PDA already sent out an email... (4.00 / 4)

Overnight asking members to contact Congresscritters to either strengthen Waxman-Markey or reject it outright if it hasn't improved. And if this reporting is true and no improvements will be allowed, then I'll start the drumbeats AGAINST it. I know the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good, but this "compromise" doesn't even look good. It's just a steaming pile of you-know-what that will do little or nothing to solve the climate crisis.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:22:31 AM CDT

Btw, here's PDA's action link... (0.00 / 0)

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/is...

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:23:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And another thing... (4.00 / 6)

I suggested this in another thread, but I figure I might as well repeat it here. Progressive LGBT activists are already mobilizing to shut down the infamous "GayTM", as we don't see reason to keep contributing to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi won't do anything to advance our civil rights. As the big "LGBT" DNC June 26 fundraiser is fast approaching, they're scrambling as they're losing donors and finally sensing our outrage.

Frankly, I think more progressives need to do this. Money talks, and Dem leaders obviously pay attention when we cut off their "mother's milk". Perhaps in addition to opposing the worthless shell that Waxman-Markey may become, we should publicly announce that we won't be donating to any of the "ConservaDems" that weakened it AND we won't be donating to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC until they scrap the crap and come up with a better climate bill.

Sound like a good idea?

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:40 AM CDT

Yes ... (0.00 / 0)

but the other side of that coin is ... they'll just go back to their corporate funders for more money .. so in this case .. it's probably better to kill this bill .. as it looks horrid

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:39:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hold on... (4.00 / 4)

I'm not saying don't kill the bill. Rather, I'm saying we shouldn't be funding people who are backing this bad bill. The party already takes money from corporate fat cats, so why should our money be used to fund their agenda? And if progressives stick together in ONLY supporting Progressive Dems and the infrastructure that backs them (like DFA & PDA) and withholding funds from ConservaDems and the infrastructure that backs them (like the DNC, DSCC, & DCCC), we WILL make an impact.

Unlike the GOP, a good amount of the Dems' money comes from people like us. They've come to appreciate ActBlue. They'll say nice things to us to get our money. Now it's our turn to tell them that our time and our money was given for a reason, and that we won't give any more if they don't fulfill their promises.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:56:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Time to play hardball (0.00 / 0)

It's time for the Progressive Block to play hardball. This means taking on the powerful corporate interests and really fighting for progressive ideals. We grassroots activists and bloggers can support progressive Congressmembers if they stand up and fight, but we can't do it very well if they won't.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:13:14 AM CDT

If the progressives actually start effectively blocking legislation like this (0.00 / 0)

won't the Republicans eventually wise up to this (as they did during the CT GE), and start voting for the moderate legislation?  I guess that might be some sort of improvement, as the 'bipartisan' legislation will actually be bipartisan, but it would probably ultimately be unsatisfying.

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:16:32 AM CDT

in this case (4.00 / 1)

it wouldn't surprise me if some Republicans did vote for it. But it's still worth a shot.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:25:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Define 'wise up' (0.00 / 0)

That means we just pushed the Republicans left. When they've voted for it, it's that much harder to demonise.

I'm OK with Republicans voting for ineffective reform. It's a start. Because when Republicans no longer oppose it, conservative Democrats can't justify opposing it either. Everybody just slides left. Which is exactly what we want.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 18:30:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

too bad we can't count on Obama (4.00 / 4)

to veto this thing. He would rather take credit for a bad bill that pretends to solve the problem than push Congress for a good bill that would start solving the problem.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:26:43 AM CDT

That's what should have happened with TARP (4.00 / 4)

Where the Republicans were doing the Lord's work by opposing giving $700 billion to the bankster with no transparency and no accountability, and Obama whipped for the bill. Then Harry Reid larded the Senate bill with goodies, and pass it did. Maybe if some progressives had drawn a line in the sand and gone with the Republicans (a) we would have gotten a bill that had more than Elizabeth Warren as COP, and (b) Obama could have been seen providing some leadership, instead of working the phones in some back room. Biggest point of political leverage over the banksters in decades and... Sigh.

Moral: "It's never too soon to do the right thing."

(The inverse to that moral, which seems to be playing out in health care, is "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:25 PM CDT

Blue Dogs (4.00 / 5)

The old phrase goes, know thine enemy.  So who are these Blue Dogs?

Well, first, the Blue Dogs don't represent affluent districts.  Over 3/4 represent districts with median household incomes below the national average of $41,994.  Only two Blue Dogs represent really affluent suburban districts, Patrick Murphy (PA-8, $59,207) and Melissa Bean (IL-8, $62,762).  Blue Dogs mostly don't represent really poor districts although a few do (Jim Costa, Sanford Bishop, Marion Berry, and Dan Boren all represent districts with median household income under $30,000).  Many of their constituents may have the mistaken notion that they are better off than they are and less dependent on federal largesse than they are.

Second, the Dogs are overwhelmongly non-hispanic whites representing "whiter" districts.  In a caucus with many black members only Georgia's Sanford Bishop and David Scott were on the Wikipedia list.  There were more Hispanics: Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez, Henry Cuellar, Dennis Cardoza, and John Salazar.

Third, Dogs are incredibly rural rather than urban or suburban.  I think this is the single most important characteristic.  Less than a quarter of the country's population is rural.  Close to 90% of the Dogs represent rural districta and one of the non-rurals is Leonard Boswell (a majority of his district is probably Des Moines and suburbs but it is close). I suspect that the Dogs prevent change bexause they represent a declining out of date world view that is subsidized into semi-affluence by the uraban/suburban majority.

Fourth, about half of the names on your ag committee list are Blue Dogs.

Fifth, Blue Dogs are less southern than I thought. Only 35% of Blue Dogs are southern.  PA with 5 of 12 Democrats being Dogs is a particularly bad spot.  Chris, what is going on?  

On a cultural basis, Patrick Murphy is a huge fish out of water.  I'd target him to either ditch the Dogs or get primaried.  He has huge statewide ambitions at the least and would seem to be susceptible to pressure. The attention that the Dogs get probably brought in Murphy, Bean, and Arcuri (who doesn't vote like a Dog).

The redistricting that will either dump Leonard Boswell or replacing him with a national Democrat is sincerely to be welcomed.  He drains money and does not represent his district.  Boswell is an old man who seems (on tape anyway) even older.  Good riddance.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:05:14 PM CDT

And that's... (4.00 / 1)

What makes their actions even MORE outrageous!

the Blue Dogs don't represent affluent districts

But somehow, they keep shilling for the big multinational corporations. Why? This is what we need to educate their constituents on. They're simply not being represented by their elected "representatives". We need to create a grassroots groundswell to demand that these Blue Dogs stop doing the dirty work of the US Chamber of Commerce and start representing their own people.


Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:23:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Boswell used to represent a rural district (0.00 / 0)

He moved to Des Moines because he didn't want to be in a fair-fight district with Latham.

As for PA, Murphy aside they're all from Appallachia (with the possible exception of Tim Holden, and that's a very conservative and rural district.) Carville's joke about Alabama in the middle still needs to be remembered.

That said, there's no excuse based on territory they represent. Even if they were beholden to constituents rather than corporations, Frank McCloskey lasted 12 years in a very red southern Indiana district, despite being a top GOP target, and was always a reliably liberal vote. It took the House Banking scandal and 1994 to bring him down, so liberal votes are obviously not a killer.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 18:39:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fix it in conference? (4.00 / 1)

Yeah, I know, fat chance. But I seem to remember the GOP always moving legislation far to the right in conference, then forcing it through. That way, committee chairmen and "moderates" could make all the noise they wanted, but wouldn't have the final say. The leadership had the final say, in particular the Bush White House.

I really wish the Dems would borrow some of these tactics. Of course, the GOP didn't really have to worry about filibusters, whereas the Dems have to deal with filibusters on every single bill.

It's all enough to make a guy depressed.

---

by: existenz @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:21:07 PM CDT

To my understanding (0.00 / 0)

Conference reconciliation bills are only filibursterable if they require new deficit spending.  Revenue neutral bills cannot be filibustered during the conference reconciliation vote, so that's a lot of wiggle room.  In particular, if we attach Obama's tax increase to progressive legislation, then we might have something we can sneak under a filibuster this way...

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:24:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep. How is it... (4.00 / 1)

That Bill Frist was almost always able to whip enough votes for a horridly radical right bill and somehow stop a Dem filibuster before it even started? Yes, yes, I know Dems are the "big tent party" with so many "free thinkers". But seriously, at some point we need to stop being proud of being disorganized and do something to change this. I'm not saying I want Dem mirror images of DeLay & Frist, but Pelosi & Reid really need to grow some spine and do a better job of whipping votes for progressive legislation.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:26:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This Is The Key Part, IMHO (4.00 / 1)

this group of progressives, which I call a Progressive Block (and yes, the "k" is intentional), needs to publicly draw clear lines in the sand long before draft legislation is introduced. Such public announcements allow the netroots and grassroots to help organize around the line in the sand. Otherwise, given the backroom nature of these dealings, there is no way for the progressive activist base to play any meaningful role in the legislative process, and all negotiation power is ceded to corproate lobbyists.

Right now, legislation is dominated by corporate special interests, much the same as it was under the Republicans.  The process you described in this post will indeed be the same on virtually every piece of legislation.  Forget what you read in the civics textbooks, this is the real legisltive process.  And what's needed is to construct a whole new legislative process.  What you've just described above is the basic outline of what's needed to construct transitional form of that process.  The end state of that process would see the entire culture of DC transformed, so that progressives routinely set the agenda,

Of course, we also need much improved, and routinely coordinated messaging in support of this strategy.  We need to be able to frame the essential purpose of the legislation in such a way that it become very easy to defend it against special interest attempts to undermine and subvert it.  And we need the infrastructure to be able to zero in on each such special interest attempt as it occurs, and beat the shit out of it.

But first we need to wake people up to the need to replace the existing de facto system of special interest control with a progressive alternative.  This is not something that will just happen by accident.  It's not something we will just stumble into.  It's something that needs to be planned quite deliberately.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:23:45 PM CDT

Can someone suggest (0.00 / 0)

 a good resource to get up to speed on this bill?

I must confess I don't know the details here very well.

---

by: fladem @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:41:49 PM CDT

Kate Sheppard at Grist (0.00 / 0)

is following it closely. She posted a detailed bullet-point overview not long ago, but of course much has changed since then. She may have an update.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:28:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The climate-change bill was in trouble from the get-go (4.00 / 2)

Look - this bill was in trouble from the moment that Senators decided they would not pass it through budget reconciliation.  At that point, we'd get either a crappy climate change bill or none at all.  We need to decide whether a crappy bill is better than no bill because that's all we're going to get this year.

The health care bill will be MUCH better because the Senate is willing to pass it through reconciliation. We have enough senators to lose a couple and still pass the bill, whereas we don't with the climate change bill.  We can't try and pass both bills through reconciliation because we lose different senators on each bill, especially with the climate change bill.  

My guess is that we should kill the bill outright and try and pass it through reconciliation next year.  It's never easy passing something big like this before a midterm election, but it may be the best we can do.

Also understand that if the progressives hold out against the climate change bill, there will be no bill passed at all. I think that's OK, but that's different from the health care bill where progressive pressure can move the bill to the left.

---

by: econlibVA @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:41:29 PM CDT

Fortunately, this report was too outrageous to be true (0.00 / 0)

no amendments will be allowed on the floor debate that will actually allow the bill to be strengthened

Chris posted this subsequently:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

There is no such thing as a free market.

---

by: Albanius @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 17:14:55 PM CDT