Take action: Sen. Dianne Feinsten, Chair Art Torres and telecom immunity

Where to start... (0.00 / 0)

1)  "While the California Democratic Party used parliamentary procedure to prevent a discussion or vote on the censure resolution,"

Actually, the California Democratic Party abided by their By-Laws in processing the LATE resolution.  This was KNOWN by the Courage Campaign prior to the Executive Board weekend, and I've even heard was a deliberate tactic to gain a point rather than actually try to pass their resolution.  They could have easily submitted the resolution in a timely manner - Feinstein announced on Friday, November 2 that she was voting for Mukasey.  This was FOUR days prior to the timely deadline for resolutions of November 6, 2007.  Instead, the first versions of the resolution that were floated around weren't even calling for the CDP to do anything - they were resolutions for the Progressive Caucus of the CDP to take action.  Again, nothing prevented Rick Jacobs or any other member of the State Central Committee from timely submitting a resolution - except their choice not to do so.

2) Trying to communicate to Chairman Torres via the Courage Campaign and/or Rick Jacobs is probably the worst possible waste of time considering the fraud perpetrated by Jacobs in creating the Courage Campaign in the first place.  He wasted the time and energy of myself and many other employees of the State Party in his first version of the Courage Campaign.  Now while Chairman Torres may listen to Rick Jacobs - personally, I don't see why...

3) Now - having said that - if this is an issue you support, send your letter directly to the Chairman via info@cadem.org or even better, to Senator Feinstein at her website http://feinstein.senate.gov/pu...

And yes, as noted above, I am an employee of the California Democratic Party, though posting this on my own from my home computer, and unlike Julia, not being paid to distort the truth on this occasion...

---

by: Hermit9 @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 21:19:25 PM CST

Link? (0.00 / 0)

What fraud did Rick Jacobs perpetrate his "first version" of the CC?  (Are you referring to a first version of the censure resolution?  The Courage Campaign has been around for much longer than this particular action.)   I  found nothing in the above comment to change my excellent opinion of his work.  

It is possible to abide by bylaws and use parliamentary procedure to block something.  So where did Julia distort the truth exactly?

It was Senator Feinstein's combined offenses of the Southwick, Mukasey, and telecom immunity votes/stated positions that tore it for most of us.  I continue to be grateful for Courage Campaign's leadership in challenging our senior Senator's complacency with the Bush agenda.

 

Disclosure: Union staff, former staff for Manuel Perez, elected DSCC delegate for 80th AD, board of Democrats of the Desert

---

by: soyinkafan @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 23:21:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I also think "parliamentary procedure" is somewhat disingenuous (5.00 / 1)

The e-mail says:

While the California Democratic Party used parliamentary procedure to prevent a discussion or vote on the censure resolution...

While I agree that this does not imply that the CDP violated the bylaws, I think it's still somewhat misleading even if it's technically true.  

In a formal way anything that happens in a body governed by parliamentary procedure can be attributed to that procedure in the same way that it's formally true that someone can "use physics" to prevent a lead ball from spontaneously levitating.

Still the phrase used in the e-mail carries a connotation that something unusual happened and I think the negative connotation of the phrase is evident.  

However, perhaps the bigger problem is that the most natural reading of the e-mail ascribes the use of "parliamentary procedure" to the CDP as a means of the CDP preventing discussion or  a vote on the resolution.  

In a formal way, the CDP used parliamentary procedure to determine whether or not the resolution should be heard (which would entail discussion and a vote on the resolution).  Since the procedure follows the pre-existing bylaws of the party, I think you can't say some reified CDP sought to do anything other than make that determination.

Still, there is a way of reading the phrase that is not inaccurate.  Since the description of the vote is in the past tense, it is possible (although I think somewhat unnatural) to read it to be saying nothing other than parliamentary procedure was the method by which the party made a decision, the outcome of which prevented the resolution from being heard.    

I don't think any of this fatally harms the thrust of the e-mail, but I can see why it's not innocuous.

This is especially (perhaps only) important because it raises the question of who did what and why.  If you don't allow that some reified entity know as "the CDP" did anything special to actively silence the resolution then  the reason for it not being heard suddenly looms large.  It calls into question the issue of blame.  Whose fault was it that the resolution wasn't heard?  It's certainly reasonable to infer from the plain meaning of the e-mail that the CDP was at fault.  But for someone who sees the result as predictable and avoidable by the proponents of the resolution, it not only seems as though the Courage Campaign is shirking responsibility but a fortiori implicitly blaming other people for mistakes made by the Courage Campaign and its allies.  

This is then compounded by the fact that the Courage Campaign is using this very item as a method of organizing people to put pressure on the Chair of the CDP in a way I'm sure is viewed as organizing against the leadership of the CDP (not to mention self-aggrandizing on the part of the Courage Campaign).

For those who don't know, Rick Jacobs and Art Torres have a somewhat complicated history (the details of which I don't know very well) and the Courage Campaign was created after what I was told at the time was a falling out (although I hasten to add that I only heard about the "falling out" as a rumor).

Anyway, I'm not validating any of the above.  But I hope it helps people understand some of the dynamics at play.        

       

---

by: Matt Lockshin @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 14:52:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well stated (0.00 / 0)

Thank you  for your insightful characterization.I agree entirely with your analysis and interpretation of the dynamics.

Judy Cohen Hotchkiss
"It does not take a majority to prevail. Just an irate, tireless minority,setting brushfires in peoples minds." Samuel Adams

---

by: jhotchkiss2 @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 22:50:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In addition (0.00 / 0)

Would you also like to discuss how the incident in question, bylaws or not, are not parliamentary procedure?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 15:29:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Comments to Hermit9 (8.00 / 2)

Please do clarify your statement about the fraud / first version of the Courage Campaign. I agree that it was more than possible to have submitted the censure resolution in a timely manner. I,among others, pointed out to the Campaign that a unanamous vote was required in Resolutions and there might be another way to go.Jo and Marcy attemped to use Parliamentary means to bring the Resolution to the floor and got blocked when the body upholding a challenge to the Chair(by about 2/3-1/3 by my count).So illustrating that official Censure was not the will of the delegates but all of us did want to do SOMETHING and will continue to support the Courage Campaigns aims.Next time around, talk to some of us antiques on Rules Committee or find an expert Parliamentarian,

Judy Cohen Hotchkiss
"It does not take a majority to prevail. Just an irate, tireless minority,setting brushfires in peoples minds." Samuel Adams

---

by: jhotchkiss2 @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 00:33:32 AM CST

we agree (0.00 / 0)

This calls for Champagne!

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:01:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Court Ruling today: Release documents related to telecom lobbying for immunity (0.00 / 0)

The Director of National Intelligence must quickly release documents relating to 2007 meetings with telecoms concerning proposed amnesty bills for companies that helped government's secret domestic spying program, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. The Northern California District Court judge ruled that the government must produce the documents by December 10 so that the public can be informed about the extent of telecom lobbying before Congress votes on immunity.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok...

Judge Susan Illston issued the order (.pdf) prior to a planned hearing Friday, writing that:
Congress is currently considering legislation that would amend the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] further. Plaintiff seeks information from defendant specifically so that plaintiff, Congress, and the public may participate in the debate over the pending legislation on an informed basis. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown the likelihood of irreparable injury.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation is the plaintiff.
http://www.eff.org/...

Emptywheel comments on my favorite blog:

Now, frankly, we may not get those documents before the final debate on this bill. Reid originally had the Senate debate scheduled for Tuesday; it has been rescheduled, but the new date has not been announced (and in any case, it sounds like it'll be in the next week or so, so almost certainly before the 10th). That's rather troubling, because it seems that McConnell was stalling the production of these documents precisely for this purpose: he originally said he could have the initial release on November 30. But somehow, it has taken another court hearing to reinforce even that deadline. And originally, McConnell wanted to hand over the documents on December 30--which was almost certain to be after the passage of the bill.
Also note--it's not just the telecom lobbyists that McConnell has to release. It's also his meetings with Congress. You know, the big long luncheon with DiFi?
So what do you think McConnell is trying to hide?

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c...

---

by: syolles @ Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 01:12:43 AM CST