They elect her why?

Advertisements

Paying the piper

Are progressives finally getting serious about fundraising for blue dogs?  It made sense to put party first when Democrats were in the minority, but with a solid majority the time has come to look for quality.

Chris Bowers opines:

If we keep sending the Blue Dogs millions of dollars in small, online donations every year, then there is no incentive for Blue Dogs to ever change their behavior, or for Democratic candidates to not seek out membership in the Blue Dog coalition. Currently, being a member, or prospective member, of the Blue Dog coalition provides you access to a network of Hill staff, corproate lobbyists and their PACs, large donor fundraisers, and press releases back home to talk about how you aren’t like those other, dirty liberal Democrats. If we want to change Democratic behavior in Congress, we have stop adding even more incentives for Democrats to become Blue Dogs. Instead, we must offer strong disincentives for them to become Blue Dogs, such as a significantly reduced access to online, small donor fundraising.

Unfortunately, in Scott Murphy’s case, small online donors raised over $300,000 for him even after Murphy had stated he was applying to join the Blue Dogs. That has to stop. Before we raise money for other congressional candidates in 2009-2010, we have to extract promises from those candidates that they won’t join either the Blue Dogs (for House candidates) or Evan Bayh’s groups (for Senate candidates).

No more money for the Blue Dogs. We can’t continue to ratify their efforts to push the Democratic Party to the right. There are plenty of candidates and organizations working to push the party in the opposite direction to whom we small online donors should give our money.

Analyzing the social contract

Interesting bit by Josh Marshall

We’ve been in the midst of the reporting on the AIG bonus story and related high-octane blow-ups over compensation and the behavior of key players in the finance sector. And we’ve seen a non-trivial number of complaints that we’re sensationalizing this or that story or engaging in ‘cheap’ populism. Beside the reporting innards of the story, though, what interests me about this meta-story is the way it shows the implicit social contract under deep strain and some people operating totally outside of it without realizing it at all.