Left in the West - Netroots Nation 2011

Netroots Nation 3 - Russ Feingold and Campaign Finance

Rob Kailey — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:27:55 GMT

The breakout sessions at NN11 were terrific for 'tool building' but the real points of interest were the speakers, especially the keynotes. On Thursday night, following Gov/Dr Howard Dean, was Russ Feingold. Here's the video, so you can 'hear me now and believe me later'.

I'm just going to assume y'all watched that. Feingold lays it out pretty well in an indictment of soft money, a defense of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance act and a solidly deserved poke at Bill Clinton and the DLC. However, I did have a couple of problems with his exposition.

Russ squarely blames the Citizen's United court ruling, and inclusion of corporate funds, for his defeat. As I'm certain you can imagine, there were a whole slew of people at NN who were from Wisconsin and/or working in the state on protests and repeal. In person, they tell a slightly different story, one Montanans should be familiar with. Russ' defeat wasn't due to being outspent but rather to being out-lied. The Republicans swept the state of Wisconsin by promising jobs, a promise that in hindsight they had no intention of keeping. The Koch brothers and money certainly played a role, but when you are offering the thirsty some water, they'll vote for you. I reiterate, that is not my opinion but the message received loud and clear from those in Wisconsin. That would be why they are so willing to occupy the Capitol in Madison, and recall those who vote against their will. They aren't protesting the Citizens United ruling. They are protesting those who betrayed them in the fundamental places they live.

The second issue I have with Feingold's speech is the self-defeating message. You've watched it, right? His ultimate exhortation is that citizens fund citizen favored candidates against corporate favored ones, to counter the opposition of the CU ruling. This comes from the man who blames Citizens United for his defeat, as a favored and progressive friendly incumbent. He speaks strongly against Super-PACs and the inclusion of corporate money if we are to have credibility. In a purely philosophical sense, he's right. His stance is principled, so principled that he lost and Wisconsin is now being crushed under a boot-heel of corporate finance. Let's be clear. Feingold got PAC money, soft dollars, he just didn't as much as Johnson did. What he advocates now is a rejection of corporate money in favor of bucks from those who either don't have it or are convinced not to give it.

In truth, I liked Feingold's message, a lot. But I can't silence that niggling voice in the back of my head that tells me his speech was a justification for the purity of failure. That sentiment was echoed by a few I spoke with at NN. Captain Justice Strangulator, for no reason that makes any sense, retained his seat on the Wisconsin court, despite popular will that he be replaced. Please bring up the fact that it was stolen. That happened because of money, money that Feingold wants purified in the political process. I'm with him on that. I'm just not convinced that the view is pragmatic enough to achieve anything other than political martyrdom against the evil arrayed in opposition.

Which brings us to today's SCOTUS ruling on Arizona's election public finance law.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club Pac v. Bennett.

I've read many analysis of this ruling, but this I like the best. Thanks to a doctrine driven President, we have a court that upholds law contrary to what the law has said before. Feingold pointed that out. That President was Bush, and the ruling claiming that corporations have our slave papers was written by his appointee, Roberts. Please tell yourself, if you must, that Presidential elections aren't worth voting in. Citizens United doesn't screw us because corporations raise more cash for elections. It screws us because our defenders have no defense against it. Feingold is right that we need to spend our money to defeat it, and that may mean voting for a President who 'isn't our boyfriend anymore'.

Russ is absolutely on target when claiming that citizen money can defeat corporate funds. He is mostly to the point in claiming that those who get elected with corporate campaign dollars won't vote against such in the future. His compadre in McCain-Feingold shows an exception to his very claim, sad to say given where McCain has traveled since. But the truth isn't at the extremes of campaign finance. As I have pointed out many times, when folks loudly proclaim that they will not fund a candidate unless they get their heart's desire, they force that candidate into acceptance of corporate funding. Those incumbents want reelection. That's kind of a 'duh-now', right? A candidate who wants to continue in public service will seek out the money, and it's kind of stupid for blaming them in doing so. If people don't want them reelected, then according to Feingold, they should probably spend their dollars for a candidate to primary or defeat the incumbent, yes? Yet so rarely do we actually see this, or do we see its success. I donated dollars to Lamont, thinking he could beat Lieberman, and indeed he did. And then HolyJoe won the general. That was money not well spent.

I've asked a time or two online who others have to primary or run against Obama, Tester, and Baucus. The overwhelming response has been nothing but crickets. There is a movement at a couple of websites to primary Obama, but they are more of a joke than a political movement. At FirebagLake, a poll was taken, and Russ Feingold actually came in second to ... I can't even remember who came in first, the ghost of Paul Wellstone maybe? Other losers on the poll were Alan Grayson, ~sigh~ Oh, and Anthony's wiener showed up at number 10. Seriously, the only two I see as viable are Feingold or Howard Dean, and those willing to challenge the political courage of others have no stomach for supporting the probables in an attempt to run the country.

This is the right-wing's opportunity for win. They have the left second-guessing or outright hating itself. They've marginalized Feingold, and have Obama vilified by the very left that needs his support, as he needs ours. Russ Feingold is correct in that we can power this new revolution of money in campaign. I have doubts that we will.

Extremism or "Where Everybody Knows Your Name"

Rob Kailey — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:37:56 GMT

One of the reasons I predominately hung around with westerners at NN11 was that I sensed that talking with easterners about Montana and the mountain west left them slightly unnerved. I don't possess any psychic powers that tell me exactly why, but it seems to boil down to a trust issue. I get that they have a problem grokking our concept of space, and they distrust our more conservative ways and leanings. That's all good. But there was also a particular odor of worry, bordering on fear. It's not just me that senses such a thing.

It might have something to do with AP articles like the one that broke today. "Extremists finding fertile ground in Northwest US". Dateline Kalispell. Lovely. Gawker, of course, pokes their fun at what Montanans are all too aware of. I don't have a problem with any particular fact in the article, or even that it was written. The reality of where we live is what it is. Montana has a tradition of at least the illusion of letting people make there way as best they can. It's ironically humorous in the extreme that in the midst of a Google search for this article, one finds the Daily Interlake going on about horse races. In fact, the only Montana newspaper touching on what has been widely published across the nation is the Missoulian. That might change, but I'm cynical enough not to count on it.

One of the people I ran into at NN11 was David Neiwert. It was such a whirlwind of an event that when I talked with him on Thursday night, I didn't even recognize the man, truly to my shame. David is the online authority of western militia movements and domestic terrorism, founder of the award winning website Orcinus, and now a blogger at Crooks and Liars, author of In God's Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest and The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. If it sounds like I'm going out of my way to promote David's work, I really kind of am. He is that informative, he knows the mountain west intimately and he clearly sees the name Montana and Idaho will bare into our futures, that name which colors our progressives as something ... different? We briefly discussed the ongoing Bergert incident. David posited that if Bergert were smart, he would head for an urban area and blend into the diverse crowding. I don't see a man that ambushes police officers doing that for very long. He wants his war, and he'll have it. Bergert simply can't contain his angry racism, and David and I probably agree on that. We also briefly discussed the progressive online in Montana. He likes Montana Cowgirl, as I have grown to do as well. One thing you have to admit. The Cowgirl (or they) have pulled no punches when calling out the racism and xenophobia coming out of the northwest in this state.

Still, this is the brand we get to wear. Every single person I talked with at NN11 has seen Brian Schweitzer brand bills with his VETO irons, and yet almost none know what bills were branded. Thank you YouTube. What they also know is that there is a really white cancer growing in Montana, and they fear it. They should. We should. A guy who used to comment at DailyKos was a Native American who moved east. In every thread tagged "Montana" he would decry the state as racist. An African American at Kos, in a post about the racism in San Fransisco, posted a comment about how the most racist place he'd ever lived was the year he spent in Missoula, Montana. Everybody seems to know our name, and it isn't a good one. I call that "room for improvement".

UPDATE: It was noted in the first breakout session I attended at NN11 that the strength of the Tea Party rise was it's populist sentiment blended with the acceptance of racism. The seeds of this go back to the Reagan revolution. 'One needn't feel ashamed of being angry at welfare queens, because those dark takers of your effort are ruining the country.' It's not hard to figure out where those folks are acquiring the support for their awful ideas:

Obama has a big problem with white women.

Netroots Nation 2 - WOW

Rob Kailey — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:37:40 GMT

Consider this a 'good new - bad news' kind of post. I'm still remarkably overwhelmed by the whole event of Netroots Nation, including the wonderful journey there and back again. It truly is a concentrated flood of information and experience. The good news is that for the first time in years, I have too much to blog about. The bad news is that I'm having a very difficult time organizing that mental goulash into coherent form for posting. So, any questions or requests for specifics would be appreciated at any time. This year was the largest NN ever, with about 2500 attendees. I haven't any doubt that the location had a considerable amount to do with that.

Minneapolis is truly beautiful, and easily one of the most progressive cities in the US, as Mayor Rybak was quick to point out the 3 times I heard him speechify (always ended with a hearty cry of "Spend liberally!".) It is also central, not only to the nation but to the conflicts which are energizing the Democratic base, in Wisconsin and in Ohio, as well the home of T-Paw and Michelle Bachmann, the droll and crazy of the current Presidential clown circus. Minneapolis was the perfect choice for this convention.

Catching up with the online reactions to NN 2011, it seems that many wish to promote a particular narrative concerning the convention. DougJ at Balloon Juice, calls it the Manic Progressive narrative, and links to it's promoters. In short, the idea is that progressives hate the Obama administration and are debilitatingly disappointed in Democratic politics. There are those who wish desperately to promote that narrative on the 'left' as well. There are also those (~cough~ Jane Hamsher ~cough~) who wish to see a rift in the progressive community between the 'enlightened' few who see Obama as a paid-for figurehead and those who still support him and Democrat policies. (For the record, even Howard Dean and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have started calling it the Democrat party. I still find that annoying in a grammatical sense, but ...) Look at these headlines. NPR - "Liberal Bloggers: Obama 'Not Our Boyfriend Anymore'". Extreme Liberal's Blog - "Netroot Nations 2011 Attendees Support President Obama!" ~sigh~ It's really kind of difficult to suss out the truth, if there is one, in this hyped up scenario.

Here's my reaction as one with 'boots on the ground', so to speak. I spent most of the conference hanging out with westerners. One beautiful, talented, active and intelligent woman from Oregon of my acquaintance characterized this supposed divide as being "mean girls". I tend to agree. There is dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, but most of us in the west are seriously unhappy with what affects us far more deeply. The rightward shift wrought by the Tea Party has disproportionately hurt us where we live, and we're none too happy with the Jane Hamsher self-promotion Democrat monster making machine. As you are well aware, having followed the link above, Hamsher was there at NN11. She spent most of the day sitting against the wall of the M level with her face planted in a laptop. She didn't engage, she spoke only to those who fulfilled her needs. I spent most of the convention watching and listening, and what I learned of Jane wasn't very 'progressive'. It was no small wonder to read today that Hamsher has a stake in the conflict viewed in this post. Jane wants that conflict to promote Jane. Of that, I am convinced. Her followers want similar. Any Firebagger who reads this post will no doubts take exception to what I write, but Jane speaking to her followers bore no difference to Andrew Breitbart holding court with his boys in the bar of the Hilton. (Yes, I was witness to them both. It pays to be observant at such a conference.)

There is a problem in the progressive community, but I'm unconvinced that it is what the media, online or other, wishes to suggest that it is. It certainly isn't what those who profit from conflict suggest that it is. Netroots Nation convinced me that we mostly have the same values, expressed in different ways. Our values may not be the same as anothers but we hold to similar ideals focused on making life for all better. Some don't have our best interests in mind. (~cough~ Jane Hamsher ~cough~) This idea appears to be very clear among those from the West.

In a related way, I need to post how many Kossacks have lost sight of a worthy goal. The good news - we share a hope for the future. The bad, we share a common enemy in the self-promoters and those who would shrink the big tent. Netroots Nation was supposed to energize and enervate the faithful. At this point, I wonder what that faith is supposed to be ...