Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:17 AM Feb 2017

I'd like to suggest "Take the Congress" as the name for the resistance movement.

Because, frankly, until we take the Congress (and get started on state legislatures), then resistance is much more difficult. There's no point in putting a cute name on it. The only thing that will happen with a cute name is that Fox News and the right wing hate machine will do the same kind of demonization that they did to BLM. They'll try to do the same with "Take the Congress." At which point we reply, hell yes, we're coming for you. Not much else to be said there. But there isn't really anything we can do unless we take at least one of the legislative houses.

We need to be identifying potential candidates for every single Congressional district. Then we need to put as much support as we can behind them. If a Democratic representative or Senator looks more like a Bucklecrat, then they need to be primaried. The main reason that the Republicans are so completely batshit crazy, or willing to go along with batshit crazy, is because Tea Partiers reinforced them and rewarded them for it, and if they thought someone was a RINO (e.g., someone to the left of Joseph McCarthy), they knocked them out of office. We need to do the same thing with our congressional candidates. On the state level, too.

The demonstrations are a wonderful start. Couldn't be any better; the country now knows that there are millions of us and that we've had just about enough of this shit. That will stiffen Democratic spines in the Congress somewhat. But they won't pull the same kind of outright, all-out defiance that McConnell did unless they are certain it translates into votes, and into actual power down the line.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
3. NO. We don't need a brand new Congress made up of non-politicians.
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:33 AM
Feb 2017

We just need a lot more good Democrats who know what they're doing.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
5. YES. You need to read the site before responding.
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:41 AM
Feb 2017

From the FAQ:

What about good candidates already in Congress? Are you going to run against them?

We won’t run against candidates that fully support the Brand New Congress platform. We believe many current members of Congress will support this plan, and we expect that as the campaign becomes stronger, more and more members of Congress will endorse our platform. In those cases, our candidates may drop out -- we’ll have to decide on a case by case basis.


and if you're wondering what the platform is, it's here:

[link:https://brandnewcongress.org/plan|

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
6. I read the site before I responded. And I object to their false equivalence
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:46 AM
Feb 2017

between Republicans and Democrats. How can the huge gulf between them not be obvious to all by now?

This is just another attempt to divide and conquer with another party on the left. We'd be fools to fall for it.

Brand New Congress is a campaign to run 400+ non-politician candidates for Congress in 2018 in one unified campaign behind one plan to rebuild the economy, repair our communities and radically reform our institutions.

We believe there are obvious solutions to America's biggest problems that the vast majority of Americans would fight for if they were put on the table in a national election. But we don't hear about those solutions because the current bi-partisan establishment agrees 100% on bad trade deals, massive bank bailouts, and supporting the takeover of our economy by the financial industry. It also agrees on mass incarceration, allowing the ultrawealthy to have undue influence in our politics, and inaction against an out-of-control "justice" system. It uses partisan bickering over taxes and spending to cover up its consensus on those things that really matter and to pretend that Americans are pitted against each other in partisan gridlock.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
9. Well...
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:01 AM
Feb 2017

Problem is, both Democrats and Republicans have voted together for bad trade deals, massive bank bailouts, and supporting the takeover of our economy by the financial industry. They've also voted together for some truly shitty education policies. Pointing that out does not mean that they are calling the two parties identical. But what it does mean is that as many Republicans as possible need to be gone, and Democrats that roll with them need to be primaried.

Did you look at their plan?


Invest trillions of dollars in new industries that will provide millions of high wage jobs – just like all successful industrialized countries are doing right now.
Invest trillions of dollars to rebuild and repair towns, cities and rural areas that politicians have allowed to disintegrate for half a century.
Spend exactly what it will take to repair our nation’s broken infrastructure – which is $3.6 trillion according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Build the inevitable cheap, renewable energy economy now, creating tens of millions of good high-tech jobs and saving people many trillions of dollars – because energy from the wind and sun is much cheaper in the long run.
Overhaul the IRS and the tax code so that small businesses are on the same playing field as big business and so that multi-billionaires and large corporations can no longer evade paying the billions in taxes they should owe.
Solve the healthcare mess once and for all by making Medicare available to anyone who wants it, and letting insurance companies fend for themselves in a truly free market.
Provide free college education and technical training so that Americans have access to the training they need to get the job they want in this new economy.



We will get money out of politics once and for all: This means getting rid of the revolving door between Wall Street and our government. It means repealing Citizens United. It means moving to a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations. And it means all BNC candidates pledging to never lobby Congress after they're out of office.
We will support the demands for justice from all groups that have been targeted by government: Today just about everyone in America feels targeted by government at some level. What stops us from undoing this is that they also feel pitted against each other. It's time for the American people to make common cause and see that the cries for justice by all Americans are heard. And we mean everyone: Black people, small business owners, Native Americans, low income people, rural people, immigrants, disabled people, foster children, Latinos, manufacturers who want to build in America, small towns, and we could go on and on with this list!
We will reform our electoral system to create a more perfect democracy: This will include removing the electoral college, implementing ranked choice voting, creating a holiday on election day, improving the actual mechanics of voting to make it easy to vote and make electoral fraud impossible.
We will refocus our criminal justice system on reducing the number incarcerated: Our current system simply can't work. Too many people leaving the prison system get no fair shot at getting back into society, so they wind up back in jail. We want to end the school-to-prison pipeline, provide training, education and jobs to prevent repeat offenders, and reduce our total prison population drastically.
We will say no to wars of choice: Let's stop destabilizing other countries and focus on fixing our own.
We will give every government body new marching orders: "Your job is to serve the people -- no longer to target, abuse, surveil, micromanage, nickle and dime and belittle the people you were hired to serve." We will back that up by removing government bureaucrats who can't understand or won't comply with their new orders. And we will back it up by cutting out blatant and obvious waste, while providing generous funding and training to the agencies and staff that do the real work and that have been starved of support for decades.


I really don't understand how you can disagree with these things. I think both of our candidates would have said "yes" right down the line to all of these things.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
10. We would have been worse off without the bank bailout -- which Obama supported --
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:10 AM
Feb 2017

and the Dems supported Dodd-Frank, which the Republicans wanted to undo.

Most of those goals look fine. But this plan will merely divide progressives, just like the Green Party has. We wouldn't benefit from a takeover by non-politicians. We need more Democrats, and we need Democrats in leadership who know what they are doing.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
14. Why do you think this plan would divide progressives?
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:27 AM
Feb 2017

Look, you know that there are plenty of districts where a strong majority of the voters knee-jerk vote for someone with an (R) beside their name without really bothering to check on what their platform is. I live in one of them. There are very few Republicans who would sign on for this plan. And no Democrat is going to run as a Republican. So why not get an apolitical candidate to run against the Republican in his/her own party in the deep red districts?

In the purple districts, it would be the Democrats signing on to this because Republican incumbents never would.

In blue districts, incumbent Democrats would have no trouble signing on to this, and we would actually keep most of the ones we have.

It's a liberal platform. I don't think it would divide progressives. I think it would unite us.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
12. You don't seem to understand that they plan to run as INDEPENDENTS
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:17 AM
Feb 2017

against Democrats. This means they will be dividing the vote on the left and assisting the R's with every election they run in.

Yes, we will challenge incumbents in their party primaries, running Republicans in districts where only Republicans can win, and Democrats where only Democrats win. Wherever we lose the primary, we will run an independent for a second chance at winning the seat.


With their platform, they'll never win in a Republican primary. They'll only be dividing the progressive vote.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
15. And you don't seem to understand that they would not run against a Democrat
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:30 AM
Feb 2017

who supported the platform. Why would you want to try to elect a Democratic candidate who didn't support the platform I've copied?

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
4. No. We need more Democrats, even in red and purple districts,
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:37 AM
Feb 2017

and to do that we sometimes have to run Democrats who aren't pure enough to suit voters in NY and CA -- the "bucklecrats" as you term them. But they do a good job representing the people in their red and purple districts and contribute the votes we need to make up a majority -- which is critical for obtaining Congressional leadership even if they don't stay with us on every single vote.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
7. You mean Blue Dog Democrats?
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:46 AM
Feb 2017

Because that worked out so well for us before.

What I mean by "bucklecrats" are the politicians who run on Democratic values, then get into office and let the Republicans have their way - "reaching across the aisle", "coming together", and basically being passive. Trampled on by Republicans. That's not about purity, it's about having a spine.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
8. It worked out very well for us before -- until certain Dems decided
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 07:49 AM
Feb 2017

that the Blue Dogs weren't good enough to be in the party and needed to be primaried.

That's when we lost our majorities in Congress. The blue dogs had been a key part of our majorities, until we lost them.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
11. That's revisionist history.
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:16 AM
Feb 2017

And it's really bad revisionist history. In fact, the only thing keeping it from being "alternative fact" is that one of the 26 representatives in the Blue Dog Coalition actually was primaried. The other 25 were not. I did look their elections up on Wikipedia before replying. I think it would be a good idea for you to consider doing the same kind of thing instead of winging it.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
13. You should reconsider supporting this bunch to run as Independents against Democrats.
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:19 AM
Feb 2017

We know how well that works out when 3rd parties divide the progressive vote.

Yes, we will challenge incumbents in their party primaries, running Republicans in districts where only Republicans can win, and Democrats where only Democrats win. Wherever we lose the primary, we will run an independent for a second chance at winning the seat.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
16. But if Democrats support their platform, and it is a LIBERAL platform...
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 08:33 AM
Feb 2017
We won’t run against candidates that fully support the Brand New Congress platform.


So there it is. As long as a Democrat isn't a Joe Lieberman Democrat, there's no problem.

Squinch

(50,949 posts)
17. I'm pushing "Liberty's Torch." Take back the historic American symbolism, show that WE are the
Sat Feb 4, 2017, 10:04 AM
Feb 2017

true keepers of American values.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'd like to suggest "Take...