Oh, those nasty voters … how dare they question their betters?
The Democratic majority was only three weeks old, but by Jan. 26, the grass-roots and Net-roots activists of the party’s left wing had already settled on their new enemy: Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), the outspoken chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.
Progressive blogs — including two new ones, Ellen Tauscher Weekly and Dump Ellen Tauscher — were bashing her as a traitor to her party. A new liberal political action committee had just named her its “Worst Offender.” And in Tauscher’s East Bay district office that day in January, eight MoveOn.org activists were accusing her of helping President Bush send more troops to Iraq.
Tauscher is a serious corporate toady, a militarist, a Vichy Dem of the first order. Believe me, I find it strange to find myself agreeing with that fraud Kos on anything, (his and his allies’ feeble attempts to become the new power brokers are doomed to failure), even he is right about this particular target:
The anti-Tauscher backlash illustrates how the Democratic takeover has energized and emboldened the party’s liberal base, ratcheting up the pressure on the party’s moderates. That pressure is also reaching House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a San Francisco liberal who recognizes that moderate voters helped sweep Democrats into the majority. Pelosi has clashed with Tauscher in the past, but she’s now eager to hold together her diverse caucus and to avoid the mistakes of GOP leaders who routinely ignored their moderates.
So far, Pelosi and her leadership team seem determined to protect Tauscher and her 60 New Democrats — up from 47 before the election. In fact, the day after Working for Us, the new progressive political action committee, targeted Tauscher, Pelosi sought her out at a caucus meeting and assured her: “I’m not going to let this happen.” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) spent 20 minutes complaining to Working for Us founder Steve Rosenthal, who swiftly removed the hit list of “Worst Offenders” from the group’s Web site.
Said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly: “We want to protect our incumbents. That’s what we’re about.”
Democratic leaders want their activists to focus on beating Republicans. But the grass roots and Net roots believe the political tide is shifting their way, and they can provide the money, ground troops and buzz to challenge Democratic incumbents they don’t like. MoveOn.org had two Bay Area chapters before the election; now it has 15, and they could all go to work against Tauscher in a primary. “Absolutely, we could take her out,” said Markos Moulitsas Zúniga — better known as Kos — the Bay Area blogger behind the influential Daily Kos site.
It’s politisches Beteiligtes über alles with the Donklephants … lets focus again on what matters to them:
“We want to protect our incumbents. That’s what we’re about.”
Do they care about an out-of-control Commander in Chief and a criminal war? How about the the increasing tensions in Afghanistan, Iran or the Persian Gulf … any chance Tauscher will do anything about them? Progressive/liberal values or the growing inequities in the US economy … are those priorities? How about social justice, our crumbling infrastructure, the threat of global warming, out-of-control corporations … do THOSE matter to the Donklephants who “represent” you? What IS important to them is protecting their corporate funders, NOT your concerns. Shame on you for thinking they should give a damn what you think.
Why are they going after Ellen Tauscher?
She has annoyed the left by supporting legislation to scale back the estate tax, tighten bankruptcy rules and promote free-trade agreements. She served as vice chair of the pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, which many liberal activists dismiss as a quasi-Republican K Street front group. And she voted to authorize the Iraq war, although she did so with caveats, and she was quick to express her displeasure with its execution.
But liberal groups such as the Children’s Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters give Tauscher impeccable report cards, while the National Rifle Association gives her straight F’s.
“It’s not just about her voting record,” said Bob Brigham of San Francisco, an activist who recently started the Ellen Tauscher Weekly.
The latest blog wars began simmering in December after Tauscher led a New Democrat delegation to meet with Bush about bipartisan cooperation, irritating the Net roots. They boiled after her former chief of staff, Katie Merrill, posted a scathing piece on a California Web site attacking the Net roots for attacking Tauscher. Outraged activists immediately began mobilizing for a fight in 2008. “I didn’t even know who Tauscher was 5 mins ago, but now I support a primary challenge against her,” one typical commenter replied.
Annoyed? ANNOYED?!!?!?!?!? Just her games on bankruptcy have earned her our scorn, here in a country where medical bills are one of the leading catalysts for declarations of bankruptcy, a legal remedy increasingly out-of-reach and more costly for struggling Americans, thanks to the corporate whoring of the likes of Rep. Tauscher. Protect the inheritances of the children of wealth, protect usurers, protect out-sourcing corporations, but screw the increasingly struggling middle class.
I’m not interested in the shilling by kos or his allied unions … and if you give a damn about changing the political direction of this country you MUST stay away from groups trying to replace the current corrupt and ineffective consultant and monied class with themselves. If folks like Tauscher fill you with disgust, give direct to truly independent challengers, not some amorphous “netroots” ponzi scheme. The important thing to oppose institutionalized cronyism is to break down those logjams, resist the demands to oppose one corruption with another. Real change comes from pressure, but pressure that comes only from a new corrupt influence group or groups will only continue the cycle. Perhaps pressure will force Tauscher and others like her to the left … but DON’T confine that pressure to corruptible institutions. Find some local independents, DON’T rely on the fake “netroots”.
Tauscher, Pelosi … the hacks running the party including Emmanuel and Hoyer … they don’t care about you. They like playing these games of tit-for-tat with the likes of Tauscher, where they can promise those with the most with some protection while promising “change” to the voters. Don’t fall for it … they don’t want change, they are cozy in the status quo, secure in their seat at the big shiny table. Change will only happen locally, and it will take time, and it will take focused outrage pushed over YEARS. Get used to that idea … that revolution and change will take years, and it won’t be delivered by scammers offering only a slight variation on the current schemes. Fight back, but fight local.
run away from the party, and away from all the would-be Shrums that seek to package your outrage. Work for people you believe in, and work locally.
they think she’s a CENTRIST?
oh Lordy, i almost spewed by coffee.
Aside from the stuff about the netroots this is pretty much what I wrote about this.
I understand why you don’t want to see Markos become the next Bob Schrum or whatever…but where is your plan for taking power?
So you think you can make power go away? It seems like it. If we are going to defeat Tauscher we are going to need lots of help and, yes, someone that takes her place. That person is going to come from somewhere, get their funding from somewhere, get their free media from somewhere, get their ground organizers from somewhere.
And if they succeed, many of those people will take positions of influence as a result.
This idea that you can defeat entrenched power without thereby becoming a power yourself is delusional in my opinion.
It starts getting us back to the ‘let’s live off the land’ ideas, when we have millions to provide for on our welfare, medicare, etc. rolls, and many more to insure, and enrol.
What is your vision for this? I still don’t get it.
it’s happened in the past. Generally change happens through the agitation of loosely aligned little groups, which get coopted later (think of all the labor unions that eventually were aggregated into the corrupt AFL-CIO). We can just settle that “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” is just the way things are, or we can dare to work for something different. What the nutroots is building is just DLC 2.0. Nothing more, nothing less, and every bit as corruptible.
The abolitionists weren’t embraced or funded by anybody major. Neither were the suffragists, the labor early labor unions, the civil rights movement (they were all actively opposed by most institutions, actually).
“We can just settle that “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” is just the way things are, or we can dare to work for something different.”
And that something different is…?
“The abolitionists weren’t embraced or funded by anybody major.” This is just false. The abolitionists were embraced by the Quakers for starters, a sect that is well-known for the wealth and social conscience of its congregants (and includes the cadbury chocolate company among its members). The first abolitionist society in the US had Benjamin Franklin as its president, nobody major.
From Wikipedia:
Notable opponents of slavery
(Not all of these were abolitionists.)
* John Quincy Adams
* William Allen
* Susan B. Anthony
* Gamaliel Bailey
* Henry Ward Beecher
* Anthony Benezet
* Ramón Emeterio Betances (Puerto Rican)
* Thomas Binney
* Simon Bolivar
* William Henry Brisbane
* John Brown
* Thomas Burchell
* Aaron Burr
* Thomas Fowell Buxton (British)
* Antônio de Castro Alves (Brazilian)
* Thomas Clarkson (British)
* Cassius Marcellus Clay
* Levi Coffin
* Thomas Day (British)
* Charles Darwin (British)
* Charles Dickens (British)
* Richard Dillingham
* Frederick Douglass
* Edward James Eliot (British)
* Ralph Waldo Emerson
* Olaudah Equiano (former slave)
* Calvin Fairbank
* James Forten
* Benjamin Franklin
* Amos Noë Freeman
* Henry Highland Garnett
* Thomas Garret
* William Lloyd Garrison
* Henri Grégoire (French)
* Angelina Grimké
* Vicente Guerrero (Mexican)
* Alexander Hamilton
* Laura Smith Haviland
* Lewis Hayden
* Hinton Rowan Helper (enemy of slaveowners)
* James Butler Hickok(“Wild Bill”
* Elias Hicks
* Miguel Hidalgo (Mexican)
* Isaac Hopper
* Julia Ward Howe
* Samuel Gridley Howe
* John Jay
* Samuel Johnson
* Abby Kelley
* Joseph Kelley
* William Knibb
* Benjamin Lay
* Abraham Lincoln
* Toussaint L’Ouverture
* Jermain Loguen
* Elijah Lovejoy
* James Russell Lowell
* Maria White Lowell
* Henry G. Ludlow
* Benjamin Lundy
* Zachary Macaulay (British)
* Philip Mazzei (Italian)
* Sir Charles Middleton (British)
* José Gregorio Monagas (Venezuelan)
* Hannah More (British)
* José María Morelos (Mexican)
* Lucretia Mott
* Lord William Murray (British)
* Joaquim Nabuco (Brazilian)
* John Newton, author of song, “Amazing Grace” (British)
* Richard Oastler (British)
* Daniel O’Connell (Irish)
* Samuel Oughton
* Thomas Paine (British born)
* Theodore Parker
* John Parker (abolitionist)
* Francis Daniel Pastorius (German-American)
* José do Patrocínio (Brazilian)
* Wendell Phillips
* Mary Ellen Pleasant
* Bishop Beilby Porteus (British)
* John Wesley Posey
* Robert Purvis
* Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil
* James Ramsay (British)
* John Rankin
* André Rebouças (Brazilian)
* Charles Lenox Remond
* Ernestine Rose
* Benjamin Rush
* Victor Schoelcher (French)
* Granville Sharp (British)
* Samuel Sharpe
* James Sherman
* Gerrit Smith
* William Smith (British)
* Silas Soule
* Lysander Spooner
* Elizabeth Cady Stanton
* Henry Stanton
* James Stephen (British)
* William Still
* Harriet Beecher Stowe
* Senator Charles Sumner
* Arthur Tappan
* George Thompson (British)
* Henry David Thoreau
* Henry Thornton (British)
* Sojourner Truth
* Harriet Tubman
* Nat Turner insurrectionist
* David Walker
* Delia Webster
* Theodore Dwight Weld
* John Wesley (British)
* John Greenleaf Whittier
* William Wilberforce (British)
* John Woolman
No, nobody major here.
that list of notable contains mainly people DECADES after slavery was baked into the Constitution. Yes, there were some vocal opponents at the beginning, but they were a definite minority.
As for the Quakers, they were an independent group NOT part of any political establishment … they put pressure on from the outside. The whole argument of the nutroots AND the consultant class is that you can only engage in politics if you wed yourself to a connected political institution AT THE BEGINNING. This is patently false.
“that list of notable contains mainly people DECADES after slavery was baked into the Constitution. Yes, there were some vocal opponents at the beginning, but they were a definite minority.”
But that’s not what you said. What you said was:
Period. And that’s just false. Beecher and Beecher Stowe were major figures and abolitionists. Ben Franklin was president of the PA Abolitionist Society by 1785, and freed his own slaves. Jane Adams, a major figure in the social reform movement.
Do you deny that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel had no impact on the anti-salvery movement? Do you deny that Stowe met Lincoln, who said “so you’re the little woman whose book started the war”? Is President Lincoln not “anybody major”?
Furthermore, my list probably didn’t include the Republican Party, which although probably unrecognizable to Lincoln in its present form, “embraced” the abolitionist cause and fought a war (in part) to end slavery. Yes, I know all the other bits too, so no need to tell me the “real reason”. I already have a copy of Zinn’s book.
Again, this doesn’t have anything to do with the claim you made, which was “The abolitionists weren’t embraced or funded by anybody major.” You are only now qualifying your claim with “part of any political establishment”. This statement imagines that no Quakers became politicians in the 18-19th centuries, which is demonstrably false. To imagine that these individuals left their beliefs at the door when they entered congress is foolishness.
But really, this has just served to distract from a response to Marty that you haven’t provided:
And neither do I.
What’s your vision? What will you replace our corrupt old system with, and how will you (and others who advocate replacement as opposed to repair) make sure that the people get those amenities (like heat, santitation, transport, food) they have come to depend on?
i’ve asked this question a few times and no one has offered a reply.
“This idea that you can defeat entrenched power without thereby becoming a power yourself is delusional in my opinion.”
what counts is the quality of the power.
or maybe not–
why is Kos whining about Obama picking Robert Gibbs?
is it really about Gibbs being skilled at slimeball politics– or is it because Kos thinks he’s qualified for the position?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/22/134458/142
I suspect it’s b/c he’s on the Reid/Clinton/Schumer payroll.
Kos’ rather intense criticism of Clinton’s AUMF vote and non-apology would seem to suggest that he is not on her payroll.
you’re kidding, right? He criticizes one vote and that “proves” he’s independent of the party bosses? He and his mob are bought and paid for, and propped up by people so wedded to cults of personality that they can’t see the corruption.
that the public financing of campaigns is the easiest way out of this Gordian knot.
Imagine.
Telling a couple of Philly citizens that the Quakers have no role in the political establishment?
Still waiting for the grand vision.