| 1. Outreach is not the same as support. If Kendrick Meek, a conservative Democrat running in Florida, wants to take his time to come all the way up to Pittsburgh, what would happen? Well, he would get an earful from people he meets there in terms of his more moderate positions. This is useful, particularly when he's courting support. He would be put in situations in which he may make pledges, the way we are pressuring members of the House and Senate to make pledges on the war. I can see Mike Stark cornering Kendrick Meek and asking him about his support on any number of bills. To have that on hand is useful, as well.
The argument that meeting with Kendrick Meek is a waste of time, or that people are going to get brainwashed, doesn't convince me. How I want to spend my time is up to me, and if I can get Meek on video and tell him that thousands of people who read my blog are pissed at him for doing x, that is a good thing. As for whether I'll be brainwashed or swept off my feet, well, knowing some of the folks who were asked to meet with Meek, I don't think that's giving them enough credit. I get invited to conference call after conference call from various candidates or causes wanting me to write positively about them. I think I'm smart enough to not be swept off my meet by all of them, and if I am, I know I'll be called out for it. The same goes for my peers.
2. Prime opportunity for pressure. It is true that Joe Sestak is not a diehard progressive. But I think that's more immaterial here. The objective is to put pressure on Specter in this critical period. As Nate Silver demonstrated, he's vulnerable to such pressure. I have no doubt in my mind that if Specter had not received a primary challenge, he would be on our list of targets to support a public option under reconciliation. I also have no doubt that the first two years of Obama's term will be the biggest opportunity in all eight to get major things done, and now is the period, if ever, to make sure Specter votes with us under threat of getting his ass kicked. It also pushes Sestak to do things like support a public option while he's running.
So what, the argument goes, Specter or Sestak gets elected, and both vote with Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu for the next six years. Maybe. But since I haven't seen any alternative candidates step up, Sestak is fairly to the left of Specter ideologically, and he also owes us more. This is how constituency politics is done- get the politicians to make promises to you, and remind them of their promises for the next six years, and threaten and scare the living hell out of them if they consider screwing you. In this vein, I see Sestak as more likely to be with us when we remind and threaten and cajole him for the next six years than Arlen Specter. But the main goal here, in my view, is to get these guys to be with us during this critical period. Primaries one of the few proven places where progressives can make a difference in future voting behavior, as well as gain relationships to influence that future behavior and future re-election. Ergo, the usefulness of Kendrick Meek coming to Netroots Nation and meeting netroots activists.
3. We shouldn't primary everyone. Some would respond to #2 by saying, okay, under that argument, we should be primarying every conservative Democrat with just anyone, as long as he or she is to the left of the target. That's not what I'm saying. If it were Jim Cooper instead of Joe Sestak who represented that district, should folks throw support behind Cooper against Specter? No, because there isn't significant ideological distance, and because Cooper regularly screws and undercuts progressives and progressive messaging in the media. It would not be a worthwhile expenditure of resources. Joe Sestak is far from Jim Cooper on this scale, and would be more of an ally who will listen to those who help him.
4. Let them sing progressive praises. Regarding whether it's worthwhile for SenateGuru to do interviews with, and thus give a "platform" to candidates (with Jack Conway/DINO Dan Mongiardo in Kentucky here, and Lee Fisher/Jennifer Brunner in Ohio here), I see it, again, as useful. The more we get these candidates on record in support of things we like, and in general the more interaction, all the better. Mongiardo is particularly horrible, but he deserves to make a case, and be judged on its merits. I would give the same to Jim Cooper or anyone else who thinks they deserve netroots support. It's up to us to do our homework and decide for ourselves whether they are or not, and read the advice of others. For example, SenateGuru is advising us by ridiculing how the Arkansas State Senate President Bob Johnson is considering a primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln, saying he would "run as a conservative Democrat against her." So it's possible to let Johnson try and appeal to the progressive netroots, and at the same time, demonstrate why it would be a poor expenditure of resources to support him. In other words, giving a platform does not equal advocacy.
In the meantime, let them- Meek, Specter, Sestak, everyone- sing their praises of their progressive positions, and of the netroots, for the world to read. Let them advocate the Employee Free Choice Act, a health care public option, net neutrality. That can only help us. And where strategically useful, support those who are deserving of it. |
