Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
... election coming up and the corporations would like nothing more than for the focus of the netroots to be on a question where we can have no impact whatsoever, when there is work to be done in primarying Blue Dogs, backing progressives and pseudo-progressives who went to far in the eyes of corporations, and trying to send obstructionist "Republicans" down to defeat.

I don't accept the frame in the first place that the point at issue is whether or not Obama is doing well. The question is how well the Congress is doing and how well we are preparing for the task of forcing them to do better.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 10:49:54 AM EST
The question is how well the Congress is doing and how well we are preparing for the task of forcing them to do better.

OK, how do I do that?  I'm in northern CA, and the potential progressives (Greens; Peace and Freedom) seem worthless.  What horse do I back?


They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 01:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From local, out.

There are few progressives in Congress, but they have more clout if there are more pseudo-progressives and fewer "moderates" and fewer Blue Dogs, so the first priority is identifying any progressive or pseudo-progressive challengers to a "moderate" or Blue Dog incumbent, and work for them. Early Money Is Like Yeast, but so is early volunteer effort.

If there is an incumbent Republican, it's the same as if there is an incumbent "moderate" or Blue Dog: try to get a progressive or, failing that, a pseudo-progressive nominated in the Democratic primary.

When there is a "moderate" available at best in the primary or general election, vote for them but don't waste any resources supporting them. When there is a Blue Dog running against a Republican, its hard to see what difference the vote makes, so picking whichever third party is likely to get the largest vote and voting for them would be a defensible strategy.

In grown up politics, forcing the incumbent to work for re-election is a penalty, whether they win or lose. For one thing, money they spend running for re-election is not money they can hand out to increase their clout inside the beltway. Enough 1 in 100 odds challengers being pushed to 1 in 20 odds challengers is electoral success in some few districts and more caution on the threat on the left flank in the rest.

If there best there is available is a phony progressive who seems likely to turn but is willing to tick all the progressive boxes during the race, they are still more vulnerable to field operations during legislative season than "moderates" and Blue Dogs, so its not a waste of resources to support them beyond voting for them, bearing in mind it is fairly inefficient, as they will require constant babysitting.

If there isn't anyone, and there is a neighboring district close enough where there is, work there.

If there isn't anyone close by, pick a progressive or pseudo-progressive under threat somewhere else in the country and back them.

That's one reason the "Movement Conservatives" punch above their weight: once pulled into the movement, they always find a horse somewhere to back, which means there is no "off" button for the market research professionals to find, which means nobody bothers with trying to turn them off. Self-described progressives, on the other hand, quite often have multiple "off" buttons available to push, with competent full time corporate persuaders with massive incentive to find out how to push as many of those "off" buttons on as many unorganized clusters of progressives as possible.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 01:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Purists.

Self-described progressives, on the other hand, quite often have multiple "off" buttons available to push, with competent full time corporate persuaders with massive incentive to find out how to push as many of those "off" buttons on as many unorganized clusters of progressives as possible.

Ah yes, Yeats, 1919. A pretty bad time.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 05:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do not tell to any one, but the Senate bill is year lights better than the house bill... now if they only could improve the subsidies, get rid of the monopoly exception and put the regulations at the state level (making it able to create a trigger of a public option at the executive branch, for example), that would be the best bill coming out of the US.. in well....my life?

In two years , due to deficit worries of course, will ask for allowing the reimportation of drugs using reconcilation... they better have 50 votes in the senate if the US wants cheaper drug... but, you know, Pharma is really powerful... so... I do nto see.

In any case, the short term future of the US sits around the financial regulation.. it is going to be fun to watch.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Dec 23rd, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series