The 2008 Election in Michigan was by far the best that we’ve had in years, maybe decades. We picked up two congressional seats, both of which were gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Better yet, we won one of them by nearly 10 points. Barack Obama won by a landslide here (16%) Compared to John Kerry, who only won by three points. On the Statewide level, we passed two progressive ballot initiatives, threw out the conservative Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, and made huge gains in the State House of Representatives.
Presidential
Barack Obama won the state of Michigan by a margin of 57%-41%, better than any Democrat has done in decades. Also for the first time in years, the Democrat won a majority of the counties in the state.
Congress
Democrat Gary Peters Defeated Incumbent Republican Joe Knollenberg by a margin of 52%-43% in the 9th District, located in Central Oakland County including the cities of Pontiac, Auburn Hills, Rochester, Troy, and West Bloomfield. This is the first time in decades that a significant portion of Oakland County has been represented by a Democrat. Peters is a former State Senator, the 2006 candidate for Attorney General, and the current lottery commissioner.
In the 7th District, located in south central Michigan, State Senate minority leader Mark Schauer defeated CFG wingnut Tim Walberg by a margin of 46%-49%. The district includes Calhoun county, home to Battle Creek, as well as Jackson County, home to the city of Jackson, which is imfamous for being the birthplace of the Republican Party. Schauer is the popular state Senator who represents the largest counties, Calhoun and Jackson. He was endorsed by the former moderate Congressman, Joe Schwartz, whom Walberg defeated in the 2006 Republican Primary.
Ballot Initiatives
Michigan voters passed a Medical Marijuana initiative by a very wide margin, 63%-37%. But the initiative that drew the most money, and that was the prime target of the conservatives, was Prop. 2, which would use state money to fund stem-cell research. Voters passed Prop. 2 by 53%-47%.
State House of Representatives
In August, I predicted that Democrats would pick up anywhere from 3-7 seats in the State House. Democrats picked up a total of 9 seats! That is three more than we won in 2006. It is also the second cycle in a row that we did not lose a single seat, a 15 seat streak. We now have a 67-43 advantage, only 6 seats away from a 2/3 majority. It also means that we are almost certain to hold the State House in 2012, just in time for redistricting. Here are the Democrats who picked up Republican held seats:
District 62-Calhoun County, Battle Creek, Albion.
Kate Segal (D)-62% Gregory Moore (R)-32%
District 101- Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee, and Mason Counties.
Dan Scripps (D)-60% Ray Franz (R)40%
District 1- Wayne County, Northeast Detroit, Harper Woods, Grosse Pointe
Tim Bledsoe (D)-57% Mary Treder Lang (R)-43%
District 108- Delta, Menominee, and Dickinson Counties
Judy Nerat (D)-56% Mike Falcon (R)-44%
District 70- Montcalm County, part of Ionia County
Mike Huckleberry-(D) 54% Tom Ginster-(R) 46%
District 21- Wayne County, Canton
Dian Slavens (D)-52% Todd LaJoy-(R) 45%
District 39- Oakland County, West Bloomfield Township
Lisa Brown (D)-52% Amy Peterman-(R) 46%
District 32- Northeast Macomb County, Central St. Clair County
Jennifer Haase-(D) 50% John Accavitti-(R) 47%
District 24- Macomb County, St. Clair Shores
Sarah Roberts (D)-49% Bryan Brandenburg-47%
And the narrow losers:
District 61- Western Kalamazoo County, Portage
Julie Rogers (D)-49% Larry DeShazor (R)-51%
District 43- Oakland County, Waterford Township
Scott Hudson (D)-47% Gail Haines (R)-49%
District 78- Southern Berrien County, Western Cass County
Judy Truesdell (D)-52% Sharon Tyler (R)-52%
District 51- Southern Genesee County
Michael Thorp (D)-47% Paul Scott (R)-53%
Democrats held all competitve seats. Here are the closest contests for Democrat held seats:
District 91- Muskegon County except Muskegon, Northeast Ottawa County
Mary Valentine (D)-54% Holly Hughes (R)-46%
District 106- Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, and Presque Isle Counties.
Andy Neumann (D)-53% Peter Pettalia (R)-44%
These two were actually the only remotely competitive Democrat races.
Republicans targeted also targeted the following Democrats who took over Republican seats in 2006: Marc Courriveau won 59-41, Robert Dean won 58-40, Terry Brown won 65-35, Mike Simpson won 63-37, and Martin Griffin won 63-37. Vicki Barnett also won a competitve open seat 60-40.
2010
Thad McCotter (R-11th District), the Congressman who reprents Suburban portions of Wayne and Oakland Counties, only won re-election 45-51. State Senator Glenn Anderson represents almost all of the portion of the 11th District that lies in Wayne County. Anderson may decide to run against Mad Thad in 2010. State Rep-elect Dian Slavens, who pulled an upset in her race this year, may also run. Marc Courriveau also scored an upset in a strongly Republican district in 2006. Courriveau would be the best candidate, in my opinion. He’s young, from a Republican area, and has run for congress three times in the area.
The State Senate will also be up for re-election in 2010. We have to take control of this body if we want to control the redistricting process, as we could well lose the governors office.
Races to watch are The 7th District in suburban Wayne County, which will be open, The 34th which includes heavily Democratic Muskegon County and will also be open. The 20th will also be open in 2010. It is currently the most Democratic district held by a Republican in the entire state. All three district were won by Barack Obama, and will be open in 2010. We only need three districts to take control, since we currently hold 17 seats to the republicans 21. These three districts will probably be the top targets of the State Democratic Party.
Grove Insight for DCCC (10/21, likely voters, 10/4-5):
Gary Peters (D): 46 (46)
Joe Knollenberg (R-inc): 36 (37)
Jack Kevorkian (I): 2 (n/a)
(MoE: ±4.9%)
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for DCCC (10/19-20, likely voters, 9/30-10/1):
Mary Jo Kilroy (D): 44 (44)
Steve Stivers (R): 36 (36)
Don Eckhart (I): 11 (7)
(MoE: ±4.9%)
Two new polls from the DCCC show Democratic candidates in midwestern swing district races maintaining their sizable leads from last time. In the open seat in the Columbus-based 15th, the head-to-head numbers stay exactly the same; the only movement, unfortunately for Stivers, seems to be to pro-life independent Don Eckhart. (At the presidential level, Obama leads McCain 51-39 in OH-15.)
MI-09 continues to be a big surprise, as Gary Peters puts up a bigger margin against incumbent Joe Knollenberg than in the open seat in OH-15. This one just seems like a perfect storm: the Detroit area was already suffering economically more than any other part of the country, it’s suffering even more with the financial crisis and subsequent free fall in the auto industry, and we have an old incumbent who hasn’t faced a top-tier challenge before.
Last week, we finished surveying the lay of the land out West. This week, we begin to turn our attention to the Midwest. Yes, that’s right. The Midwest looks to be once again a crucial battleground to win both the White House and Congress. And with just six weeks left until election day, we’d like to talk about the state of the races in America’s Heartland.
In the Columbus based 15th District, we have a great candidate in Mary Jo Kilroy. She’s currently a Franklin County (Columbus) Commissioner who has a terrific record of accomplishments in bringing Republicans and Democrats together to enact real solutions to the county’s economic, health care, and environmental problems. But while Kilroy offers a message of real change, her Republican opponent only offers more of the same Bush-Cheney-McCain nonsense. Mary Jo Kilroy nearly ousted the Republican incumbent in 2006 (who’s now retiring) and Bush barely squeaked by with 50% of the vote here in 2004, so this district is ripe for the picking in 2008! With the DCCC and EMILY’S List already all in here, our help can really help put Mary Jo Kilroy (and Barack Obama, for that matter!) on top this November.
Another race that the DCCC and other top Democrats are targeting in Ohio is the 16th District. Here, Air Force veteran and current state representative John Boccieri is running to bring some real change for Northeast Ohio. He’s fought for our country, and he now wants to fight for Ohioans… For more and better jobs, affordable health care, and real help in these perilous economic times. Meanwhile, Republican Kurt Schuring… Well, he’s not quite as fond of his possible future constituents. This race is quite winnable for Democrats, and we have a terrific candidate in John Boccieri. If we support him, he will win.
Another state that’s critical for Barack Obama this fall is Michigan. The race here is close, but the renewed focus on the economy does seem to help Obama here. If there’s any state that’s been severely hit by the economic downturn, it’s Michigan. And hopefully with Obama’s message resonating here, we can also elect more good Democrats to Congress from here.
One great candidate running is Gary Peters from Michigan’s 9th District (Oakland County, Detroit suburbs). Peters is an accomplished state legislator, business owner, and a Navy Veteran who signed up again to serve after 9/11. Unlike the incumbent Republican Joe Knollenberg, Peters wants to get to work to help rebuild Michigan’s economy. But in order to make change happen here, we need to help Gary Peters win.
Michigan and Ohio are two critical swing states for Barack Obama to win this fall. If he wins them both, he’ll likely win the White House. But in addition to the Presidential race, we have critical Congressional races to win as well in these two states. Please don’t forget to help all these wonderful Democrats win by giving what you can here and by volunteering for the campaign if you live in or near any of these districts. With our help, we’ll make victory happen on November 4 in the Midwest and all over the country! 🙂
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.
First, I’d like to begin by thanking all of you for your support. Because of contributions from people like you, our campaign has just been ranked in CQ’s list of the top ten best funded challengers in the country. The voters in Michigan’s 9th Congressional district are tired of the failed leadership they’ve gotten from my opponent, Congressman Joe Knollenberg, for the past sixteen years, and they’re eager for a real change in Washington.
As a former Lt. Commander in the Navy, I wanted to take a moment to write to you this week as we pass the fifth anniversary of one of the most shameful moments in recent American history. On May 1st, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner and said these words: “My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
More after the break.
Five years later, another 3,919 brave American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq, the country has descended to the brink of all out civil war, and the Republican candidate for President has suggested the possibility of remaining in Iraq for another hundred years.
Five years later, we are spending $1 billion every two and a half days in Iraq – money that we could be investing in jobs, infrastructure, and rebuilding our economy here at home.
Five years later, even though it is tragically clear that the mission was not accomplished, Congressman Knollenberg has continued to vote for President Bush’s failed policies. Our men and women in uniform deserve real leadership and a responsible plan to start bringing them home now.
We have also not accomplished the mission of taking care of our troops and veterans when they return home from combat. The brave men and women who have sacrificed for our country deserve the best health care we can provide – instead we have given them the Walter Reed debacle and a VA system with a backlog of more than half a million benefits claims.
This failure of leadership for our veterans is having terrible consequences. Last week, the VA confirmed a truly appalling statistic – an average of eighteen veterans commit suicide every day. At that rate, over 6,500 brave men and women who served and sacrificed for our country will take their own lives this year. That’s nearly 1,500 more than the total number of soldiers who have been killed in combat in Iraq.
Sadly, the reasons for this situation are all too clear. A recent study by the American Psychological Association reported that over 32% military personnel who had been deployed to war zones said that they suffered a ‘negative impact’ on their psychological well-being – but only 1 in 10 sought treatment for mental health concerns. The rest stayed quiet, out of embarrassment, or fear that, if they asked for help, their military careers would be in jeopardy.
As a veteran, I take this very personally. Quite simply, the failure of our leaders in Washington to care for our veterans may be the greatest, unspoken tragedy of the entire Iraq war debacle. The failure to reach out to those veterans who may not have physical injuries – but whose psychological wounds can be even more severe – is not only a betrayal of the sacred trust between our nation and our veterans, but it has serious repercussions on our long-term military readiness and security.
Care for our veterans is a fundamental, guiding principle of our democracy that our greatest leaders have always understood. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke of our duty to “…care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan….” Three quarters of a century earlier, in 1789, George Washington put it this way: “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated.”
When Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, they started to address the serious failures in our VA and military health care system. Despite the objections of the President, Democrats passed the largest funding increase in the history of the VA. This was a good start, but we still need to do much more to care for our soldiers, veterans, and their families – and that will take electing real leaders to Congress, and replacing Bush Administration rubber stamps like Congressman Knollenberg.
When the House voted on a bill to guarantee that soldiers would have at least as much time at home as they spend deployed overseas, Congressman Knollenberg voted no.
In Washington, I will work to bring about a responsible end to the war in Iraq and start bringing our troops home now. As a veteran, I will be a voice for a strong foreign policy that keeps America secure and takes the fight to our real enemies, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that we keep faith with the men and women who served and sacrificed for our great nation.
Real leadership means taking action to solve our problems – not passing the buck and waiting for someone else to act – and that’s what I will deliver in Washington. Five years after ‘Mission Accomplished,’ it’s long overdue.
I’m not going to do this alone. This campaign to unseat one of the biggest obstacles to change in Congress will take a group effort. We’re doing well now, but Congressman Knollenberg is going to be very well funded by entrenched special interests who don’t want to lose their inside man in the House Appropriations Committee. If we’re going to be able to fight back against the GOP smear machine and the negative attacks ads that we all know are coming, and if we’re going to bring real leadership to Michigan’s 9th District, I will need your help.
The end of the first quarter brings news that bodes well for Democrats in Michigan. Congressional challengers Mark Schauer (MI-07) and Gary Peters (MI-09), both considered top contenders on the Red-To-Blue list, have ended the quarter with impressive fundraising totals.
Peters’ campaign reports that it raised over $346,000 for the first quarter, reaching roughly $748,000 total for the cycle. Furthermore, in sharp contrast to the GOP’s reliance on large-scale wealthy donors and multinational corporations, 90% of Peters’ donations came from within the Wolverine State, and 94% came from individuals. Nearly 2,000 individual contributors signed on by the end of the quarter, reinforcing the growing power of small donations from individuals via the Internet, a trend that will undoubtedly shape elections going forward.
Schauer’s numbers reflect a similar trend, as his campaign announced that it has raised more than $326,000 in the quarter, and more than $900,000 total to date. 86% of that total came from in-state donors, and, during this quarter, the campaign saw 1,000 new individuals contribute.
Always encouraging to hear news like this, especially from districts in a crucial swing state!
In a shocking development, Nancy Skinner, the 2006 candidate who ran against Republican Rep. Joe Knollenberg, has withdrawn her candidacy for that seat. She would have faced state lottery commissioner Gary Peters in the Democratic primary before moving on to face Knollenberg in the fall.
I’m not quite sure which way this news cuts. On the one hand, Skinner ran a strong race against Knollenberg the last time around, and has been championed by the netroots, especially Democracy For America. On the flip side, I remain wary of “grudge match” candidates who were unable to beat the Republicans in 2006. That was a Democratic year, without any GOP pull at the top of the ticket. If a candidate couldn’t make it over the finish line then, how would he or she do so this year?
I also don’t know much about Gary Peters. How strong a candidate is he? Any Michiganders with insights, I encourage you to chime in!
The 2008 Federal Election may be 280 days away, but life on the trail in a targeted congressional district has already heated up. We in the blogosphere do so much to impact the process, from contributions to candidates and volunteering our time (sometimes across the nation thanks to technology such as virtual phone banks) to simply giving attention to well deserving candidates who aren’t receiving any from the mainstream media. But what is it like inside of these campaigns that we track, influence, and cheer for?
I work for Gary Peters for Congress in Michigan’s 9th Congressional district. I’m focused on the campaign. I could tell you in my sleep that the district is currently represented by Republican Joe Knollenberg, however it has a Partisan Voter Index of R+0, making it one of our best pickup opportunities. I can rattle off the cities equally as effortlessly, and even give you a tour to some of the districts many landmarks including The Palace in Auburn Hills (home of the NBA’s Pistons and WNBA’s Shock), the Somerset Mall in Troy, the Detroit Zoo in Royal Oak, or the Fallen Heroes Memorial in Pontiac.
You’ll see me blogging about the race more and more as the election heats up, but currently a lot of staff energy is spent on fundraising and organization building. One day we might be preparing for a major fundraiser to collect the resources we’ll need to beat an incumbent, the next we may be at a house party snacking on chips and pop while Gary meets with voters, local activists and (hopefully!) future volunteers.
A great way to stay in touch with our supporters is through email. Email is one of the least expensive ways to communicate with our supporters, and we’d love for you to hear what we have to say this year. Recent emails have asked our supporters to vote for Gary Peters in DFA’s Grassroots All Star Contest (where Gary is in the Top 5 and closing in on becoming a finalist), spread the word about upcoming house parties and highlighted contrasts between Gary and our opponent on issues from ranging global warming to the economy to the war.
Also important are phone calls and letters inviting friends of the campaign to participate. I’ve stuffed envelopes with invitations, and then followed them up with phone calls so we can be sure to involve as many as possible. Gary loves connecting with voters, and it is our job to make sure that he can meet lots of them at our events.
The days are long- working constantly- but the hours seem to fly by. I’m usually awakened by my blackberry buzzing to let me know it’s time to check the daily political briefings that come out via email- NBC’s First Read, CNN’s Political Ticker, Politico’s Playbook and Daily Digest, check Hotline’s Wake Up Call, and Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire. Some are better than others ;). Throughout the day, breaking news about the Presidential race might be interesting, but unless it affects my district I work through it. After everything I can possibly get down that day is completed, I take some quick notes on what I’ve gotten done and what still needs to be done for the week. I take a quick jog to clear my head, before coming back to my notes when I realized I’ve forgotten something or I’ve been hit with an idea. On Friday night I send a full report for the week to our campaign manager.
I’m proud of my work and I love putting the time in. I feel a lot of responsibility to our campaign supporters, the Party, to Gary and his family, my coworkers, but especially to all of you who are following the race and want to see Gary win.
While this isn’t necessarily “Part 1” of a series, you can expect many more updates like this throughout the campaign. Very soon we will be moving out of Gary’s basement and into a campaign office, and soon thereafter ramping up our field operation. But we’ll also be communicating our same message to the netroots community through blogging here and at our campaign blog, videos on YouTube, and at social networks like Facebook (Are you a supporter of Gary Peters yet?)
If you decide to make a contribution at ActBlue, you’ll know what it is going to. I’ll bring you pictures of the team distributing lawn signs or the snacks for volunteers and bring you updates from the rest of the staff.
We’ve all got big tasks ahead of us in 2008! Let’s get to work.
Today the SEIU Michigan Council has endorsed Gary Peters, in his congressional campaign for Michigan’s 9th district.
“Our members firmly believe that Gary Peters is the best candidate to represent the citizens of Michigan’s 9th District,” said Phil Thompson, SEIU Michigan State Council president and executive vice president of SEIU Local 517M. “He has a proven record of standing by working families, particularly when it comes to providing access to quality and affordable health care.”
Gary has also received the earliest Congressional endorsement from the AFL-CIO, been endorsed by the Michigan Building Trades, American Federation of Teachers, and the local Operating Engineers, Communication Workers, and Pipefitters.
Peters was proud to accept the endorsement, saying “I’m extremely pleased and honored to get the support of the SEIU Michigan State Council. The SEIU believes, as I believe, that working families deserve a voice in Washington and that it is time for a change.”
Michigan’s 9th District is currently represented by Joe Knollenberg. Last year Knollenberg received a dismal 0% rating on labor issues in the AFSCME House Scorecard.
Getting the endorsement was a very thorough and unique process. Gary Peters and other candidates in Michigan’s 9th filled out a questionnaire, met with SEIU members who filled out assessment forms, and took part in a “Walk a Day in My Shoes” event where the candidates worked side by side with an SEIU member.
Marge Faville, the secretary-treasurer of SEIU Healthcare Michigan and the Michigan State Council treasurer, said Peters understands the struggles that SEIU members face.
“Gary Peters understands our values and our concerns,” Faville said. “He spent a day side-by-side with a home care worker as part of our endorsement process, and we were very impressed with Gary’s passion and his grasp of the issues SEIU workers face.”
Faville went on to highlight two of Gary Peters key beliefs that impressed SEIU members:
Ending the war in Iraq, and supporting children’s health care.
“Gary Peters wants to end the war, bring our troops home and make sure their children get the health care they need through an expansion of the S-CHIP program. Those two issues are extremely important to SEIU members, as they are to Michiganders as a whole. Our members are excited to support a candidate who shares their vision for a better Michigan and a stronger America.” SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Marge Faville