'Accountability Now': Bloggers and Progressive Groups Plan to Challenge Elected Dems

[Hissyspit]

Source: Huffington Post

'Accountability Now': Bloggers And Progressive Groups Plan To Challenge Elected Dems

Sam Stein

February 26, 2009 09:55 AM

Some of the most prominent names in progressive politics launched a major new organization on Thursday dedicated to pinpointing and aiding primary challenges against incumbent Democrats who are viewed as acting against their constituents' interests. Accountability Now PAC will officially be based in Washington D.C., though its influence is designed to be felt in congressional districts across the country. The group will adopt an aggressive approach to pushing the Democratic Party in a progressive direction; it will actively target, raise funds, poll and campaign for primary challengers to members who are either ethically or politically out-of-touch with their voters. The goal, officials with the organization say, is to start with 25 potential races and dwindle it down to eight or 10; ultimately spending hundreds of thousands on elections that usually wouldn't be touched.

"Most of the time, regardless of your record in Washington, an incumbent does not have to worry about being challenged in a primary," explained Jeff Hauser, an online Democratic operative who will serve as the group's executive director. "This only increases the power of the Washington echo chamber and the influence of lobbyists. We are trying to change that... We think there are potentially talented challengers out there who think the process of mounting a primary challenge is simply too daunting. When you bring to bear the resources of national organizations and the influence of the netroots, you can help these potential candidates."

It is a concept bound -- indeed, designed -- to ruffle the feathers of powerful figures in Washington, in part because the names behind it are now institutions themselves. With $500,000 currently in the bank, Accountability Now will be aided, in varying forms, by groups such as MoveOn, SEIU, Color of Change, Democracy for America, 21st Century Democrats and BlogPAC. FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher and Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald will serve in advisory roles, while Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos will conduct polling, with analytical help from 538.com's Nate Silver. "This will be very much interactive and localized," said Hamsher. "We are already going out to local state blogs to help us identify well-qualified candidates in their communities. Once those people are identified we will be able to bring the strength of our resources to help them mount primary challenges."

- snip -

But in private, some Democrats expressed worry about pushing for progressive change from the outside rather than from within. Would running an election opponent be the best measure of political persuasion? What if, hypothetically, a primary challenger won the nomination only to lose in the general? These are concerns that Accountability Now does not take lightly. They insist that they will "take district realities into account," which means that Democrats who represent moderate districts will be forgiven for their moderate votes. But beyond that, they argue, it is the candidate's responsibility, not theirs, to ensure reelection.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/accountability-now-blogge_n_170163.html

[liskddksil]

1. This on top of the new PCCC

Which will help finance progressives in party primaries to run against Republicans.
http://boldprogressives.org/

[Hissyspit]

2. Cool. Did not know about that.

[defendandprotect]

29. I hadn't heard about this either . . .and the practice has been to solicit wealthy . . .

candidates who are better able to compete financially on the one hand,

but they have tended to have elite strings and concepts -- and, of course,

this is one of the primary reasons that MORE QUALIFIED PROGRESSIVES HAVE

BEEN SHUT OUT OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Further, evidently Rahm Emmanuel has been soliciting more conservative

Democrats to run against elected progressive Democrats --- DO WE THINK THAT

EMMANUEL IS WORRIED ABOUT THE 'WHAT IF' THOSE CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS FAIL?

[cascadiance]

3. Good! I've been waiting for this to all come together...

I've been saying that the primaries in 2010 will be THE election to focus on then, to help rid ourselves of the corporatists that are standing in the way of the major reform that is needed to restore the middle class. I will fully put my money there, and not any of the Dem or other organizations that fund corporatists!

I think the key is that they need to focus for unity on corporate serving issues that both the Republicans and the corporate Democrats have embraced to satisfy the lobbyists. For those "moderate" districts, perhaps be more flexible on some of the social issues, which have divided some of these districts, but hold out strong on the corporate serving issues. When you're talking about issues that probably screw 95% of America, if they are framed correctly those issues should be able to get huge majority support whether in "conservative" or "liberal" districts.

But unless a group like this focuses on a populist, non-corporate set of unifying issues, there won't be such an entity, as that's what unifies the Republicans and the "centrist" Democrats and gives them in effect one party rule that doesn't support us, not social issues.

Me personally? I will still stick hard to voting also for candidates that support my progressive views on social issues. But I recognize the need to get corporate power out of politics, and will work alongside some that might disagree with me on social issues so that we can once again return to a government where we can have a true representative government where *OUR* employees (our congress critters and other elected officials) truly work on our behalf and argue out those social issues in hopefully a more civilized, meaningful, and non-corrupted way.

K&R!

[defendandprotect]

30. What "social issues" are you talking about being more "flexible" about . . . ???

Gay and lesbian human rights?

Female equality?

Abortion, birth control?

Equal opportunity for African-Americans and others of color?

Ending the corrupt Drug War?

Medical marijuana?

Single payer health care?

Keeping Social Security and Medicare?

Economic democracy?

Ending homelessnes and poverty?

Stopping the wars?

Fill us in, please . . .

[chill_wind]

4. K & R.

[No Elephants]

5. I used to think I was a centrist Democrat, but I am clearly to the left of Obama on

issues like full equal rights to marriage and total separation of church and state.

I wonder, though, where the majority of voters are?

I guess if the progressives are truly "district sensitive," that would take care of itself?

I don't know what to think yet.

I just hope the Party does not devour or splinter itself, just when Republicans have come a cropper (whatever that expression means).

[defendandprotect]

31. As Chomsky often relates, those in power do surveys because they

have to know exactly where the public stands ---

This is a liberal nation -- and you can bet on that because if it weren't

they wouldn't need to have control over every newspaper, every radio network --

nor would they have to "buy" government and elected officials.

America is so liberal she even understands the Mexicans simply returning home

to the lands they previously occupied.

[garybeck]

6. glad this is happening, i support it 1000000% K&R!

it's time to root out the bad apples

[Supersedeas]

78. same here

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. What if, hypothetically, a primary challenger won the nomination only to lose in the general?

Which is why so many worked to support Lieberman, even after he lost his primary. Really worked out well for us.

DUMP THE DINOS.

[cascadiance]

10. Focus on the corporatist-serving issues and not the divisive ones...

It has been the corporatist uber party that has Republicans and "centrist" Democrats working together to keep the people out of the process, that has pushed these other divisive issues that doesn't matter to them, and allows them to get out the vote and manipulate it to themselves, even though they will do really nothing that is within the people's interests in fighting off corporate rule of our government.

[waiting for hope]

13. So you suggest that they don't even try?

I think Lieberman is too fully entrenched - so much so that even God couldn't have beaten him. But there are a lot of other areas where this could work - look at Larry Kissell, he had huge support from the online community. I think it will be very helpful.

[No Elephants]

14. Yes, but a liberal candidate may well lose to a Pug where a more centrist candidate

might win. That is not a frivolous thought. I want Democrats to win.

If liberal Democrats can win, GREAT. But, what if they can't? Would they have more clout working from within, or becoming Nader style spoilers?

Again, I am not sure what to think.

[cascadiance]

27. Framing, it's all about framing! So-called "centrists" control the framing & therefore the vote...

I would argue that if the dialogue of what questions the so-called "centrists" weren't so controlled by the corporate media and other party hacks to the point that the only things they talk about are divisive social issues and don't get pushed into a corner to say how they will deal with corporatism, then yes they've won a lot in the past by manipulating the public into the stances on these divisive issues that will win a majority.

But if they were forced to deal with REAL discussions on issues like public campaign financing, single payer health care, the war on Iraq, outsourcing of jobs, etc. then progressives on these issues would be able to win in even more conservative districts, if they focused on issues that affect all of us that only benefit a small elite few that these "centrists" are beholden to.

This coalition needs to focus the framing in the right places, and that is the way we kick these bums out!

[defendandprotect]

32. Do you think that Rahm Emmanuel is worrying about this in reverse . . .

since he is soliciting conservative Democrats to run against already elected

progressive/liberal Democrats . . . ???

[tavalon]

52. We'll be stronger this next time

I promise you, that Senator in particular is in his last years in office. He will not go back to the Senate again.

[mzmolly]

8. Challenging Democrats from within

the Party is the way to go about holding people accountable IMHO.

[cascadiance]

9. First try to work within, though we've been trying for years...

I think the bigger the entity and coalition of sub entities we have and the more organized and demanding we are, perhaps the other side will also see the threat that if they DON'T listen to us, or if they stand in the way more in manipulative ways towards progressives Dems gaining power as the growing progressive voter base wants them to, that there will be a greater threat of forming a viable third party that will challenge from the outside later if that is necessary to effect change.

We need to try to give our best efforts to change from within first, but we're running out of time. We as well as those corporate Dems should be made aware of that so that we can get some reasonable participation in the government SOON!

[mzmolly]

12. What I mean by my previous statement is that we run a Dem against a Dem

rather than a third party spoiler. We saw how the "viable third party" thing worked in 2000 IMO. It helped bring us the Bush years. If a more progressive/liberal candidate can win in the GE, they should first demonstrate that by beating a Democrat in the primaries.

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

16. Oh, I agree... The system now that we have makes third party a problem...

... especially if it is perceived not to have a lot of popular support.

But I think that one first tries to impress on the Democratic Party leadership that unless they start supporting more of the people's choices instead of the corporate lobbyist choices, that there will ultimately be a price to be paid:

1) If we emphasize bringing to the fore the issues that the people care about and that the corporate lobbies want to see covered up, at some point it is going to give our progressive candidates more mainstream support from the voters, even if their corporate financiers don't like them as much.

2) I think we have a voting populace that is more and more prepared to look for populist candidates that are working for them and not corporations, whether they be conservative or liberal voters. This is a strength for progressive candidates, and gives us more muscle power to tell the Democratic Party the moves we want them to make. Now if they fight us too much, we might just have enough strength to make a third party option viable, if the Democratic party is turning their backs on us. We're nowhere close to that now, but we should be building that as a possible option later, to strengthen our hands with the Democratic Party leadership to hopefully avoid the scenario where we have to defect to a third party.

Even though we should work together within the party now, we should keep our options open to form a third party if the conditions make it right for that to happen where we can win with that option, and minimally the threat of that happening will give us more power within the party. If they don't feel any threat of that, they might continue to try and choose to ignore us, to the detriment of the party versus the Republicans as well, which many of the corporate Dems don't care as much about, if the corporate lobbyists that ultimately keep them in office stay "in power" through that happening.

[defendandprotect]

28. "We should keep our options open to form a third party if the conditions make it right...

for that to hapen."

I got a warning for much less than that!!

But I would celebrate if DU would give up big "D" Dem Party for small "d" democracy!!!

[knixphan]

22. Seconded!

[tomp]

53. still blaming nader. how quaint! nt

[bertman]

25. Trying to work from within the party is exceedingly difficult when the marching orders

come down from the DLC. I will support these new groups because they may be the catalyst that is needed to push the DLC to abandon or curb its all-corporatists-all-the-time stance.

Just the existence of a strong Progressive support mechanism may entice candidates who otherwise would not have run. Also, it may give the incumbents some incentive to re-think their Blue Dog theology.

Recommend. This is a positive step forward.

[defendandprotect]

35. Think we all want to see the DLC disconnected from Democratic Party . . .as well as AIPAC!!

[RubyDuby in GA]

57. Sorry. I will give one example as to why this group is very necessary - Jim Marshall

That complete and utter asshat is the only Democrat in the entire nation to vote against SCHIP. He continually asks for (and gets) money from Dems that could be going to someone else that will actually vote like a Democrat every once in a while.

That district was drawn by Republicans specifically to get rid of him. He manages to hang onto it but only by out-GOPing the challengers he gets.

It's time for him to go. If it reverts back to a Republican, at least the people of GA's 8th will have a real Republican instead of a guy who plays one when its voting time on the House floor.

[liberalsince1968]

11. GOOD. I hate half-assed dems just as much if not more than repugs.

[struggle4progress]

15. It's a bad idea, boys and girls. The principle, for changing Congress, should be: go after the

worst, first

And right now, the worst are Republicans: that party is controlled by crazies

We're going to have ugly Congressional fights in 2010 -- and ugly Democratic primaries won't help

The conservative Democrats usually represent conservative districts where the Republicans might have a shot at winning back the seats

Let me add that the idiotic Republicans in NC tried their own version of this a few years back for our General Assembly: they worked to pick off moderate Republican incumbents in the primaries and to replace them with folk more pleasing to the base -- they succeeded in the primaries, and they got smashed in the general election

I'm far to the left and proud of it, because I think my own far-left views are both ethical and fact-based: but political realities are political realities, and it's stupid to assume people will vote for our side just because we're correct about everything -- they won't, without a good deal of preparatory work

We'd do better to consolidate local control when possible and to try to develop up a new generation of leaders prepared to step into the vacuum left by a collapse of the wingnut Republican party

[Peace Patriot]

17. "...ugly Democratic primaries won't help." Well, they got us Obama.

Obama was honed in the primaries. The primaries made him into the president he is. He started out relatively inexperienced. He put his organization together in the primaries. He got practiced in handling criticism in the primaries. He developed new fundraising techniques in the primaries. And it was a long, bruising, difficult, divisive, dangerous primary season.

I don't buy that objection. A tough primary more often than not makes a better candidate.

I also think your analogy to the wingnut wing of the Republican Party in NC doesn't fit. They are not talking about running Marxists. They are talking about appealing to the true, leftist majority that is developing in the country--that I think was always there, but suppressed by stolen elections and by lying corpo/fascist media--and that is focused on economic issues, issues of corporate rule and corpo/political corruption.

I think it's a good idea. In fact, when I first heard about it--just now--my heart leapt for joy. Yes, yes! --my heart sang--get rid of these goddamn 'Blue Dog' assholes! Challenge them. Challenge them hard. And at the very least force them to the left (toward representing majority interests). Win some of these, and it will resonate through the land.

My problem with this plan is that it needs to include--as a first priority--work on ridding the jurisdictions where the challenges will take place of electronic voting machines, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing Bushite corporations. And it would be especially important to get this changed where there is no paper trail at all--half the systems in the country. Also needed, an improved audit (automatic handcount) in the systems that at least have a paper ballot. (Most of these have only a 1% audit--miserably inadequate.)

In fact, if it were my project, I wouldn't waste peoples' money, my energy and time, or anyone else's, and raise peoples' hopes, in any system without a paper trail. Why bother, when there is zero transparency?

Aside from that, I say: IT'S ABOUT TIME! How long are we going to put up with this crap--more war, more corporatism, from our own party?!

[struggle4progress]

18. The question is to what extent our gains in 2006/2008 reflected voter

distrust of W-Republicans, who slowly but steadily lost support during W's term; Obama's grassroots organizing experience certainly helped, too

I never thought we'd boot "Chainsaw Charlie" Taylor (R - Clearcut) from the NC delegation; but Heath Schuler smashed him in 2006 and won re-election in 2008. If Shuler's not my favorite Congresscritter, he's still better than any intellectual heir of Chainsaw. In 2010, I've no intention of going after somebody like Shuler: I'll rather go after another wingnut, like, say, my current Senator Burr. Over the years, I've supported a number of moderate-to-conservative Democrats, because they could beat bats-in-th-belfry Republican incumbents. I'll generally support the most liberal candidate who I think can win, and their views aren't always close to my own -- they aren't perfect, but they're always better than their Republican opponents

There are other important and often over-looked aspects to this. It's a mistake to pin one's hopes on particular individuals. We really need effective grassroots movements to produce public pressure on whomever we propel into office. To be effective, one also needs to push a new generation of leaders into local government and then into state government, so there are people with experience to fill the federal slots as they become available

[DinahMoeHum]

21. Well put. Let's remember, people, that the worst Democrat is STILL

a thousand times better than the best Republikkkan.

:kick::kick:

[bertman]

26. I cannot agree with that statement, DinahMoeHum, even though I love your moniker.

We have some so-called Democrats in our ranks who ARE Republicans except for party designation. Heath Shuler in N.C. is one.

These are weird times because the Republicans are feeling so cornered and abused that they will not tolerate anyone who doesn't march lockstep. But in the past there have been moderate Republicans just as there will be again.

[struggle4progress]

40. I nevertheless will invite you to compare Shuler's record with that of his predecessor, Taylor

I do not need to take some nonfactual ideological position, such as "Democrats are always better than Republicans," in order to be pleased by the replacement

[JamesA1102]

59. Don't make the Perfect the enemy of the good nt

[JJ]

43. Two words

Zell Miller

[DinahMoeHum]

56. He's no longer in public office, so he doesn't count.

n/t

[struggle4progress]

63. We didn't need to go after Zell in 2004 because he didn't run for re-election. And Republican

Isakson won that seat in 2004, by the way. We should certainly try to pick off Isakson in 2010

[PassingFair]

65. That's not true.

I'll take Lincoln Chaffee over
Joe Lieberman ANY DAY.

Also, I'll take Jim Jeffords and
you can have ZELL MILLER...

umkay?

[defendandprotect]

36. There are enough "blue dogs" to work on ... vote the same as the GOP . . !!

[rolltideroll]

48. Bravo

Your right, go after the opposition. I do not want the party to worry who is or is not toeing the line. I thin our strength is in diversity of viewpoints, not lockstep views.This is the biggest political opportunity for our side since the great depression. We have to turn the screws now and make the Repubs the new Whigs.

[JamesA1102]

58. Completely agree

All this will do is help the GOP gain back seats in the House.

[cadmium]

70. I agree. My first response was to say that

I would support the progressive candidates that ran positive campaigns but I am swayed by your arguement that this is just a bad idea.

[tooeyeten]

79. I'm with you

very bad idea, we just got out of the worst 8 years of our political history, we need to join together.

[knixphan]

19. K&R

:bounce:

[acmavm]

20. Long over due. Long, long overdue.

[defendandprotect]

38. Yes . . . and THIS is the time to do this . .

this is the opportune time to do this ---

We also need now to work on election changes --- monitors -- changing our

system to a more democrtic one. Getting rid of computer voting machines and

computer vote counters -- where there is any opportunity for hacking. Where

there is no verifiable paper trail and opportunity for recount.

We also need to work for IRV voting and third party status -- the Democrats

and Republicans are BOTH blocking us hearing anything but corporate-speak!!

Imagine, debates controlled by a private corporation!!!! WTF!!! ????

[amborin]

23. yep, ny times ran this story on Monday 2/23/09 LONG OVERDUE

[ooglymoogly]

24. Wow...been waiting and suggesting this for years

That is where I will send donations from now on. period. Rahm must be spitting venom all over the place; This could well stick a fork in his pugs to dino approach.

[Laelth]

33. k&r for doing the right thing. Thia is what we need. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[defendandprotect]

34. Just want to comment on this overall -- that any liberal organizations

coming together is an absolute ground-breaking event!!

I've been trying to suggest this for almost two decades to no avail.

We need labor and women's groups to come together ---

We need all liberal groups to stop worrying about which one of them is

taking in money on someone else's issue!

ALSO -- soliciting mainly wealthy Democrats which is what the Democratic Party

has long been doing shuts and more progressive/qualified Democrats and shuts out

grass roots participation. I've seen it and walked away from it.

FURTHER --- We also have to go back to the neighborhood circulation idea ---

a Democrat on every corner, talking with people about issues -- a Democrat with

good, honest information.

Another of the real BS things that goes on with the Republicans is that they are

trained to say a lot of words which mean nothing! And, Democrats have fallen into

this to some degree refusing to stick their necks out. Gore listened to the DLC on

not talking progressive-speak and when he stopped his popularity dropped.

Be progressive and you'll not only pick up votes you'll bring people in to work with

the party again!

[NashVegas]

37. And Now We Can Guess Why Howard Dean Is Not In the Obama Cabinet

Unless he and his bro had a major fight.

:)

[ihavenobias]

39. K & R n/t

[ncliberal]

41. Good!

All of my money will go here from now on.

[Canuckistanian]

42. Some of these "moderates" ended up enabling the worst RW policies

The PATRIOT Act, Military Commisions, Telecom immunity, tax cuts for the rich, bankruptcy protecions, de-regulation of the markets.....

In every one of these disastrous cases, there could have been serious opposition or at least meaningful discussions.

But no. The Senate and House leaders deferred to them and they were a powerful voting bloc that had to be kowtowed to.

No more. No more "Nelsons". No more "DiFis" No more Schumer with his "compromises" that ended up EXACTLY as his critics feared. NOTHING was given back in terms of political favoritism.

Screw that.. It's time to take back the Democratic Party and all that it REALLY stands for.

K&R

[DUlover2909]

44. Sounds like real democracy to me. Go forth my friends and multiply.

:kick:

[johncoby2]

45. Wow! We are getting as bad as the republican.

[johncoby2]

47. Look how well Move On worked against Culberson.

Living in Tom DeLays old district, we had a GREAT moderate Democrat, Nick Lampson.
Now we have a right wing rookie, Pete Olson.

SO if all of you bloggers think you are helping, you should spend a couple of weeks in the summer on the ground in the district.

Leave your laptop at home. Bring sunscreen.

[suzie]

60. Reading through DU, it seems they would rather have Republicans in office.

It gives them a greater chance to whine. Forget about what it does for the country or your own district.

If they get a bunch of Democrats unelected, then Democrats can be in the minority again and they'll say, "See, we told you that if you didn't listen to us, you'd lose seats."

And if Obama has a House and Senate hostile to his policies, that will give the Obamahaters a better chance to say, "See, we told you he couldn't do it."

[johncoby2]

66. No. my complaint is that most of those who complain....

do so from their lazy ass sitting behind a computer.

While the rest of us (me) are out walking our ass off for our candidate.

If you want to help, come on down and walk, or else shut the hell up.

[johncoby2]

67. Oh...BTW, where you you guys in 2008?

You, (DailyKos, Huffington, etc) were shooting your mouths off behind a keyboard while we in Texas CD22 where walking in the hot sun trying to keep our Congressman.

We lost to a right wing republican.

Your keyboard surfing didnt do us a bit of good.

[johncoby2]

68. You talk a big game.

Nothing more. I see more MoveOn people at a protest and sit ins, but will they actually come and do the hard work, blockwalk, phonebank, work for the candidate?

If they did, we didn't see them.

Big talkers. With lots of money.

[GinaMaria]

76. They have been very active in my area

Chicago. Doing just what you are talking about. How would you know if you saw them? They don't wear big signs with MoveOn in bold letters. This is a grassroots organization. You don't have to agree with what they stand for but you don't need to paint unfair picture of them either. Lots of money? where do you get that idea? The MoveOn people I have met have been young people who work or go to school. They don't have lots of money. They have lots of debt from student loans. They raise money by asking people like me for donations. They were out in force for Obama.

I'm sorry your local election did not go well. Next election cycle drop me a PM and I will send a little money to help your candidate.

[suzie]

71. Are you addressing me?

Because I think we're in agreement.

I have walked the streets and cooked for fundraisers and sat on the side of the road all day registering voters.

The friends who complain the most about the lack of 'progressive' candidates are seldom seen working for any candidates.

[GinaMaria]

77. My experience is the opposite

but I live in a fairly progressive area. There were so many volunteers for Obama at the headquarters that they were dispatching us all over the city where we could phone bank. By lunchtime on election day we had completely gone through all the call lists and were making second calls to people that were left messages in the hope of reaching them. I've never experienced anything like this in my phone banking experience.

Many on DU volunteer for candidates, are election judges or help the party in general. Is 'progressive' becoming the new dirty word, like 'liberal' used to be?

[varelse]

46. This is good news

I will happily support them :)

[david_vincent]

49. Please please please please let's get Peter Welch

OUT of Congress.

[TechBear_Seattle]

50. Why do they hate America? Do they want the GOP to win?

At least, that certainly seems to be the sentiment around here when anyone calls for accountability and responsibility from Democrats.

[tavalon]

51. Fabulous

I signed up. I like the line up of folks already behind it and I've believed for some time that the Republicans are not our only or even our biggest problem. I'd like it if this just being out there will cause a few DINOs to remember their roots.

[Buzz Clik]

54. It's about time! But, I'm curious: will they target their own representatives or just others?

It's easy to criticize and attempt to derail somebody else's Congress critter. It's harder to harpoon your own. We'll see how it goes.

[Le Taz Hot]

55. I just signed up.

I've been waiting for something like this for so long . . . I hope the disparate factions can work together to keep this going and growing.

[TankLV]

61. Good luck with that here in Vegas - you'll NEVER get rid of Harry Reid. Period.

That's just a FACT.

He's too powerful, and he's too high up in the national political structure, let alone the State.

Only way to get rid of him is if he voluntarily steps down.

Not that I wouldn't give my left nut to see him go (I'm not using it anyway) - but it just ain't gonna happen.

Sorry.

Good luck with that premise - but reality has a nasty way of breaking in...

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

62. Start at the top- go for Pelosi.

She needs to be gone most of all.

[PassingFair]

64. I'M IN!!!

Both feet.

No more Nelsons.

No more Stabenows.

Although the Progressive Caucus is
the largest group in the House, they
are foiled by the Blue Dog/New Dem
coalition time after time.

We need a "veto proof" majority
of Progressives, so that important
work won't be "taken off the table"
ever again.

[cadmium]

69. the candidates that run positive campaigns I support. The

ones that run negative campaigns would be helping the republicans and doing progressive causes a disservice. I think they will get more support running positive campaigns.

[depakid]

72. Nevada Senate race 2010

'Nuff said.

[Doctor_J]

73. You know, he's really busy fighting wingers, lobbyists, hate radio, Big Media,

and the Cultural Elite. A doing a fucking good job of it. These people need to BACK THE FUCK OFF

[Doremus]

74. This is where my donations will go, no more DCCC.

Principles, not triangulation.

It's time.

[depakid]

75. Kick

:dem: