This is why we fight

by: AdamGreen

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 23:53


Barack Obama calls tonight "history." AFL-CIO calls it a "great step forward." SEIU calls it "courage."

Here's the note I just sent to our Progressive Change Campaign Committee team:

Tonight was the opposite of a "bold progressive" night. With a huge majority in the House, a vote with only 219 Dems should have been because progressives pushed this bill to the limit. Instead, it was watered-down, watered-down, watered-down. And still, only 219 Dems. This is why we fight. We need to change this. 

 Click here to join the PCCC
We need to elect more bold progressives to Congress. No more lame Democrats.

If you haven't yet signed up to stay in the loop with the PCCC, now's the time. 2010 will be our year. 

Dems who voted against health care reform, courtesy of my colleague Michael Snook -- remember them:

AdamGreen :: This is why we fight

1.     Adler (NJ)

2.     Altmire

3.     Baird

4.     Barrow

5.     Boccieri

6.     Boren

7.     Boucher

8.     Boyd

9.     Bright

10.  Chandler

11.  Childers

12.  Davis (AL)

13.  Davis (TN)

14.  Edwards (TX)

15.  Gordon (TN)

16.  Griffith

17.  Herseth Sandlin

18.  Holden

19.  Kissell

20.  Kosmas

21.  Kratovil

22.  Kucinich

23.  Markey (CO)

24.  Marshall

25.  Massa

26.  Matheson

27.  McIntyre

28.  McMahon

29.  Melancon

30.  Minnick

31.  Murphy (NY)

32.  Nye

33.  Peterson

34.  Ross

35.  Shuler

36.  Skelton

37.  Tanner

38.  Taylor

39.  Teague

Full vote count here.

Click here to join the PCCCAgain, if you haven't yet signed up to stay in the loop with the PCCC, now's the time.

 

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is why we fight | 85 comments
Usual Suspects + Novel Reactionaries (4.00 / 6)
   Does Artur Davis have a primary opponent for the Democratic nomination for Alabama governor?  His district needs this bill very badly.  His actions today were unconscionable.
  Brian Baird and John Barrow need to be taken down.  
Baird is particularly odious (4.00 / 6)

 He was all for continuing the killing in Iraq indefinitely, and reveling in the fawning media coverage his warmongering ass got for a couple of weeks.

 I really don't know why the hell Baird is a Democrat. He loves war, he hates working people, he's an insurance-industry toady. There's a perfectly viable political party that's much more in sync with his "values" than the Democrats are.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
To be fair (4.00 / 1)
Baird was originally against the Iraq war and voted against the 2002 authorization resolution.  That's more than can be said about a lot of prominent Congressional Democrats.  To call him a "warmonger" would be inappropriate.

After 2007 he still thought it was a mistake but believed that American troops were doing good there and that we shouldn't pull out prematurely.  This is not an unreasonable position; in fact, it's very close to the one I've held for a long time and tentatively hold today.

I don't know why he voted against the health care bill.  Before we condemn him for doing so, we have to make sure he wasn't voting against it from the left.

[ Parent ]
I would like to see the PVIs of their districts (4.00 / 3)
As I said below, if you take this list and rank it from least to most-Republican leaning, then you'd have a near-perfect ordering of which districts to target for primarying.
They all need primarying. (4.00 / 2)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, many of these people are in districts are in such conservative districts (0.00 / 0)
that they're the best we're ever gonna get there.

Not saying that means we have to donate and work for them.  We shouldn't waste any of our time and money helping or hurting them; we should instead focus on races we can win.

[ Parent ]
Winning a primary is difficult (0.00 / 0)
Scaring an incumbent, making his life hell for three weeks, forcing him to actually go back to his district, talk to voters and (if you play your cards right) receive a bit of well-deserved abuse from the progressive base, can be done on a relatively small budget.

Seed money and early concentration on building a supporter organisation makes that kind of operation relatively cheap. And in addition, the concentration on structures makes it easier to primary again, more seriously, if the numbers make it seem feasible.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
cooper managed to avoid his ass being primaried... (4.00 / 2)
...for now.. Ross won't be so lucky... We will run a green candidate against him so he loses big.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
an even worse subgroup (4.00 / 14)
Of these, 23 are the most vile: Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis, Davis, Gordon, Griffin, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor and Teague. These representatives voted for the anti-woman Stupak amendment, succeeded in getting it included in the bill, and then voted against the bill.

That's right: they forced an amendment that a clear majority of Democrats opposed and then, to show what team players they are, voted agains the health care bill anyway. Disgusting.

If your representative is any of those 23, consider running for Congress or finding someone who will. And, once again, make sure to spread the word on the ineffectiveness of givng money to the DCCC and other campaign committees. Money to those committees will go to keep these people in power. Much better to give to individual candidates and groups like the PCCC.

Ther worst of the worst (4.00 / 5)

 They throw a tantrum to get what they supposedly want, they get it, and they STILL vote against the bill.

  How do people this disgusting rise up in the Democratic ranks? I mean, our local Central Committee (of which I am a member) does its best to make sure we don't get any stealth Republicans running in our local races...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Melancon is running for Senate... (4.00 / 3)
...and he has a decent chance of winning against Vitter, too.  We do NOT need another Mary Landrieu.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
WRONG - the worst of worst is CAVING to these (0.00 / 0)
sell out pieces of shit

and then they sell you out anyway!

after the last 30 years, how could ANYONE think these fucking scum would respond to anything but punishment?

'catch more flys with honey' bullshit 'strategy'

a serious number of people in charge in the dem party should be running nursery schools - the ONLY thing they excel is staying in charge, living large, and losing.

I want the flys GONE, not fucking up MY honey.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
we should also focus on keeping Castle and Kirk (4.00 / 4)
out of the senate.  they also voted for Stupak but against the final bill.
[ Parent ]
bloody wirehanger Democrats (4.00 / 6)
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/...


For future reference, here is the list of Democrats who voted "Aye" on the Stupak Amendment.

AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike [D] AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; Wilson, Charles;  OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

Antiabortion Democrats. Do any of these have ActBlue pages? Can we shut those down now?

That's an important point. No ActBlue support for these! (4.00 / 3)
This has been discussed recently, that ActBlue fails to check if its candidates really act like progressives, once elected. This has to change. User Joel raised the point to iclude progressive scorecard data, to get an instant insight into how progressive a Lawmaker acts, for instance by using ProgressivePunch data. This sounds like a great idea. ActBlue should be pushed to do that, and to remove receivers from the list if the fail to deliver good votes.
[ Parent ]
What's more important? (2.67 / 3)
Turning red seats blue, as in NY 23, or ousting a blue dog?

I'd hope we all would know the answer but we don't.

When you have huge majorities (thanks to a BIG TENT!) you can pass things like health care reform. When you have a huge majority it allows members in competitive districts to cast no strategic no votes that can help them retain their seats. It by no means indicates that they would have blocked the bill had their vote been required!

You have to remember that only 10 short months ago Dick Cheney was President. Can we see the sea change yet? It's a governmental reversal matched only by victory or defeat in war!

Oh, and how many decades have been lost to the right, how much ground lost on peace, the environment, and the economy because of abortion?

Even if you don't think abortion is wrong, it isn't worth it (and it's wrong).

Not an unreasonable point (4.00 / 8)

  But what fries my keister, and where the House leadership deserves a truckful of rotten tomatoes, is that they happily allowed the stupak to get to the floor for its all-important upperdown vote, but didn't extend the same courtesy to Weiner's single-payer bill.

  The tent's not so big after all. And it's the progressives who are being left out of it.

  And frankly, that's a good reason to question the utility of the existence of the entity known as the "Democratic Party".  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
actually (4.00 / 8)
I'd like to see back-up for this point.

Our PCCC polls show that even in "red" states like Arkansas, Indiana, Nevada (red to purple), and Nebraska, voters want the public option.

So what politician's constituents are against it? I'd like to see some proof.

[ Parent ]
example (4.00 / 9)
You seem, from this old comment: http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

to support Alan Grayson. Grayson represents a Flordia district that Bush carried easily in 2000 and 2004. For a Democrat to represent that district, they could easily be a Blue Dog.

So, to answer your question: "yes" I would be happier to switch any of the 23 "Democrats" I listed above for an Alan Grayon-type Democrat than to switch from a Republican to one of the 23 blue dogs above.

Further, even in cases where I'd rather have the Blue Dog to the wingnut, sometimes you have to make an example out of a Blue Dog so they know there's a price for going against the party on a big vote.

[ Parent ]
Nonsense (4.00 / 11)
A smaller majority of Better Democrats would have passed a better bill more quickly.  Large majorities alone are irrelevant to passing legislation. You need a majority that will vote together on the party agenda.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
W proved this (4.00 / 5)
He had tiny majorities and rammed through lots of extremely partisan legislation that hurt most of the people in this country.  Dead solid comment, David.
[ Parent ]
Yup! PHONY large majoritiesw only fool the public. (4.00 / 5)
What's this large majority good for if it fails to deliver liberal policies agaon and again adn again? This just results in the public losing faith in the Dems, thinking they are totally srewed up if they can't get their bills through with a 40 seat majority. Better push the DINOs out (not necessarily all BlueDogs, but those who vote against major legislation like the healthcare bill) so that the vote count more clearly reflects the true balance of power.
[ Parent ]
they don't fool the public. they PISS off the public (4.00 / 1)
who do NOT give a flying fuck about what asswipe on which committee got his / her undies in a bunch over who got the better office fridge and parking spot.

appx. 165,000,000 had money income in 2008 of 50 grand, OR LESS.

appx 185 million are under 75k, and about 20+ million are over 75 k.

HOW do YOU afford a safe neighborhood, a fund for retraining when you lose your job, a fund for health emergencies, reliable transportation, spare cash for granny and the kids future ...

on less than 50 grand?
on less than 75 grand?

HUH?

the public don't give a fuck about WHY shit don't work, just that the excuses are coming from people living way better than they do.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
So in your mind ... (4.00 / 9)
even the worst reactionary can call themselves a Democrat? .. Shouldn't there be a minimum standard for becoming a Democrat?  not everyone has to be a Bernie Sanders .. but there should be a baseline ... otherwise you'll invite all sorts of craven opportunists
[ Parent ]
Wrong and wrong and again, wrong (4.00 / 4)
Those that voted against this bill are worthless.  They do nothing for our majority and might as well be Republicans.  Those that voted against choice and against the bill deserve nothing but our contempt and attack ads.

Those that voted against choice and voted for the bill at least have a tiny amount of sympathy from me, but just barely.  They are not worthless, but still deserve to be primaried.  We do not want to go back to children dieing by coat-hanger.

[ Parent ]
Ousting blue dogs. (4.00 / 6)
If you don't understand why forced childbirth is wrong, you're not a Democrat.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Thank you, Sadie. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
tribes and parties and brands (4.00 / 1)
this, and the above comments, really gets to the heart of why some of us keep wishing for a third party, even as we don't really think that it's practical.

you are free to think that abortion is wrong. you are also free to think that nose jobs and rutabagas are wrong.

but you don't get to make that decision for anyone else. not in this country, not yet anyway.

if that's not acceptable to you, then you are not part of the "us" that i would say i belong to.

that "us" believes that denying the capability to actually exercise a right is the same thing as denying a right. even more to the point, that "us" does not think that abortion is wrong.

but that "us" is not the Democratic Party. the Democrats are kind of usless. it's really more like the "well-i'm-not-a-Republican-for-frack's-sake" Party.

now can my "us", my little tribe, make common cause with your "us" on issues like fair trade, or increased stimulus spending, more money for transit, and such? of course we can.

but i think that would be clearer, and easier to deal with, in a way that maybe makes no logical sense, if we weren't all lumped together under these big bucket labels as if we were the same tribe. we're not.

our brand has been so diluted that i don't even know if we really have one anymore. what does "progressive" mean, what does "liberal" mean, if all these people are progressives, if these are liberals?

obviously, down this road lies the Judean People's Front. i don't mean to advocate for the usual purer-than-thou dead end. but i do think that there are some very clear lines, and what side of those lines you stand on affects how much we can trust you, and in that dumb primate way, they affect our own sense of who we are, individually.

for now, absolutely, we should not in any way be raising money or providing support for people who are only sometime allies. but more, we need to stop thinking about "our" majority, because "we" don't have one. there is a necessary legal fiction named the Democratic Party, and then there's my party. we're a lot smaller. it'd be good to find out who else is in it.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
Baird (4.00 / 6)
has to be target #1. It's a winnable district. Let's get it done.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
I'd say concentrate on Stupak (4.00 / 2)
He's the public face of this, and so the clearest statement. Going after all of them could dilute our energies. Also, with one seat, we could afford losing it to a Republican to make  a statement, with a bucket of seats, that would be foolish. I'm not saying not to primary or third party other blue dogs; in general, I'm quite in favor of that, depending on local conditions. And I think it is occasionally sound to sacrifice a seat to send a message. But I would try to be a bit more strategic than automatically targeting all of these folks.

Neologism:  Stupak (n), derived from stupid (adj) and hack (n).

Easy target (4.00 / 2)
He's running for Governor in Michigan.  Paint a big X.
[ Parent ]
He is? (0.00 / 0)
No wonder he's being such an asshat... He wants to appeal to the militia folk as well as the union base.  It's a shame, really... he's very good on other issues...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Running for Governor? He must be nuts! (0.00 / 0)
Does he think he can pull such a stunt and still win the primary? This is totally crazy!
[ Parent ]
Has Stupak officially announced? .. (0.00 / 0)
or is it one of those things that is widely rumored?
[ Parent ]
I think rumor stage (0.00 / 0)
The Wikipedia page doesn't list him at all.
[ Parent ]
In any case (0.00 / 0)
his district is R+3, so I'm not sure how liberal a Representative we can extract from here.  Besides, he did vote for the bill.
[ Parent ]
{yea} (4.00 / 3)
{woo ho}

I've been out most of today, so only now am I hearing the results.  I must say, I'm not overjoyed.  The problem is this really is historic and a great step forward.  That shows just how far back we really are.

{hazzah}

2010 Priorities (4.00 / 9)
1.  Donna Edwards is getting an opponent from the "business" branch.  She is literally the very best vote in the House.  She is a Progressive success story.  She is in a D+31 district.  Must be protected.

2.  Electing Progressives to open seats in reliable Democratic districts.  This means AL-7 (D+18), FL-17 (D+34), HI-1 (D+11, Ed Case may try to make a comeback, hiss boo), IL-7 (D+35, although Danny Davis did re-file at the last minute), IL-10 (D+6, now Kirk, so it's a twofer). NH-2 (D+3, was Hodes), PA-6 (D+4, was Gerlach so it's a twofer) PA-7 (D+3, was Sestak).

3. Kucinich was the Progressive block.  Don't primary him.

4.  John Adler.  He's new.  He sucks.  Ranks # 246 on the Progressive Punch crucial vote list and it will be sinking.  Votes Progressive when it counts just 36% of the time.  If NJ wanted that we'd elect a Leonard Lance/Frank Lo Biondo Republican.  He's worse than Rob Andrews.  Throw the bum out.

5. Parker Griffith and Scott Murphy.  The Two. Worst. Votes . In. The House.  Murphy is with us in the clutch 23.08% of the time (prior to these votes).  Griffith is with us an amazingly low 18.37% of the time.

6. Suzanne Kosmas.  We need to hold her feet to the fire.  Rookie from South Florida who won somewhat easily against incumbent nutter Feeney.  Votes Progressive in the clutch a marginal 44% of the time.  

7. Glenn Nye.  It's a very close district and he's a freshman but his votes are not marginal, they are bad.  He ranks #254 on Progtessive Punch at 24.49% and sinking.  If he isn't with us in the clutch a quarter of the time, what good is he.  Lots of Dems are elected from worse districts.

Massa was also opposing this from the left (4.00 / 5)
I think it's important for us to separate those who voted against this bill from the left from those who voted against it from the right.
[ Parent ]
It's a different case, ok. But what if... (0.00 / 0)
...the bill would have failed with one vote? It was damn close! Is Massa's unreasonable progressive stubborness helpful? Is this responsible? I don't think so.
[ Parent ]
They know the vote in advance (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure if Massa's vote was the decisive one he would know it and vote yes.

The beauty of knowing the vote in advance is that it frees you to vote how you really feel.  We should be embracing those who voted against it from the left because they're gonna be the first ones agitating to improve it down the road.

[ Parent ]
At +5? Looks like irresponsible gambling to me. (0.00 / 0)
This was much too close for allowing any shenanigans.
[ Parent ]
Now, if the guy would be named Zassa... (0.00 / 0)
...this may be different. But when he gfave his vote, he could have no confidence at all that there won't be any surprises.
[ Parent ]
Oops make that +2! (0.00 / 0)
No room for any symbolistic votes in that. It's simply irresponsible to risk failure just in order to make a point.
[ Parent ]
I think you don't understand the voting system. (4.00 / 3)
Members can and do flip their switches back and forth.  Had Massa's vote really been necessary, he would have had time to switch it back.  Of course, he knew this.  Once they got to 220, no need.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Ok, Stevo, that's a point. (0.00 / 0)
Strange system, obviously designed for giving leadership more time for armtwisting, but whatever. How much time would he have had? And at what point is the vote final?
[ Parent ]
You know, for all the talk about electing better Democrats, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of action (4.00 / 4)
Case in point: The MA Senate Democratic primary is just a month away, but I haven't heard Word One about this race.  This is especially troubling considering that one candidate, Martha Coakley, is the frontrunner and widely assumed to win.  What do we know about her?  Will she fight on our side, e.g. not just for a public option but for Medicare for All?  Is she worthy of Ted Kennedy's seat?

There doesn't seem to be much discussion about any of these upcoming primaries.  There are Democratic primaries in OH, IL and FL and if we don't act now we could end up with weak-kneed Democrats in all those seats for decades to come.  I for one am sick and tired of having to deal with the kind of timid garbage that always ends up winning in Democratic primaries.

I know about OH ... (0.00 / 0)
but who is running against Meek in Florida?
[ Parent ]
Okay, FL wasn't the best example (0.00 / 0)
Besides a couple of no-namers, there's former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre.  I have no idea if he's a good liberal; his campaign website is still under construction but his prominently-displayed slogan is "It's Time To Be Bold", which has to be an encouraging sign.

The downside is that he's 74 years old.  Still, if he is a real liberal and to the left of Meek, better have him for even just one term and then find someone else for 2016 then electing the 40-something Meek and having him there for the next several decades.

[ Parent ]
Kevin Burns (0.00 / 0)
the openly-gay and very progressive mayor of North Miami is also in the race.  Meek's early fundraising and endorsements (Bill Clinton) forced out State Senator Dan Gelber, also a strong progressive.
[ Parent ]
The list of candidates in FL (0.00 / 0)
can be seen on Wikipedia here.

Not to be a downer, but we really should've started doing all this stuff like, six months ago.

[ Parent ]
Primaries are an opportunity to influence (4.00 / 1)
who wins, but also to get multiple candidates to commit to progressive positions.  Since MA seems to have a couple candidates who can lay claim to being progressive, that might be a viable strategy there.

Ohio seems like a really big opportunity. Other will know more about that race, but Brunner seems to be a strong progressive who could be a real leader, while Fisher seems to be following - the dynamic seems to be similar to the Sestak-Specter race. Fischer is ahead on fund raising - if progressives could help out Brunner on that score, we might make a real difference.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Brunner is a strong progressive (4.00 / 4)
Ohio Lt. Governor Lee Fisher is a liberal, but also a very cautious politician and generally very pro-business (tax exemptions, etc.). Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has done a great job cleaning up the SoS's office and finally giving us an honest election voting system. She is a protege of Senator Sherrod Brown and has taken lots of very progressive positions which I think she will fight for: for choice, strongly for marriage equality, against Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), against capital punishment, for Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), for fair trade, for restrictions on credit card rates, a leader in the fight for reform of the student loan program, for financial reform, for green energy, and for ending the war in Afghanistan.

Blogger Jeff Coryell is now working for Brunner and wrote a great endorsement of her. And here is a good side-by-side comparison.

If elected, Brunner would be the first women elected to the US Senate from Ohio. She has the support of the WomenCount PAC, NOW PAC, ElectWomen Magazine, Women's Campaign Forum, and Feminist Majority.

Fisher has the support of the Democratic establishment and has an enormous warchest. Brunner is hurting for money. You can contribute to Brunner through ActBlue.

[ Parent ]
Brunner is also a supporter of Medicare for All (4.00 / 1)
Though she kinda bungles the issue on her campaign website (confusing it with the public option), she's expressed support for it on FireDogLake.

I think it's totally critical at this point that we elect as many Medicare for All supporters to Congress.  In fact, I think we as the liberal community should start imposing a kind of litmus test on this issue.

[ Parent ]
PDA has endorsed Capuano (0.00 / 0)
fyi, PDA recently endorsed Capuano
www.pdamerica.org
[ Parent ]
Honestly (0.00 / 0)
He didn't come across as progressive in the panel discussion I watched. He seemed to be a real business-as-usual person, with swag, insisting that he knew his way around Washington and therefore could get things done.
[ Parent ]
Do you have a link to the video or a transcript? (0.00 / 0)
In any case, I think Capuano has been running as the most forthright liberal in the race, and he's a Medicare for All cosponsor.  I want to know where Coakley stands on Medicare for All (her campaign website doesn't mention it, and strangely enough neither does Capuano's).
[ Parent ]
Illinois Senate primary candidates (0.00 / 0)
Early voting begins January 11 and the primary is February 2. From the Sun-Times of Oct. 29, here's reporting on the candidates' meetings with the White House and the DSCC:


As it stands, the Democratic field now consists of:
• Alexi Giannoulias, 33, the front-runner in terms of cash and name recognition;
• David Hoffman, 42, a former federal prosecutor;
• Former Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson, a former spokeswoman for ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich;
• and attorney Jacob Meister.

Jackson and Meister have not met with White House staff as of yet. All four candidates have met with officials from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee; Hoffman was meeting with them again this afternoon.


[ Parent ]
And some data on fundraising for the above candidates (0.00 / 0)
For their financial situations, here's a snippet from the Oct. 13 Tribune Clout Street blog:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Cheryle Robinson Jackson announced today she has raised $354,000 for her campaign over a four-week period.

While Jackson's campaign said she still had $322,000 on hand to start the month, she trails state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who said he raised $1.1 million over the summer and has $2.4 million stockpiled. Another candidate, former Chicago inspector general David Hoffman, has said he loaned his campaign $500,000 and raised another $405,000 more since Sept. 10.


[ Parent ]
That's all well and good (0.00 / 0)
but any info on where these candidates actually stand on the issues and such?
[ Parent ]
the progressive block caves... (4.00 / 5)
the progressive block caves and you celebrate?

57 cpc members promised to vote against this travesty. a fig leaf of a po to cover a massive corporate giveaway.

if progressives have ZERO credibility after this, it's because we deserve it.

Well... (4.00 / 1)
Considering that any PO at all was declared dead probably hundreds of times in the past few months all over the media, this is somewhat of a victory.

That being said, yeah, the bill obviously has its problems and it is rather depressing that something like this was the best they could get with just barely mustering the votes.  Also depressing is the fact that there were plenty of Democrats to vote for the regressive Stupak amendment... what a shitty caucus we have.  Just think if we hadn't won the 2 House seats last Tuesday, then where would we be?  Cao probably wouldn't have even voted for it, as he would've been the deciding vote and GOP leadership would've probably ripped his heart out if he had voted for it then (I'm sure they're not happy already).

[ Parent ]
po is name only (4.00 / 3)
the po is worse than useless. probably not even viable as currently constructed. it was the fig leaf that allow passage of a profoundly anti-progressive bill.

hell, MA with romney as gov did a better job of healthcare reform. thank goodness we (in MA) have a waiver to keep our reform instead of having to adopt the federal one.

we should be ashamed, and if we were honest we would be. we didn't even whip the cpc to vote against the bill -- even after raising money for the progressive block.

no one i know who actually understands healthcare policy (which was obviously not progressive bloggers) thinks this is good policy.

the cms says we'll get higher costs and no cost control. where exactly does that get us?

PLEASE DON'T CALL ME A PROGRESSIVE.

[ Parent ]
CPC practically worthless? (4.00 / 3)
Looks like they had a very modest effect on the bill - there's now something that they call a public option, which theoretically could be improved over time.

History of CPC's dance around the verbally robust public option is discussed on PNHP's web site, in an article entitled "Does the Congressional Progressive Caucus care about its "public option" principles?"

I find it disconcerting that Adam Green, representing a group calling itself "Bold Progressives", would somehow fail to notice that 1) the bill is a sad mediocrity compared to what it could have, and should have been  2) the CPC has lost credibility (not that they had much to begin with) and 3) Dennis Kucinich - a real 'bold progressive' - voted against the bill because it's not progressive enough.

What on earth does Adam Green mean when he says "We need to elect more bold progressives to Congress.". Besides Kucinich and perhaps a handful of others, just what "bold progressives" is he referring to? And why didn't the 'Bold Progressives' excoriate Obama for his back-stabbing deal with Tauzin/Big Pharma? This is boldness?

It seems to me that "bold progressives" organization is about as badly named (or badly run) as the CPC.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
What cme first, the hen or the egg? (0.00 / 0)
I think blaming the CPC is counterproductive now. Let's face the ugly truth, the block is too small to apply strong leverage! Plus, they have the strategical disadvantage of being able to find allies only on their right side. The effing Bluedogs can lean to the right and left, and thus have twice as much opportunities to make their vote count.

So, the obvious solution is to increase the numbers of progressives. There has to be a much stronger drive to get the effing centrists out of districts that solidly lean Dem. Only then can we expect more from the CPC.

[ Parent ]
not too small (4.00 / 1)
they had the numbers, what they lacked was conviction and/or courage

http://www.actblue.com/page/th...

57 of them made the list for signing the july 30 letter:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/...

i thought the po was stupid as a matter of policy, but for those who made it and the progressive block their signature issue to cave along with the cpc is more than embarrassing, it is a disgrace. we have made ourselves a laughing stock, not just on policy but also on politic strategy.

pretending it didn't happen won't make it go away.

what i ask now, is that we be grownups and acknowledge openly what happened and talk about what we do next to learn from our mistakes.

[ Parent ]
Same answer. pls see my other comment below (0.00 / 0)
Pls see my other comment below!
[ Parent ]
Not a rubber chicken, that's for sure (4.00 / 1)
Making excuses for them is NOT helping. I don't think it's counterproductive, at all, to fairly criticize them. They had an opportunity to raise themselves to the level of a credible force - yes, even if it meant sinking the mediocre healthcare reform bill - but chose to destroy what little credibility they had.

Rahm Emmanuel is probably having a good laugh.

Ancient Spartan women used to pre-emptively razz their menfolk, so as to ensure they didn't exhibit cowardice on the battlefield. God help them if they actually did prove to be cowards. Apparently, you don't think that CPC'ers should be subject to criticims even after they've shown what they're worth, on the political battlefield.

Not buying it.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Rahm would have capitulated to business donors in no time! (0.00 / 0)
I don't think he's laughing. All evidence point to the opposite.

And there many be been more in the pot for progressives, we can't know that. But they didn't ran away from the fight at the first bluff. And I don't really know what you expected would be possible for a block of 83 representatives, just a third of the Dem caucus. That everyone else would surrender to all their demands? Come on.

[ Parent ]
Paying attention? (4.00 / 1)
I find it disconcerting that Adam Green, representing a group calling itself "Bold Progressives", would somehow fail to notice that 1) the bill is a sad mediocrity compared to what it could have, and should have been

Ahem...from my post above:

Tonight was the opposite of a "bold progressive" night. With a huge majority in the House, a vote with only 219 Dems should have been because progressives pushed this bill to the limit. Instead, it was watered-down, watered-down, watered-down. And still, only 219 Dems. This is why we fight. We need to change this.

Would you like to admit you completely misspoke now or later?

As for Obama, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee was pretty much the only organization to pressure Obama. Did you completely miss our full page New York Times ad? Here's a reminder from Keith Olbermann:

And did you miss his TV ad just a couple weeks ago, telling Obama to fight?

Again, would you like to admit that you completely misspoke now or later?

[ Parent ]
OK, I'll retract the sentence you quoted. (4.00 / 1)
My apologies for the mis-statement. However, you haven't explained why bold progressives would not insist on a strong public option. A strong public option would drive the cost of healthcare down to European levels. Yet, that's something that nobody wants to talk about (except maybe the single-payer folks).  

(BTW, I did like that second ad, even though it doesn't say anything specific about a strong public option.)

Now, please tell us what the Bold Progressives have done in the way of extracting an apology from Obama for his lie of a deal with Tauzin/Big Pharma. My guess is: nothing. If the 'Bold Progressives' are not bold enough to speak truth to back-stabbing power, is it really accurate to call themselves "bold"? Please note well that 'relatively bold' is a poor substitute for 'bold'.

For that matter, what is the position of the Bold Progressives on the performance of the Progressive Bloc, in terms of yesterday's vote? It may be a little too soon to have an official position, but hopefully your organization will release a statement - one consistent with the word "bold" - on this matter within the week.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
The least we could ask: (0.00 / 0)
"It may be a little too soon to have an official position, but hopefully your organization will release a statement - one consistent with the word "bold" - on this matter within the week."
[ Parent ]
To be fair (0.00 / 0)
liberal groups like the PCCC have been fighting hard for A public option.  They never said anything on whether it had to be strong or not.
[ Parent ]
I see that as a problem (0.00 / 0)
Why should an American "bold" progressive be content with what is much inferior to the norm, in Europe? Where is the "boldness", in that?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
Yeah it sucks (0.00 / 0)
but it already happened and it's too late to change that now, except in the Senate, where it'll be even harder to get a strong PO.
[ Parent ]
That may be interesting, but not helpful (4.00 / 1)
From my perspective, the point of challenging Adam Green, et. al., as well as the Progressive Bloc, is not because of a fixation, on my part, on any one particular issue. Even one as important as healthcare. Rather, it's because of what I perceive as attitudes, traits, conceptions, strategies, etc., that affects how effective they are in affecting the legislative process. If the Bold Progressives are going to pull their punches yesterday and today, I can't help but believe that they'll do so indefinitely. Likewise, it's not so much that the Progressive Bloc had only a minor effect on healthcare legislation, that concerns me, but rather that their recent actions basically condemn them to remaining marginalized, for a (long?) while to come.

From my perspective, compared to process, individual issues pale in significance. Ideally, failure to significantly affect a given issue, where a sub-optimal participation in a process is at fault, will serve as a learning event.

But without being challenged - either from within, or from without (like I am doing) - I'm doubtful that there'll be much of a learning process going on.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
While I understand what you're saying (0.00 / 0)
I think your blame is misplaced.

As far as I recall, most of the emphasis the Progressive Block and the good people of Open Left and PCCC, like Adam Green, placed was on some public option.  If they mentioned Medicare +5 rates at all, it was an afterthought, buried in the middle of a long paragraph.  We fended off offers of triggers and co-ops, but never considered a negotiated rates PO to be a "sham".

Now you can blame all the liberals for not emphasizing having Medicare +5 rates, but you can't say that they rolled over and gave up.  We fought for A public option and we won.

[ Parent ]
Made your point, Adam (4.00 / 1)
But would you please revise your list to at least put a big 'ol asterik next to those who opposed this thing from the left?   Was it only Massa and Kucinich?  Were there others?  

I really don't know, but since your post is also about raising dollars for the future work of the PCCC I would like to see who on this list are actually VOTING as real progressives already.   Those who rejected Stupak and a "watered-down, watered-down, watered-down" precisely because they were standing as true progressives deserve our support and thanks now...they shouldn't be named on a list of "lame democrats."   All "noes" are not created equal.   And if you really think so some of us might have some fundamental differences with the direction of your work on behalf of the PCCC. At least it deserves a discussion, I think.

If you're not willing to do that, could you please tell us why?  

[ Parent ]
I got an email from President Obama (4.00 / 5)
Here's the best part (emphasis mine):

In the final phases of last year's election, I often reminded folks, "Don't think for a minute that power concedes without a fight," and it's especially true today. But that's okay -- we're not afraid of a fight. And as you continue to prove, when all of us work together, we have what it takes to win.

Doesn't this stuff want to make you cry?

not cry. puke. NEVER give time / money to sell outs. n/t (0.00 / 0)


It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Makes me want to make someone else cry. Makes me want to make life hell for the shitbags who voted for this. Primary them. Kill their pet bills in committee. Hold their earmarks. Piss in their coffee. Don't get mournful. Get angry.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Well, well, well... (4.00 / 2)
Markey.  Aims to be a good ConservaDem, I see.  I wondered where she was going to fall.  Other than one early, early indication from a lone staffer at a district office (who claimed she was sure Markey would support a robust public option), Markey and everyone on her staff had been non-committal.  They reported again, and again that she was "open to a public option."  Given the nature of this particular public option, seems she wasn't "open" to one at all.  I have to remind myself that she is a step better than Marilyn Musgrave.  It's going to be very difficult to elect a progressive Democrat in Markey's district.  The largest metropolitan area there is, I believe, Fort Collins.  And, Ft. C ain't no liberal bastion.  Colorado State University is where Republican legislators send their kids to college.  I'd hoped Markey would at least tend to "moderate."  Seems my "Hopes" have taken a real beating since November 2008.
Kucinich & Massa did what they said they would (4.00 / 8)
Adam, I think Kucinich & Massa deserve an asterisk on this list.  They are 2 of the 57 signatures on the July letter that the Progressive Caucus sent to the leadership that said they had to have at least a robust public option or they would vote no.
Kucinich & Massa both did what they said they would do (and what all of us at the time were saying they should do, which was set up a "progressive block" and actually mean it).  Their votes are quite different in nature from the others.
Absolutely (4.00 / 1)
If we really believe the "better Democrats," "progressive caucus" mantras touted so often and so readily here then we must give Massa and Kucinich the support and props they're due--without any hesitation or equivocation about how "damn close" the final tally was.  

It is quite simple for me at this point:  Massa and Kucinich stood up for women and stood up for the end of bullshit masquerading as progress.  

I'm past excuses for any other so-called progressive who couldn't do the same when it really counted, especially when the cost of getting something passed was so damn high:  the stealing of women's lives, as Natasha so appropriately put it.  

[ Parent ]
You've got (4.00 / 1)
the watered down RIGHT! I'd be real curious to see what the rank and file union members think. I see another huge gift to despised corporations.
This is why we fight | 85 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox