Continuing the conversation: next organizing call Tuesday, 2 p.m. Pacific/5 Eastern

Dialin information and a draft agenda is at http://bit.ly/oct27call, which is also where we’ll have the online chat during the call.

Candidate goals:

  1. Agree on short-term goals, priorities, strategy
  2. Plans, owners, and next steps for Twitter, OFA, Care2, Facebook, blogospheres (tech/new media/libertarians./progressives/moms)
  3. Social network activism recommendations for civil liberties organizations and bloggers

If you’ve got a few minutes between now and then, please have a look at Jessica Pieklo’s Justice not dead yet, Harry Waisbren’s Next steps and open questions, and my Social network activism and the Patriot Act (DRAFT).

And let’s use this thread for some pre-meeting brainstorming and discussion about various topics.

For example:

  • Who are the right politicians to target?  I’ve got some thoughts from a Twitter-centric perspective in the first comment
  • What’s the best timing for an open letter/media release from Get FISA Right?
  • What kinds of techniques could work better on Facebook and MySpace?

Or anything else that leaps to mind!

jon

About these ads

6 Responses to Continuing the conversation: next organizing call Tuesday, 2 p.m. Pacific/5 Eastern

  1. jonpincus says:

    From the list of House Judiciary Committee members on Twitter Harry put together, it seems to me like @RepTammyBaldwin, @BradSherman, @PedroPierliusi and maybe @MaxineWaters are best choices to target on Twitter. [@RepHankJohnson and @RepJacksonLee are co-sponsors already; we should thank them]

    A couple of possibilities in the broader House … @JaneHarman of Intelligence will be a key. She’s a co-sponsor of 3845 (Patriot Act) but not 3846 (FISA), and is facing a primary challenge from @MarcyWinograd who’s also active on Twitter. This seems like an ideal situation.

    And how about Jason Chaffetz, aka @jasoninthehouse? As a freshman Republican congressman, he’s already sponosored a successful amendment cutting funding for virtual strip searches in airports. It’d be great to have a Republican co-sponsor … can’t hurt to ask :-)

    Thoughts on these, or other ideas?

    jon

  2. emptywheel says:

    Some more comments on targeting, using the logic that we need to prevent five Dems from voting with the Republicans to gut any measure in the bill. The following people are probably good people to focus on (if Wexler remains on the committee, I don’t see him being a big problem, and most of the CBC folks aren’t going to be either, with Scott and Conyers sponsoring this).

    Berman–he pushed PATRIOT in good ways in 2005, and given his seniority on the committee it’d be worth having him as a co-sponsor.

    Wasserman-Schultz–DWS is, IMO, one of the two people on the committee on who could exercise leadership in spiking this bill in Committee, bc she’s in caucus leadership. She can be pretty conservative and might be happy to do DiFi’s (or John Brennan’s) dirty work for her.

    Adam Schiff–Schiff is the OTHER most likely lead on the committee to make this bill worse. He’s a former prosecutor AND on HPSCI and he likes to pitch himself as a national security hawk (he likes to push intelligent nat sec approaches, but it appears conventional wisdom among Dems at the moment is the 4th Amendment is not compatible with “intelligent” nat sec approaches).

    One more thing. It’s never too early, IMO, to think about how to neutralize Jane Harman on this issue, bc she will undoubtedly be the face that makes gutting this okay (and the data mining PATRIOT has come to authorize is falling more and more in the portfolio of Harman’s Homeland Security/Intelligence realm). There are two approaches that might work (sort of). First, if we can make this an issue for Marcy Winograd, who is challenging Harman again, it might reel Harman in somewhat. And if we can get Bennie Thompson to support this bill. Thompson took the lead on pushing back against Chertoff’s satellite surveillance program, after which Harman swooped in and finalized a deal on such with the Obama Administration.

  3. harrywaisbren says:

    I see a parallel between Jane Harman and Arlen Specter that we could use to our advantage in terms of their primary challenges. We can leverage that threat of defeat to push them to do the right things, all while explicitly making sure they know that they will benefit if they do right on the issues important to us.

    However, I think we must think much more about our media strategy via Twitter and discern a concrete “ask” from media members while providing a hook for the story. Once again, with the health care battle ongoing it will be difficult to break through, but there is much work to fill in the details from the more general narrative for the Patriot Act of “democrat vs democrat” and those helping vs hurting efforts to take down the imperial presidency.

  4. jonpincus says:

    I agree about the importance of a story hook and a concrete ask. It seems to me that an open letter, set in the context of a broader social network campaign and what we discussed at http://get-fisa-right.wetpaint.com/page/Narrative+in+progress, is probably our best bet at this point.

    jon

  5. RECox says:

    Probably something for future discussion:

    Has anybody here hooked into the Public Interest Declassification Board? It proclaims itself to be “an advisory committee established by Congress in order to promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant U.S. national security decisions and activities.”

    At their site, http://www.archives.gov/declassification/pidb/, there is much ado about this presidentially appointed board “representing the public’s interest”. It has been meeting since 2006, has held several sessions to hear out representatives of a number of groups, and provided at least one “Report to the President” on “Improving Declassification.” If the PIDB hasn’t been looked at by this GetFISAright group, it may be worth some study. If it has, I’d appreciate having a link to our conclusions. Thanks.

  6. jonpincus says:

    Thanks for the suggestion! We haven’t looked at PIDB; it certainly could be worth considering going forward.

    jon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 573 other followers