Democracy for New Mexico

Just Think If We Led On "Wedge Issues"

A just released national Pew Research poll includes these findings:

Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.

... The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.

... Strong" opposition to gay marriage, which surged in 2004, has ebbed to a new low. This is particularly the case among seniors, Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Among people age 65 and over, for example, strong opposition to gay marriage jumped from 36% in 2003 to 58% in 2004, but has fallen to 33% today. White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in which a majority still strongly opposes gay marriage, but even here the intensity of feeling has receded somewhat.

Yes, positive attitudes about equal citizenship rights for all, including gay civil marriage, are trending strongly upward, even though most Dems are doing next to nothing to change people's minds. Think what could be achieved if we decided to lead on this and other "controversial" issues -- to offer persuasive arguments to counter biases nursed by the conservative noise machine, to educate citizens on what's really at stake if we don't secure basic rights for all. Instead, too many seem mired in fear and even shame about what we Democrats really believe.

I think we should be proud of our decades-long pursuit of justice, equality and fairness for all, not fearful to admit it. The Democratic Party has taken many risks in the past supporting positions that were very controversial at the time -- strongly lobbying for labor rights, for equal civil rights for racial minorities, for women's rights, for environmental regulation and much more. Since when are we afraid to take on the biases and injustices of our time, to confront the forces of prejudice and narrowmindedness and convince voters of what's right?

I'm sure if you polled voters during the eras when we fought for these things, you'd find we were out front on the issues. We were "out of sync" with the attitudes of many voters all right. But instead of shrinking from the challenge, we plunged in and fought for our values. We didn't cave to the threats and badgering of those on the other side of the issues. We stood tall and explained why.

I think about all this in terms of positions that were cut out or watered down in the NM Dem Party's 2006 platform. Unfortunately, strong resolutions on gay civil rights that were approved at every level of the Party were tossed aside when it came time for platform creation. We've been told in no uncertain terms by -- believe it or not -- a gay man who serves on the platform committee, that we'll do our cause harm if we seek to lead on this issue. Can there be a more co-opted or self-defeating attitude than this? And yet it prevails in way too many corners of the Party. At least for now.

We have a long and proud history of representing those whose voices have been stifled, whose lives have been shrunken, whose rights have been trampled upon by prejudice and ignorance and greed. If we stop doing this our of fear and calculation, who are we as a Party?

Following Feingold

Today's assignment: Go read the transcript of his press conference today about his censure resolution. Then keep pressing your Senators.

Democratic Senators have no excuse. Look at this:

Do you favor or oppose the United States Senate passing a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for authorizing wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining court orders?
3/15/06	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	46%	44%	10%
Voters	48%	43%	9%
Republicans (33%)	29%	57%	14%
Democrats (37%)	70%	26%	4%
Independents (30%)	42%	47%	11%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide March 13-15, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.

MoveOn Needs 250,000 Signatures to Support Feingold's Censure Resolution

Yesterday, Senator Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law. If we can reach 250,000 signatures on our petition supporting the call for censure, we'll deliver your comments to your senators this week to show support for Senator Feingold's resolution.

From MoveOn:

Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping American citizens.

Censuring a sitting president is serious business. But when the president misleads the public and Congress while willfully and repeatedly breaking the law, there must be consequences—that's how the law works for everybody else.

While most politicians sat back and weighed the political pros and cons of holding the president accountable, Senator Feingold stuck his neck out and did it. Now it's up to us to show broad public support. Can you sign our petition asking Congress to join the call for censure? Sign petition

Right now it's unclear how many of Senator Feingold's colleagues will stand with him in this important fight. If we can reach 250,000 signatures, we'll deliver your comments to your senators this week to demonstrate widespread public support censuring the president for breaking the law. We'll also send a copy of the complete petition to Senator Feingold to show our support for his courage.

President Bush already had the authority to wiretap suspected terrorists—he could even wiretap first and get warrants 3 days later.  But he chose to get no warrants at all, clearly violating the law set up to protect innocent Americans and then he misled the Congress and the public about his program.¹

Censuring the president means Congress officially acknowledges that the president broke the law and condemns him for doing it. Given the scale of the president's problem, it's a very reasonable first step to holding him accountable. This is a key moment for Congress to show that they're serious about checks and balances.

Our country was founded on the idea that everyone—even the president— has to follow the law. Supporting censure is the best opportunity we've got to keep that ideal alive. Can you sign our petition today? Sign petition

Thanks for all you do,

–Eli, Nita, Tom, Adam, Joan and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, March 14th, 2006

Sources:

1. If you would like more details on the case for censure, please click here

P.S. This is a big moment so we're including the beginning of Senator Feingold's speech outlining the case for censure below. You can read the censure resolution here.

Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President's actions.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President's conduct was wrong.

And we must do that. The President's actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.

At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.

This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President's conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President's actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.

Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.

As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution's system of checks and balances:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president's actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.

To continue reading, please click here.

Paid For by MoveOn.org Political Action  . Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

ACTION ALERT: Call Now On Censure Resolution

As described in a previous post, Senator Russ Feingold today introduced his resolution calling for Bush to be censured for his illegal conduct related to NSA domestic spying. Activists all over the blogosphere are urging that everyone CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY to urge their support on this issue. We want to flood the Senate with calls to show that there is strong and massive support for this. I heard that Sen. Frist has called for a vote on the censure resolution today at 5:30PM EST, so please call NOW and ask if they support the censure. If not, ask why, so they have to go on record. You might mention that you hope they believe IN THE RULE OF LAW and go on record by supporting this.

Call Senator Jeff Bingman: (202) 224-5521
Call Senator Pete Domenici: (202) 224-6621

I called Senator Bingaman's office and they told me he hasn't yet made up his mind on this, so please call his office and tell them why you support this! Domenici's office said the same thing. Now is the time to push them.

Feingold to Introduce Censure of Bush

UPDATE: Here's a PDF of Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as introduced in the Senate on 3/13/06.

The courageous and patriotic Senator Russ Feingold announced this morning on ABC's This Week that he will be introducing a resolution Monday to censure President Bush for his illegal conduct in authorizing a domestic NSA surveillance program. Is there a Democrat with more backbone than Feingold these days? The Senator said President Bush’s actions were “right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.” Click for video and a transcript of Feingold's appearance, courtesy of Think Progress. Excerpt:

FEINGOLD: You know, we’ve had a chance here for three months to look at whether there’s any legal basis for this, and they’re using shifting legal justifications. First they try to argue that somehow, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It’s pretty clear that they can’t. Then there’s the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress. So the last resort is to somehow say that the President has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America, and that has the consequence that the President could even order the assassination of American citizens if that’s the law. So there is no sort of independent inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you’re so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that’s an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone — even though the Founding Fathers didn’t have strike zones, they didn’t have baseball — but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to consider, is it best for the country to start impeachment proceedings? Is it best for the country to consider removing the President? We’re not mandated to impeach a president who has broken the law, but I think we are required to do our job, to live up to our oath of office, and say, wait a minute, there has to be — at least as a first step — some accountability. Proper accountability is a censuring of the President, to say, “Mr. President, acknowledge you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government.” That’s what I think we should do.

Senator Feingold lays out his reasoning for censuring Bush at his Senate website. And here's an ABC News story about it.

Now we need to start contacting our Senators to go on the record in support of Feingold's resolution. Are you ready, activists? Contact info here.

So will the 2008 Dem ticket be Gore-Feingold or Feingold-Gore?

Gov. Richardson Encourages New Mexicans to Submit Ideas for State Quarter

March 10, 2006 (Santa Fe, New Mexico) – Governor Richardson announced today that the state is seeking narrative concepts from New Mexicans for the New Mexico State Quarter.

Citizens are encouraged to participate in the New Mexico State Quarter Project and provide their input for what should appear on the back of New Mexico's State Quarter. The state quarter is New Mexico's contribution to the United States Mint's "50 State Quarters Program." As the 47th state to enter the Union, New Mexico's quarter will be released in 2008.

"I encourage New Mexicans of all ages to participate in this once in a lifetime project that will represent our state across the United States," Governor Richardson said. "The New Mexico State Quarter Project provides a unique opportunity to discuss what are the important themes, symbols and images of New Mexico and its history."

Narrative concepts from the public will be reviewed by the New Mexico Coin Commission, who is responsible for working in collaboration with the United States Mint to create the state quarter. The New Mexico Coin Commission was created during the 2005 Legislative session. The Coin Commission will review all submitted narrative concepts in order to submit three narrative concepts to the United States Mint by September 1, 2006.  The U.S. Mint's artists and engravers will then take the concepts and create three candidate coin designs.  The renderings will come back to New Mexico for a final recommendation.

The deadline for submissions is May 12, 2006. 

For more information on the New Mexico State Quarter Project and to download a submission form visit www.governor.state.nm.us and click on New Mexico Quarter Project or call 505-476-2231.

Background on the United States Mint's 50 State Quarters Program: In 1997, the United States Congress approved and the President signed the "Fifty States Commemorative Coin Program Act", Public Law 105-124 (the "Act"), which established a new series of quarters to commemorate each of the 50 States.  Over a ten year period (1999-2008), the United States Mint will issue quarters with designs emblematic of each state.  State quarters are issued in the order in which the states ratified the Constitution and joined the Union.  New Mexico joined the Union on January 6, 1912. For more information or to view other state's quarters visit https://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/index.cfm?action=50_state_quarters_program.

Bingaman Delivers With Votes Against Patriot Act

Core Democrats have been very critical of Senator Jeff Bingaman's votes on such issues as the bankruptcy bill, CAFTA and the Alito filibuster. However, I think it's important to applaud him when he steps up to the plate and takes a brave stand.

He made two such stands yesterday to stop the Patriot Act as currently constructed. Senator Bingaman was among a handful of Democrats willing to confront the Bush administration on a number of repugnant anti-democratic provisions that remain in the Patriot Act. These actions are on a par with Senator Bingaman's vote against the Iraq War in terms of drawing a line in the sand against BushCo follies, and I think he should be commended. You can contact Senator Bingaman here.

According to Bingaman's office, "Senator Bingaman feels that the conference report does not adequately address Patriot Act provisions he is concerned about, including: sneek and peak provisions and access to library and medical records."

On the cloture vote to halt debate on the Patriot Act, which passed in the Senate 84-15 with Sen. Inouye not voting, Sen. Bingaman voted no along with 13 other Democratic Senators:

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Maria Cantwell (D-OR)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Bingaman also voted against the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act itself. Unfortunately the bill passed the Senate yesterday 89-10 with Sen. Inouye again not voting. Sen. Jim Jeffords, an Independent, also voted against this measure. The list of Democrats who voted no according to the Washington Post:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Why generally progressive Senators like Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Dodd, Durbin and Sarbanes voted against ending debate (essentially, for a filibuster) and then went ahead and voted for the Patriot Act itself is beyond me. I guess the Republican noise machine's eternal bleating about Dems being "soft on terrorism" is still scarier than we think to some Dems.

I am particularly peeved at our Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, who made this weak and inane statement about Democrats who voted for the Act:

Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president.

Heavy, Harry, heavy.

The ACLU released this statement on the Senate vote:

The Senate today failed to take steps to fully protect the fundamental freedoms and privacy of all Americans. The Patriot Act contains too many intrusive powers that lack meaningful checks and balances. We applaud the efforts of those Senators who sought to include much needed reforms in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill and stood firm in their commitment to protect our freedoms. The Patriot Act debate is far from over: secret record searches must be reformed so they are focused on suspected foreign terrorists and not used to invade the private records of ordinary Americans. Congress can, and must, take steps to fix the Patriot Act to keep America both safe and free.

Here's Senator Russ Feingold's floor statement against the Patriot Act.

I suppose there is some hope left given that Senator Arlen Spector has indicated he will revisit the Patriot Act to make some changes to add "extra protections," but I won't hold my breath.

Sign Petition for Net Neutralilty

From Common Cause:
Our work is paying off:  a recent New York Times editorial page echoed Common Cause's call to action on net neutrality, and legislation may be introduced soon in Congress to protect our freedom on the internet.  Here's what the Times had to say:

"When you use the Internet today, your browser glides from one Web site to another, accessing all destinations with equal ease.  That could change dramatically, however, if Internet service providers are allowed to tilt the playing field, giving preference to sites that pay them extra and penalizing those that don't. … Congress should protect access to the Internet in its current form."

Please add your name to our petition demanding strong net neutrality legislation.  We need our representatives in Congress to know that there is widespread support for legislation that protects the democratic nature of the Internet and prohibits telecom companies from blocking, impeding or prioritizing any online content or services.

https://www.commoncause.org/ProtectNetNeutrality

Earlier this month, Common Cause members sent tens of thousands of letters to the telecom execs and asked them to abide by net neutrality principles. But it's clear now that we need a law to protect the Internet from being privatized by Verizon, AT&T and other greedy media corporations.  Here's more from the New York Times:

"The Senate held hearings last week on "network neutrality," the principle that I.S.P.s - the businesses like Verizon or Roadrunner that deliver the Internet to your computer - should not be able to stack the deck in this way.  If the Internet is to remain free, and freely evolving, it is important that neutrality legislation be passed. …Some I.S.P.s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington.  But Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet.  Net neutrality is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special interests."

We need you to tell Congress to protect freedom and openness on the internet. Thanks to each of you who has helped Common Cause become a leader in the fight to preserve internet freedom, and thanks for all you do to hold power accountable.

Sincerely,

The Common Cause Media Reform Team
Celia Wexler, Lauren Coletta & Dawn Holian

P.S.  Lobbyists for Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and other telecom giants are heading into the halls of Congress to enshrine their own plans in telecom legislation now being drafted in committee.  We need to stop them. Please sign the petition supporting net neutrality: https://www.commoncause.org/ProtectNetNeutrality.

Words For It

Please go to the following website www.lisagill.org  and click on GWB's face. It will take you to a poem written by an Albuquerque woman, as her response to the State of the Union speech.

She has the words for it. (Thanks to Anne for the heads up.)

Feingold Urges Filibuster on Patriot Act

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the REAL fighting Dems, has put out a call asking for citizens to urge their Democratic Senators to support a filibuster of the latest version of the Patriot Act, produced by a Republican "deal" with the White House. Click on the link for information on this and then contact Senator Bingaman (or your own Senators if you aren't in NM), to urge him to work with Senator Feingold on this. Our civil rights are in the balance. Now is the time.