A Rant During The Filibuster

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 13:34


Ah, the Democratic controlled Congress. Republican Senate holds are respected, Democratic Senate holds are not. Republicans need 50 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, while Democrats need 60. Only one Democrat is needed to pass a renewable energy bill, and that Democrat is in serious danger of defeat in her next election? Forget applying pressure on her, just roll over and gut the bill. Bush threatens to veto Iraq war funding? Just roll over and give him a blank check. Challenge the Bush Dogs who vote with Republicans? Nah, they will just withhold funds from the DCCC if anyone dare to even suggest they face primary challenges, while other Democrats continue to just pour money into their campaign coffers. Use more aggressive tactics to challenge this situation? Nah, those would just hurt Democrats at the voting booth (and we are doing great in special elections as a result of this timidity). Can't end the war or change its direction? Well, at least we can condemn opponents of the war, and make others apologize. And so, we end up in a situation where Democrats and Independents, the same people who voted for new leadership in Congress, approve of the Democratic-controlled Congress as much as Republicans do.

More in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: A Rant During The Filibuster
Republicans should approve of this Congress as much as Democrats and Independents. This is the conservative working majority in action. Republicans have lower bars to pass legislation. Out of fear of election repercussions, Democrats fail to employ aggressive tactics to protest Republican filibusters and vetoes, and yet Democrats do poorly in special elections anyway. Bush Dogs vote with Republicans to block all Democratic legislation, and instead of using election resources as leverage to apply pressure on Bush Dogs, Democrats change legislation to suit Bush Dogs and pour money into their campaign coffers while Bush Dogs withhold money from other Democrats. Democrats can't change the direction of the war, but are willing to take Iraq off the table and chastise their allies who are still working to stop the war. In this Congress, there is a consistent cycle of deference to conservatives by the leadership, and progressives still find themselves in the minority overall. Democratic control of Congress did not alter Democratic capitulation and deference to conservatives and Republicans, allowing Bush to continue to govern more or less unimpeded despite an approval rating that has been stuck in the low thirties for most of the last two years. It could allow conservative to govern even under a Democratic trifecta.

Hopefully Dodd can make a dent in pattern, but even if he does, we need to make sure that it is more than a one-time affair. I'm tired of asking people to call Democratic Senators who are doing the wrong thing. I am tired of moving from fight to fight, and losing most of them to capitulation. I'm tired of giving time and resources to institutions that perpetuate the cycle of Democratic deference to conservatives and Republicans. If we pour our resources into those institutions and candidates who perpetuate the cycle, then we are propping up the problem rather than helping to fix it. We have to offer incentives to people who break the cycle, and we need leaders in Congress who are willing to stand up against this cycle on a systematic basis. Filibusters are good, but we need Democrats in Congress who are willing to use their Leadership PACs to do things like raise money for primary challenges, and only support progressive Democrats in the general election. Without systematic, alternative, leadership structures like this, our resources will always be used, to some extent, to prop up the conservative working majority rather than tearing it down.

So yeah, let's cheer on this filibuster, but it is going to take more than the occasional grand gesture to end the conservative working majority and replace it with a progressive one.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
ActBlue for Filibuster (4.00 / 2)
Chris,

Is there a way to put a funding response in place for Dems who filibuster etc.? I'm imagining an actblue page called Thanks for the Filibuster [or something like that], sponsored by OpenLeft FireDogLake and Daily Kos so that Dems can see in real time and real money that people are watching?

Or when someone concedes on a major vote, i.e. Wynn to pour money into Donna Edwards?

It would have to be very specific and well-advertised.

Just a thought. We could try to symbolically tie funding to votes.

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


Yes (0.00 / 0)
That is an idea I would contribute to.

Now it is possible it wouldn't be enough to matter, but I trust folks more deeply into this than I am to evaluate that.

Can it happen here?


[ Parent ]
And this is why they won't see any of my $$$ (4.00 / 1)
I work hard for my money, and if I invest it I expect to see some positive results. As long as these wimps keep caving on EVERYTHING and are afraid of their own shadows the party gets nothing from me.

But I fear... (4.00 / 1)
a lack of votes or a lack of money is not a clear message. Its the same problem as people who say thay wont vote in 08 if Hillary wins. It is not a message. It is an absence.

I think we need to find a way to show support for votes that everyone can see.

Other Dems cant see thank-you calls to Dodd.

They can see an uptick in donations at ActBlue at the moment he begins the filibuster.

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


[ Parent ]
Distracted by the Primary (0.00 / 0)
The sad truth is that it matters very little who wins the Democratic primary.  The major problem Democrats have is the Congress.  The "Democratic" Congress wasn't any stronger when they had a Democrat in the WH in the 1990s than they are today. 

So long as so many Democrats are scared of not being enough like Republicans, instead of the blowback from being weak on progressive issues, then we'll lose. 

I have no doubt that unless we get a lot bigger majority in Congress, there will be enough Democrats around to undermine anything a Democratic president will do in a wide-array of areas, including healthcare and the environment.


That's the thing (0.00 / 0)
They should be a lot more solid.  We lost most of the Dixiecrat jerks to the Republicans in 1994.  The Democratic seats we've been gaining back are in the West, the Northeast and the Midwest. 

Even Ken Salazar and Bob Casey, jr. are better than Zell Miller, after all.


[ Parent ]
Dems Win More When They Fight (4.00 / 4)
The weird thing is that Democrats win more when they put up a solid fight.  They gained seats in 1998 fighting off impeachment.  I'd say the same thing last year, they showed some fight (not enough for my taste, but some) and were rewarded for it.

The Dems should be using Congressional power to discredit the Administration and play to a larger narrative.  Say what you will about Republicans, they know how to do this.  Democrats scatter in a million different directions, with some of them siding against there own.

How does Pete Stark ever risk censure when he's a member of the majority party?  How does Move-On get condemned?  It's pathetic.


[ Parent ]
Losing to losers (4.00 / 1)
I am tired of moving from fight to fight, and losing most of them to capitulation.

Doesn't it suck when you're fighting with losers, and they give up, and you still lose?

I think the big project for us is going to be to get progressives in a position where leadership feels like we have similar leverage to the current Bush dogs, who can always dangle the threat of defection to the right.  Leadership knows that we can't do that, so what's the solution?  I would say it's basically what you've outlined here: make it clear that there is going to be some pain associated with marginalizing us.

Yes we Kang


Leverage? (0.00 / 0)
I think the big project for us is going to be to get progressives in a position where leadership feels like we have similar leverage to the current Bush dogs, who can always dangle the threat of defection to the right.  Leadership knows that we can't do that, so what's the solution?  I would say it's basically what you've outlined here: make it clear that there is going to be some pain associated with marginalizing us.

I think this is the key insight. The question is, how do we create such leverage? I'm not sure we're doing anything to create that right now: the filibuster is showing there is an inconvenience for Reid associated with marginalizing us, but I'm unconvinced that he sees us as a player to be reckoned with rather than just an obstacle to be overcome. Has a message been made clear to Reid that if Dodd's side fails here, there will be consequences for Reid?

How can we create consequences for marginalizing the progressive vote? How can we create this leverage you describe? The third party tactic was tried in 2000 and shown not to work very well. Even without a third party we can withhold support from anti-progressive candidates in close races-- effectively showing that it isn't just the Bush Dogs who can walk away-- but that line will be hard to hold, and such a tactic is likely anyway to be self-defeating (even if not by much). I can't think of anything effective that doesn't involve primary challenges.


[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
Although it is better for the other side to go third party, it can help to at least threaten to go third party.

Primary fights are the best and most effective means, and maybe the only effective means to make a change, even if that change means just giving the Bush Dog a swift kick off center.

And only giving support (money and more importantly time and expertise) to the greater good rather than the lesser evil is another. 


[ Parent ]
My favortite section of his opening speech is this: (4.00 / 6)

In 2002, we took the president's word and voted to go to war on faulty intelligence. What if we took his word again-and found, next year or the year after, that we had blindly legalized grave crimes?

If this disastrous war has taught us anything, it is that the Senate must never again stack such a momentous decision on such a weak foundation of fact. The decision we're asked to make today is not, of course, as immense. But between fact and decision, the disproportion is just as huge.

So I rise in determined opposition to this unprecedented immunity and all that it represents. I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century. I have spoken from this desk hundreds and hundreds of times. I have rarely come to the floor with such anger.

But since I came to Washington, I have seen six presidents sit in the White House-and I have never seen a contempt for the rule of law equal to this. Today I have reached a breaking point. Today my disgust has found its limit.

I don't expect every one of my colleagues to share that disgust, or that limit. I wish they did-but had that been the case, we would never have come to this point.

I only ask them to believe me when I say if I did not speak today, my conscience would not let me rest.



John McCain is dishonest


Make Useless Democrats Sweat (4.00 / 4)
The left wing blogosphere needs to unite.  We need to pick three Bush dogs and spend most of our time and money making their lives a living hell with primary challenges. We need to do this every cycle. It doesn't even matter much who we pick. We just need to have every Democrat fear progressives as much as they fear AIPAC or the NRA. It's the only thing they understand.

... (0.00 / 0)
The useless Democrats that most need to be targeted are in the Senate--that's the caviing, capitulating body we're all talking about here. I've given money to Mark Pera and I've given money to Tom Allen in Maine, but where are the primary challengers in the Senate?

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
Here are the 5 worst and then more info in the link.
Boren  OK-02  R +4.9  7
Marshall  GA-08  R +8  7
Barrow  GA-12  R +2  6
Lampson  TX-22  R +14.5  6
Taylor  MS-04  R +16.3  5

http://www.openleft....


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


Come Fucking ON! Chuy, pipples. No incumbent is gonna fund primary challengers (0.00 / 0)
to other incumbents; particularly not in the same party. Jeezus, fucking Obama endorsed and gave money to Lieberman AFTER the primary in 2006. So did Salazar (CO)...

C'mon, if you cant actually BE reality-based, at least pretend you are cognizant of the real world of C/COPPP: Corruption/Careerism, Opportunism,  Power, Privilege and Perqs.



chuy pipples? (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
You not from 'round here, como que no? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Just asking. Still don't know what it means. (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... (0.00 / 0)
Me neither.

Hard to say if I care at this point.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Try goooooogle (0.00 / 0)
and think about writin' wit an accent.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
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.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search