What exactly are they afraid of Leahy spending money on? He's the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Are they worried he's going to try and secure funding for the Second Chance Act? And Dorgan is the Chair of Indian Affairs. Wouldn't Byrd or some other approps leadership have made a lot more sense?
I think that this race is worth putting money into, for two reasons:
-A Rice win would be absolutely backbreaking for the right-wing. Inhofe is a one man brick wall for progressive environmental legislation, especially dealing with climate change. Removing that brick wall would be huge.
Also, I met Rice this spring, and when I expressed my support for habeas restoration, his reaction was, "I'm all about habeas!" I have no illusions that he's suddenly going to go to the Senate and become Feingold, but there's good reason he'll actually be progressive on a few issues, which is more than we can hope for from a number of our candidates.
-Oklahoma's a pretty cheap state to run a race. Throwing a half-million bucks there and seeing if the numbers move, in the context of the DSCC's largesse, seems like a worthwhile gamble. If it works, it's another quality race on our radar screen and, if not, it's just a half-million, which isn't that much for Schumer and co.
1)The point is that Democrats--pretty much any Democrats--will support the Employee Free Choice Act, while Republicans will, in general, not. If this is the case, the simple fact of mentioning Musgrove's support for the EFCA is duplicative, as you could've just said that he's a Democrat (and, ergo, he will support the EFCA). If this is the case, I'm not sure what the logic is in supporting any particular Democrat, seems like you might as well just give to Democrats at complete random.
2)The point is that Musgrove's support for the EFCA implies some real commitment to economic justice. As I mentioned, I just do not find this to be the case. I don't think that Mike Ross is committed to economic justice, and I certainly hope that MyDD isn't about to start raising money for him.
Can you find me a single Democrat in congress who's against increasing teacher pay?
It's all well and good that Musgrove strongly supports a couple of progressive things that are overwhelmingly popular among congressional Dems--even Blue Dogs--but it is not meaningful evidence that he'll be "with us" on harder economic votes--will he be "with us" on universal health care? Or changing DHS regulations to enhance worker protections? Or paying for new investments by repealing the Bush tax cuts?
I'm open to being convinced that Musgrove is progressive on economic issues, but noting that he is supportive of a couple of issues that are wildly popular in the party and are supported by pretty much all congressional Dems is a silly way of trying to demonstrate that.
So, by the definition used in the diary, Melissa Bean, Brad Ellsworth, Mike Ross, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson are all basically "with us on economic issues."
Now, given the paramount importance of the EFCA, there is some degree of truth to this. However, it also makes "with us on economic issues," when used in this sense, a pretty meaningless method of evaluating which Democratic candidates to support.
Edwards' campaign manager is David Bonior, who was one of the friendliest congressmen to worker rights in the 20th century. He's also the chair of American Rights at Work (currently on leave to work for Edwards), which is one of the nation's primary labor advocacy organization (and on whose board sits John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, among others).
Uh, I don't know, rape, sexual assault and abusive relationships seem to me to be a pretty convincing opposing argument. That's why most women who have abortions get them--oftentimes abuse, sometimes poverty, sometimes unpreparedness to raise the child. The incidence of people in quality, stable relationships getting abortions because they don't feel like having a baby is infinitesimal.
Joe, I'm curious as to why you think that Biden could gain traction, insofar as he doesn't have an inspiring story, he's not a good speaker, he doesn't seem to have much grassroots support and his position on Iraq is pretty muddled. Dodd and Richardson I can certainly see, Vilsack maybe, but I'd have to be convinced that Biden is going to gain any ground at all.
Wes Clark has been "friending" people on Facebook and, with that profile, he's been hammering Bush on Iraq and joining Facebook groups supporting a Clark run in 2008 (see profile here, though privacy restrictions mean that you have to be his "Facebook friend" to see the whole profile). I'm not sure how to take that, but it's weird that he's joining the pro-Clark run groups if he's not running; if he is, it's an awfully strange way to announce.
In terms of the primaries moving up, I think that's most helpful to Richardson, both because it increases the chances of a dark horse winning some states and because of the large Latino population in California (and potentially Florida, though that is likely to be less helpful to Richardson).
Well, I kind of thought it was obvious that running and funding credible candidates in districts heretofore considered "unwinnable"--in other words, the 50 State Strategy--was why we won those districts, so I didn't need to point that out.
What is the evidence? Primarily the fact that everyone, especially the DCCC, thought we had no shot--then Delay got indicted, Ryun became (both literally and figuratively) deaf to his constituents, Pombo went even further off the deep end, Foley started touching little boys and the political climate became too toxic for Hart--and we won all of the races.
We won those races because of the 50 State Strategy BY DEFINITION. The 50 State Strategy means organizing and running credible candidates everywhere. Had that not been done, we would've lost those five seats, and potentially others that we picked up (Carney's, for example).
If you can suggest to me ways that we could've won those five seats without having candidates on the ballot, I would be happy to hear them. What I suspect you're going to do, though, based on past experience, is ignore facts and just yell "There's no evidence! Sliced bread doesn't even compare to Obama! You crazy lefties and your friend Dean are screwing the party!," but I guess that remains to be seen.
I guess we must've won Delay, Pombo, Ryun, Hart and Foley's seats because we weren't running a 50 State Strategy, then?
Pathetic as it sounds, over the long term, the "freebie" seats that can be picked up, a few each year, by running credible candidates everywhere, will unquestionably have a big effect. It's likely that 3 or 4 of those seats will switch back to the R column in 2008--but it will cost several million dollars to make that happen. That's several million dolars that the NRCC no longer has to challenge Shuler, Carney and co. or to defend any weak seats they have.
So, in other words, the 50 State Strategy has already:
-Picked us up at least 5 seats in the House for the next two years.
-Put the NRCC several million dollars in the hole for 2008.
Meanwhile, the biggest benefits of the strategy cannot possibly come for several years. So, the argument that the strategy better start showing results soon is one of the strangest I've heard after the election.