Democracy for New Mexico

Harmful Telecom Bill Progresses, But Barely

The bad news: The critically flawed telecommunications bill, which cleared the U.S. House without net neutrality protections, gained passage in the Senate Commerce Committee this week. The good news: All Democrats on the committee voted for the Byron Dorgan/Olympia Snowe net neutrality amendment. It was defeated, but barely, on an 11-11 tie vote. The main telecom bill gained passage by a margin of 15-7 to move the bill out of committee. However, the word is it will have trouble on the Senate Floor and some of those who voted to move it out of committee have said they won't vote for it when and if the full Senate takes up the bill.

Matt Stoller at MyDD provides a detailed account of the wild discussion session on the bill and how Chairman Ted Stevens' erratic rants may have caused enough consternation to stop the bill's final passage on the Senate Floor. Stoller reports that Senators Dorgan (D-ND) and Kerry (D-MA) were magnificent speaking against the bill and for net neutrality, while countering the mad lobbying of the large mob of telecom lobbyists who flooded the hearing.

You  must read Stoller's account, gleaned from sources who were present, to get the full flavor of the dizzying levels to which the telecoms and their numerous lobbyists have gone to push passage of this bill. They got their wish in the Senate Commerce Committee, but their behavior and that of their Republican mouthpieces may well spell doom for the bill at the next level. For more on the status net neutrality, check out the article by Jonathan Rintels on FreePress.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has announced he will attempt to achieve stoppage on the bill and lead a filibuster against it, if necessary, unless meaningful net neutrality provisions are added. It's clear that Kerry and Dorgan will join him and, according to Stoller, other Dem Senators are expected to follow suit. We would need 41 Senators to secure the filibuster. Sen. Kerry today released a statement about the bill on the website of Save the Internet, the massive coalition that is fighting to retain net neutrality.

Senator Ted Stevens (D-AK), Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, has said that he won't bring the bill to the Senate floor unless he's sure of 60 votes in support. As things stand now, he doesn't have the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Stay tuned, and be sure to express your views on net neutrality to Senators Bingaman and Domenici. We still have a great chance to stop any bill that lacks net neutrality protections. Urge your Senator to stop passage of the telecom bill unless it's amended to provide meaningful guarantees of net neutrality.

Next Step in Net Neutrality Fight

IMPORTANT: The COPE bill that recently passed in the U.S. House is now in the Senate Commerce Committee where a net neutrality amendment was introduced by Senators Dorgan and Snowe. This amendment is scheduled to be acted upon late Tuesday or early Wednesday of this week. mcjoan at Kos provides the latest info and the phone numbers of Senators who need a call. You know what to do. For more information about net neutrality, visit Save the Internet

Lakoff Says Blame Conservatism, Not Incompetence for Bush Failures

George Lakoff and his colleagues at the Rockridge Institute have a compelling post up on Kos today arguing that the Dems are making a mistake by focusing on Bush's "incompetence." They explain that the Bush administration's so-called "failures" are really the natural and expected results of his conservative philosophy. Excerpt:

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said “The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.

... Our budget deficit is not the result of incompetent fiscal management. It too is an outgrowth of conservative philosophy. What better way than massive deficits to rid social programs of their funding?

... Perhaps the biggest irony of the Bush-is-incompetent frame is that these “failures” — Iraq, Katrina and the budget deficit — have been successes in terms of advancing the conservative agenda.

... The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush’s management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.

Lakoff and his colleagues go into detail advancing this theme and recommend a significant change in how Democrats frame these issues. Do you agree? What are your thoughts?

House Panel Approves Sen. Udall's Bill to Protect Valle Vidal

From the NM Wilderness Alliance:
WASHINGTON— A key U.S. House committee voted Wednesday to protect the Valle Vidal— 102,000 acres in New Mexico's Carson National Forest— from gas drilling. HR 3817 (Udall, NM), the “Valle Vidal Protection Act of 2005," was approved by the U.S. House Resources Committee on a unanimous voice vote. The bill could next be heard by the full House.

"This is a huge step forward in the process to protect one of New Mexico's most precious gems," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who authored the measure. "Protecting the Valle Vidal means preserving for New Mexico and the nation a land rich in history and culture and abundant in wildlife."

The U.S. Forest Service, which manages the Valle Vidal, has been considering whether to open 40,000 acres of the land to coal-bed methane drilling. The Forest Service solicited public opinion on the proposal and received 54,000 responses, only nine of which supported drilling in the area, according to an analysis by the Coalition for the Valle Vidal, which opposes opening up the Valle Vidal to gas drilling.

The Valle Vidal, located in Taos and Colfax counties, is home to one of the largest elk herds in the state and has been described as an outdoorsman's paradise. Udall also said the Valle Vidal was home to some of America's earliest inhabitants — including Native Americans, Spanish settlers and myriad forms of wildlife.

"I believe we have a responsibility to protect it for future generations," he said.

The Valle Vidal tract was donated to the Forest Service in 1982 by Pennzoil Co., which never drilled in the area.

Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., who sits on the House Resources Committee, said Wednesday he supported the protection. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., became a co-sponsor of the measure after it passed the committee Wednesday. She had previously declined to publicly support or oppose the legislation, saying she wanted to study the matter and hear public feedback.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M, has sponsored similar legislation in the Senate, but Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Natural Resources Committee, has not yet declared a position on the Valle Vidal Protection Act.

Editor's Note: You can thank Rep. Tom Udall by contacting him here. It also might be good to thank Rep. Heather Wison for her better late than never support here, and Rep. Pearce for his support here. It's just as important to thank elected officials for doing the right thing as it is to express criticism when they do things we don't support.

Most of all, please urge Senator Pete Domenici to support protection of the Valle Vidal here. Isn't it time for Domenici to support one of New Mexico's (and the West's) most valuable natural resources? Time will tell if he decides to do the right thing or continues to do the bidding of his big donors and the highly paid lobbyists of oil and gas corporations.

You're also urged to support the work of the Coalition for the Valle Vidal.

Flood Them With Calls on Net Neutrality!

The disastrous COPE bill, which would hand over our internet pipes and content control to the big telecoms, is set for a hearing on the Senate side, in the Commerce Committee, this week. Recall that it passed the House recently, with the support of too many Democrats, including our own Rep. Tom Udall. If we want to preserve the open source, equal-access-for-all internet that we've had from the beginning, we need to act NOW. Net neutrality is a must if the web is to continue to be equally open to all points of view, not just those offered first class treatment for big bucks paid.

Here's a video of a debate between industry lobbyist Mike McCurry and Paul Misener of Amazon about net neutrality. The website of the Save the Internet coalition has text excerpts.

Now's the time to call members of Senate Commerce committee to urge them to reject any bill that doesn't guarantee net neutrality:

You can contact the Senate Commerce Committee at the main switchboard toll free at 1-888-355-3588. Here are their individual phone numbers:

Chairman Ted Stevens (AK): (202) 224-3004
John McCain (AZ):  (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns (MT):  202-224-2644
Trent Lott (MS): (202) 224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX): 202-224-5922
Olympia J. Snowe (ME):  (202) 224-5344
Gordon H. Smith (OR):  202.224.3753
John Ensign (NV):  (202) 224-6244
George Allen (VA):  (202) 224-4024
John E. Sununu (NH):  (202) 224-2841
Jim DeMint (SC):  202-224-6121
David Vitter (LA):  (202) 224-4623

Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI): 202-224-3934
John D. Rockefeller (WV):  (202) 224-6472
John F. Kerry (MA):  (202) 224-2742
Byron L. Dorgan (ND):  (202) 224-2551
Barbara Boxer (CA): (202) 224-3553
Bill Nelson (FL):  (202) 224-5274
Maria Cantwell (WA):  (202) 224-3441
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ):  (202) 224-3224
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE):  (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (AR):  (202) 224-2353

And it's never too early to start contacting Sen. Jeff Bingaman about this issue, as the bill may well be on the Senate Floor sometime soon, maybe even this week. At the moment, he has taken no position on net neutrality. We need to change that. Click here.

is keeping track of who's currently supporting the bill in the Senate. Josh Marshall will be updating it often.

PS: I know that Rep. Udall's website says he supports net neutrality and he did vote for Rep. Markey's unsuccessful amendment to COPE that would have required it. However, he also voted for the very flawed COPE bill that lacks the necessary protections for neutrality, which to my mind isn't exactly standing strongly behind the concept. I also question his belief that the COPE bill will result in broadband access being rushed to rural and poor areas. There are no teeth to require compliance in that regard and, even if there were, we shouldn't trade equality on the internet for increased broadband. Moreover, telecoms have already received more than 200 billion dollars over 15 years to build out nationwide broadband. Why don't we have it?

Have At It

What are you thinking about? Angry about? Pleased about? Laughing about? Here's the place to talk about it. A Monday morning open thread. Click the comments link and keyboard away.

More Scrutiny of Rep. Udall's Vote for Bill That Would Kill Net Neutrality

Steve Terrell has published an article in the Santa Fe New Mexican (with a companion post on his website) that examines CD3 NM Rep. Tom Udall's vote for the COPE bill that would destroy the system of net neutrality that has been in place since the inception of the internet. Terrell cites our recent post on Rep. Udall's vote, which takes him to task for the vote.

According to Terrell's article, Rep. Udall explained his vote this way:

I supported the COPE Act because it will bring faster broadband in more places, especially in rural areas like those in New Mexico, by boosting deployment of high-speed broadband as telephone providers upgrade their networks to offer video service," Udall said in an e-mail newsletter. "The COPE Act will also bring more jobs and make the U.S. more competitive in the global economy when telephone companies make new investments in advanced networks.

... Udall insisted that in spite of his vote, he is a supporter of "net neutrality." He pointed out he supported an amendment to the bill sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., that stated broadband-network providers must not interfere with users' ability to Internet access or offer lawful content. Markey's amendment was defeated.

Sure, we'd all like the telecoms to provide vastly expanded broadband access, especially in rural and poor areas. The problem is, they've already received more than $200 BILLION in tax breaks over the past 15 years to do just that. In addition, they have been collecting generous fees to use their services, often with little local competition. Where has all this money gone?

Another problem is that the bill's requirements for the telecoms to expand into underserved areas lack teeth to require compliance. The provisions for holding them to the bargain -- which amounts to allowing them to own the internet pipelines and control content, access and speed, in exchange for their expansion of broadband -- are weakly written and easily sidestepped.

Given the numerous organizations that support net netrality and also advocate on behalf of ordinary working class people and consumers, it seems odd they would be fighting against the COPE bill if what Rep. Udall claims is true.

Although Udall claims to be looking out for the interests of consumers in NM, here's a very critical economic analysis  of the bill, produced for Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America.

Moreover, here's what Save the Internet has to say about a highly inaccurate and wrongheaded Washington Post editorial backing COPE:

The Post editorial laments “the fact that the U.S. broadband infrastructure lags behind that of East Asia and Europe.” It advocates network discrimination as the solution, but it fails to note that those nations did not get ahead by allowing network discrimination. On the contrary, the nations who have surpassed us have done so because they adopted national policies to promote broadband deployment and forced the network operators to run neutral networks, relying on competition for services, unimpeded by network gatekeepers and toll collectors, to drive adoption.

I've read that Democrats like Rep. Udall, who voted for Rep. Markey's unsuccessful net neutrality amendment but voted for the COPE bill, did so because they knew the bill would pass anyway. Why threaten your relationship with the telecoms and cable companies when you're going to lose anyway? Why not vote for the bill and please these corporations? You never know -- their financial support might come in handy in the future.

Unfortunately, this is the same excuse used by many Democrats in voting on issues pushed by corporate concerns and the right wing. Instead of using such votes to make a statement and highlight their opposition party status, they insist such stands would make no difference because their vote wouldn't result in a "win." Senator Jeff Binaman's vote for the horribly unfair bankruptcy bill and his refusal to support a filibuster of Sam Alito come to mind.

I have always had very high regard for Rep. Udall and believed him to be one of the most ethical lawmakers in Washington. In this case, however, he has made a big mistake. Read the article by John Nichols on Common Dreams for more on this issue and how big dollar lobbyists pushed for passage of COPE. Excerpt:

Joining [Bernie] Sanders in voting against the legislation were most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including its co-chairs, California Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey...

...Among the Democrats who followed the lead of Hastert and Boehner – as opposed to that of Pelosi – were House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Maryland Representative Ben Cardin, who is running for that state's open Senate seat in a September Democratic-primary contest with former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. Illinois Democrat Melissa Bean, who frequently splits with her party on issues of interest to corporate donors, voted with the Republican leadership, as did corporate-friendly "New Democrats" such as Alabama's Artur Davis, Washington's Adam Smith and Wisconsin's Ron Kind – all co-chairs of the Democratic Leadership Council-tied House New Democrat Coalition.

It's really unfortunate that Rep. Udall sided with most DLC Democrats, rather than the progressive wing of the Dem Party, isn't it? Depressing and confusing are the words that come to mind.

The COPE bill is now in the Senate. I suggest you contact both of New Mexico's Senators to encourage them in no uncertain terms to vote against this bill.  Click for contact information for both Sen. Domenici and Sen. Bingaman.

Udall Caves on Net Neutrality

Remember the big battle that's been going on to preserve net neutrality? New Mexico's progressive CD3 Congressman, Tom Udall, has gone over to the dark side and voted to approve the awful COPE bill that would destroy net neutrality. What can explain this? I'd love to hear from Rep. Udall himself. In the meantime, note that Udall voted in concert with Rep. Steve Pearce, the hard-right Congressman from Southern NM. Strangely enough, CD1's rep, Heather Wilson, voted against the bill and thus for protecting a level playing field on the internet.

I hate to say it, but Udall's siding with many of the same telecom and cable companies that readily turned over our phone records to the NSA prompts me to wonder how much money Tom gets from these interests. If you'd like to let Rep. Udall know how you feel about his vote, click here.

Read what the Save the Internet coalition has to say about the House approval of the COPE bill. Here's an excerpt of a statement by Free Press cofounder Robert W. McChesney on behalf of the coalition:

Passage of major telecom legislation without enforceable Net Neutrality is a low point in the history of US policymaking. The telephone-cable Internet duopoly providers deluged Congress with an army of lobbyists, countless millions spent on misleading PR spin and outright lies, and a single-minded determination to put their bottom line ahead of the democratic principles of an open, neutral Internet.

If we lose Net Neutrality, we lose the most promising method for regular people to access and provide diverse and independent news, information and entertainment. We will see the Internet become like cable TV: a handful of massive companies will decide what you can see and how much it will cost. Gone will be the entrepreneurship and innovation that has made the Internet the most important cultural and economic engine of our times.

Check out the company Udall had on his vote in support of COPE, which essentially putts big corporations in charge of how we access websites.

To get a feel for how bad the COPE bill is, read this account by Rep. Louise Slaughter, one of the progressive shining stars in the House. Then explain to me why Udall would support it, despite the defeat of an amendment by Rep. Markey (D-MA) that would have injected some sanity into the bill and preserved an open internet for all. Rep. Udall voted in support of the Markey amendment that would have established net neutrality in the COPE bill, yet voted for the bill anyway, without the needed amendment.

Every single amendment by Dems trying to interject fairness or to put teeth into vague requirements for the telecoms was defeated. As finalized, this bill allows telecoms and cable providers to discriminate against content providers including independent news organizations, blogs, nonprofits or any other entity that cannot or will not pay big fees for access.

I guess Rep. Udall isn't concerned that the bill would allow corporate internet users to cough up big bucks to carve out a high speed pipeline of their own while leaving ordinary bloggers, nonprofit organizations and many others with slower and clumsier access. If you call yourself a progressive, as Udall does, how can you possibly support this bill?

I think I know. No doubt Rep. Udall will defend his vote by saying the bill will provide much needed broadband access for poor and rural areas. After all, the forces pushing for this massive giveaway of the public internet pipelines have widely distributed dishonest and distorted information about the bill. What it really does, however, is trade away the public's right to equal access and service for pie in the sky promises of expanded service. If you trust the giving our internet freedom of expression over to the likes of Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner and Qwest, you'll love this extremely flawed bill.

Essentially, the bill privatizes the internet, and cedes control of how it works to the big players. The little guy will be left to struggle with slow, erratic, and difficult access problems while traffic is speedily transmitted for those who pay big fees. The bill's provisions about expanding access to the internet are without teeth and constitute mere promises by the big corps, not tough, enforceable requirements for transparency and accountability.

There are some good provisions in the bill, but they are far outweighed by the selling off of the internet's power and speed to special interests that give millions of dollars as "campaign contributions" to lawmakers. MyDD covers what happened in the House in illuminating detail.

More than 700 groups across the political spectrum, 5,000 bloggers and 750,000 individual Americans have joined the fight against COPE, including these:

Free Press -- Coalition Coordinator
Professor Lawrence Lessig -- Stanford
Gun Owners of America
Craig Newmark -- Craigslist.com Founder
Professor Glenn Reynolds -- aka Blogger Instapundit
MoveOn.org Civic Action
Consumers Union
American Library Association
Parents Television Council
Consumer Federation of America
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc.
Common Cause
Christian Coalition of America
American Civil Liberties Union
National Association of State PIRGs (U.S. PIRG)
SEIU
Afro-Netizen
The Agonist
AcornActive Media Foundation
Association of Research Libraries
Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Consumer Action
Feminist Majority
Independent Press Association
Working Assets
Media Matters
Progressive Democrats of America
US Pirg
Environmental Defense Institute
The National Coalition Against Censorship

Our only hope for defeating this bill moves next to the Senate. Thanks Rep. Udall. You've made our day.

Gay Marriage Video of the Day: Ask Them to Take the Pledge!

Cartoon by Steve Bell of The Guardian

Politics TV has a must watch video that culminates in a request that we ask Republican "marriage defenders" to pledge to do their part in personally "protecting" marriage. This is, after all, the week Bush and his right-wingnut followers have set aside to deal with the most important problem Americans face today -- the threat of gay citizens being allowed to exercise their civil contracting rights to sign marriage papers. Tony Snow, the President's press spokesman, calls the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage "civil rights legislation."

But what about Republican transgressions against the sanctity of marriage like divorce, adultery, infidelity and non-procreative sex? We must demand they take the pledge! If these folks want to be in gay people's bedrooms, we need to get into theirs. Big time. Watch the video and then just do it! American Blog has continuing coverage.

On a more serious note, check out Senator Russ Feingold's Daily Kos post about the gay marriage amendment, entitled A Shameful Political Ploy. There's no chance that this odious attempt to inject bigotry into the constitution will pass. That doesn't matter. Bush and his extremist supporters are once again using this issue for potential political gain. They'll keep doing it as long as many Democrats run and hide or twist and turn whenever this issue if raised. As we all know from our childhoods, if bullies aren't confronted, their bullying just gets worse.

Al Gore in England: Read All About It

Kathy Flake, a seasoned veteran of the Dean and Miles Nelson campaigns in Albuquerque, is currently living outside London and writing an articulate and often funny blog called What Do I Know? (She knows  alot.) Go read her take on Al Gore's appearance at the Hay Festival, in a town near the border between England and Wales. Humor, passion and a global warming sermon served up fresh to an audience of reticent Brits. Al's on the move....