|
BCD Daily News for: October 11, 2007 |
GREETINGS FELLOW DEMOCRATS!
Help Needed!!!
Thursday afternoon-today
Monday all day - especially from 9:30 a.m. until we finish
Newsletter to fold, staple and label
No experience necessary
1400 copies...
There is cold soda in the fridge and good company
Staples, staplers and labels provided.
Office Closed Friday, October 12
Election Training in Austin
Regular election workers needed for November 6
Precinct 24-College Hills
Precinct 8-Parkway Baptist Church
$8 an hour
6 more bilingual workers needed-we are getting close
TX-Sen: Burnt Orange Report Interview with Mikal Watts & Rick Noriega
by: Phillip Martin
Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 09:00 AM CDT
The following are the responses from written interviews I conducted with both Mikal Watts & Rick Noriega. Any links or sources within the post are my own. Approximately half of the questions were my own, while the other half came directly from our BOR community. This is a very lengthy post, but considering the importance of the race, I hope you will indulge us. I would like to sincerely thank both campaigns for their participation, and mind all of our readers to remain respectful of each candidate.
(1.) What separates you from Mikal Watts/Rick Noriega? What makes you the better choice for voters in the Democratic primary?
Rick Noriega: Both Mikal Watts and I would be far better for Texas than John Cornyn, but that's setting a pretty low bar for performance.
I believe that Democrats will only be successful in so-called "red states" if we run a strong campaign and stand by our values and principles. Texans do not take well to candidates who parse language or aim to appease on the issues.
Mikal is a friend of mine, and deserves respect for the financial support he has provided to the Party. The difference between the two of us, however, can be summed up in one word: service. For the nearly three decades I've devoted to serving in the military, including a tour of duty in Afghanistan, and the nearly ten years I've represented a working class community in the legislature, I have a history of walking the walk. My leadership has been tested. I've taken on the tough challenges - won some, lost some, but never backed away from a fight. I believe regular Texans, whether Democrats, Independents or Republicans, place more credibility in a candidate's words when the candidate backs up his or her words with action.
Mikal Watts: I'm running on my own strengths and qualities - new energy, new drive, new ideas - not against my fellow democrat. While we share similar views on many issues, I believe I will be best able to communicate my ideas to Texas voters that will achieve victory.
(2.) Both of you support an end to the war. Watts has stated he supports the Levin-Reed amendment to bring all troops home in six months. (Source). Noriega has stated he supports removing or repositioning two of the twenty brigades in Iraq per month, and he supports the Webb-Hagel amendment regarding soldiers' leave time (Source). However, both amendments recently failed in the U.S. Senate. What other options do you think are available in order to get the U.S. out of Iraq? Or is the only solution to elect more Democrats to the U.S. Senate and/or elect a Democrat President?
MW: Get our troops out of Iraq - period.
Only when our combat troops leave Iraq will that government make the tough decisions about its future.
My plan features three common-sense steps to bring our troops home and redirect the $3 billion we are spending every week in Iraq to what matters most - universal health care, improving public schools and access to college, protect American jobs from outsourcing, strengthening Social security, and other domestic priorities.
I believe many of the problems our country faces will be solved once we elect a Democrat as President and more Democrats in the Congress.
RN: I would approach the withdrawal of troops from the occupation of Iraq in three ways: 1) Support amendments in the spirit of the Webb-Hagel amendment that redeploy troops on an clear and achievable timeline; 2) I would place strong and enforceable timelines in appropriations bills; 3) I would demand stronger diplomatic engagement, even if it meant putting James Baker and Bill Clinton on the same airplane, sending them to the region and keeping them there until regional stability is restored.
There is much, much more below the fold. Click here to continue reading.
(3.) It's one month before the general election, and you are appearing before Texas viewers in a highly publicized TV debate with Senator Cornyn. The moderator gives you thirty seconds to ask a single policy question to Senator Cornyn. What's your question?
RN: I would ask Senator Cornyn why he would continually capitulate to the president's henchmen and vote to deny health care to millions of American children, many of them Texans?
MW: Why do you repeatedly vote against extending S-CHIP for your constituents' kids on the grounds that it is a "government-run" program while you and your family continue to enjoy the benefits of the U.S. Senate's "government-run" health program?
(4.) A vote comes before the U.S. Senate, and you have to decide on whether to send R&D money towards coal-gasification technology to discover cleaner ways of burning coal at existing power plants, or renewable energy technology to discover better ways to harness wind and solar power. Which would you support and why?
MW: Renewable energy technology every time. We must convert our economy through the immediate "green technologies." While coal-gasification technology is better for the environment than the present uses of coal, it is not the long-term answer. Renewable energies are the long-term answers - both for the environment, for our national security and for new job creation.
RN: I will give priority to research in wind and solar energy. But I can't envision a piece of legislation which solicits a vote based on an "either or" choice. If we really can invest in technology to reduce coals' pollution, then that is a very worthwhile investment. But it's naive to think that Congress would not, at another time, also vote R&D funding for wind & solar.
I believe we need to take aggressive immediate and long-range steps to reduce greenhouse gases.
(5.) Would you sponsor a bill favoring public financing of federal elections? If not, why not? If so, what model would you use to level the playing field for all candidates?
RN: I will strongly support legislation that reduces the influence of money in politics. We should start by improving transparency and accountability for donations under the current system. The problem is special interest influence, and we won't solve that problem until we have public funding of federal elections.
MW: Yes, but I believe this Supreme Court will strike down limitations for political speech expenditures. That being said, I would look at any reasonable proposition that would open up the process and encourage broader participation.
(6.) If elected the next U.S. Senator from Texas, what would be the first bill you filed? If you could choose a committee to sit on, what would it be (other than Appropriations)?
MW: My first bill would be to provide for a VA hospital in the Valley and in El Paso. I would also immediately go to work on providing universal health care, which I consider the moral challenge of our day. The committee I would choose to sit on would be Energy and Natural Resources.
RN: If we are still without a plan for orderly withdrawal from Iraq in January 2009, I will immediately introduce or co-sponsor a bill to implement a timeline to get our troops out in an orderly and responsible fashion.
As the Chairman of Budget & Oversight for the Defense Affairs & State-Federal Relations Committee in the Texas State House and a veteran, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our veterans are treated with the respect they deserve when they return home from combat. In that vein, I would be especially interested in working on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the United States Senate.
(7.) Where do you stand on the Trans-Texas Corridor? How do you intend to fund our transportation infrastructure needs? Do you support the current "toll everything" policy or would you instead consider raising/indexing the gas tax?
RN: I oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor because of the large price tag, as well as the land use, environmental, and eminent domain impacts of the project. It is an extraordinary price to pay for a project whose goals can be met through other more reasonably priced means. We must find ways to improve our infrastructure by considering feasible expansions of mass transit, but we cannot do so in a fiscally irresponsible way.
MW: I am against tolling existing roads, against confiscating personal property to help a foreign company's bottom line, and against secret no-bid contracts to transfer public wealth into private hands. I am for any comprehensive plan that promotes mass transit, energy independence, and a reasonable solution to our traffic gridlock.
(8.) (For Rick Noriega) As a state representative, you authored legislation allowing certain illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition rates at state schools. Do you think that your position on the issue will hamper your ability to attract the independent and moderate Republican voters that the Democratic nominee will need to win the general election?
RN: I do not doubt that Republicans will attempt to distort support of the DREAM Act. The basic principle that motivated me to support the DREAM Act is to not penalize children for the circumstances of their parents. The reason we were able to garner almost unanimous support (142-1?) in the House and Governor Perry signed it into law was because we built a coalition that touted the need for economic development and growth. That meant that expanding our state intellectual capacity while protecting the taxes we had already invested in our children was a good deal.
But we can't forget that these are also children who graduated from Texas high schools and lived in Texas for at least three years. The Supreme Court has ruled that we must educate them in our public schools, and after making such a significant investment, we owe it to ourselves to allow them the opportunity to pay back this debt as productive taxpaying members of society.
Prior to the DREAM Act, it was all but impossible for these students to afford a college education. Their parents pay taxes despite their undocumented status and their children succeed in school. In this way, we develop candidates for college education, produce powerful future contributors to the economy, and create attractive applicants for legal permanent residence. We should not penalize them for something that is outside of their control.
In the end we can be proud that about 10,000 Texas children have accessed college because of this law and 8 other states followed Texas' lead. This is a bad thing? However given the history of our current leadership, I am sure that this too will be used as a wedge issue to attempt to divide us as Texans rather than unite us.
(8.) (For Mikal Watts) When I asked our readers for questions, twelve different people asked me about your stance on abortion (according to the DFT questionnaire, you are "opposed to abortion except in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk"). Do you think that your position on the issue will hamper your ability to attract the necessary voters that you will need to win the primary, even if your position is more palatable to general election voters?
MW: No. I believe the Democratic primary voters in Texas will vote for a candidate who is honest with them, even if they disagree with that candidate on a particular issue. Texans care most about getting our troops out of Iraq and using those dollars on health care, education, jobs and strengthening Social Security. That focus will win both the primary election and the general election.
(9.) To date, the media narrative for the Democratic primary has been that Watts has the money to win, but Noriega has the profile to win. Whether that's a fair assessment or not, that's the narrative. (For our part on Burnt Orange Report, we intend to challenge that narrative, as we think it's less the reflection of the truth and more a reflection of lazy journalism). How do you intend to counter that narrative during your campaign?
RN: I agree that I have the experience and the profile to win this race. As it turns out, I have the necessary resources as well.
MW: Ideas win campaigns. My campaign will continue to communicate my ideas for change to all Texans.
(10.) Texas Democrats haven't won a statewide race in over a dozen years. One argument is that we haven't won because our candidates who had the name ID and/or money to compete spent too much time playing to moderates. Let's assume you win the primary. How do you intend to reach out to enough moderates and independents in Texas to win in November without losing the grassroots support of progressive Texas Democrats?
MW: A winning campaign strategy is one that addresses the mainstream values of middle-class Texans who are getting squeezed by the failed policies of this Administration. Democrats, Independents and some Republicans all now understand that we must invest in our people - health care, education, jobs, strengthening Social Security. Reaching out to moderates and independents with that message should not cost us a single vote from a progressive Texas Democrat.
RN: I believe that Texans from all walks of life will respond to my record of service and integrity. I'll leave it to the pundits to pontificate on who in Texas is where on the political spectrum. Then I'll ignore what the pundits say, tell Texans the truth from my heart, and win the election.
(11.) In the event that you do not win the Democratic primary, do you pledge to actively campaign for the eventual Democratic nominee so that Texas can replace John Cornyn?
RN: Obviously, I would not be running if I did not think that I am the best candidate for the job. With that said, I will do whatever it takes to defeat John Cornyn. I have seen how deeply John Cornyn has hurt this state by preferring political games over real representation and I will help him enjoy an early retirement regardless of the outcome of the primary.
MW: Yes.
(12.) What is your greatest political regret?
MW: I have said before that the biggest mistake I made and one that I regret the most is that I was part of an organization, TTLA, and helped raise $3.5 million dollars for Democratic State House and Senate candidates in 2006. I concurred with a strategy that targeted only 6 house districts in the state. Although we were very successful in electing Senator Carlos Uresti and Representatives Juan Garcia, Ellen Cohen, Allen Vaught and others, we should have taken on more Republicans in districts across the state and then the Democrats would have won more seats. In 2008, we should encourage Democrats to take on races across the state. Only when voters are presented with viable choices will true change take place.
RN: In 2003, only one member of the Texas House, Lon Burnam, voted against Tom Craddick for Speaker. I was wrong on that vote and I regret it.
Yes or No Questions
How would you vote on these actual bills? A "yes" vote indicates support, a "no" vote indicates you don't support. Feel free to explain any of your "votes" below, though it is certainly not required. Note: All of these bills were mentioned in questions received from readers of BOR.
* Kennedy/Kyl immigration reform bill?
MW: Yes.
RN: Yes.
* Ratification of Kyoto treaty?
MW: Yes.
RN: Yes. I would have supported full US engagement in Kyoto if I had been in the Senate, but the time has passed for implementing policies that would push us to meet the terms of Kyoto. What we must now focus on is creating a new international binding agreement that recognizes that every country must be enlisted to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to ensure climate stabilization.
* Granting District of Columbia voting rights in Congress?
MW: Yes.
RN: Yes.
* Ban on cities suing gun manufacturers?
MW: Yes.
RN: No.
* Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR 1592)?
MW: Yes.
RN: Yes.
* Employee Non-Discrimination Act?
MW: Yes.
RN: Yes.
* Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act?
MW: Yes.
RN: Yes.
Wednesday Roundup: Warrants Are The New Black
by George Nassar
October 10, 2007
Yes, there was a Republican debate yesterday. Don't worry if you missed it; the candidates were all predictable enough that it doesn't get top billing today. What is on top: House Democrats are trying to fix the Protect America Act and its blanket authorization of warrantless wiretaps on American citizens in two very different ways.
The CNN article above covers in detail the House leadership's RESTORE act, meant to prevent the privacy violations permitted by the controversial FISA court bill passed earlier this year which authorized the Attorney General to issue year-long warrants potentially permitting eavesdropping on phone calls and emails of U.S. citizens without any sort of court oversight or protection. Republicans, of course, howled that the RESTORE act was "helping the terrorists." The reasoning behind which is lost on me, as the loudest complaints about the bill were about surveillance that had already had occurred: the bill requires the White House to release records of all warrantless surveillance it had done since the 9/11 attacks. The bill also requires court approval to wiretap a targeted American citizen, and specifies that the court must review how individuals are targeted and warrants are obtained.
The ACLU isn't happy with the bill, however. They note that Americans can still be targeted by an "umbrella" eavesdropping warrant, as a warrant would not be required to capture communication from a U.S. citizen that wasn't originally specified in the "umbrella" approval — a major sticking point that led to the original outcry over the Protect America Act in the first place.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, has introduced a second bill, which is being called the FISA Modernization Act of 2007, to address exactly this point. The bill requires individual warrants for any and every U.S. citizen subject to having their phone or email wiretapped, which the ACLU says is "what we want and what the Constitution requires." However, his bill is getting little to no press (as of yet) in the national mainstream media. The great NJ progressive blog Blue Jersey has run information on it, as has Democratic Underground and the ACLU. The differences between the two bills should probably be getting a lot more notice than they have been. You guys know what that means — write your congressman, write your newspaper, write or call or otherwise contact whoever you know that can bring this more attention.
So, of course, yesterday marked a notable day for Republicans as the date of the first Republican debate that Fred Thompson deigned to attend. Just because he was there, however, doesn't mean that he actually had much of an influence. Most print media seemed to be in agreement that "no one dominate[d]" the debate. (A notable exception was the Chron, who called Thompson a "dud" in their headline, but as they just re-titled the McClatchy article above, I take that with a grain of salt.) The attention in the debate was mostly given to the verbal clubbings that Giuliani and Romney were handing each other throughout the course of the debate over who was or wasn't a closet liberal. For my dollar, it seems pretty unlikely that either one gets to wear the mantle of Conservative Hero, so this all smacks of a hard-fought place for "not as lousy an option as the other frontrunner." Whether the Republican base digs this, or whether the appeals to a dark horse candidate are for real, only time will tell.
Another bit of news on Congress, from The Hill: It seems that Democrats may be getting some traction in the message war against the White House on "excessive spending." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated plans to address the problems with "excessive spending" the White House has so much issue with — by noting how much is being spent on Iraq. Yes, we all know the numbers, and we all know that much of the money is being misused and wasted. But having this message come from the top ranks of Congress gives us a better shot of prominent placement in media outlets, combating the commonly seen Republican arguments against increasing the domestic budget. And to a communications guy like me, that's a good thing.
Poor Farmers Branch just can't seem to shake their negative news image. Their most recent NIMBY attempt to somehow oppress or inconvenience their immigrant population into going elsewhere is by — kid you not — complaining about brightly colored houses. Yes, indeed, their attempts have gone from oppressive to just plain silly. The argument is that the bright colors drop property values in their area. From the article:
But the residents pushing the Farmers Branch paint initiative say their concern is home values and neighborhoods, not ethnicity.
Oh, well, that makes sense, I suppose. So they can cite research showing that house color somehow affects property value, right?
Neely Blackman, president of the Code Enforcement Association of Texas, said he knew of no evidence that house color makes a difference in property values. "Now neighbors make a difference," he said, citing issues such as junk cars.
Oops. That didn't work out quite so well.
Finally today, a story that will be of interest to bloggers and citizen journalists everywhere: the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, which basically establishes a national reporter's shield law. This sort of thing has a lot more traction in the light of the Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby incidents than it has in the past. But perhaps the most interesting thing is who is covered under the law. The law states that anyone "engaged in journalism" is covered, which is defined as "the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public." Yup, that covers bloggers too!
Putting money on the success of a federal shield law has historically never been a wise move. But considering the current atmosphere, and throwing in a little irrational "if wishes were horses" hope on my part, I'm choosing to hold a guarded optimism over the success of this bill.
Permalink
Contact Information
email: info@thetexasblue.com
editorial: 1.940.382.1591
web: http://www.thetexasblue.com
Brazos County Democratic Party
P.O. Box 4568
Bryan Texas 77805
979-779-5600 Fax 979-779-5601
America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.
Harry S. Truman, Democrat, President of the United States of America |
