After finally gaining the majority, it would be very bad for our majority leader to get hit with a serious ethics investigation, or worse.
I appreciate what Murtha did on Iraq as much as anyone, but I can't stand the idea of our Majority Leader being corrupt. If we're going to show America that we are BETTER than the Republicans, we need to keep our own House clean.
I'm going with Huckabee. He's a republican governor from that rarity, a largely blue southern state. Gives him "Bipartisan" credibility. Strong with the theocons. "Awww shucks" style. Darkhorse candidate with out any glaring negatives. (I don't consider poor foreign policy experience to be a big deal for Americans, though it should be). Governor. America loves governors (hint to Richardson!) Great story with the incredible weight loss. He'll get human interest attention from that.
They'll turn on their own. They like to eat their own. Katherine Harris made crowned George. What did that get her?
Freeper land is all askitter about this. Trying to figure out if Rudy is pro or anti-immigration. (Clue: He's a big corporate guy. He loves "guest worker" programs - the dark side of the pro-amnesty argument)
It's going to be bloodshed on that side. McCain has plenty of detractors. Plus he's really freaking old now. Like older than Reagan was, I think.
Of course, it's probably gonna get pretty bloody on our side.
I noted a few items in the Rahm feature that shows that Rahm and us are on the same page in some ways.
IIRC, from Crashing the Gate, Kos and Armstrong advocated against letting single issue groups use purity tests to tank candidates. Rahm said that he didn't care about purity tests, only that you agreed with the majority of the Dem outlook on the world. Which is where we get all these moderates. We did the same thing in supporting the netroots Blue Majority candidates. Not all of our candidates were ideologically pure. Especially on the guns issue.
He's also clearly sick of James Carville:
And here were Carville and pollster Stan Greenberg telling him he had to make each of his handpicked candidates shift from attack mode and strike a conciliatory note in their final campaign ads.
One day in October, another call from James Carville prompted Wade to say in exasperation: "Can we change our number so he doesn't keep calling?"
We went on a mission to try to make safe incumbents pay up. Rahm was fighting the same cause:
They also protested that when he harangued lawmakers to pay their DCCC dues, he did not recognize how hard it was for black politicians, many of whom represented poorer areas, to raise money.
He was working to get the dues paid in full.
So, the piece was full of half-crazed hero worship. Rahm's the home town guy.
And he did do a lot to help us, from record breaking fundraising, to some of the best ads we've seen in a while (not all, plenty of duds - but remember the "coffins" ad?)
Anyway, I don't like Rahm very much. He did a poor job allocating some resources (Duckworth/Cegelis, the PA candidate, others), and he does show a big-time disregard for grassroots candidates. But, we worked to make a good number of races competitive, and he dumped money into them and helped put some of them over the top. Our efforts helped build campaigns (and even win some without Rahm's help), and he helped put them over the top. We all helped win.
Rahm did a hell of a lot. A lot of people did. The media loves the hero story, and we shouldn't blame Rahm for the media ignoring all the other players that made this a success. We should demand that Rahm give us our due. And we should push recognition for all the people who worked hard. But the behind the scenes people don't get the love. The people at the forefront do.
We'll get our due. We can't be ignored forever.
I can't believe I just defended Rahm. But the sooner we let this drop, the better. Congress is reconvening. Bad things are going to be tried. We need to be vigilant.
We are the constituency for anything internet based.
So, yes, while there are a lot of issues we are interested in, Net Neutrality will be our first big score. We need to push for a bill guaranteeing NN.
But, we also have been involved in a number of other pushbacks that should be codified.
Internet campaign law for starters. We need to ensure that political speech on the internet is protected. Certain reasonable restrictions may be permissible, such as mandating disclosure if you are working for a campaign and blogging somewhere like MyDD. Even if you claim to be blogging independently of the campaign, the fact you are working on the campaign will undoubtedly color your view.
We should take the lead on internet campaign law.
You know the righties will be attacking ActBlue sooner or later. We need to make sure that ActBlue does not get legislated out of existence.
We need to define standards of liability for speech that could be construed as slander or worse. Where are the boundaries?
Also, crafting legislation to improve government transparency via the internet. The first big one was the Obama/Coburn bill, that we helped get passed. (Score one for the netroots!) Not only did we get it passed, we got it passed in a bipartisan manner. Both the netroots and the freepers got together on that one to ferret out the Senators who tried to kill the legislation.
That shouldn't be the end of using the net for better transparency. We can go after updating campaign finance disclosure to ensure that FEC reports are published more timely, better organized, and easily searchable. I know there are plenty of forms out there that the government uses for other purposes that could be modified so that campaigns report electronically, and the disclosures can be immediately available. And searchable.
There's a movement out there for bills to be posted 72 hours in advance on the internets. We can spearhead that one as well.
Just a few ideas of areas where our expertise could be of value in crafting legislation.
The media will go ballistic if we push for impeachment, at least through the House. The House should investigate, investigate, investigate. Release reports, all that, but not impeach. Let the Senate consider a censure.
And, for impeachment, pressure all these newly democratic legislatures to pass a resolution to demand that the House draw up articles of impeachment.
If it comes at the behest of numerous State legislatures, it can't be (1) ignored or (2) demonized as "revenge" for Clinton.
Now then, as far as Bush working with us, well he's already told us that he won't. Sure he said he will, but the immediate push for legalizing his illegal wiretaps and for confirming Bolton (through the lame duck Congress) show just how much he intends to work with Dems.
He said he would work with us and immediately stabbed us in the back. He will not work with the Democrats. Thus, we should interpret that as carte blanche to push through 60%+ legislation, regardless of the President's approval/disapproval of the legislation. That way, if he vetoes it, he'll be vetoing legislation with popular support. If he doesn't, we're getting what we want legislatively. Brow beat him with populist legislation and dare him to veto it. Then, we can also have some good negative ad ammo for 2008.
Lots of bitterness there, between Cegelis and Duckworth. The hard-core Cegelis grass roots, in my experience, wanted nothing to do with Duckworth. Some people who volunteered for Cegelis ended up helping Tammy, based on the idea that Tammy was still better than Roskam.