House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday he's "hopeful" that Congress will reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid later this year, after lawmakers deal with contentious healthcare reform and energy bills.
"I'm hopeful this fall that we can focus on the entitlement issues," Hoyer said during a speech at a summit of fiscal health experts. "One of the reasons my being here today is to sort of set down a marker that we ought to be discussing that."(...)
Hoyer also told reporters that there was "no formal plan" to take on Social Security reform. "We're certainly not going to look other issues for August other than those two issues" of healthcare and energy," he said.
While there is "no formal plan" for Social Security reform, for the Democratic House Majority Leader to be speaking in these terms shows that there is real, and increasing, movement toward Social Security legislation. After the health care and energy fights later this year, Social Security and Medicare will probably be on the agenda for 2010.
Even though Social Security will be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2042, this time around I think progressives should not take a completely opposition tack to engaging in Social Security "reform." Instead, we should be pushing to significantly raise, and eventually eliminate entirely, the wage cap on Social Security taxes. The reasons for this are three-fold:
It is popular: Back during the 2005 Social Security fight, the only changes to the system for which public polling consistently showed greater than 45% support was raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes. All three times the question was polled, it received 60%+, 2-1 support. It is the consensus solution among Americans at large.
President Obama campaigned on it: President Obama campaigned on raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes. As such, this is a position where we both have Presidential support, and where we can push President Obama to keep a campaign promise.
It would end "Social Security is going broke" talk forever: If the wage cap was not only raised, but eliminated entirely, and if the additional revenue generated from wages currently beyond the cap were applied to benefits in a means-tested manner, then Social Security would be solvent for centuries. (Note that the only mean-testing I am proposing is on wages currently beyond the cap, not on existing Social Security tax revenue.) In this way, we can achieve a permanent victory on Social Security, which is far preferable to having this argument flare up every five or ten years.
As such, rather than pushing the "there is no crisis" line ala 2005, we might be better off pushing for an elimination to the wage cap on Social Security taxes. It is popular, it has big-time institutional support, and it would give us long-term victory surpassing even what we achieved in 2005. Seems like the smart play to me.
"We're just educators and we provide an important function as an education function," Fenton said... He said he planned to give $5,000 to several of the new representatives.
And this is how corruption is accepted.
Rep.-elect Mark Schauer, who will represent the Battle Creek, Michigan, area, said he already had to raise a lot of money to win his election. He said he came to the event to meet people who could help educate him on issues.
"It's the policy side that we are going to need a lot of guidance -- especially this economic mess that we are in right now," Schauer said.
While there are a whole lot of annoying aspects of the article it does speak to the reality of life on Capitol Hill. John Dingell, Steny Hoyer, and coal king Nick Rahall hosted this "2008 Red to Blue New Member Debt Retirement Reception" honoring all twenty two freshmen. The invitation suggests that the lobbyists who attend should sign up "at levels ranging from a $20,000 "PAC Host" to a $2,500 "Individual Friend."" The article doesn't say which freshmen actually attended (an important detail!), but the self-rationalization here from both lobbyists and members is just kind of amazing. Here's more from Schauer, Hoyer, and our lobbyist friends.
The Senate, on its ninth try, finally passed legislation last night to extend a package of renewable energy tax credits. To get it done, Senate Democrats had to remove revenue-raising provisions to mollify GOP senators.
Today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the package wasn't good enough. The reasoning is the same as it always has been -- that the credits aren't offset by spending reductions elsewhere or a revenue increase -- but as Congress debates a $700 billion unpaid-for bailout, that case becomes hard to make
"While we applaud the Senate for acting yesterday and taking a step toward being fiscally responsible, their bill still falls short of the pay-as-you-go principle that House Democrats have insisted on. The House has already passed responsible legislation this year to extend expiring energy incentives and business tax credits," said Hoyer.
The Senate Democrats are being irresponsible. The Blue Dogs are being both dishonest and irresponsible. This bill would help move a few dollars to put up some windmills and solar panels. Maybe if they assured Congress that the electricity would only go to thieving wealthy pricks Congress would pass it.
I'm breaking out the pink tie. Serious times, y'all.
Here's Steny being Steny, the money quote being "One of the things we have to deal with is the extraordinary failure of this administration to protect the Constitution." And then, in explaining how Republicans can eviscerate the Constitution, he says, "They rationalize. We all to some degree rationalize our philosophy based upon our objectives, the ends justify the means."
This is one of the key guys negotiating the bailout for us.
What's on your mind? And where are my damned pitchforks?
I just got back from a few events with various progressive groups, and a presser with Steny Hoyer. I don't get the sense that the Democratic Party members understand just how much rage is out there against these fuckers on Wall Street. I keep telling members about BuyMyShitPile.com, and they love it. Hoyer looked shocked when I mentioned it, but the woman with him came up to me after the event and told me he thought it was great. "What just happened" is apparently what he said in the elevator leaving the event.
Hoyer was clear that Congress is going to cut a deal, though it may delay going home to campaign for as long as it takes. He set a soft deadline of Friday. There are still lots of caucus meetings, nothing firm. I'm getting the sense that Democrats don't realize just how much leverage they have in this; they are scared of armageddon, without understanding that the other side is in an incredibly weak political position. They need to be on TV with pitchforks.
One sort of hilarious rumor is that Blue Dogs John Tanner and Alan Boyd are 'having heartburn' at this deal but that they recognize the politics and will let it go through. Blue Dogs are perpetually upset at things they are voting for and they think that fiscal responsibility is a slogan rather than something that means making hard choices. To them, wars and bailouts are free and the deficits are the fault of liberals. A Blue Dog is someone who eats a lot of ice cream every day, insists he is on a diet, and blames a conspiracy for his weight gain.
Listening to them is like dating a guilt ridden sociopath who blames everyone else for their own actions. "Why are you making me so angry at you, honey?"
Fuck them. Anyone know where you can get a pitchfork in DC?
Every week or two I read another article in Roll Call, the Hill or the Politico on the increasing clout of the Blue Dog caucus. Today's came out in Roll Call, titled 'Blue Dogs' Bite Gets Stronger'. Anna Palmer's article opens with the sentence, "Blue Dogs get ready: The ranks of obsequious lobbyists looking to curry favor - and contribute to your war chest - is set to explode." The article also dubs Blue Dogs 'pro-business' and 'fiscally conservative'.
Since the 2006 elections, the Blue Dog political action committee has become one of the fastest growing, and is among the largest in Democratic leadership. Already it has nearly doubled its fundraising this cycle from the $1.2 million raised in 2006. This cycle, through the end of May, it had raised more than $2.2 million, according to CQ MoneyLine.
That puts it nearly on a par with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.) AMERIPAC, which as of the end of April had raised more than $2.2 million.
"We've always been fairly successful with fundraising, even when we were in the minority," said Vickie Walling, chief of staff to Tennessee Rep. John Tanner, a founding member of the group.
Going on to the FEC site lets you see the truth about the Blue Dog PAC - 85% of its money - $1.95M - comes from conservative corporate interests. The list is pretty standard. Walmart, Verizon, AT&T, Charter, Comcast, US Chamber of Commerce, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. And Steny Hoyer's PAC - AmeriPAC - isn't much better. Roughly 65% of his money comes from PACs, most of them similar to the ones flooding the coffers of Blue Dogs - Raytheon, AT&T, Boeing, etc.
From Hoyer and the Blue Dog PAC the money spreads outward. Just check out the list of candidates and committees Hoyer supports, from the Congressional Black Caucus to conservatives like John Barrow, Al Wynn, Don Cazayoux, Larry Kissell, Brad Ellsworth, and the Blue Dogs to progressives like John Hall, Dennis Schulman, Jim Himes, and Darcy Burner.
Now don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the people that Hoyer gives to, which is the point. We've endorsed some of them on our Better Democrats page. It's just important to note that much of the capital funding the Democratic Party is corporate PAC money, sluiced through figures such as Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dog caucus.
This has real consequences, for the business community. Check out the roll call for the net neutrality amendment that went down to defeat in 2006, 269-152. Blue Dogs voted against it, by and large, which is not so much pro-business as it is pro-telecom and cable industry and anti-technology and innovation. Or if you look at the people protecting the large tax credits for oil and gas, just check out the Blue Dog caucus and you'll find a good number in there. And telecom immunity matters deeply to businesses that don't break the law.
The sluicing funds within the Democratic Party represent relationships that make it really easy to go along with the status quo. They are at their heart network systems, dense thickets built to withstand change. I'm really quite excited about some new mapping tools I saw at Personal Democracy Forum which will help us understand just how dense the networks are, on all sides.
I know this is a crushing defeat. But damn if this doesn't make me proud of the netroots again. For awhile there the primary fight was gut wrenching in many regards. But here everyone is again, firing on all cylinders against the very people they helped elect.
Note to anyone who espouses the ridiculous idea that "both extremes are the same" in any form: What did the Republican base do when their Majority leader was actually indicted for multiple felonies? What did they do when their Speaker was found covering up for a Republican known to make advances on teenage boys? What did they do when their President's rationale for war proved untrue, then proved to have been known to be untrue? They stood by them. Tooth and nail. Clearly there are some core principles at stake on the left, lines people will not cross even for people they really like.
I don't like losing these fights any more than any of you, but I am proud of the response. We are fighting the fights that need fighting and I don't imagine we will have any regrets about this. Chris thought we might be approaching peak "I told you so" but I think we just found some new reserves yesterday.
Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Barack Obama, the leaders of our party, all took essentially the same position on the final FISA capitulation, which essentially boils down to 'it's not my responsibility to stop this horrible mess.' Whether it was Hoyer pushing the compromise, Pelosi encouraging him and calling it an improvement on the original FISA legislation, or Obama's radio silence when a word to Hoyer could have stopped this train in its tracks, this is the basic attitude that the Democratic leadership has had towards the Bush administration in general, even after winning in 2006. It's the attitude on display in 2007 during the war capitulation vote, during the Energy bill fight when Hoyer stuck billions in nuclear subsidies into an Appropriations bill, on net neutrality, on FISA in August, 2007, on impeachment, on military contractors, on Congressional subpoenas, on global warming, on immigration, on torture, on Federal budget priorities, and on basically every major policy issue that has come up this Congressional cycle.
(I'm going to send this when it hits 50 comments. - promoted by Matt Stoller)
I was writing an email to Steny Hoyer's Chief of Staff to try to let him know how much rage there is out there about his boss's actions around capitulating on the FISA issue, but I realized that my words are probably less powerful than yours. I'm just one person, so he has no reason to believe me except as someone engaged in hyperbole around a contentious issue.
So instead, please put your comments about FISA and Hoyer in this thread, and I will send it onward. Please keep in mind that this will be sent to Hoyer's office, so I will delete off-topic or especially rude comments. If you support Hoyer, let him know that. If not, let him know that. And if you are a donor or volunteer for Democrats who won in 2006, mention it, as that will help him understand why he should consider listening.
House and Senate negotiators are on the verge of striking an accord on a contentious overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), several aides said Friday.
The development comes after a Thursday meeting with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Bush administration officials, according to two aides.
Even assuming that Hoyer was strongly opposed to immunity (a dubious assumption), being the only one in that crowd is not likely to lead to a no-immunity outcome.
The game is clearly to provide de facto immunity without spelling it out explicitly in a de jure manner. That's actually a victory of sorts, since Republicans put great stock in not just winning on issues, but ritual humiliation of Democrats.
The Hill, CQ and FireDogLake will spell it out inside...
House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) may have agreed to a compromise on a deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws.
That would be the bad deal I criticized here, for basically amounting to handing the decisions about immunity to a hand picked bench of John Roberts' personal favourite judges.
But:
But an aide for Reyes appeared to backpedal, saying Reyes still supported a proposal being pushed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to shift the decision-making about immunity from the secret FISA courts to traditional federal courts.
So that's a better sign. So if I'm following the timeline properly we get this news tonight from the Hill about Bush going over Kit Bond's head:
The jockeying has already begun in the House to fill the ample seat of departing Rep. Albert Wynn on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
According to Congress Daily, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland wants John Sarbanes, a new member and son of former Sen. Paul Sarbanes, to fill the slot. The Congressional Black Caucus wants one of their own to fill the slot.
This is an extremely powerful committee, with jurisdiction over everything from health policy to air pollution to the Internet.
The answer to who should fill the seat is none of the above -- neither young Sarbanes nor an existing CBC member should get it. Donna Edwards should.
Donna is the leading edge, and leading light, in the netroots-powered, progressive phalanx of new legislators that we expect to be elected in November. With a special election to be called in a few weeks, she could be in Congress by mid-summer. (Governor O'Malley has proposed that there be only a special general election, skipping a primary. The Maryland legislature will make that call before it adjourns on Monday.)
If the House leadership wants to mend some fences with this community, our community, appointing Donna to that committee will make a very large statement. It's not only that she's professional qualified to serve on the committee -- that rarely enters in such discussions.
It's that she represents the future of the Democrats in the House, not the past. The CBC was miffed at Donna because she ran against Wynn, instead of being miffed at Wynn from selling out to the big telecom and energy companies. Speaker Pelosi put on a fundraiser for Wynn yet, thanks to Matt, a counter-fundraiser online for Donna did just as well.
Hoyer ran against Pelosi as the good ol' boy candidate and lost to be Speaker, ending up with Majority Leader. There's a reason for that. Democrats want the face of the House to be something new and progressive. For many people, Pelosi has been a disappointment in that regard, although she's been doing somewhat better lately.
Putting Donna on Energy and Commerce would let everyone know that Pelosi recognizes a star in the making when she sees it, and that Donna will be more of an outstanding advocate for a progressive agenda than any member of the CBC or than young Sarbanes.
All it takes now is some persuading. And now's the time to start.
I changed the title. This might just be someone floating a trial balloon, and House Democrats have earned some good faith here.
If retroactive immunity passes, it's because the Speaker, the House Majority Leader, and Democratic Caucus Chair decided not to fight. This is from Congress Daily:
To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill's second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles. In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.
It's like we're living in a loony bin. Will liberal Democrats in Congress who don't want retroactive immunity be placated by... granting the phone companies retroactive immunity? Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, from Roll Call (sub required), the Republicans react with typical class and flair.
With the House Democrats' refusal to grant retroactive immunity to phone companies - stalling the rewrite of the warrantless wiretapping program - GOP leadership aides are grumbling that their party isn't getting more political money from the telecommunications industry.
Like most corporate interests with a heavy stake in Congressional action, the major phone companies significantly boosted their contributions to Democrats last year after the party surged back into the majority.
But giving by that sector is getting special attention from Republicans now that the debate over the surveillance program is front and center - and focused on the phone companies' role in aiding the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
"It's quite discouraging," said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general.
"These companies just won't do anything," the aide said. "Even when you have the Democrats working against their bottom line."
House Republicans have sought to capitalize on the immunity issue by painting Democrats as more interested in enriching their trial lawyer supporters than protecting national security.
What happens in Podunk shouldn't stay there. Or at least if it does, the Democratic Party Establishment, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs among us, will have won one more unrecorded battle against those of us who want real change.
What's happening most immediately in the IL-14 corner of Podunk (a term I use here to describe anything not directly inside the DC Beltway) is a primary and a special primary on Tuesday, between the DC insider "pick" for our district, an attorney who is a relative newcomer to both politics and our area, and John Laesch, the nominee against Denny Hastert last time out, and the only progressive in the race.
At this point, I'd call it a significant bellwether for the upcoming Congressional elections that virtually no one outside of IL-14 is paying much attention to in the glare of the presidential race, as well as a bellwether event in the battle for control of the party. So while I don't expect this diary to get much attention, I want to leave a record of what has happened in this primary. Bellwethers, however unobserved at the time, sometimes have a way of becoming useful history for those who follow.
That is why procedural votes are important to freshmen, according to Democratic aides. House Republicans this year turned to a procedure known as a "motion to recommit," offering what is typically a routine method of sending bills back to committee as politically charged amendments. With a wink and a nod from Emanuel and Hoyer, some endangered freshmen frequently vote with Republicans on tricky GOP motions to keep their votes from being used against them in 30-second campaign sound bites.
Some freshman Democrats have taken the idea of voting against their party leadership on procedural votes one step further, opposing mundane matters such as the journal vote.
Altmire has sided with the opposition in 17 of 18 journal roll calls this year. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has cast 15 votes with the GOP. In the spring, only a few freshmen voted against the journal, but one recent vote drew 13 freshmen in opposition, and in another, 11 voted nay. Now a half-dozen or more regularly oppose whenever a roll call is held.
Democratic leaders acknowledge that they have encouraged the freshmen to sometimes vote with Republicans on politically difficult issues, but deny that they have had any input on the Congressional Record votes.
The padding of stupid votes to appear independent is an interesting wrinkle in the manipulation of voters. I suspect it won't work long-term, as it is transparently clear to anyone who can use Google that Altmire and the rest of the freshmen are proving to be as corrupt and morally crippled as the Congress they joined. And it's not like Republicans can't use Google when planning 30 second ads.
Anyway, the cynicism of stupid independent votes is an interesting story, but Kane actually gets the part of it wrong by conflating motions to recommit with votes on the House journal. Motions to recommit are not just minor procedural hurdles. They were irrelevant under Republican rule of the House, but under the incompetent Democratic leadership they have been used to push through the FISA capitulation in August, and are used by conservatives as a way of seizing the agenda from liberals. The real story is that Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer have concocted a political strategy to give control of the House agenda to Republicans by encouraging freshmen to vote with them on 'tricky' votes.
I don't know why Hoyer and Emanuel would do this, but it's pretty clear that Congressional ineptitude is a planned strategy. There's no cowardice here, this what they want to do.
Capitulating, or otherwise letting the president have his way on everything from the war to domestic spending to taxes. Not so, says Nancy Pelosi.
"This is what is possible. This isn't about caving," Pelosi said this morning. She portrays the stands that she had taken earlier as "a high water mark," essentially a bargaining position.
But oaths had been sworn, vows were taken and lines were drawn in the sand. Pelosi had promised that there would be no more war funding passed by the House beyond the $50 billion with strings attached that they sent over to the Senate pre-Thanksgiving. Now it appears that Democrats have agreed to send the president $70 billion of the $196 billion that he has asked for.
"The assumption that I made...that Republicans would see the light...was an inaccurate one," she allowed. Pelosi says that she will vote against it after allowing it on the floor.
ut it's a simple truth, whether you support the war or not: There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations.(…)
Democrats, in on-the-record and on-background interviews, said they do not do these things because they would be bad politics. Democrats in the House and Senate would splinter over such extremist measures.
In closed-door caucus meetings, members say, Democratic leaders like Reps. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) have carried the day by warning that there is no appetite for such tactics in the districts of vulnerable Democrats, upon whom the party's new majority status depends.
More is possible, Madam Speaker. Your caucus isn't doing more because they seem to be listening to Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer. Do you agree with Hoyer and Emanuel on their advice to not do more, or are Hoyer and Emanuel actually in charge of the Democratic house caucus? Kind of makes you wonder…
"We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people," said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."
Incredibly? Hoyer, who voted for the war five years ago, is clearly speaking from the perspective of someone who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and would work smoothly. This perspective goes a long way toward explaining why he pushes Democrats in Congress to avoid more aggressive tactics to end the war, or at least show that they are trying to do more to end the war. I wonder how much of a divide there is between the roughly one-third of the country who opposed the war from the start, and the roughly one-third of the country who thought he war was a good idea, but have seen changed their minds. People like Hoyer are barely willing to admit they are wrong, much less pursue aggressive tactics to bring the war to end. Somehow, they either don't want their noses rubbed in it, or they remain stuck in the mindset that voting for the war five years ago was a smart move politically.
In addition to the Rove Dogs, otherwise known Democrats who support legislation that is damaging to long-term Democratic electoral interests, I would like to close today's writing efforts by offering up another caucus, this time in the Senate: the Onos, or Opposition in Name Only caucus. Who are the Onos? They are Senators who claim they oppose something conservative, and who even vote against that conservative something, but who refuse to actually filibuster that conservative something. Ono's also can be spelled "Oh no," as in, "oh no, I'm not actually going to stand up for what I believe in."
So, the nucleus of the Ono caucus are those fourteen Democratic Senators, plus Lieberman who voted against Alito, but didn't filibuster him. The Onos are the answer to Glen Greenwald's question from earlier today. If Democrats claim they need 60 votes to do anything, then why wasn't 44 votes enough to stop Mukasey?
Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?
It is because of the Onos, the name I have given to Democrats who claim they oppose conservatives, but who are not willing to actually put themselves on the line in doing so. This is a group that hands Republicans ten free votes on every issue before the Senate. This is very much the wimpy, frightened, paper mache caucus, whose opposition to conservatives is only skin deep. Sure, they will vote the right way, but beyond that they won't do a single damn thing to actually stop the conservative working majority. I have little doubt that the "Oh, no!"s were the difference on Mukasey, too, since thirteen of the fourteen Democrats identified in the caucus voted against Mukasey. Although a cloture vote was never held, I have little doubt most of them will unwilling to filibuster. Also, in this instance, Mary Landrieu left the caucus entirely, in order to join Ben Nelson in the more overt "I just prefer voting with Republicans" caucus. (Granted, in her case it can also be known as the "FEMA destroyed by voting base" caucus.)
Even if Ono's, or "Oh, No!"s is not the right language, we need to develop a narrative around this group of Senators. We need a narrative about them that has popular resonance. By handing ten free votes to Republicans on every issue before the Senate, their unwillingness to take further action to stop conservatives is a serious detriment to the Democratic and progressive causes. However, they can always defend themselves in town hall meetings, or even primary elections, by pointing out "I vote with the party all the time." In order to change that, the necessary procedural steps that are required to really oppose Republicans and conservatives need to start having popular resonance. Right now, half the country thinks that Democrats need to be doing more to, for example, end the Iraq war, but most of them probably don't know exactly what "more" means. They want Democrats to do more to stop Republicans and conservatives, but no one is getting out the message on what more means, and on who isn't doing that more. Of course, there is plenty of more to do, as even the Politco pointed out a couple months ago. In the Senate, it is the Onos preventing this "more" from happening. In the House, it seems to be Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer. But how does one get a populist message out as to who the problem is and why, much less run a primary campaign against these Democrats, when they can simply fall back and claim "just look at my voting record and you will see I am with you?" In other words, how does one put pressure on Democrats who are not taking the proper parliamentary maneuvers to forward a progressive agenda? That is not an easy question to answer.
This is a serious problem. Our disagreement with a large number of Democrats is primarily procedural, and that it is very difficult for a message like that to make a major, populist impact. We political junkies in the blogosphere know what the problem is: they (the Onos) are not filibustering, they are not forcing the other side to actually filibuster, they are not calling enough votes, they are intentionally recruiting conservatives, they are shifting party money to target red districts that will be difficult to hold, etc. However, all of these disagreements are mainly procedural and insidery. As such, they are not the sorts of things that it is easy to put pressure on someone for not doing. I would love to run primary challenges against Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer on these grounds, since they are the major roadblocks to a more aggressive Democratic caucus in the House. However, how do you convince the Democratic base to reject their own leaders when those leaders seem to have very good voting records? That isn't easy, as bringing mass public pressure on behind the scenes operations never is. And yet, these are the same brand of Democrats who are responsible for Republicans only needing 50 votes, while we need 60 votes. They hand ten votes to Republicans on every issue before the Senate, but the arguments to be made against them are very much inside baseball.
Personally, I am simply going to start by naming them, and then documenting their actions as time goes forward. Any ideas beyond that point are more than welcome.
