NOTICE OF MANASSAS C ITY & MANASSAS PARK DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

Want to be a Delegate to the State Convention? CLICK

Democratic Call to Caucus

The 10th District Democratic Convention will be held at Heritage High School in Leesburg, VA from 10 am to 12 pm.

The Democratic Party of Virginia State Convention will be held on June 14, 2008 at the Hampton Roads Convention Center in Hampton, VA.

The Delegate Selection Process Simplified

We are in the Presidential Primary Election year moving towards the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 25-28th  and the National Election on November 4. But first we must select our Delegates who will represent the votes that were casted on February 12.  
The Delegate Selection Plan provides the methods for the selection of national delegates and alternates in each of five categories (District Level, Party Leader and Elected Officials, At-Large, Unpledged Add-on, and Unpledged Automatic), including guidelines, procedural safeguards and Affirmative Action requirements, which have been incorporated into the selection process. Please view it online.
I want to try to simplify this process for you. Please keep in mind that there are two kinds of delegates:  State Delegates, who are elected at the local caucuses, then go to the District Convention and Virginia State Convention. And there are National Delegates who are elected at either the District or State conventions to go to the Democratic National Convention.
The Virginia State Convention will be held on June 14th in Hampton, VA. But first we begin by holding County and City caucuses to select a total of 2,000 State Delegates and 1,000 alternates to the Congressional District and State Conventions.  These State Delegates and alternates are apportioned using the allocation formula described in the Delegate Selection Plan representing the votes in the February primary. You can see the number of State Delegates allocated for each Congressional District here.  Manassas and Manassas Park are in the 10th Congressional District.
Our Manassas City and Manassas Park caucus will be an unassembled caucus held on Saturday, April 19th beginning at 12:00 noon and ending at 2PM.   Ad/email announcement of the Caucus and how to obtain the delegate application form will go out by April 5-7 with the caucus location. Delegate applicants must return forms by 5 pm on April 14 and are encouraged to solicit voters to attend. At our City Caucus we will elect District and State Convention Delegates and Alternates to attend the May 17th and June 14th conventions. We will also hold early voting (in-person absentee) at a location on Thursday, April 17, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm.
Our City Delegate breakdown to send to the 10th Congressional District Convention is:
 Manassas City                  Manassas Park
  7 Total Delegates                      2 Total Delegates 
       3  Clinton                                      1 Clinton
       4  Obama                                      1  Obama
      
  3 Total Alternates                            1  Alternate
       1 Clinton                                        0 Clinton
       2  Obama                                       1  Obama
After all of the County and City caucuses are completed, the Congressional District Conventions are held. The 10th Congressional District Convention will be held on May 17th, 2008, 10AM to Noon.  That day a total of 54 National Convention Delegates and 11 Alternates will be chosen based on the apportionment formula described in the Delegate Selection Plan (see the chart on page 9 of the Delegate Selection Plan).  Note – apportionment relates to how many delegates a jurisdiction gets; allocation relates to how many delegates a candidate gets.

The breakdown for the Congressional Districts Delegates to send to the State and National conventions are:

Next comes the selection of additional National Convention Delegates at the State Convention in June by the state delegates including:  2 Unpledged Add-on Delegates, 11 Pledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEOs), and 18 At-Large Delegates and 3 At-Large Alternates.  In addition, the Virginia delegation will include 16 automatic Unpledged PLEOs (Superdelegates), including individuals such as the Governor, members of Congress, our DNC members and other DNC members who live in Virginia.
 The Virginia delegation to the National Convention will total 101 delegates and 14 alternates. They will travel to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver; some will cast their votes for the candidates they’ve pledged and others may wait to be persuaded. 

++++++++++++++++++

Come join in the fun at

Manassas City Democratic Committee

SPRING FORWARD

Meet Democratic Candidates and enjoy Happy Hour at FOSTER’S GRILL
Across from the train station

FIRST THURSDAY of EVERY MONTH
from 5:30PM to 8PM

Former Vice President Al Gore gave a speech about President Bush's recent admission that he's wiretapping American citizens without the warrants required by law. In the speech—which was sponsored by a coalition of progressive and conservative groups—Gore said it plainly: "What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compells the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and persistently."

Breaking the law to spy on American citizens is a very serious abuse of power, but many members of Congress think people will let it slide. So we're launching a petition today to make it clear that we expect action.  The petition asks the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor—like Patrick Fitzgerald—to find out the facts, and asks Congress to hold a real investigation into what happened.

Can you help us reach 250,000 signers before we deliver it at the Congressional hearings on Bush's wiretaps in early February?  Just go to:

http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw?id=6670-206125-9aMw4GAxigVz8hSQUAkcwg&t=2

We seldom send you speeches to read or watch, but this address is very important. It's powerful, inspiring, and "reality-based"—Gore cuts through the spin to explain why it is vital that we defend our system of checks and balances and the rule of law. At a time when politicians talk about balancing freedom and safety, Gore makes the case that open democracy and freedom are essential for security. You can watch, listen to, or read the speech here:

http://www.libertyspeeches.org

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are outraged. Even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a report indicating that the White House program "conflicts with existing law."3 Republican Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said he plans to look at the program closely at hearings in Congress next month. 4

Gore's speech is already making President Bush nervous. The White House is in a full-blown spin campaign trying to defend against it. They're in deep trouble on this—and they know it. As former Republican Congressman Bob Barr recently pointed out, the president had full Constitutional authority to legally spy on terrorists. We need to know why he chose to go around it.5

The more pressure we can add, the less Congress and the White House will be able to sweep this problem under the rug. Can you take a moment to sign our petition calling for a special prosecutor now?

http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw?id=6670-206125-9aMw4GAxigVz8hSQUAkcwg&t=3

No one disagrees that our government must be able to track terrorists.  But as Sandra Day O'Connor recently wrote, "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments . . . that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."6

Thanks for all you do,

–Eli, Nita, Wes, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
  Wednesday, January 18th, 2006

P.S. If you want some more information on this issue, here's a briefing on what the Bush administration has said—and what the truth is. As you can see, they're pretty far apart on this issue.

1. They have claimed this unauthorized wiretap on phone calls and email was legal because of Congressional resolution.8
   WRONG: Congress has passed no resolution allowing the president to ignore the 4th Amendment and spy on Americans.9 Moreover, Congress explicitly denied this right to the administration.10

2. Then they claimed that they did it because they needed to act swiftly.11
   WRONG: Current law allows immediate wiretaping, with up to three days after the tap to get the official court order. 12

3. They claimed that Congress was fully briefed and knowledgeable on the program.13
   WRONG: Only a handful of Congressional leaders were briefed on the program. Those who attended briefings were ordered to keep quiet about it.14 When Congressional leaders submitted concerns to Vice President Cheney's office about the program, there was no response. 15 Now, it also seems that the administration wasn't forthcoming on major parts of the program.16

4. They argued that the administrative overhead is too high.17
   WRONG: Too much 'paperwork' is not an excuse to break the laws of the land. If it did prove to be too difficult, the president could have sought to fix the law; after all, that's what the Patriot Act is all about.

5. They said that the spying program was narrow and limited.18
   WRONG: A New York Times article about the program reports that the data from the eavesdropping program was 'swamping investigators.' "The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans."19

6. The president said the person who leaked the spy program to the New York Times caused great harm to our security and now the Justice Department is involved in an investigation to discover their identity.20
   WRONG: Anyone who brings illegal and unconstitutional activity to light is just doing their job—upholding the laws of the land. Our nation has a rich history of protecting whistleblowers—they are heroes who keep our democracy strong.

7. The administration is now attacking the Clinton-Gore White House by saying they also engaged in warrantless searches of Aldrich Ames' home.
   WRONG: The Clinton White House never violated the law in its searches. Warrants were not required for physical searches at that time, and Clinton supported and signed legislation changing the law to require warrants.21

Sources:

1. "Bush: Secret wiretaps won't stop," CNN.com, December 20, 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/

2. "Official: Bush Authorized Spying Multiple Times," Associated Press, December 16, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

3. "Report Rebuts Bush on Spying," Washington Post, January 7, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1373

4. "Specter: Bush has no `Blank Check' to Spy," Chicago Tribune, January 16, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1384

5. The Situation Room, CNN, January 16, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1374

6. "Real Oversight on the War on Terrorism," San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1375

7. "Bush Vigorously Defends Domestic Spying," CBS News, December 19, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1376

8. "Bush Administration's Defense," New York Newsday, December 20, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1385

9. "ACLU Letter to Attorney General Gonzales Requesting the Appointment of Outside Special Counsel," ACLU, December 21, 2005
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23184leg20051221.html

10. "Daschle: Congress Denied Bush War Powers in US," Washington Post, December 23, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1377

11. "Bush Let U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts," New York Times, December 16, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1378

12. "Bush Officials Claim Spy Court Cumbersome," Baltimore Sun, December 20, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1386

13. "Cheney Roars Back on Spying, Torture, Iraq," ABC News, December 18, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1379&id=

14. "Surveillance Court Judge Quits in Protest," Seattle Times, December 21, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1380

15. "Letter shows senator raised concerns in '03," Chicago Tribune, December 20, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1387

16. "Bush Vigorously Defends Domestic Spying," CBS News, December 19, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1376

17. "Bush officials claim spy court cumbersome," Baltimore Sun, December 20, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1386

18. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, January 3, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1381

19. "Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends," New York Times, January 17, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1382

20. "Bush Says Leaker Caused Great Harm," MSNBC, January 1, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10673060/

21. "White House Lobs Accusations Back at Gore," Associated Press, January 17, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1383

Alito's Senate hearings begin today, and this week will likely make or break his nomination. We've produced a powerful new ad exposing the ways Alito has already attempted to hide his extreme views—and may do so again. Can you help us get this ad on the air during Alito's hearings? Click Here The Good News DeLay gone for good  This weekend, as the corruption scandal in the Republican Party continued to gain steam, Tom DeLay announced his permanent resignation as House Majority Leader.8 MoveOn members have made thousands of phone calls, staged hundreds of local events and delivered hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the removal of DeLay and his corrupt money from Congressional leadership.

The Truth about Alito

Dear MoveOn member,

This afternoon, the nation's attention will turn to the Senate hearings on Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court. The public reaction to these hearings will likely determine whether Alito is ultimately confirmed or rejected by the Senate.
 
We've produced a humorous TV ad that highlights Alito's strategy of hiding his extreme views on issues like privacy, Presidential power and corporate abuse from Congress and the Public. The ad shows Alito being prepped in the dressing room for his television debut, reviewing his various cover stories—stories he will likely repeat many times this week. 
 
We think the ad could really help reporters and the public zero in on Alito's deception and encourage senators to stand up for the truth.  We're aiming to raise $250,000 today so we can run it all week on CNN during their coverage of the hearing itself.
 
Can you pitch in? 

https://political.moveon.org/donate/alito.html?id=6620-206125-xFIn6hk1TZ7hWhgfT.DvqA&t=3

You check out the full script of the ad at the end of this note.

Americans count on the Supreme Court to serve as a check against abuses of power by the government or corporations. But Bush and his far-right base have the opposite vision. They want a Court that gives the President unchecked power (to tap our phones at will, for example) but renders Congress powerless to protect us from things like corporate polluters, discrimination, or unsafe conditions at work.

Samuel Alito's nomination is Bush's attempt to impose this radical ideology on the rest of us for decades to come. Here are just a few of the ways Alito's extreme views would threaten individual rights:

Privacy

• Alito advocated for complete government immunity for illegal wiretapping.1
• In a 2004 case, Alito tried to authorize the strip search of a mother and her 10 year old daughter, without a warrant and in their own home. He was overruled by his fellow judges.2
• Alito has written that one of the "legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly" is that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion""—flatly contradicting Roe v. Wade.3

Civil rights

• In 1974, Edward Garner, an unarmed 15-year-old African-American 8th grader, was shot dead in the back by the police in Memphis, TN while fleeing from a $10 robbery. Alito agreed with the shooting and when the law that had permitted it was ruled unconstitutional, he argued that the Reagan administration should join the appeal. Reagan rejected the advice.4
• After Knight Ridder newspapers reviewed all 311 of Alito's published decisions, they noted that he almost never sided with an employee in a case about discrimination on the basis of race, gender or disability. In many cases, Alito attempted to set a standard that would prevent most discrimination cases from even getting to trial.5 

Worker's rights

• Alito ruled that Congress did not have the authority to guarantee state workers the right to care for loved ones in medical emergencies—gutting the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court overturned his ruling.6
• Alito argued that Congress did not have the authority to regulate the sale and possession of machine guns—he was overruled by his fellow judges. The logic he used in his dissent would threaten Congress's ability to enact almost all worker protections, environmental protections, and civil rights laws.7

Since being nominated, Alito has repeatedly deceived Congress and the nation to hide his extreme views on privacy, civil rights, and his own lapses in judicial ethics. We must not let Alito or his handlers spin their way past the Senate and onto the high Court.

With your help, we'll be able to air our new ad during this make-or-break week, and continue to build opposition through local organizing in key states around the nation.

With Republicans in control of the Senate, this fight began as an uphill battle. But the more Bush's and Alito's agenda becomes clear, the harder it will be to push it through.

https://political.moveon.org/donate/alito.html?id=6620-206125-xFIn6hk1TZ7hWhgfT.DvqA&t=4

Thanks for all that you do,

–Ben, Justin, Joan, Rosalyn and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
  Monday, January 9th, 2006

P.S. Here's the script for the ad:

'He plays one on TV' depicts Alito sitting in a make-up chair while his spin doctor coaches him on how to hide his extreme views when he goes in front of the camera. Here's what she says:

Looking good. Now let's just tackle a few problem areas:

Yes, you wrote on a job application that a woman has no constitutional right to an abortion.  But your excuse is brilliant:  You only did it to get the job. 

You broke your promise not to rule on cases involving that company you invested with. Stick to your answer: computer glitch. 

Oh, and the group you belonged to that wanted to restrict African American admissions to your college. You've been saying, "I don't recall."  Love it.

The ad closes with the message: "Samuel Alito—he's no moderate, but he plays one on T.V."

You can learn more about the issues in the ad, and help us put it on the air, here:

https://political.moveon.org/donate/alito.html?id=6620-206125-xFIn6hk1TZ7hWhgfT.DvqA&t=5

P.P.S. The New York Time is running a great editorial today on Alito. We've included it below.

Judging Samuel Alito

Judicial nominations are not always motivated by ideology, but the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito certainly was. President Bush's previous choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, was hounded into withdrawing by the far right, primarily because she appeared to hold moderate views on a variety of legal issues. President Bush placated Ms. Miers's conservative critics by nominating Judge Alito, who has long been one of their favorites.

Judge Alito's confirmation hearings begin tomorrow. He may be able to use them to reassure the Senate that he will be respectful of rights that Americans cherish, but he has a lengthy and often troubling record he will have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power—a critical issue for the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one vote."

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge Alito's confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal—which it appears he might well do.

If President Bush had chosen a pragmatic, mainstream conservative like Justice O'Connor to fill the seat, these confirmation hearings would be a breeze. But now, the Senate has a duty to delve into the many areas in which Judge Alito's record suggests he is an extremist, including:

ABORTION Judge Alito has not only opposed Roe v. Wade, he has also worked to overturn it. When he applied for a promotion in the Reagan administration in 1985, he wrote that he was "particularly proud" of his legal arguments "that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In meetings with senators, Judge Alito has talked about his respect for Roe, but he has said nothing to discourage his supporters on the religious right who back him because they believe he will vote to overturn it. The American people have a right to know, unambiguously, where Judge Alito stands on Roe.

PRESIDENTIAL POWER
 The continuing domestic wiretapping scandal shows that the Bush administration has a dangerous view of its own powers, and the Supreme Court is the most important check on such excesses. But Judge Alito has some disturbing views about handing the president even more power. He has argued that courts interpreting statutes should consider the president's intent when he signed the law to be just as important as Congress's intent in writing and passing the law. It is a radical suggestion that indicates he has an imperial view of presidential power.

CONGRESSIONAL POWER
 While Judge Alito seems intent on expanding the president's power, he has called for sharply reducing the power of Congress. In United States v. Rybar, he wrote a now-infamous dissent arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing a law that banned machine guns. As a Reagan administration lawyer, he argued that Congress did not have the power to pass the Truth in Mileage Act to protect consumers from odometer fraud.

ONE PERSON ONE VOTE
 Judge Alito said in his 1985 application that he had become interested in constitutional law as a student partly because of his opposition to the Warren court's reapportionment rulings, which created the "one person one vote" standard. He seems to still have believed as a 35-year-old lawyer that these cases, which made legislative districts much more fair, came out the wrong way.

There are other areas—including civil rights, sex discrimination, the environment and criminal law—where Judge Alito's record appears extreme. The Senate should question him closely on all of them.

The Senate should also explore Judge Alito's honesty. According to a senator he met with, he tried to dismiss his statement about the Constitution's not protecting abortion as merely part of a job application, which suggests he will bend the truth when it suits his purposes. Judge Alito has said he does not recall being in an ultraconservative group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative action. That is odd, since he boasted of his membership in that same 1985 job application. The tortuous history of his promise to Congress to recuse himself in cases involving the Vanguard companies, which he ultimately failed to do, should also be explored.

Judge Alito's nomination is often presented as an abortion rights showdown, but it is much more than that. Those who care about the broad range of rights and liberties that Americans now have, and about honesty in government, should tune into the hearings starting tomorrow—and call their senators with their reactions to what they hear

Sources:

1. "Alito Urged Wiretap Immunity," Washington Post, December 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1318

2. "Alito's remark on strip search of girl, 10, prompts questions," Boston Globe, November 25, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1319

3. This quote is from Alito's 1985 job application to the Department of Justice. See the full text of the application here:
 http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/alito/111585stmnt2.html

4. "Shoot to Kill," Slate, December 2, 2005
http://www.slate.com/id/2131373/?nav=tap3

5. "Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative," Knight Ridder, December 1, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1320

6. Review of Judge Samuel Alito's Record in Worker Rights Cases
Prepared by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Dec. 14 2005
http://aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/upload/alito_review.pdf

7. "Alito Opinion in 1996 Gun Case Hints at Views on Federalism," Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1321

8. "GOP champion becomes party's pariah," Washington Post, January 8, 2006
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10755760/