home

Who Are They Fighting For?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:23:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The list of usual suspects supporting tax cuts for the rich among House Dems is not remarkable. This a group that has been with the Republicans on any number of issues. Having said that, they are preferable to their Republican opponents and I hope they win in November. But they won't fight for my issues so I certainly won't be fighting for their reelection.

But I want to remark on one Democratic Senate candidate who is being fought for by the Netroots. That candidate is Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Kentucky. Conway favors tax cuts for the wealthy. Is Conway better than Rand Paul? No doubt. I hope he wins. But the question is should progressives be fighting for him. When Barbara Boxer (half the amount raised for Boxer as compared to Conway on ActBlue) and Russ Feingold (less than 1/3 the amount raised for Feingold as compared to Conway on ActBlue), two progressive champions, are fighting for their political lives? The answer to me is obvious. No. Progressives should fight for progressives like Boxer and Feingold. They fight for us. Not for Blue Dogs who fight for Republican tax policies.

Speaking for me only

< Who Are You For? | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Are They Fighting For? | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    They aren't perfect progressives (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    seems to be the reason I'm seeing for the lack of support. Different rules/standards and all for our more progressive representatives, I guess?

    If I didn't live here and have the possible horror of Carly and Meg actually winning, I might be inclined to let the progressives who are sitting this one out get what they wish for . . . nah, even if I were still in NY, I just can't see being passive about Boxer vs Fiorina . . .
     

    too many people missing the forest for the trees (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    this is

    a) much much bigger than any single bill

    b) not just about you, or them, personally, but about everyone who has to live with the government

    c) just because they don't win every fight doesn't mean they aren't fighting that fight - boxer and feingold are not the problem, but sometimes, they are the solution

    Parent

    Not for me (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    You are welcome to have a different philosophy but my position is that you get what you put into relationships. The Democrats, after doing their best to marginalize me for 2 years aren't getting my resources. Until they actually learn to fight for what I find important I really could care less as to whether they get re elected or not. I've got an idea. Why don't they ask the Republicans they were cozying up to when they put tax cuts into the stimulus bill while pulling out family planning funds, or who they were pandering to when they conceded to implementing a Heritage plan to fund their re election?

    Parent
    Isn't it a bit didactic (2.00 / 1) (#98)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:50:07 PM EST
    to call for someone to please you in all your political druthers (or most of them) in 2 years? I don't intend to argue with you, because--as you so aptly put it, we are all entitled to our opinions--but I'm hardpressed, in general, to understand such impatience. It may be because I'm an old fogey (sorta), but 2 years? I've known most work projects or construction projects or small community projects that can't reconcile themselves in two years? If you truly believe--after examining the progress that factually & actually has been made under this Congress (and, the comparison is relative to the historical other Congresses)--that nothing has been done to satisy those of us of the liberal persuasion, then I have learned anew how fascinating our individual perceptual screens are.

    And, to ask for a President & a Congress to mirror your positions (or mine for that matter), well...I mentioned it to my husband about how long did he think we would have lasted without give & take, compromise, and occasional forebearance. Ot times, it is so good to demand the best; but to turn from one path to another every few years (or one government to another or one person to another) is rather self-defeating and sad.

    Parent

    Two years? Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:47:02 PM EST
    You think this is about the next two years, or maybe the last two years?  How about the last 10 years - at least?

    How about after the 2006 election when people worked their asses off to elect enough Dems for a majority, and then were told we just couldn't do so many of the things we fought so hard to be in a position to get?

    What is self-defeating and unutterably sad - and more than a little irritating - is this constant "be patient" message you keep serving up like warm gruel.

    Work projects and construction projects have timelines that have to be met; if you hire someone to build you a house, you expect it to be done on your schedule, because you're paying them - they work for you, not the other way around.  When your contractor doesn't show up, or does shoddy work, or explains that he or she can't do what you want - even though what you wanted was what the contractor contracted to do - do you just "oh, well" the whole mess?  Take deep breaths and go for long walks in the woods while you convince yourself that you have no choice but to accept all of it?

    Of course one cannot go through life with such hard and fast positions that there is no room for compromise, but when that's all one does, when it's all give and no take, when one never gets anything in exchange for being reasonable, what then?

    I'm sorry, but I don't think being a doormat is going to get us the initiatives and the policy and the legislation we want - and desperately need; if we keep being willing to settle for mediocrity, that's all we're going to get.

    But, hey - as long as you can look across the aisle and see that those other guys are so, so much worse, you can tell yourself - kid yourself - that all is well and we're "on track" to where we want to be.

    How on earth do you EVER get what you want?

    Parent

    Therein lies the rub (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    Most things worth fighting for--IMO--involve degrees of compromise. Marriage, friendships, career twists & turns, and politics. I understand that you & I approach "getting what we want" differently. That is just the way it is. Frankly, absolutism for me fits more with religion rather than politics.

    BTW, I'm nobodys patsy...and, you are obviously not either. If your approach works for you in attaining what you want, so much the better. Really. How I get what I want (in most cases) is bit by bit.

    Today, I reflected on what appears to be the continuing Carter-Kennedy "feud." Granted, its hard to keep up a "feud" when one principal is deceased, but.... Watching the "60 Minutes" clip where Stahl interviews Carter about a number of things with a focus on healthcare, former President Carter referred to his old disagreement with Senator Kennedy about healthcare and threw some bitter-sounding barbs about Kennedy's approach. Unpeeling the onion here depends upon where you start, but the briefhand if neither would cede anything to the other. (Years later, Sen. Kennedy acknowledged error in not compromising on health care with Nixon.) What do we have? One reading is that two good people--these Democratic stalwarts--who put public service high in how they conducted their lives (warts and all) couldn't get past their own egos, couldn't get past their inability to compromise. One is dead; one seems to still hold on to that grudge. Sad.

    Parent

    Fight means voting for (none / 0) (#9)
    by hookfan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:36:42 PM EST
    not just participating in kabuki theatre. . .

    Parent
    Democrats (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    are not a faceless monolithic block.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    They could have fooled me. Actually Congress presents itself as a rather faceless and monolithic block as a whole.

    Perhaps if I actually saw some of them stymy stuff like giveaways to health insurance companies or to oil companies or allowing corrupt officials or corrupt private entities with access to corrupt officials to escape punishment I'd feel differently.

    Talk is cheap. In the real world I have limited resources(time and money). If you want my resources you need to give me a reason to provide them, a TANGIBLE reason. This Congress has given me none. They've hemmed and hawed and implored pragmatism. Fine. I'm now being pragmatic. Realistically, my money and time should go where it makes the most difference. That isn't to Congress people who basically wring their hands and allow the minority party to run roughshod over the American population because fighting gives the majority party leaders the vapors and it might dry up corporate funding.

    Parent

    Anti-Prop 19 Barbara Boxer? (2.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    I couldn't pull a lever for her, just couldn't do it...and I'm aware that she's been on the right side on a lot of votes, specifically war votes....still couldn't do it.

    Parent
    So Fiorina is Pro prop 19? (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    didn't know that . . .

    Parent
    Nope... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    Boxer and Fiorina are in agreement...Option # 3, Green Party candidate for US Senate Duane Roberts supports Prop 19 and has pledged to work towards repeal of federal marijuana prohibition.

    Parent
    Dude needs to get his act together (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    no bio on his site? Nothing about Jobs/Economy?

    FYI, I'm a registered Green here.

    I was actually asked to 'rescue' a plant by the guy/sis's friend who drove the rescued bird to me. I sd no even though he was 'legal'. Interestingly, he was against prop19. Heard other growers were also. Lil thing about protecting their profits/market. I guess ta heck with the person who partakes/those arrested and caged, eh? And I seriously doubt this guy's upstate grow was on the up and up . . . .

    Parent

    I can sympathize... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:09:21 AM EST
    it sucks to have your job rendered obsolete...and every user owes those who have taken great risk to bring our favorite crop to market gratitude...but we gotta get the chains off and the cages open.

     

    Parent

    Sometimes, a single issue... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Romberry on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:55:46 AM EST
    ...is worth being a de facto litmus test. In this case I'd say that it's stupid. Boxer may not support prop 19, but she can't prevent its passage. She is one of the few Dems in the Senate worth keeping. And while I am as disillusioned with Dems in general as most anyone, if I were a CA resident, I'd be voting for Boxer.

    My advice? Don't be stupid. Boxer can't stop prop 19 and Duane Roberts stands as much chance of getting the feds to repeal MJ prohibition as Nancy Pelosi stands of winning the Rush Limbaugh Conservative of the Year award.

    Parent

    Litmus test (none / 0) (#109)
    by Rojas on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 06:15:05 AM EST
    Actually on civil rights issues Boxer and Fiengold are miles apart. And when it comes to the security state Boxer shares the tent with Limbaugh while Russ is a world away.

    Parent
    My firm downsized (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    not because of taxes, but because of health insurance costs.  
    My angry blog post is here.
    The idea that high-income persons create jobs when you give them a tax cut is ridiculous.  Nobody gets rich by creating jobs.  Obama needs to get off his ass and make plain what is going on here - how much the tax cuts cost us, what we are going to do with the revenues.  And he needs to get Goolsbee on the air a lot - I like that guy. This is a very good issue for real democrats to get behind. The blue dogs should be crushed with it.

    Yup, as BTD has posted here a few rimes (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    Jobs get created when demand goes up for the company's product.

    Parent
    David Dayen at FDL echoes my (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    own opinions about all of this.  Writing of the letter that 31 House Dems have delivered to the leadership about extending the tax cuts to the wealthiest:

    The DCCC will likely take donations and pour them into races of these types of "Democrats," who will go to Washington and demand to add to the Bush deficit by giving out $100,000 checks to multi-millionaires. It's just a reflection of what they believe. Or if you prefer, who they listen to. The fact that there are only 12,000 families making over $250,000 a year in Jim Matheson's district, compared to the half-million families living there, makes it sound like he should advocate for the latter; but if you look at in-district contributors, that gap evaporates. And it's the same with Jim Marshall and Travis Childers and Mike McMahon and Gerry Connolly and Artur Davis (Davis should particularly be ashamed of himself, his district is dirt-poor).

    In this telling, those people calling themselves Democrats don't care what's good for the party, they care what's good for themselves and the people who help them get elected. They view opinions as static and allow conservatives to shape the discourse. If Fox News says the President is "anti-business," then it's so, and if this tax cut is seen as "bad for small business," the same. They don't want to argue with that formulation because they basically agree with it, or at least they're happy for the misconception to predominate.

    And until Democratic voters demand their opinions be reflected in their leaders, this will simply continue.

    Exactly.

    And exactly why I stopped giving money to Democratic party organizations: their decisions to support too many candidates who were barely recognizable as Democrats meant that any money I gave them went to people I would not have supported directly - and they're still at it.

    Be serious - who are they fighting for? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    Themselves, their jobs, and future employment with a lobby shop or going on the lecture circuit.

    If something gets done that helps people, it's purely ny accident.

    Conway's a rabid prohibitionist (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    opposing medical marijuana and even agricultural hemp because they "send the wrong message to children."

    Feingold, while declining to endorse "legalization," has been quite solid opposing DrugWar escalation going all the way back to his time in the State Senate, and is a staunch opponent odf Mandatory minimum Sentences.

    While Boxer weenied out on Prop 19, her overall record on drug policy is not bad, if not stellar.

    She's better than Feinstein... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    who has always been awful on drug war issues...but Boxer still ain't good enough.  And it's so frustrating because you know deep down Boxer knows better, yet refuses to do and say the right thing for purely political self-preservation reasons...where is the courage?

    Parent
    Boxer certainly knows better. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    I can't recall details, but Ed Rosenthal once recounted, favorably, a long conversation he'd had with her on drug policy at a fundraiser 6 or 8 years ago.

    "Where is the courage?" Must be in a lockbox.

    Parent

    Conway vows to oppose SS cuts (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    and gets me a little excited to vote for him, now this.  Maybe its better to have the Randian lunatic in spouting off nonsense and scaring the rest of the country, showing all how insane the GOP is.  

    I am tired of Blue Dogs and the stranglehold they exert over true progressives.  Let them lose, good riddance.  

    I don't recall (4.00 / 3) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    any of them fighting for me during the health care debate.

    All of them are on their own as far as I'm concerned. Let them fight for their political lives the way Joe Average has to fight with a private insurance company to get a claim paid.

    If only. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Yes2Truth on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:28:02 PM EST

    Joe Average has to fight all by his lonesome.  Politicians don't.  They have plenty of helpers.

    Parent
    You choose not to remember it (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    But that is your perogative.

    Personally, I am pretty sure that there is not an elected official that you can support.

    That's an approach I suppose.  

    Parent

    I don't support pols (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:09:45 PM EST
    I support policy positions.

    It's their job to be successful if they wish to be rewarded.

    Parent

    You know what? (2.67 / 3) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    You're right to a point but the problem is really bigger than Boxer or Feingold. The problem is the leadership or lack of it that they're getting from the party. So they can either break with the party on certain things or go along to get along. Their downside is that they've chosen too many times to go along with weak leadership.

    I was extremely disappointed in Feingold when he voted for the renewal of the patriot act.

    Parent

    Feingold voted against renewal of the Patriot Act (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:16:32 PM EST


    Parent
    February, 2010 (4.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    the Senate extended the Patriot Act by voice vote. This might be where people are confused.

    With almost no debate, the Democratic leadership in Congress pushed through an unamended extension of the USA Patriot Act's most notorious provisions, granting sweeping powers to eavesdrop and seize library, Internet and other personal records of US citizens.

    The provisions were set to expire by Sunday. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation before then, securing his administration the ability to continue and expand the domestic spying and attacks on basic democratic rights that he and other Democrats had pretended to oppose under the Bush administration.

    The three extended provisions give US intelligence agencies the power to: 1) conduct "roving" wiretaps without specifying a particular phone number or e-mail account; 2) force institutions to surrender credit, banking, medical, mental health and library records; and 3) spy on so-called lone-wolf foreign nationals, who have no affiliation to either terrorist organizations or foreign governments.

    The Senate approved the one-year extension Wednesday by a voice vote and without any debate. The House followed suit on Thursday night, voting 315 to 97 in favor of the legislation. link

    It is my understanding that a voice vote cannot be held if any Senator objects to the procedure. So while there is no roll call vote showing Feingold (or any other Senator) voting for this extension, it could not be passed by voice vote if Feingold had chosen to object to the procedure.

    Parent

    That's the evidence? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    That's obviously not evidence.

    Parent
    I am confused (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    Are you stating that no voice vote in the Senate to extend the Patriot Act occurred in Feb. 2010. Here are additional links in support. here or "talk left"

    Or are you saying because it was a voice vote it doesn't count or doesn't require unanimous consent. Feingold could have gone on record in opposition to the extension by requiring a roll call vote. He chose not to do so.  

    Parent

    he is on record (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    opposing the same bill coming out of his committee.  Maybe he thought it was redundant.

    In any event, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.  And that is most certainly not "he voted for it".

    Parent

    There was no record (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    that he voted against it in Feb. 2010. So that even under your criteria this, the comment I replied to,   "Feingold voted against renewal of the Patriot Act" was an unproven statement as it applies to the Feb 2010 voice vote.  A voice vote could not have occurred under the rules of the Senate if he had opposed that procedure.

    I did not try to read his mind on why this occurred.  My original post was not intended to express my opinion on his actions but only state the facts as I knew them. If you read my comments again, I think you will find that at no time did I state that he voted for it.

    Parent

    sorry you're right (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    that was another comment i had responded to that stated he had voted for it. I was thinking of the committee vote.

    Parent
    In March, at his Birthday Party (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    I told Russ his allowing renewal to proceed with unanimous consent was the 29th time he'd disappointed me over the then 17 years he'd represented me. he kinda bristled at this one, (while accepting heat for the ACORN Bill of Attainder as number 28.)

    Seems he'd traded the UC for making this latest renewal run out next February, and a commitment that there'd be a serious review of not ju7st the su7nset provisions, but his proposals to u7nwind major provisions of the now permanent parts, as well as some of the '08 FISA revisions, in the upcoming lame duck session, where he has hope of reforging his alliance with more libertarian-minded Republicans.

    Parent

    Hi Ben (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    Thought maybe you would weight in on this subject. Thanks for adding some insight to the possible reasons behind his decision.

    Even though I was disappointed on the voice vote in Feb., Feingold is still one of the few Senators I respect. Good chance I might even find a few $$$ to send his way.

    My original comment was made to try and clarify what actually happened on the extension in Feb. and not to bash Feingold.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    but didn't he vote to renew it when Obama came into office? I know he voted against it the first time.

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    he voted against it every time.  He voted for some amendments that would restrict it.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:36:50 PM EST
    then I might be mistaken on that.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    he voted against it being sent to the floor but I can't find where he voted on it when it went to the floor.

    Parent
    This under your criteria (none / 0) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:55:30 PM EST
    stated in comment 89 is not proven when applied to the extension approved by voice vote in Feb. 2010.

    Parent
    The 2 are not mutuallty exclusive (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    In fact, the reality is you need to do the former sometimes to do the latter.

    Parent
    I've got a long, long memory (none / 0) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    My money and time will go to people who can get results. Handwringing doesn't count.

    Parent
    Your money and time (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:03:55 PM EST
    will go to no one.

    But it's your time and money so enjoy it.

    Parent

    Wrong-o (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    How many people are you dragging to the polls?

    I told you back during the health care debate I'd be influencing 5 votes. I got those 5 plus some. So my time has already been "spent"

    The biggest difference between you and I being I no longer feel any allegiance to the Democratic infrastructure. What can I tell you I'm a results oriented person.

    Parent

    As a "results oriented person" (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    cawaltz, you must be planning to vote for a party (person) that has at least a snowball's chance to win. So, if not Democratic, are you voting Republican? The pot & kettle; the frying pan & the fire?

    Parent
    Who should the 5 people vote for? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:21:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Right now (none / 0) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    There is an active debate between none of the above and Boucher taking place.

    We do have a third party candidate as well but he's anti choice so he won't be getting my resources either.

    Parent

    That's not voting (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    of course.

    But as I said, it's your time, money and vote. You do with it what you think is right.

    Parent

    Knocking on doors (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    and making calls can influence a lot of people....

    Parent
    I voted for my dog (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    for Sheriff and DA.  I can get five votes for him too.

    My goal:  get enough votes for my dog (he has a last name too) to show up in the newspaper...

    I wonder if 20 votes will do the trick....

    Parent

    Change his name to Balam (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    and claim you heard a heavenly voice speaking through him, and you might get more than twenty votes..

    Of course, it might not do wonders for YOUR career..

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    That would get me a major party nomination for the U.S. Senate...

    I just need a little press conference and a few dog tricks, and I can be on teevee.....

    Parent

    Who would that be? (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    Nader?  Kucinish?  A Green Party candidate...

    All futile....

    Parent

    It's futile (none / 0) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    all the way until it stops being futile

    I don't recall seeing the Whigs on the ballot.

    Parent

    Pssst cawaltz (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    This interchange has the flavor of one being backed into or backing one's self into a corner. You know, we all had those "No, no, no, I'm not gonna, no more" pronouncements and arguments growing up. (Hey, I still succumb to repeating it too.)

    Parent
    Whigs changed their name... (none / 0) (#52)
    by NealB on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    ...to Republicans a hundred or so years ago. They're still on the ballot, of course.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the party that gave us the unitary executive didn't have the same plank as the Whigs for their platform.

    Parent
    A lot of similarities (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    The big issue difference was, of course, on slavery.

    Parent
    Anarchists (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:29:50 PM EST
    could be making a comeback...

    Parent
    Admirable goals. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    But, after 2008 primaries I resolved to never again donate to a political candidate?  Why?  E mail account is inundated by pleas for money by lots and lots of politicians to whose campaigns I have never sent a penny and of whom I am not a constituent.  Talk about trickle down.

    fair enough (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    a long time ago I figured out is was usefull to have a designated spam e-mail.

    Anytime I have to give out my e-mail address online, I give out that one.  Then, when I know I'm expecting an important e-mail I can check it, and not have to worry about it the rest of the time.  Sometimes when that happens I'll dump all the messages.  It's pretty easy to hit "select all" and then "delete".  In any event, I never have it in with my regular e-mail.

    It's pretty usefull for a lot of things - not just giving money.

    Parent

    That's the account, from which (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    I have to delete a page at a time.  Tedious.

    Parent
    Try unsubscribing (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    Takes mebbe 30 seconds-- once.

    Parent
    Conway is lucky (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    to have Paul as an opponent.  that is why he is raking it in.

    they have been told we absolutely must defeat Paul.

    I was thinking the same thing... (none / 0) (#64)
    by NealB on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    ...that those contribution numbers are more anti-Rand-Paul than pro-Conway; and also about taking a Senate seat that's not only in the Republican heartland, but will also replace one of the more despised Republican Senators of the past ten years, Jim Bunning. That takeover/takeback theme has always been central at dkos (from where most of the ActBlue contribs for Conway come).

    Priority should be given to holding seats of vulnerable Democrats that have proven progressive credentials.

    Parent

    Was reading somewhere today (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    That Christine O'Donnell raked in more than $1 million in the last two days.

    Nor bad for someone who is a sure loser....

    Parent

    Excited about that are you? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    I hope they give her 10 million.

    Better than spending it in races they might win.

    Parent

    You found me out (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:45:43 PM EST
    Silly comment.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:59:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    half the amount raised for Boxer as compared to Conway on ActBlue

    that is f*cked up.  It's like the opposite of the Tea Party.  

    I will send some moolah Boxer's way.  Everyone should, if only because of her awesome appearances on Curb Your Enthusiasm.

    Or as Edwin Newman (RIP) sd., (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:13:22 PM EST
    tough job playing myself!

    Parent
    She has written two novels too! (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    Checking out her wikipedia page, lots of great accomplishments:

    In 1991, during the Anita Hill Senate hearings, where Hill accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, Boxer led a group of women House members to the Senate Judiciary Committee - demanding that the all-white, all-male Committee of Senators take Hill's charges seriously.[11] This helped propel Boxer's candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 1992, when a record number of women ran for the U.S. Senate.

    and for the big fans

    She has made cameo appearances as herself in several television shows, including Murphy Brown (1994), Gilmore Girls (2002) and Curb Your Enthusiasm (2007), as well as a cameo (as herself) in the 2000 film Traffic. On November 2, 2005 she made an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to discuss her new novel "A Time To Run".

    Available on DVD and Blu-Ray.


    Parent

    Awesome (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    I got one heck of a "thrill up my leg" when that Boxer-led group of woman legislators marched together up the steps of the Capitol to present their demand for Anita Hill to be heard.

    Doesn't seem like much in today's environment, but at the time, it was just awesome, unheard-of.

    Parent

    It would never happen today (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:24:07 AM EST


    Parent
    I pay HBO for that... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    If I wanted to donate towards prohibition, I'd leave a fruit basket down at the local precint.

    Boxer's stance on Prop 19 is especially infuriating since she is obviously smart enough to know better, but is afraid doing what is right will hurt her election chances...the definition of lame.  She even threw an aide under the bus over reefer this silly season...uber-lame.

    Parent

    Shouldn't those who wish Marijuana to (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    be legal be advocating in the federal arena?  

    Parent
    even I (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:27:31 PM EST
    dont bring pot to work.  and I dont usually get searched

    hard to feel to sorry for the guy.

    Parent

    Normally I don't either... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    but if you've got a show or party to go to straight from work, you gotta bring your stash with you.

    I have no problem feeling sorry for a guy who loses his job over such nonsense...unless he was getting high at work, which no one has claimed was the case, afaik.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    certain job situations make that a really stupid thing to do. For instance, gov jobs that require you to pass through security check points . . .

    I find it hard to believe you would risk getting caged in a similar situation . . .

    Parent

    I have wised up... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    after two arrests...it requires some carelessness to be caught, yes, but sometimes it's just bad luck or a fluke.  

    As careful as I am, I made a very similar careless error at the airport once...but the screener took pity on me.

    Parent

    What did you give the screener? (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:45:27 PM EST


    Parent
    she personally busted her aide? (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    i didn't know that . . . .

    Parent
    Fired him (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    I don't think she called the cops....

    Parent
    Guy got caught... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    with a bag at a security checkpoint, Boxer demanded and received his resignation.

    Parent
    Can you name a Sen (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    that would have given the guy a pass?

    Parent
    How about a future Senator? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:03:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Who will support (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    Masel's candidacy?

    Parent
    Weedbomb. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:40:08 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL. count me in Ben! (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:43:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Can't say I can... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    nobody I vote for wins:)

    But just because it is common practice doesn't make it right.  

    Parent

    Regardless of whether or not (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    You feel it should be legal or not, you don't think a US Senator, sworn to uphold the law, shouldn't fire an employee for violating federal law?

    Parent
    C'mon... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    they violate federal tax law and get plum appointments...surely a dub of chronic can be tolerated.

    Not saying she should intervene on his behalf in any criminal proceedings, but no reason to fire the guy.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure there's a law (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    against soliciting and accepting bribes as well, but senators seem to have found a way to work with lobbyists to skirt that one..

    Parent
    If they do it (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    Going through a security checkpoint with a Capitol police officer, then it might be easier.

    Also, there's that little thing about only the voters having the power to fire them, whereas this guy could be fired by the Senator.

    Parent

    What makes you think... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    he was getting blazed at work?

    That is grounds for firing...but mere possession?

    Parent

    OT-- photos headed to your email... (none / 0) (#90)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    tell me wat ya think?  November's a comin' round the bend!

    Parent
    Hart Senate Office Building. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:43:39 PM EST


    Parent
    You put too much weight on ActBlue. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    With Feingold's solicitation going out through so many other routes, notably direct donation via his website, it's not so clear that Conway's financial support from netroots folks is actually greater. My donations to Feingold are delivered as cash at his local events, saves on the transaction costs. A significant part of ActBlue's hit on donations goes to the bank.

    I gave through Feingold's site directly, too... (none / 0) (#66)
    by NealB on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    ...yesterday. (They sent me about seven "cheddarbomb" emails throughout the day yesterday, so I finally clicked on a link in one of those emails.)

    Parent
    Just let the tax cuts expire. (none / 0) (#80)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    That means everyone of course, but it is playing chicken.  Can it be done?

    While I worry about Feingold (none / 0) (#83)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    and am a bit puzzled by the lack of funding he's recieved from the Netroots- Boxer seems rather simple to explain-- who really thinks Boxer can lose- I'm sorry but Fiorina is just not a credible canidate, like her fellow California Canidate (eMeg) she is citing her business experience as her primary credential-- unlike Whitman however, Fiorina was a massive, massive failure who turned a proud American Company into what is currently a bit of a joke in business circles- between Carly, the spying of her protege and the recent resignation of HPs CEO for harassment- its really, really hard to see what her case is: Vote Carly I'll spy on Senators and send more California jobs overseas? I mean Boxer's no Feingold (and frankly her and Feinstein are a bit suprising one would assume that California's Senate Delegation would be reasonably progressive instead of basically party average- between left and moderate but I digress) but she's been a good voice on some issues- particularily a woman's right to choose, while being at worst decent on others.

    You are ill informed (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:05:35 PM EST
    about Boxer's vulnerability this year and her record.

    Poor comment.

    Parent

    She could be vulnerable (none / 0) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    but as I said intially I don't think a majority of the netroots grasps that whatsoever- as for her record- you could be right it appears I was looking at the Senate delegation as a whole and thus slighted her as a result of Feinstein's blue dog ism.

    Parent
    Word n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:27:33 PM EST


    Who Are They Fighting For? | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment