Some questions for Jackie SpeierI’m told Jackie Speier is making calls to local elected officials seeking support in her unofficial but very active campaign to unseat Rep. Tom Lantos. I’m sure it’s not an easy decision for some folks: Speier is probably going to run to the left of Lantos, especially on the war – but Lantos will get the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, I suspect, most of the rest of the Bay Area Congressional delegation. Lantos is far more of a hawk than his regional colleagues, and privately a lot of them say he ought to retire – but they all hate primary challenges and will be loathe to say anything positive about Speier.
So the local party power structure will be solidly behind Lantos, and I bet that Democrats who are considering endorsing Speier will feel some pressure.
They ought to put some pressure on Speier, too.
If the former state Senator wants progressive support, activists, groups and elected officials need to ask her a few tough questions, to pin her down on what we could expect from a Congressmember Speier.
Here’s a short list for starters:
1. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, with the support of Rep. Lantos, turned the Presidio over to a semi-private trust that has allowed a giant commercial office development to be built, with $60 million worth of tax breaks, in a national park. Would you have supported Pelosi’s bill – and would you now introduce a measure to repeal it?
2. Rep. Pelosi did not initially support Mayor Gavin Newsom’s move to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you support what Newsom did, and as a member of Congress, would you publicly endorse the city of San Francisco’s position in the ongoing legal case on this issue?
3. Would you support a federal moratorium on the death penalty?
4. Do you support the proposal by grassroots Democrats to censure Sen. Dianne Feinstein for her support of Michael Mukasey?
5. Do you support replacing Pacific Gas and Electric Company with a fully public power system in San Francisco, and would you seek federal funds to help pay for the takeover?
6. Thousands of people in San Francisco and on the Peninsula have become very wealthy in the past decade, thanks in part to the tech boom and in part to Bush’s tax policy. How much would you increase taxes on those with incomes of more than $500,000? Would you support a wealth tax on people whose net worth exceeds $10 million?
Anyone got some more to add to the list?
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (3)
C'mon Mr. Hold-Your-Nose-and-Vote-for-Feinstein Redmond (ah, how many times have you written that over the years?),
As you well know, U.S. political campaigns are not about issues. Candidates in the USA are sold in the same way that soap is peddled in the USA--with meaningless slogans.
In Congressional campaigns, 90-to-95 percent of the incumbents win. Because they have access to the money. In fact, across the board in U.S. elections, the correlation between money raised and electoral success is very, very high.
If issues really mattered, labor's evil dwarf would have never been reelected after his 1991 fabrication of the Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. And let's follow the money here. Lantos was paid off by Hill & Knowlton for his lies. And as a result of his work, we invaded Iraq the first time.
No, if issues mattered, Lantos would not have been reelected. But he had the money.
So you, Mr. Hold-Your-Nose, are simply doing here what you have always been paid to do--persuade us to vote for the establishment. Gawd, Feinstein must loove you.
Posted by Michael Slaughter | November 29, 2007 09:23 AM
I don't get your point, Michael; are you saying we should all support Speier without even questining her?
Posted by Tim Redmond | November 29, 2007 03:45 PM
I'd like to ask her if she will give in and support a Hillary (and the rest) style "universal" health care proposal or will hold out for meaningful single payer reform.
In any event, a challenge to Lantos is ill-advised. Few have the memory to recall Howard Berman's challenge to Leo McCarthy's speakership of the state assembly where ego and hopes for career enhancement led to multiple futile battles between fundamentally like-minded politicians in primary elections. The lesson in that battle, however, should not be lost: Primary challenges should be reserved for cases of crucial issues of paramount importance. Failure to realize this leads to loss of faith in political institutions and the debasement of the political process and risks loss of seemingly safe seats in the general election.
Posted by Aaron Roland, M.D. | December 15, 2007 03:43 PM