In the wake of this week's dramatic Congressional hearing on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the Courage Campaign is organizing to push Congress to repeal the outdated and unjust policy as quickly as possible. Below is the email we sent to our members asking them to push Senator Carl Levin to include DADT repeal in the defense budget.

"No matter how I look at the issue...I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens...For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

-- Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Dear Friend --

In the war over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the battle lines have been drawn: It's Republicans vs. the military. And John McCain vs. John McCain.

On Tuesday, Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave game-changing testimony to Congress strongly supporting President Obama's effort to repeal DADT. Then, Wednesday morning, Colin Powell -- the man who made DADT possible -- announced his opposition to this discriminatory policy, saying that "attitudes and circumstances have changed."

That isn't stopping recalcitrant Republicans like John McCain from flip-flopping on the stance he took in 2006 to follow the lead of our nation's top military brass on DADT.

You can watch the embarrassing blow-by-blow in the "McCain vs. McCain vs. Mullen" video linked below. After you watch, please sign our letter to Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who vocally opposed McCain and other Republicans on Tuesday in support of repealing DADT.

To allow soldiers like Lt. Dan Choi to serve their country, Sen. Levin needs to immediately take the lead on including DADT repeal in the defense budget bill. Please sign our letter to Sen. Levin right now -- and help us get to 500,000 total Courage Campaign letters against DADT:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/DontWait

Here's what John McCain said back in October 2006 on MSNBC's "Hardball":

"I listen to people like General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and literally every military leader that I know... The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

Seems pretty clear, right? Or did we miss the " * Void if Barack Obama is President" fine print?

Obviously, John McCain and his Republican colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee are not listening to Colin Powell, a man McCain says he admires "as much as any man in the world." Or to Admiral Mullen or Secretary Gates -- both originally appointed by George W. Bush.

Chairman Levin can't let Sen. McCain get away with delaying justice on DADT. Sign our letter to Sen. Levin right now asking him to immediately include DADT repeal in the defense budget bill -- and help us reach 500,000 total Courage Campaign letters against DADT:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/DontWait

Colin Powell gets it. Admiral Mullen gets it. Secretary Gates gets it. Even Cindy McCain and her daughter Meghan get it, having come out strongly in favor of same-sex marriage a few weeks ago.

Help us spread the word by forwarding this email to more people who get it -- so we can save Lt. Choi's job and defeat John McCain's obstruction.

Thanks for helping us bring equality to our armed services, one action at a time.

Eden James
Managing Director, Courage Campaign

Pundits like to claim California voters are anti-tax. Of course, we've raised various kinds of taxes at the state level, including the Prop 10 cigarette taxes in 1998, and the Prop 63 millionaire's tax for mental health programs passed in 2004. Still, even though our reputation remains, we've got nothing on Oregon, where no tax has been approved by statewide voters since 1930.

Until now.

Yesterday Oregon voters delivered a huge victory for progressives by approving Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on incomes over $125,000 and on corporations to generate $733 million to close the state's budget deficit. The Oregon legislature had approved the taxes last summer, but a corporate/teabagger alliance organized to put it to voters in a referendum.

One wonders if the national media will cover this victory at all - much less at the levels of the Massachusetts Senate race. Although they'll almost certainly ignore it, the lessons for California are enormous and extremely important.

The opposition ran a well-funded campaign, led by Nike, Columbia Sportswear, and other big businesses. They were joined by Ari Fleischer's FreedomWorks and the libertarian publisher of the Oregonian, who used to be at the Orange County Register before it went belly-up. Together they ran a campaign arguing that the tax increases would worsen unemployment. But 55% of voters have rejected that, and instead showed that when a truly progressive campaign is waged, the right-wingers can be beaten. Even on taxes.

What it also shows is that progressive policies, supported by smart progressive organizing led by folks such as former US Senate candidate Steve Novick and the Oregon Bus Project, which reached out to younger voters and had a strong ground game, can beat well-funded, well-organized corporate/teabagger alliances.

Their message was deeply progressive:

These reforms protect nearly $1 billion in vital services like education, health care and public safety. These funds preserve class sizes, save jobs for teachers, provide seniors with in-home care, and provide health care for thousands of Oregonians through the Oregon Health Plan. In this time of economic crisis, we must protect those who have been hit the hardest — seniors, children and the unemployed — without putting more of a burden on the middle class.

It's a message that works nationally. And it's a message that'll work here in California. Voters don't like seeing their neighborhood schools close, or mass layoffs of teachers, or ending care for the disabled, or kicking kids off of health care. They don't want it, and are willing to raise taxes to prevent it.

All eyes now turn to Sacramento. Oregon proved, beyond any doubt, that anti-tax sentiment can be beaten by progressive taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to save programs people like. The message could not possibly be any clearer. Voters want their programs saved, and are willing to tax the elite to do it.

Oregon netroots activist Carla Axtman may have had the best take on the victory:

Dear OR Legislators: When you take bold, progressive action--we have your back. Remember this night.

There is no reason now for California Democrats to not propose doing the same. We know that the 2/3rds rule is a huge obstacle that Oregon did not have. But if Democrats are to avoid making horrific choices like ending Healthy Families, it's time they took the fight to the Republicans, and made them defend these policies to the public by making them oppose progressive taxes.

We know a progressive message, selling progressive policy, backed by progressive organizing, can win. All California waits to see whether Sacramento Democrats know it too.

Since we launched last Monday, the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker has become a leading source for information about the trial in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom, since ProtectMarriage.com got the Supreme Court to block plans to televise the trial. We've had over 800,000 views and over 6,400 comments since we launched, a sign of how popular our liveblogging has become.

But there's one group out there that isn't a fan, and that's ProtectMarriage.com. Last Friday they sent Courage Campaign a cease and desist letter regarding our parody of the "Yes on 8" logo that we use on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Late yesterday, we learned that ProtectMarriage.com filed suit in US district court seeking a temporary restraining order asking a federal judge to order us to take our logo down.

Our lawyers' response: no way. As our lawyer said, our logo is a "sassy" parody of their logo.

We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are "substantially indistinguishable," and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.

My colleague Julia Rosen posted the complaint and our response over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. We don't know yet whether Judge Lawrence K. Karlton will grant, deny, or ask for a hearing on the TRO.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, had this to say in our press release:

The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to focus our energy on this historic trial and the rights and protections at stake for loving, committed same-sex couples. ProtectMarriage.com can continue to expend time, energy and resources on a logo. Frankly, I think that says a lot about our respective priorities.

We thought that our response laying out the tremendous legal precedent in cases like this would be the end of this silliness. But we are more than happy to defend our case if Prop 8 supporters continue to argue that the difference between their logo and ours is “substantially indistinguishable,” given that their logo features a father and mother and our logo features two mothers.

This is yet another attempt by Prop 8 supporters to distract from the facts being brought forth at this trial that are demonstrating quite clearly both the discrimination same-sex couples face and the need and benefit to society of equal treatment under the law.

We're confident that the law and precedent are on our side. Our logo is an obvious parody of the ProtectMarriage.com logo. More importantly, ProtectMarriage.com is essentially claiming that there isn't a difference between a family headed by a man and a woman and a family headed by two women. Wouldn't it be nice if they argued that in Judge Walker's courtroom? As one of the commenters on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker argued:

I just really want to hear [Rachel Maddow] say "Protectmarriage.com is suing Courage Campaign, saying a lesbian couple is indistinguishable from a heterosexual one. In other news, protectmarriage.com continues to argue that homosexuals are too different from heterosexuals to deserve equal protection under the law."

You can see the logos for yourself:



We'll be sure to keep you updated as to how this turns out. We're not going to let the opponents of equality silence us.

Just as the trial of Proposition 8 was about to get underway in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom in San Francisco this morning, the US Supreme Court delivered an injunction against the promised video feeds and rebroadcasts of the trial. The injunction, which Justice Steven Breyer objected to, lasts until midday Wednesday when the full court will hear arguments about whether the broadcasts will go forward as planned, be expanded, or be ended entirely.

The Courage Campaign Institute's founder and chair, Rick Jacobs, was able to make it into the Burton Federal Courthouse in downtown San Francisco this morning where the trial is happening. He is liveblogging at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, a website we launched this morning to monitor and hold accountable the right-wing organizations that are trying to undermine the course of justice.

Jacobs has described fascinating exchanges between Judge Walker and Ted Olson such as this:

The judge is probing extensively whether or not the problem would be solved if the state of California “got out of the marriage business.” He and Olson had a colloquy about whether domestic partnership for all would solve the problem. Olson had to have a note handed to him from his team to say that only opposite-sex couples over 62 can have domestic partnership. Judge Walker is very interested in seeing what change has occurred that should force the federal judiciary to enter the issue. He wants to know what evidence will show that makes the matter worthy of judgment. The judge is very, very smart. This is really, really fascinating. Olson is doing a great job in answering him. “What’s the evidence going to show that Prop. 8” intended to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Olson: no question that Prop. 8 intended to discriminate. We’ll put on evidence from the plaintiffs and others that show how they felt about the campaign, the sentiments that may have been used to motivate the voters.

At the outset of the trial, Judge Walker also made reference to the debate over the broadcast. He said that by 5PM last Friday, 138,542 comments were received in favor of broadcasting the trial - and only 32 were received opposing it. We believe most, if not all, those comments were the result of the petition that the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile delivered on Friday to Judge Walker. It is a clear sign that the people want this case tried in full public view, and reject entirely the self-serving arguments of the anti-equality forces, people who are afraid to let the public know their true motives for putting Prop 8 on the ballot.

No matter what happens at the SCOTUS this week, the Courage Campaign Institute will continue to track this trial and the right-wing reaction to it.

We could also use your help in keeping this going. Maintaining the liveblog isn't free - if you can contribute $25, $50, $100 or more to the Courage Campaign Institute, we can continue to maintain the site as the trial unfolds. Thanks.

Below is the email we sent to our members today about the Prop 8 Trial Tracker:   Read More »

Arnold Schwarzenegger has released what is, mercifully, his final budget. It is a shocking "fuck you" to the people of California, a brazen hostage taking that proposes to eliminate basic social services unless the feds pony up $7 billion dollars. Even if they do so, Arnold plans to propose the same cuts that were rejected by the voters and the courts in 2009. This budget, more than any other proposal he has offered since he became governor in late 2003, shows the massive contempt Arnold Schwarzenegger has for his fellow Californians.

Although we may seem used to this kind of thing, the full details show just how horrifying and thuggish this governor and his budget are. It is a budget designed to protect the wealthy by making everyone else suffer, by driving the economy deeper into recession and strangling what little economic recovery we have witnessed.

• Massive cuts to (and essentially, the elimination of): CalWORKS, IHSS, Healthy Families. The IHSS cuts were done last year and have been blocked by the courts; Arnold's contempt for the law continues to know no bounds

• However, if the feds come through with $7 billion, the above can be spared. The other cuts described below, however, would happen anyway

• Changing gas tax to an "excise tax" to enable state to make further cuts to public transportation, part of Arnold's war on public transportation and his desire to shackle Californians to their cars, to rising oil prices, and to his oil company buddies - and would force $2 billion in further cuts to schools under Prop 98

• Raiding Prop 10 and Prop 63 funds *even though voters rejected this in May 2009*

• Approving the Tranquillon Ridge offshore oil drilling project and giving the funds to state parks, partly to block the ballot initiative to raise the VLF to fund parks

• $1.2 billion cut to school administrators. Before you say "but admin is bloated" - most school administrators are making $50K-$60K if that, and are basically solidly middle-class folks looking to make ends meet

• 14% pay cut to 200,000 state workers, though their furloughs would end

• $1.2 billion cut to prison medical care, even though the federal courts have said this is not possible

• No Medi-Cal benefits to legal immigrants who have been in the US less than 5 years, Healthy Families eligibility slashed to 200% FPL, elimination of adult health daycare

• No new taxes, and preservation of the indefensible corporate tax cuts made in the 2008 and 2009 budget deals

And a host of other things that have likely not yet come to light.

This budget is Arnold's parting shot - literally - to the people of California, his effort to prove that he really is, as David Dayen put it yesterday, "the worst, absolute worst chief executive in national history."

In the wake of Arnold's State of the State address, most legislators made silly and obsequious statements to the effect of "we like what Arnold had to say, we can work with him!" One of the only legislators to give a proper response was Ted Lieu, who equated the prison privatization plan to Blackwater and pointed out that many groups, including religious groups, are vehemently opposed to private prisons.

Will Sacramento Democrats fold in the face of this crappy budget? Or will they follow Ted Lieu's lead, and House Speaker Tip O'Neill's lead from the 1980s, and declare Arnold's budget DOA? Refuse to even consider it?

There may be signs that the Sacramento Democrats have found their spines. According to Capitol Weekly Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's response was "you have got to be kidding" and "we are going to take a different approach." That's a start, but Steinberg needs to reject this out of hand.

Progressives and Democrats across the state will be watching their legislators very closely and carefully in the coming weeks and months to ensure they take a strong, firm stand against this reckless and insane budget. California Democrats will have a very, very difficult time motivating their base to show up in November if they yet again give in to Arnold's thuggery. It's time they stood up and said "no" in a firm, loud, and collective voice.

Later this month the long-awaited trial of Proposition 8 will commence in a federal courtroom in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker will preside over the case brought by a legal dream team of Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under President Bush) and David Boies (who represented Al Gore in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000). Olson and Boies argue - correctly, in my view - that Proposition 8 is a straightforward violation of the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.

People across California and across the country are eagerly awaiting the trial, and fully expect to be able to follow it on television. But Judge Walker may close the courtroom to cameras, following on an outrageous demand from Prop 8 supporters.

One of the *fundamental* legal principles this country was built on is the openness and transparency of the judiciary. For the system to work, people must believe the process is fair, the outcomes just. And for that to occur, the public needs to be able to see what is going on in the courtroom.

On a case this important, the public's right to know should be protected and upheld in the broadest possible form. That means televising the proceedings. Since this isn't a criminal trial, there's no defendant who could be harmed by having this made public, no jury that could be swayed by the cameras. Since only a tiny handful of people will ever be able to be in the courtroom itself, that would seem like an open and shut case for allowing cameras in the courtroom. Right?

Well, not if you're the forces who put Prop 8 on the ballot and helped it pass. They are afraid of public scrutiny. Afraid of the camera. Afraid to let the people of this country hear the bigoted truth behind their defense of Proposition 8.

They have decided to organize the far-right to pressure Judge Walker to close the courtroom to cameras. Focus on the Family is circulating a petition to prevent the trial from being televised, and have generated tens of thousands of signatures.

Their argument is:

Following a short public-comment period – only five business days – the battle could bring a circus-like atmosphere. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is considering allowing video cameras in the courtroom.

Ron Prentice, executive director of Protectmarriage.com, is concerned Walker’s decision could cause problems for proponents of Prop. 8 who have already come under attack.

"Intimidation and harassment will continue," Prentice said. "And, those who are put on the stand or are seen in the courtroom may very well be recognized and further intimidation or harassment may continue."

Not only is this ridiculous on its face - the people who have faced genuine "intimidation and harassment" as a result of Prop 8 are the LGBT couples who lost their rights when it passed - but it is a pretty weak reason to deny the public their right to know what is going on in that courtroom. If the Prop 8 supporters want to defend the law, they should have no hesitation to do so in a public manner, on television.

Judge Walker was planning to allow cameras in, but as a result of the Prop 8 supporters' protestations, has agreed to hold a hearing on the matter next week. He is asking for public comments *by this Friday*. So *you have a chance to determine the outcome* - will Prop 8 supporters be able to hide their true arguments, or will the public interest and democratic transparency win out?

The Courage Campaign Institute, where I work as Public Policy Director, isn't going to wait to find out. We're going to organize to deliver petitions of our own to Judge Walker, as he has solicited, in order to uphold the public interest and demand that this trial be televised.

You can sign your name here - along with CREDO Mobile, we will hand deliver the signatures to the court in San Francisco on Friday. Your signature matters - the more signatures we deliver to the court, the more likely it is that he will do the right thing in the name of equality, accountability, and transparency.

Here's the letter I wrote that the Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO are using for our petition:

To the Honorable Judge Vaughn Walker:

We are writing to insist that the trial of Proposition 8 be televised to the public. In any democracy, openness and transparency are necessary to the proper functioning of our courts. Americans have the right to know what is being said and argued in their courts, and allowing cameras in the courtroom to broadcast the trial is the best, most efficient way to provide the transparency to which we are entitled.

This case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people. However, only a tiny fraction will ever be able to watch the trial in person. By televising the trial, the public will be able to see for themselves the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, and will therefore have more confidence in the outcome of the trial.

Justice is blind, but the public is not, and should not be blind in this case. We urge you to uphold the public's right to view this important trial on television.

Please sign it by clicking here. The right-wing, led by James Dobson and Focus on the Family, are already organizing their members to write to the court. Are you going to let them beat us?

This whole episode raises the question of what the Prop 8 supporters have to hide. They haven't been shy about their vocal support for denying equality in the past. Few have faced intimidation and harassment for it.

It's more likely that their true motivation is to prevent the American people from hearing the powerful and compelling case that Boies and Olson are going to make in that courtroom. Both lawyers are expert litigants, and are pursuing a sensible Supreme Court strategy designed to swing Anthony Kennedy to join Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor to uphold the 14th Amendment and overturn Prop 8. Kennedy has made rulings favorable to LGBT rights in the past, including /Lawrence v. Texas/ in 2003 which decriminalized sodomy.

Dobson, Prentice and the backers of Prop 8 want to hide that compelling argument from the public. They also want to hide their own anti-equality arguments from public view. In March 2009 they had Kenneth Starr argue in the California Supreme Court that voters can pass whatever they like at the ballot box, a view I label the Starr Doctrine. Such a radical idea won the day in the California Supreme Court, disappointingly enough. But in federal court, the Prop 8 backers seem to want to hide that argument from the American people.

Ironically, that trial in California Supreme Court last March WAS televised. And nobody was intimidated or harassed because of it - well, except for those who lost the right to marry the person they love when the court upheld Prop 8.

There is simply no reasonable justification for keeping cameras out of the courtroom. Thankfully, Judge Walker wants to hear your thoughts on the matter. Take him up on his offer by signing our petition right now.

Below is the urgent email we sent to our members today.   Read More »

A new year and a new decade are upon us, as is a new election year. But 2010 isn't going to be just any old election year in California. After spending 2009 watching state and national politics oriented around defending the status quo, we are finally starting to see the emergence of a politics oriented around change, spurred on by the most severe political and economic crisis since the American conquest.

The result is that 2010 will be the most important, consequential, and decisive elections in a long time in California. While there are interesting and significant races for elected office that will be decided, it's the ballot initiatives that really matter. Proposals from across the political spectrum will likely be on the November 2010 ballot in particular, setting up a major contest between right, left and corporate center to determine the future of this state at a pivotal moment in its history.

Even though it's still unclear which initiatives will be on the ballot, with 51 initiatives in circulation and 37 pending at the Attorney General's office, a significant number of which will likely make the ballot, it's clear that the initiative process is still the primary path by which genuine change happens in this state.

And as we'll see, it's a path that is controlled not by the people, but by those with access to the large sums of money needed to get the signatures and qualify the initiative for the ballot. Many of the initiatives we'll see on the November 2010 ballot will involve large corporations trying to use the state's crisis to change the law, or even the constitution, to further empower and enrich themselves.

More below, including an overview of the initiatives on both the June and November ballots.   Read More »

California's Sarah Palin (aka Meg Whitman) has taken notice of the Courage Campaign radio ad launched today on radio stations across the state educating the public about Whitman's position on global warming. She just sent this email out to her list:

Dear Supporter,

A group of liberal activists headed by Howard Dean's former California campaign chair today launched a negative radio ad attacking Meg Whitman for her common-sense, pro-jobs environmental policies.

Fight back with Meg. She has led the call to put a one-year moratorium on California's AB 32, which has been estimated to negatively affect one million jobs in California. California cannot afford to hastily implement new environmental regulations that could further delay our economic recovery.

Coincidentally, the attack ad debuted on the same day that a new poll was released showing that Meg is beating the likely Democratic nominee Jerry Brown among independent voters.

National Democrats have already named Meg a top target and now the liberal "Courage Campaign" is taking up the call.

See their attack here.

Can we count on you to help beat these special interest groups and restore California? If you can contribute $15, $25 or $50, please link here to help fight back.

It's not surprising that Democrats and their special interest groups are already working hard to try to defeat Meg in the Republican primary. They want their chosen candidate, likely Jerry Brown, to face a different, weaker Republican candidate next November. We are not going to let that happen.

Thank you,
Jillian Hasner
Campaign Manager, Meg Whitman 2010

Some quick points. First, it was indeed entirely coincidental that our ad launched the day the PPIC poll came out. We'd been planning this ad for about a week now, but had no clue that PPIC was even doing a poll, certainly not that they were going to release it today. Not that it would have made any difference.

Contrary to Jillian Hasner's claims, the Courage Campaign does not endorse candidates for elected office. Jerry Brown is not our "chosen candidate" - we don't have one, period.

The Courage Campaign's goal is simply to make the public aware of Whitman's views on global warming legislation. Specifically, that she believes AB 32 should be suspended.

Looks like we've succeeded in that quest. If you want to help get that message aired more broadly on radio stations in California, click here to listen to the ad and donate to expand the buy.

Earlier this week I announced that Courage Campaign was going to produce an ad showing how Meg Whitman is California's Sarah Palin when it comes to global warming legislation. Palin and Whitman both oppose laws that mandate reduction of carbon emissions. Whitman has even said that she will order an indefinite suspension of AB 32 as her *very first act* as governor.

The Courage Campaign thought Californians should know about that. And our members agreed, putting up the money to get this ad produced and now aired on stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Silicon Valley.

You can hear the ad by clicking this link. And you can donate to help support and expand the ad buy at the same link. Just a few dollars - $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give - will help spread the word.

We've already been getting some earned media attention on this ad. Last night Candy Crowley mentioned it on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360° show. And on Tuesday, Carla Marinucci covered it at the SF Chronicle blog.

We'd love it if you could help us expand the buy. Meg Whitman is blanketing the state with her ads. The Courage Campaign doesn't have those kind of resources, but with your help we can get this ad on more radio stations and hold Whitman accountable.

Over the flip is the transcript of the ad.   Read More »

Sarah Palin, WaPo op-ed, December 9, 2009:

Meeting [carbon reduction] targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs... The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs.

Meg Whitman, San Jose Mercury News op-ed, September 16, 2009:

In January, the first AB 32 mandates take effect and will lead to higher energy costs at a time when we can least afford them. They will discourage job creation and could kill any recovery.

Notice the similar phrasing here: "higher energy costs," "cost jobs/discourage job creation."

It's not just similar phrasing that Whitman and Palin share: it's similar policies. Palin's op-ed was written to attack the Copenhagen climate summit and to oppose the Congressional cap-and-trade bill. Whitman's op-ed was written to attack AB 32, which she said she would order suspended indefinitely as her very first act as governor.

Earlier today in Copenhagen, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger slammed Sarah Palin's climate stance:

"You have to ask: what was she trying to accomplish?" he told the Financial Times. "Is she really interested in this subject or is she interested in her career and in winning the [Republican] nomination [for president]? You have to take all these things with a grain of salt."...

"I think there are people that just don't believe in fixing and working on the environment. They don't believe there is such a thing as global warming, they're still living in the Stone Age, which is OK, we need people like that, too," he said.

But will Arnold say similar things about Meg Whitman, who shares Sarah Palin's attitude about global warming legislation?

The Courage Campaign isn't going to wait to find out. That's why we are going to produce and air a radio ad that will broadcast on stations across California later this week. The ad will explain to the listener that Palin and Whitman share the same views on the climate crisis - views that are NOT shared by President Obama, Governor Schwarzenegger, and most Californians.

We're a small organization and can't simply cut and air the ad ourselves. We need your help to get this on the air. Please click here to kick in $25 to get this ad produced and aired.

Why a radio ad? Well, as you probably know, Whitman has launched a big radio ad buy in recent weeks. Whitman's ads are designed to raise her name identification with voters and boost her poll numbers by presenting herself as a friendly moderate who wants to help fix our broken state.

The Courage Campaign thinks that the public needs to hear the truth about Whitman's stand on global warming, which is why we're going to the radio airwaves. Will you join us? Donate now!

Once the ad is ready to be aired, I'll be sure to post it here so you can listen. Over the flip is the email we sent to our members today launching this campaign.   Read More »

While the US Senate is debating health care reform, and including a possible expansion of Medicare eligibility in the process, a separate effort is underway that could lead to significant cuts in both Social Security and Medicare benefits. As progressives across America mobilize to stop this effort, Senator Dianne Feinstein is in the middle of the battle. That's why the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action have joined forces to petition Senator Feinstein to stop this commission.

Here's what's happening: US Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, has been pushing for the creation of a "deficit reduction commission" that would have the power to propose cuts in "entitlement" spending. The commission's recommendations would then go to the Congress for an up or down vote on the entire package, without the ability to amend its proposals. Because it could lead to cuts in benefits for Social Security and Medicare, many progressives are calling this a "cat food" commission. And Senator Dianne Feinstein is on record as a supporter of this commission.

The Courage Campaign first learned about this from an article in The Hill last month:

Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.

“You rarely do have the leverage to make a fundamental change,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who said he hasn’t ruled out offering the independent commission legislation as an amendment to the healthcare reform bill.

The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt.

Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an “unsustainable” $63 trillion in 2083.

The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending.

The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended....

But before Tuesday’s hearing was over, Sens. Conrad, Gregg, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) publicly vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling if a budget reform commission bill doesn’t come along with it.

The modus operandi of these Senators appears to be to demand that this commission be part of important bills or else they'll vote against that bill. Since the Congress hasn't yet voted to raise the debt ceiling, that threat is presumably still on the table. Kent Conrad is making that threat of the proposal to use TARP funds to create jobs - threatening to oppose that effort unless Congress agrees to add this commission to the bill. We have read reports that Senator Feinstein has her own proposal, but none appears on THOMAS, the official record of the US Congress.

Progressives are already organizing to stop this. Last weekend Over 30 progressive groups signed a letter saying "no" to this commission. The groups include the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, People for the American Way, the NAACP, Common Cause, and other leading organizations:

We write in strong opposition to proposals to create an entitlements or deficit-reduction commission that would override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate.

Those supporting this circumvention of the normal process have stated openly the desire to avoid political accountability. Americans-seniors, women, working families, people with disabilities, young adults, children, people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others-expect their elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching legislation.

Any deficit reduction measures should be carried out in a responsible manner, providing a fairer tax system and strengthening-rather than slashing-Social Security, Medicare and other programs that are vital to the middle class." And as unemployment continues to grow, we need a real debate about how to balance the need for economic recovery and productive public investment with the goal of long-term budget responsibility. The American people are likely to view any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive investment.

As you know, the current effort to reform the health care sector seeks to achieve reductions in Medicare spending, without cutting benefits. But the proposed budget commission-which will be viewed as a way to actually cut Medicare benefits, while insulating lawmakers from political fallout-could confuse people and undermine the reform effort. And an American public that only recently rejected privatization of Social Security will undoubtedly be suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions regarding the future of a retirement system that's served them well in the current financial crisis.

We urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission. (Click here to see the full letter and the list of signers.)

As we remember from the 2005 battle over Social Security privatization, there is no crisis in Social Security. The earliest the existing trust fund would have difficulty paying 100% of benefits is 2041. Even then, projections of shortfalls are assuming that the currently reduced levels of income resulting from the recession are ongoing. We have over 30 years to either grow the economy and fully fund our obligations without doing anything, or 30 years to find a fair way to find new revenues to fund these obligations. We certainly do not need an undemocratic commission that could grease the skids for benefit cuts. If the US Senate wants to address Social Security, they can and should do so through the normal legislative process.

There are genuine concerns about Medicare spending. But the rising cost of Medicare, which could produce a fiscal crisis by 2017, isn't due to overly generous benefits. Medicare's rising costs are a reflection of rising health care costs across the country, regardless of the provider or payer. In fact, our existing system of private insurance actually exacerbates Medicare's problems, since insurers prefer to deny treatment for chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, preferring to wait until the patient turns 65 and it becomes Medicare's responsibility to pay for that expensive treatment.

It is entirely possible that the current health care reform effort will address Medicare's rising costs and further make this commission unnecessary. The health care reform bill being debated right now in the US Senate contains a number of important cost control mechanisms that, along with a public option, should provide better and more affordable care to Americans, reducing the ability of insurance companies to dump these costs onto Medicare. And again, should these efforts fail, we have time to debate solutions sensibly and rationally, without rushing to create an undemocratic commission.

(Note: This commission is not the same thing as a recent vote, backed by the AARP, regarding Medicare benefits that took place last week. That vote was part of the overall health care reform effort in the Senate. This commission, however, is an entirely separate proposal.)

By her support of this commission, Senator Feinstein is showing that she is willing to consider cuts to Social Security and Medicare that are neither necessary nor acceptable. That's why the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action have organized a petition to Senator Feinstein asking her to withdraw her support for this commission.

As one of her constituents, I would like to think that Senator Feinstein would want to protect and even boost Social Security and Medicare benefits, and not support a process that could lead to cuts in both programs. If she wants to address ways to improve Social Security and Medicare, she should do so directly, without having an undemocratic commission do the work for her. If she wants to talk about the budget deficit, again, she should do so openly and directly through the normal legislative channels, instead of asking a commission to tackle the matter.

The Courage Campaign and CREDO Action reiterate our call for Senator Feinstein to drop her support of this commission, and ask that you sign our petition to that effect. If Senator Feinstein really doesn't want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, then she should have no problem withdrawing her support of this commission, and using the normal legislative process to shore up and improve those programs.

Below is the text of the email we sent to our members on this topic.   Read More »

Marta Evry, who Camp Courage attendees know as the volunteer photographer who takes such wonderful images of the camp experience, and who is a community organizer in Los Angeles, sent this email to our members today asking them to have a Courageous Conversation with a friend or family member this holiday season. Why not start tomorrow, on Thanksgiving? Click here to sign up!   Read More »

Back in the February budget battle, notorious right-wing SoCal talk show hosts John and Ken put the heads of Republican legislators who voted for the tax increases on sticks as a threat of grassroots wingnut revolt. Their primary enemy became GOP Assemblymember Anthony Adams (AD-59), who they targeted with a recall effort, gathering and submitting signatures to put a recall on the ballot. It was to be the biggest demonstration yet of the power the KFI duo have over California politics - and the Republican Party.

Except they failed.

We learned today that the recall effort will fall 11,000 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot, according to the random sampling projections. John and Ken turned in 58,000 signatures but the sampling projects less than half - about 24,500 - will be valid, short of the 35,825 they needed to make the ballot.

Chalk this up as a pretty big FAIL on the part of John and Ken and their own SoCal version of the teabagger movement. Armed with one of the West Coast's most powerful radio signals and one of the highest rated shows in the region

On Twitter I noted that if they couldn't get the recall on the ballot, maybe John and Ken aren't so powerful after all. Anthony Adams agrees. Once again, the great anti-tax revolution of 2009 is a mouse that failed to roar.

Senator Barbara Boxer emailed our 700,000+ members today asking them to stand with us to fight for women's health and stop the Stupak Amendment. Sen. Boxer has become a very strong, compelling voice against this odious amendment, which would make it very difficult for women to access their right to reproductive choice. It's going to take a strong show of force by the California progressive community to ensure that this is taken out of the final bill. Please join us by signing the petition.

Below is the email Senator Boxer sent to our members.   Read More »

Sometime next month Time Magazine will announce their "Person of the Year," and it should be obvious by now who best personifies 2009: Herbert Hoover. 80 years after he helped the nation slide into Depression with his austerity budgets and refusal to use government to help provide relief and recovery, his basic approach to political economy is enjoying quite a renaissance. Alongside Sacramento, one of the most prominent places to embrace the new Hooverism has been the United States Senate.

Now it looks like they're moving to up the Hooverite ante, and two of California's powerful federal politicians are at the center of the debate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is joining 6 other Senators to demand that Speaker Nancy Pelosi approve a commission to recommend cuts to Medicare and Social Security - or else they'll refuse to vote to increase the US government's debt ceiling:

Congress is under pressure to raise the cap on what the federal government can borrow by mid-December. If the debt ceiling is not raised above its current $12.1 trillion mark by then, the government will exceed its borrowing limits and will be forced to default on the debt. Economists have warned that the inevitable result would be a lowering of the U.S. credit rating, triggering substantial increases in the interest rates the government is already paying.

But before Tuesday's hearing was over, Sens. Conrad, Gregg, Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) publicly vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling if a budget reform commission bill doesn't come along with it.

Chris Bowers at Open Left called this a national suicide pact, an apt description for this truly reckless demand:

Let's review the threat that these five Democrats are making:

* They will allow the United States to default on its debt, which will vastly increase the overall amount we have to pay on our debt

UNLESS

* Speaker Nancy Pelosi turns over Congressional power on Social Security and Medicare to an unelected commission that will almost certainly propose deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare entitlements. Keep in mind that deep cuts to Social security and Medicare that pass under a Democratic trifecta would doom the party at the ballot box for years to come.

This is completely insane, and there is no choice but to call this bluff.

Bowers goes on to point out the obvious fact that if these Senators did cause the US to default on its debt (the practical effect of refusing to increase the debt ceiling) their political careers would all be over, so we have nothing to lose by calling their bluff.

And he is right. Cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits would be a truly insane, reckless, and radical act. At a time when the US economy is entering a period of long-term high unemployment, the very last thing you want to be doing is further undermining the ability of Americans, particularly the aged, to make ends meet.

Cuts in Social Security and Medicare will not only ripple through the economy in the form of reduced spending, they'll also ripple through younger generations, who will fill the gap lost by the cutting of government benefits with money out of their own pockets to help their elderly relatives make ends meet and get the treatment they need.

Feinstein is embracing Hooverism, putting Democratic gains at risk, and threatening to make our economic crisis permanent. Of course, in doing so she's merely going with the flow in both DC and Sacramento, so it's not like she's some kind of outlier.

Still, this kind of insane policymaking has to be stopped. Pelosi should call Feinstein's bluff. Anyone here who thinks Feinstein would actually enable a debt default, please raise your hands. Didn't think so. Pelosi already got rolled once this month by a block of regressive Democrats willing to risk future elections in order to roll back rights and screw the poor and the middle class. She shouldn't let it happen again.

This weekend's Camp Courage in Sacramento was a good tonic for the loss in Maine and part of our collective path forward to restoring marriage equality to California. The heart of Camp Courage is learning how to craft your "story-of-self" a personal, emotional version of who you are and why this issue matters so much to you. The goal is to empower activists to use their personal narrative to bring about political change. Stories-of-self can be used to recruit volunteers, to inspire a crowd or to change a persons' vote one door at a time.

It isn't easy to have people open up and share the most painful, scary, raw parts of their lives. But those are the stories that are the ones that need to be told the most. The power of Camp Courage comes from people risking sharing their stories of pain thus forming community and strength.

Adam Bink over at Open Left quotes Harvey Milk's famous "come out come out" speech and writes:

The same tactic Milk used for school employees everywhere must continue to be used in these communities. We have to encourage people in these towns to come out of the closet and say they want the right to marry. State Representative Mike Carey, who represents heavily Catholic downtown Lewiston and voted in favor of marriage equality in the legislature, pointed out to me that in these kinds of votes, the default vote is for fear, and it is a huge barrier to reach one's conscience if they have no personal knowledge of the issue. For all the "gay marriage will be taught in schools" ads our opponents ran in Maine and will run in other states that tap that fear element, we have to counter with people who can give voters that kind of personal touch on the issue.

It isn't just gay people that we need to come out and tell their stories, it is all of our wonderful straight allies. No, there is no application to become a straight ally, just start telling everyone you know your personal story of why you support equality for all.

One of our amazing volunteers that helped put together Camp Courage Sacramento Chris Huack brought his parents to Camp. He blogged about the experience at the Courage Campaign. Here is Chris relaying the three reflections his dad had about Camp. (more on the flip)

1 – He had no idea the pain that LGBT people had felt over discrimination and losing initiatives like Proposition 8 and Question 1 until he saw people speaking about them openly and honestly at the Camp. See, I have always been a more stoic, let’s “focus on what we can do in the future” type of person, so for my Mom and Dad, they had never truly appreciated the pain this had inflicted on our community until they heard the stories of personal pain from others.

2 – My Dad shared with me his “Story of Self.” He had a gay cousin who had died of AIDS when my Dad was in his 20s. He had a lesbian sister who had come out to him and was now married with her wife. And he had me, his gay son, who was fighting for equality and who he hoped could one day get married in front of friends and family. LGBT issues had slowly intertwined their way thought his life and had always handled them decently (very supportive of me and his sister), but now realized his previous actions had been woefully inadequate and that he could no longer sit on the sidelines while people he cared about suffered and were discriminated against.

3 – He needed to get involved today. He wanted to sign up to canvass and to join California Faith for Equality, provided they had a means for him to contribute to meaningful action.

As stoic as I may be, I found myself fighting back tears as my Dad related this to me and my Mom agreed with him. Then at dinner, as my Dad related to other family members what he had learned and why it was so important for us to proactively work for change – I fully understood the importance of Camp Courage. Yes, it is a great experience for LGBT leaders and organizers. However, I missed an important opportunity in East LA, when I went to Camp but neglected to recruit my straight friends and family in LA to attend with me. This experience is not just a meaningful skills training for gay people - it is an opportunity to teach, empower and share ourselves and our struggle more fully with friends, straight allies and family. It is an opportunity to bring new faces and perspectives into the fight for equality.

One by one we are building an army to repeal Prop 8. It is not easy, or fast, but it is absolutely critical to our success. The best way we change hearts and minds is having everyone supportive of equality speaking from their hearts.

We have to be vulnerable. It is wrenching to know that as a gay person that the best path to earning the right to get married some day is if I share my most painful moments of my life with strangers in order to win their vote. It shouldn't be that way, but that's what it takes and it is what I will continue to do. Will you join me?   Read More »

(Closing speech I delivered at Camp Courage Sacramento at 4:45PM today. Camp Courage Sacramento burst forth with warmth, embrace and power. What great folks!)

This past Monday morning, I found an envelope in my front yard. It was addressed to “Courage Campaign.”

A year ago, in the wake of Prop. 8, I was afraid to open some of those envelopes, not sure if they’d contain hate mail or something worse.

People on the other side were unhappy that we had called them to account for their lies during the campaign.

But this note was very different. Let me read it to you:

“Courage Campaign,
I just turned 3 and I told my friends that I didn’t want any presents. Instead, I asked them to make a contribution to you. My Dad tells me that you give a voice to those people that don’t have one and what you do changes the world. I hope that more of my friends contributed on line. Love, Libby.”   Read More »

A year ago I knew what went wrong and I knew how to fix it.

A year later, I don't know what went wrong. I don't know how to fix it.

We had the money. We had a stable campaign. We had the a robust well-oiled field campaign. We had a strong campaign manager. We had the turnout we wanted. We had great coordination between the netroots and the campaign. We had a not particularly religious state. We neutralized the church issue. We had a manageable voter universe. We had an opposition with an inferior media and field operation. We had TV ads with gay people in them. We responded to their attacks swiftly.

And we still lost.

Our campaign wasn't perfect. But it was damn good.

And that's why this loss is so hard. The lessons to be learned are not as obvious. Not knowing how to fix it makes it tempting to throw our hands up in the air and say at 0-31 we just can't win marriage rights at the ballot box. Or we have to wait a decade until we can.

But that would be letting them win. That would be giving up. That would be accepting inequality.

We can't. I won't.

We need to learn how to neutralize the schools issue better than we did this time. We must continue telling our stories, one by one, person by person, door by door.

Nate Silver as usual has some smart thoughts:

I certainly don't think the No on 1 campaign can be blamed; by every indication, they ran a tip-top operation whereas the Yes on 1 folks were amateurish. But this may not be an issue where the campaign itself matters very much; people have pretty strong feelings about the gay marriage issue and are not typically open to persuasion. There's going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don't know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more.

Persuading voters to change their minds about marriage equality is extremely difficult, but it is possible and it happens every single day. It just takes a lot of resources and is most effective on a one-to-one level.

That means we must continue to invest in grassroots organizing, training new leaders to work in their communities and supporting their efforts over time. We need to continue to build connections and relationships with faith communities. We can organize in churches. We can even organize in Mormon Temples and Catholic Churches. It has happened. It is happening.

There are lessons to be learned out of Maine and the No on 1 loss. We know that we can build a massive GOTV operation. We know how to build a model where a campaign invests in the netroots and reaps the rewards. The church issue can be neutralized. It's possible to set aside differences and focus on a common goal. We can build a campaign to be proud of as a community.

What we can do now is have experts in Maine politics analyze the results to understand better how we lost. We need talk to the No on 1 campaign leadership/consultants to get their advice like they did from our Prop 8 loss.

We can win marriage back in California. We will win marriage back in California. We can win marriage in Maine. We will win marriage in Maine.

I am not quitting. You better not be either.

This weekend I am picking myself back up and getting right back to work, training hundreds of activists in Sacramento how to organize at Camp Courage. They will and I will come in with heavy hearts, but leave empowered.

We will leave and fight the next fight together.

Note: this email was sent to our members this morning from Mike Bonin, one of the founders and now Program Director of Camp Courage.

Dear friend --

I never could have imagined it.

As a kid growing up scared and closeted in New England in the 1970's, I never could have imagined that the issue of gay marriage would ever be seriously debated, let alone hotly contested.

I never could have imagined a day when gay people would have been in television ads, when WWII veterans emotionally spoke out in favor of their gay children, when people of faith stood up for LGBT rights, when armies of people -- gay and straight alike -- would descend into a small New England state to say gay people should be equal.

I know that the news from Maine is depressing. But it is not the end. It is just another bump in a long road. Let's not forget how far we've come as a country, while recognizing how far we need to go to achieve full federal equality, fighting for it at every level: in the courts, at the ballot box and in Washington, DC.

Equality will be ours, but we will have to fight for it. And I can't imagine a better opportunity to learn the secret to our future success than Camp Courage -- an experience that graduates say is one of the most powerful and transformative events of their lives..

If you want to join more than 200 people who have signed up for Camp Courage Sacramento this weekend, you have less than 24 hours to do so. On Friday at 12 p.m., registration will close. Click here now to sign up:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CampSacramento

While marriage equality did not come to Maine, it will surely come to America, and when it does, events like Camp Courage will be where the seeds of equality were planted.

On Saturday morning, Camp Courage Sacramento will begin. Within minutes, the room will be buzzing with energy, as participants learn how to tell their "story of self" -- the foundation of changing the hearts and minds of our friends, family and neighbors.

By the end of Camp Courage on Sunday, lives will be changed, powerful friendships will be forged, and a community will be connected.

Time is running out. If you want to experience this transformative event, sign up now for Camp Courage Sacramento before it's too late:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CampSacramento

When I was a kid, I never could have imagined a day in America when full equality would be the law of the land. But one day, from sea to shining sea, that change will come.

Come to Camp Courage Sacramento this weekend and learn how to be that change.

Mike Bonin
Camp Courage Program Director

It stings, deeply, to have witnessed another close defeat for marriage equality. We fought a hard battle in Maine, and it is heartbreaking to have come so close and not won a victory.

And yet, we're not going to let this defeat discourage us. After the passage of Proposition 8, a new movement emerged to fight for and win full equality for LGBT Americans. That movement is a grassroots, bottom-up movement. The Courage Campaign has been empowering that movement ever since. That movement helped us fight to a near-victory in Maine. That movement appears to have fought to an actual victory in Washington State. And with your support, that movement will fight for victories in California and at the federal level.

The Courage Campaign is going to redouble its efforts to win. We're going to continue organizing on the ground. We're going to continue to do the research to learn from the experience in Maine and to learn how to win in California. And we're going to continue to fight for full equality at the federal level as well.

To do that, we need you to organize with us. Click here to make an investment in the movement for equality. Help us power the repeal. Help us win.

Below is the email Julia Rosen sent to our members today from Maine, where she had worked for the last week for equality.   Read More »