Jack Davis, NY-26, running in a rematch of his 2004 race against Tom Reynolds. He got 44% of the vote in 2004, but since this is a potential Democratic sweep year he could win this time. Tom Reynolds is chair of the NRCC. Jack Davis is founder of http://www.saveamericanjobs.us/index.sht
ml, Save American Jobs which supports fair trade as opposed to "free" trade.
I also support all the Jim Webb nominations. Webb is our best hope for taking out George Allen, and he needs all the support he can get to overcome Allen's $10 million war chest. Paul Wellstone overcame a huge Republican war chest in 1990 with an entirely grassroots campaign and Webb can too.
Also please consider:
Allan Lichtman (MD-Senate), especially if you are getting sick of all the attention on the Cardin-Mfume horse race. Horse races should not be what the netroots is about. You can say no to the horse race by supporting somebody besides the two frontrunners.
Cynthia Matthews, CA-26, rematch against David Dreier. Matthews gave Dreier his strongest ever competition for the seat two years ago.
Peggy Lamm, CO-7. If nothing else, as a way of showing disapproval of the person posting astroturf to MyDD attacking her.
So are a bunch of other Dems, some of them quite liberal.
Who is "RightWeb" and why are they a credible resource? They look to me like one of those extreme-left radical groups that is made up of various post-Marxist intellectuals who are not liberal Democrats, and are way to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Political Research Associates is another example, as are Z Magazine and others.
Why should we let them dictate the terms of debate? The extreme left needs to be shut out just as much as the extreme right does. These people want to reframe the terms of debate by creating an atmosphere where anyone to the right of their extreme left academic-post-Marxism is considerd right wing. Get this: They list the League for Industrial Democracy, a democratic socialist labor oriented group, as "neocon" because of their strong anti-Communist stance during the Cold War. Also listed on their website as a neocon right wing group is Social Democrats USA, who are condemned for the same reason (hawkish anti-Communism), and, get this, supporting Henry Jackson (D-WA) who was a staunch pro-labor Democrat.
Schumer's involvement with this group is a "so what". I'd be more interested in a discussion on why people are consulting RightWeb as a resource, because they aren't liberal democrats and they even think democratic socialists are too far right. That says a lot about who is behind this website.
However, reading things like "pandering to poor uneducated whites" bites just like "pandering to poor uneducated blacks" does. The latter attitude is rampant on the conservative blogs. I don't need to see the same attitude on liberal blogs. We don't need to be dividing working people against each other by playing off the issue of race. As for the Confederate flag, it's a ridiculous issue whose importance is only symbolic, and siphons valuable effort away from real issues. It's so much easier to attack a flag than to put effort into the more difficult issues that really do have a concrete effect on African-American dignity, like ending mandatory minimum incarceration, restoring voting rights for ex-felons, demanding more black hiring (not "diversity hiring" which is often an excuse not to hire African-Americans), and creating more good paying jobs and demanding an end to wage discrepancies. I've long thought the Confederate flag issue could be completely put to rest of African-Americans started co-opting it as a civil rights symbol.
Try this: I believe Webb is actually to the left of Kucinich. Why? Webb's attraction to the Democratic Party and his platform are based on social class - the working class. Kucinich's is based on his New Age spiritual beliefs. That's why.
I don't necessary agree that populism and the common good are mutually exclusive. In fact, this definition: "government should be committed to the common good and put the public's interest above the privileges of the few" pretty much sums up populism. Putting the public's interest above the privileges of the few. As for your definition of progressivism, you're pretty close to mine. I'll post a diary on it soon but my definition involves dispensing with the lists of "litmus test issues" and going instead with a simple principle of fairness and a society where everybody has the opportunity for a meaningful and fulfilling life, and nobody is excluded from this because of laws, circumstances beyond their control, mistakes they made in the past, or systematic discrimination. This principle seems to me to cover just about everything including the root basis of most of our common societal problems. Equality of outcome is a pipe dream, it's equality of opportunity we should be aiming for. It also covers most of the "litmus test issues", including health care for all, livable wages, pro-choice, and gay rights, but recognizes that mere single issues alone do not a basis for progressivism make. There has to be a deeper reason.
I'm not sure where direct democracy comes in for criticism here or how it relates to populism. Direct democracy (besides being the name of this website) most often refers to things like the right to initiative, referendum, and recall.
Don't have a cite, this was what I personally heard Webb say at a speech about 3 weeks ago to the Arlington County Democrats. If there's somebody else reading this who was also there they can confirm it.
I was sort of hoping Allan Lichtman's campaign would take off. It hasn't, but he deserves a lot more attention than he has been getting from the progressive blogs. He has the standard progressive positions on issues, but the selling point (for me anyway) isn't that, it's that he's a party outsider and a university professor trying to model his campaign after Paul Wellstone.
I do know that Webb said this in a recent speech in Arlington. I'm quoting from memory but this is pretty much what he said: "I believe government stops at your door. This means - this may sound strange - I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights...and pro-guns. I'm opposed to the marraige amendment, and I will actively campaign against it, especially down in places like southwest Virginia where people need to hear why it's such a bad amendment. I've thought this through, and when I make up my mind about something I stick with it."
I think I got that right. Somebody else who was there can correct me if I missed some of the wording.
Jeez. This is the second person I've had to troll rate this evening. And I almost never troll rate anyone.
It occurs to me that the Democratic Party would do well to court and otherwise roll out the welcome mat for Naderites, and not just Naderites but also Venturaites, Perotistas, Reagan Democrats, alienated non-voters, Greens, moderate Republicans, and even significant Democratic politicans that the party apparatus seems to have shoved into the memory hole (Richard Lamm and Mike Gravel come to mind). The key is a big tent Democratic Party where all these people will be welcome and have a voice. The alternative is a party where anyone whose positions don't exactly mirror Hillary Clinton's gets shown the door before they even set foot in it. And if that's the party you want, you can have it because it will find itself a permanent minority party unable to muster more than 30% of the vote. I want a party that represents the American working class in the broadest sense of the term. This means a welcome mat. This means welcoming instead of attacking when somebody like Jim Webb joins our side, and welcoming instead of attacking when somebody who worked for Nader and Ventura joins our side.
Reading some of the knee-jerk comments on this site gets downright frustrating sometimes.