Question: Will you be willing to donate to get anti Public Option democrats out of office?

[uponit7771]

Will you be willing to donate time or money to get these bastards out of office or at least push them more towards progressive view concerning out countries health?

People, it really doesn't take much...you fund a person to run against them that will highlight how much of a bastard these people are being...and at least we have someone to push these people and make them answer for these assholiness.

If you are willing please rec and list a way we can start to fund more progressive democrats to run against these people or a way people can practically give outside of calling someone who doesn't give a damn about what you think.


Thx in advance for ANY input


P.S. If you're not convinced that SOMETHING has to be done to push these congressional democrats towards the public option please watch Bill Moyers piece with Wendell Potter here http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

If you have time watch Sicko

[flyingobject]

1. YES

and recommended. Thank you.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. There are plenty of them that should hear it from their own constituents

come primary time. If I lived in a state where anyone of my guys was against the public option, I would make sure to vote against any opponent of theirs in a primary. Consider that an absolutel guarantee.

[uponit7771]

5. At this point they've OVERWHEMINGLY shown they don't care, please watch Moyers piece

...and you'll see you can jam their phones by the second and they wont change their position

[Occam Bandage]

3. It depends on what would get in office instead, now doesn't it?

[uponit7771]

6. Of course, like i said...someone more progressive on the issue not just another candidate

[Occam Bandage]

9. What about districts that are actually more conservative than the Democrat representing them?

Suppose we're looking at a conservative district that in 2008 or 2006 went Dem for the first time in decades, with a centrist Democrat candidate facing a competitive, well-financed radical right-wing Republican challenger, and with issue polling showing negligible support for the public option. Does running a primary candidate actually help us there? It seems to me that if we primary the Representative out (very unlikely) we're basically handing the seat to the Republicans, and if we lose the primary all we've done is waste our own money and that of the Dem Representative--money that could have gone to pushing our issues on our end, and that could have gone to defeating the Republican on the Representative's end.

What if it's a deep-south race between a centrist incumbent Dem and a right-wing "Dem" challenger? Do we support the RW challenger? Do we try to split the left-wing/centrist vote by running a no-chance primary candidate, thus allowing the seat to move to the right before we even give the Repubs a crack at it?

If there are Democrats in relatively safe seats, with progressive primary challengers possessing a proven ability to fundraise/draw support, and in districts where the public option is at least mildly popular, then threatening to back a challenger makes good sense and should be done. In any other cases, I can't really see the benefit.

[uponit7771]

20. 50% of reThugs support PubOption, you don't have to run someone against them just push them

...via commercials etc to go towards public option.

What I don't see is pressure in these areas on an issue that both dems and reps support to a certain degree.

[Occam Bandage]

34. I agree with pushing all representatives, and think we can do so without

throwing money away on counterproductive primary challenges. If we can move a seat to the left and win it in the general, then we should do so regardless of the public option; if we can't we shouldn't waste the money/surrender the seat regardless of the public option. MoveOn and other organizations have been effective at running pressure ads against anti-public-option Democrats, and good on them for doing so. Pressure doesn't have to come in the form of a quixotic primary challenge.

[BlooInBloo]

4. For the primaries, of course.

[TheWraith]

7. Nope.

Because next year everything I can afford is going to be spent trying to get Republicans out of office.

[uponit7771]

8. These people are dems in name only, I don't see the difference in their actions

[Occam Bandage]

10. The vote for the stim package and the climate-change bill were nearly party line.

If it weren't for centrist Dems voting for both, we wouldn't have passed either.

[uponit7771]

15. So they can excuse themselves from voting for the PubOption? Nah, we can do better

[Occam Bandage]

16. That's not what I said.

"We can do better" may be true in some districts. It is certainly untrue in others.

[uponit7771]

19. Good point, can we at least indentify which ones? With reThugs supporting PubOption at 50% I don't..

...see how it would hurt to at least run someone who will push that person further to the left on the issue alone

[invictus]

11. YES!

nt

[kenny blankenship]

12. Oh yes. There are times for vindictiveness and retribution, and this is one of those times.

They will pay.

[DJ13]

13. The public option is THE litmus test on being a corporate owned whore

Yes.

[uponit7771]

17. Yeap, how do we orgnize money against them?

[DJ13]

25. Good question

The ideal answer would be through the DNC, but they are comprised of pro-corporate Dems which makes them useless in trying to mount primary challenges to corporate owned Dems the base wants to get rid of.

Used to be we could say Move On, but they too seem to be leaning (listing?) towards the middle now that they have Obama in office, so they wont be as much help as they should be.

Its a shame our party's own liberal elites, people like Arianna Huffington or Warren Buffett dont seem inclined to be the liberal offset to the wealthy that support Republican conservative causes by setting up groups that could influence our election process in the name of liberalism.

[Autumn]

14. I agree with poster #12

whole heartedly. If I have to vote for a Dem who acts like a republican, I have decided I will vote for the puke.

[uponit7771]

18. How do we fund a more progressive candidate?

[Autumn]

22. I no longer donate to the Democratic

party, I do donate to individuals, such as Ohio's Jennifer Brunner, because she speaks to my values.

[uponit7771]

23. It looks like that's the direction we'll have to go...the HCI lobby is too embedded in the DNC

...imho

[PretzelWarrior]

21. HELL YAH. I donated to get Franken in office

I will certainly donate to get stupid "Freeper in disguise" conservadems out of office.

[Jane Austin]

24. Yes! I am tired of yelling at the teevee, "Get out of the way!"

The Blue Dogs make me crazy.

[bvar22]

26. My suggestion would be to target Evan Bayh.

He is the leader of the Blue Dog "Centrist" obstructionists in the Senate.
He is also up for re-election in 2010.

There is an organization working through the Internet to organize progressive primary opposition to the Blue Dogs, but I lost my link.
Someone here surely has it.


"Centrist" = someone who is half Republican

[uponit7771]

29. ***GOOD SUGGESTION*** Target the worst one and don't dilute resources towards

...the others that really can't make a difference in the short term

If you find that link please post it...

It should be a sticky!!!

[whistler162]

27. Yes... because I only consider one issue and

one issue only when I vote!

[uponit7771]

30. Again, someone MORE progressive not LESS progressive than those who are against PubOption

[Oregone]

28. Show your spine while you are at it. Eliminate anti-single-payers too

Huh? Why not? Why be this pissed at someone who who wont support this right-of-center compromise, and yet ignore those who wouldn't support single-payer too?

[uponit7771]

32. That'll be cool also but I think the low hanging fruit is the public option, 50% of reThugs & 90% of

...dems are for it right now.

[Flying Dream Blues]

31. YES, and I will. nt

[Wednesdays]

33. K&R

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

35. Did you happen to notice how many times Wendell Potter brought

up the idea of Medicare as being a worthwhile system. Without saying as much, I would imagine that he believes a "Medicare for All" option would not be a bad system to enact.

As far as your question that would depend on the public option being offered, if it leaves out millions of people, costs over a trillion dollars and is funded in part by Medicare/Medicaid saving which could weaken those programs then we need to take another look.

The number of enrollees in Medicare is expected to almost double in the next 20 years (from 46 million to 79 million) and at the same time the ratio of workers to retirees will be dropping.

I'm of the mind that no bill is better than a bad bill.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. YES...not just YES but HELL YES!

[readmoreoften]

37. Yes. /nt

[bonzotex]

38. Yes and I will.

For me, no more cash to the DSCC or DCCC, maybe not he the DNC (I still think they need general financial support). Donations will go to individuals and organizations with real progressive ideals. We have good candidates out there. I don't have the money to see it wasted on another 1/2 assed sellout.

[santamargarita]

39. A list placed in a prominent place so all can see who/where/when these...

traitors are up for re-election and a grass root movement to defeat them!