...there are a lot of folks I think on both sides, but the question will be will the super-left on my party - the MoveOn crowd in my party - and the Tea Party crowd on the other party, you know, they don't compromise, so you know, I for one am...you know, there were too many times I bit my lip in the first year, or bit my tongue...I'm done...
Of course, MoveOn was formed spontaneously from a viral petition asking Congress to "move on" from the Clinton impeachment circus and get back to doing real work for the American people. Versailles, of course, felt that he should be driven from office, so they could all feel virtuous again, what with their Gingriches and Livingstons and Henry Hydes, and all the other GOP adulterers going, "Tut! Tut! Tut!"
And how did the American people feel?
Via PollingReport.com a pretty consistent 60%+ were opposed to impeachment, despite intense media messaging to the contrary:
What's more, a rarely-asked question found a similar 60% felt that Congress wasn't listening to them:
And, of course, another issue that MoveOn has long been associated with--also a message that's not particularly popular in the media--is opposition to the Iraq War. Also, for several years now, a 60% or so position among the American people (Via PollingReport.com:):
This progressive populist message that I have been writing about in recent weeks that seriously moves the dial for Democrats in Stan Greenberg's polling is being used by more and more candidates. Here's three exciting examples:
1. A growing group of members of Congress are going to be on the Hill tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 PM EST doing a press conference to push a strong reform agenda on behalf of the middle class. They will be endorsing the 3-point platform- strong lobbying reform, public financing of elections, and overturning Citizens United- that MoveOn members overwhelmingly supported in their voting, that 506,832 have already endorsed with their signatures, that 14 groups have signed on to, and that 201 members of Congress and candidates have already signed up for. Confirmed speakers at the press conference include the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Raul Grijalva, the head of the Populist Caucus Bruce Braley, Rep. Chris Murphy, Rep. Paul Hodes, Rep. Paul Tonko, and Rep. Keith Ellison, and more are adding their names as we get closer to the event.
2. Check out this ad from Joe Sestak, attacking all the big corporate money being dumped in his race, and the motives of those spending the money.
3. Finally, check out this great new ad from Tommy Sowers. This is my favorite ad in the campaign so far. It definitely smells of country populism.
The great thing about these ads is that they go directly to the heart of what is going on this campaign cycle: because of the Citizens United decision, and because they don't like being challenged in any way by even modest reform measures like the Wall Street reform bill, Wall Street, Big Oil, the big health insurers, and the Chamber of Commerce have been on the rampage, dumping tens of millions of dollars like it was going out of style into these campaigns, trying to buy the elections. The only way Democrats have a chance is to stand tall and call them out, to fight directly against them and the economic sins that have destroyed this country's economy.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.
Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
The United States Military Industrial Complex has might. General and former President Eisenhower understood this. He warned Americans. Abundant might does not make right; it only advances the notion of righteousness. Patriotism is promoted through militarism. His words fell on deaf ears. The sound was hollow in contrast to the drone of drumbeats. At the time, Americans were as they are today; dedicated to the customs we think characterize democracy.
We see this in many a war and peace policy. Questions are asked of the government and the people. Testimony is taken. Think tanks assess Foreign Policy. Conclusions are drawn and decisions made. Still, in 2010, a few within the electorate wonder as General Eisenhower had.. With Al-Qaida Fading, Why Expand the Afghan War?
I just got off a media conference call with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The old "wireline" Internet that will be irrelevant in a few years? We propose a "new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices" on that.
New "wireless services" (aka the entire future of the Internet)? No equivalent nondiscrimination rules for that, but we'll "create enforceable transparency rules." That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away.
Just in case "wireless services" doesn't encompass the entire future of the Internet, a new class of "new services" is envisioned, which Schmidt and Seidenberg actively differentiated from "the public Internet." Basically, through private contracting, big corporations could deal directly with the Verizons and AT&Ts of the world to create the next YouTube, maybe dangle it without discrimination to the public just long enough for us to be hooked, and then discriminate like hell over it. But don't worry, the FCC will "monitor the development of these services."
Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just "went evil."
This letter was launched last week by 5 groups that use the Internet to organize millions of Americans around issues, and are now using the Internet to save the Internet itself -- Free Press, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, MoveOn, Credo Action, and ColorOfChange.
Why did Google cut this absurd deal, one that dramatically hurts its credibility in the online space?
When I was at Netroots Nation on Thursday, I pointed out why a majority in the House of members with D's next to their names isn't as valuable as a majority populated by Better Democrats:
We currently hold a 37-vote-margin in the House. Yet 34 Democrats voted against the health care reform and 19 voted against financial reform. It doesn't take a genius to see that it barely matters what happens in November when that many Democrats are voting with - and voting like - Republicans.
That's why you were there for Donna Edwards when she took on Al Wynn. That's why you were there for Bill Halter when he took on Blanche Lincoln. And that's why you should be with me as I take on Stephen Lynch.
As a reminder, my opponent in the Democratic primary, incumbent Stephen Lynch, voted for the Iraq War and its continued funding, for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, and against health care reform, and has voted to restrict a woman's right to choose.
The differences between my values and Stephen Lynch's values couldn't be clearer. Ilyse Hogue, Director of Political Advocacy and Communications for MoveOn.org, highlighted as much when she sat down with Amy Goodman for an episode of Democracy Now! taped on location at Netroots Nation:
Amy Goodman (52:33): Ilyse Hogue, what about other primaries that are taking place?
Ilyse Hogue (52:37): Well, I think Bill Halter was the precursor. What we saw was him embodying a very strong feeling that our members have, and we think is sweeping across the country, which is he was taking on Wall Street. But Blanche Lincoln was also showing a friendliness towards the HMO's during the health care fight. And, what we're seeing is the base - our members - saying, 'Enough with Democrats who think that they're more accountable to corporate powers in this country than they are to us.
So we're seeing that same thing play out with Stephen Lynch and Mac D'Alessandro in Massachusetts-09. That primary is September 14th. What's interesting about that is that that is largely believed to be a safe Democratic seat, so the primary is actually the election. And Stephen Lynch, who is the incumbent, voted against the health care bill even though, at the end of the day, most of the Democratic base thought it would provide some relief. He did not do it as a champion for the public option. He was not there for the public option fight.
Mac D'Alessandro has come in and he's said, 'You know what? If we really want this democracy to be owned by the people and work for the people, we've got to do things. We've got to overturn Citizens United. We've got to actually get public financing. We've got to get lobbyists out of D.C.' And, I think that most Americans are looking for action on specific legislation like financial regulations, but they're also looking for people who are going to challenge the system because the system is not working for most Americans.
The kind of grassroots campaign that I'm running is built upon reaching out to voters directly, on the phones and at the doors. With the help of enthusiastic supporters across the 9th district, we have built a grassroots army that has generated strong momentum.
Just today, it was announced that we finished in second place in Democracy for America's Grassroots All-Stars contest, a competition that began with ninety candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives from across the country. I was the top finishing candidate among those still in a primary campaign, and I was the only candidate among the top five finalists not from the state of California.
I am running against an entrenched incumbent who has a million dollar warchest lined with contributions from big corporations and special interests. But, if there's one thing I've heard over and over again from voters as I've gone door to door across the district, it's that the voters want someone who stands up to big corporations, not someone who is funded by them.
That's why I need your support and the support of the netroots. Like Ilyse Hogue said, this is a blue district, so we have an opportunity to focus on electing the best Democrat we can. I urge you to support my campaign so that Massachusetts' 9th can be represented by a Better Democrat.
It looks like MoveOn.org members are just as excited about Elaine Marshall as DFA and the rest of North Carolina. Over 70% of MoveOn.org's NC members supported Elaine in for the runoff on June 22. The vote will determine which candidate will run against incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R).
Elaine Marshall's popularity in North Carolina reflects her deep roots in the community. Marshall was also endorsed by Durham mayor Bill Bell and Asheville mayor Terry Bellam.
Marshall's opponent, supported by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has raised $1.2 million against Marshall's $775,003, but is still behind in the polls. It's not over yet though, and when they start spending that money on ads to attack Marshall, she will need your help.
Hi, folks. Stephanie Taylor, one of my PCCC co-founders, just sent out this email to our members.
She's on a plane, so I wanted to share it with the OpenLeft community which was such a big part of the Bill Halter movement experience:
Hey everyone,
Last night was a really tough night. You've probably heard by now, but Bill Halter lost the Arkansas Senate primary to Blanche Lincoln in a squeaker.
The Democratic Party establishment and the White House teamed up with big corporations to protect one of the most corporate-owned senators in America -- and they barely won.
Today in news reports, the political insiders are gloating. They're proud that they beat thousands of people fighting for change.
But what the political establishment doesn't realize is that the progressive movement built power in this election.
Bill Halter started nearly 20 points down. He wasn't taken seriously by most insiders. But he gave Blanche Lincoln the scare of a lifetime with the help of a vibrant progressive movement -- thousands of people who committed time, talent, and small-dollar donations in the fight for change.
We formed the PCCC last year to create a new model for supporting progressive candidates. This race was an important building block:
Update: Republican strategist John Feehery on Ed Shultz just said that Move-On raised so much money in the last election that this ruling will level the playing field.
Plus, the little guy is employed by corporations so they can be confident that they'll be represented by them.
Reality:
MoveOn: 2008 Total Spent: $38,123,090 (from OpenSecrets.org).
FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) Sector: 2008 Total Contributions: $476,002,480 (from OpenSecrets.org).
That's 12.5 times as much as MoveOn spent.
Chevron 2008 Profits: $23,900 million (from "Big Oil Misers", Center for American Progress).
That's 626.9 times as much as MoveOn spent.
Chevron 2008 Profits Per Day: $65,479,452.05.
That's 1.7 times as much as MoveOn spent.
ExxonMobile 2008 Profits: $45,200 million (from "Big Oil Misers").
That's 1185.6 times as much as MoveOn spent.
ExxonMobile 2008 Profits Per Day: $123,835,616.44
That's 3.25 times as much as MoveOn spent.
Saddam's WMD's OTOH, could still turn up... in the Twilight Zone. Better stick with that fable, John. It's much more realistic.
So the Villagers have circled their wagons around FOX in the name of respect, comity and High Broderism. Why their don't actually join in the fun and report on FOX's biased coverage, since it might ultimately help their own ratings, is beyond me, but that's what we get. Ruth Marcus published an absurd piece in the WaPo on Monday, which Eric Boehlert takes apart, and yesterday ABC's Jake Tapper called FOX a "sister organization" and attacked Robert Gibbs over the White House's position. Other talking heads have taken up the banner. The Village doesn't actually recognize its Idiots, and has become them.
It's all very heartwarming to see all the little media Villagers gather around their wealthy potential future employer, Fox News, and defend it from the big bad White House, but seriously, is there any real doubt that Fox News (not the gasbags ---but Fox News itself) is biased? (As Boehlert asks here --- has Ruth Marcus ever watched Fox News?) There are so many examples that it seems ridiculous to have to make the case, but evidently the villagers are so brainwashed they can't even see what's before their very eyes.
[...]
But just as it took nearly 25 years for the villagers to grok that even though he was invited to dinner parties by important people, Rush Limbaugh is actually a malignant blight on humanity, those who don't watch Fox News (and therefore agree with it) simply assume they must be ok because they hire lots of credentialed journalists and are invited to all the important social events. It would be downright unseemly if it turns out that right wing fascists are walking among them.
The whole thing reminds me of when Dana Milbank called HuffPo's Nico Pitney a "planted questioner" and a "dick", jealously upset that a new media outlet like HuffPo actually got a question in a live White House press conference. It's Villagers guarding their corridors of power, whether the people trying to come in is the HuffPo or the Obama administration.
I'm watching for the reaction of congressional Democrats, which I haven't seen much of. FOX gets elected Dems, former elected Dems, and Dem strategists on their network as their bread and butter, and a key to their legitimization and continued existence.
In something of a win, FOX was told that they should not "expect" Obama to appear on their network for the rest of the year. MoveOn launched a petition yesterday asking Democrats to follow his lead and stay off the network. It's a start towards "fringe-ifying" FOX by taking away those that gets it legitimization and viewership.
Lest the White House not take me seriously, let me emphasize I am fully dressed and do not have a bag of Cheetos to my left as I type
As Chris wrote last night, the White House called me and all of you an "internet left fringe", and declared that I need to understand that running the country is difficult. This is nothing new from this Administration, since another (or perhaps the same) WH adviser dismissed those who push for a public option as "the left of the left", and Obama himself has said he doesn't read blogs, that he found DailyKos boring, skipped the Senate vote to censure MoveOn, and on and on.
Folks in Obamaland have been hyperparanoid for some time that a vast majority of the electorate not only understands the progressive internet media and organizing space, but that it's a Very Important Issue to voters, and they will take great offense if Obama said he read a blog every once in awhile and, hey, even found DailyKos to be interesting, and even voted with 25, or about half, of his Democratic colleagues against censure. Surely, that would have made front-page headlines, inspired huge attack ads from McCain, and caused us to lose the election, Obama advisers must have thought. In reality, not so much. "How will it play in Peoria?!", Rahm anxiously thought. "What's a blog?", Peoria resident might have responded.
Simultaneously, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has engaged in something of a week-long war this past week against FOX News, on the record. Earlier she said FOX is "opinion journalism masquerading as news" to TIME Magazine, then followed up on CNN yesterday, saying FOX is "either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party", then did an interview with the New York Times published today, saying "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Perhaps this is either another game of 32-dimensional chess from the White House- this time with the media and the electorate instead of with Republicans in Congress- but it's like triangulation is again in vogue. And this time it's 21st century style- movement-based instead of issue-based. As John Harwood said when reporting the White House comment:
we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.
That is actually much in dispute, since as Mike Lux wrote here, depression of base Democratic turnout- not anger from centrist voters over social issues- was the key to the losses that year. But Harwood's views are clearly echoed by this White House, which is determined to make sure it is not seen as either captive of the movement left or the movement right. Never mind that, um, the movement left helped get Obama's ass into the White House. Never mind that when a zillion of these Obama voters who report how they haven't voted since Ted Kennedy in 1980 (some even earlier) vanish if we don't get a lot of the hope-iness and change-yness that Obama promised, movement lefties like many of us at OpenLeft will be the only ones here battling to make sure we don't get crushed in Congress and at the ballot box. Never mind that the Obamaland folks' comments about blogs and the "left of the left" are actually aimed at elites, since "mainstream" voters don't care about or understand blogs or progressive movement institutions. And I have yet to find data or analysis of any kind demonstrating that other stupid things to smack the left that Obamaland has done- for example, his random editorial board interview praise of Reagan- was a significant contributing factor to his election, or even noticed by "mainstream" voters.
I'm glad that the White House is engaging some kind of war with FOX News, and I know that I, many of my blogging colleagues, and many of you here in our internet left fringe have thick skins. But there are limits to the bullshit, both in rhetoric and in policy delivery. And why the White House chooses to do stupid little things like this without any perceptible reward from voters is beyond me.
There was a post at RedState I read over the weekend, "Defending Against an Alinsky Campaign", that illuminated Glenn Beck's and other conservative tactics recently for me. In graduate school, I took a grassroots politics class in which I read Alinsky's Reveille for Radicals, which actually predated his more well-known and popular Rules for Radicals. In it, he discusses the necessity of taking an opponent, "fixating" on an element or characteristic that could be blown up, "personalizing" it/her/him for the general public to match a negative perception with the name, and "humiliating" it/her/him as much as possible until you win. You see this to a limited extent with Van Jones- which wasn't even reported in many major outlets before he resigned, and certainly much of the public could not name who he was. But you see it to a smaller extent with Yosi Sergant with the NEA. And you see it big-time with ACORN. The two videographers fixated on what could be blown up (getting a few employees to screw up), and then with the noise machine's help, personalized ACORN and made the employees emblematic of the organization as a whole.
The attacks are seemingly unrelated, but I expect to see more that are related to the original personalizations- e.g., a petition asking those affiliated with ACORN to step down. And in some cases, they don't even need to do it. As Paul wrote last night, Democratic members of Congress- many of whom benefited greatly from ACORN's voter registration efforts over the years and advertised their close ties with ACORN- have already distanced themselves. Obama, who himself represented ACORN in a lawsuit and was affiliated in other ways with the group throughout the late 1990s, called for an investigation. I don't see what Obama did as cowardly as Congressional Dems' actions, since even ACORN's chief organizer called for the same, but it adds to the pile-on and keeps the story in the news. It works in what one colleague calls concentric circles- personalize and attack those closest to the organization, then attack those close to those you just attacked, and so forth.
The whole episode got me thinking of response tactics and a failure in organizing to stop this in its tracks. One of my favorite posts by Matt Stoller was one he wrote around failure to stop Alito's nomination and tactics that could have been pursued, but were not. There was organizing here that could have been pursued, but was not. One response that perhaps should have been pursued is similar to what Wes Boyd and Joan Blades of MoveOn.org did in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal- make the ask to "censure and move on". Slap someone/an organization on the wrist, but recognize there are a few bad apples in every organization/corporation, and that there are bigger problems. The advantage to this is that our esteemed Democratic leaders in Congress, in this kind of situation, are looking for an easy out, something to kill this story and give them something to say when a CNN reporter sticks a microphone in their face about it. A resolution is much preferable to de-funding just as a resolution is preferable to impeachment.
Another was to organize to ask for support prior to such a vote. We, including myself, should have organized earlier for a statement of support from those who benefit most/have the closest ties to ACORN, found a Progressive Block that could have blocked a defunding vote (similar to Chris' theory around holding a Block to stand firm on the public option and other key issues), and worked to lock them in. ACORN's tool to ask your member of Congress to stand firm is another step towards this.
The one problem with the latter tactic, at least, is that we operate in a media environment where pressure to de-fund, disaffiliate, distance oneself from, etc. builds like a head of steam in 24 hours, and makes it difficult to organize that kind of larger effort. The Alito nomination and the whip count on health care took months. We didn't have that kind of time. Regardless, once the Senate vote came down, something needed to happen quickly, and it didn't. Progressive movement actors, myself included, have to learn from this episode and figure out where we all went wrong in working to support those attacked. Other organizations/people will soon find themselves in a similar situation. The writer at RedState suggested targeting purple-district Congressional Dems themselves with the same Alinsky tactics and force the already-cautious among them to distance themselves from Obama. I can see this having policy implications, such as around LGBT issues. This can all snowball quickly. It is important to learn from these episodes and figure out a quicker rapid-response.
As many of you know, I was involved with helping MoveOn get off the ground back in 1998, when I was at People For the American Way. Since then, they have come a long way to being a political force. A new documentary has just come out that Brave New Films is helping to promote, titled MoveOn: The Movie. The trailer is here, and it looks fantastic. It really documents the energy and the new strategy of doing multi-issue politics rather than single-issue siloed politics that has held the progressive movement back for so long. Since MoveOn's founding, many more groups, both at the national level like PCCC and at the state level, have seen themselves as part of a movement, and pitched in with various campaigns. MoveOn really has revolutionized progressive politics.
I'm telling you about this because OpenLeft has partnered with Brave New Films to help release both MoveOn: The Movie as well as Robert Greenwald's new film, Rethinking Afghanistan, based in large part on his recent trip there. For every DVD purchase you buy, OpenLeft will get $5, which will help us do our brand of multi-issue activism and building progressive infrastructure. It's a two-fer, and helps promote these great films. And I think you'll like both.
Please click here to purchase MoveOn: The Movie, and click here to purchase Rethink Afghanistan. And thanks for helping support progressive infrastructure (squared).
Remember right after the Obama victory when everyone asked what the progressive movement's role would be in this new political world?
The big question for movement leaders was (and is) what to do when Obama goes weak on an issue like FISA when the progressive base really wants to love Obama. The environmental bill presents some similarly muddy water and a strong line of progressive activism isn't obvious.
Fortunately, the public option is not muddy at all. It appears to be one big sweet spot for progressive activism -- with movement actors fighting on Obama's side (and on the side of 76% of Americans) against lame corporate Democrats who are standing in the way of Obama's agenda.
Better news -- progressives aren't missing this opportunity! We're going for it! We're fighting hard and strategically. Check out these five TV ads by movement actors. (And if you want to be part of the action, take out $20 and help fund whichever one you like best.)
The Chamber of Commerce is a right-wing hack group that essentially steals the branding of local small businesses they don't represent. Many local Chambers of Commerce aren't even affiliated with the national organization.
In the past, writing here on OpenLeft, I got the Chamber of Commerce to admit that they are now spending taxpayer bailout money to fund their right-wing issue-advocacy campaigns.
I've personally been told by old-school liberal institutions things like, "Oh, you can't attack the Chamber. Their branding is too strong." Umm, that's why you attack them. And today, my former MoveOn colleagues stepped up to the plate. An email from Anna Galland:
Less than 48 hours ago, the biggest corporations in the country declared war on President Obama's agenda. The scale of the attack is mind-boggling.
The right-wing lobbyists at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will spend $100 million to defeat Obama's plans for health care and a clean energy economy. They call it their "most important project" in nearly 100 years.
Congress is voting on a crucial energy bill in less than two weeks, and you can count on a barrage of misleading TV ads and arm-twisting in Congress aimed at weakening the bill. We're countering with an emergency organizing drive to strengthen the energy bill—but we urgently need to raise the funds to power our organizing drive.
Can you chip in $45 to help fight back against the Chamber's campaign?
Your local Chamber of Commerce represents small businesses, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is different—it represents the interests of mega-corporations, especially Big Oil and Coal.
In the next ten days, we'll pull out all the stops to block the Chamber and strengthen the energy bill.
Huzzah! And a boding of future anti-Chamber activism is in the P.S. of the email.
P.S. If you're a member of your local Chamber of Commerce or run a small business, please sign our petition asking the U.S. Chamber to stop lobbying against Obama's clean energy jobs plan:
Knowing MoveOn, signing this petition is the first step in what will be a multi-step activism chain sticking it to the Chamber. If you are a local small business person, step up and sign!
I'd note: It should not require MoveOn to do this. The unions should have been doing this for years. The Clinton'ites should have done it back in their heyday. But now somebody is doing it -- and I, for one, am very supportive!
Over at the Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away campaign, Norm Coleman's insistence on being a sore loser has raised over $60,000 to help progressive congressional challengers defeat Republicans in 2010.
And that number gets higher by the hour.
This campaign was launched 2 weeks ago by Howard Dean's Democracy for America and the new Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded after leaving MoveOn.org, along with some other great folks).
The goal is to change the incentives for Coleman's DC funders. Before, there was really no downside for those bankrolling Coleman's endless court challenges and denying Al Franken his Senate seat. But as thousands of us sign up to give $1 every day Norm refuses to concede -- to help progressives defeat Republicans -- the equation changes.
There are two things that make this campaign work: scale and buzz.
We've achieved great scale, but I'd like to formally invite anyone who hasn't already signed up to join the cause: NormDollar.com
I'd also like to thank DFA, MoveOn, Darcy Burner, Chris and Natasha at BlogPAC, and countless blogs for sharing news of this campaign with their networks.
STATE BLOGS
