I was among many in the netroots who worked hard on behalf of a certain group of candidates last year. One of those candidates was our presidential nominee (and now President of the United States) Barack Obama. The netroots, since 2006, has worked hard to elect Democrats and bring a progressive majority to the United States after decades-long rule by conservatives. We had hoped that Obama winning in 2008 would bring that change we need (after all, that was his campaign slogan).
But as we have seen in the health care debate and other issues, progressives are being pushed around and told that they should cave to conservative Democrats. As Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York said recently, we have "compromised our compromised compromise." We asked for a compromise (the public option) from the start and somehow that got whittled away to expanding Medicare. But now both aren't options in the Senate because of one member of the Democratic caucus - Joe Lieberman - who campaigned against Obama last year.
That's right: The Democratic President is caving to a man who supported the Republican candidate.
I know. It doesn't make sense to me either.
But here is another point I will make on this issue. Chris Bowers puts it in intelligent context, but I'm going to make it a much simpler and condensed point.
Conservative Democrats can be replaced. Progressive Democrats cannot.
The reason I say that is based on common knowledge. If a progressive Democrat is in office, chances are that Democrat is in no less than a moderate district and more than likely a progressive one. So the chances of electing a Republican (look at the many congressional districts in the New York City area) are slim to none.
But the districts where there are conservative Democrats tend to be conservative-leaning (or full-blown conservative) and they tend to have Republican enrollment advantages. So where there are conservative Democrats, there could be a conservative Republican to replace them. You aren't going to install a conservative Republican in a progressive district or a progressive Democrat in a conservative district. It's rare and highly unlikely. So where progressive Democrats are in place, it is very hard for them to lose. But conservative Democrats are walking on egg shells and, in the right election, can be swept from office.
The point is not so much about Lieberman but about conservative Democrats. The President and the congressional leadership has caved to these conservatives. Why? To try and call any sort of reform "victory" in hopes that it leads to gains and not losses in 2010.
But the President and the congressional leadership is making a mistake. A huge mistake.
If you lose progressives (and by extension, the netroots), you lose the people fighting most passionately for you. You lose the people doing the work. President Obama and other Democratic leaders owe progressives a lot.
But who gets caved to? The guy who campaigned against Democrats (and progressives) in 2008 and who has vowed to do so again.
There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
1.If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
2.If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
3.If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
I actually think the problem isn't related to any of that. You can't look at local and state elections through a national prism. As a friend said about NY-23, everyone in the nation can talk about health care, but they are talking about jobs (up there).
You have to start with the candidates. Jon Corzine was weak. His popularity was not there and he was suffering similar to how Governor David Paterson is struggling. In these tough economic times, it is hard to be governor of a state. States and municipalities are feeling the heat of the economic recession. As a result, voters feel the need to change things.
Virginia was odd. It reminded me of NY-26 in a way. Here you have Creigh Deeds (Alice Kryzan in NY-26) winning the Democratic primary by surprise only to lose the general election. Deeds didn't poll particularly well at all throughout the race, so his loss was expected. When that is the case, who is going to get excited about that?
The three points Kos came up with are great for a House or Senate race, but not for a gubernatorial race or for other local and state races. We are talking about a whole other set of issues. Instead of health care, we are talking budget cuts. Instead of Blue Dogs, we are worried about the Hiram Monserrates and Pedro Espadas of the world who seek to throw a legislature into disarray.
It does not surprise me that a national blogger has such a take on a state-level race. While I think the issues listed are important, I think they aren't relevant to Corzine or Deeds. We lost New Jersey because of the economic state of the state. We lost Virginia because the candidate that won the Democratic primary was running second the whole race. States are facing tough times right now. We know that in New York and no other state is closer to New York in terms of issues like New Jersey is. We can relate. And we see New Jersey as a red flag for our own elections in 2010.
David Sirota has become something of an expert when it comes to the Working Families Party and the impact the "minor" party has on politics in New York (both in the city and state). He dedicated a chapter in his most recent book, The Uprising, to the WFP and how fusion voting impacts politics in New York.
According to the New York Times, the most recent election proves that the Working Families Party "is now the pre-eminent political force in New York City politics." The WFP has achieved this status not through the usual celebritized/glamorized channels of big money television ads and endorsements, but through old-fashioned grassroots work that too much of the much-ballyhooed Washinton-based progressive "infrastructure" ignores/laughs at. The result is that not only have they built power, but they've built durable power - and that scares the bejesus out of both major parties in the Empire State.
As I showed in my latest book, conservatives, led by Rudy Giuliani, have long vilified the WFP. But a few has-been washouts in the old Democratic machine are freaking out as well. What's so hilarious, of course, is that because these washouts are so overcome with rage, they've forgotten some of the most basic lessons of Economics 101. Specifically, check out this op-ed by former New York Mayor Ed Koch (who endorsed George W. Bush) and former city comptroller candidate David Yassky (whose candidacy just got crushed by the WFP's candidate) using McCarthyist "threat" language - and more specifically, check out the crux of their argument about why the WFP is supposedly a "threat":
"We see danger when narrow agendas overwhelm the public good. That happened this spring in Albany, when the WFP masterminded a whopping 9% increase in state spending in a year when the state's economy is actually contracting."
The danger? Really? I mean...really? Are you out of your friggin' mind?
Sirota concludes his piece by giving this summary of what the attacks on the WFP mean:
Indeed, being attacked - and in particular, being attacked so dishonestly and spastically in such hysterically McCarthyist terms - is the tell tale sign that something has built the kind of genuine power that is feared by the status quo. That's what the WFP has done - and it should serve as a model and inspiration to all of us working in progressive politics.
To add onto what Sirota said, other aspects of the WFP that are different from the major parties include their focus on certain issues. Take, for example, the push for Green Jobs legislation. The WFP was at the forefront, but they shared in the glory with the Democrats who saw the Green Jobs bill pass the Assembly unanimously and pass the Senate overwhelmingly. They worked hard and the bill passed, even though some Republicans tried to take jabs at the WFP in the process.
This is why the major parties (in particular the Democratic Party) finds it so difficult to pass huge legislation like health care reform. The Democratic Party wants health care reform, but for the party, there is not an individual proposal that they want to see passed. They have the "big tent" and welcome all ideas, which is great, but leads to a stalemate.
The Working Families Party is more than just a political party. They are a think-tank and policy-based party that isn't afraid to address major (or minor) issues.
And that's why they scare the major parties. They have had a lot of legislative success, especially here in New York. That's not something you see from a minor party anywhere. But thanks to fusion voting and a strong infrastructure at the WFP, we have such an institution here in New York.
This doesn't surprise. A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call "liberal" and some progressives like Markos have called a "Blue Dog."
After reading Markos' post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his "liberal" labeling of Scozzafava.
Earlier this week, I asked you to get your respective Democratic city, county or town committees, as well as Democratic or progressive groups to support the public option resolution. By adopting the public option resolution, your committee or group will officially endorse the idea of health care reform with a strong public option.
Because without a strong public option, there is no reform.
Since Sunday, the resolution did change a little bit. Changes were made to make it a little easier to pass.
Here is the text of the resolution that your committee can adopt:
Public Option Resolution
WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
WHEREAS, public polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest," while co-ops or so-called "triggers" are inadequate in and of themselves to address the health care crisis by creating significant competition for the medical insurance industry; and
WHEREAS, Republicans and their allies in the health insurance industry have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the Democratic majority and administration to reasonably discuss the issue with the American people, and have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] urges Democratic members of Congress to vote for only such healthcare reform proposals as contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourages Democratic legislators to use any available parliamentary means to pass such reform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] shall send a copy of this resolution to all Democratic members of Congress who represent any of our members.
As of today, I have contacted six county committees in my area about putting the resolution on the agenda for their next meeting. It has been confirmed to me that four of these counties will be voting on the resolution. I have also have confirmation from at least one Democratic/progressive group that they will add the resolution to the agenda and put it up for a vote. I will be doing more targeting today to see if I can get more county committees to vote on this measure.
At Netroots Nation, Gov. Howard Dean hosted a town hall. He discussed the public option throughout the question-and-answer session. Here is a video of Dean discussing the public option:
We need real health care reform in this country. While I support a single-payer system, I also believe that the public option offers our greatest chance at reform. We need to get this done and we need to have the support of the Democratic Party - the same party that holds the White House and both houses of Congress.
The fight for a public option and true health care reform is still very much alive. We have seen the attempts by the Republican Party, conservatives and insurance industry to turn aside reform. They don't propose alternatives or their own version of reform. They just fearmonger and distort reality so they can stand in the way of change.
This is why we must set our own tone and encourage our leaders to support health care reform and most importantly, a public option.
WHEREAS our heath care system is in crisis with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance and hundreds of millions more lacking adequate coverage ; and
WHEREAS both the uninsured and insured alike regularly face the risk of financial ruin from health costs; and
WHEREAS millions of Americans live sicker and die younger due to inadequate access to health care; and
THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC OPTION
WHEREAS insurance companies are driven to maximize profits by reducing benefits while increasing premiums, often without regard for the health of consumers; and
WHEREAS an overwhelming majority of Americans want health reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest;" and
WHEREAS a public option must, by definition, be accountable to Congress and the voters to correctly be called "public" in any meaningful way; and
WHEREAS the establishment of non-profit cooperatives in lieu of a robust public option will not "keep insurance companies honest," and
WHEREAS the proposed co-ops would be accountable only to their membership and not accountable to Congress or the voters, and therefore not "public" in a meaningful sense; and
WHEREAS proposals to delay the implementation of a public option until some contingency is reached (known as a "trigger") are without merit given the need for immediate action to remedy our health care system; and
THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENT ACTION
WHEREAS the Republican members of Congress have demonstrated no desire to reform health care and their leaders will not negotiate in good faith toward the passage of meaningful reform; and
WHEREAS the Republican Party and insurance industry lobbyists have organized extremists to disrupt efforts by Democratic Representatives and Senators to honestly discuss the merits of health care reform, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators in Washington should accept no more delays in passing health reform and must use "any available legislative means," including the reconciliation process in the Senate, to pass by the end of the year health care reform legislation which includes a robust public option; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators should vote against health reform that does not include a robust public option; that seeks to substitute inadequate alternatives like the non-profit cooperative scheme in place of a public option; or makes the implementation of a public option contingent upon a trigger; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this expectation covers all votes on this issue, whether procedural or not and regardless of whether they occur before, during or after the reconciliation process.
This resolution allows more than just bloggers to get involved. If you are a member of a local Democratic committee or are a chair of such a committee, show this resolution to other members and make sure your group signs on. If you have your own chapter of DFA or have another progressive group you are a member of, get them to sign on to this resolution.
We have some great representatives in the health care fight on our side. We have plenty of activists who want to get involved. This resolution allows you a way to not only get involved, but to get a group of people involved.
The Republican Party, along with the conservative movement, is united in its opposition to health care reform. Their idea of reform is to keep things the way they are. That's not reform.
The Democratic Party and progressive movement should be united in its support of health care reform and a public option. Anything less than a public option is not reform. The leaders of the Democratic Party and progressive movement at all levels, whether it's in Washington D.C. or Washington County, New York should stand united for a public option.
This week is another crucial week for the public option and the road to reform. Rally your party leaders and progressive groups to get behind this resolution and to support a public option.
In Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post, business columnist Steven Pearlstein will call for an end to the talk of a public option, arguing that it is a "political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don't want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market."
Of course, Mr. Pearlstein is wrong. The public option isn't merely a litmus test, nor is it that we as "left-wing politicians and pundits" are living in a dream world where we can provide a Medicare-style program to those who would choose government coverage over private coverage. This isn't about politics or "real-life dynamics", but rather providing people with a choice: Their own private health insurance or a strong public option.
That is why rewarding those who support a strong public option is necessary. The Republican Party is united in its opposition to health care reform. They would not like to see a public option. Anything other than the current system to them is "socialized medicine."
The support for a public option has been up in the air. There have been indications that while he is supportive of a public option, President Barack Obama is having trouble getting support for it among leaders in the House and Senate. If those leaders think they can pass health care reform without a public option, they have a big shock coming.
The reality is this: Without a public option, any bill that supposedly reforms our health care system won't pass the house. The Republicans will oppose essentially all health care reform with or without a public option. Without a public option, you will lose at least 64 House Democrats, including eight representatives from New York.
With FireDogLake's leadership, we are fundraising for those progressive members who are standing up for real health care reform. The goal is $150,000, but more is welcome and necessary. It is time to recognize those who will stand up for a public option. Without those representatives in the House, real reform won't be realized. We don't need watered down legislation. We need Democrats to start being Democrats. That is why we need to reward those who have stood alongside a public option.
It is time that the progressive members of the Democratic caucus in the House get the same attention as the Blue Dog Coalition. We need to continue recognizing those who stand up for reform instead of those who stand in the way of it. Let's make sure we reward good behavior by helping the Democrats who are standing with the Democratic Party.
Here are the representatives who will stand for nothing but a public option:
Albio Sires (NJ-13) Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Andre Carson (IN-07)
Barbara Lee (CA-09) Barney Frank (MA-14) Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Bill Delahunt (MA-10) Bill Pascrell (NJ-08) Bob Filner (CA-51)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01) Corrine Brown (FL-03) Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Diane Watson (CA-33) Donald Payne (NJ-10) Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Ed Towns (NY-10) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07) Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) Eric Massa (NY-29) Pete Stark (CA-13) Grace Napolitano (CA-38) Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jackie Spier (CA-12) Jerry Nadler (NY-08) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07) Jim McGovern (MA-03) John Conyers (MI-14)
John Olver (MA-01) John Tierney (MA-06) John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16) Judy Chu (CA-32) Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Laura Richardson (CA-37) Linda Sanchez (CA-39) Lloyd Doggett (TX-25)
Lucille Roybal-Alard (CA-34) Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11) Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) Maxine Waters (CA-35) Mazie Hirono (HI-02) Mel Watts (NC-12)
Michael Honda (CA-15) Mike Capuano (MA-08) Nydia Valezquez (NY-12) Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Phil Hare (IL-17) Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
Robert Wexler (FL-19) Rush Holt (NJ-12) Sam Farr (CA-17)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) William Lacy Clay (M0-01) Yvette Clarke (NY-11) Hank Johnson (GA-04)
It should also be mentioned that Congressman Anthony Weiner, who has been an outspoken advocate for a public option, doesn't appear on the list but is someone who is a strong supporter of a public health insurance option.
This is a key fight. We need to make sure those who are with us on that fight are being congratulated.
This first shot features Congressman Murphy on the far left, with a good chunk of the crowd in the foreground. According to my source, he got a good number of people in the shot, but there were many others who weren't in the picture. That's how well attended this event was.
Health care wasn't just being opposed at this meeting. Supporters from Planned Parenthood and other groups were on hand to show their support for health care reform.
But like the health care meetings we have been hearing about, the opponents of change were in attendance. One photo calls for "NOBama Care" while another makes a reference to Soylent Green, a 1973 science fiction movie "depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers."
But this picture is really the highlight from the anti-change movement.
If you aren't interested in reading for yourself, here are the sayings on this guy's poster:
- So... Hows That Whole "Hopey-Changey" ThinkG (spelling his, not mine) Working Out For Ya?
- On a bumper sticker with the Obama for America logo crossed out, it reads: No Thanks. I already have a Messiah.
- Somewhere In Kenya A Village Has Lost Its Idiot.
- You Think Health Care is expensive now? Just Wait Til Its Free!
- Socialists: Spreading the Wealth Since 1917
- My AARP Card Stands For: Armed And Really Pissed.
- Fly Navy
- Don't Tread On Me
- There is one more saying on the upper right hand corner that I can't make out, plus another small sticker in the middle that says "Silent No More."
That sign alone sums up this anti-change movement pretty well. The AARP sayings and the anti-Obama sentiment make good talking points, but lack substance. Most of Americans agree that health care reform is needed, but the teabaggers don't want that to happen. Why? Because they are being funded by the same groups who don't want change to come to America. They try to tout themselves as believers in the Constitution, but really have no solutions to present. All they want is attention to promote a hateful and anti-everything agenda. They have no solutions. Just problems.
Netroots Nation 2009 (NN2009) is just around the corner. The convention takes place from August 13 to August 16 and is in Pittsburgh, PA this year - the closest it has been to New York. For me, the convention is a mere four to five hour drive and since Pittsburgh is a city I have already been to, I know that those in attendance are in for a treat.
If you aren't registered already, you can still register for the event. The cost of registration is $275, which is really a bargain considering the amount of material that is covered in those four days. There is also a $50 student registration price for those of you attending college who can qualify for the discounted rate.
But I want to get an idea of how many people are attending from New York. It would be nice to have a New York meet-and-greet of some sort down in Pittsburgh on one of the days after all the sessions and evening events get over with.
Let's hear in the comments section from those of you who will be attending. I will be there. I hope to see many of you there as well.
(If you want to e-mail me, here's the info: robert.harding22@gmail.com.)
I held George W. Bush accountable and I will not vote for any more Iraq war funding until we have a strategy in place and under way to bring our troops home. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, it's about our troops and I will not bend in this position.
Massa stood by his promise and was one of 32 Democrats to vote against the war supplemental. The supplemental passed the House with a 226 to 202 vote.
There are many reasons why progressives should oppose the supplemental. The $108 billion for the International Monetary Fund, which essentially was a bailout of European banks, was one reason. That is why 170 Republicans (most of the GOP conference) voted against the bill and was arguably a reason why Massa voted against it as well. But Massa also has made it clear that he will not support such legislation unless it includes clear-cut plans for the future. Meaning, if you don't have a plan to get out, you shouldn't be investing money into a war effort with no clear endgame.
Massa was joined by only one other Democratic member of the House delegation - Rep. Jose Serrano - in opposing this supplemental. The other 24 Democrats voted for it, which only goes to show the importance of this vote for Massa.
Massa doesn't hail from a deep blue district like most members of the New York delegation. He doesn't hail from a very progressive district either. The 29th congressional district covers a good portion of the Southern Tier in Western New York and has mostly rural areas inside of it. Republicans held the seat when it was created after redistricting from 2003 to 2009, when (as a result of the 2008 elections) Massa defeated Republican incumbent Randy Kuhl.
The vote against the supplemental was especially courageous considering Massa had already voted against the supplemental last month. That time, he was one of only 60 House members who opposed it, including 51 Democrats. After that vote, Massa was targeted by the NRCC for, in their words, voting against the troops, veterans and their families. This second vote against supplemental, while the Republicans opposed it, won't necessarily mean such attacks will stop.
It wasn't long ago that Massa had drawn the ire of the netroots when he voted against the housing bill. His rationale for voting against the bill was simple: It didn't do enough for his district.
"I campaigned on a platform of standing as an independent voice and voting in the interests of my constituents, not a political party," Massa said of his vote against the housing bill. "Today I did just that because I didn't think the Housing bill delivered a proportionally fair amount of relief to the families of my district."
But while progressives might have disagreed with Massa, progressives should acknowledge that Massa does not put himself first. For Massa, this isn't about him. This is about the citizens of his district who elected him to office. He is one of the few genuine leaders we have left. As we have seen with the recent coup in the New York State Senate, too many of our elected officials but power and the perks of such power above all else. That cannot be said of Massa. He doesn't care about the power, the perks and the "rewards" of the job. He cares about the people of the 29th district.
Massa also cares deeply about many progressive issues. He has been out in front on health care reform and has co-sponsored H.R. 676, which would provide the right solutions to American's health care problem and provide for a national (and public) health care system. While some leaders in Congress and at the federal don't have the fortitude to advocate for such a system, Massa is. And when the progressive movement needs a leader on such issues, Massa is there.
Yesterday's vote against the war supplemental was proof of that. Massa does have an independent streak and he will not vote the party line just because that will get him party support every two years. He votes for what is right. He is able to balance his progressive tendencies with that independent streak and it has helped to make him popular in a conservative district that no one thought a Democrat would ever represent.
Kudos to Massa for voting against the supplemental yesterday. Even though the supplemental passed, Massa voted the right way. Just as he promised.
Today, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake was on C-Span's Washington Journal discussing the war supplemental. I wrote about this last night, but Jane explains the war supplemental vote in great detail and puts it in the proper context.
The fight here is centered on IMF funding ($108 billion) that President Barack Obama first pledged on a trip to Europe. That IMF funding has been included in the war supplemental. This has created an interesting marriage between Republicans, who oppose this, and progressives, who also oppose this.
Call your representative and ask them where they stand on the supplemental. Ask where they stand, while also telling them that we shouldn't be bailing out European banks while nearly 50 million people in this country are living without health insurance.
(Cliff is working to take back his local party. What's your local party like? - promoted by phillip anderson)
While I was disappointed with last night's results at the Rockland Democratic Committee Reorganization meeting, I think it finally opened my eyes to some of the serious problems in our organization.
Chairman Vince Monte was able to hold off a last minute run against Greg Julian, helped probably by 32 Ramapo delegates appointed by Ramapo Supervisor Christopher Lawrence's group and by attrition. The voting started so late, that a lot of people just gave up and left (at least two of these people were seated with me and I knew their votes were going to Julian).
Other than the vote for Chair nothing else was accomplished-we plain ran out of time as the meeting devolved into two factions of the party pointing fingers at each other. And County Committee thoroughly embarrassed itself in front of the media and our newest committee members.
There was an interesting post yesterday by Matt Stoller on OpenLeft.com. In it, he analyzed potential primary challenges from the left against our sitting Senators. The premise is that the Senate is the more conservative of the federal legislative bodies and a primary challenge from the left could help move the Senate towards progressive legislation. One name he mentioned in that piece was Chuck Schumer. This leads me to bring the discussion to TAP; would Senator Schumer be ripe for a primary challenge?
I'm going to start making it a habit to post about upcoming events in New York City as I hear about them. Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century is a great organization that plans and puts on forums, book reviews, FAQs, and other political events. I've never been able to attend an event (I've spent the past four years in Binghamton, for the most part) but I'm hoping to change that with some of these upcoming programs.
Going into November, one of the biggest obstacles the Democrats face is division within the party. I am not talking about the division between former Clinton Supporters and Obama supporters, but divisions between Democrats supported by their respective county party leadership and anti-establishment Democrats who seek to reform the party. I believe that progressive and anti-establishment Democrats have a right to run for office, but both sides must not actively work against the other at the expense of Democrats as a whole.
As stated previously on this site, two of the top state senate battles in November will be in Queens. One of those races faces damages from a divided party. The race I am referring to is the Serphin Maltese race. Recently, there was a special election for the 30th City Council district which is in the heart of Maltese's Senate District. While the results have not been certified, it appears a Maltese aid, Anthony Como, has won the seat. He was nearly defeated by Democrat Elizabeth Crowley, cousin of the chair of the Queens County Democratic Party and Congressman Joe Crowley.
