DCDL

I haven’t found an up-to-date list of DC candidates with links to their websites, so I’ve put one together. I’m only listing Democrats, since the Statehood Green and Republican primary candidates are all unopposed.

If you’re a registered Democrat in DC (and if you’re not already registered it’s too late for this primary), you can vote on September 12 for candidates for six citywide offices, plus a councilmember for your ward if you live in Ward 1, 3, 5, or 6. If you don’t know your ward, this form will tell you.

I’ve put the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot and marked the incumbents with an asterisk. (Warning: For many of these sites, you’ll want to turn off your speakers if you’re at work or somewhere else where noises aren’t welcome.)

(more…)

Tonight at DC Drinking Liberally, we got to see a preview of the first episode of The Hill. First off, it was like any documentary - the production values were a little roughened, the camera cuts a little sharp, etc. But it did what it meant to do - get a sense of the people across. I was fortunate enough to be in the room with at least three of the staffers, looking back and forth between the screen and them. Yes, the people on the show are people on Congressman Wexler’s staff, and he is there as well.

But I’ll be honest - the show is all about the staffers, and even if it wasn’t, they would have stolen the show right from Wexler.

You hear political opinions you might or might not completely agree with, but you see human beings in the process - and you get to see political opinions expressed on television that you just don’t outside of say, the Daily Show. You see people whose goals are sane.

The scenes leading up to and during the 2004 election… are worth seeing the first episode alone, even if it tears your heart out. It did mine, but those moments are FAR from everything wonderful about that half-hour.

I couldn’t stay for the discussion afterwards. I very, very much wish I didn’t have to bolt out at the end of the show, and I wish I had enough time to give you a real idea of just how uplifting this was - not because it was a slick production, but because it shows some of the very real feelings and frustration with living under a GOP government, and still evokes the tremendous fight still left in us.

The Lieberman-Lamont primary has certainly had an effect on Rahm Emanuel, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. On Friday, days before the primary, he was already pretty harsh on Lieberman:

What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening.

Then right after Lamont’s win, he got harsher:

This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means. […] This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.

If this keeps up, I may have to reconsider my moratorium on donating to the DCCC.

And Emanuel is one of the DLC folks. If he’s really feeling this way about standing up to Bush now, maybe he can put in a word for cutting off the DLC’s support of Marshall Wittmann, who has no business being a spokesperson for any Democratic organization. Wittmann is an independent who doesn’t even claim to be a Democrat, and he goes much farther than Lieberman ever has in bashing Democrats as weak on security for not falling into line behind Bush.

The Lieberman-Lamont race has driven Wittmann into hiding, or at least taking a vacation from his Bull Moose blog. It would be great if he could come back from vacation to find his walking papers from the DLC.

Update: I forgot to mention that Wittmann adopted the fashionable new insult “nutroots” last month, thus enhancing the already high standards of his prose.

This morning at the ungodly (for a Saturday) hour of 9:30, I showed up, along with more than a dozen other supporters of DC voting rights, at the Capital Hilton to lobby and observe the meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to vote on a historic change to the presidential election schedule: inserting an additional caucus between the traditional leadoff events of the presidential nominating process, the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, as well as inserting a new primary shortly after New Hampshire. Ten states plus the District were in the running, and we were there to support DC’s bid. Thanks to DC Vote, we all had T-shirts reading “Let DC Vote — Early Caucus 2008″. Unlike some of the other contenders, we didn’t think to bring bribes — South Carolina had a bag of peaches for each committee member, and Hawaii brought macadamia nuts.

Our message was that DC would provide an appropriate balance for the mostly white and rural Iowa and New Hampshire, bringing needed representation of urban and minority voters into the process. In addition, greater visibility for DC in the nomination process would bring more attention to the immoral disenfranchisement of DC residents, who despite paying federal taxes have no voting representation in the Congress that decides how those taxes are spent.

DC’s lobbying effort had been pretty minimal, so my expectations were low, but they were raised slightly when I heard that a member of the committee from New Hampshire, Kathleen Sullivan, had decided to vote for DC in the hope of avoiding a collision between New Hampshire state law and the DNC’s rules. The state law requires that the primary be moved if any other state tries to move ahead of New Hampshire, but since DC isn’t a state it wouldn’t trigger the law. It’s too bad that this possible compromise couldn’t have been noticed and earlier and publicized within the committee.

The meeting started off with praise for the recently renewed Voting Rights Acts, which was followed by an attempt to reopen a question decided earlier: whether to add four new states in the early period rather than only two. That was quickly shot down, and then committee member Harold Ickes proposed that the committee consider choosing the caucus state from the West and the primary state from the South. His proposal was passed, although he and the committee co-chairs claimed that it didn’t exclude other states from consideration, so I’m not clear what its real purpose was.

Things moved on to a confused description of what seemed to be an instant-runoff vote to determine the order in which contenders would be voted on. Ickes headed that off by proposing a simpler vote in which each member would write down only his or her first choices for the caucus and the primary states. Members then spoke in favor of various contenders, describing how their favorites fit the DNC’s criteria of diversity (racial, ethnic, and economic), labor representation, and suitability for “retail politics” — all qualities DC has plenty of. Speaking for the District were Sullivan and DC resident Donna Brazile. Finally the committee completed their ballots and adjourned for lunch.

After lunch the results were announced:

Unfortunately no one joined Sullivan and Brazile in supporting the District. Still, it will be interesting to see whether incorporating states from the West and the South will improve the presidential nomination process.

Reid Wilson from the Hotline on Call blogged the meeting live (see this post and the ones around it).

Harry Reid isn’t going to let last week’s defeat of a minimum wage increase be the Senate’s the final word on the subject. He says Democrats will block an upcoming congressional pay raise if necessary to force the issue:

“Congress is going to have earn its raise by putting American workers first: A raise for workers before a raise for Congress,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Reid refused to spell out exactly how he will block a $3,300 pay raise scheduled for January 1 for members of Congress, who currently earn $165,200 annually. He said with 40 Senate Democrats backing the maneuver, “We can stop anything they (Republicans) try to do with a congressional pay raise.”

The Carpetbagger is delighted to see this move, and so am I. You’d almost think Reid was trying to give Amy Sullivan material for the “brilliant” side of Thursday’s “Democrats: As Lame as You Think or Secretly Brilliant?”

In the earlier vote, all the Democrats stuck together (except Rockefeller, who was absent recovering from surgery) and were joined by 8 Republicans, 4 of whom are up for reelection this year. All the other Republicans (except for Shelby, who was also absent) voted against the increase, and the amendment failed 52-46 — it required a 3/5 vote because of a procedural rule (something oddly missing from the Senate vote page).

Ten Republicans voted against the increase even though they’re up for reelection. In rough order of decreasing vulnerability, they are

• Rick Santorum (IL), challenged by Bob Casey
• Conrad Burns (MT), challenged by Jon Tester
• Jim Talent (MO), challenged by Claire McCaskill
• George Allen (VA), challenged by Jim Webb
• Jon Kyl (AZ), challenged by Jim Pederson
• John Ensign (NV), challenged by Jack Carter
• Trent Lott (MS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Orrin Hatch (UT), and Craig Thomas (WY), who have challengers that I’m not going to link to because I have to draw the line somewhere

Let’s hope their Democratic opponents ask them during the campaign why they opposed to giving a raise to the lowest-paid workers among us.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that while Republicans have badly blown their time in government and are becoming increasing unpopular with the American public, Democrats are failing to take political advantage of Republican corruption and incompetence and thus will still have a hard time in this year’s elections. How much of that is because of Rovian political brilliance among the Republicans? fondness for Republican talking points among the media? Democratic cowardice and ineffectuality?

Amy Sullivan is a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly and author of a forthcoming book on religion and politics. Hear what she thinks at Drinking Liberally Thursday, June 29, at 6:30pm in the back room at Timberlake’s, 1726 Connecticut Ave NW (Dupont Circle Metro). Her talk will be “Democrats: As Lame as You Think or Secretly Brilliant?” — riffing on the themes developed in her May article in the Washington Monthly.

As usual, we’ll have free appetizers and drink specials until 9. The talk will begin around 7:30, but get there early to be sure to get a seat — and to get in some socializing.

If you’re not on our e-mail list, subscribe to get announcements of future speakers and events.

Ready for some protesting, canvassing, or school maintenance this weekend? Here are three options for Saturday, April 29:

• The March for Peace, Justice, and Democracy is happening in New York City, organized by United for Peace and Justice and other groups including the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the National Organization for Women, and Friends of the Earth. The message is to end the war in Iraq, not start one in Iran, stand up for immigrants’ and womens’ rights, rebuild the Gulf Coast, stop corporate subsidies, address the climate crisis, and probably a few other things (unfortunately, like many recent protests, it sounds a bit unfocused). See the transportation page for information on buses leaving from DC and elsewhere.

• The Democratic National Committee has its Neighbor-to-Neighbor National Organizing Day. The goal is to knock on 1 million doors across the country to tell people about the Democratic Party and get them energized. This is part of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy for reviving the party and building it up from the state and local level. There are several canvasses organized in DC and nearby.

• Our friends at DC for Democracy have chosen public schools as one of their focuses for the year, so they’ve formed a team for the annual Hands on DC volunteer project for fixing up DC schools. If you’d like to join the team for painting, landscaping, or whatever needs to be done, RSVP right away. I’ve done Hands on DC in previous years with some other groups, and that’s what I’ll be doing this Saturday.

Today is Joe Lieberman’s 64th birthday. Wonder if he can make it through the day without opening his mouth to support George Bush or attack Howard Dean or otherwise help the Republican Party or hurt the Democrats?

This year Lieberman has a richly deserved primary challenge from Ned Lamont. Lamont’s campaign is just getting under way, but it’s looking better than some expected. Lieberman is much more popular among Republicans than among Democrats, but Republicans don’t get to vote in the primary. Even if Lamont doesn’t win, it’s important to at least give Lieberman a scare to get him to think about the effect of his statements before speaking.

If you want to celebrate Joe’s birthday, consider a gift to the Lamont campaign — perhaps through the ActBlue Netroots page (where you can also give to former Texas congressman Ciro Rodriguez to help him regain his seat from Henry Cuellar, who seems a little confused about what party he’s in).

To learn more about the Lamont campaign, come to next week’s DC for Democracy meeting (Wednesday, March 1, at 7pm at Ben’s Chili Bowl), where a Lamont staffer will explain their strategy and answer questions.

In any scandal involving bribery or undue influence, especially involving a sitting member of Congress, there is one key standard to meet: were the donations of someone espousing a particular cause matched and related to the actions of the Congresscritter in question?

In the latest smear job on Ried, I will yield to the words of Josh Marshall :

I rung up Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He said Reid was a “cosponsor of Sen. Kennedy’s bill; he spoke in favor of the bill on the Senate; he was a strong supporter of the bill.” When I pressed Manley on whether Sen. Reid took any action adverse to the bill or made changes in timing that lead to the bill’s demise, he said, “No.”

Then I got hold of Ron Platt, the lobbyist referenced in the passage above, on his cell phone while he was down at a conference in Florida. I asked him whether, to the best of his recollection, Reid had taken any action against the Kennedy bill. “I’m sure he didn’t,” Platt told me.

According to Platt, the purpose of his contacts was to see what information he could get about the timing and status of the legislation. Reid’s position on the minimum wage issue was well known and there would have been no point trying to get his help blocking it. That’s what Platt says. “I didn’t ask Reid to intervene,” said Platt. “I wouldn’t have asked him to intervene. I don’t think anyone else would have asked. And I’m sure he didn’t.”

Now, obviously, both Reid’s office and Platt are interested parties on this question. If there were evidence to the contrary you wouldn’t necessarily want to take their statements at face value. But as far as I can tell there is no evidence to the contrary. And that’s after speaking with supporters of the legislation who would probably know. They don’t seem to think Reid had anything to do with tanking the minimum wage bill. Nothing.

In this case, despite the AP story’s narrative of lobbyist contacts, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence whatsoever that Reid ever took any action on behalf of Abramoff’s Marianas clients.

Wasn’t that worth a mention?

Not only is the Party of Bacon getting sloppy about even pretending to conceal their mendacious ways, they’re getting worse at their swift-boating.

And to the MSM: couldn’t y’all go after someone with real issues?

With thanks to C&L.

Usually when a candidate’s bid for a party’s presidential nomination fails, the campaign organization goes away, or at least goes into hibernation for four years. In Howard Dean’s case, however, his organization, Dean for America, evolved into Democracy for America (DFA), a group “dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government — from school board to the presidency”. Though I wasn’t involved in the Dean campaign, I have been a member of DC for Democracy, our city DFA group, for a while (and there are other DFA groups in the area and around the country).

After Howard Dean became chair of the Democratic National Committee, his brother Jim took over the leadership of DFA. And this weekend Jim Dean is in DC to kick off the 2006 Plan for Victory. It starts tonight with a fundraiser:

Friday, January 20
6:30–8pm
Hawk and Dove
329 Pennsylvania Ave SE
(Capitol South Metro)
Suggested contribution: $20
To RSVP, please contact Dina Wolkoff:
dwolkoff{at}democracyforamerica.com

Then tomorrow morning there’s the 3rd annual organizing summit in Adams Morgan:

Join Democracy for America Chairman (and Howard Dean’s brother) Jim Dean and DC for Democracy activists for our 3rd Annual Organizing Summit on Saturday, January 21st! Breakfast starts at 9:30 and we’ll have you out the door right after 1:00.

2006 promises to be a big year in the District and we need your help to chart the course for the new year - from DC’s Mayoral elections to our brand new “Out of Iraq” initiative. Bring your ideas and suggestions, and be prepared to roll up your shirt sleeves to make sure 2006 is even more successful than our last two years.

Saturday, January 21
9:30am to 1pm
Marie Reed School
2200 Champlain St NW
RSVP here
More info: dcfordemocracy{at}gmail.com

And finally, there are three house parties later on Saturday, in McLean, VA, Silver Spring, MD, and Severna Park, MD.