SNAP Notes

I’m excited and honored to announce that SNAP will be supporting Patricia Madrid, a sterling progressive and New Mexico’s current attorney general, in her fight this year to unseat the ultra-conservative Rep. Heather Wilson in New Mexico’s First Congressional District.

Patricia Madrid has been a pioneer for women in both law and politics in New Mexico. Madrid was the first woman elected to serve as a district court judge in New Mexico. In 1998 she became the first woman to be elected Attorney General of New Mexico, and was re-elected overwhelmingly in 2002. She is one of only four female attorneys general in the nation and the first ever Latina to serve in the position of state attorney general.

Madrid has proven herself to be a true progressive leader on issues that matter to women. Her top priority in office has been fighting violent crime, particularly violence against women. She established New Mexico’s Violence Against Women division to set standards for law enforcement officers dealing with domestic violence. She also helped procure over $560,000 to provide critical training on domestic violence to first responders. These concrete policy changes especially helped victims of domestic violence in rural areas of New Mexico, whose voices are so often silenced by authorities who do not know how to recognize or deal with domestic violence and sexual abuse. Her office has also taken on what EMILY’s List calls “extremely challenging domestic abuse cases that other prosecutors wouldn’t touch – securing convictions against serial abusers and murderers in case after case.”

Madrid is also decidedly pro-choice, and has effectively used her position to fight legislative attempts to suppress reproductive freedom. Heather Wilson, on the other hand, has repeatedly voted to prevent women’s access to abortion and family planning, supporting the ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion” as well as Bush’s global gag rule. Time and time again, when called on by the Republican leadership to stand against the rights of women, Wilson has gladly answered their call. Last year, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Wilson a rating of 0%.

Patricia Madrid also understands the ways in which issues of gender and economic status intersect and impact poor women. She has expressed the desire to reexamine the current welfare framework that was “reformed” under Bill Clinton, and has especially pointed to how the changes have prevented poor women from escaping poverty. “While welfare reform has led to fewer people on welfare, it has also led to fewer women enrolled in secondary education,” Madrid told EMILY’s List, which is also backing her candidacy. “We need to look beyond the numbers and see if our reforms are actually providing pathways out of poverty or merely off the welfare rolls.”

All in all, it’s incredibly clear that Madrid is someone whose progressive values line up not only with the values of her district (which, despite having sent a very well-funded-by-Tom-Delay Wilson to Congress since 1998, actually leans to the left) but also with the vision of America that SNAP wishes to make into reality. And unlike many who claim to stand for progressive values without being willing to make progressive policy, Patricia Madrid has shown a fierce commitment to her work so that whatever the issue – be it immigration, health care, access to prescription drugs, reproductive freedom, etc. – she is determined to create progressive change that really matters in the lives of ordinary Americans. That’s why I am so excited that SNAP interns will be working on the ground this summer for Patricia Madrid.

This weekend I was visiting family for the holidays in Fairfield County, in what is now Rep. Christopher Shays’ district, but may soon be taken over by challenger Diane Farell. She is a returning candidate in this district, with Shays having just barely eked out a victory in the 2004 race, where Diane carried 48% of the vote. She has come back for 2006 and is poised to seriously upset the long-standing balance of Fourth District politics for the better.

This race is crucial, both because of the very slim margin that will likely determine victory and because of the very real chance of unseating a long-standing conservative Congressman. Many Shays apologists will argue that, really, we should not be wasting our time on unseating what is admittedly a relatively moderate Republican—relatively being the key word. After all, why attack Rep. Shays when you can send your storming campaigners to bang on doors to unseat the really terrible folks, to unleash one’s progressive vengeance on the radical right, rather than focusing on the supposed moderates. This, I’d like to suggest, is a losing strategy that misses a key component of the current situation: when districts can do better—like CT-4, a relatively progressive district on a national scale—then we must demand more progressive voices in our congressional leadership.

While Shays should rightly be congratulated for his relatively strong environmental record, that positive choice does not negate the damage that his support for the radical right has done to our country. He has been an irresponsible voter in what are undeniably key decisions:

• Shays supportedIraq the war in Iraq. He did not have the foresight or vision necessary to challenge the tactics and choices of the current administration and he must bear responsibility for that decision.

• He continues to support the PATRIOT Act, an invasive and misleading law that strips away our civil liberties and erodes the system of checks and balances.

• While he pays lip service to the idea that we are a “nation of immigrants”, he voted in favor of HR 4437, a particularly alarming bill that, among other features, would criminalize all undocumented persons and those who knowingly give them aid (including hospital workers, social workers, church staff, and countless others who interact with immigrants on a daily basis).

• He has undermined workers’ rights internationally in his support for CAFTA this July Here, specifically, his failure to live up to his “moderate” image and his one vote had far-reaching negative consequences: CAFTA passed in a 217-215 House vote.

It is not enough to have a representative in CT-4 who claims to be a moderate, when he votesagainst a progressive agenda on crucial issues.We can not afford to lose on trade, lose on immigration, lose on civil liberties, lose on peace and international security.

Diane Farrell is a strong candidate, with proven leadership in Westport, and with a real commitment to progressive politics. She spoke at a SNAP PAC fundraiser at my home this fall to show her support and help us in our fundraising. From even this brief encounter, I can faithfully speak from personal experience, repeating what I had long been told in second-hand accounts: she is a truly dynamic and energetic leader who has what it takes to make it on the campaign trail.She has tremendous and exuberant personal warmth and a thoughtful, impassioned political voice. Diane Farrell is personally charming— and more importantly Diane Farrell can win.As the representative for CT-4, she would be something more than an independent in theory – she would be a progressive in practice (voting record included).

As a former resident of the fourth district, I can say with conviction, we deserve better. For ourselves and the rest of the nation, we can and must do better: let’s vote in a real progressive in ’06.

Here’s CNN’s headline on the latest GOP response to not being so popular right now:

GOP hones its core agenda: Flag burning, gay marriage, abortion top Republicans’ Senate plan

This will certainly provide fodder for those left of the center who like to argue that the problem with right-wingers is that they focus on intangible “wedge issues” rather than material issues that actually affect people. It’s an argument that has some popularity not only with center-left folks but with a fair number farther to the left too. I don’t think it’s a good one. Thing is, these so-called wedge issues affect real people in ways that are all too real – and often are economic as well. The problem with right-wing politicians isn’t that they focus too much on so-called “social issues.” The problem with them is that they are wrong. The problem with them is that they want to reverse social progress. Progressives need to expand the public understanding of what is an issue of values. But they also have to make the case better on the issues that are already commonly identified that way (Thomas Frank is right to argue that taking stronger populist stands on the economic issues could help to sap right-wing “culture war” politics of their ostensibly anti-elitist appeal).

All that said, one can hold out hope that the image of Bill Frist scheduling hearings on how to amend the first ammendment to ban flag burning will do some damage to conservatives’ credibility as responsible stewards of the Congress.

Just wanted to give a quick shout out to our friends at the Goodworks PAC, which helps progressive candidates to organize and promote community service activities. Goodworks is engaged in pursuing positive grassroots alternatives to negative attack ads and to supporting progressives with demonstrated commitment to their communities. You can read more about their methodology here. And check out their blog here.

Joe Courtney is a real-live progressive. He stands up for education, he supports social security, he’s pro-conservation and anti-oil, he believes in working towards better healthcare for children and the elderly, and he’s completely pro-labor. This race should really be a no-brainer, because Courtney has all the trappings of a really good guy, and his opponent, the incumbent Rob Simmons, is corrupt, conservative, and in the pocket of big oil.
I don’t consider myself a Democrat. I think the party has done a lot of things wrong. But, I do consider myself a progressive, and as such, I think it’s really important to acknowledge someone who wants to go in and make a difference. It seems to me like Courtney, for lack of a better phrase, doesn’t take shit. I want somebody in Congress who stands up for what he believes in, regardless of whether that makes him unpopular on the Hill. I want someone in Congress who shares my beliefs, and isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty to make sure that Congress does the right thing.
I was really moved by Courtney’s op-ed in the Hartford Courant. He compared the reaction of Congress to the current disaster in Iraq (what Simmons refers to as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”) to a smaller tragedy that occurred in Somalia in 1993, which became the subject of the movie “Black Hawk Down.” Courtney cited the way that outrage caused investigation, and investigation led to responsibility and punishment. There was a search for the truth and for the correct apportionment of blame, so that people in power would have consequences for their action. Courtney then makes the point that with our current disaster, there has been almost no reaction. No one is taking responsibility, and more importantly Congress has not asked anyone to do so. I think it’s important that we support this man who believes in consequences, particularly because our country right now is getting away with murder.
This race is particularly important. Simmons has voted to cut federal student loans, to slash funding for environmental cleanup, shifting that burden to taxpayers, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. According to an AFL-CIO scorecard, he has voted against labor 81% of the time. He opposes a higher minimum wage. Simmons refuses to sign Campaign for America’s Future Pledge to protect Social Security (which Courtney did sign).
On February 6th, 2005, The Washington Post has declared that the Courtney/Simmons race is the one of the “five races that will determine the control of the House next year.” It’s a vital and exciting race to get involved in.