Here's Elizabeth Edwards, in an email pitch for the DSCC.
Senate Democrats have tried to fix these glaring injustices, but Republicans have responded by filibustering over seventy bills in a single year - a record of obstruction unmatched in American history.
And Josh Orton and Matthew Yglesias disagree. They argue that final vote tallies are misleading, and that once you whip to 60 votes many more Senators break for a bill so they can add modifications. That's somewhat true.
Still, if Tom Coburn can hold up 100 bills on his own, or if Russ Feingold can spark a debate about the President by offering a censure resolution, perhaps we might consider that the 60 vote threshold is only one and a very narrow way of thinking about the Senate. It also happens to be a persuasive way to convince liberals to back conservative candidates like Kay Hagan, who has not come for net neutrality or FISA, and Ronnie Musgrove, who is featured on MyDD's Road to 60.
|
|
Musgrove is a real pickup opportunity, but he also has a history of damaging progressives. As a quick example, he strongly supported extremist Roy Moore's quest to post the ten commandments in the state capitol. Sometimes politicians have to make compromises like that, of course, but Musgrove went further, and blasted the ACLU and invoked "our Christian heritage."
Is this really someone we are confident will vote with the progressive position, even on procedural matters? Probably on SCHIP, yes, on matters like the gang of 14 and constitutional crisis issues, probably no. Which matters more? In other words, it's certainly more powerful to have a liberal Tom Coburn who knows he has support from liberals than a Ronnie Musgrove type. And that's what we're talking about, a trade-off of resources. If you live in Mississippi, vote Musgrove, and I admire the progressive blogs doing media pushback in state. Where resources are fungible, though, move them to progressives, as this isn't really going to hurt Musgrove. In other words, I do hope Musgrove gets elected, but there are plenty of business PACs and insiders who will pay for it.
Why should liberals put our money there? We have so few resources, it's just not worth it to give a bit of marginal support to conservative Democrats who can easily get resources from business interests. We need icons who understand that their job is to act as committed progressives and threaten to throw a wrench into the process if, say, transportation funding doesn't include enough for mass transit.
That's the only real route to power right now for liberals. There's no question we're going to get more Democrats in 2009, we should be focusing on making sure the ones we do get are better, and know that there are resources going to them because they are better. Otherwise, why should you run as a progressive? If a politician can get the money from progressives AND business PACs by being a conservative Democrat, that's what politicians will choose.
And that's why Bush Dogs are in charge right now, and will be in charge in 2009-2011. On OpenLeft, we know the score, so we won't be fooled by the parades of joy when Democrats fully take over, and we won't be disillusioned by the inevitable disappointments. It's our job to grow outward, and begin to teach others that progressives need to support progressives, and that Bourbon Democrats can go screw up the country without our help. |
STATE BLOGS
