Tauscher (0.00 / 0)

Previously responded to threats of a primary by getting in line on the war.

I wonder if the money dangled by her Wall Street pals will mean more to her than a primary threat this time around?

---

by: TeddySanFran @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 15:32:34 PM CST

Yes.... (0.00 / 0)

Because she's banking that she can't raise as much without the Wall Street pals, and that she'll have a money advantage with a challenge.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 15:39:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice... (0.00 / 0)

Very Mafia Subtle... I like it!   Kind of like the metaphorical horse head in bed.

We should forward this link to the blue dogs... make sure SOMEONE on their staff sees it.

I wonder though should we also look at rewarding the blue dogs that do the right thing.  I mean, if they are spurning donor dollars from the Mortgage industry, then shouldn't we help them out.  The more progressive they vote, the more we give... maybe come up with a system of levels and whatever level they are at on the progressive level scale, the more the maximum we agree to give is.  So if they Are at the highest, we can max out... the lowest and we give nothing.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 15:38:46 PM CST

Something Repubs DEFINETELY (0.00 / 0)

do better than Dems is mount primary challenges, and often with success. The PACs and organizations that support the Republican Party do an AMAZING job of mobilizing and pressuring moderate republicans, of which there are few because of them anyway. Arlen Spector is on record saying that several republican Senators told him they would've voted for the stimulus had it not been fear of getting primaried. And these are senators, who are much tougher to intimidate because they run statewide and every 6 years. Whereas with democrats, we routinely see Bluedogs publicly criticize Pelosi and the rest of the leadership using republican talking points while not having to pay for it.  

---

by: ai002h @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 15:53:44 PM CST

The Problem is... (0.00 / 0)

They are rarely successful in the primary challenges where we want them to be... a la Specter a few years back.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 16:02:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That is not the point .. (4.00 / 1)

what happened after Toomey came ever so close? .. Specter went back to voting like the Bushistas wanted him to .. it's only now .. with his career on the line ... in an ever bluer PA .. that Specter has to buck the party or else face near certain defeat in '10 .. whether through primary or general election

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 17:28:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You sort of missed the point... (0.00 / 0)

My comment was simply a throw away one wishing the GOP was much stronger in their primary challenges in states like PA as we would win more elections if they were.  SOmetimes poking the nest to start civil war is a good thing.  

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 12:44:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Such a Headache!!! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: supag32 @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 15:59:03 PM CST

That's a pretty dang slender reed (0.00 / 0)

considering both Obama's and Biden's atrocious record when it could have counted: with the 2005 Bankruptcy bill. Biden? Okay, he's the senator from mbna. But Obama's trickery was the more odious. He voted in committee to support the most oppressive measures in the bill, then voted against it when it was sure to pass on the Floor...

Can you spell 'gutless Pol?' I knew you could...

---

by: konopelli @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 16:19:03 PM CST

That was then, this is now (0.00 / 0)

The point of this post is that the progressive movement has an infrastructure that will make effective electoral pressure relatively easy and organic.  It wasn't there 4 years ago.

---

by: TValley @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 18:43:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow... (0.00 / 0)

What an absolutely ridiculous leap in logic.  I actually feel stupider for having read this bullshit.

AND ITS READ YOU MORON... NOR REED.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 12:51:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

why? (0.00 / 0)

So why exactly should we reward people who bought bubbled houses that they couldn't afford?

---

by: ccarollo @ Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 00:45:06 AM CST

Wrong question (4.00 / 1)

Why do you want to punish homeowners, regardless of whether they personally did irresponsible things, and regardless of whether they or all the professions involved should shoulder the bulk of the blame, when we generally don't punish others (i.e. banks) whose choices are what caused this problem in the first place?

Why no calls to punish the banks?  The worse thing said about banks is that we should put conditions on the billions of dollars we give them or maybe give them less.  But it would be unfair to modify the rules for bankruptcy (rules which already treat a person's first home more punitively than other sorts of property)?

It won't benefit homeowners who can pay their mortgages (or who have no mortgages) to have their neighborhoods filled with empty homes.  Can it be more important to punish those who may have done something wrong even if that means also punishing those who did everything right?

Bankruptcy is an unpleasant experience for a people, and does not come without costs. It's not a reward.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 12:12:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]