Quarterly Filing Open Thread

I have to retreat from the blogworld temporarily as I complete the Q2 filing for BlogPac. Oh, the joys of being a treasurer. How did I let Matt get off with being the President, which has a better title and less work involved? Anyway, it looks like we raised just about $11,700 this quarter. I was hoping for $15K, so we came close to our goals. In my absence, here is a round-up thread for you to chew on:
  • Bush administration to request another $110M for Iraq next year. Forget all of the nearly pointless resolutions, the fight over this funding will be the real debate over Iraq in Congress. Even though I have favored withdrawal since late 2003, my position on funding the occupation has changed. At first, I thought it was right to vote in favor of Iraq funding, because it would be wrong to leave our soldiers in Iraq without proper equipment and resources. However, I now believe that stopping the funding is the only way to end this disastrous occupation and bring our troops home. End the war by de-funding it, Democrats. Jack Murtha has a useful letter that compares the cost of war and the cost of various domestic programs.

  • Majority Leader John Boehner's issue page

  • Lieberman video at Crooks and Liars:
    It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril.
    Lieberman's attitude toward Democratic criticism of the war seems identical to the attitude of his supporters when it comes to the will of the voters. In both cases, the sentiment is that we should all shut up, because he knows best.

  • Street Prophets interviews Obama. While it is true that my criticism of Obama last month was based not on something he actually said, but rather on something that the AP reporter wrote about him, it doesn't stop me from feeling used. As a union organizer for the IFT, I was one of the ground troops for Obama's campaign during the 2004 Illinois Senate primary, and his victory turned out to be the first electoral victory for a progressive movement candidate in the netroots era. It was a great, great moment, and using the new movement was critical to his success in that primary. Whether I am right or wrong in feeling this, it makes me feel as though he used us to get into office, and now he is Sista Soljuh-ing us through liberal strawmen to improve his national image. Frankly, I think he is running with the wrong people in DC, and he needs to remember that the progressive movement is his friend, not the New Republic.

  • I have regularly praised Mark Warner for making smart campaign moves, but I think this is a colossal mistake:
    Recalling a recent fundraiser for his political action committee, Warner said, "Somebody looked around and said 25 percent of the people in the room are Republicans."

    "That goes to the appeal we are trying to make," he said. "This country can't afford further polarization."
    Absent a large Democratic trifecta, any Democrat falling for what I have called The Equal Polarization Myth is going to have a very tough time governing like a progressive in Washington DC. IF your political opponents are the ones who have instigated an age of polarization through a base turnout strategy, strong right-wing ideological turns, and a complete departure from independents when it comes to public opinion, then you are making a grave mistake to be the person who does the reaching out in an attempt to end the polarization. Basically, Democrats have not moved to the left, while Republicans have moved to the right. Reaching out to people who have moved to the right validates moving to the right itself. If you do this, you will be forced into a box where you will have to govern as a conservative. And then they will try to illegally remove you from office anyway (see Clinton, Bill post-1994).
Well, I'm off to the fun world of FEC documents. I'll see you tomorrow.



Display:


Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

"..any Democrat falling for what I have called The Equal Polarization Myth is going to have a very tough time governing like a progressive in Washington DC."

Which asks the question, why is MYDD pushing Warner?
He is not a progressive. He is avoiding taking clear aggressive stands on Iraq and social security using the old triangulation forumula. The electorate, whether Democrat, Independent, or Republican want clarity and forthrightness, not someone who's trying to blur and finesse the issues.
Bill R.


by cmpnwtr on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:19:46 PM EST

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

Cause Warner threw the best party at Yearlykos, duh.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

"Which asks the question, why is MyDD pushing Warner?"

Last itme I check I wasn't. Everyone knows I like Feingold.

But MyDD is neither me alone, nor Jerome alone. Every writer is allowed to make whatever endorsements s/he likes (though I reserve the right to ban people who support large numbers of non-Democratic candidates).
by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

Do House ehtic rules allow political advertising on House websites?  

Not only is Boehner's issues page blank, but there's a blatant anti-Democrat image on the right hand side, along with some text:
text says:  Democrats: Chronically Negligent on Energy, Visit the Website:

Image has a black background, and in red/white/red again lettering it says: DEMOCRATS chronically negligent ON ENERGY
It then links to this site:
http://majorityleader.gov/chronicallyneg ligentdems/

Which features these almost laughable statements:
HOUSE REPUBLICAN ENERGY ACCOMPLISMENTS
LOWER GAS PRICES (What the Fuck?!?!  I remember paying $3.30 a gallon yesterday!  When Clinton was in office it was...Lets see...about $1.30 when he left)
MORE JOBS
RENEWABLE ENERGY (WHAT?  Republicans are slashing renewable energy research and development funding)

Ok, but besides all that, is blatant political advertising ethicial?  Or even Legal?

Just to make sure this isn't much ado about nothing, I decided to compare Boehner to Pelosi, to Waxman, to Hastert.

Pelosi - standard stuff, blurbs about how great she is, some news, and a few links to democrat websites (democraticleader.house.gov and housedemocrats.gov)  No political advertising noted.

Waxman - information on some bills he's working on, his voting record, contact links, informational links - standard stuff

Hastert - news about Hastert (nothing about his $2 million in corruption payouts, of course), ads linking to the Armed Forces Relief Trust, USAID, and Medicare Part D help - I clicked on his "Issues" page to see if Boehner's ad came up on Hasterts page - answer - No.

So, the other top House leader isn't using his House site for blatant campaign speech, the top Dem leaders (I think - who's #2?) aren't using their House sites for blatant campaign speech.

But Boehner is...


by JJCPA on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:35:33 PM EST

Well, Jerome is. . . (none / 0)

working for Warner and pushing him, and MyDD is his blog.  However, I don't know that this translates into any editorial control or influence over what Chris, Matt, Scott or any other front pagers write.  I'd recommend and appreciate some comment from Jerome on this, actually.

I agree Warner is not a movement progressive.  He is more of a pragmatic, Democratic centrist.  I live in Virginia. He was a good governor and he did some good things.  I expect that, once the '08 field develops, I'll be favoring other(s), since I am a movement progressive.


by Pachacutec on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:36:49 PM EST

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

I don't think that appealing to Republicans is inherently a bad thing.  This isn't meant as support of Warner, but just analyis of the concept-  Isn't part of the idea of this whole progressive movement that truely progressive, fundamental-americana ideals should appeal to Republicans? So if we're doing it right, then bringing in Republicans is this whole thing working how it's supposed to.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that Warner is winning Republicans by doing that, but winning over the non-insane portion of the Republican party is exactly what we're trying to do...or so I thought.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:57:45 PM EST

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

For a while now I've wondered about Warner's political antennae. I can't really comment on whether or not he'd be a good president but his current strategy for winning the presidency is absolutely bizarre; democratic primary voters are unlikely to rush to support someone whose appeal is more to moderate republicans.


by kundalini on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:15:30 PM EST

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

Unless they go in heavy for "electability."


by danielj on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:21:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (3.00 / 1)

I agree. But after Kerry won the 2004 primaries by playing the electability card is anyone going to fall for that one again?


by kundalini on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The winning candidate will NOT (none / 0)

be the one to stress "electability", but rather clearly display a bold vision for America, and do so with charisma and enthusiasm.

Those last two adjectives pretty much eliminate 6 of the Dem prospects right off the bat.  And I bet we all can name them already.


by Sam Loomis on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 07:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mark Warner (none / 0)

I dont get it.  What is wrong about saying he can appeal to Republicans too.  Moderate Republicans most likely have more common causes with progressive Democrats than they have with the current GOP party now.


by jasmine on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 05:41:28 PM EST

Bowers on Obama (none / 0)

I find your comment on Obama to be right on.
My hardcore old-school progressive uncle in the Land of Lincoln said the exact same thing to me about the senator last night.  And he said lots of others around town are feeling that way (neglected, somewhat slighted) too.
by Sam Loomis on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 07:06:32 PM EST

Obama's Lame Excuse (none / 0)

If Obama hasn't learned how media coverage works by now, then he's clearly not ready for prime time.  So what's he doing in the US Senate, then?

I'm not saying that you can prevent the media from distorting and misrepresenting what you mean.  But when you hand them the rope to hang you with, and say, "This way up," then you've got no one to blame but yourself.

And I agree with Chris.  If you hang with the right people, you will not make these sorts of boneheaded mistakes.  Folks will warn you, and you will listen.  After all, that's what you do when you hang with people, right? Right?


by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 09:30:50 PM EST

Taking credit for Obama? (none / 0)

Cutting through the revisionism:

Obama was a lock to win, and the "lock" part happened because of utter disaster on the other side.  You may have liked what he had to say in the process, but you (the angry white internet horde, who exist so that W and Rove can use you to get their people out to the polls - who are now overcompensating for your 2000 Nader votes) had nothing at all to do with his win.

The other part of his popularity can be traced to his convention speech, that was pure Obama, not you (as I recall he had some positively Cosby-esque things to say about race).

All you people need to put down your MacBooks, eat a juicy hamburger, get laid if you can, and get some sun for god's sake.  The only thing you're changing in your blog echo chamber is your skin color, to a sickly white.


by stevec on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 11:25:40 PM EST

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

When thinking about Obama, it is instructive to remember who his mentor in the Senate is: Joememtum! That's right Ol' Joe Leaverman. Also remember, his first vote as a Senator was for that obscenity of a Bankruptcy Law. I realize he is the new Dem. rock star, but he needs close watching. So far, he is to the right of Durbin, as near as I can tell.


by mombear on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:28:12 AM EST

Re: Quarterly Filing Open Thread (none / 0)

Whether I am right or wrong in feeling this, it makes me feel as though he used us to get into office, and now he is Sista Soljuh-ing us through liberal strawmen to improve his national image.

I don't see Obama taking potshots at the netroots at all.  I see a lot of people in the netroots acting hypersensitive over everything he says.  Because, you know, even though he didn't say liberals are hostile to religion, something about his tone kinda sorta reminded us of something that someone else said about liberals being hostile to religion, and that's so wrong...

I don't see anything in that interview that even comes CLOSE to a "Sister Souljah" moment.

You don't have to like Obama.  You can believe that he's guilty of the mortal sin of believing it's possible to achieve consensus in this country, when it's not.  But don't act like he was the one to pick a fight with the netroots, because it's completely the other way around.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 04:36:07 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.