Progressive Democrat Issue 63: THOUGHTS

This week had the disappointment of Alito’s confirmation and the predictable, tired clichés of Bush’s State of the Union address. The only surprise of the State of the Union was the admission by Bush that America needs to deal with its oil addiction. Of course, I am sure this admission carries the same great weight as his admission that global warming is real—none at all.

The failure of the Democrats to filibuster Alito create considerable anger among progressives. But I have to say that we should not be surprised that the Democrats, who control NONE of the branches of government or the media, fail to block Bush’s agenda. Rather, we should be surprised when they DO succeed.

But many progressives are angry enough to be calling for the heads of those Democrats who failed the filibuster and who are up for reelection. The thirst for blood from the left against this so-called "Vichy 10" is sweeping several blogs and I have to say I find it kind of depressing. It is the kind of knee jerk reaction, poorly thought out and poorly expressed, that I expect from Bush supporters talking about Clinton's blowjobs.

I understand people's frustration. But some of the Senators that people want to target have among the best voting records in Congress on the environment, labor and choice. Do we REALLY want to start by targeting those people?

The so-called “Vichy 10.” Are these guys really so bad that we should go on an all-out crusade against them? Let’s see:

I am getting my data from: League of Conservation Voters (environment voting record: 2004 data); Americans for Democratic Action (liberal Dems: 2004 data); NARAL (Choice: 2004 data);and AFL-CIO (labor: lifetime score).

These scores are based on whether they voted the appropriate position according to that group. This can be taken as a rough measure of what they deliver: votes for or against progressive positions. It is NOT a measure of their leadership, which requires more than just voting the right way. It measures whether they are delivering votes that support progressive positions.

Daniel Akaka (HI) LCV: 100%; ADA: 95%; NARAL: 100%; AFL-CIO: 94%

Jeff Bingaman (NM) LCV: 100%; ADA: 90%; NARAL: 75%; AFL-CIO: 83%

Robert Byrd (WV) LCV: 100%; ADA: 90%; NARAL: 55%; AFL-CIO: 78%

Maria Cantwell (WA) LCV: 100%; ADA: 95%; NARAL: 100%; AFL-CIO: 89%

Thomas Carper (DE) LCV: 83%; ADA: 95%; NARAL:75%; AFL-CIO: 89%

Kent Conrad (ND) LCV: 83%; ADA: 90%; NARAL:75%; AFL-CIO: 84%

Herbert Kohl (WI) LCV: 100%; ADA: 100%; NARAL:75%; AFL-CIO: 80%

Joseph Lieberman (CT) LCV: 100%; ADA: 75%; NARAL:75%; AFL-CIO: 84%

Bill Nelson (FL) LCV: 100%; ADA: 80%; NARAL:75%; AFL-CIO: 91%

Ben Nelson (NE) LCV: 67%; ADA: 65%; NARAL:20%; AFL-CIO: 72%

Byrd also led the fight against the war in Iraq almost by himself in the Senate for YEARS.

Based on their voting records I conclude that:

1. Calling them collaborationists is absolutely ridiculous. Some of these are our best voters overall on issues as important to us as the environment and choice!

2. There are far, far better targets—-every single Republican Senator (who score almost across the board below 20%) and even a handful of other Dems who score worse than these folks.

3. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the ONLY one who scores low enough to warrant an all out challenge. I do not push for challenges against Democrats in this newsletter, but Nelson really DOES warrant a challenge. And Lieberman probably deserves it as well based on his kissing up (literally AND figuratively) to Bush, though I think his support for the environment and choice are often ignored by people when they call him Rep-lite.

4. Targeting Byrd, despite his low NARAL score, shows a lack of gratitude or memory after his hard work trying to highlight the illegality of Bush’s war in Iraq. For MONTHS we all praised him for his firebrand speeches taking Bush to task. Suddenly we forget his efforts?


Again, this newsletter is not intended to endorse in primaries or to publicize internal fighting among Democrats. However, it is designed to encourage progressives and to work for a stronger progressive voice both within the party and nationally.

So what can I suggest? What we need is NOT a civil war within the Democratic Party. Such a civil war would only help the Republicans and, most likely, hurt the progressives. We, as progressives, do not have as developed an infrastructure to compete adequately nationally. It is that infrastructure that we need to develop. What we need to do is the following: donate and volunteer and publicize those groups that push a Progressive Democratic agenda.

Get busy with Democracy for America. This is a group whose organization is sometimes a bit too loose, but which has also greatly helped some progressive democrats win elections nationwide. Each local chapter is different and somewhat independent. So find or make your own which can focus on your areas local issues as well as joining together with thousands of other groups fighting on the national level.

Get busy training/donating/volunteering with Wellstone Action. Named for the late
Paul Wellstone, this group aims to train our next generation of progressive
leaders. Their training sessions can be extremely helpful in teaching progressives HOW to run for office and HOW to give effective public speeches.

Get busy with Progressive Majority, yet another group that seeks out good progressive candidates,
helps train them and get them elected. They did phenomenally in local races
in 2005. They focus state-by-state, recruiting and training as many good candidates as possible in a handful of states each year.

And, of course, we need to just plain defeat the Republicans nationwide. Once again I want to draw your attention to the fight to defeat the ten weakest Republican Representatives and the fight against the most callous of Republicans, the The Katrina 11.