Posts tagged Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Coloradans are fed up with corruption and have chosen to fight back. Today, more than 100,000 signatures are being turned in to state officials from citizens who support a statewide ballot initiative. Initiative 82 calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and get corporate and wealthy donor money out of our elections.
Our elected officials are supposed to serve the voters, not the highest bidder. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, Super PACs and other independent groups have spent huge amounts, in some cases outspending individual campaigns by a ratio of 2-to-1. Citizens United-enabled outside group spending, much of it secret, is devoted overwhelmingly to negative attack ads. The funds come from a very small cluster of people; a recent report found that just 47 people, each giving at least $1 million to Super PACs, accounted for more than 57 percent of the money raised by Super PACs during this current election cycle.
Along with millions around the country, the people of Colorado are courageously reclaiming their elections and making sure that democracy is for people, not for corporations. State legislatures have called for an amendment in California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island and Maryland; more than 280 communities across the country have done the same. Public Citizen is proud to continue partnering with groups like Common Cause and U.S. PIRG, as well as the people of Colorado, as they push forward toward restoring our democracy.
In a recent phone call from Seth Brigham to Boulder Channel 1 news , he said that he had retained famed civil rights attorney, David Lane, and planned on suing the city of Boulder for arresting him again. Below is tonights email from Brigham and court documents for discovery. (In full disclosure David Lane is the personal attorney of Jann Scott and Boulder Channel 1 in matters of civil rights violations by the city of Boulder. Seth Brigham has been a columnist for Boulder Channel 1 and has produced videos for us)
MUNICIPAL Court, city of boulder,
state of Colorado
Court Address: 1777 – Sixth Street, Boulder, CO 80302
Court Phone: 303.441.1842
Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
by and on behalf of, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
Defendant: SETH RUBIN BRIGHAM
COURT USE ONLY
Attorney Name: Philip Bienvenu,
206 UCB, UMC 311
Boulder, CO 80309-0206
Attorney Reg. #: 10412
Attorney Phone: 303.492.6813
Attorney Fax: 303.735.5398
Attorney Email: email@example.com
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
Defendant in this case agreed to a Deferred Prosecution on 8-17-11. The following week, Defense Counsel informed the City Prosecutor that we wished to move forward with further discovery, in particular any contents of the case file maintained at the Boulder Police Department, whether or not those materials had yet been turned over to the City Prosecutor’s Office for its file. We are aware that such a separate file is routinely maintained in Municipal Court Criminal cases and the materials sometimes not turned over until the eve of trial. We were informed by the Prosecutor Ms. Michels that she considered the case files and materials no longer discoverable because the Deferred Prosecution is in effect. Defendant’s position is that the case has not been dismissed and is in fact subject to reopen on the Prosecution’s judgment call. There is nothing precluding continuing investigation and preparation for possible trial by either party to the case. We therefore maintain that discovery rights have not been waived or abandoned by the Defendant and should be honored as with any pending case not yet dismissed. The only way the Prosecution could cut off further discovery rights under the case would be full dismissal, which has not happened. Delaying discovery burdens and prejudices Defendant’s right to prepare for possible trial and to be ready should that eventuality become necessary. There can be no claim of prejudice or unfair burden on the Prosecution if this request is granted, because these are just rights the Defendant has in any pending criminal case, and concomitant duties of the Prosecution in any pending criminal case.
We therefore ask the Court to Order continuing discovery of all relevant materials in the case, including all material in the Police Department’s case file, including photos, interview tapes and/or notes, and all materials.
Philip Bienvenu #10412
Attorney for Defendant
Spoiler alert: Barring unforeseen circumstances, Elena Kagan will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even Fox News admits as much. Reporter Carl Cameron called her confirmation “likely”; Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace said she’ll “sail through”; Fox political analyst Charles Krauthammer called it “a shoo-in”; Fox reporter Shannon Bream predicted she’ll get GOP votes; and Fox senior analyst Brit Hume said there’s “nothing” that would merit a filibuster.
Part of the reason for her expected confirmation is that Kagan not only has bipartisan support and a “fantastic resume,” but the ammunition prepared against her in the weeks leading up to the hearings — see them debunked by Media Matters here — have fallen flat.
Still, that hasn’t stopped Republicans and their conservative media counterparts from pushing tired falsehoods and myths. But why fight a battle when even their cheerleaders at Fox think the outcome has been virtually decided?
As conservatives made clear months before the hearings, the opposition is based on politics rather than Kagan’s actual qualifications and opinions. In other words, the Kagan confirmation battle is just one piece of the larger battle for the Supreme Court. As Democrats hold confirmation power in the U.S. Senate, and nomination power in the White House, conservatives need to shift power in upcoming elections. And on point, conservative media figures have used the Kagan hearings to drum up old caricatures about Democrats and progressives on old base issues like god, guns, abortion and the military.
The most popular Kagan myth is that she banned military recruiters while dean at Harvard Law. In reality, Harvard students had access to military recruiters throughout her tenure, were allowed access to Harvard’s Office of Career Services, and military veterans at Harvard Law spoke out in favor of Kagan.
Those facts haven’t stopped Fox News, The Washington Times, the New York Post, and The Weekly Standard from pushing the “military ban” myth. The talking point also found prominence on the Sunday talk shows, where the hosts for CNN, Fox, and NBC failed to challenge Republican officials spouting the attack.
With his characteristic charm, botanist Michael Savage, who also hosts a radio show, called Kagan “an unqualified idiot” because she puts her “gay agenda” ahead of national security. Rush Limbaugh said Kagan “doesn’t like the U.S. military.” Laura Ingraham claimed Kagan believes “military recruiters are second-class citizens.” And radio host and Washington Times columnist Jeff Kuhner claimed Kagan’s action towards military recruiters “was an act of treason.”
Conservatives have also set their sights on a memo Kagan wrote in 1987, distorting it to claim that she’s anti-Second amendment. CNN’s Erick Erickson, last seen touting his wife’s shotgun and calling Justice David Souter a “goat fucking child molester,” said Kagan is “hostile to Second Amendment rights.” Michelle Malkin wrote that Kagan has “hostility to the 2nd Amendment.” And Limbaugh claimed Kagan “would have voted against the Second Amendment.”
In reality, Kagan’s Second Amendment views are within the mainstream, and Justice Antonin Scalia has agreed with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are “not unlimited.”
Conservative media have also ramped up claims that Kagan is hostile to religion. Late last week, Matt Drudge promoted an attack by Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, who attacked Kagan for turning “traditional Judaism on its head” because she supposedly wants to “homosexualize every segment of society.” Strong words made more understandable when one realizes that Rabbi Levin is a hateful bigot. Not only has he spent much of his adult life protesting gays and lesbians (even going so far as to protest the inclusion of gays in a Holocaust museum), Rabbi Levin has claimed gays are responsible for 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake in Haiti. Fun fact: they’re not!
Savage, the fourth most popular radio talker in the country, has provided a clearinghouse for personal attacks on Kagan. He called “Kagan the pagan” a “bagel and lox Jew” who “shuns her own religion.” He also said Kagan has “aesthetics” problems, “looks like she belongs in a kosher deli,” and “we understand that they gave her makeup, lipstick, and pearls to make her look like a woman.”
When it comes to abortion, Fox News host and recovering lawyer Megyn Kelly falsely claimed that Kagan advised President Clinton to “essentially” endorse a health exception that would have allowed women to “get an abortion in the third trimester” because of “a headache.” In reality, Kagan advocated for a middle position that would have banned late-term abortions with a narrowly drawn health exception.
Limbaugh took the baby-killer meme one step further by claiming that Kagan “may have a bigger problem with me eating an egg than with a woman killing her child.”
If the Kagan myths and smears sound familiar, it’s because they’re virtually the same caricatures used against Democrats for years. Barack Obama, you’ll remember, is the pro-baby killing candidate with questionable faith and a desire to replace the military and take your guns.
Of course, none of that has happened. The claims were rhetorical grandstanding for votes, money, and viewers — a playbook repeated during the Kagan hearings.
Fox News still failing econ
Earlier this week, America’s Newsroom, one of Fox News’ purported straight news programs, aired a chart claiming to show “job loss by quarter.” What the chart actually showed was the number of unemployed during four random quarters over the past two-and-a-half years — and Fox News’ lax research standards and accountability.
As Media Matters’ Jocie Fong noted, Fox News’ chart appears to have been deliberately manipulated to generate a less favorable trend line for the Obama administration. The chart used a straight red line to show that job loses have been on the rise since December 2007 to this month. But the chart distorted the scale of the horizontal and vertical axes and included only four data points, thereby omitting any information from the 15-month period between March 2009 and June 2010. Fox viewers came away with the false notion that the unemployment trend has been unchanged since the beginning of the recession.
On Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade — whose economic background includes charting the number of Swedish “pure genes” compared to those of Americans — said the chart shows the stimulus “doesn’t seem to be helping” (prominent economics not named Kilmeade disagree).
Fox & Friends also repeatedly attacked Obama’s recent town hall remarks on the stimulus by falsely referring to the stimulus as the “bailout” and claiming that it “didn’t work.” Fox News, and their colleagues in the conservative media, also falsely suggested that Vice President Joe Biden admitted the stimulus failed when he said, “There’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession”; and attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for stating that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and creates jobs (economists agree that extending unemployment insurance has a strong stimulative effect on GDP and employment during a recession).
As regular readers of Media Matters know, mistakes like this are fairly common for Fox News. In that vein, Media Matters sent its seventh letter to Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente to ask how the network would handle its recent on-air errors, such as the bogus “job loss” chart, in light of the network’s “zero tolerance” policy. Media Matters has sent Clemente six previous letters about such errors but has yet to receive a response.
Glenn Beck’s principles don’t apply to Glenn Beck
Back in early January 2009, as President Obama was preparing to enter the White House, Glenn Beck was readying his own (lower-stakes) move from CNN Headline News to Fox News. Promoing his forthcoming show, Beck claimed he was “tired of the politics of left and right” and decried conservatives who say things like “Oh, those donkeys trying to turn us into communist Russia.” He then yelled, “Stop!”
Beck’s proclamation was a tad hypocritical since he had a long, pre-Fox history of comparing progressives to Russian communists, Marxists and socialists. And in the first several weeks of his Fox News program, Beck continued the trend by similarly smearing Democrats and their policies.
Fast forward to today. As Media Matters’ Ben Dimiero noted, history professor Beck has spent significant time trying to rehabilitate the supposed unfairly tarnished legacy of Joseph McCarthy. Beck added that today, “Marxism is alive and well” and “thriving here in the United States.” In other words, as Beck might put it, “those donkeys [are] trying to turn us into communist Russia.”
Speaking of fear-mongering about “Marxism,” Beck also continued to attack President Obama’s family this week, stating: “[H]is dad leaves him for Marxism, his mom leaves him for Marxism.” Just weeks ago, Beck commented that “there is absolutely no excuse or reason to ever, ever, ever, ever even come close to the line of dragging somebody’s family into the debate.”
Glenn Beck’s principles simply don’t apply to Glenn Beck.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Eric Hananoki, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.
good morning: BOULDER news: Conservatives claim Kagan is an inexperienced, socialist, Marxist bad driver who hates the military and wants to steal your guns0
Media Matters: Conservatives claim Kagan is an inexperienced, socialist, Marxist bad driver who hates the military and wants to steal your guns
Well, that was predictable.
As we saw last year with the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, few events unleash a bigger torrent of conservative misinformation than when a Democratic president nominates someone to the Supreme Court. But there was a chance, albeit small, that this time might be different.
By all reasonable accounts, Elena Kagan does not fit the Marxist/socialist mold into which conservative media like to shoehorn all prominent figures to the left of Glenn Beck. (This is not to suggest that Sotomayor fit, either.) In fact, prior to — and in the days following — her nomination, numerous conservatives and legal scholars praised Kagan. Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried endorsed Kagan’s nomination, describing her as “supremely intelligent” and “an effective, powerful person.” Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada called Kagan a “rigorous lawyer” who “should be confirmed.” Even Fox News personalities joined the chorus of praise, with reporter Shannon Bream calling her a “brilliant individual” with a “fantastic resume.” Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said that Kagan’s credentials are “impeccable.”
Of course, it’s naïve to think the conservative noise machine would sit on its hands and not seize a good opportunity to rile up its base. After all, the conservative movement is fueled — both monetarily and electorally — by a cynical mix of outright misinformation and fearmongering about all things conservatives perceive as not conservative.
Prior to Kagan’s nomination, conservatives telegraphed their upcoming efforts to oppose any nominee, regardless of opinions or qualifications. Bill Kristol, who by this point is qualified to teach a master’s-level course in shameless dishonesty, said in April that while he “endorsed Elena Kagan,” Republicans “should oppose her anyway.” National Review Online said that the “question for conservatives will be not whether but how” to oppose the eventual nominee. Foreshadowing his future efforts to set the new land-speed record for lies about a Supreme Court nominee, Sean Hannity agreed that “it’s always good to have a fight over the courts.”
Additionally, as TPM reported earlier this week, conservative activist Curt Levey — whom the media should stop quoting — counseled the GOP on delaying the eventual confirmation to help block the president’s agenda. In a recording of a conference call between Levey and “Republican operatives,” Levey made it clear that conservatives shouldn’t be bound by pesky things like reality and honesty when opposing the eventual nominee. From TPM’s Brian Beutler:
Levey acknowledged that a filibuster likely won’t last–that Obama’s nominee, now known to be Solicitor General Elana Kagan, will almost certainly be confirmed. But he hammered home the point to Republicans that there’s value in mischaracterizing any nominee, and dragging the fight out as long as possible, whether or not Obama’s choice is particularly liberal.
“We wouldn’t have a lot to object to if it was [Interior Secretary Ken] Salazar. He’s quite moderate as Democrats come,” Levey admitted. “We’re not necessarily going to say that if he’s nominated, but I think that’s the truth.” Emphasis mine. This advice was met with laughter by one of the listeners on the call. (Salazar was cited in early reports as a long-shot candidate on Obama’s short list.)
So, conservatives made clear that their eventual opposition of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee would be motivated by political gain, with Levey suggesting that lying would be a good way to accomplish this goal.
And lie they did.
The two main themes that have dominated conservative attempts to derail Kagan’s confirmation have been that she lacks judicial experience and is “anti-military.” These are both rooted in blatant falsehoods, so let’s tackle them one at a time.
Immediately following Obama’s announcement of Kagan, Fox News, RedState, and several other conservative outlets rushed to brand her as “Obama’s Harriet Miers,” a comparison that conservatives themselves say doesn’t hold water.
The argument that Kagan’s lack of judicial experience should disqualify her is asinine for several reasons. First, it is far from unprecedented to have Supreme Court justices who’ve never served as judges. More than a third of justices had no prior judicial experience when they were first nominated to the court, including two of the past four chief justices and seven of the nine justices who decided Brown v. Board of Education.
In fact, Kagan’s legal experience is comparable to that of William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts at the time of their nominations.
But experience doesn’t matter if you hate the military, right? Kristol helped to get the ball rolling on this front, claiming on Monday that Kagan has a “hostility to the U.S. military” and urging conservatives to fight her confirmation. This may strike you as strange considering Kristol had previously “endorsed” Kagan — then again, if you are at all familiar with Kristol’s “work,” you’ll realize this probably doesn’t even rank in the top 100 most absurdly dishonest things he’s ever done.
The “anti-military” attacks on Kagan have hinged on the claim that she kicked military recruiters off campus at Harvard. First of all, most people who are “anti-military” don’t usually describe serving in the military as the “noblest of all professions.” But more substantively, Kagan did not actually kick military recruiters off campus at Harvard. Conservatives (looking at you, Sean) are having a hard time grasping this simple fact. Again, Elena Kagan did not “throw,” “kick,” “boot,” “ban,” or “bar” military recruiters from Harvard’s campus while she was dean of Harvard Law School. Harvard Law students still had access to military recruiters during her tenure. In fact, military recruitment at Harvard Law was not even diminished during Kagan’s tenure.
So, there go those talking points — but of course those weren’t the only smears conservatives tried to lob at Kagan. As Media Matters president Eric Burns said on MSNBC this week, “conservatives have nothing” so “they’re throwing everything at the wall.”
Indeed, we haven’t even covered some of the more ridiculous smears. Let’s take a quick tour of some of the inane things conservative media figures and outlets threw at the wall this week.
Walking embarrassment/Human Events editor Jason Mattera led the race to the bottom with an attack on Kagan’s looks. Mattera said that Kagan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Sotomayor all “look like linebackers for the New York JETS.” Responding to a caller who referred to Kagan as a “horrendous creature,” radio host Michael Savage said that “although I find it personally grotesque, there are many who find it attractive. … Let’s talk about her radical, Marxist policies.”
Numerous conservative media figures seized on Kagan’s college thesis to claim, as Rush Limbaugh put it, that “it is clear this babe is hot for socialism.” Conservatives have run with this ridiculous claim despite the fact that the thesis did not express support for either socialism or radicalism.
Limbaugh and Beck claimed Kagan wants to censor right-wing speech. This is literally the opposite of true. In the article they cite, Kagan stated that the government “may not restrict” speech “because it disagrees with … the ideas espoused by the speaker.”
Taking a break from looking for Obama’s birth certificate and Noah’s Ark, WorldNetDaily.com distorted Kagan’s record to fabricate the smear that Kagan essentially supported terrorism sponsors.
Byron York, with an assist from Fox News, forwarded a decade-old smear against Kagan that even NRO judicial attack dog Ed Whelan called “highly speculative.”
Speaking of Whelan, he spent most of the week making things up, and actually hit Kagan for being a bad driver.
And it wouldn’t be a Supreme Court confirmation “debate” if conservatives didn’t tell their base the evil liberal judge wants to steal their guns. So they went ahead and lied about that, too.
So, just to recap: According to the unhinged right, Elena Kagan is an inexperienced, socialist, Marxist, anti-military, free-speech-censoring bad driver who supports terrorism and wants to steal your guns.
Not only are the smears the same — always — but we were also reminded that some other things never change. Namely, Bill O’Reilly has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
Oh, and Pat Buchanan still has a problem with “Jews.”
This week, when the President first told me he’d chosen Elena Kagan to serve on the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but smile. I had a chance to interview many great candidates, but Elena stood out. I met her nearly 20 years ago, when she took a break from teaching to join my staff in the Senate. She helped us confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even then, it wasn’t hard to picture a day when we’d be helping Elena prepare for confirmation hearings of her own.
Since that time, I’ve followed her career, and today, I believe Elena Kagan is an inspired choice for the Supreme Court.
Throughout her career, she’s been a trailblazer, breaking glass ceilings in both academia and government. She’s been a consensus-builder, earning praise for her work with Republicans in trhe Clinton White House and her support for the free exchange of ideas as the dean of Harvard Law. She’s flat-out brilliant, easily one of the best legal minds I’ve ever met. But most importantly, she’s also someone who understands that the application of the law holds real consequences for Americans in all walks of life.
Now her nomination goes to the Senate. I’ve been through this process more than once, and I’ve learned that the success of any nomination is strongly influenced by the public response in the first few days.
Will you stand with the President and me to support Elena Kagan? Sign on to help us show that the American people back her nomination.
As a young attorney, Elena clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. She often calls him her hero. Now, she’s following in his footsteps as the Solicitor General of the United States, the chief legal advocate for our government. If Justice Marshall were with us today, I’m sure he’d be proud of the clerk he used to call “Shorty.”
To see why, look no further than her role in the Citizens United case. It was a legal battle that most experts agreed would be impossible for the government to win. But as Solicitor General, Elena chose this as her first case. She recognized that rolling back bipartisan election law would allow special interests to dominate campaigns across the country and drown out the voice of the American people. Though she knew she’d probably lose, she chose to make it her fight all the same. That’s character.
That kind of decision defines Elena’s career. With her resume, she’s had no shortage of lucrative opportunities. But her parents were both public servants — her mother a school teacher and her father a housing lawyer who fought for tenants’ rights — and she has always followed their example. Like her dad, she’s used her legal knowledge to serve others, and like her mom, she’s been an educator, working to pass her knowledge on to another generation. Now, it’s time to bring that heartfelt, principled commitment to the Supreme Court.
In these crucial early days, help us show that public support for this extraordinary nominee is overwhelming:
Vice President Joe Biden
Today, it is my great honor to nominate our Solicitor General, and my friend, Elena Kagan, to be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.
As I send my nomination to the Senate, I wanted to record a special message for you that I hope will help us launch a national discussion.
Elena is widely regarded as one of the best legal minds of her generation — earning praise from across the ideological spectrum throughout her career. Above all, she is a trailblazer. She wasn’t just the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School — she was one of its most beloved and successful leaders, building a reputation for openness to other viewpoints and skill in working with others to build consensus. These were some of the many reasons why I selected her to be my Solicitor General, the nation’s chief advocate — the first woman to hold that post as well.
Her work as Solicitor General has allowed me to see firsthand just why Elena is particularly well-suited to the Court: She has not only a keen understanding of the law, but also one that is rooted in a deep awareness of its impact on people’s lives. Last year, she made that clear — choosing the Citizens United case as her first to argue before the Supreme Court, defending bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.
Now, I look forward to the prospect of Elena taking her seat alongside Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor. For the first time, our nation’s highest court would include three women, ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.
When Justice Stevens wrote me to announce his retirement, I knew that the Court would be losing a standard bearer. And I felt a responsibility to nominate an individual capable of being that same guiding force, a consistent voice of reason on the Court.
I am certain I have made the right choice. As you learn more about Elena, I am confident you’ll see what I do — that she is a voice we need on the Supreme Court.
Please watch the message — and share it with others:
President Barack Obama
If you didn’t catch Monday’s strategy session, here are the video highlights and an in-depth look at what you missed:
First, we’re going to continue to support the President on critical issues. Success in the 2010 election depends upon highlighting the choice voters have in front of them, so we’ll be working hard to build support for Wall Street reform, a clean-energy economy, immigration reform, the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice, and other key priorities.
A key piece of this is to continue to tell the story of President Obama’s leadership and what we’ve already accomplished together. On health insurance reform, 3 million of you took action to voice your support for a law that reduces costs, increases access, and puts an end to some of the worst insurance company abuses. While there’s still a long way to go on the economy, we’re on the path to recovery. With your support, we passed the Recovery Act, which has created or saved more than 2 million jobs, and the President continues to fight to create jobs, protect consumers, and hold Wall Street accountable.
Second, we’re going to work to elect candidates who support the President’s agenda — and we’ve got a plan to do it. After months of feedback from volunteers on the ground and nearly 1,000 local strategy sessions held across the country, your top priority for 2010 was crystal clear: getting out the 15 million voters who cast a ballot for the first time in 2008. These voters put President Obama over the top then, and they’re going to make the difference again in close races across the country in November.
The best way to get a 2008 first-time voter to vote in 2010? Have a person like you reach out to them and share why you support the President and your local and statewide candidates who support his agenda. Just like we did in 2008, we’re going to put a premium on people talking to people — in their communities, at their doors, on the phones, and online.
As the President noted when he announced our 2010 electoral strategy last week, this year the stakes are even higher. Since he was inaugurated, President Obama has put us on the right path on many critical issues. But we need to help elect candidates who will stand up to the lobbyists and the special interests who are fighting to block and reverse the President’s agenda. By turning out 2008 first-time voters, together we can keep our nation moving forward, keep working to fix Washington, keep growing our economy, and keep building a fairer, stronger, and more just America.
Third, we’re going to continue to build organizationally. In 2008 we had one of the strongest organizations in the history of American politics. Remarkably, in many ways, our organization is even stronger now — as volunteers have stepped up to take on even more responsibility with the support of our experienced, nationwide staff. And we’re poised to grow: Organizing for America supporters have pledged more than 10 million volunteer hours to candidates who fought for health reform. We’re going to hold you to that.
Our 2010 organization-building starts with house meetings in neighborhoods across the country in May, where you and other volunteers will devise a customized program that focuses on turning out 2008 first-time voters in your community. Then, on the weekend of June 5th, we’ll be canvassing door-to-door and kicking off our 2010 grassroots campaign.
Watch the highlights — then help us spread the word about the plan for 2010.
For our opponents, the path to victory relies on historical patterns that show the President’s party will have trouble turning out supporters in midterm elections. But, with your help, we can once again defy the cynics and the pundits, turn out 2008 first-time voters, and keep our country on the right path.
Organizing for America