So I was sitting around my house today, putting off doing my Latin homework, when it hit me - instead of just opening the fridge a dozen times and checking my facebook a hundred times, I could be putting this time to good use! And I did. I started doing some online phonebanking for Marcy Winograd's campaign for Congress in California's 36th district.
If you're bored, feeling helpless and alone amidst a sea of political currents fighting against you, excited about the upcoming primaries and election, overcome with energy you need to spend on something, or feeling any other emotion, this is for you! Marcy has been a member of the Netroots for years and is a firebrand progressive. Since she's running against a corrupt Blue Dog (Jane Harman), this is one of the best races in the country for progressives to get involved in.
I live in Pennsylvania, yet I'm still able to help Marcy's campaign, because of a neat online phonebanking tool that has been set up. Follow me below the fold to learn how you can help, too.
Change Congress founder Lawrence Lessig -- with whom I work on campaign finance reform issues -- announced a new TV ad on Friday shaming "Blue Dog" leader Mike Ross on the public option.
In the ad, Keith Olbermann calls out Ross for his special-interest contributions -- and then recent poll numbers show that Ross is siding with those interests against his own constituents.
It's caused quite the buzz. Within hours, it was covered by NBC, ABC, Politico, Huffington Post, The Young Turks, Roll Call...and Rachel Maddow.
In addition to calling out Ross on the public option, this ad gets to the root of the problem: our corrupt campaign finance system, calling for Mike Ross to support fundamental reform.
Lessig's announcement of the ad -- and Rachel Maddow's clip -- are below the fold.
On Thursday, July 30th, the Progressive Caucus held a press conference to draw a line in the sand when it comes to the inclusion of a strong public option in the health care bill.
Last week we launched Change-Congress.org. After that event, I made my first call on a Member of Congress, to ask him to join. I knew he was a supporter of at least some of our ideas. I had come to many of my own ideas about how Congress needs to change after long conversations with him.
I am very proud to announce today that Congressman Jim Cooper (TN-5) (Dem) has become the first Member to join the Change Congress movement. (He supports planks 2, 3, and 4). Congressman Cooper is a "blue dog" Democrat.
http://campaign-archive.com/ar...
I am not sure how I feel about this. More below the jump.
So I feel like the Dems fell for a distinctly Karl-Rovian tactic today. Rove is well known for his divide and conquer tactics using controversial wedge issues to chip away at the Democratic base while whipping the Republican base into a froth.
I think that is what the MoveOn resolution was about.
Not only did it help the Republicans shift the debate for a day or two off their failed policy, but right now the Democratic base, or at least the progressive base is furious with the Dems for voting against MoveOn and free speech.
So now the question I am torn between is this: do we add a new category to the BushDogs and start watching those Dems very closely who voted against MoveOn and free speech (and possibly fall into the Rovian trap of splitting even further from them), do we let it slide, or what do we do?
I for one think those Dems who voted against MoveOn and free speech need to never hear the end of our anger over this. But I also fear falling into the Rovian trap of abandoning them come election time.
I think MoveOn and the netroots should launch a campaign to unseat the author of the anti-MoveOn bill: Cornyn http://cornyn.senate...
Below is a complete breakdown of the votes as linked here.... http://www.senate.go...
There is overlap between the Bush Dogs and Blue Dogs, but also some examples of outstanding Blue Dogs like Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. Most Blue Dogs claim that the group focuses on fiscal responsibility, controlling spending, and balancing budgets. But the Wall Street Journal argues otherwise.
The Right to Respond in this case relates to a post I made on Saturday evening about the IL-14 primary, IL-14: Differentiating Between Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs. In that post, I openly wondered if Bill Foster was positioning himself to become a Bush Dog by announcing his planned affiliation with the Blue Dogs. This is the campaign's response. Judge for yourself if you feel it is adequate--Chris
First, thanks to Chris for the opportunity to tell folks here at OL a little more about myself and about this campaign and to answer some of the concerns raised.
On the campaign trail, I tell voters most often about my background as a scientist and businessman, but I realize that probably doesn't signal as much about my politics and values as some folks in the netroots would appreciate, so before I talk issues, let me talk about my family.
My mom and dad met on Capitol Hill while my mom was working for Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois and my dad was working for Senator Myers of Pennsylvania. Mom came from a family of inventors and dad was a chemist before taking up what would be one of his many achievements: his work on the civil rights movement.
Well the idea for going after the Bush Dogs has gotten a bit of pickup in local press, even though we haven't yet gone forward with it. Here's DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen.
"Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats?" writes blogger Matt Stoller on Open Left. "We can't replace all of them with progressive Democrats, but we can certainly annoy at least a few of them and raise the costs for voting against the Constitution."
That would be liking shooting themselves in the foot, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told us recently when asked about such groups upset with lawmakers like Carney.
Meanwhile, Congress wins just 18% positive approval from Democrats, while 80% of Dems give them negative marks for their performance so far. Republicans watching the performance of the Democratic-controlled Congress are more harsh - just 12% give it good marks, while 86% said they are doing only a "fair" or "poor" job in Washington. Political independents appear to agree with Republicans on this count - just 16% give Congress positive marks, while the balance give it a negative rating.
The public is mad at Democrats for caving to Bush. Check out these numbers from the approve/disapprove on whether Bush should have the power to wiretap the phone calls and emails of Americans without a search warrant from a judge. 60% of all voters, 77% of Democrats, 66% of Indepedents, and 36% of Republicans strongly disapproval, with another 12% overall giving a softer disapproval. Those are nearly Terri Schiavo numbers type numbers.
We wouldn't have to do this if Van Hollen, Hoyer, and Rahm could actually impose discipline on the Bush Dog Democrats they just got elected. Instead, it's pretty obvious that Pelosi has very little control over the House, and had to schedule a vote on FISA or she would face an open revolt. Worse yet, it's also obvious that Van Hollen doesn't care. He doesn't recognize we're trying to help him do a better job and work against the alienation most voters feel. I was pretty explicit that we are not going to try to primary these people, that's up to local Democrats. We are just offering criticism and a bit of political pressure for voting to shred the Constitution, which, incidentally, is probably a very stupid political move for the Democrats as a whole.
It's a good thing that Van Hollen is getting asked about this by the press. Next time there's a close vote, he'll have a stronger incentive to whip Bush Dogs more effectively.
