Time For New Leadership In Congress

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 21:50


With capitulation on Iraq coming even quicker than expected, it is time to start thinking about how we can change the Democratic leadership in Congress:

Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.

The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.

Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.

"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.

From what I understand, Pelosi is backing down because Reid wouldn't go along with Obey's plan to stand firm. In the Senate, I think Chris Dodd is the obvious choice to replace Reid, given that Dodd has demonstrated leadership and once lost a majority leader campaign by a single vote. Then again, I have no idea how to help engineer a replacement of Congressional leadership. I also don't know who would do a better job in the House than Pelosi.

If the leadership we have isn't getting the job done, we need to think about how to get better leadership. Perhaps we could even change leadership behavior without actually replacing the leaders. I don't really know, but I do know that what we are doing right now isn't working.

Chris Bowers :: Time For New Leadership In Congress

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Time For New Leadership In Congress | 67 comments
What about Obey (0.00 / 0)
He's from my district, experienced, and a regular guy....sits in the middle seat in economy class on flights delayed at O'hare to get home to Eau Claire.
Obey seems pretty good (0.00 / 0)
But, as chair of the relevant committee, it seems to me that he could still hold up this bill if he wanted to. That certainly makes me wonder.
[ Parent ]
I agree, but how ? (0.00 / 0)
I am so tired of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Just think what could have been accomplished if they were true to us.  Instead all we got was their baffling behavior.  Remember Harry Reid's scheduled filibuster - what a joke, he thinks we are so dumb.  And both houses looking like fools for caving in time and time again - but first, of course, holding a press conference to say they are going to fight to the end with no caving this time. 
Now Nancy's latest: no more money for Bush's war without a withdrawal timetable, now we hear they are going to cave in and give him money.  Then try to tell us we won something, why didn't she just keep her mouth shut instead of humiliating us all.  I am sick of trying to believe in those two.  Every now and then I call Harry Reid and tell him he needs to step down and suggest Russ Feingold as his replacement - and almost like clock work Russ Feingold finds a way to get in front of the press and say he has faith in Harry's leadership.  Think that means anything?  Is Reid afraid of Russ? 

The congress is a private club, how can we force a change in leadership?  Nancy already told us that they are the leaders and we are just activists - if that isn't a "but out" I don't know what is. 

Nancy's a leader? (0.00 / 0)
  In what ways has she led?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Kept Democrats together (0.00 / 0)
Excluding the 43 freshmen, 183 of 189 Democrats (97%) have higher Progressive Punch scores for this session than for their career.  Progressive Punch docks some but not all missed votes. The six exceptions all had more than double the normal number of missed votes.  There is no indication they were straying rightward: Julia Carson (cancer),Eliot Engel (mother died of cancer), Nick Lampson (coronary bypass), or Chaka Fattah (ran for mayor of Philadelphia).  Two others, Eddie Bernice Johnson (86.47 v. 87.07) and Fortney Pete Stark (92.93 v. 93.20) also had a higher number of missed votes.

One could argue that some legislation was watered down enough that the ratings are "marking on a curve."  Nonetheless the loyalty scores and Progressive Punch scores show that Pelosi was doing something.

[ Parent ]
Do these numbers change when you... (0.00 / 0)

.......look at their 'chips are down' scores. If so?

How.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Lack comparison (0.00 / 0)
There is no career figure for "chips are down."  In general, scores for chips are down are lower than for 2007 but higher than for career. 
[ Parent ]
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... (0.00 / 0)
I'd have to say, based on results, that I don't see the Dem caucus as more progressive under Pelosi. I think that the way things are shaping now with Hoyer and Emmanuel calling the shots she is looking at a failed Speakership.

Fairly indefensible for her to say last week 'no more funds for Bush's war...and this week it's full funding as long as Hoyer gets his earmarks.

She's looking at real trouble when she comes up for re-election. People her in SF are not amused.

It's all about the money.Hoyer, Emmanuel are probably pretty pissed at the ActBlue phenomenon as this works against their influence, and Pelosi's, as this works against their auctioning off votes for cash which they can use for members re-election.

The thing to do is build our infrastructure with reps who will stand up on the floor of the House and call this Troika of Traitors to account.

One things for sure.

The voters are pissed and getting more so day by day. We just need to harness that anger.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
We can cut off their money (0.00 / 0)
by building support for our Democratic Donor Strike Against DSCC and DCCC which now has 6374 "strikers"

http://www.democrats...

[ Parent ]
Targetting (4.00 / 2)
For the last 7 years, progressives have been scrambling to fight the righties wherever and whenever possible. All across this country.

Now, we are looking at a House that will pick up more Dem seats and a Senate that will likely do the same. Ie, bigger majorities in both houses.

Hence, it seems to me all those resources that have been brought to bear in dozens of races can now be targetted towards a dozen or fewer races that really matter: Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and Emmanuel in the House; Reid and certain committee chairs in the Senate and so on.

If all the national impetus of the progressive movement were poured into a half-dozen races this cycle.... things could happen. It probably wouldn't change the balance of power this time out, but it could at least send a viable message that things are going to change one way or the other. I realizing I'm blathering, but at some point new avenues of "attack" have to be entertained, since working within "the system" is proving rather humiliating.

Forget the prez race. That's corporate-owned and operated.

Let's put everything on the House, where we can actually at least STOP the right-wing agenda. At this point, I'd be happy just to be able to stop bad things from happening, forget trying to make positive change until we can do that, eh?

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
Leverage points (4.00 / 4)
There's a Senate primary in New Hampshire where likely between 60,000 and 80,000 people will vote in September.  It pits pro-Iraq-War, pro-Bush-tax-cuts, losing 2002 nominee Jeanne Shaheen against anti-war former astronaut/Dartmouth Med School professor Jay Buckey.  In addition to being right on opposing the war and the tax cuts, neither Jay nor any member of his family has insinuated that Barack Obama is a drug dealer (unlike the Shaheens).

Here's an opportunity to get a smart progressive into the Senate who can be a reliable complement to Senators like Sheldon Whitehouse and Russ Feingold.

Voter Genome Project

[ Parent ]
Can you get Buckey (0.00 / 0)
to take our "Out of Iraq" pledge?

I solemnly pledge to vote against any additional funds for the occupation of Iraq, except what is absolutely required to bring all our troops home. I recognize that I will be under tremendous pressure from Democratic leaders and the Corporate Media to fund various missions like "fighting terrorism" or "training Iraqi forces" or "protecting Iraqi democracy," but I will not waver. We have already spent far too much of our blood and treasure for a war and occupation based on never-ending lies, and I will not sacrifice one more American soldier's life or one more taxpayer's dollar for those lies.

If so we'd support him over Shaheen - unless she'll sign it too.

[ Parent ]
Before we can get rid (0.00 / 0)
of these yellow-belly traitors, there has to be primary opposition for us to support.  Some of them have already cleared the deadlines for primary opponents to file.  Others just don't have primary opposition.  I'm going to send money to Cindy Sheehan for her run against "Yellow" Nancy Pelosi, even though Sheehan is running as an independent. 
[ Parent ]
Do you really think ... (4.00 / 1)
Feingold would publicly bash Reid?  Be serious!!
[ Parent ]
dump Reid (0.00 / 0)
Then again, I have no idea how to help engineer a replacement of Congressional leadership.

Wouldn't it be just a rerun of the effort to make Dean chair of the DNC? Only writing to Democratic Senators instead of DNC  members?

Lobbying congress (4.00 / 1)
My guess is that the way to go about changing leadership in the house or the Senate would be to lobby the folks who get to vote.  I am not sure that it would be particularly effective unless we came up with a good way to leverage our argument.  We would have to have reason to believe it might work before we started.

I would actually suggest starting in the Senate if we were going to do that.  In part because the suggestion of Dodd is an interesting one.  If we want to change the direction of the House, I would suggest looking at the Majority Leader position there not the Speaker.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
Much harder (4.00 / 1)
In the DNC fight the blogosphere had an ally in the state parties, which had been ignored for years. In electing new Senate leaders, the voting population is so much smaller. This means that the voters know the people they're voting for well, and are probably less susceptible to outside pressure, and also that there are much greater risks to standing up for a change - if you vote against Reid and he cruises to victory, you can expect some of your pet projects to be sunk.

It's not impossible, but it would take pretty much all our focus and even then it'd be dicey.

Possibly a better option is to primary Reid in 2010 in a sufficiently threatening way that he decides to retire. With Nevada's rapidly increasing population, that might just be possible if the organising outside the normal bounds of the NDP starts now.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
House leadership is replaced by money. (4.00 / 4)
House leadership races are decided on money. They're not ideological contests. Electing a progressive majority doesn't by itself guarantee a progressive leadership.

The bulk of the constituency that votes for leadership positions -- that is, the membership of the House Democratic Caucus -- largely views votes as returned favors for financial support for their races. Leadership PACs, after all, don't do any actual leading in the policy sense. They lead in the financial sense. Leaders and aspiring leaders give out as much campaign cash as they can to people they think have a decent shot at joining or remaining in the constituency that casts votes in these contests, and the people who get the money return the favors with votes in the Caucus.

I don't mean to imply any corrupt bargain in this. It is a straight up political transaction with no policy implications directly on the line, undertaken between two (or more) sophisticated players. And when it comes to the realities of the campaign trail, money is a pretty good proxy for leadership -- if leadership is about building and maintaining the strength of Democratic numbers in the House. And in the campaign context, it is.

Changing the leadership, then, means arming preferred candidates with the cash it takes to mount a campaign over a sustained period of time. Leadership races aren't launched and won in a single election or over the course of a single term, even if the aspirant is a long-time veteran of the House. Witness Jack Murtha, who's spent years as a senior Dem on the powerful appropriations committee, but hasn't put his back into financially supporting Democratic candidates on the campaign trail for nearly as long. In the wake of the 2006 victory, largely pinned to the Iraq issue, ideologically he posed a significant threat to Steny Hoyer for the Majority Leader position. But the reality was that the leadership election wasn't ideological, and some of the most progressive members of the Caucus voted for Hoyer over Murtha. Reason: Hoyer had a sustained record of giving them money for their campaigns, and Murtha didn't.

It also happens that a significant number of the most progressive members occupy extraordinarily safe Democratic seats, often in areas that are less affluent than average. That often leads to a lack of fundraising power, either because the money just isn't there in the district or because it isn't necessary anyway, because the seat's so safe and they're so entrenched, or some combination of both. So although that individual member is never in danger, he or she is also never in a position to distribute excess campaign cash to position him or herself for a leadership run. Instead, the ranks of the leadership are occupied by those who are safe and flush with cash (not that they don't bust their asses to get it). True progressives won't occupy those spots until they do the work of raising and distributing the money it takes to build the ranks and call in favors.

And even when they do, there's the problem of translating votes given in exchange for campaign assistance into compliance with ideological direction from the leadership on policy. And that doesn't always translate all that well. You can win the race, but you still have to "govern" from a position that puts you within reach of the critical mass of where your caucus actually is.

[ Parent ]
Money is something the netroots can raise... (0.00 / 0)

....what's needed is the infrastructure to channel it and extract the quid pro quo for receiving same in the sense Kagro X is pointing out here. This can happen at the same time we build our numbers in the progressive caucus.

On the other side of the coin Rhambo and Co. are ecstatic over their new ability as the majority to shake-down corporate America for the big cash. Perhaps we can put a spoke in his wheel with more work on exposing the corrupt apparatus of vote buying currently referred to by Versailles as 'lobbying'. The voters don't like this much at all.

A two pronged attack of raising cash for our leadership and exposing the rotten underbelly of DLCista Rahmbo & Co. should result in a more progressive leadership over time.

Attacking the Rahmbots is good politics, they hate our guts, and good policy, they are corrupt and will never act in the best interests of the people.

Above all we must continue to talk to our fellow citizens educating them as to who, what and how our government actually works with an eye to making it a true representative and protector of the people.

Not corporations.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Let's be realistic (0.00 / 0)
Pelosi got where she is because she is phenomenal at raising money, plus she is pretty tough on her caucus, all things considered.  Her problems are Rahm/Hoyer (corporatists) and the presence of so many Bush dogs in the caucus.

Pelosi is not going to be defeated in SF--she is Establishment there. I expect Rahm and Hoyer can also raise phenomenal am,ounts of money, and so it would be a waste of time and resources to try for any of those three.  What we can do is be consistent about giving through Act Blue and not through the DCCC or any of the leadership PACs to dilute their influence and try to pick off a couple of Bush dogs as examples, like Club for Growth has done.  Starting with Lipinski and Al Wynn and maybe one other. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
What's realistic, I think... (0.00 / 0)
is to work toward building leadership PACs for progressive members who anticipate making leadership bids in the future.

There's almost no unseating an incumbent leader. They rarely even have anything but a voice vote of acclamation when reelecting an incumbent leader at the start of a new Congress. So the most realistic way of doing this is to commit to helping progressives make bids for the leadership ladder in the future, and making it obvious.

As they gain in stature and fundraising ability, their influence on the current leadership will grow stronger along the way.

[ Parent ]
It's not impossible that Miss Nancy gets beat.... (0.00 / 0)

...........people in her district are very, very angry. And this before any military reverses in Iraq which are on the way never doubt it. The Iraqi's will never accept our presence there.

Just as they never accepted the British.

My point is that given the danger that our occupation of Iraq poses to 'Versailles' it's not beyond the realm of possibility that she get beat.

The Rabbit is vulnerable. He squeaked by this time with no primary opposition.

That won't happen again.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
$900,000 (0.00 / 0)
That's all Hoyer's PAC gave.  MoveOn gave a lot more and they ran from it.  Miss Nancy, IIRC, gave around $150 K less than Steny.

It's the combination of money and the blessings of Versailles.  Of course, one reason to primary Steny Hoyer is that you eat into the amount of cash he can contribute to other members.  You don't have to beat him to weaken him, just take away a little of the cash.

[ Parent ]
Better Democrats (0.00 / 0)
If the leadership we have isn't getting the job done, we need to think about how to get better leadership.

An interesting post at Red State asserted that the Democrats who hold the majority in Congress don't constitute a party. The evidence is that even though they hold the majority, they cannot challenge the GOP on any issue the GOP chooses to block.

That Dems don't constitute a party is basically true. The supposed majority isn't one: it's comprised of several factions which effectively preempt any party-based challenge to Bush and the GOP. Even though the GOP is the minority, they still hold the single largest voting block in the legislature. Cross overs from the DLC, the Blue Dogs, the spineless (Rockefeller?) ensure that Democratic positions inevitably fail. New leadership requires better candidates who win elections. The party needs a makeover.

This is how I view the Democrats (0.00 / 0)
They are basically a coalition like you would see in a multi-party system where no one has the majority.

Some progressives seem to view the party as true believers plus a bunch of spineless, faithless Democrats who undercut the party's progressive message.  That's not really the case.  The progressive bloc fails to negotiate compromises with the non-progressive factions within the Democratic coalition.  And by compromise, I don't mean finding a middle ground on every issue; I mean swapping votes like insisting the Blue Dogs stand with us on Iraq in exchange for a more moderate party line on other issues.  Progressives would fair better if they acted like the Democratic Party was actually a coalition between a Progressive Party, the New Democrat Coalition, the Blue Dogs, and the Congressional Black Caucus (with some overlap) and worked to make backroom deals with the other factions to get core legislation passed.

I'm increasingly coming around to the notion that we have to take a stark look at the members of the Progressive Caucus who may say the right things and even vote the right way but who lack actual political skills.  Like Matt Stoller, I'm looking at you, Dennis Kucinich.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Kucinich goes his own way (0.00 / 0)
mainly because he has no one to turn to as a progressive ally.

We worked hard to get 92 "progressive" Democrats to co-sign the Lee-Waters-Woolsey "Peace Pledge" - no hew money except to bring our troops home - and then they all supported Pelosi's $50B sellout.

I'm afraid progressives have NO capable (i.e. coalition-building) leaders in either the House or Senate.

[ Parent ]
The Democrats don't really want to win next year, do they? (4.00 / 1)
  Harry Reid wants to give Bush his blank check, despite there being no evidence that such an action is in any way responsive to what the 2006 election was about, or in any way enhances the Democrats' electoral prospects next year.

  I guess Reid finds it too much work to be majority leader. So he's doing what he can to remedy that.

  So when the Democrats get clobbered next year, will they blame the bloggers?

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

Dodd would be a great replacement for Reid (4.00 / 1)
And Barney Frank would be a great replacement for Queen Pelosi.
Probably not (0.00 / 0)
Barney Frank was in charge of watering down ENDA and also some corporate giveaways. He talks a tougher game, but like Pelosi he's a basically liberal congresscritter who isn't a born leader.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
You're kidding, right? (0.00 / 0)
Look, we've done amazing things as a movement like taking down Lieberman, helping several progressive candidates who are now members of Congress win primaries last year, and getting the Fox News debate canceled. And I'm sure next year we're going to have a lot of other great successes.

But changing the majority leader of the Senate? There's no way in hell we'd be able to get even remotely close to that. I'd be highly skeptical we could even get a single Senator to support it. And then those couple of Senators whose ear we do have frequently would have to choose sides between us and Reid, and ever single one would pick Reid and we'd lose influence by pissing people off. Yea yea, spare me the whole "I don't care if they're angry at us, we've got to stand up for what's right" speech. If we want to actually be relevant as a movement we've got to pick and choose our battles. This is a battle that we literally have 0% chance of succeeding in but a very, very high chance of losing a lot of the influence that we've managed to gain.

A majority leader has never been replaced mid-way through a Congress. There's a reason for it. And if you think we honestly have a snowball's chance in hell of taking Reid down then we really need to check on our collective ego and see how it got so huge.

It's possible (0.00 / 0)

But one thing it will take is some top-notch opposition research done on Democrats.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
The one part of your argument I partly agree with is not switching during a congress. Fine. If that's the case, then focus on change in leadership in the next congress. Demand that freshmen and current caucus members not support the current leadership in January 2009.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
Why does the Democratic Party exist? (4.00 / 1)
italics fixed?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
Use money (4.00 / 2)
Unhappy troops lead to coups against ineffective leaders.  Take the Club for Growth strategy and threaten to target Democrats.  Fund primary challenges and attack Democrats by name in ads.  The key is that the people you go after shouldn't be the "Bush dogs"; they are the way they are because that's just where they are ideologically and you're not going to make them change much.  Your targets should be vulnerable Democrats who are somewhere in between clearly liberal and moderate.  Those are the pushable ones.

Now, I don't expect there to be any real vulnerable Democrats in 2008, but I also expect Democratic support to peak in 2008 (maybe 2012 if we get a truly stellar presidency).  In 2010, once the albatross of George W. Bush is no longer around the necks of Republicans, I expect the GOP to make modest improvements after hitting rock bottom and that's when you'll find some targets.

Unless you really want to start this year with undercutting some Democratic incumbents.  If you really wanted to make a point, you'd find one of those boilerplate liberals with some progressive credentials who aren't living up to your expectations on Iraq and fund a primary opponent who is clearly to the left on Iraq and clearly to the right on a few issues that are considered standard progressive planks just to underscore the fact that Iraq is overwhelmingly the most important issue right now.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

I've gotten to the point... (4.00 / 4)
  ...where I just want this Congress to shut down and never reconvene again. They've just done too much damage.

  I used to dread congressional sessions when the Republicans had the majority, because so much ghastly legislation would be enacted. I thought that with Democrats in charge we'd have some reason to look forward to Congress convening. But it's time to pull the plug on them -- they've done nothing to turn America back around. They're hurting the country.

  What a waste of a wave election.

 

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

A majority of the majority (4.00 / 1)
Doesn't it boil down to electing enough progressive democrats that they can choose one of their number as the leader in each chamber?

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that a leadership election happens at the start of each new Congress--even if control of the chamber does not change. So if in January 2009 we had, say, 28-30 genuinely progressive senators and about 125 genuinely progressive representatives, (assuming, as seems likely, Democrats retain control of both chambers), those members, if they vote as a bloc, would be able to choose better leadership.

Unfortunately, if we look just at the numbers, there's a long way to go. Consider the House: I count 71 members of the " Progressive Caucus" who have votes in the House right now (I'm not sure whether DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton has a vote in leadership elections). That's pretty far from the goal of replacing Pelosi; replacing more than 30 Republicans and Bush Dogs with progressive Democrats seems out of reach in this election. But we may not have to do it with numbers alone; if we increase the size of that caucus by 8 or 10 members in '08, "moderate" members may see which side their bread is buttered on and side with progressives in a leadership election.

Of course, we shouldn't automatically trust members of this caucus to demonstrate the solidarity, savvy, or stones to actually win a contest for power. After all, one former member is Nancy Pelosi (who resigned her membership when she was elected Speaker). But that's a worry for another day.

The bottom line, I think, is that we really have to think long-term. Remember how long it took "Movement Conservatives" to solidify their hold on power. It should be easier for progressives, given that our views are more in line with common-sense American ideals, but we should still expect the struggle to take at least several more election cycles to bear fruit.

The obvious strategy is twofold: 1) stick to our guns by supporting and electing not only more, but better Democrats, and 2) trumpet our successes as progressive successes, strengthening the progressive brand inside Congress, in the press, and in the popular imagination. Reframe policy debates so that we are relying on our ideas to put pressure on the legislators, rather than relying on politicians to act in our interests.

Over the long term, if we are persistent, disciplined, and principled, it can work. But there is no quick fix for the situation we are in.
 

Um, Dude... (4.00 / 3)
I count 71 members of the " Progressive Caucus" who have votes in the House right now (I'm not sure whether DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton has a vote in leadership elections). That's pretty far from the goal of replacing Pelosi;

Especially since Pelosi was a member of the Progressive Caucus before she became Speaker.

Pelosi is not the problem in the House. Hoyer and Emmanuel are.  They work with the Versailles establishment to undermine Pelosi.  Another 30 Dems in 2008 would help her a good deal.  Taking out Emmanuel or Hoyer would help even more.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
FDL is working to take 'The Rabbit' out... (0.00 / 0)
and that's something that all progressives should focus on. I do believe that based on the demographics of his district he is vulnerable, large immigrant bloks, and if any single thing would send a message it would be taking this Clintonista, NAFTA enabling, Lobbyist-lover out.

If a big chunk of us nationally targeted him we can do it. And a run there with a real progressive would be a great 'teaching' moment for the citizenry wherein we contrast the progressive agenda with the losing policies of the Dead Loser Caucus.

This is one of the real opportunities out there to give Versailles a bloody nose.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Too late (0.00 / 0)
Theonly two states withclosed filing deadlines are Illinois and Maryland.  There is no promary opponent for Rahm;  there is for Steny.  You want to go after one of them then Hoyer is your guy.

BTW, taking out Pera, Wynn, and better yet some hughfallutin committee chair would speak volumes.  Let Jim Marshall fry.  The money we will spend could elect two or three real Democrats and would not have to be reinvested every two years.  Linda Stender?  Dan Maffei? Mary Jo Kilroy?  Charlie Brown?

[ Parent ]
Way! (0.00 / 0)
Um, I know. In fact, I mentioned her former membership later in the post.

Perhaps I should have put it this way: "That's pretty far from the goal of controlling a leadership election in the House."

I don't have an axe to grin with Pelosi, really. I am disappointed in the House's accomplishments, though, and as leader of the chamber, she certainly has to be seen as owning some responisibility for its failures.

To be fair, I now better appreciate her endorsement of Murtha over Hoyer for the Majority Leader post last year. I guess the point is that the Progressive Movement needs to be prepared to take a forceful role in leadership elections in the end of 2008. It may be hard to get everyone's attention in the aftermath of the general election, but it's vitally important.

[ Parent ]
Thank You (0.00 / 0)
I have been thinking that it is time for new leadership in the Congress for months now. I am glad a visible blogger finally said something.

Dodd seems like a good choice to replace Reid. I think it is more important for us to have strong leadership in the Senate right now, because that's where we seem to be facing a lot of roadblocks.

Sadly, (0.00 / 0)
It usually takes a poor showing in an election to shake up the leadership.  I doubt Reid is going anywhere.  I'd probably cheer for his defeat, but then, the Democrats would probably elect Schumer to take his place.

I think Durbin would make a great majority leader though.  I'm on board with Dodd too.

We have to challenge some Democratic incumbent Senators in '08 (4.00 / 2)
From NYBri's excellent SSP filing deadline diary:

http://www.swingstat...

We missed Illinois, so Durbin can't be challenged for six more years.

But all these other dudes, and Mary Landrieu, can be:

Jay Rockefeller, WV: Deadline: 1/26/08
Mark Pryor, AR: Deadline: 3/07/08
Tom Harkin, IA: Deadline: 3/14/08
Max Baucus, MT: Deadline: 3/20/08
Tim Johnson, SD: Deadline: 3/25/08
Frank Lautenberg, NJ: Deadline: 4/07/08
Carl Levin, MI: Deadline: 5/13/08
John Kerry, MA: Deadline: 6/03/08
Jack Reed, RI: Deadline: 6/25/08
Mary Landrieu, LA: Deadline: 7/11/08
Joe Biden, DE: Deadlien: 7/25/08

Can we find/rally/organize a coalition that's ready to go to the mat over this? That's the question. In my mind, Rockefeller absolutely has to be the first one we challenge. Past that, we need to find a way to convince Rush Holt to run for Lautenberg's seat.

This is tricky, because we want to get to 60 votes in the Senate in '09, but I don't think that should prevent us from asking the question of whether or not someone like Mark Pryor deserves a primary challenge. My gut tells me that Baucus and Johnson are too popular in their home states to make challenges there practicable, but I think we need to aim squarely at Levin, Kerry, and Biden also if this deal goes down.

Can the netroots take aim at the establishment and win?

oops (0.00 / 0)
It's DavidNYC's diary. My bad.
[ Parent ]
yes! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Thoughts (0.00 / 0)
Kerry already has a challenger from the left (Ed O'Reilly), although I doubt he'll achieve enough. Also, if there is a viable challenge to Reid, you could probably expect Kerry to eventually sign on. That said, if you wanted to back O'Reilly contingent on Kerry not doing anything substantive to try and end the war, that might play.

Lautenberg's not a bad vote. Getting somebody like Holt in when he leaves office would be fine, but he's one of our better votes.

Reed would be an easier primary challenge due to the small size of RI, but I don't think you could convince the electorate that he's done enough wrong.

A challenge to Levin might be worth it, just to try to shake up the Michigan Democratic Party establishment.

Harkin's a good senator. Keeping him makes sense.

With Johnson, Landrieu, Baucus and Pryor I don't know who we'd put forward and these seats could become competitive (in LA, actually Lean Republican) if we were to win the primary - and a non-competitive primary is pointless.

In Delaware, we should watch for a Biden retirement, but I don't think we can touch him otherwise.

As for Rockefeller, I'm with you on that one. We'd be horribly outspent (Rockefeller promises not to self-fund in elections, but I think he'd break that for a primary and he's stuffed to the gills with corporate cash anyway) but with a message of opposition to the war and economic populism he might be vulnerable. The only thing is that the candidate might be fairly culturally conservative or hardline on immigration.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Christy Hardin Smith (0.00 / 0)
could run a fantastic primary against Jello Jay Rockefeller if she wanted to run.

unfortunately she'd have to decide immediately because you can't gear up a statewide campaign overnight.

if anyone wants to start a "Draft Christy" campaign, i'll gladly support it.

[ Parent ]
I think netroots people wanted to (0.00 / 0)
but she essentially begged off, because of the age of her daughter. I also think Christy would be great.

Can we find someone (else) in two months?

[ Parent ]
I generally agree (0.00 / 0)
My analysis isn't far from yours. It's imperative, though, that we challenge some higher ups and some blue dogs. Pryor makes the most sense from the latter group, as Arkansas is the most Democratic seat/state out of the group of Montana/SD/LA/Arkie. And as I'm not in favor of cutting my nose to spite my face, I don't think challenges are worthwhile in LA or SD. Montana, maybe, but I think Baucus is just too popular.

I think Rockefeller and Levin are the two that really need challenging; Michigan would be a good state to raise hell in.

However, I disagree about Lautenberg -- he may be a good vote, but does he lead? Holt seems like a progressive leader. That would be a tremendous improvement over a place holder.

I put Biden and Kerry in the same category -- make 'em earn their seats.

I see no point in challenging Harkin or Reed; both are active senators that mostly get it right.

[ Parent ]
NJ is a big (0.00 / 0)
expensive dirty-politics state without many progressive netroots activists.

Rush Holt is not a "pol" and likes the nitty-gritty work he's doing on intelligence and voting machines.

Pryor/Arkansas makes more sense economically and politically if we had a good challenger, but the three Dems in Congress (Ross, Snyder, and Berry) all have lousy voting records.

how about drafting Wes Clark?

[ Parent ]
Two separate issues: Iraq and all other (4.00 / 1)
On Iraq, what is the winning strategy in the Senate?

Personally, as a moral choice, I would let the whole country drop dead before giving another $$ for that war.  But is that a winning strategy?

I think Reid would cut the funding if he had the votes.  He does not have the votes.

So the question is what kind of kamikaze publicity stunt would be better that bluster and caving in.  Maybe something, but I just do not know.  And no one else has pushed hard for one.

Dems are afraid that Iraq will go down the tube, and they will be blamed for "losing Iraq."  Irrational, but, given our media, and the public's desire not to accept any blame for anything, it is a plausible fear.

On the issue of war, I think you have to forget the winning political moves, and do the right thing.  Let the chips fall where they may.  But there are risks.  Like a generation of bamboozlement, and losing seats, losing any ability to do anything.  No easy choice.

On the remaining issues, I think Reid is only concerned with adding seats in purple states (mountain states and plain states), and constantly sells out for short-term gains there.  For example, massive subsidies to ethanol.

I think the strategy is short-sighted.  But not entirely crazy.  Reid can do do-do with 51 votes; he wants desperately to get closer to 60 Dem votes.

$$$ (0.00 / 0)
Loudly and publicly withhold Act Blue and MoveOn support for the current leadership and for all caucus members who refuse to dump them.

Get someone to stand for election for the leadership posts and then flood all congressional offices with demands that they support XYZ in the leadership.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

There may be a ... (4.00 / 1)
tactical opportunity in California this June to give primaries to gutless members of the House of Representatives.  Last year, the California state legislature split the Presidential primary away from the regular state primary.  This was to put a measure (Proposition 93) on the February, 2008, Presidential primary revising term limits so some termed-out members of the Assembly and State Senate could run again in the June, 2008, state primary if the measure passes. 

Turnout in the June, 2008, primary is expected to be rock-bottom.  That means a motivated group can drive a candidate to victory.  It is a chance to give vigorous primary challenges to incumbent members of the U. S. House of Representatives who have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat. 

See here for an example of potential primary challenge already being discussed in CA-12 against Rep. Tom Lantos. 

If Proposition 93 fails on the February, 2008, ballot, recruiting termed-out state legislators to challenge incumbent house members on the June, 2008, primary ballot might be easier than we think. 

Who do we have for CA-20? (0.00 / 0)
I seem to remember there was talk about challenging Jim Costa. Any progress there? Any other primary challenges brewing in CA?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Re: Who do we have for CA-20? (0.00 / 0)
I am not aware of any primary challenges for any California representative. 

I checked the California Assembly and State Senate web sites for possible challengers to Bush Dog Rep. Costa in CA-20.  CA-20 somewhat overlaps with State Senate District 16 and Assembly Districts 30 (map) and 31 (map), all three of which are held by Democrats.  Other overlapping state districts have GOPig incumbents.  I am not familiar with the area to comment on potential county and city officials. 

State Senate District 16 is represented by State Senator Dean Florez.  Senator Florez (D-Shafter) was re-elected to the State Senate in 2006 with 68% of the vote and will be termed out of the State Senate when his current term ends in 2010 unless there is a change to the term limits law, which I think is unlikely.  Interestingly enough, he only served two two-year terms in the Assembly so he could serve another four years there is he chose to run and was elected.  If I understand the election requirements correctly,  he could challenge Rep. Costa in the primary this June and not have to give up his State Senate seat.  (Just for everyone's information, the California State Senate has 25 Democrats and 15 GOPigs.  It takes 27 votes to pass a budget in the state Senate due to the two-thirds requirement.)

On the Assembly side of the state house, there are two potential candidates.  Assembly Member Nicole Parra (D-Hanford) from District 30 and Assembly Member Juan Arambula (D-Fresno) from District 31.  Assembly Member Parra is in her last term in the legislature, unless the term-limits law is changed.  Assembly Member Arambula can run for re-election in 2008 if he so chooses.  I do not know either of their intentions. 

Finally, I am uncertain as to the exact residences of each of these three candidates.  It is possible that State Senator Florez and/or Assembly Member Armabula live outside CA-20, but Assembly Member Parra comes from Hanford and Hanford is squarely within 20.  However, it is not a requirement to be a resident of a congressional district to run for Congress from California, though if one is not, it certainly can become a political problem. 

[ Parent ]
I Don't Think Pelosi Is The Problem In The House (4.00 / 2)
I agree about Reid.  But the problem in the House is those just below Pelosi. Hoyer and Emmanuel are the ones who need replacing.  If we give Pelosi another 30 seats to work with, and replace Reid, things may look significantly better.  Until then, Hoyer and Emmanuel will repeatedly undermine her.

But there's still no substitute for continuing to strengthen netroots and grassroots institutional power.  The more we can bring pressure to bear, the better off we'll be.

As Change To Win organizer John Canham-Clyne said to me last week, "They're only as good as we are orgnized."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
Maryland and Illinois are the two states where primary deadlines have passed, so Steny and Rahm are safe until '11.

"They" are not going to get it, if at all, until we show some of them the door. This is especially true in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
Did you mean '10? (0.00 / 0)
Elections in the House are every two years.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I meant that they're guaranteed to be in office until '11, but '10 is more in keeping w/ what I meant -- we can't challenge them until the primaries in '10.
[ Parent ]
Hoyer (0.00 / 0)
James Cusick, an unemployed disabled worker, is challenging Hoyer.  Cusick lists four platform items.  With the exception of eliminating torture, he would challenge Hoyer from the right.
[ Parent ]
Is Cusick a Dem or Rethug? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Talking seriously aobut new leadership (0.00 / 0)
I'm so glad someone is finally talking seriously about new leadership in Congress.  To date, all I've heard is how we have no power to change Congressional leadership.  There has to be a way.  Damned if I know how to go about it, other than pressure, pressure, pressure.  But that takes organization and numbers to be effective.  I will join in and strongly support any serious effort to get new leadership.  Now is the time.
It takes infrastructure in the large states (0.00 / 0)
The problem is in the House and the followership there, which determines the poor quality of the leadership. I think the conspicuous personalities do not matter much. We are not in the "Kansas" of Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Sam Rayburn -- not even close.

The House works like a large Washington law firm with (i) the "name partners" as "rainmakers" and (ii) a middle-managing partner, like Obey, who herds the committee cats and looks among the associates for talent worth keeping on.

The "representatives" think of themselves as "advocates" in the sense of a lawyer, with paying and pro bono clients, called "contributors" and "constituents", respectively.

This is a dog-eat-dog, individualistic, culture with zero in the way of solidarity or discipline apart from rules to be evaded and some scheme for distributing bonuses based on seniority. In the majority or the minority, the GOP is eating the Democrats' lunch, as Jacob Hacker explains.

The can do this, in part, because of they are now the unified Whig party, and the Democrats are just a remanant of the old Jim Crow coalition that the last vestige of vanished in 1994. The structure of accountability in the House, such as it is, runs to (a) tiny, "buddy-system" alliances, (b) committee barons, (c) the DCCC, and, through (c), (d) a few big lobbies, in ascending order of importance.

The "buddy system" is bi-partisan and, given today's highly disciplined GOP, a subtle catastrophe of policy subversion. The least of its effects is the rise and persistence of "earmarks" -- tiny buddy-system deals that are sanctioned by formerly powerful committee barons.

The committee barons are nothing like they were before 1994 under the Jim Crow legacy of the DLC. That was a coalition, but had at least some bi-partisan reciprocity instead of just subversive erosion of any discipline at all.

The DCCC is a legacy of the DLC and unable to deal with subversion from below while acting primarily as a conduit for influence-peddling from the outside.

The few big lobbies are more influential than ever but more through the weaknesses of the underlying (a) through (c). The fact is that the name partners are tired, old and looking to retirement. They are not even able to play the big lobbies off against each other and, as noted, delegated actual internal leadership to the patronage-chain that the DCCC presides over but does not really manage anything effectively.

What is missing here is infrastructure in large state and county (meaning city) parties, formerly called political "machines". Only these are truly capable of putting Democratic voters back in the accountability chain as citizens with attributes of sovereignty, not as clients on the bottom of a patronage-chain rotting at the head and foot. And, of these, New York, California, Florida, and Texas are important.

Sirota and Barkin have the right idea with "progresssive states". But, dinky states, progressive or not, cannot have much influence in the House without at least one big state which can use both popular and state sovereignty effectively.

If ideological "progressives", practical "populists", and process "liberals" other than contingent-fee transaction- and plaintiff-lawyers, yes, even military-patriotic conservatives, lifestyle oddities more eccentric than flamboyant could all work together on party building in at least one large state with modern technology resources and pre-Reconstruction notions of republican democracy really is, the results could be dramatic and decisive.

::JRBehrman



::JRBehrman

California (4.00 / 1)
seems to be in the lead, thanks to excellent organizing by the Courage Campaign.

they pushed back the Electoral College Theft Initiative and they're taking on DiFi over Telecom Immunity for warrantless wiretapping.

Progressive Democrats of America (pdamerica.org) has a strong chapter in CA and in several other states. they work within the state party to pass resolutions on progressive policy.

but it's an awfully long way from that kind of work to changing the power structure inside Congress...

[ Parent ]
"Better" Dems? It Is To Laugh (0.00 / 1)
Seems to me that's what was supposed to have happened in '06.

What have those "better" Dems done?

..............Crickets..............

Whose nominations have they blocked?

............(more) Crickets...........

What war-funding have they amended?

.............(More) Crickets............

What fascist initiatives have they obstructed?

..........(We're gonna run outta) Crickets.........

Sorry, folks, the system's shot. It's never gonna get any better than it is today. The best we can hope is that it doesn't get any worse, though there's really nothing we can do to prevent it, short of armed insurrection.

Word (0.00 / 0)
I've been having the same thoughts for some time now.

We need accountability.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

Pelosi (4.00 / 1)
Is not the problem. As Paul said it's the Bush Dog wing. Hoyer is undermining Pelosi on the legislative side and Emmanuel is undermining her on the strategy side.

Reid should go though. But Dodd? Chris Dodd isn't even a assistant whip. Dick Durbin is the majority whip. He's the number 2 in the Senate. My only worry is that Chucky Torture would beat him because of his money that he gave to freshmen and all that. I'm not against Dodd but he realistically doesn't have a chance.

In the house current DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen or Rosa DeLauro could replace Rahm. Rosa DeLauro lost by a few votes in 2002 for Conference Chair, but she's quite a insider (former EMILY's LIST president, Dodd CoS and is married to Stan Greenberg.) Hollen is also a insider but both of them are progressives. Jim Clyburn is the third ranking Democrat and he's not a perfect progressive but he's fairly progressive and he doesn't seem as corporate as Hoyer or Rahm. Jan Schakowsky would make a great whip, she is currently chief deputy whip so she could probably win.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Time For New Leadership In Congress | 67 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox