Leverage (0.00 / 0)

I think you make a particularly important point here:

We ought to think through the massive betrayal that we're experiencing, not as a loss, but as an opportunity to learn how to deal with leverage

The net roots have come very far very fast. We nearly put our candidate in the white house in 04. We killed Lieberman in the primaries in 06, and almost got Lamont elected.

But I think we haven't come far enough to really wield pressure. I think candidates still do not see us as a unfied front. They see us as a bunch of people on the internet.

I think we need to think carefully about the next step. I want to retaliate and show our power, but I don't want to fall into the Rove-ian trap of splitting the base.

I still think going after the authors of these bills is are best bet. It will give us two targeted symbolic candidates to take down, and then we get progressive-netroot candiates into their places.

I think this will gain us some leverage.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:04:04 AM UTC

Who are the authors? (0.00 / 0)

If they're Republicans in deep-red districts than going after them is a futile waste of money which will result in the other side laughing at us.  Imagine if we could provoke the Christian Right to spend all of its resources going after, say, Ted Kennedy. 

---

by: Cat Servant @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:08:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We should ask them (0.00 / 0)

Surely each of them knows that they got money from Moveon, so I'm assuming that each of them went through some type of political calculation and decided that it made more sense to vote against a hand that feeds them than it did to vote to support that hand.  I'm assuming also that each of them knew that some people would not be happy with their vote, but obviously each of them thought that they would be gaining something that was more important.  I think it would be useful to know what each of their calculations were.  What did they think they were gaining?  Why did they think that it was more important to vote for some right-wing noise? I think it would be great if people from each of their districts tried to find out.  And if their rationales were made public.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:36:55 AM UTC

I think they forgot MoveOn members donated to them (4.00 / 4)

When I donate next year, I will attach to my check a note that says, "This check is from a MoveOn.org member.  Make sure you are ready to respond to Republican attacks before cashing this check.  Remember you voted to censure MoveOn.org for an ad, but you would not censure or impeach George Bush for lying this nation into a war."

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:50:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: I think they forgot ... (4.00 / 2)

The calculation is obvious: that we "have no where else to go."  If you give them money after this (and by "this" I mean all the travesties of the last 8+ months, not just the MoveOn fiasco), you are validating that calculation. 

---

by: JTL @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:09:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

we have plenty of places to go (0.00 / 0)

I am particularly excited to see all of the primary challenges that OpenLeft and others are promoting.

---

by: sdedeo @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 05:36:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whatever happened to... (0.00 / 0)

Steve Rosenthal and "the Left's Club for Growth," that coalition of labor, trial lawyers and liberal groups otherwise known as They Work For Us? Their webpage www.workingforuspac.org hasn't changed since the spring.

---

by: johnalive @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:44:24 AM UTC

They got smacked down, hard. (0.00 / 0)

They announced early that they were going to primary three people: Al Wynn, Ellen Tauscher, and I forget the third.  Ellen Tauscher and the Dem establishment in general smacked them down hard, and you haven't heard a peep about it since.

It was published somewhere that Tauscher went to Pelosi, and Pelosi told her she'd put a stop to it.  That was when Markos shut up about Tauscher.  For the rest of it, I don't know who made what calls to who, but the organized and public effort to primary bad Dems was definitely smashed right then.

Al Wynn and Dan Lipinski are the only primaries I've heard of so far.  Maybe Bill Jefferson again.  Which may be fine; I can't think of anyone else offhand who really clearly totally deserves to lose office this cycle.  Henry Cuellar I guess.  Tom Lantos, Brian Baird, Max Baucus, Alan Mollohan.  While a lot of Democrats have done bad things this cycle, they've generally all done them in great big packs, and few have actually distinguished themselves as notably personally egregious.  Which tells us that we really need to be focusing on how to influence and change that type of pack behavior, more than singling out individuals and holding them responsible for what is really some kind of larger dynamic.  It's ok to do that, but I don't think it will work as well, because it's not really directly aimed at the root of the problem.  If the problem for example is happening in the committees that write these bills, but then we target for defeat random House members who wander onto the floor at rollcall time and vote for them not knowing much about them, then all that does is make all our reps afraid of, and despise, the crazy random attackdog netroots.  It does add an element of fear to their thinking, but it doesn't really directly address the problem AND it earns us blowback because our attacks are seen as unfair and irrational.  On the other hand when your movements are properly informed, properly aimed, and precise, then they have the desired effect AND they attract a very different kind of response.  Including a stronger counterattack, but only from the people you actually oppose, not from bystanders who might have supported you but for your scattershot targetting that hit innocent bystanders.

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:33:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

vetting candidates (4.00 / 1)

That's already started, with us asking the Blue Majority candidates how they would have voted on FISA and the supplemental, and engaging in more House primary fights.

You would do far better to look into a candidate's record and see if they have ever done anything to defend civil liberties. If they have held office there will be a record, if they have not held office, do they have history of activism with regard to civil liberties, did they ever speak out against abuses? At least a letter to the editor?

Tester said in a debate that he wanted to repeal the Dirty WarPatriot Act.His voting record does not reflect that commitment.

Candidates can say anything to a screening committee, a record  is far more indicative.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:17:46 AM UTC

Our Freshmen (0.00 / 0)

I don't think vindictiveness is the proper way forward.  It's an endless chase to catch your own tail.  I made calls for Casey in Pa at the behest of MoveOn and I'd like to kick his ass for turning on me.  But maybe the way to go forward (especially for MoveOn) is not advertising warfare, but doing what they do so well, educating the public in those areas that need educating.  Enlightening the electorate as to what each vote means.  Reps vote the way they do because they are afraid of being voted out.  The rightwing noise machine goes into gear and starts to paint them as traitors or whatever, but we should be responding to those attempts to paint them in whichever way the wingers go, along with their enablers in the MSM.  We can say forever 1) a majority of people hold progressive values, 2) we're progressives so we should be controlling these reps.  But we haven't convinced the majority of people that our views are their views.  Most people who have progressive views would never admit to being progressives. That's what we should be working on.  If we can educate the electorate to our beliefs, and our views are the majority's views, then we only have to hold the elected reps to vote the way the electorate wants them to vote. 

---

by: Andre @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:39:39 AM UTC

Matt I love you BUT..... (4.00 / 1)

why are you assuming the next president will be a she....this foregone conclusion is bourne by the losers of the MSM....PLEASE don't give (in)(up)...YET...unless you are for Hillary??? I am as down as you about the Bush Dogs and what the people we supported have been doing in the peoples house. But we have to keep fighting, if there isn't REAL change we are really in deep deep shit!

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:41:21 AM UTC

no assumptions (0.00 / 0)

I don't think HRC has won this by any means.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:44:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kicking Casey (0.00 / 0)

As a woman that sounds like an excellent notion. We have six years to shift the debate in PA.

Step one is see if we cannot shift the PA legislature and Congressional delegation in 2008. By 2012 we might have a candidate, unless Casey decides to be a little less right wing.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:43:49 AM UTC

I'm not sure Casey intends to be in the Senate by then. (0.00 / 0)

I think he's running for governor in 2010.  In fact, I think the national Democrats had to beg him to run for Senate, because he could beat Santorum and do it for free too (PA is a very expensive place to run a Senate race, and Santorum coulda raised millions if the GOP thought he stood a chance of surviving).  So Casey agrees to be the guy who knocks off Santorum for the national Dems, and in exchange they promise him the governorship in 2010 with no instate opposition.

So sadly, I think you may find that Casey is gonna be your governor and again, the primary field will be crystal clear.  They did a great big power play with Casey and they were irresistable last time and probably will be this time too.  On  the other hand, we'll get Casey out of the Senate, and I'm sure they'll make him promise to appoint someone good to his vacant seat when he wins.  I don't have any idea who that'll be, presumably one of the House members or Barbara Hafer, but I'd be interested to hear the gossip on that.

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:44:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not exactly (0.00 / 0)

There are already four candidates for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2010.  Add in that its been decades since either party has held the governor's mansion for more than 8 years, and I can just about guarantee that Bobby will NOT be running. 

---

by: DanT @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:06:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? Ok. (0.00 / 0)

I didn't think Chuckie Schumer had actually convinced Bobby Casey to give up on the governorship, but I guess I was wrong.  That's what I get for trying to read between the lines of the Washington Post.

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:45:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good post -- nothing new... (4.00 / 2)

Matt writes: "they are going to believe that everything is fresh and new, that the bad people are finally gone and good governance and a real America can finally return even as the new administration is packed with status quo Democrats.'

You couldn't be more right. Saw this in 1992--swear to goodness, saw people dancing in the streets on election night singing "Ding dong the witch is dead..." They were that sick of Reagan and Bush I. The task for the blogosphere is to get progressives more ready to keep pushing when we change ruling parties, but not policies. It's tough; people are going to want a rest. But it will be necessary.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:44:38 AM UTC

Well this was a brilliant strategic move by the turds (0.00 / 0)

All those dems that voted for this atrocity have suddenly made themselves vulnerable in their next election. I gave a lot of them money-no more. Unless many of "us" decide to forgive this terrible move by them, I don't see how they're going to raise as much money as in the last election cycle. Unless they turn to the DSCC and the DCCC, but I suspect these two groups are going to find their funding start to dry up also.

---

by: BobbyK @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:45:03 AM UTC

It would be a terrible mistake to make these votes the litmus test (0.00 / 0)

Let me preface by saying that most of my political activism, mostly passive in terms of contributing $$ here and there, but also knocking on doors and phonebanking for Jim Webb here in Va last fall, is due to the efforts of y'all at Blue Majority -- especially the front-pagers at MyDD, dKos, and Raising Kaine, and to a lesser extent FDL and DWT. So, I respect the hell out of you guys and thank you for convicing me to get off my ass and start working to change the country I love back into what it's supposed to be. All of that is a preface to saying, I am in your corner most of the time, and give great thought to what you write.

Having said all that, I am mystified by the response that somehow these votes of rhetorical puffery in the Congress constitute some deep-seeded betrayal. Now, maybe that's because I'm not a MoveOn member, but I've seen it here, at dKos, at RK, and elsewhere -- people are absolutely livid at this. I've tried to step in their shoes and understand why, and I think I come close, but it doesn't make any sense when [i]you look at what the resolutions that were passed actually state[/i]:

House:  Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus;

Senate: Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and
(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

MoveOn was not condemned as an organization, nor was the freedom of their paid speech threatened -- a specific message, which was approves by a small cadre of MoveOn members, was repudiated because [i]it accused a general of being a traitor to his own country[/i].

Do I think it is a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money for our Congress to be debating this nonsense while Iraq crumbles and our troops are caught in the middle? A thousand times yes, and a thousand more. But the way we teach a lesson in this mockery is to [i]target and hoist on their own petards the clowns, Cornyn and Boehner, that decided to introduce these amendments[/i].

Moreover, I do not find it suprising that veterans like Webb, Sestak, Walz, and Murphy object to an officer of the armed forces being called a traitor for doing what his commander-in-chief asks him to do, and frankly I agree.

MoveOn is not a monolith, and MoveOn members are patriots working to improve their country through activism. And even though MoveOn worked hard to get many of these people elected, that does not make the organization unimpeachable when it makes a mistake. And I think it was a stupid mistake by Eli Pariser or whoever approved that ad to take up the tactics of the smear merchants and attack the honor of the commanding general of the armed forces in theater. They could just as easily have used the same bullet points and hammered GWB for hiding behind his general, and the point would just as effectively have been made.

So, Matt, while I agree whole-heartedly that the 'netroots' need to find a way to leverage our support and advocacy into real change, I can't see how excommunicating people over the MoveOn controversy helps us get there.

Was the political expediency exhibited in this entire episode a sad sight to behold? Of course. But the problem is the leadership of the Democratic Party in both Houses. We need MORE legislators like Webb, Tester, Murphy, McNerney, Walz, Shea-Porter, and many fewer scumbags like Cornyn and Boehner.

The FISA stuff is much more important to me (the 4th through 8th Amendments and Habeas Corpus are the bedrocks of our liberty). And I was disappointed in Webb's vote in August. But I trust him, as his leadership on the dwell time and Iran amendments shows. We need to get more allies for him in the Senate, and then let him be unleashed, and see where we stand. And no matter if he disappoints me sometimes, I know that George Allen would have been a cartoonish villain on FISA, on Iran, and would have cosponsored the MoveOn BS.

I agree we need to draw dark lines on the goal of ending the war and constitutional fidelity. And people should be held to account when they renege on these principles, if they've pledged their support in these causes.

But now is not the time for the circular firing squad. 2008 is a year in which we could really transform the Senate such that, even if a relatively conservative and hawkish Democratic President is elected as looks likely, the options of the President vis-a-vis policy will be constrained by a much more progressive Senate that can't filibuster everything.

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:42:05 AM UTC

on the day (4.00 / 2)

When I see them passing condemnations of conservative statements, I'll accept this argument.  Until then, it is BS.  I've already see Republican ads trashing our candidates for taking MoveOn's money in 2004 and 2006, so now what will the ads be able to say?  How does it help us?

Vote a condemnation of every statement that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.  Start with Ari Fleischer and his organization, then do Dick Cheney.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:24:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MoveOn did not call him a traitor (4.00 / 1)

"Moreover, I do not find it suprising that veterans like Webb, Sestak, Walz, and Murphy object to an officer of the armed forces being called a traitor for doing what his commander-in-chief asks him to do, and frankly I agree."

Show me where in the ad MoveOn called Petreus a traitor.  They didn't.  Seems to me that you've bought the right-wing spin on the ad, rather than paying attention to the ad itself.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:09:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look it up in the dictionary (0.00 / 0)

I read the ad up and down; I read the resolutions from both the Senate and the House word for word.

Words and definitions matter:

traitor: 1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country. 

(from dictionary.com)

betray: 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country. 
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust. 
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends. 

I have not "bought into" any right-wing spin. THE WORDS ARE RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE. Do I think that's what MoveOn meant with their "clever" play on words? Probably not -- there are other, less harsh meanings of betray/betrayal. But the FIRST DEFINITION OF THE WORD uses Benedict Arnold as an example of the meaning. At the least, MoveOn is guilty of being sloppy.

I'm obviously in the minority on this point, but please don't call me out for being a toady or patsy of the right wing. I call 'em as I see 'em, and the ad is what it is.

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 16:28:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MoveOn did get publicity (0.00 / 0)

and I am pretty sure donations are way-up!  Hmmm, maybe we should ask Congress to vote a condemnation quarterly to boost membership and add to the old coffers;)

It is always a good thing when you can get the enemy to buy bullets for you;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:15:01 AM UTC

I just got a letter from Carney today (0.00 / 0)

I was going to throw it out unopened, but on second thought I should send a response explaining why he's not getting any of my money.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:20:41 AM UTC

Focus the rage (4.00 / 1)

A successful takedown of a Dem. incumbent would certainly get noticed, to say the least.  History would be on a different and better course now if Lamont had managed to pull off victory in the general election--way, way above and beyond the benefit on one additional Senate vote.

Is Lipinski the one to target?  Where, honestly, do we have the best shot at winning, given all the circumstances?  There's not a single incumbent who should dare to feel entitled to a seat in the United States Congress, but somebody specific is going to have to serve as the example.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 04:53:04 AM UTC

I'm done with them (0.00 / 0)

I will only support third parties from here on out.

And anyone that does less is just a damn fool.

---

by: Wilberforce @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:07:18 AM UTC

Not just today, but yesterday, too. (0.00 / 0)

And the day before that.

I, for one, have grown tired of seeing the "it isn't so bad that they didn't vote with us on this bill/amendment/resolution" argument.

I think Democratic leadership has finally measured up the Netroots and thinks they understand our machinations and can play us, like we're just another special interest group that has some money to be had.

I'm sitting on the fence these days as to what makes more sense -- donating money to fund public awareness campaigns, or donating money to fund political campaigns?

Seeing TrueMajority go the 50-state route today has me leaning hard to the public awareness side, just about ready to fall off the fence. There isn't enough money in the world to buy representation in Washington DC today. And, money aside, it sure as hell isn't enough to be a citizen or a constituent to get an elected rep to actually represent you.

Until we can figure out a way to work planned obsolescence into the electoral cycle in a more inflential way, until we can take corporate money out of Washington, I think we're better off spending our money locally to communicate with our neighbors.

The more minds and voices we have, the stronger we'll be. There are just so many minds and voices we can put in DC, so better to focus on home.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:13:57 PM UTC