Hmm (0.00 / 0)

From the announcement:

Next week we'll announce a bunch more pledges - we're now perfectly balanced between Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Let's hope that's just a coincidence and not a goal. We have enough false balance out there. And a mandate to have equal numbers of independents guarantees either not having many candidates or supporting some nuts.

---

by: KCinDC @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 16:27:25 PM CDT

See that is what I am hoping too. (0.00 / 0)

Maybe I am just feeling grouchy today, but seeing the group 'Change Congress' announce its first member as a Bush dog rubbed me the wrong way.

Perhaps it is strategic, a way of dipping into bipartisan waters. As I said in the diary, I am willing to be convinced.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 16:29:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily progressive (0.00 / 0)

I don't think the goals are necessarily progressive. Grover Norquist is in favor of #2 and #3.

---

by: KCinDC @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 16:35:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Against universal health care (4.00 / 1)

Jim Cooper the virulently anti-universal health care Democrat. I thought that Larry Lessig was interested in solving problems on which there is a near 100% consensus. You know, like universal health care, the policy that Jim Cooper is universally opposed too. Isn't money from the health care industry helping to block passage of universal health care?

---

by: Paul Blumenthal @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 16:42:51 PM CDT

Why all the fuss? (4.00 / 2)

Cooper supports Planks 2,3,4. So is this like a menu and you can chose which items you want? Will we rank the Change Congress candidates according to how many of the Pledges they agree to?

Two points.

1. I think it's reasonable for any incumbent politician, especially a congressman, to try and avoid the obvious free rider problem. If I agree to not take PAC or Lobbyist money it opens me up to being challenged by a well funded PAC or Lobbyist driven candidate.

It seems pretty reasonable to advocate a change to the system but not wanting to tie your own hands and give others an unfair advantage.

2. I think people on the netroots forget that this is a big tent party whether you or I like it. I don't mean this as an insult, but I'm simply saying look at all the problems the republican party has because its the party of white males who believe in two things.

Voting with the party 86% of the time is pretty damn good especially for a politician in Tennessee. Given the regional difference between the party I wouldn't be surprised to say that the average Tennessee democrat only agrees with the national party 86% of the time.

If the netroots takes a puritanical stance and isolates itself from other branches of the party it's going to become just another faction in the party. Coalitions win races not infighting and fratricide  

---

by: thechairman66 @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 17:08:49 PM CDT

Good points. (4.00 / 1)

I guess my overall concern, which is becoming clearer to me now, is that while this might be fine for a single member, I hope/assume it will not be typical of most members.

I suppose any change will be something.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 17:30:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't judge (0.00 / 0)

on one canidate. There will be many more added.

The biggest issue of all of them is number 4. Public financing. IMO that will go a long way to improving the rest of the problems. If you are not beholden to campaign contributers then why would you give them corrupt earmarks? Why would you want PAC or lobbyist money?

People play the game because it is the game.  1-3 will reform the game. 4 will change it. If a Blue Dog like Davis supports it? Fine with me. I will disagree on other points with him but if he is up for changing the system that is what I care about most.

Lessig isn't going to make Change Congress a Democratic or even progressive organization. It is focused on changing the way congress works at it will be a much more grassroots group then most in this field. If you don't like it? Join the listserv. Be part of the planning. It is a lot of fun.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:24:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you convinced me (4.00 / 1)

I was just concerned that  all the candidates would chose only the pieces they liked, and as a result the entire sense of a platform falling apart.

I am on the listserve--I think. I signed up for it anyway.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:32:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing that pisses me off about this pac/lobbyist thing (4.00 / 1)

is that it equates ALL PACs and lobbyists.  Taking $500 from the UAW or the Sierra club or Progressive Patriots is a vastly different thing than taking $500 from Exxon or Blackwater or whatever.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure or even MoveOn (0.00 / 0)

3.3 million people donating to a group isn't the same thing as Exxon employees wanting a pay raise or being forced to contribute to a pac.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And of course (4.00 / 1)

if we cut off PACs from the system entirely, the money will just move to bundling, which, for some bizarre reason, is never mentioned in this discussion.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:36:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lessig has deep Libertarian roots (0.00 / 0)

He had a bit of a liberal epiphany while studying philosophy in Europe and went so far as to dabble in Marx I believe. The libertarian streak is still there.  He's got a lot of ties with the slashdot type techno-libertarians. That's his base, for lack of a better term.

As far as Cooper goes, he's one of the most competent member of the current Tennessee delegation but can be absolutely infuriating.  He's a first class intellect and not the kind of dumb redneck Tennessee often sends to Washington.  He's got a lot of nuance.  I did a lot of canvassing for him when he was running for against Fred Thompson for the senate.

When looking at Cooper's voting record, keep in mind that he's moved districts.  When he was in Lincoln Davis's seat, he was much more conservative.  Since moving from TN-04 to TN-05 he's been much more progressive on social issues though he's still a budget hawk and warmonger.  I'll take Cooper over Lincoln Davis any day.  At least Cooper voted for stem cell research.

---

by: Velvet Elvis @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 17:17:50 PM CDT

Budget hawk and warmonger (0.00 / 0)

See to me that is not change. Those are features which in the long run hurt Democrats because it keeps them from gaining momentum on the issues and articulating differences from Republicans.

But again you make good points and I will take a closer look at Cooper, but how can you be budget hawk who supports a group who wants more public financing? I am still edgy about it.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 17:33:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public financing (0.00 / 0)

I'm not a budget hawk, but I think the idea could be that public financing removes some of the incentive for wasteful spending to reward contributors, so it could save more money than it costs.

---

by: KCinDC @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 21:06:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

About plank 2 (4.00 / 2)

I have deep reservations about "ending" earmarks.  Mainly because I think it is tantamount to simply giving Presidents even more control over the budget.  Think McCain wouldn't dole out pork to districts with Republicans?

So how can you "end earmarks" without that meaning that the President gets sole budgetary discretion over spending?  I mean if the budget has $100M for "infrastructure" maybe he'll just build a bunch of bridges in Arizona.  Why not, if Congress doesn't stipulate how to spend the money?

Perhaps there are other solutions that don't lead to enlarging the power of the executive branch yet further.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 17:40:34 PM CDT

I agree (4.00 / 2)

In a lot of cases earmarks are the best tool for the job.  If a floor vote was required every time a a federally owned building needed an emergency elevator repair, nothing would ever get done.

Plus, people seem to miss the critically important pork=jobs bit.  Americans live in a lot of hole in the wall places where maybe there was once industry but there isn't any more.  You can't expect a congressperson to tell people in their district to move to where the jobs are and you can't expect them to get reelected if there is a 40% unemployment rate in their district.

---

by: Velvet Elvis @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:09:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damned if we do; damned if we don't n/t (0.00 / 0)

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:12:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or, we could just have much, much longer bills (0.00 / 0)

that an even smaller number of Congresspeople would read, and would thus give even more power to lobbyists.  This is a complicated problem, and it is stupid to periodicaly focus on one particular bottleneck that is affecting us now, and after we take care of that bottleneck of corruption, then everything will be ok.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 18:35:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Earmarks = red herring (4.00 / 2)

The whole earmark thing is a huge red herring that was a good political tool to use against republicans in 2006 but should now be dropped by progressives. Earmarks are a tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the budget.

The real target for progressives should be military spending. Conservatives are all too eager to get rid of earmarks because for the most part they're money for social spending like infrastructure, economic development, hospitals, research, parks and the like. Sure, there's Murtha's own private military industrial complex in Johnstown, PA, but he's the exception.

As soon as I saw the points this group supports, my red flags went up. And the fact that Cooper supports total abolition of earmarks makes me more suspicious of him.  

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 19:15:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Transparency (0.00 / 0)

I'm hoping that's where #3 comes in, if Change Congress supports legislation requiring that the full text of bills be posted online several days before they're voted on, so that anyone who wants to can pore over them and find the fishy bits.

---

by: KCinDC @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 21:03:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

bill foster is a blue dog (0.00 / 0)

It didn't get much play the day he took over Haestert's seat . . .

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

---

by: ft @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:56:31 AM CDT