( – promoted by buhdydharma )
I really don’t have the time to write this up, but I wanted to draw your attention to this series on HuffPo. In is quite an indepth, inside look and well worth the whole read. Despite the cheerleading, there are pissed-off liberals. We are not alone. Enjoy.
Doug Kahn, a big Democratic donor and heir to the Annenberg fortune, is not giving any money to candidates running for office this year even though he has donated more than $200,000 to candidates in past election cycles.
“The people who are really liberal, like me, are disgusted. And the ones I’ve talked to are just saying, forget this. They’re throwing their hands up. They’re not going to give money,” says Kahn.
In 2008, says Kahn, he asked the DCCC to list candidates who had an outside shot of beating a Republican and weren’t currently getting much party backing. He jumped in and gave the maximum contributions, donating to several of the 34 Democrats who voted against health care reform. In 2010, he says, he’ll spend his money in a different way. “Anger is a real motivator,” says Kahn.
The Florida donor plans to spend $100,000 between two districts currently held by Blue Dogs. He’ll come in during the last few weeks and spend money educating Democratic voters about the Blue Dogs’ record. “I’m convinced that if they know what the voting records of some of these people are — that is, Blue Dogs — a significant percentage, a percentage that could beat the Blue Dog, will simply not vote. I might be wrong about that, but I’m going to try it out,” says Kahn.
Kahn says he doesn’t yet know which districts he’ll attack and has no interest working to defeat a Blue Dog who is already going to lose. He wants Blue Dogs on the edge and he wants to push them off. The purpose, he says, is not to teach those particular dogs a lesson, but “to move the Blue Dogs who are in the House to have some fear of Democratic voters.”
Pelosi worked to muzzle progressives who said they could never vote for the watered-down Senate version. “I told the members, the members who said, ‘I’m never voting the Senate bill,’ I said, ‘Fine. Let me take care of that, but to the extent that you go out and say that, you are empowering the insurance industry and those who are trying to say just do a small bill,” she said. “That empowered them: ‘See, she’s never going to be able to pass the bill, so why don’t we just go for this thing, which happens to be what the insurance company is advocating.’ So we’re saying, ‘No, you have to have the courage to go for it, and what is it that we can put over the finish line that is strong and tough as possible, giving the president his opportunity to strive for bipartisanship?”
There’s a whole lot more.
Found this, just had to add it.
Clyburn called Grijalva into his office and asked if he had been the leaker. After initially denying it, he copped to the breach. Though it was widely assumed in the Capitol that Grijalva was the guilty party, he talked about it openly for the first time for this story. “It didn’t help,” Grijalva says, pausing to reflect on his decision. “It didn’t help. It was some level of desperation … and frustration.”
It had worked out better before. Earlier that year, he had leaked to DailyKos blogger Joan McCarter, a smaller, CPC-driven public option whip count of progressives who had committed to voting against any bill that didn’t include a robust public plan. That leak paid off, as the blogosphere pressured those who weren’t on the list to sign up.
— snip —
The question Frank poses — “What’s our tactic?” — is the one that progressives inside and outside of Congress are mulling. Mike Lux, founder of Progressive Strategies and a former Clinton administration official who works closely with both the blogosphere and the White House, says that the options extend beyond a binary choice for or against a final bill. In other words, look at Congress dynamically.