Every judge knows that you don't vacation with friends and accept their generosity while their case is pending before you. But that's just what Justice Antonin Scalia did with Dick Cheney, whose energy case is being heard by the Supreme Court this week. Though it's unlikely he'll do so, Justice Scalia still has time to do the right thing and recuse himself from this case. (Technically, he can do so up until the Court renders a decision.)
As legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers wrote recently in The Nation, Scalia's determination to stay on the case, "tells thousands of federal and state judges that it can be OK to vacation with friends who have cases before them and to accept the generosity of those friends while their cases are pending. "
The DC-based group Alliance for Justice, a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women's, children's and consumer advocacy organizations, has created an online animated movie, Quid Pro Quack, which shows the absurdity of Scalia's refusal to recuse himself. Click here to watch the movie. It's fun and informative. And click here to sign the AFJ's petition to urge Scalia to "Choose to Recuse."
In an unprecedented open letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair published in both the Guardian and Independent newspapers on Tuesday, April 27, (and reprinted below), fifty-two former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials criticized Blair's unflinching support for George Bush's handling of postwar Iraq and Ariel Sharon's "disengagement" plan in the Occupied Territories.
Arguing that the Bush/Blair foreign-policy is only increasing bloodshed and instability in the region, the letter makes a powerful case for a fundamental shift in approach. Isn't it time for a group of retired American diplomats to band together and speak out against the http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=000706 "> Bush Administration's policies which, as their British counterparts warn, "are doomed to failure?"
Doomed to Failure in the Middle East: A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair
Dear Prime Minister,
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.
The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.
Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.
This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.
The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the UN to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.
The military actions of the coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.
We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.
Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others.
In another illustration of the current administration's commitment to keeping the American people in the loop, the White House demanded that there be no recording or formal transcription of today's joint interview of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the 9/11 commission.
The members of the independent commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have accepted this ridiculous pretense because they know it is the only way to get the president and the vice president to aid efforts to understand and combat the threat of terrorism.
The lack of a recording or an official transcript will, legal scholars suggest, afford Bush and Cheney an opportunity to deny statements, question interpretations and challenge conclusions. "It gives them more maneuverability in case someone slips up or says something he regrets," explains New York University law Professor Stephen Gillers.
In other words, in the unlikely event that Bush or Cheney might let a snippet of truth slip out, the elaborate White House spin machine will be able to take advantage of the deliberately vague record to "clarify" the statement.
The absence of a taped record also allows the administration to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain why, when the commander-in-chief is asked questions, the vice president answers.
The reason for the tandem testimony by Bush and Cheney is, of course, all too obvious. Were the pair to testify apart from one another, their stories might well be different, as there is some doubt about the extent to which Bush was kept in the loop.
Despite the fact that the tandem testimony is necessary in order for Bush and Cheney to keep their stories straight, it is still awfully embarrassing. Does anyone really believe that the rest of the world has failed to notice that, when the leader of the most powerful country on the planet is asked to address paramount issues of national security, he must be accompanied by a minder?
The absurdity of the president and vice president demanding that there be no official record of their meeting with the commission would be the subject of a congressional outcry and a constant media battering of the administration if Bush and Cheney were members of another political party. Just imagine if Bill Clinton had asked that there be no official record of obviously troubling and politically damaging statements he made during the interviews and inquisitions of the Republican-sponsored "sexgate" investigations of the late 1990s. The screams of outrage would still be echoing today.
Of course, the issues being explored by the 9/11 commission are far more serious matters than those involved in the Clinton investigations, which argues even more strongly for a permanent and precise record of what is said.
But Bush and Cheney will get their pass from the commission, the Congress and a cheerleading media. The willingness of major media to go along with the charade is particularly galling, but not surprising in an era when the White House press corps tends to ask probing questions along the lines of "how high?" in response to presidential press secretary Scott McClellan's regular requests that they jump to the right.
As has so often been the case during this dark passage in the American journey, citizens seeking after an accurate report on the affairs of state will need to turn to "America's finest news source": The Onion.
The Onion's front page this week features a photo of Bush speaking as Cheney sips from a glass. The headline: "Cheney wows Sept. 11 commission by drinking glass of water while Bush speaks."
You don't have to live in a battleground state to join the battle for the White House in November. With an election that is almost certain to be decided by a whisker in a handful of swing states, those of us who live in places like New York--where the outcome on November 2nd is not in doubt--can too easily feel like spectators to the most important political contest of our lives. The candidates come here to fundraise and we can, and do, contribute, but what else can we do to have a direct impact on who becomes the next President?
One answer, at least in two states with lots of progressives eager to be put to work, is being provided by the USAction affiliates in New York and New Jersey. Together Citizen Action of New York and New Jersey Citizen Action are kicking off Volunteer2004.org, a project to organize volunteers in both states to collectively contact 500,000 voters in battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Missouri. Through a combination of door-to-door trips to neighboring states and phone banks throughout New York and New Jersey, volunteers can now turn their anger and angst into action.
As the polls constantly remind us, this will be a very close election. That means that every voter contact can make a difference. Florida, where the official gap between Bush and Gore was 537, wasn't even the closest election in 2000; the margin in New Mexico was 366. And in several other states, a few thousand votes separated winner from loser. Both sides are expecting the same tight races, largely in the same places, this year. Which is why we're seeing an unprecedented emphasis, at least in the forty years since TV came to dominate elections, on old-fashioned fieldwork, the kind that groups like USAction have long specialized in.
The battle will be fought on two fronts. All sides will be working to mobilize their voters, with unprecedented door-to-door, phone and mail operations. And the candidates will be fighting mightily to win the hearts of the small but crucial proportion of voters who remain undecided. The Volunteer2004 program is doing both, putting New York and New Jersey volunteers to work "mobilizing the mobilizables" and "persuading the persuadables."
USAction is a member of America Votes, the national coalition that includes NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO and many others, which is coordinating voter mobilization in the swing states. As such, the Volunteer2004 effort could provide grassroots progressives with an army of volunteer reinforcements for the battleground state effort.
It's easy to participate. Just click here to sign up in New York or New Jersey. You'll be given lots of opportunities to make calls, get on the bus and get out the vote. One hour of volunteer time will allow you to talk with as many as 35 voters in key states. And next time you read an article about the battleground states, you'll know that you've joined the battle to take back our nation from the extremist Right.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee started hearings today on John Negroponte's appointment to the Baghdad embassy, a post that he would assume on June 30, when sovereignty will supposedly be transferred to Iraqi authorities.
Negroponte's reputation as ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 earned him a reputation for supporting widespread human rights abuses and campaigns of terror. As ambassador he played a key role in coordinating US aid to the Contra death squads in Nicaragua and shoring up CIA-backed death squads in Honduras. (Click here for an audio segment of Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! for more on Negroponte's background.)
As the Council on Hemispheric Affairs noted in a comprehensive release on Negroponte's career, the career diplomat's nomination must be seen as profoundly troubling since the same nagging questions which were present during the summer of 2001, when Negroponte was nominated to be US ambassador to the UN, continue to persist. (Click here to read the full release.)
But though, as David Corn writes in the current issue of The Nation, Negroponte's confirmation hearing will provide senators a chance to probe Bush's plans in Iraq, if Negroponte's record, is not questioned, as seems likely, he will once again be able to escape his haunted past. Don't let your elected reps give Negroponte a free pass. Click here to tell them to vote against Negroponte's appointment. You can also usefully send them the Center for American Progress's ten questions Negroponte should be forced to answer before he's given the job of running Iraq.
In one of the biggest demonstrations in US history, more than one million protesters crowded the National Mall this afternoon to show support for reproductive rights and opposition to http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=000706 ">Bush Administration policies on women's health issues (things like making it virtually impossible for women to obtain the morning after pill, also known as emergency contraception, without a prescription).
Some 1,400 US groups endorsed and sent members to the event. And international contingents were strong as women joined the protest from nearly 60 countries, asserting that damage from Bush's policies is spreading far beyond US shores through measures such as the ban on federal money for family-planning groups that promote or perform abortions abroad.
Check out the up-to-the-minute reports below on today's historic show of support for reproductive freedom, click here to sign the Freedom of Choice Act petition, and click here to see how you can lend support to the abortion-rights movement.
Women's Rights Marchers Gather in DC by Elizabeth Wolfe,The Guardian, April 26, 2004
Massive Protest Decries Bush Policies by Deborah Zabarenko,Reuters, April 26, 2004
NPR's Weekend Editionlive from the march. Andrea Seabrook reporting.
Washington is less today than it was yesterday. Mary McGrory is dead.
She was the best liberal newspaper columnist of the latter 20th Century. Sorry, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Anthony Lewis, Jimmy Breslin and others. But--as any sentient political writer would agree--there's nothing wrong with being in Mary's shadow. Just being in the vicinity of her shadow would be an accomplishment.
For those unfortunates unfamiliar with her work, Mary was a columnist in Washington for fifty years, first for The Washington Star, then after the Star perished in 1981, for The Washington Post. Last year she suffered a stroke, and on Wednesday she died at the age of 85.
Mary was truly unique among newspaper columnists: she left her office to do her job. Most op-ed pundits sit at their desks, go to lunch, work the phone. But Mary married the gumption and discipline of a beat reporter with the style and insight of an opinion journalist. For nearly two decades, I would cross paths with her at committee hearings, press conferences, campaign events. An anthropologist of political Washington, Mary believed in doing field work. She wouldn't just pop in and out of an in-the-news hearing. She would be there for hours, sitting with the poor journalistic grunts who had to stick it out gavel-to-gavel. You never knew when you might find something interesting, she once told me.
Nothing slowed her down--particularly not age. I can recall one set of hearings that she attended while her leg was in a cast. She had trouble walking but she managed to maneuver herself through narrow rows and find a place at the front of press table. When the hearing was over, she hobbled up to dais to ask senators why their questions had not been more penetrating. (You will never see George Will doing this.) She was independent--in her thinking, in her journalism, in her life. At the 2000 presidential debate in Boston, I saw her afterward walking away from the John F. Kennedy Library in the dark by herself. She was trying to find a bus that was supposed to take her back to her hotel. But the scene was a bit chaotic, and she appeared unsure where to head. I was about to get on the subway and offered to help--to find the bus, escort her home on the subway, or locate a taxi. I practically insisted. She pushed me away, and, with a twinkle in her eye, said, in her straightforward but graceful manner, "Need I remind you that we're in Boston." Mary was Boston Irish, and her decades in Washington never changed that. She quickly turned and walked off into the night, certain that she would find her way.
Mary reported the hell out of her columns. She was not shy--no, not at all--about sharing her views. But she made her case with information, not assertion. (The Post has reprinted some of her columns here.) For many years, the Post published her columns not on the op-ed page but within the news pages, showcased in a box. That was a testament to the undeniable fact that Mary was more reporter than pontificator. But she was so irrepressible she could not avoid telling her readers what the facts meant. And she had the knack for finding that one hearing-room exchange, that one fact that fully captured a story or brought home a point, and often that entailed shining a bright light on the phony argument or hypocrisy of her target.
The obituaries make the obvious points: she was a pioneering newswoman who covered and explained the great events of her day; she was a Pulitzer winner; she was a passionate and vigorous liberal voice; she made Richard Nixon's enemies list and took that as a great honor; she didn't just write, she wove words together with flare and strength. But what I've read so far about Mary misses what might have been the basis for her success. She loved to listen. A conversation with Mary usually began with her asking, "Well, what do you think?" She was less eager to tell you what she thought. That's what the column was for. The first time I met her, in the early 1980s, I was writing a lot about nuclear arms control issues, as she had been, too. I introduced myself and immediately she began quizzing me on what I thought would happen next with one arms control matter after another--the nuclear weapons freeze, the MX missile, the Euromissiles. Her sources were certainly better than mine. I was flattered. And what an ego-boost: to be treated by Mary McGrory as a colleague. I wanted to know what she knew, believing I had less to offer than she did. But for Mary, there was always another piece of information, another point of view to collect. You never knew where you might find something interesting.
Perhaps because she preferred listening to talking you didn't see her on television performing in the cable-news circus. She wouldn't do it. Once, when I was hosting a radio show, I managed to coax her on as a guest. But that took much effort. She was wonderfully irascible on air, but quick to defer to the other guests.
I would occasionally send Mary an article that I had written--only bothering her when I thought (rightly or not) that I had concocted a point or uncovered a fact that deserved wider circulation. She was always gracious in acknowledging receipt. But more often I would read her column and see that she had beaten me to the punch. Or I would read her column and reach for a favorite phrase of my pal Jack Shafer: "I was going to think that."
With Mary gone, those who labor in her wake will have to work harder, think better, and write more stylishly. She set a standard that intimidates and inspires. Her voice--needed as much now as ever--will not be replaced. But if we're lucky, the echoes will continue to reverberate. She was the tops. Her column was missed this past year, and now anyone ever touched by Mary and her work will miss it forever.
DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research....[I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer....Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the official website: www.bushlies.com.
Looking for a savvy, sassy and strategic agenda to counter the rightwing and take America back from the most extremist http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=000706 "> Administration of our lifetime? Pick up a copy of Taking Back America--And Taking Down the Radical Right, a new collection of articles which I co-edited with Campaign for America's Future head http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bio.mhtml?id=63 "> Robert Borosage.
Featuring illuminating and inspiring contributions from Bill Moyers, Barbara Ehrenreich, Benjamin Barber, William Greider, Robert Reich, Danny Goldberg, Joel Rogers, Reps. Jesse L. Jackson and Jan Schakowsky and other leading scholars, thinkers and advocates, NationBooks' Taking Back America offers positive alternatives to the reactionary policies of the http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=000706 ">Bush Administration.
It's not hard for progressives (or any sane citizen, for that matter) to see that we're in the fight of our lives. George Bush's policies have ravaged our country. Since he took office, America has suffered a staggering decline, moving from prosperity to recession, from peace to war, from record budget surpluses to record deficits. This Administration's legacy is one of http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=030503 ">preemptive strikes; de-stabilizing tax cuts; the rollback of protection for workers; consumers and the environment; an assault on the rights of women and minorities; and a crony,capitalist corruption devoid of shame.
Progressives have no choice but to rouse themselves, to build the arguments, movements, and institutions needed to turn this country around. It is time to take back America--and build a country that is safer, healthier, better educated, more secure and committed to shared prosperity and opportunity for all. But we must work in smart and coordinated ways. And while many translate this into http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=00080602 "> electoral terms---and we must defeat Bush in 2004--it is also more than a matter of changing the occupants of the White House. The challenge requires a coherent critique of the conservative ideas that have dominated the past 25 years. It requires bold new vision and vast citizen mobilization to counter the entrenched and growing power of corporate lobbies and restore an America that lives up to its democratic promise. It is a journey not of a year but of a decade or more.
What is hopeful is that on fundamental questions, Bush and the Right are out of tune with the majority of Americans. In area after area, Americans prefer progressive alternatives to the failed policies of the conservative right---investment in health care and education over tax cuts, fair trade over free trade, corporate accountability over deregulation, environmental protection over laissez-faire oversight, defending http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=00040403 "> Social Security and Medicare over privatizing them, public schools over vouchers, raising the minimum wage over eliminating it. Moreover, civilizing causes like civil rights, reproductive choice and environmental protection are now mainstream values.
It is increasingly clear that Americans face challenges that will never be addressed by the rightwing extremists now in power. Taking Back America features thinkers, writers and strategists intent on laying out an agenda that makes sense for most Americans. It offers policies that are commensurate with the size of the challenge. But it is also filled with strategic insights and good ideas about how to build the capacity to reach out to citizens, to mobilize allies, to identify, recruit, train and support the next generation of leaders.
It is time, as Senator Paul Wellstone said in one of his last speeches, not to duck, not to hide, not to bite our tongues or bide our time. It is time to stand up, to speak out. We need to return to a politics of passion and principle that asserts our values, our ideas and our energy and develop the independent capacity to drive our causes into the political debate and electoral arena.
Click here for more information about Taking Back America.
And sign up for the Campaign for America's Future "Take Back America" conference and Awards Dinner to be held from June 2 to June 4th, in Washington DC. Our book arises largely from last year's extraordinary conference at which over 2,000 progressives gathered to share ideas and strategy. (Click here to watch online highlights.) This year, John Sweeney, Jesse Jackson, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Julian Bond, Gerald McEntee, Kim Gandy, Sen. Jon Corzine, Arianna Huffington and many others are all scheduled to speak. Click here for info and to register.
And, if you're going to be in New York City on May 14 and 15, check out " What We Stand For: Ideas and Values to Take Back America," a conference organized by the Nation Institute and the New Democracy Project featuring many contributors to the book--as well as Paul Krugman, Joe Trippi, Gary Hart, Kevin Phillips, Eliot Spitzer, David Cole, Lori Wallach, Ellen Chesler, Eli Pariser,and Anne-Marie Slaughter.
I'm also heading to Los Angeles this weekend--along with other Nation folk--to participate in the Los Angeles Times' annual Festival of Books. Friday night, I'll be at Santa Monica's Track 16 Gallery for what I anticipate will be a spirited conversation about the state of the nation and The Nation--with nationally syndicated columnist and Nation contributing editor Robert Scheer. Seating is limited.
As the inimitable Molly Ivins wrote in her syndicated column today, this Sunday's March for Women's Lives "is not just about choice on abortion but literally about life or death for women all over the globe."
More than thirty-one years after Roe v. Wade, the number of US abortion providers has fallen to its lowest level in three decades, a trend many physicians ascribe to a hostile political climate, the surge of hospital mergers and a lack of enthusiasm for teaching the procedure at most medical schools.
Furthermore, the promise of Roe has been severely compromised on the ground by the more than 335 new state laws restricting a woman's right to choose, which have been passed in the last eight years. As a result, eighty-seven percent of US counties currently have no safe abortion provider and twenty-four states have mandatory delays and state-prepared anti-choice propaganda.
It's hard to believe, as the Nation editors write in the mag's lead editorial in next week's issue, that during the last presidential election the conventional view held that both Bush and Gore were essentially posturing on abortion to fire up their respective bases. Roe v. Wade was untouchable, countless pundits assured us: Republican strategists would never really go after abortion. They feared awakening the sleeping pro-choice electoral giant.
Well the sleeping giant is waking up this weekend. This Sunday, April 25, some 1,300 progressive and feminist organizations will spearhead what's expected to be a massive March for Women's Lives in Washington, DC, drawing outraged women, men and children by the busload and carload from every corner of the country.
Click here for info on transportation, housing, volunteering and here for ideas on ways you can help promote and publicize the march in the next few days. Another great way to help is to make a donation to help defray costs. This march should not be missed.
It isn't sexy. In fact, it's not even something that most people even notice. But local government in thousands of counties, cities and towns--with more than 490,000 elected officials distributed across them--have primary responsibility for many of the issues most important to progressives: primary and secondary schools and community colleges, land use and planning, work-force development and job-skills training, water allocation, housing, childcare and child welfare, health services, and welfare, among many others.
Yet most people cannot name their city council or county board members. And progressives have not yet supplied these elected officials with message, policies and programs.
The American Legislative Issue Campaign Exchange (ALICE) is trying to change that. With a goal of identifying, supporting and assisting 10,000 progressive local elected officials, they seek immediate policy gains and passage of dozens, if not hundreds, of model local ordinances by the end of 2005.
With its website as the hub, ALICE is already supplying invaluable weekly updates to more than 7,400 elected officials and activists. Until now, the organization has been supported by Joel Rogers and the Center On Wisconsin Strategy (COWS). Last month, ALICE began looking for foundation money, with a fundraising appeal signed by representatives of more than two dozen national groups--from the Center for Policy Alternatives to Good Jobs First, the AFL-CIO to the Institute For Women's Policy Research (IWPR)--all of whom recognized the value of the effort, and the niche that it would fill.
Building ALICE is a natural part of building the progressive infrastructure. Along with their sheer weight in policy, which is only growing in this age of devolution, city council and county board members, not to mention mayors and county executives, are part of the "farm team" for future federal office. Get them early in their careers, show them the feasibility of a progressive program, and positive political change at the local, much less national, level can be made much easier to achieve.
Certainly the Right recognizes the importance of local politics. Just as it has organized state legislative leaders over the past generation through ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), it intends now to move down to local government. There, we hope, it will find ALICE--its younger, brighter, and decidedly more progressive younger sister.