Taegan Goddard posits whether Harold Ford, Jr.'s game plan is to run as an independent, like Joe Lieberman. It's an interesting notion. The theory, to me, goes:
Ballot lines. New York State has a "fusion ballot" system where one candidate can run on multiple lines. For example, I can vote for Rep. Slaughter on either the Democratic or Working Families Party line. Some candidates even secure three lines. Ford's gamble would be to secure the Independence Party line and run there in the general election, ideally on a second line, although I don't see him getting the Working Families Party line or the Conservative Party line, either. He would also have to secure some kind of Republican support.
Ford's appeal. Given Ford's past positions and his attempts of late to establish himself as an Liebermanesque "independent Democrat", conventional wisdom would say that he appeals to Republicans and Independents as well as, if not more so than, Democrats. Given his carpetbagger issues, unfamiliarity with the state and lower name ID, it would also be better if the election were in November, not the September Democratic primary.
Republicans have no viable candidate. Republican Bruce Blakeman, the former Presiding Supervisor of the Nassau County Legislature, and not a serious candidate, is set to announce on Sunday that he is running. Given that Giuliani, Peter King, Molinari are all out, and chances are very slim if any that Pataki will run, Blakeman would be the New York State version of Alan Schlesinger, the Connecticut Republican who took 9.6% of the vote in 2006.
In 2006, Lieberman took 54% of the Independent vote and 70% of the Republican vote. While Lieberman had much more of a record of "independence" that was familiar to Connecticut voters, the theory is that Ford could make the same kind of appeal and get the same results if Blakeman is the Republican. I am really, really doubtful of this though, as looking at history, the only example of a major candidate to run statewide on just the Independence line was Tom Golisano, who even in his best showing took just 14% of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial general election. On the other hand he was running against Pataki, the incumbent governor who was on both the Republican and Conservative lines. There really is no example of the kind of race Ford may be setting up, where Republicans field a weak candidate and two Democrats run at each other on separate ballot lines.
It also depends on how much Republicans actually support their candidate. If it's a virtual alliance between Ford and the Republicans, that could be trouble, but if the Republicans work for Blakeman, or even just sit on their hands, Ford can't win on just the Independence line alone. And it's also hard to see how Ford has a virtual alliance with the Republicans after all the tacking to the left he's done.
Getting on the Independence line. My understanding is that the executive committee of the Independence Party essentially chooses who will and will not be on the ballot under that line. That's why Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to the Party in 2005 and $400,000 last year to get on the line. Goddard points to Bradley Tusk, Bloomberg's campaign manager, currently advising Ford as one indicator that Ford will do this. Allying himself with Bloomberg, who hasn't been a huge fan of Gillibrand, would go a long way. Ford would also have to get what is called a Wilson-Pakula signed by the Independence Party chair, which is where Bloomberg, who is known to be close to Independence Party chair Frank MacKay, would help.
If he succeeds, Gillibrand could collect signatures from Independence Party members to force a September primary, which would be on the same date as the Democratic primary. She must, I believe, also obtain a Wilson-Pakula, as she is not an enrolled Independence Party member. The winner would be on that ballot line in the general.
2010 turnout. As Mike noted last week, when voters are in this foul a mood, anti-incumbent and anti-establishment candidates have advantages (the notion that Ford is anti-establishment is a joke, but he's certainly trying to paint himself as such). This would be targeted at Gillibrand. On top of this, if 2010 is like 2009 in New Jersey, where Democratic base turnout was way down while Republicans were fired up, turnout at the polls could be better for someone like Ford if the Republicans work to back him, or so the theory goes.
Ford pulling a Lieberman. If you are wondering whether Ford could pull a Lieberman and run as the Independence Party nominee if he loses the Democratic party nomination, the answer varies. If he secures the Independence line uncontested, he's on the ballot in November no matter what. If it's contested, then the primary occurs in September on the same date as the Democratic primary, so it would depend on if he wins or loses.
The question for me is that if he is doing this, he would have very little reason to do things like switch positions on marriage equality and try and proclaim his progressive bona fides on issues like choice, immigration and labor. So, it could either be part of a 32-dimensional chess plot, or another part of a bad roll-out. When asked about it on Morning Joe this morning, he said:
Scarborough: We've got to ask this first. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Chuck Todd just said Harold may run as an independent, that there's a rumor out there that you're considering running as an independent. True or False?
Ford: Well, the thinking hasn't progressed that far. But if I run, I'll run as a Democrat. I'm a proud Democrat, been one for 39 or so years, and I think I'm going to remain that.
Scarborough: You know, I switch parties like I switch T-shirts. I've been a Republican for pretty long.
Ford: As we've said throughout this the last 11 or 12 days, I think the Democrats are looking for an independent, standup Democrat to represent the state. So in that sense I would run as an independent.
He didn't exactly slam the door shut, so we'll see.
I spent some time last night dissecting the transcript of Ford's NYTimes interview. One thing that has really come across to me is his obsession with vote ratings and trying to use them as proof that he really is a liberal Democrat.
Q. Let's talk about gay marriage. You know your record very well, but to quickly remind you, you voted to ban same sex marriage, with the Federal Marriage Amendment, twice.
A. I can say up until 2003, most organizations and national organization that had an office in Washington dedicated to fighting for equality for Americans, I enjoyed broad support and big support from them. The marriage votes drove my ratings down considerably, and arguably rightly so.
On choice:
No. 2, the National Right to Life Committee - I may be off by one or two points, I don't think I ever received higher than a 25 percent voting record. No. 3, they never gave me a penny. No. 4, my voting record in the 10 years in the Congress, was three or four years, was 100 percent.
I know somebody somewhat cynically suggested that perhaps there were not votes on abortion those years. But if that were true, the entire Congress would have gotten 100 percent.
On guns:
A: I never got an A rating, like my opponent - would-be opponent - has enjoyed. I don't own them. I do shoot them, and I shoot them at things that can't shoot back. And will continue to do that. And by that, I want to be clear, I don't mean children. I have done a little bird hunting in my day.
[...]
One of the reasons I never scored above a B with the N.R.A. - my intent was never to - it speaks to my independent-minded approach - I am a member of the N.R.A.
On immigration:
Before 2003-2004, my votes in the Congress, at least the grading by anti-immigrant advocacy groups, they gave me - one of them, the group FAIR - gave me a zero percent rating. In 2003-2004, Americans for Better Immigration, which is a great name for a group that wants to restrict immigration, rated me at 8 percent.
Aside from the fact that these are all serious distortions of his record (for more on that, you can go here, here, here and here), what is interesting to me is, again, Ford's belief that New York Democrats are stupid. I have yet to see a candidate wow primary voters with a bunch of vote ratings and use it to get past pandering, carpetbagging, misleading or lying about contributions, and so forth.
What is also interesting to me is whether vote ratings are worth anything at all. Take marriage equality, for example. While Ford trumpets good ratings for a number of years, what LGBT activists have focused on, rightly, is that he voted twice for the Federal Marriage Amendment- a serious misdeed. Take guns. He trumpets that he never got above a B from the NRA but what activists have focused on is his speech to the National Rifle Association. As a related example, some friends of mine with whom I had drinks the other night rightly mocked this study by Congressional Quarterly, finding that Obama has a 96.7% success rate in winning congressional votes on which he took a position. Why? Because Obama only took a position on battles he knew he would win, and did not fight at all on key issues like the public option. So the rating is a false depiction that he is a strong arm-twister, able to bend Congress to his will.
What all of this says to me is that all of these aggregate vote ratings are a lesser standard of judging a candidate's record than individual examples of merit. It's not just Ford who doesn't get that, it's lots of politicians, but Ford is trying to pull a fast one over on progressives and New York Democrats by throwing a bunch of numbers- many distorted- at us. No one should be fooled.
So it appears that Ford was once a very big Gillibrand fan. Liz Benjamin at the NY Daily News reports:
Apparently, he's changed his mind on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, too.
Former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is now "seriously considering" a primary challenge to Gillibrand, contributed $1,000 to her campaign committee just seven months ago.
The contribution was made on June 5, 2009. Ford listed Merrill Lynch's 4 World Financial Center office as his mailing address, but gave the Democratic Leadership Council as the name of his employer.
I would sure love to know what precipitated such a drastic change of mind on the part of Ford. It's hard to believe that with all of Ford's flipping and flopping that there is any issue issue near and dear to his heart upon which Gillibrand took a position which made him go from big donor to running against her. Perhaps he was just bored. Or rather, perhaps one should focus on how much Ford was promised by his NYC Wall Street corporate backers to run. Either way, there's a great question for his next interview.
Following up on David's post this morning, what is equally comical is some of Ford's interview with the NYTimes out this morning:
Speaking from a conference room at New York University, where he is a teacher, Mr. Ford, 39, expressed enthusiasm about his new hometown, though he described a life quite different than most New Yorkers. On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.
Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City's police commissioner. "The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island," he said, adding that "I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes."
Asked about his baseball loyalties, he responded: "I am a Yankees fan," and added that he had yet to visit Citi Field, the home of the Mets.
He has breakfast most mornings at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, and he receives regular pedicures. (He described them as treatment for a foot condition.)
It really is like an Onion article. I could see SNL making an awesome parody of this.
On the question of him running, there are a few arguments I want to get at in response to yesterday's post.
1. That I advocate breaking legs, filing lawsuits, threats, and the like to keep people from running in elections. Far from it. I approach this from an ideological point of view, and from a progressive point of view, Harold Ford, Jr. in the U.S. Senate would be very detrimental to the progressive movement. So I would rather he did not run, and I am perfectly willing to make ideological arguments against why he should not run- namely that I prefer to elect the most progressive Democrat possible, especially in a state like New York. Harold Ford is not that Democrat.
And again, it depends on which is more important to you: having a competitive primary just for the sake of having a primary, or progressive public policy. I know the latter is more important to me, so there is nothing wrong with arguing, on an ideological basis, that Ford should not run, and working to keep him from doing so by using tactics that HousesofProgress described: pointing out how conservative he is for the state; demonstrating, as David did, that he's lying on his record; and so forth.
2. That it would be awesome to face Harold Ford, as advocated by Anthony de Jesus in the comments:
I just don't get the apparent fear of Ford. In my opinion, the attitude should be to "bring them on" and relish any opportunity to have a fight with people like Ford or Lieberman.
I must disagree and say that I think this is very unstrategic for two reasons. One, statewide primaries in New York cost lots of time and money. I would much rather spend my time and money on, say, immigration reform than being forced to spend it on convincing New York Democrats that Ford sucks. I am sure I am not alone in this feeling.
Two, while I haven't seen any polling yet, the conventional wisdom is that Ford doesn't stand a chance. I would caution against that. No one thought Lamont had a chance when he started. Quirky things happen in elections. Gillibrand could have a scandal. She could, God forbid, contract a serious disease and be forced to drop out like Giuliani did in the 2000 Senate race. Do you really want to be accidentally stuck with Blue Dog/Fox News contributor/DLC Chair/Merrill Lynch Vice Chairman Harold Ford Jr. as the Democratic nominee from the State of New York, all for the sake of "bring them on"? I sure don't.
The way to spend those resources better, and ensure Ford isn't the accidental nominee, is that he doesn't run.
So Harold Ford apparently woke up yesterday and was told he should be in favor of marriage equality if he wants to win in New York State.
Former Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), who is gearing up to challenge appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the New York Democratic primary, has announced that he now supports gay marriage.
Appearing on the Today show, Ford pointed out that he'd previously supported civil unions. "My support for fairness and equality existed long before I moved to New York," Ford said.
Hm. Really? Here's an excerpt of a Stonewall Democrats e-mail back on January 25th, 2007:
Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats called on the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to affirm its past opposition to discriminatory ballot measures that require states to bar domestic partnership benefits, civil unions and the legal responsibilities of civil marriage to same-sex couples. The organization also called on Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., whom the Democratic Leadership Council officially announced this morning as its new Chair, to affirm such past positions of the organization he will now lead.
"We are asking the Democratic Leadership Council to affirm its opposition to anti-family constitutional amendments that have been championed by Harold Ford," said Jo Wyrick, NSD Executive Director. "Anti-gay populism has failed just about every Democratic candidate who has tried to exploit it, and it has failed Harold Ford. The DLC should not allow such diversions that it has labeled 'cynical and desperate' in the past to corrupt the mission of its organization. The Democratic Leadership Council and Congressman Ford need to strongly affirm the platform of the Democratic Party and the past policy of the DLC in opposing these measures."
In 2004, with his eye on his senate race, Harold Ford reversed his past opposition to an amendment to the United States Constitution that would permanently bar the legal responsibilities of domestic partnerships, civil unions and civil marriage to same-sex couples. In 2006, Ford again joined only a small minority of Democrats who voted for the amendment, which was dramatically defeated by both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
[...]
In his 2006 senate race, Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. swiftly exploited a ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that challenged the state legislature to provide basic legal benefits for same-sex couples. "I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it." (National Journal, The Hotline -October 25, 2006)
While it's true Gillibrand has also evolved on this issue, Ford has a history of moving around on marriage equality- from opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment to support, and now, one would assume, back to opposition- when it's convenient. People will try and equate Gillibrand, who has done significant work to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and been fully vocal in support of other LGBT issues since her appointment- with Ford now that they hold the same position on this issue. There is no comparison. I am glad Ford is in favor, but I'm no fool.
Via devtob at The Albany Project, Josh Marshall is being a little overly pessimistic about the prospects of Gillibrand retaining the Senate seat in NY next year. Here's Marshall:
Maybe she'll turn out to be a great senator. But this one surprised everyone when it was announced. And she's far from the best positioned person to hold this seat in 2010. It wasn't clear when she was appointed that it would be such a tough climate for Dems. But that's life. If Giuliani gets in to this race, this one could end up looking like a senate (seat) Gov. Paterson all but gave away to the Republicans.
Now, I'm not the world's biggest fan of Gillibrand, but she's been very good so far in the Senate, has worked extremely hard to raise her profile and win the seat. Far from the best positioned? Even though Marshall doesn't say who would have been better positioned, even leaving aside the hindsight is 20/20 argument, I am doubtful that any of the other contenders would have been better. I have trouble seeing why a Caroline Maloney or a Randi Weingarten would have been too much better positioned, all things considered. Byron Brown? I can't even count on one hand the number of good things he's done for Buffalo. Caroline Kennedy?
With respect to the optics of holding the seat, at the time she was chosen, Giuliani wasn't really looking to run for anything, and the expectation was Governor if he did. As devtob points out, there was no "lock" on the seat except Cuomo, and we all know he wanted to run for Governor. I don't know how Paterson could be charged with "giving away" the seat just because Giuliani is scared of losing the gubernatorial race. Besides, I'm not even sure he gets in. Being 100th in seniority for an impatient egomanic like Giuliani, with no executive power whatsoever, doesn't come across to me like it's up his alley. If he does get in, I remember he couldn't even be well-informed on a bunch of major issues in the presidential race, making numerous gaffes on basic policy. He's lazy as hell. He's no lock to win the seat.
What is also interesting to me is how many people have made noises, or are still making noises, about running. First Carolyn McCarthy threatens to run the very day Gillibrand was appointed over gun issues. Then she bows out. Then Carolyn Maloney reportedly gets in, then gets out. At some point Tasini, a labor and anti-war activist who also ran in a primary against Clinton in 2006, got in, and Jon Cooper, an openly gay Suffolk County legislator who has been deciding for months, just said he will wait another several weeks to announce if he's running. Now, via Gray in Quick Hits, Bill Thompson might run because, it seems, he just wants to run for something. Giuliani is the same way. The amount of hand-wringing in this race is certainly entertaining, if nothing else.
The Hill and Danny Hakim at the NYTimes, who usually has a good ear on what's going on in state politics, are reporting that former AG and Gov. Eliot Spitzer is "considering a comeback", possibly for Comptroller, his former post as Attorney General, or to primary Kristen Gillibrand for U.S. Senate.
A couple of quick reactions (native New Yorker and former Spitzer intern- many generations ago- that I am, I can't resist):
There are a lot of musical chairs here. Spitzer's running for Attorney General is predicated on Cuomo vacating the seat to challenge Gov. Paterson, should Paterson choose to run again, which is also not clear, but I'm told is extremely doubtful. Meaning, I don't think Spitzer would run in a primary for AG, and I am not sure he would beat Cuomo if he did.
While Spitzer against Gillibrand would certainly be interesting, I'm not sure it is the best expenditure of resources in terms of his candidacy. I'm not the world's biggest fan of Gillibrand, particularly her movement on LGBT issues around her appointment, but I also think she's been solid in terms of voting, and admire her leadership on marriage and Don't Ask, Don't Tell since she's come in.
According to the NYS Board of Elections, he has only $268,914 in his 2010 campaign account. He would face an uphill climb there, especially if it's against Cuomo or Gillibrand.
Regarding running for any office, yeah, conventional wisdom says he's too hurt by the scandal, it's only been two years since, yada yada. I say it doesn't matter. I remember when I was younger Bill Clinton had sky-high approval ratings in New York all through the Lewinsky episode and the same time period afterwards. Hell, if he was Constitutionally permitted to run again, he would have won New York easily. We're also the state that's elected two carpetbaggers- Hillary and RFK- to Senate. Plus, Spitzer's a Democrat from Manhattan. It's his base. I don't pretend to be an expert on NYC politics, but the Democrats in Manhattan I know see this stuff all the time, and shrug their shoulders. It is Manhattan, after all. If he were a Republican and his base was Cattaraugus County (where my Grandpa lives), it would be a problem, but he's not.
Spitzer as Comptroller is not the most exciting thing in the world, but the guy gets numbers and finances. When I flip on the cable morning shows and the topic is the economic crisis/Wall Street, he's there more often than not on panels, explaining how x led to y led to z and how to fix it. He's also done a number of op-eds on financial regulation, a particularly good one here, where he attacks free market fundamentalism. All of that helps him. I still occasional bring up his name back home, and the most common reaction I get is that the guy was smart, tough, and knew what he was doing re financial stuff. Don't forget he made his name as the "Sheriff of Wall Street". Plus, it can be a stepping stone.
My one true wish is actually that Spitzer runs for Governor again in 2010, Cuomo stays where he is, and Paterson opts not to run again. I have enough problems with Paterson's electoral viability, and Cuomo's noted lack of caring about any issues except housing, along with running to the media as soon as he gets a big settlement, to see this as important. Spitzer is a bar fight primary kind of Democrat to me. The opening of his resignation statement still makes me grin.
For the past nine years, eight years as attorney general, and one as governor, I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York and that will continue.
Defying the wishes of the national Democratic Party leadership, today comes news that both Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) will mount primary challenges to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Arlen Specter, respectively. Good for both Sestak and Maloney. If the leadership can't control their own Senate caucus enough to pass progressive legislation, then they shouldn't be able to prevent progressive primary challenges, either.
Although neither Sestak nor Maloney are making their official campaign launches at this time, in the extended entry I discuss polling, voting records, and other important information that will help you make sense of these campaigns.
I am going to write something that might sound a little bit off character: I am willing to give Bush Dog, and apparently soon to be New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand a chance during her time in the Senate. In practice, what this means is that while I will be interested in looking at primary challenges she receives in 2010, and while I am wary of her past performance, the defeat of the working conservative majority and the newly arrived Democratic trifecta does appear to have altered the congressional playing field. It now seems likely new alliances can be formed for progressives, and no approach to passing progressive legislation, or stopping bad legislation, should be dismissed out of hand.
When I offered in a blog thread to go lobby on TARP oversight and reform while I was in DC, little did I know that I was going to be asked to write about it on Open Left. It's a challenge to rise to the standards set by all the wonderful writers and activists on the front page of this blog. And did I mention that I am sure they are all much better typists than I am....(.Any misspellings really is my typing, I won spelling bees as a kid.)
In the past I have employed 2 methods. The first, more official one is call ahead, get an appointment with hopefully the legislator, but often it is the Chief of Staff, Legislative aide or the Press person. This works when they are friendly, agree with you and want very much for the legislation to pass. My other is the walk in and see what happens....and that's what I did Wednesday, not because Dorgan wouldn't welcome help on this bill because there had been no time to make an appointment.
I had an interesting discussion with Kirsten Gillibrand at the fundraiser where I confronted Pelosi. I said to Gillibrand that Congress is corrupt, and pointed out that the PAC donations to Democrats are obscene. She then denied that campaign contributions necessarily influence political choices, that there's no quid pro quo. Later on, we were chatting about retroactive immunity, and Gillibrand mentioned that the votes might not be there to stop it. My reply was that she should speak out publicly against the Bush Dogs if retroactive immunity were passed, since she acknowledged that there's a tremendous amount of internal frustration. Her response is that they live in districts that are conservative, and that's where our conversation ended as she rushed to another event. Gillibrand is a wonderful, warm, and kind person, and I found it hard not to be charmed by her. And yet, the logic is just inescapably wrong.
As David Sirota shows, it is in rural conservative districts where the subprime mortgage issue is hurting people the most. Markos noted this as well, pointing to this LA Times story.
The shift is not confined to one county in the mid-Atlantic region. Similar rumblings of discontent can be heard among GOP voters in fast-growing areas across the country that are being hit by the housing crunch, including parts of Florida and Nevada.
The obvious political upside, and the obvious moral case, is what makes the petty and legalistic argument to wait until we know more about the effects of the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill before dealing with the mortgage crisis from the Bush Dogs so galling. Many people are being crushed by the economic forces unleashed by our problematic legal structures that created these mortgage problems, even as the wealthy and powerful are bailed out.
If these members want to justify their behavior by the conservative nature of their district, then they should show us the popular movement in their districts for big banks. Otherwise, this list is their real rationale. The number is in bold that means that the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate industry was/is the biggest contributor to the member for that cycle:
I just got back from a fancy NYC fundraiser headlined by Nancy Pelosi for Kirsten Gillibrand to which I snagged a ticket. I wanted to ask Pelosi about Al Wynn, and I managed to get a response, though not a nice one.
The fundraiser was set on the 36th floor of a high rise in midtown overlooking a beautiful cityscape, and there were speeches by a number of Democrats thanking other Democrats and their various hosts. The gathering was full of New York finance and media types, people that are vaguely aware something is wrong but recognize the constraints of Congress, and want to make sure that Democrats stay in control. I sat next to a tall and regal older retired investment banker who says he gives money sometimes but 'isn't very political', is frustrated at the war, and thinks Bernanke's rate cut was smart. Before that conversation, I had talked to a beautiful and intelligent woman who works for the Oxygen network. An avid Obama supporter, she described herself as a moderate Democrat and hinted at some mild frustration that online quizzes told her she was actually liberal because she doesn't like liberal elites. It was that kind of scene.
Pelosi spoke in her usual nice but vaguely incoherent style, and she listed a litany of accomplishments of the new Democratic Congress, as well as promises to do things she can't possibly get done, like passing a good energy bill. She capped her talk with a strange apology/non-apology for not being able to do anything on the war, and promised to impose a timeline. Ironically, during the standing ovation, I got an email on my blackberry saying that $200B was going to be appropriated to Bush to continue the war in Iraq.
I got the sense that it was a well-heeled New York community of fundraising circuit people who likw Democrats and like these fundraisers, and there were lots of 'thank you's and standing ovations and appreciation. Pelosi was there, as was Carol Shea-Porter, Betty Sutton, Charlie Rangel, Richard Holbrooke, Geraldine Ferraro, Allyson Schwartz, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who was the host of the event.
I went up to Pelosi after her odd speech to ask her in person about her support for Al Wynn. I said 'I helped organize a fundraiser for Donna Edwards', and I was about to talk about retroactive immunity and ask her to take this as a sign of frustration, as well as to tell her how proud she makes me as the first female Speaker of the House. But the moment I mentioned Al Wynn, Pelosi's whole face abruptly changed, her smile melted away, and she got hostile and said in an icy voice 'I know about that.' She then turned away to talk to someone else. That's happened to me only one other time in politics, when I said to Jerry McNerney that I was a blogger.
I also managed to chat with Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand's a very smart and very lovely person, and she's aware that activists in her district are frustrated. And she's frustrated too in her own way, and explained that change is much slower than she'd like. And yet, I get the sense that there's very little that she can do about it, and that even if there were something she could do it's not clear that she would.
And I think I realized then that there seem to be two types of frustration, insider frustration and activist frustration. Many of the Democrats in Congress, Pelosi for instance, are insider frustrated. They know something is vaguely wrong somewhere, they know their activists supporters are unhappy, they are still raising lots of money, they know they are in power and feted at fancy breakfasts, and they are unwilling to consider new strategies that actually challenge the constraints they see as permanent.
And when someone else does, they get mean, their face turns cold, and they walk away.
I've been kicking around the idea with Chris that we should raise the costs of bad decision-making on things like FISA, or when they fold to Republicans on the supplemental or (insert fight here).
It's not much to put up some google ads criticizing these members for their position on FISA. The way Google adwords works is that the ad will only show up for the search terms we select. That means that if we select 'Chris Carney', then people searching for Chris Carney (PA-04) will see an ad criticizing Chris Carney for his vote on FISA. And the people who are searching for Chris Carney are people who want to know more about Carney, like reporters, activists, and constituents. We can even geotarget his state, so only people in Pennsylvania see the ad.
It'll probably run around $100-150 per member for a six month period, which is the amount of time until the law must be reauthorized.
Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats? 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.
Aside from money, this will take some work, since we'll have to get posts written about each member that did this. It's not worth doing unless you'd support it. So if you think this is a good idea, put it in the comments or send me an email at stoller at gmail.com. We need support in one of two ways. One, you could throw in a few bucks for this. Two, you could write up a problem Democrat, on this blog or on your own site, and we'd use that as the Google ad advertised link. Let me know if you'd be willing to do either.
Yesterday, I tested out the idea that what we are dealing with in Congress is a nominally Democratic majority but an effective Republican working majority. I mostly pinned this on the Blue Dog swing bloc and a conservative Senate, but there are other important factors at work. The conversation was really amazing, and punctured some holes in my piece.
The fact is, things have changed quite a bit. I'm friendly with a lawyer in a major executive branch agency, and she told me that the investigations going on by Congress are allowing her to do her job. Steve Novick, candidate for Senate in Oregon (who is really quite terrific), told me the same thing about friends he has in the Federal bureaucracy. Governance itself is getting better, or at least has stopped getting worse. So Blue Dogs are not Republicans.
There are other weaknesses in what I wrote, and the commenters pointed them out. In particular, this comment by Paul Rosenberg is I think accurate, as he argues that we are facing a conservative but not right-wing Blue Dog/DLC bloc combined with an anti-progressive elite consensus in the form of a hostile media establishment, a hostile think tank and academic structure, a hostile regulatory structure, a hostile set of cultural leaders and a set of old world economic incentives for elites.
I'm going to revise my earlier title, and argue that while we don't have a Republican working majority, we do have a conservative working majority to contend with. Most of the strategic problems I highlighted in the original piece remain, with the additional need to attack and/or subvert elite structures. The irony, or perhaps the not entirely-coincidental pattern of the Open Left, is that we're all at once going after the right-wing, their Blue Dog enablers, and the elite structures that love them.
I'm beginning to explore an idea that I'm not entirely sold on, which is that in the House, while Democrats are in control, there is effectively a Republican working majority. If true, this has a number of implications, both electoral and political. But first, I'll illustrate my thinking, which basically boils down to the fact that politically speaking, Bush is effectively using the surge model to govern in all policy arenas. Take tax policy.
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.
Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.
It's a simple pattern. When Bush loses ground politically, he simply changes his ask. It's the equivalent of negotiating with someone to sell them a bike for $50, and when they find a problem with the bike, changing the price to $75 and negotiating the final price to $65. It's bad faith negotiating, but it's working, because Democratic leaders aren't able to walk away from the table out of a mixture of fear, incompetence, and insufficient liberal voting strength. They always stupidly buy the bike at the higher price.
The FISA bill debacle is a good example. I've been in email contact with a variety of sources inside the House, and there's certainly tremendous bitterness at what happened with FISA, as well as a recognition that the 'stand up and cave' rhetoric strategy is now a clear pattern for this Congress. Steny Hoyer is the weak link in the House leadership, and though I can't read tea leaves that well, I think that Blue Dogs are essentially threatening a revolt against Pelosi if she tries to impose real discipline. In addition, the Senate is making it nearly impossible for her to stand up for liberalism. With a reactionary Senate that has about 10 neoconservative Democrats and a neoconservative President, liberals cannot govern except on the most clear-cut and non-controversial issues, like poor children's health care (which itself might be vetoed).
So while we may have thought we gained a check on Bush in 2006, we actually didn't. What we gained was a more progressive Democratic Party, but we started from such a low base that the Republicans essentially can still govern. Now, holding the majority is nice for subpoena power, and that matters. But when you combine a conservative Senate, a Blue Dog swing block, and an extreme White House, you may have a situation similar to the Boll Weevil Democrats in the early 1980s and their working relationship with Reagan. I'm not sure how well the analogy holds up since I've never studied that period in history, but regardless, Bush has realized that his conservative governing mandate is still intact.
In 2006, the midterms registered a clear antiwar message, but instead of listening, Bush surged troops, and politically speaking, it worked. No one stopped him. Bush, weaker than he's ever been as President in terms of popular approval and credibility, is governing this country through a mix of veto threats, bad faith negotiating tactics via surrogates like Mike McConnell and David Patraeus, and Blue Dogs. This is true with Bush's rampant lawbreaking and authoritarian criminal impulses. No one stops him. I'm no longer content to think that Blue Dogs are acting out of fear of being criticized, at this point I am going to take the Heath Shuler's at their word and recognize them as right-wingers.
To be clear, there's reason for optimism, as this is a temporary situation and we've made enormous progress since 2002. There are more self-identified liberals today than there have been since 1972, independents are swinging far to the left, and the base Democratic vote is making the difference in elections. The Democratic Party of 2007 is much more progressive than that of 2002, and at the rate we're gaining reliable liberal votes (10/year), there will be an unbreakable progressive House majority by 2012. The overall intellectual environment, the shattering of the right-wing careerist foreign policy community, the increasing efficiency of liberal advocacy groups, the increased participation of progressive economy sectors in the political sector, and the liberalization of the White House and Senate, can also have significant effects. Our politicians are obviously behind the curve, with Clinton quasi-supporting the surge and Obama in his most recent Iowa ad doesn't call himself a Democrat. But this is temporary.
I don't have a good strategy on how to 'fix' the Senate, but to get to a progressive working majority in the House, we need to pick up 41 more reliable votes, either by beating Republicans or by converting or beating Blue Dog Democrats. If we can get to an uncompromising progressive majority in the House, then the Senate will be dragged along through conference committees and a Democratic White House. In the Senate, we'll need 16 for a clear progressive majority, but because of institutional dynamics we'll probably need less to have a working majority.
There are several paths to making this happen in the House.
Pick Up Safe Seats Progressives: This is what we are trying to do in Massachusetts 5th, where a reactionary Niki Tsongas is facing four other candidates, including progressive Jamie Eldridge. There's also a primary in TN-09, Harold Ford's old haunt.
Convert Reactionary Democrats: Both Al Wynn and Ellen Tauscher are good examples of how this can be done, and this is continuing against Daniel Lipinski, Al Wynn, and Henry Cuellar.
Beat Republicans: In 2006, Democrats picked up 30 seats in the House. Out of those pickups, 11 voted for the FISA expansion, and 19 didn't.
Convert Republicans: I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq is trying to crack Republicans, but this is very very difficult. Republicans have run right-wing primary challenges against dissidents for 30 years, since 1978. Countering that is extremely tough, though recent moves by the Mainstream Partnership could have effects.
If there is a Republican working majority, with the Blue Dogs as the swing group, that should have one very significant effect on our strategy. In a House with a minority role for Democrats, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is far superior than electing a Republican. But in a majority Democratic House where conservatives have a governing working majority, electing a Blue Dog Democrat is little different than electing a Republican when it comes to public policy choices. Electing a Blue Dog is not going to help us restore out Constitutional fabric, hold these people accountable, deal with global warming, energy, health care, or restore a progressive tax code. More significantly, more Blue Dogs aren't going to give someone like Pelosi the leverage she needs to do any of these things.
What this means is clear. No longer should we as progressives particularly care whether a Democrat is in a swing district or Republican district when considering how to evaluate them. It is more important to elect progressives and destroy the power of Blue Dogs than to increase our partisan advantage in the House, though these goals are complements and not substitutes. The Colorado example, of turning a libertarian-esque red state into a Blue Dog state at the behest of wealthy billionaires, is not something to emulate. Rather, we should look at the New Hampshire example, which has turned a libertarian-esque red state into a deep blue progressive libertarian area.
There's one other important rhetorical consequence here. When Blue Dogs vote with Bush, they are not 'betraying' us any more than Republicans are when they vote with Bush. Blue Dogs just don't agree with us. And when they vote to expand wiretapping or to cut taxes for the wealthy or to support endless war, they are acting like Blue Dogs, and Blue Dogs support President Bush and the conservative 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
