom had a massive GOTV operation, as expected. Early in the night on Tuesday, MSNBC and other networks called the race for Goode. All of us knew that the networks were getting way ahead of themselves, and were under-estimating people’s support of Tom Perriello. Knowing what we did about the field operation, we called bullshit on the networks. Round 3, us.
Round 4: As the numbers came in
Later on in the evening, we saw Tom Perriello get closer and closer, the networks actually started “un-calling” the race for Goode. In fact, as the evening wore on, Perriello took a pretty substantial lead (well, at least compared to the 31-vote margin he currently holds). In fact, Tom Perriello actually had built up a lead of nearly 2,300 votes with 99.34% reporting. 305 of 307 precincts, and only about 800-1000 voters remained outstanding. Since, in the great state of Virginia, 800 voters can not cast 2300 votes, I called the race for Tom Perriello, drank a beer, a celebrated an un-imaginable upset in my Congressional race on a miraculous night that I will never forget as long as I live.
Round 4, youthful exuberance, O.R.E. (Obama Related Euphoria)
Round 5 Wednesday AM
Via a a commenter at CVille News, there was a huge shift towards Goode at 8AM due to VERIS machines in Danville City shifting 1,809 votes to Goode and subtracting 308 votes from Tom Perriello when they came back online at 8AM. I don’t expect foul play, as updated vote totals roughly mirror the 2004 results. But nevertheless, it was a shock to most of us who had gone to bed thinking Tom Perriello was the clear winner to wake up and see Virgil Goode ahead by several 100 votes. Richmond Times-Dispatch has more on the VERIS machine switch.
Round 5, Virgil and the bad guys.
Round 6 Wednesday day
What had looked like a certain win for Tom now looked like a near certain loss. However, all day yesterday Tom benefited from incoming results of district wide canvassing, and correction of human error, and his position continued to improve all day. He eventually took a small lead (initially he led by just 6 votes), and then his lead climbed to a staggering 31 votes, where it remains. Although we can expect that number to change with additional results coming in today.
How did the candidates spend their Wednesday?
Tom spent the day crossing the district to thank his volunteers and celebrate how far they had come together.
Virgil Goode holed up in his office in Rocky Mount with lawyers to figure out how to block the counting of provisional ballots.
Round 6, exasperation
Round 7 Upcoming days: The war over provisional ballots
The County will likely finish its canvass this week and we will have a rough count of where we stand without the provisional ballots. The state has until November 2th
This is where the story gets troubling:
Tom Perriello believes that we need to count ALL votes, including the provisional ballots. If that is done, he is confident that he will be elected.
Virgil Goode on the other hand is challenging all provisional ballots, and his supporters are even saying “think like a bad guy.”
At around 1:45pm today, outside a conference room at the Albemarle County Office Extension on Fifth Street, a group of about five people strategized while the Albemarle County Registrar’s Office was on lunch break. Among them were Rachel Schoenewald, wife of the County GOP Chair Christian Schoenewald, and Clara Belle Wheeler. The group discussed how best to challenge provisional ballots that were cast by people on election day but who had received absentee ballots.
“Think like a bad guy,” said one woman. The phrase “integrity of the process” was batted around as a way of discussing the objection.
Round 8 The recount
Candidates in Virginia can request a recount if there is a difference of less than 1% (or, as an astute RK commenter points out, about 3,147 votes in this election.) We can be relatively certain that this will be the case.
A recount cannot be asked for until after the BOE certifies the election, which will occur Nov. 24. The request then needs to be filed within 10 days, or by Dec. 4.
Tom Perriello has said that he wants to ensure that we have a full “first count” before we have a recount. All signs are that Virgil Goode is lawyering up and ready to call for a recount as well.
Yesterday the Perriello campaign put out this statement:
“We are clearly seeing a very close election with vote totals from different counties changing rapidly, and Tom Perriello remains confident that when everyone’s vote is counted he will win this election and move ahead with his agenda for economic revival in the fifth district. Right now, our focus is on making sure every single vote is counted and every single voice is heard. The results need to be certified and there are provisional ballots that need to be considered. We are confident that people in the fifth district want change and that we are going to be successful in this election in the end.”
Tom Perriello has inspired people in the fifth district of Virginia like no other candidate ever has. His resume as a negotiator in conflict zones like Darfur and Afghanistan, his affable personality, his A+ staff, and his tireless campaigning have him neck-and-neck for the seat of deplorable xenophobe Virgil Goode. Goode is most notorious for his indecipherable rant against Muslims and immigration when Keith Ellison was elected in 2006, and under his watch this district has lost 1000s of jobs.
Tom gives me hope for my section of “real” Virginia, for the state of Virginia, and for my country. His service to those less fortunate has been the calling of his life, and he will make an incredible citizen-legislator.
I’m no longer a volunteer for the Perriello campaign–I’m back at school four hundred miles away. But I’m still phonebanking for Tom when I can, and I thought I’d take a moment to make the case for giving Tom a small last-minute contribution to help him send Virgil Goode back to Rocky Mount.
The race is close–if you read SSP, you know that. SurveyUSA, Tom’s internals, Cook, and the “GOP Death List” agree that the race is tight and getting tighter.
Tom’s fundraising has been on par with Virgil’s, and his ground game (EIGHT dedicated field offices!) is stellar. But those things were both true in August, when SurveyUSA showed Tom down 34 points.
So what helped slash Virgil’s massive lead? The campaign went on air with some effective ads that introduced Tom to the voters. People know Virgil–he’s been in office for a decade and his father was a state senator before him. Tom has an incredible rapport with people–and genuinely loves talking about their concerns–but the district is big and he can’t shake everyone’s hand. That’s what the ads are for.
The Perriello campaign is contesting the entire 5th district–places like Appomattox, Farmville, and Bedford–where Democrats haven’t ventured since, well, Virgil Goode was a Democrat. If you take the trouble to show up, people will vote for you–but only if they feel like they know you first.
So help Tom’s campaign keep his awesome ads on the air (in a cheap media market!). He’ll be a great congressman–he’s tireless and compassionate, and has a real track record of helping people from Sierra Leone to Southside Virginia.
Tom Perriello is one of my favorite congressional candidates in the country. He’s got a amazing background, he’s helped take down Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, was a major player in the peace and reconciliation process in Sierra Leone, helped found the online grassroots people-powered humanitarian movement Avaaz.org and many other things. Now he’s running against Virgil Goode, a proud bigot and one of the worst if not the worst member of Congress. And he’s been running some great ads created by the best ad firm in the country (IMO) Eichenbaum & Associates
Here is another great ad he’s running
And what’s Goode running ads about? That Tom used to have a scary beard.
It’s fear mongering, plain and simple. But that’s what Virgil Goode has built a career off.
It’s a tough district to win but Virgina Gov. Tim Kaine won it in 2005 and I think Tom can win it too. The latest poll showed him down 13 which may sound like a lot but it’s a 20 point gain since he started running ads.
That’s right. Yesterday at a debate between Rep. Virgil Goode of Virgina’s 5th district and his Democratic challenger Tom Perriello Goode said this
“And they want me out of Congress, the liberal Democrats want me out. And they want me out because I’m a conservative voice, if we can silence that person that’s exactly what we want, we want more mushers up here in Congress that won’t speak out and stand out. They want a Obamajority in this country, Tom is on the Obamajority list for the US House of Representatives, they want to get him in there because they know he is going to be voting with them. They want to control the White House, 60 votes in the US Senate and a strong majority in the US House of Representatives.”
Goode is famous for using bogeymen to scare people, he attacked Rep. Keith Ellison for being a Muslim and repeated tall tales about China that even Dick Cheney said where false.
Now he’s found a new bogeymen. He’s attacking the Obamajority, an ActBlue page started by a 14 year old blogger–me.
That’s right, back in March I started an ActBlue page, “The New Obamajority”. After asking for suggestions I added Tom Perriello to the page. Apparently the 587 dollars we raised from 12 donors over the internet terrified Goode so much that he decided to attack a internet fundraising page in his closing remarks at a key debate in his race.
That internet fundraising page is even more terrifying to Goode because it was started by me, a 14 year old blogger with close to no political experience before two years ago. I’m trembling in my boots!
Personally I don’t think 587 bucks is anything to be scared about. If I were Goode I would be more worried about the fact that he’s getting outraised by Perriello. But I say we give him something to really be scared about.
I’m setting a goal of getting to 50 donors for Perriello on the Obamajority page to send Goode packing.
Goode doesn’t seem to like “mushers” which is odd because it is the name of people who race dogs similar to dogsled racing, I guess Goode has a problem with mushing, maybe if we retire him he’ll have enough free time to try out mushing and maybe he’ll learn to love it.
Also, Goode came close to breaking a secret I’ve been keeping. Tom will not be voting with “them” as Goode said, he will be personally calling me up before each vote and asking me how to vote. In fact, he got me a slick new phone for that purpose.
Let me assure you of this, Tom will march lock step with the powerful Teenage Blogger Caucus!
We’ve got a goal, we’ve got a teenage blogger attacking congressmen, we’ve got a terrific candidate to replace him.
Now time for action! It’s time to make a difference and let’s do it. Let’s use the super-powerful Obamajority internet fundraising page to elect Tom Perriello and say “Goodbye” to Virgil Goode. We can use the series of tubes to make a difference!
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.
Now, not all of these statements were made this past week. Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air. But hey, they’re on record. So here goes, alphabetically by district. If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.
It was Ben Franklin who said that “any man who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of security deserves, neither.” We seem to have a country full of people who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of an empty promise of security. As a free country, founded on concepts like justice and liberty, the de-evolution of our free society should not be tolerated by any people of conscience.
CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)
I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn. Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.” We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.
In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.
….
But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.
….
And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.
And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.
Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.
We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.
In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.
Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?
No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.
Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.
Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.
You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.
We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects — unless you believe that you and I are terrorists. I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans. On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.
George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations. Does that comfort you? Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American. Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.
I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws. No one is above the law. If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American. Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.
When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal. We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.
What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it. The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period. There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.
As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works. You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.
FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.
As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.
Said land conservation activist Shafroth: “While this current bill takes some small steps to weaken the authority of the president to unilaterally spy on Americans, it does not go far enough in protecting our civil liberties.”
Internet entrepreneur Polis said that “phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.”
And former state Senate President Fitz-Gerald criticized the bill’s “de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law.”
“The government has no right to listen and wiretap any phone without judicial oversight,” she said.
….
Fitz-Gerald said the House version of the legislation amending FISA was better than an earlier U.S. Senate version, but “it still was not acceptable and I would have rejected the House measure.”
Shafroth said he would have voted against the bill because “many of the protections in the bill are superficial and there are too many avenues left to the president to unconstitutionally spy on American citizens.”
Polis said the nation must restore people’s trust in their government, but “rushing FISA reform through Congress is not the answer.”
It is disappointing that some of our Democratic leaders are rushing FISA reform through Congress. I strongly oppose telecom immunity that paves the ground for the further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties.
Our Democratic leaders in Washington should stand firm against allowing Republicans and the Bush Administration to violate the civil liberties of our citizens any more than they already have; phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held fully accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.
Rather than providing cover for the Bush administration, our leaders should show backbone and not allow FISA reform to be rushed through Congress.
The fear mongering tactics of President Bush and his cronies on Capitol Hill are tired; the American public now understands that we can have security at home while also protecting the civil liberties of our law abiding citizens.
I had left a message there asking her position on this FISA bill. She personally took the time to call me back and told me she is against this thing and would have voted Nay!
“In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide– not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration’s request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles.”
What, exactly, is the Right Wing’s problem with the Fourth Amendment? Why do they constantly seek ways to evade and subvert the Fourth Amendment? It seems to have worked pretty well, for over 200 years. And over 99% of the time, the federal judges give all POTUS the warrants he wants.
What it really comes down to is that they want a dictatorship. It’s issues like this one, where the Right has to choose between conservatism and fascism, when you see their true colors.
As the “New York Times” said in its June 18 editorial: “The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.”
….
The problem is special interest money, Curtis said, coupled with a business-as-usual attitude in Washington.
“This is the root cause of the Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Republicans. They are all eating from the same trough,” Curtis said. “This is why we need leadership that will stay true to our values rather than cater to special interest contributors.”
“The laws that were created under FISA were sufficient to meet our country?s national security needs. What the Bush administration has done, again, is present Americans with a false choice between national security and civil liberties, while this bill increases neither. I oppose any broad retroactive immunity provided to companies who may have broken the law. The legal purpose of immunity is to use the protection granted by such immunity as an inducement to divulge information about what occurred. Immunity in this case would do the opposite: it would shut down any investigation into what actually occurred.”
GA-08: Robert Nowak (primary challenger to Jim Marshall)
The latest demand from President Bush, that the US Congress shield telecommunication providers from liability for breaking federal law, is a real step backwards in the important mission of authorizing an effective intelligence surveillance program. Congress not give blanket immunity for any unlawful acts, it should renew its call for increased oversight of the telecom providers that may or may not have broken federal surveillance laws.
Further, the US Congress must not budge in insisting that any surveillance program with the capability of eavesdropping on US citizens be subject to court oversight.
The Congress should insist on codifying in the statute a court order requirement for any surveillance done on American citizens.
This last August, Representative Marshall voted for a temporary bill that allowed for expanded wiretapping and surveillance on Americans without a court order. Allowing that regime to continue is unacceptable.
GA-12: Regina Thomas (primary challenger to John Barrow)
After reading the FISA bill — Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — I thought “This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment [right of] privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States.” I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.
The Congress is considering a bill that guarantees retroactive immunity for telecom companies who participated in the President’s illegal wiretap program, and that fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. This measure would require the courts to grant immunity to big telecom companies for their past illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, and authorize future surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their rights.
This is wrong. No one should get a free pass for breaking the law. Iowans and all Americans have a right to live their lives without government intrusion on their privacy.
If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure. I believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability is needed. No President should ever have unchecked power. Americans in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive branch. As Americans, we can protect ourselves without destroying our Constitutional rights. We need to focus on the very real threats we face, and not waste our resources on spying on loyal Americans.
Today, Rep. Mark Kirk once again showed how out-of-step he is with Illinois’ 10th district, by siding with the Bush administration to protect telecommunications companies who participated in illegal spying on American citizens. Kirk has received over $80,000 in contributions from the telecom companies he has continually voted to protect.
Coming in the wake of his vote against outlawing waterboarding, Kirk has shown that he is more interested in following the Bush administration than upholding our international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, and protecting our constitutional rights.
Congressional Candidate Dan Seals (IL-10) released the following statement today:
“While I was pleased to see the House Democrats stand their ground against granting amnesty to the telecommunications companies who broke the law, I was disappointed to see Mark Kirk side once again with the Bush administration and his campaign contributors over the 4th amendment.
“The U.S. Constitution is not a discretionary document. It’s time we elect leaders with the courage and independence to stand up for our most sacred rights. When I go to Congress, I will stand up for our Constitution and ensure that no one is above the law.”
I like Brad Ellsworth, and yes he is that good looking in person, I like Baron Hill, and always have, I like Joe Donnelly and have since the first time I met him, and the same for Senator Bayh, but I really, really, really, have a fondness for this piece of paper called the United States Constitution.
I would not have voted as they did on FISA, but I am more liberal than they are and we all know that, you know that, I know that, and they know that. Some in Indiana are afraid of being called a Liberal and the word comes from Liberty, so I think we should embrace it.
….
Brad, Baron and Beyond, (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, it’s the blogger in me) voted the way they did because of National Security, and I do not hate them for voting what they believe, because I believe in National Security too, but I also understand the potential for expansion of the FISA bill, and the potential danger. I love this country but since 2000, have feared this government and do not agree with granting this administration any additional power. It is my hope that in 6 months this will not be re-newed, it is my fear that it will.
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
Personally I’m tired of Tim Walberg and George W. Bush using fear about our national security to score cheap political points. Congress has passed legislation to ensure that tools are in place to protect our country’s safety, but Walberg and Bush seem more interested in protecting big corporations that have helped them listen to our phone calls, read our emails, violate our privacy, then they are about protecting law-abiding citizens. I believe our Constitution, and our rights, including our right to privacy, are worth fighting for. If our government or big corporations break the rules, they should be held accountable.
I would have voted no. Let me start out by saying that, I am absolutely committed to keeping America safe, taking on the terrorists, and defending our national security. I was a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve, and I spent time over in the Persian Gulf. I understand what kind of pressure our people are under to get good intelligence. Good intelligence is absolutely critical to the safety of our soldiers and to protecting our country. We can’t function without it.
We definitely need to update FISA to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, while also absolutely guaranteeing that Americans’ rights are protected.
There are important updates that we need to make to FISA, but I can’t support the retroactive immunity – and I sincerely hope that those provisions get stripped out in the Senate.
I am troubled by the House passage of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. There is much we can do to prevent terrorism, but such measures do not require the sacrifice of fundamental constitutional freedoms which our country was founded upon. This legislation demonstrates the need for leaders in Congress who have experience in the military and in Iraq, and who value the rule of law as we fight the War on Terror.
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t exclude lobbyists. The “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” means George Bush and the other Washington politicians can’t grant immunity to law breakers no matter how much they give to campaigns.
It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) issued a release today taunting Linda Stender, candidate for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, on the issue of Congress’ re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
….
Stender hit back this afternoon.
“It’s clear from this nonsensical attack that the national Republicans know they’re in jeopardy of losing this seat,” said Stender campaign spokesman Joshua Henne. “Linda Stender believes we can defend both our nation’s security, and the Constitution. The Bush Republicans sadly still haven’t learned its possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn’t compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush’s friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice.
This Friday, legislation was passed that will take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. The FISA bill strips Americans of these rights and protects telecommunications companies from being held accountable by the people.
I am standing up against my own party because I believe we can have sound legislation that defends our country and, at the same time, protects our Constitution. If we are to hold our government accountable, retroactive immunity is the wrong path to go down.
It’s time to support Democrats with democratic values and principles, Democrats who will work on behalf of the American people and protect their rights. When I’m elected to Congress, I will be that Democrat.
Today, Darius Shahinfar, candidate for the 21st Congressional District, called the compromise reached on amendment of the Federal Information Surveillance Act (FISA) a compromise of Constitutional principles.
“The critical problem of this compromise is that it contains a free pass for the Bush Administration’s and telecommunication companies’ past actions. The Administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps cannot be reviewed, and the process to review the telecommunications companies’ participation in the wiretapping program leads inevitably to immunity for those companies” Shahinfar said.
Darius’ remarks come at a time when the controversial piece of legislation would allow immunity to phone companies who currently face lawsuits for violating the constitutional rights of their members, according to plaintiff claims.
“By passing this piece of legislation, we are telling our government and our citizens that as long as the President tells you to do so, breaking the law is legal. No one, not even the President, is above our laws, especially when it comes to the issue of protecting our Constitutional rights.”
When asked further of his views about FISA, Shahinfar continued, “FISA was created 30 years ago, is applicable with today’s advanced technology and has been a vital tool in collecting intelligence for our nations’ security.It had not been an issue, until this administration decided to use it improperly and against its intended purpose. This will not make Americans any safer from threats at home or abroad; rather it will put us at the mercy of secret agreements between corporations and our government.”
If the Bush Administration had read the constitution the first time, we wouldn’t find ourselves having this debate. Granting amnesty to these companies would set a precedent that would allow others to arbitrarily ignore the constitution. No one should be above the law in America.
Growing up in Western New York, one of the first lessons I was taught was that each of us has to take responsibility for our actions. As a social studies teacher, I came to understand this principle in the broader context of our democracy. We are, first and foremost, a nation of laws. Each of us should be treated equally under the law, and no one should be given special treatment. The founding fathers designed the courts as the proper place to weigh one’s actions under the law, not the White House. I trust that the courts, which have ensured the rights and liberty of all Americans for over 200 years, are more than able to continue providing the wisdom and protections that keep us free.
NY-29: Eric Massa (you should really read the entire diary and Massa’s analysis)
At the heart of the debate is the truncation of the Fourth Amendment, which outlines the right of the people to be secure in their persons and belongings. That right, which many would consider a bedrock of basic liberties in the Nation, is altered to allow the Federal Government to conduct searches and seizures of personal property without a warrant from a court of law.
….
But the bigger problem here is the immunity that would be given if it is found that the government and cooperating officials acted without due justification. Under current law, those involved can be held accountable and the individual on whom the actions were perpetrated can seek redress before the government. This right to seek redress is another fundamental individual liberty that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain for all Americans. This current bill takes away the right of citizens to seek redress.
The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers’ privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people.
I am opposed to affording any immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have broken the law by their participation in handing over information or granting wire-taping access to the Bush Administration without first properly receiving permission through FISA Court.
I am hoping that before the current legislation makes its way to the President’s desk, members of the U.S. Senate will see that the protection of civil rights should precede any special treatment for any special interest. When the Patriot Act was first debated and wrongly passed, the telecommunications lobbying arm kept quiet and now they want to ensure that justice is silenced forever.
As the daughter of a cop, I have great respect for our Constitution and the pursuit of the truth. Any immunity that is granted before giving the American people the opportunity to even uncover a violation is a violation unto itself.
The Constitution also places no one above, below or immune from the law. The House Judiciary Committee was absolutely correct today to reject President Bush’s demand for blind and blanket immunity for large telecom companies who aided illegal spying. It should be noted that not all such companies heeded the call for unchecked Presidential power, and those who resisted should be commended. For the others, blind immunity for crimes, especially when not even yet fully documented, is an alien and disturbing idea to Americans.
“Finally, to those who imply that by opposing warrantless, illegal spying in America, Democrats somehow are aiding our enemies: I urge you to take an evening off, turn off that distracting talk radio and Fox News, and spend a quiet evening reading the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. You may learn something new, and wonderful.
This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies.
Has anyone in Washington these days ever heard of (let alone read) the U.S. Constitution– remember that document? We were guaranteed certain rights. It seems many Republican members of Congress lay awake at night, thinking what rights can we take away from our fellow Americans today.
Specifically my opponent J. Randy Forbes, VA (R) wanted to add language that would have ensured that nothing in the bill would be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, a state sponsor of terrorism or agents of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the language would have permitted the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of any person concerning an imminent attack on the United States, any U.S. person, including members of the Armed Forces, or an ally of the United States, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, members of the al-Queda Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or any terrorist or terrorist organization. This language failed to garner enough votes to be included in H.R. 3773.
The right-wing is operating in force in Congress and the typical corporate Republicrats are once again falling in line. We have a Democratic majority in the House and yet they seem to be as confused by the meaning of the Constitution as the Republicans. Apparently, since impeachment is off the table, so is the U.S. Constitution. When I look at this new bill I can’t help wondering if this is the new Democratic thinking, “If we make all illegal actions legal, then the President and Vice President have done nothing wrong. Ergo there is no need to consider impeachment because no laws were broken.”
“This “compromise” will not make Americans safer,” said Perriello, a national security consultant with experience in Afghanistan, Darfur and West Africa. “If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation.”
No one in this country should be above the law and saying Alberto Gonzales told me it was okay is hardly an excuse. I oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms who engaged in illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Frank Wolf has again sided with the President on this issue voting in favor of immunity for those who circumvented the FISA courts and our legal process.
Honestly, I don’t understand why at this point any member of Congress would think it was a good idea to give George Bush the power to grant immunity to anyone he wants around warrantless wiretapping – and to cover all tracks in the process. George Bush has proven, over and over again, that he cannot be trusted to uphold either the letter or the spirit of the laws that protect the people of the United States from the abuse of our government.
….
All I can say is that I’m sorry Congress failed on this one – and that I will honor the pledge I hope to take to uphold the Constitution.
WY-AL: Gary Trauner (also see here for some excellent choice quotes Gary dug up from our own Founding Fathers)
Wow. I am deeply saddened today by the news that the US House has voted to pass a bill amending the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which strikes at the very core of American democracy – our Constitutional Bill of Rights and the rule of law. It enables our federal government to intercept, without probable cause, all international communications of American citizens, and it provides retroactive immunity for companies that may have broken the law (if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?).
….
Wow! Is that what it’s come to? Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we “need” to do it? Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington DC or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you – where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:
I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit.
I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms. If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?.
We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works.
I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice.
If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause. Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear.
….
Finally, the truth is that Congress last year passed a temporary extension of the Protect America Act that was vetoed by the President and voted against by the Republican leadership and certain Democrats. They said they would not accept a bill that does not include giving a free pass to companies that might have broken the law! Incredible. It deserve saying one more time – these so-called leaders are telling us the Protect America Act was so important, without it America is not protected from terrorists; however, they were willing to block this incredibly important Act, and leave America unprotected, unless large corporations were let off the hook for knowingly breaking the law. Because unlike you and me, who in the event of potential wrongdoing only get off the hook by presenting our case in a court of law, they think large corporations should be held to a different standard – no accountability.
The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
The Church Committee’s investigations resulted in the creation of a permanent Senate Committee on Intelligence, and the passage of substantial legislation, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.
Church’s work is now being shredded by the Bush Administration.
FISA established a legal framework for electronic eavesdropping at home, including a special FISA court. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect intelligence involving communications with “agents of foreign powers.”
The Bush Administration exploited this narrow exception in the passage of the Patriot Act that allows use of FISA to obtain personal records from many sources including libraries and internet service providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism.
Even worse, the Bush Administration now uses FISA to get around the constitutional requirement of seeking a warrant before it eavesdrops on communications by the NSA.
….
When I am elected to the Senate, I will demand an end to the abuse of FISA and a return to the checks and balances espoused by Frank Church and the Church Committee.
As a former Congressman, Frank Church staff member, and U.S. Army intelligence office, I will help lead the way back from the civil liberty abuses of this administration.
The secret warrantless wiretapping program was flat out wrong. The Bush administration went too far when it may not have even been necessary. Almost 99 percent of wiretapping applications were approved when they were submitted to judges. We must do all we can to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary tools to protect our homeland but individual privacy and civil liberties must be protected because those are the freedoms we fight for. That is America. And I think we should be focused finding terrorists and not protecting corporate CEOs. I’m sure there was pressure from the Bush administration and that isn’t an enviable position to be in for a company but what is wrong is wrong and there must be accountability. When mistakes were made in my companies, I took responsibility, took action and solved the problems.
I was encouraged by news a few months ago that both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed new FISA bills with added privacy protections. Now Mitch McConnell and his Republican leadership in Washington need to work with Senate and House Democrats to finalize legislation that protects the safety, and freedoms, of all Americans. I hear this issue will be brought up again in the Senate sometime during the summer.
ME-Sen: Tom Allen (who just voted against it in the House)
As I have stated before, neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable. This ‘compromise’ fails to hold either the Bush administration or the telecommunications companies to the same standards that apply to other Americans.
The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.
Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.
That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.
Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveillance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.
The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance.
The bill will force federal district courts to immediately dismiss any cases against telecommunications companies that participated in illegal surveillance. This is unacceptable. The Constitution of the United States was violated. Over several years telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of innocent Americans to the federal government without proper oversight and without a warrant.
The Bush Administration disregarded the Fourth Amendment when it authorized this surveillance and now Congress may provide the Administration and these companies a free pass. This is a mistake. The Senate is set to vote on the FISA bill this week. For the sake of our constitution and the foundation of our democracy, I urge all Senators to unite in opposition to this bill.
If I’m elected to the Senate, I will not hesitate to fight to protect our civil liberties and the laws this nation was founded upon.
I have spoken out against immunity for telecommunications companies throughout this campaign. Last February, I urged my supporters to sign a petition to pressure my opponent, Republican Senator Gordon Smith, to vote against the FISA bill that granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Unfortunately, Gordon Smith voted in favor of granting retroactive immunity. I expect him to do the same when the Senate votes on this issue in the coming days. For years, the Bush Administration has been undermining the balance of powers. Checks and balances must be restored and a vote against the immunity bill would be a critical starting point.
On Christmas morning 2004, outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, my buddies and I drove to our base camp to use the computers. We wanted to be with our kids when they woke up that Christmas. To get there we drove through a near ambush–anytime we drove on the Jalalabad Road, it was risky, and we had an incident on our way.
That Christmas morning, I suspect the government listened to our conversations. They occurred between two countries; Afghanistan and the US. They probably didn’t realize the difference in tone in my voice as I spoke to my wife and children that morning as my heart raced still from our encounter on the road. My wife did.
I fought to defend our country and our constitution in Afghanistan. I fought for the right to privacy for every Texan. Mr. Cornyn must now stand up for the privacy of every Texan and American too. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they violated the law.
Americans understand the need for safety and the need for intelligence gathering. What they will not accept is an abuse of power, of crossing the line on American’s privacy.
I would join Sen. Dodd in opposition to any retroactive provisions that allow a “get out of jail card” for violating the Constitution. If Mr. Cornyn had ever had the opportunity to have his Christmas conversation listened to by the government, on a day that he feared for his life in a convoy on Jalalabad Road, he would do the same.
Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue. Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.
House
AZ-03: Bob Lord (nobody asked him in his diary two days ago?)
FL-18: Annette Taddeo
FL-21: Raul Martinez
FL-24: Suzanne Kosmas
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
MD-01: Frank Kratovil
MN-02: Steve Sarvi
NE-02: Jim Esch
NM-02: Harry Teague
NM-03: Ben Ray Lujan (who even diaried here last week, but nobody asked him about FISA!)
NV-02: Jill Derby
NV-03: Dina Titus
OH-15: Mary Jo Kilroy
OH-16: John Boccieri
TX-07: Michael Skelly
WV-02: Anne Barth
Senate
KS-Sen: Jim Slattery
MN-Sen: Al Franken (though he did write a satire piece about wiretapping)
MS-Sen: Ronnie Musgrove
NE-Sen: Scott Kleeb
And then there’s even some Democratic challengers who have come out in FAVOR of this FISA bill.
For his part, Adler released a statement today, underscoring his own support for reupping FISA “so that our intelligence community has the tools needed to keep America safe in a dangerous world. We must also protect the freedoms for which our troops have made so many courageous sacrifices.”
She was asked if she would have voted for, or against, the FISA bill this week which would have granted retroactive immunity to Telcos for felony violations of the current FISA law.
Ms. Hagan explained that she was against Telcos spying on Americans, but that she would have voted FOR the bill, and granted them immunity, but that future law breaking would not be tolerated.
And of course, Mark Udall running for the Senate in Colorado voted for this bill last week. And perception on the blogs seems to be that Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen would’ve supported this bill had they been in the Senate, so I’m not exactly holding my breath to hear statements from them against telecom immunity.
Now, some of the candidates above still have a contested primary to go, like in CO-02, where all three of them came out against it, even as the person they’re trying to replace, Mark Udall, voted for it. There’s other districts, like in AZ-01 and NY-21, where only that candidate has released a statement on FISA, and others haven’t seemed to. (I’m looking at you, Ann Kirkpatrick.) If you guys can find statements by them, please let me know in the comments.
Tom Perriello continued his impressive fundraising in rural Virginia last quarter, raising over $340,000 last quarter and now with over $500k Cash on Hand. With this support, Perriello has now been made a top-tier race against the bigoted Virgil Goode by the DCCC.
What is even more impressive is how his money comes from individuals from the entire district (the size of New Jersey), whereas much of Goode’s money comes from PAC’s and corporate lobbyists.
The first quarter fundraising reports just filed with the Federal Election Commission showed that Democratic challenger Tom Perriello has outraised incumbent Rep. Virgil Goode for the third straight quarter in the race for the fifth congressional district. Based on Perriello’s record-breaking support from across the district, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently added the race to its list of national target races.
“I am really inspired that so many people across the district have made it possible for us to match up against someone who has been doing politics for so many years and has raised over $1.5 million from corporate lobbyists. This year is our best chance to reclaim politics for the people of this district instead of the powerful interests entrenched in Washington,” said Perriello.
In the first quarter of 2008, the Perriello campaign raised more support from inside the district than Congressman Goode raised in all of 2007. Perriello raised over $340,000 in the first quarter of 2008, with 98% of donations coming from individuals. Rep. Goode has raised over $1.5 million from corporate and DC lobbyists during his congressional career, including over $100,000 from oil, gas, and electric utility interest groups.
“People from every corner of the Fifth district are responding to our focus on right and wrong instead of right and left. People clearly want new leaders who care more about fixing problems than finding someone to blame for them. We need jobs for Southside, healthcare for all, and a sustainable solution in Iraq,” said Perriello.
With seven months until Election Day, the Perriello campaign has already raised more than any previous Democratic challenger to Rep. Goode. The campaign has raised over $600,000 and reports over $500,000 cash on hand. Along with its record-breaking fundraising, the Perriello campaign has logged over 1600 volunteer hours. Mr. Perriello has been on the road for the past two weeks, meeting with voters from 14 different counties and municipalities. The campaign has opened offices in Franklin County, Danville, and Charlottesville.
Last Monday I launched the Obamajority to give Barack Obama a strong progressive Congress that will enact his bold agenda. I started it out with three canidates, Rick Noriega, Darcy Burner and Patrick Murphy. I also asked for suggestions for who to endorse next.
The canidate that received the most support by far was Tom Perriello. I had already heard about his impressive run for Congress and so I am exited to announce that Tom is the latest canidate to be added to the Obamajority. So go and give him some change for change. In this essay I take a look at Tom and his campaign to bring much needed leadership to Virgina’s 5th Congressional District.
First let’s take a look at the current representative for the Virgina’s 5th Congressional District. His name is Virgil Goode, Jr. I’ve known about Goode for a little bit over a year because he is a national prominent bigot. On December 7th Goode sent this letter out to a constituent. Take a look at that bigotry.
You see that “Muslim Representative from Minnesota” is Keith Ellison the great representative elected to my neighboring district. That is a perfect example of the hate and fear that is too powerful today. Many times people have attempted to defeat Goode but again and again they have lost. But this time we have a chance to change that.
Why? Because we have a great canidate running. Tom Perriello. Tom was called to serve at a early age.
After receiving his law degree from Yale University, Tom accepted an assignment working to end atrocities in the West African countries of Liberia and Sierra Leone, which had suffered long civil wars fueled by blood diamonds. Tom’s work with child soldiers, amputees, and local pro-democracy groups in Sierra Leone played a significant role in the peace and reconciliation process that ended twelve years of violence in that country.
Tom then became Special Advisor and spokesperson for the International Prosecutor during the showdown that forced Liberian dictator Charles Taylor from power without firing a shot. After this success, Tom served as a national security analyst for the Century Foundation. He has worked inside Darfur and twice in Afghanistan.
Since 2004 he has been a leader in building a faith-based movement dedicated to working toward the common good instead of spewing hate.
Since 2004, Tom has helped to launch a political and social movement in this country that is credited with shifting the national debate about America’s moral priorities. He helped found FaithfulAmerica.org and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which bring together faith communities to fight for children’s health care, supporting a higher minimum wage, environmental stewardship, and responsible solutions in Iraq. Inspired by the prophetic vision of Dr. King, Wilberforce, and Micah, Tom believes that America must reverse the erosion of our commitment to the common good and restore our understanding that our nation rises or falls together.
Tom also helped found Avaaz.org a great group that I am a part of. It tackles some of the toughest issues of our day by working with it’s millions of members from every country in the world.
Tom sat down for a great interview with Lowell of the great Virgina blog Raising Kaine. In it he explains why he is running, how he thinks he can win, his strengths and passions. Let’s look at some highlights from that interview.
First of all the big question. Why? Why run for Congress?
Like so many in my generation, I felt called from an early age to devote my life to community service, because it felt so much more real than trying to change things through government. For over a decade, I have felt inspired to work on economic fairness in our communities and on ending atrocities from inside Darfur and Sierra Leone.
But I could only work in a broken system for so long before I began to understand how important it was to fix the system itself. In Darfur and West Africa, I saw how much of a difference a single Congressperson could make if s/he were willing to speak out and hold the Administration and State Department accountable. And the last few elections have made it clear how important it is for Democrats to reclaim the values debate and restore America’s commitment to justice and the common good.
I believe we stand at a unique point in history. Our challenges are large enough that our only pragmatism is the idealism to think big and expand our sense of what’s possible. I am running because I believe that politics should be seen as community service by other means. It can, and should, be a place to make people’s lives better.
And how will he win in this traditionally Republican district?
We are going to win because we have a stronger movement on our side and better ideas for how to secure our country, our jobs, and our environment. Beating Rep. Goode will not be easy, but all the pieces are coming together:
1) Energy and Resources – We tripled Rep. Goode in fourth quarter fundraising, and raised more money inside Virginia in four months than he did all year. When we are outpacing an incumbent from the Appropriations Committee, you know that people are hungry for a new generation of leadership. Also the DCCC has put our race “in play,” and if we hit our fundraising target this quarter, we will move into the top tier of their targeted races.
2) Grassroots – Our campaign has already logged over 1300 volunteer hours, and we are working hard to build the largest and most sophisticated grassroots network this district has ever seen. We are investing heavily in field, already have offices in Franklin County and Charlottesville, and will have an office in Danville by the end of this quarter. In a district the size of New Jersey, this race will be won on the ground.
3) Blue-mentum – Like much of America, our district is a swing district that is now trending blue. The wildly popular Mark Warner is on the ticket, Gov. Kaine is tirelessly devoted to building the party, and Obama just got more primary votes in the Fifth than all the Republicans combined. Meanwhile, Rep. Goode has gone from being a populist maverick to marching lockstep with President Bush and out of step with our independent district.
As for being a “faith-based progressive,” I can tell you that voters respond to authenticity. My faith is a big part of who I am and why I’ve dedicated my life to justice, and most voters just want to know what I am all about. It also provides a common experience and language that resonates with voters in my district, especially in areas where Democrats have struggled in the past.
And finally his answer on one of the most pressing issues of our day. Climate change.
We need to commit to independence from fossil fuels within a generation, and that will require major investments, a substantial shift in incentives, and a culture change as consumers. A revenue-neutral tax shift is one way to do this, but so are cap-and-trade systems that have worked to address problems such as acid rain.
As for the target, I most often hear from experts that we must draw the line at no more than a 2-degree Celsius temperature increase. Our goal must be set not by what seems politically possible but what will actually produce the end result we need.
That brings me to a excellent series that Tom wrote for TPMCafe’s Table for One. You can read it all here (under latest posts) but I want to focus on what I think is the most important one. It is entitled “Conviction Politics… in Practice.” In it Tom breaks from the notion that only DLC-poll driven campaigns can win. Instead he shows that conviction politics both makes it more likely for him to be elected and will also make him more effective if he is elected. I strongly recomend you read it all but here is part of it.
While some strategists focus on positioning candidates on issue after issue, I believe most voters focus more on whether the candidate integrity and character on the whole, demonstrated by the conviction to take a stand. These lines from Toby Keith probably strike pretty close to how many people, including me, feel about this:
“I’m a man of my convictions. Call me wrong. Call me right.
But I bring my better angels, to every fight.
You may not like where I’m going. But you sure know where I stand.
Hate me if you want to, love me if you can.”
For the rest of the week, I will be talking about my struggle to apply these simple principles to the issues of the day (Iraq War, culture war) and my experience putting conviction politics into practice. The successes of conviction candidates in 2006 inspired me to run for Congress. I am still very early in the process, but am hopeful that this campaign will be part of building on those lessons for a better democracy.
The more I learn about Tom the more exited I am about this campaign. I hope you will take the time to read his great interview with Raising Kaine, teacherken’s excellent case for him and Tom’s postings on TPM. Hopefully then you will be as exited by Tom’s campaign as I am.
Electing Barack Obama isn’t enough to bring real change. We will also need to send a strong message to Congress that more of the same won’t cut it. Electing someone like Tom would do just that. Tom wouldn’t just be another vote. He would be someone who lead by example. He will use his power as 1 of 435 to do good in the world not get sweet deals from lobbyists. He will lead by conviction and indeed he already is leading. He helped develop the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq and appeared in this video promoting it:
If you want that kind of leadership. If you want to send a strong message that conviction politics is the right kind of politics then consider making a donation to Tom via the Obamajority page. Tom has set a goal of raising $500,000 in this quarter and he is very close to reaching that. If he does this will become a top-tier race nationally. He is running a grassroots campaign and we have a good shot at replacing one of the worst congressmen with one of the best. Right now is a critical time in the campaign though so donate and together we can bring about some real change. But only it you help make it.
We need to restore the founding American ethic that we are better off when we are in this together. Since the original thirteen colonies joined together as the United States, through Civil War and the Great Depression, we have risen or fallen according to this simple rule: America thrives when we are united in a common purpose for the common good.- Tom Perriello
P.S. We are always open to adding new canidates. Keep the suggestions coming to obamathon (AT) gmail (DOT) com. Thanks!
I want to give yall a quick update on VA-05. 
Round 1: pre-Election Day
Tom’s momentum was helped in the last two weeks because of collosal screw-ups by Virgil Goode mis-using his office resources to promote a gay film. (Sultry full story 
Tom had a massive GOTV operation, as expected. Early in the night on Tuesday, MSNBC and other networks called the race for Goode. All of us knew that the networks were getting way ahead of themselves, and were under-estimating people’s support of Tom Perriello. Knowing what we did about the field operation, we called bullshit on the networks. Round 3, us.
Later on in the evening, we saw Tom Perriello get closer and closer, the networks actually started “un-calling” the race for Goode. In fact, as the evening wore on, Perriello took a pretty substantial lead (well, at least compared to the 31-vote margin he currently holds). In fact, Tom Perriello actually had built up a lead of nearly 2,300 votes with 99.34% reporting. 305 of 307 precincts, and only about 800-1000 voters remained outstanding. Since, in the great state of Virginia, 800 voters can not cast 2300 votes, I called the race for Tom Perriello, drank a beer, a celebrated an un-imaginable upset in my Congressional race on a miraculous night that I will never forget as long as I live.
Via a 
What had looked like a certain win for Tom now looked like a near certain loss. However, all day yesterday Tom benefited from incoming results of district wide canvassing, and correction of human error, and his position continued to improve all day. He eventually took a small lead (initially he led by just 6 votes), and then his lead climbed to a staggering 31 votes, where it remains. Although we can expect that number to change with additional results coming in today.
The County will likely finish its canvass this week and we will have a rough count of where we stand without the provisional ballots. The state has until November 2th
Virgil Goode on the other hand is challenging all provisional ballots, and his supporters are even saying “
Yesterday the Perriello campaign put out this statement:
