TPM Reader RS on Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman …
Josh, I went to see Ned Lamont at a Democratic Town Committee sponsored meeting in Glastonbury, CT several weeks ago largely to answer some of the questions you have about his stands on the issues and to get a feel for the man in person. About 150 people attended, which is about 100 more than had attended a similar event for Joe Lieberman (which Joe did not attend).
For perspective, I am 59 years old and a life-long Democrat who wants someone to represent me and my views. To be frank, I have grown tired of folks who represent this race as about the unseating an establishment politician by the netroots and who wears the pants in the Democratic Party. This a real political choice for me not some inside the beltway or blog-land brouhaha.
Lamont was bright, energetic and articulate. I thought his stands on the issues were very mainstream/progressive and his reception was very enthusiastic. His central theme is the Iraq war and how it is affecting our country in so many ways at home and abroad. He avoided going for the cheap applause line on impeachment saying that given what we know now, it was not appropriate and then, chuckling, he said Cheney is a scary thought. He would vote for censure.
Beyond the specific stands on the issues, I thought he was a stand up guy. He took all the questions, some not so friendly and did not parse words or sound like a poll-driven candidate. Authentic.
After the meeting broke up, I asked Lamont if he would back Lieberman if Joe won the primary and he quickly said yes. When I asked him what he had to say about Joe’s refusal to date to make the same promise if the tables were turned, he said that he wanted this race to be about the issues and to stay away from that kind of thing. I told him that it was a valid issue for party members to consider and he should find a positive way to use it in his primary campaign because for many Democrats, Joe seems to think he is has become bigger than the party. He stood his ground.
Should be an interesting summer here in Connecticut for us Democrats.
I think RS is a good example of why Lieberman’s in some trouble.
Net Neutrality goes down to defeat in the House — Art Brodsky tells us what it means.
Two big developments in the Jerry Lewis mess: First, Lewis-aide-turned-lobbyist Letitia “Earmark Queen” White is said to have taken commissions on earmarks she landed for a defense contractor. Second, aide-turned-lobbyist-turned-aide Jeffrey Shockey reports taking $2 million from his old lobbying firm – while he was working on the Hill for Jerry Lewis. Shockey worked at Copeland Lowery, White still does. White, Shockey, Lewis and the firm are all reportedly under investigation.
The Leader (from CNN) …
The former emergency management chief who quit amid widespread criticism over his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina said he received an e-mail before his resignation stating President Bush was glad to see the Oval Office had dodged most of the criticism.
Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Friday that he received the e-mail five days before his resignation from a high-level White House official whom he declined to identify.
…
The September 2005 e-mail reads: “I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn’t there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, ‘I’d rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.’ ”
The sender adds, “Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader.”
A bit cute of him to release the email and not identify the sender.
Good commentary from Craig Newmark of Craigslist on what’s important about Net Neutrality.
Here’s one good passage …
William L. Smith, the chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., recently told the Washington Post that BellSouth should, for example, be able to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc. or vice versa. “If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket,” Smith said. “In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground.”
In my view, executives like Smith forget that they get the use of public resources, like the airwaves and public rights of way, on which they have built their businesses and made a lot of money. As such, they shouldn’t be able to squeeze out some Web sites in favor of others. This would be a betrayal of the public trust.
What shipping speed do you think TPM will get? Kos? Redstate? Figure 6 day ground. And how about CNN and Fox? One way or another they’ll get guaranteed overnight. Or maybe Bellsouth partners with Fox, so the Fox site downloads faster in Georgia and CNN goes faster out west.
It changes what the Internet is and makes it into something more like Cable TV where the local cable company decides which channels are on the box.
You can find out which Democrats voted to give the Internet to the telephone companies in this roll call list. The names in italics in the second group (voting no) are Dems who voted against Net Neutrality. It’s also worth noting that the Ayes are overwhelmingly but not uniformly Democratic. You’ve got some Republicans there too — and not all swing-state moderates.
So, as you can see below, Net Neutrality lost in the House. So now the real fight is going to be in the Senate.
Now, I was just doing a bit of research tonight. And I found an article in Communications Daily which says this about the Snowe-Dorgan bill, which is the Net Neutrality legislation in the Senate …
An early order of business is getting at least one more GOP co-sponsor on the Snowe-Dorgan bill (S-2917). Commerce Committee Ranking Member Inouye (D-Hawaii), Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sens. Boxer (D- Cal.), Clinton (D-N.Y.), Obama (D-Ill.) and Wyden (D-Ore.) have signed on to the bill. Net neutrality backers pledged to get more lawmakers from both sides of the aisle aligned with them. The House vote should be a “wake-up call to anyone who cares about the future of the Internet,” said Google Washington Policy Counsel Alan Davidson. American Library Assn. Dir.-Govt. Relations Lynne Bradley said she hoped House members will see “the error of their ways.”
Okay, so Dorgan, Inouye, Leahy, Boxer, Clinton, Obama and Wyden are down for Net Neutrality. Just because someone’s not a cosponsor, you can’t infer from that that they’re not for it. But it does give a list to start with of who’s on the right side.
Now, here’s what I’d like to do. Many of you out there are working this debate and you know which senators are leaning which way. But everybody can get on the Net and start googling. So I want your help in putting together a list of where the different Democrats stand on this issue. Let us know what you find out.
The Times devotes an editorial to that house on the Hill former Lewis staffer Letitia White bought with that defense contractor.
Okay, a few data points on Net Neutrality.
In Idaho, Sen. Craig (R) is down with Sen. Stevens anti-Net Neutrality bill. But Sen. Crapo (R) seems to be on the fence. According to the Boise Weekly, his press secretary said “that it was premature to make a statement before any net neutrality-related bills were up for a vote in the Senate.” (Thanks to TPM Reader DD for that update.)
TPM Reader EL in Washington state has been calling Sens. Murray (D) and Cantwell (D) and both are giving ‘it’s a very complicated issue’ type responses and hedging their bets.
In California, TPM Reader DC sends us an oped from Sen. Boxer that seems to show clearly that she supports Net Neutrality.
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), meanwhile, is sending out a letter which suggests she supports Net Neutrality but actually keeps her options open …
Thank you for writing to me about open access to the Internet and the policy of network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.
It is vital to Americans and to our economy that we provide access to an open Internet with a balanced playing field for network, service and information providers. Giving consumers more access to and choices over information and services available over the Internet should not compromise other providers. Should legislation regarding network neutrality come before the Senate I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any comments or questions, I hope you will feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
I think she’s saying that Net Neutrality is important. And that she’ll keep in mind that her pro-Net Neutrality constituents are for it when she decides whether to vote against it or not.
So she’s keeping her options open.
TPM Reader J says he can’t get either of his senators (both Dems) in Maryland to take a position on Net Neutrality. But we’re still looking for more confirmation on that.
We’ll bring you more information as we hear it.