Holy smokes! According to this Hill article, "Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are pushing for filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress next year."
Great, right? Fantastic! What I've been calling for...for ages! Let's get it started -
What's that? There are Democrats that oppose this? "Five Senate Democrats" said they wouldn't support filibuster reform, and "another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change"? What? How's that? It must be what Steve Benen said, that "most of the support" for filibuster reform "comes from newer members of the chamber, but it's the Dems who've been around for a while...who are most inclined to keep things the way they are, regardless of the consequences to the institution or the country, right?
It's a reminder that no one wants to give up a weapon they might want to use themselves someday. Republicans are abusing procedural rules now to undermine a progressive agenda, and some Dems are no doubt thinking they'll be able to abuse those same rules down the road.
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) told The Hill, "I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.... I think it has been working."
I don't know what Senate Akaka has been watching, but it doesn't sound like this one.
With the Senate Democratic majority due to shrink, and Republicans becoming more hysterically conservative, these anti-reform Dems are inviting a disaster -- a government incapable of passing legislation.
So when we hear Max Baucus opposes filibuster reform, we shouldn't be surprised. After all, as a "moderate," he's one of the Senators you have to custom-tailor a bill for in order to avoid a filibuster. Pork! Pork! Pork! For Montana! And an effective roadblock to pass any law that would protect or benefit ordinary Americans over Baucus' constituents. Like WellPoint, say. Or maybe, as former Senator Fritz Hollings claims, the filibuster allows Senators to do more fundraising. Ending the filibuster would crimp the fundraising of the Baucuses of the Senate.
But not someone like Tester, right? Not a freshman Senator elected on a wave of populist progressive fervor. Whose supporters slogged in the rain to ensure he represented Montana as a reformer in the US Senate? That he do his best to help end the bitter partisanship that marred Congress in recent years? That he work for the people of the state, and not the varied deep-pocketed interests that have held the Senate - and the country - hostage?
Wrong.
Sen. Jon Tester, a freshman Democrat from Montana, disagrees with some of his classmates from more liberal states.
"I think the bigger problem is getting people to work together," he said. "It's been 60 for a long, long time. I think we need to look to ourselves more than changing the rules."
Seriously, I'm flabbergasted.
Speechless.
I mean, where do you start with this? Yes, the filibuster has been in effect for a long time. But its use for standard legislation is a new and radical change:
But even a cursory glance at the proceedings of the 110th Senate shows something is clearly different this time. Republican leaders are evoking filibusters at a torrid pace, seemingly intent on blocking nearly every piece of legislation that comes across their desks, even measures with wide Republican support.
During the Legislature's first session, which ended in January, the majority was compelled to invoke 78 cloture votes, an average of more than one a week. And things seem to be repeating themselves in the second session, with 44 cloture motions as of June 13, for a total of 116 so far in the 110th Congress.
By contrast, the previous record was 61 cloture votes during the entire 107th Congress of 2001-2002. Republicans are on track to triple that total by the time the second session closes next year.
Compare that to earlier sessions of Congress. Between 1917 and 1963, "the procedure was invoked only five times."
A quick glance at the history of the filibuster shows that, in its original inception, it wasn't intended to block votes on legislation, but to foster debate. Senators had to actually debate on the floor to delay a vote on a bill until 1975, when the "virtual" filibuster was allowed. Now, all you need to do is announce you're filibustering, and - voila! - 60 votes are required.
Republicans now have a defacto standing filibuster on practically everything. They've made so that passing anything in the Senate requires sixty votes, a super majority every time. This situation has never existed before. This was not the situation in any previous Congress ever. Really. I know the beltway reporting makes it seem like sixty is normal. This is the way it's always been. Democrats did it too when they were in the minority.
It is not true. This really has never happened before in the history of the U.S. Senate....
Under current Senate filibuster rules, Montana's Mike Mansfield couldn't have forced Strom Thurmond to continue debate indefinitely on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, thus ensuring its passage after a 24-hour marathon speech by the segregationist.
And Michael Tomasky reminds us that requiring a supramajority on all votes was distinctly not what our nation's constitutional architects envisioned for a functioning national legislature. "[The Senate] was never supposed to prevent action when clear majorities backed something,
writes Tomasky, "as frequently happens today." And he quotes James Madison, "opposing supramajority requirments in all but a few cases (treaty approval, ouster of members)":
In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.
So, no, Senator Tester, this is decidedly not how the Senate has historically gone about its business, and the current filibuster has not been around a long time.
As for "getting people to work together..." I'm not sure what Tester means by that. Getting Republicans to support Democratic legislation? Um...you'd have thought even Senator Tester's short-lived experience in the US Senate would show him the folly of that kind of thinking. This isn't the Montana legislature of a decade ago, Senator Tester.
Today's Republicans are deliberately sabotaging legislation that would ameliorate the nation's economic woes with an eye on worsening the economy for the 2012 elections. Today's Republicans are deliberately sabotaging any climate change legislation, wooing the money and support of energy conglomerations and paying lip service to AM-radio-fueled Beckian paranoia. These are not people you can work with, Senator Tester.
This is not why we elected you US Senator for the state of Montana.
Okay, folks. First up, Will Hammerquist, Democratic candidate for HD
To begin with, Hammerquist is a native of the Flathead valley. His parents moved to the area in the 1970s. His father started out working on a ranch, then later got into the building business. His mother, a nurse, initially worked in the hospital in Browning. They settled in Creston, where Will grew up. He attended Flathead HS, and then Montana State with a degree in economics and political science.
Hammerquist has an interesting resume. During college, he was a student lobbyist for MSU students; afterward, no doubt influenced and abetted by his father's building business, he was director of member services for the Montana Contractors' Association. After his stint with the contractors, Hammerquist joined the campaign staff of Lt. Governor John Boehlinger, and later served in the governor's office as a policy adviser. His latest gig is with the National Parks Conservation Association,where he serves as program manager for the Northern Rockies regional office, where he's been instrumental in protecting the North Fork of the Flathead River from Canadian oil, gas, and mining activity.
The thrust of his campaign? Jobs.
In case you're not from the Flathead, the county has been struggling with joblessness. According to the Flathead Beacon, joblessness is down from its record-setting mark in March, but obviously double-digit unemployment (which fails to include the long-term unemployed) is a problem.
Hammerquist is campaigning around job creation, proposing ways to bring startup business to Flathead county, find workforce training money, and incentives for keeping money in the local economy. In a short telephone interview with Hammerquist, Will mentioned using more of the in-state lending program money for small business lending (much of money is currently invested in the bond market, which shows lower return than on local business investment). He also stumped for a "made in Montana" campaign, similar to the "Jersey Fresh" campaign.
And he favors giving local and small businesses a break or vacation from the state's business equipment tax.
In short, he knows the needs of his community, and is thinking about concrete ways to address problems.
Don't let the website of his opponent, Derek Skees, fool you. On the site, Skees depicts himself as a reasonable, apolitical "statesman." Nothing could be farther from the truth. A fund-raising letter sent by Skees reveals that he thinks he was "called by God" to run for political office. He's also a member of the divisive and ueber-partisan Tea Party coalition, on whose survey, Skees revealed that he thinks he has a special mission to be a legislator, and besides Ron Paul, the "most influential human being in his life" is the vituperative Father Coughlin of the 21st century, Glenn Beck. Cowgirl also has video of Skees distributing "The 5000-year Leap," which James Conner describes as "Willard Cleon Skousen's notorious tome that's become a bible for the teabaggers."
In the Leap, Skousen argues that the U.S. Constitution is based on the Bible, not on Enlightenment philosophy as most mainstream historians contend. Glenn Beck, like Skousen a Mormon, wrote the forward to the current edition of the book, which is popular among those teabaggers who favor making the U.S. a theocracy.
According to the Northwest Montana Patriots, Skees "...teaches a class on the 5,000 Year Leap and the U.S. Constitution every week to a large group." On his campaign's website, Skees promises to "...measure every aspect of my office through the Founders Basic Principles (Skees' link to The Leap) and vote only to their measure."
If setting up an American theocracy is your cure, Skees is your man.
But then, as Hammerquist himself says, "whacky-ism doesn't create jobs."
Two things:
Donate. Now. I've set up a LiTW Hammerquist page, and created an easy goal: $300.
This is easy. You folks could do this in your sleep. Three hundred. Donate what you can: five bucks, ten bucks, fifty bucks.
The second, for the Missoula-bound: Will's having a fundraiser in the Garden City on Wednesday. Here's the info from the info:
What: Will Hammerquist for Montana House Event Date: Wednesday, July 28th
Time: 6:00 PMPlease
Hosts: Kevin & Jodi Hammond
Co-Hosts: Dave Wanzenried
Tara Jensen
Greg Lind
Matt Singer
Cynthia Wolken
Jessica Grennan
Betsy Hands
Jennifer Hensley
Land Tawny
Matt Leow & Sarah Cobler
Julie Hammerquist
Dave McAlpin
Ellie Boldman Hill
Three Facts about Will: ~Endorsed by MT Conservation Voters
~Not Accepting any PAC or Corporate Funds
~Works for non-profit conservation organization
The freefall has begun. The US Senate has abandoned any notion of passing any kind of meaningful reform, and seems to be content to sit tight and watch the 2010 elections. Over the past week, the Senate has punted on some major issues that essentially say they're done.
To wit:
The Cobell settlementwas rejected by the US Senate. It was stripped from a war-funding bill. Harry Reid blamed Republicans, but as Indian Country Today's Rob Capriccioso pointed out, plenty of Democrats had to oppose the amendment for it to fail cloture, 46-51. Republicans - led by Wyoming's John Barrasso - do keep trying to "modify" the settlement in ways Cobell opposes, but it's unclear if the filibusterers here were voting against the settlement, or tacking on unrelated additional spending (there were other domestic measures in the bill besides the Cobell settlement) to the Afghanistan funding bill. So, it either failed because the Senate opposes the settlement, or because they're beholden to deficit hawks. Either way, it's a fail for the Senate.
Cobell is bringing the settlement back to the House. As Gwen Florio notes, the "most recent deadline - there have many, with many delays - for congressional approval of the settlement is Aug. 6."
From a planetary perspective, the Senate abandoning of a climate change bill is even worse. Harry Reid said simply he doesn't have the votes to pass a bill. Worse still, the abandonment of the climate in the Senate presages a complete collapse of any political will to work on climate issues:
The result is an undeniable defeat in stemming climate change in this country. It echoes overseas also with other countries wondering about American resolve on a global issue. The high-wire deal struck in a climate change conference last year in Copenhagen to reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020 looks very far away.
But the wreckage isn't complete. California will face a challenge to its AB32 law cutting greenhouse emissions on the ballot in November. Also, GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman wants to hit the pause button on the law if elected. Keeping this law on the books becomes a higher priority than ever.
The Obama administration may also take an extra step in the battle by using existing federal laws to crack down on carbon emissions, a regulatory showdown it wanted to avoid with the legislative package that's now dead. Whether it has the will to do so, after the Senate defeat, remains in doubt.
Spectacular fail.
Finally, Republican Senators tried to block the US DoJ from challenging the recent Arizona immigration law. It failed, but the bad news here is that both Jon Tester and Max Baucus voted with Republicans on the issue. It's an astounding vote, frankly. For starters, the bill attempts to dictate to Justice what cases they should pursue. For another matter, while Tester has always been hawkish on immigration, the Arizona law is irreconcilable with the kind of individual civil liberties issues Jon's always championed in the past. How can you be an outspoken opponent of Real ID - and a supporter of Arizona's immigration law? Real ID at least has the benefit of being applied uniformly to all citizens, while Arizona's papers check would be haphazardly applied without document standards, and by local authorities with all of their biases and no oversight. And Tester, at least, has an election coming up and a history of drifting towards nativist positions on immigration. What's Baucus' excuse here?
As Netroots Nation friend Paul Hogarth blogged today, the Senate is where "progressive legislation goes to die."
If there's one major frustration leading into November, it's the U.S. Senate - where Republicans have obstructed practically everything that passed the House. Reid came to the Conference on July 24th - right after announcing we "don't have the votes" for comprehensive climate change reform this year, only adding insult to injury. One panel on filibuster reform suggested we're in a constitutional crisis, but Reid himself wouldn't commit to any specific solution.
And the solution?
But rather than give up, Al Franken reminded the netroots that Senators elected in 2006 and 2008 with their help are a "coalition of the impatient" - and represent a new generation of more progressive Democrats. Bloggers are needed this November to add to their ranks, in order to change the Senate.
Well...it's a nice thought. And I do think our progressive resurgence moved too quickly, allowing too many politicians from earlier eras of appeasement staff the chairs of vital Congressional committees. We do need better representatives.
But I'm still staggered - especially on climate change - how spectacular our political failures have been.
Seven committed same-sex couples today filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana for failing to provide legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution's rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life's basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is ensure that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that opposite-sex couples are offered through marriage.
Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.
It's right there in the preamble. "We the people of Montana," it begins, "desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution." If you haven't read Montana's constitution yet, do so. It's elegant and striking.
Like section 3, on "Inalienable Rights." "All persons are born free," states the constitution, "and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways."
Or section 4, on "Individual Dignity," which states simply, "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws."
Seems like a slam dunk, doesn't it? And, as Dan Savage notes, this isn't a lawsuit for gay marriage, but for domestic partnership rights:
And there won't be any protest from defenders of marriage because these same-sex couples aren't seeking the right to wed. All they're demanding is that the state of Montana recognize domestic partnerships. So, again, we can expect no protests from the defenders of marriage... right? And if defenders of marriage should protest or attempt to block domestic partnerships for same-sex couples-like they did in Hawaii-all the folks who are constantly urging gays and lesbians to be reasonable and settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships will loudly condemn the defenders of marriage for being unreasonable... right?
We know Savage is being facetious, because Montana conservatives are sure to do some ALCU- and gay-bashing over this lawsuit. You saw what happened when Missoula passed its anti-discrimination ordinance, you see what's going on in Helena over the specter of telling kids that gay parents exist. Heck, right in the GOP platform is a call to outlaw gays.
Still, it's possible the ACLU and the seven couples who initiated the suit will win. And that will be good.
On a personal note, kudos to Missoula's Casey Charles for being one of the litigants. He was a colleague and friend at the university, and I'm not at all surprised at his courage and tenacity here.
Story in this morning's Missoulian regarding the fact that the county's turnout was the lowest in Montana for the primary. Only 21% of the registered voters in the county cast their ballots.
There's some weird stuff in here, like this:
Obviously, the timing of the primary is not ideal for University of Montana students, many of whom leave for the summer break by June. Only six votes were cast during the primary at the University Center polling place. Yet, Zeier said that while the student absence affects voter turnout, it's not significant.
That would be more believable if the story didn't later note that Missoula generally tends toward lower primary turnout (which indicates this is a common issue, not a one-off deal). Also worth noting -- not all students live on campus, even though this concept tends to be overlooked. Off-campus students are more likely to stick around for the summer, but many still leave to work.
There's another strain here, which I think is largely driven by this figure: Of approximately 16,000 ballots cast, just shy of 14,000 were mail ballots. There's some evidence in other states that the move to vote-by-mail dampens enthusiasm and resulting turnout spikes on Election Day itself. That isn't deeply problematic (although it is worth monitoring). But there is a different problem in Montana, which is that our vote-by-mail system currently doesn't work:
Some voters wondered why ballots were not mailed to their homes, especially if they filled out information to make them a permanent absentee voter.
The previous two elections - the 2009 city election and the May 2010 school election - were both mail-ballot elections, so some people expected to receive a ballot in the mail.
But even the people who opt for permanent absentee ballots must annually fill out a green address-verification form that the elections office mails out every January, and return it to the county in order to continue to receive absentee ballots.
Ouch! Is the title of the post fair? It is if you approach issues like the Montana GOP, by taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion and preying on the fears of everyday voters, it is. Like Breitbart!
So here the state Republican party goes after a sex-ed program in Helena that's not really very controversial -- its "sins" are that it teaches kids about different kinds of households, that there are proper words for genitals, and acknowledges that other kinds of sex, besides vaginal, exist. Obviously the problem here is that right-wingers are apoplectic that kids might learn gays exist and lead happy and productive lives (not to mention, have hot sex). Oh, and the sex ed program emphasizes abstinence...
Only in Fox-News-Speak, this is "graphic" or "explicit" sex! "Teaching kindergarteners graphically about sex"! And it's spreading! Across the state! And only with a majority of Republicans in the legislature can you and your children be protected from these sex-crazed libruls!
Except that, according to the Office of Public Instruction, the state constitution "forbids the Legislature from dictating the details of any kind of school curriculum statewide, leaving such choices to local school boards." So there's that.
If this sounds familiar to you political junkies, it should. Wa-a-a-a-y back in the 2008 presidential election, conservatives tried to make a fuss over Obama's support for a similar sex ed program in Illinois. Time's Ana Marie Cox then:
Obama has supported legislation to teach children about "inappropriate touching;" he's not for handing out cucumbers or bananas or probably even cheetos in show and tell. I imagine that the lessons would be short and involve pointing at a doll and in general be less explicit than a "Suite Life of Zach and Cody" episode.
She then noted that this kind of sex ed for kindergarten that Obama supported (and similar to Helena's) was similar to that of the United Church of Christ! Here's a snippet:
United Church Of Christ Promotes A Sexual Education Curriculum For Kindergartners That Focuses On Helping Children Identify and Avoid Sexual Abuse. "Our Whole Lives K-1 supports parents, teachers and pastors in educating children about birth and sexuality. The program affirms all kinds of families and helps children identify and avoid sexual abuse. Activities include stories, songs, arts and crafts."
So...if Republicans oppose giving kindergarten students the tools to battle sexual abuse...that means, of course, they favor pederasty!
It's that time again: Left in the West's battleground races. You know the drill: we have a chance to elect good, progressive leaders to the state legislature, where a lot of good can be done. The blog's battleground races are those contests that are in doubt and can be won, and could decide the majority in the state House and Senate. These are the races where your donations could make a real difference.
Last year, we had an ambitious number of candidates and races. We raised a lot of money -- over $6,000 -- but it was spread out over more than a dozen House and Senate candidates.
This year, I thought I'd try something different. Instead of identifying all swing races, I narrowed down the list to races from differing geographical areas that feature candidates that the LiTW readership can get excited about. If we can contribute the same amount of money we did last year, but to fewer candidates, we have a better chance of impacting those races.
Still, I'll be writing about as many races as I can this summer and pointing you to candidates' Act Blue pages. And, of course, any- and everyone is encouraged to create your own Act Blue pages and post diaries about races you'd like the readership to support.
Anyway, here are the five House candidates we're supporting this cycle:
HD 4: Will Hammerquist
Mike Jopek's leaving this Whitefish-area seat, and Will Hammerquist, of the National Parks Conservation Association and working to preserve the water quality of the North Fork of the Flathead River, is running on a platform of jobs creation. His opponent is DerekSkees. 'Nuf ced.
In Great Falls, Donna Zook is running for the House seat that Deb Kottel has vacated. Zook runs her own psychology and clinical psychology practice, and was an outspoken opponent to the Highwood coal-fired power plant. She's running on three main principles: public health, anti-discrimination, and conservation.
Scobey resident Julie French is our only incumbent in the battleground House races. Elected to the House first in 2006, she became the Democratic Majority whip in only her second term in office. She sits on the Human Services and Rules committees, and was vice chair of the Agriculture committee. In 2008, she was the primary sponsor of several bills, including an attempt to revise Montana's medical marijuana laws, which was killed by gross partisanship. Her opponent, Austin Knudsen, is a lawyer and big-business Republican running against health care reform.
HD 77 stretches over much of Jefferson county, and includes a slice of Helena. Here, born-and-bred Butte-ian and miner's daughter, Sheila Hogan, is battling a "constitutional Republican" looking to hand over the keys of the state to multi-national extraction and energy corporations. Hogan is the executive director of the Career Training Institute, and a long-time advocate for jobs in the state, which makes her the ideal candidate in this economic slump marred by joblessness.
Had to get a Missoula candidate in the mix! This is Curdy's second shot at HD 100; in 2008, he jumped into the race at the last minute to replace an ailing Gary Brown. Rancher, smokejumper, teacher; running on job creation, public education, and access to health care: what's not to like? If that's not enough, consider that Curdy is a fave of curmudgeonly scribe-ster, Bill Vaughn. At the very least, you can expect some wry commentary on the race. That incumbent Republican Bill Nooney dropped out of the race because of financial troubles gives Curdy an edge in a race that would have been competitive anyway, but don't count out Champ Edmunds despite his sneer: Tea Party toxicity and GOP enthusiasm makes this race touch-and-go.
Just like last year, I created a page on Act Blue for all of the battleground House candidates. Take a look at the candidates, mull 'em over, donate if you want, but I'll be starting fundraising pushes pretty soon, as well as presenting a list of Senate battleground races.
If you're chomping at the bit, here's quick link to the donations page:
Cowgirl addresses Brian Schweitzer's claim he isn't interested in running for Senate:
My take is that even if Schweitzer is interested in the Senate-and by all accounts, he is not, since he makes fun of the institution seven days a week-he would not be researching his chances against Max Baucus in a race four years from now. Politicians don't poll that far ahead, ever.
As for Chuck's anecdote about Baucus being pissed at Schweitzer for working up the crowd at the Obama event last summer by calling for universal healthcare, that story has been making the rounds for a while. Baucus gave a speech about the importance of compromise, etc., and then Schweitzer then razzed up the crowd by calling for a Canadian health system, and then Baucus supposedly got in his face and told him he was, by giving such a speech, destroying the entire health-care policy endeavor. UPDATE: A commenter found the speech on youtube! You can watch it here....
Overall, I think the rumors are nonsense. As to Tester, Schweitzer spent a fortune in political capital on Tester's campaign, raising money, barnstorming across the state, and appearing in ads wiith Jag, his dog, talking about what a great Senator Tester would be. And Tester is a great Senator, and progressives love him, and he and Schweitzer seem to have a strong relationship. S o that part of the rumor has little basis. Nobody I know has ever even heard it. As for a Baucus-Schweitzer showdown, that's far off but it is definitely buzzed around inside the beltway. Baucus has reason to fear Schweitzer because Schweitzer gets Democrats excited, and gets progressives excited too. However, my prediction is that by 2014, one of these two men will have moved on to become a judge, an ambassador, a cabinet officer, a CEO, a Congressman, or maybe even a presidential or vice-presidential nominee. I honestly can't imagine Baucus and Schweitzer vying for a Senate seat in a primary. So while the rumor is fun, it is probably an empty one.
I try to avoid getting caught up in echo-chamber news cycle "controversies" - and when Andrew Breibart's video of USDA worker Shirley Sherrod making "racist" remarks - comments on how she discriminated against a white farmer - first surfaced, I ignored it, considering it the usual Breitbartian manufactured crap.
And then Sherrod was forced to resign from her job by Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsak.
Frankly, it wasn't surprising to learn that Breitbart's video clip was snipped from a longer speech in which Sherrod was actually making the exact opposite point that Breitbart and conservatives were accusing her of. In the full speech, Sherrod ends up helping the white farmer and was forced to confront and overcome her own racism, allowing her to "'realize that I needed to work to help poor people' regardless of whether they were black, white, or Hispanic."
The revelation of the full context of the speech made the NAACP, which initially condemned Sherrod's remarks, to admit they were "snookered" by Breitbart.
In fact, the gulf between Breitbart's accusation and reality was so large that even some conservative bloggers noticed it. Jonah Goldberg: "I think she should get her job back. I think she's owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my friend Andrew Breitbart." (Goldberg goes on to claim Breitbart didn't edit the clip, and wouldn't have run it if he had known the full context. Of course, that didn't stop Breitbart from airing his infamous ACORN videos. Breitbart is a partisan hack of the worst magnitude, a lying sack of sh*t, and could use a boot in his *ss. Of course, we always overlook the faults of our friends, don't we?)
The real story isn't Breitbart making sh*t up. That's old news. Nine times out of ten, when you see some "breaking" scandal from a conservative blog, it's crap. (Like the recent Journolist "conspiracies.") It's not rocket science. Krugman:
I mean, there's a history here: ACORN, Climategate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, and much much more. (Someone recently reminded me that the GOP held two weeks of hearing on the Clinton Christmas card list.) When the right-wing noise machine starts promoting another alleged scandal, you shouldn't suspect that it's fake - you should presume that it's fake, until further evidence becomes available.
The real story is the craven reaction to Breitbart's clip. The DC crowd caved. Even if Sherrod is offered her job back, it won't change the initial cringing.
They are telling wingnuts everywhere that all they have to do is gin up a phony controversy (especially about a black person, apparently) and the administration will fire them so as not to shake confidence that they are "fair service providers."
This is sheer cowardice.
Backbone has always been an issue of contention between the netroots and DC insiders as long as I can remember. Personally, I've often argued that if you shout your progressive values - and fought for them, even amidst conservative chest-thumping - you will be surprised at the results. People will like you. And the Obama presidential campaign was the triumph of that claim. The president ran on an open, progressive platform centered around healthcare reform, climate change legislation, fair taxes, and an end to the war in Iraq and Bush's unconstitutional anti-terror policies, and he won. Handily.
In some ways, I blame the quick transfer of power from the GOP to Democrats between 2006 and 2010. Too many Democratic veterans - journalists, staffers and politicians - are left over from the 1990s and beyond, and have the all-too familiar habits from that era. If anything, this should underscore that our movement is still young; we need to work to put good candidates in office whenever possible, and change the temper of debate and policy-making in Washington.
According to NBC in Washington DC, the Free and Equal D.C. Fund is taking on Senator Jon Tester for his sponsorship of a NRA-supported bill that would eliminate locally-enacted firearms regulations within DC.
"The group is now taking on Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Mississippi Rep. Travis Childers, sponsors of a bill that would eliminate any locally enacted firearms regulations within the District. Panetta said if their bill became law, "anybody would be free to walk around with a semiautomatic rifle in D.C. ... It's a slap in the face to local governments everywhere, and was only done to gain cheap political points with the National Rifle Association."
The group is running a radio ad in Montana, charging Tester with ignoring Montana's interests and wasting time on D.C. issues. The spot says Tester is not doing his job as an elected representative of the Treasure State, and that if he cares so much about District affairs, he can always resign from the Senate and run for D.C. Council."
This, of course, is a somewhat ironic turn of events, especially when considered in the context of Senator Tester and the "collaborators" 'local control' anti-DC talking points regarding the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
