Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

This year, it’s difficult to appreciate the Democrats, what with their failure to follow through on the promises of the 2006 congressional election. I can, however, say this much:

While looking through the transcript of this morning’s Democratic presidential debate, I suddenly felt very thankful that, with all the shortcomings of these candidates, at least Joseph Lieberman is not amongst those running this time around.

It practically makes me want to go put on a hat with a belt buckle on it and shoot a turkey.

At the end of last week, 86 Democratic members of the House of Representatives joined the Republicans. They voted to support George W. Bush, and give Bush the power to continue the Iraq War with no strings attached.

Back in 2006, is that what we elected the Democrats to a majority of Congress to do? No, the Democrats were elected to Congress in order to stop the war.

The Democratic members of the House that you see below voted for war at the end of the week, just before the Memorial Day weekend, hoping that we would all just forget about their treachery. No such luck for them. Now, at the beginning of the next week, we are calling them out.

The following Democrats in Congress decided to support George W. Bush instead of representing their constituents. They do not deserve to be re-elected in 2008.

Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania
Robert Andrews Andrews of New Jersey
Joseph Baca of California
Brian Baird of Washington
John Barrow of Georgia
Melissa Bean of Illinois
Shelley Berkley of Nevada
Marion Berry of Arkansas
Timothy Bishop of Georgia
Dan Boren of Oklahoma
Leonard Boswell of Iowa
Rick Boucher of Virginia
Allen Boyd of Florida
Nancy Boyda of Kansas
G. K. Butterfield of North Carolina
Dennis Cardoza of California
Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania
Ben Chandler of Kentucky
James Clyburn of South Carolina
James Cooper of Tennessee
James Costa of Californa
Bud Cramer of Alabama
Henry Cuellar of Texas
Susan Davis of California
Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
Norman Dicks of Washington
John Dingell of Michigan
Joe Donnelly of Indiana
Chet Edwards of Texas
Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
Gabrielle Giffords of Illinois
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Charles Gonzalez of Texas
Bart Gordon of Tennessee
Gene Green of Texas
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota
Baron Hill of Indiana
Ruben Hinojosa of Texas
Timothy Holden of Pennsylvania
Steny Hoyer of Maryland
Steven Kagen of Wisconsin
Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania
Dale Kildee of Michigan
Ron Kind of Wisconsin
Nick Lampson of Texas
Rick Larsen of Washington
Sander Levin of Michigan
Dan Lipinski of Illinois
Tim Mahoney of Florida
James Marshall of Georgia
James Matheson of Utah
Michael McIntyre of North Carolina
Kendrick Meek of Florida
Charles Melancon of Louisiana
Harry Mitchell of Arizona
Alan Mollohan of West Virginia
Dennis Moore of Kansas
John Murtha of Pennsylvania
Solomon Ortiz of Texas
Collin Peterson of Minnesota
Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
Nick Rahall of West Virginia
Silvestre Reyes of Texas
Ciro Rodriguez of Texas
Mike Ross of Arkansas
Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland
John Salazar of Colorado
Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania
David Scott of Georgia
Joseph Sestak of Pennsylvania
Heath Shuler of North Carolina
Ike Skelton of Missouri
Vic Snyder of Arkansas
Zachary Space of Ohio
John Spratt of South Carolina
Bart Stupak of Michigan
John Tanner of Tennessee
Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Bennie Thompson of Mississippi
Mark Udall of Colorado
Peter Visclosky of Illinois
Timothy Walz of Minnesota
Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida
Charles Wilson of Ohio

Pro-war Democrats, every one. Remember how they betrayed the promise of 2006. Support the Democratic primary challengers against them.

If the Senate Republicans were to read tea leaves for the American voters, they’d probably come out with an interpretation such as, “You are sleepy alll the time, because you refuse to drink hot caffeinated beverages.”

It’s this kind of backwards thinking that leads the Republicans in the United States Senate to return Trent Lott to a high position of power as Minority Whip. The Republicans see that they’ve lost many seats to the Democrats in the Senate, so what conclusion do they make? Do they conclude that they’ve been too extreme in their ideology, and give a relative moderate, like Olympia Snowe, the Minority Whip position? No, no. They decide to put another Southern right winger, one who has mourned the loss of forced racial segregation, into that office.

I wonder what will happen if they lose another seat to the Democrats in 2008. Will they start a special Minority Senate Office for the Prevention of Miscegenation?

Ya think “unlawful enemy combatant” would look good in needlepoint?

I stand before you this day to declare that I, your obedient servant, may be in violation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Specifically, it is within the provisions of the bill that allow for President Bush, via his minions, to deem me an “unlawful enemy combatant” for any poem, commentary or statement I have ever made, impugning his or his administration’s frighteningly ineffective and actively dangerous efforts to end global terrorism.

We’re half way around the world, bombing people who have done nothing to us. The administration seeks to influence policies and elections in other countries, and threatens intervention if they do not toe our political line. Isn’t that what we fought against during the cold war? Didn’t we stand against the Communists to keep them from venturing into other countries? I am not a conspiracy-theory left wing nut job, but I am way past offended that this administration sees their job as remaking the United States of America in the image of the late UNlamented Soviet Union. Democracy at gunpoint… if that isn’t an oxymoron, then President Bush can pronounce ‘nuclear’.

I cannot and will not be silenced by toadies like Donald Rumsfeld, who has never risked his overweight, coronary-ready ass for his country but presumes to tell ‘the faithful’ that he knows what will make us victorious in war. What he ‘knows’ is how to profit from corporate involvement in war, and how to make a few bucks for his friends in the bargain.

I shan’t be deterred by the religious right, put off by the neocondescending disinformation machine, or undermined by the unfair, unbalanced, untrue and unprincipled Fox News Network.

I will not be haunted the Coultergeist, shadowed by the government, governed by the incompetent or overruled by the supposed rulers of what was, until the MCA of ‘ought-six, a country both democratic and free.

Calling this law wrong is the understatement of the century. I am, as all Americans should be, ashamed for my nation and for the Great American Experiment, whose demise this law may very well portend.

With that, a final word… I have a house that’s paid for, a really cool motorcycle and a new love of my life…… if I disappear, I sure as hell didn’t run away.

Later.

Hillary Clinton has gone insane. She wants to run for President in 2008, so what has she done? Hillary Clinton has declared that she thinks torture is a good idea.

No kidding. Senator Hillary Clinton said of torture last week, “there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that.”

No, Senator Clinton. No, there doesn’t. There doesn’t have to be any lawful authority for pursuing torture. What there has to be is a return to the America in which the Bill of Rights means something more than “yadda, yadda, yadda”. The Bill of Rights forbids, absolutely, cruel and unusual punishment. Do you not support the Bill of Rights anymore, Senator Clinton?

I’m a New Yorker, Senator Clinton, but you’re not getting my vote. Not for United States Senate, and sure as hell not for President of the United States.

Tim Holden is a Democrat who sits in Congress and isn’t worth much at all. Occasionally, he votes the right way on a piece of legislation, but more often, he votes like a stinking right wing Republican, and when Tim Holden goes the wrong way, he causes a lot of damage. His regressive right wing legislative score is higher than his progressive record.

The latest and greatest example: Democrat Tim Holden abandoned the mainstream of the Democratic Party to join forces with George W. Bush and vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act.

Don’t know about the Military Commissions Act? Well, let me inform you: This new law, signed into effect by President Bush just yesterday, revokes habeas corpus, ends enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, gives amnesty to George W. Bush for any war crimes he has committed, sets up kangaroo courts to replace our system of justice, and gives the President the power to throw anyone into prison without crimnal charges and without any explanation to anyone.

How could Tim Holden do it? How could he do such a horrible thing? How could he betray us in such a dramatic fashion?

The answer is depressingly simple: Tim Holden doesn’t have anyone opposing him for re-election in 2006, so he can afford to be as dirty and nasty as he wants to be. There was no Democratic primary challenge to Tim Holden in 2006, and Matthew Wertz, the Republican opponent to Tim Holden, withdrew from the race. So, there was no one to hold Tim Holden accountable.

Democrats of Pennsylvania’s 17th congressional district, in Dauphin County, Lebanon County, Schuylkill County, Berks County and Perry County, please do NOT support Tim Holden for re-election in 2008. Tim Holden has betrayed the Democratic Party over and over again. Don’t take it lying down. Find someone, a real Democrat with solid progressive values, to challenge Tim Holden in 2008, and restore the good name of Pennsyvlania’s Democrats.

Here’s a riddle for New Jersey Democrats: What happens when you allow an incumbent politician to go unchallenged?

Don’t worry. There’s no trick to this riddle. The answer is all too obvious: The politician loses all sense of responsibility to the people.

Rob Andrews proves the point. He’s the Democratic incumbent in the House of Representatives for New Jersey’s first congressional district. At the close of this autumn’s session of Congress, Rob Andrews served his constituents very ill indeed.

Rob Andrews abandoned the mainstream of the Democratic Party and voted for the Military Commissions Act. The Military Commissions Act does the following:

This morning, there is incredible news: A volcano has erupted in Los Angeles!

People are marching in the street outside Congress and the White House, demanding strong action to deal with the devastation resulting from the volcano. Republicans, however, are saying that there should not be any big government solution to the crisis, and that residents should not cut and run from Los Angeles.

Democratic leaders, hoping to woo swing voters, reject the demands for immediate evacuation from Los Angeles. They’re calling for an evacuation of Los Angeles by the end of 2007, but only if the situation there stabilizes first.

It’s official: Stuart Rothenberg can now be counted as one of the inside the beltway crazies. Catch what he said about Ned Lamont supporters in Connecticut: He called them “bomb throwers”.

Bomb throwers, huh, Stu? Uh, Ned Lamont won, Mr. Rothenberg, so where are all the bombs going off in Connecticut now, huh? Gee, there are none.

So how is it that Stuart Rothenberg can call antiwar activists “bomb throwers”? I mean, a huge number of Ned Lamont’s supporters are pacifists, for crying out loud! How are they, in any sense of the term, throwers of bombs?

Oh, well, good old insider Mr. Rothenberg, who seems about as out of touch as a prisoner in a Guantanamo Bay solitary confinement cell, meant it metaphorically.

Metaphorically, huh? Well, what was the bomb throwing a metaphor for? Oh, yeah, it was a metaphor for Democratic voters going to the polls to choose who represents them in their own political party. For Stuart Rothenberg, democracy is like throwing a bomb.

Woo hoo, Stuart Rothenberg’s gone off the crazy, loopy, I never get outside of D.C. deep end, folks!

Hey, Stooie, let me send you a clue telegram: In Iraq, they really throw bombs. Yeah, real bombs, like, ones that explode and KILL PEOPLE!

So get off your high horse, Rothenberg, and talk about who’s the candidate that’s really brought about a bunch of real bomb throwing: Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman voted for the war, Rothenberg. The war. You know, the one with bombs going off. And killing people.

So how come you support the Lieberman bomb throwers, Rothenberg, hug?

Man, you’re just another beltway looney.

So, the New York Times has endorsed Ned Lamont, rejecting Joseph Lieberman’s term in Senate one “in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction”. Swell.

What does this mean? Mainstream pundits are viewing it as a devastating blow to Lieberman’s re-election campaign. But does that mean that we’re supposed to believe that Lieberman’s campaign was doing well until the big newspaper’s endorsement of Lamont?

Washington D.C. pundits just can’t imagine that Connecticut voters might have been making conclusions about Joseph Lieberman’s right wing politics on their own, but that’s just what has been happening. Lieberman has been a stain on the Democratic Party for years, long before the Iraq War was begun. Starting with Lieberman’s preaching condemnation of Bill Clinton’s personal life, and extending through the drag of his religious preoccupations on Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, many of the Democratic Party’s most devastating defeats have been due in large part to Lieberman’s insistence in promoting a narrow, restrictive vision of what it means to be an American.

It’s good that the New York Times is finally joining grassroots Democrats in their rejection of Joseph Lieberman. However, it’s not the editorial of the Times that will have sunk Lieberman’s career. Senator Lieberman managed to do that all on his own.

So, the big day came in here Oregon this week, and as usual, the institutional Democrats won the contest. Ted Kulongoski has been widely recognized as an ineffective governor, by Democrats and Republicans alike. Yet, what did the the Democratic Party establishment in Oregon do? They stood like stiff wooden planks right by Kulongoski, and used their resources to make sure that he got a victory in the primary on Tuesday.

That’s the way things go, I guess, but there is still one candidate in the race who has the ideals of progressives truly at heart. Joe Keating is running for Governor of Oregon as a member of the Pacific Green Party.

Joe Keating has real guts. He’s calling for Ted Kulongoski to recall the Oregon National Guard out of the Iraq War, and back home where it belongs. That takes real courage, so Joe Keating has my vote.

As for those establishment Democrats who tell me that my vote for Keating is a waste, I say screw them! Screw them! My freedom to choose how to cast my own vote for myself is never a waste.

Let me be frank. The Democratic Party is riding an anti-Bush wave so high that only an idiot could fail to gain victory from its surge. Every damn congressional district in the United States of America should be up for grabs, and there’s only one reason that it ain’t that way:

The leadership of the Democratic Party is the most lily-livered, spineless, cowardly, scaredy-cat, crass and lazy asses bunch of bastards America has ever seen!

The only reason that the Democrats stand a fair chance of retaking Congress this year is that the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats. The Republicans are a bunch of crazy, trigger-happy, Bible-thumping, spiritualist, theocratic, hate-baiting, greedy, corrupt pigs.

The Democrats hope to just ride the surge of populist rejection of the right wing radical agenda. The Republicans are such blind fanatics that they’re actually trying to swim against the tide.

I’m a god-damned liberal, and I don’t care who I offend by saying it, ’cause it’s the bald-butt truth!

There are two pieces of news from the 2006 campaign world this morning that lead me to wonder about a basic tenet of commonly-accepted political philosophy: Negative campaigning is a bad, bad thing.

In California, candidate for Governor Steve Westly has launched a petition drive urging all the Democratic candidates not to run negative campaigns. Then, in Georgia, Democratic candidates for governor Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor have sent letters to the independent organization Georgians for Truth, urging the organization not to run negative advertisements against Republican governor Sonny Perdue.

Why?

What the heck is so wrong with pointing out what’s wrong with another politician’s political agenda?

I worry that Democrats have overreacted to the 2004 Swiftboat Veterans for Truth campaign. They’ve forgotten that the problem with the SwiftBoats’ advertisements is not that they were negative, but that they were purposefully deceptive.

Deceptive advertising and negative advertising should be considered separately. After all, it’s quite possible for positive political ads to be deceptive. Running advertisements that point out the negative characteristics of another candidate’s political agenda is not necessarily deceptive at all. In fact, it’s often dishonest not to talk about something negative that’s going on.

The national Democratic Party leadership right now is pushing Democratic candidates for Congress to not talk about impeaching George W. Bush for his crimes. That keeps the tone of the campaigns positive, but does it best serve the American people to avoid talking about how the President of the United States is violating the law?

I say that we need more negative advertising, not less of it.

Earlier this morning, I wrote a quick update about my experience so far on MySpace, an online community especially suited to hormonal teenagers, but with some potential for more mature political networking.

I’ve also been trying another online cooperative community to see what kind of potential it might have for enhancing the presence of progressive political causes online. It’s called Squidoo, a name that evokes tentacles stretching and exploring dark corners and crevices - something that the Internet is quite useful for. As it happens, Squidoo is mostly virgin territory when it comes to politics, so I have been able to set up the first and only pages, or lenses as they call them there, on Squidoo dedicated to Russ Feingold’s budding campaign for President in 2008 as well as for the Squidoo lens to serve supporters of Hillary Clinton for President in 2008 as well, though I’m less personally enthusiastic about that prospect.

So far, my experience with Squidoo is positive. Lenses and their modules are easy to set up - though many of the news modules have no options for customization by keywords, and the RSS feed modules need to be supplemented by XML modules as well. There is but one generic module which allows one to write text and html in freeform, but that module seems to have the most potential so far. If I use that module, however, why would I choose to do so on Squidoo?

As with MySpace, my forays into Squidoo will have to be a long-term exploration. In order to fairly judge anything on the Internet, it’s important to use it over a lengthy period of time, to allow things time to develop, for links to be made, and for people to interact. I’ll be reporting back on more of my thoughts on the world of Squidooing in the weeks to come.

As I’ve mentioned before, the 24th congressional district, in Upstate New York, is shaping up to be one of the truly hot races for this year. It’s not just hot because there’s an open seat in a swing district, however. More than that, the 24th district congressional race is hot because there are some truly remarkable characters.

There’s Les Roberts, the progressive Democrat who smuggled himself into Iraq to research, firsthand, the impact of the war upon Iraqi civilians. There’s Leon Koziol, a harshly conservative Democrat who says that one of the biggest problems that the 24th District in New York has is Hollywood… yes, Hollywood in California.

Then there’s Michael Arcuri, the well-connected District Attorney for Oneida County, who seems to plan on just coasting to victory based on knowing all powerful Democrats in Oneida’s city of Utica. Where does Michael Arcuri stand on the issues - with progressive Les Roberts or with right winger Leon Koziol?

Unfortunately, it seems that Mike Arcuri is ideologically more close to right wing Koziol than to progressive Les Roberts. Arcuri appears to be playing the old game of trying to win an election as a Democrat by embracing the Republican point of view. Arcuri goes out of his way to say that he won’t stand with other Democrats in the Senate on the most important, controversial issues of the day.

On Tuesday, Michael Arcuri took his attacks against progressive Democratic grassroots activists a step further, attacking what he called the “liberal fringes” of the Democratic Party.

Michael Arcuri has made it pretty clear where he’s going to stand. As a member of Congress, Michael Arcuri would stand with the Joseph Liebermans of the Democratic Party, and we cannot have another weak-willed, milquetoast, rightward leaning Democrat in that Congress.

For the Democratic primary in New York’s 24th District, the choice for progressive Democrats is clear: Anybody But Arcuri. Vote for one of Arcuri’s more progressive rivals.

What a shame it is that the national Democratic Party seems determined to ram Michael Arcuri through the 24th District’s primary, no matter what the actual Democratic voters of the 24th District want. Let’s hope that Arcuri’s two serious rivals, Les Roberts and Bruce Tytler, have the strength to stay in the race until the primary, without dropping out under pressure from Party insiders more interested in victory than in staying true to the ideals Democratic voters hold dear.

Yesterday, Peregrin Wood noted a growing controversy in an Upstate New York congressional race. On Friday, the incumbent Republican there, Sherwood Boehlert, announced his retirement. The district, which reaches from the Adirondacks all the way down into the Finer Lakes region, is now open and up for grabs - Bush/Cheney only won the district with 53 percent of the votes in 2004. So, national attention is rivetted on the race.

Peregrin noted that Democrats in the district are beginning to become concerned that one of the three Democratic candidates in that district, Michael Arcuri, is not answering questions about his position on abortion. Many are beginning to speculate that Michael Arcuri identifies himself as Pro-Life (or as some would have it, anti-choice). So, discussions on the controversy seem to be popping up all over the web - even among Republicans.

However, there seems to be another big controversy brewing in the 24th District. Is the national Democratic Party inappropriately trying to interfere with the Democratic primary there? Some local Democrats think so.

The controversy began with an unwise slip of the tongue by Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat who is chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel quipped that one of the three Democratic candidates for the congressional seat, Michael Arcuri, was his recruit. It seems that some Democrats in the 24th district have the quaint notion that they should be recruiting their own candidates.

In the 24th District, as in most places across America, there were numerous pro-peace marches yesterday. At these various marches, more than one speech was given denouncing Rahm Emanuel’s move to appoint Michael Arcuri to be the official pick.

Was it wrong for Emanuel to have moved so fast to push Arcuri over the other two Democratic candidates - both of whom seem to be making a strong effort? Well, functionally speaking, the maneuver did not create the positive reaction Emanuel and Arcuri were both hoping for.

Many people are noting that Michael Arcuri has only been campaigning for a little over one week at this point, and has not articulated his positions on the issues in any kind of detail. It does seem to me unwise for the DCCC to try to pre-empt an open Democratic primary in the district when Arcuri remains such a mystery.

The abortion issue is just one that could derail the Arcuri campaign. Arcuri’s position on the Iraq War is suspiciously close to the position promoted by George W. Bush. I’d like to know if Michael Arcuri did anything to oppose the Iraq War before it began back in 2003, if he remained silent on the issue, or if he went along with the pro-war bandwagon. He’s a public official, so he must have made some statement on the war at the time.

Of course, Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC cannot legally do anything to force the other Democratic candidates, Les Roberts and Bruce Tytler, to drop out of the race. In fact, if Roberts or Tytler were to drop out of the race in reaction to the “recruit” comment, angry Democratic voters would have no one to blame but Roberts and Tytler. These candidates have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination, and they owe it to their supporters to stay in the race until the primary election is over.

Some Democrats are so eager to win against Republicans these days that it has become fashionable to say that primary elections are a problem, a trouble, a burden that must be overcome. Certainly, democracy is not the most direct approach to government. As George W. Bush has mentioned, dictatorship would be easier.

For me, the issue is not what is easy. The issue is what’s right. The right thing to do is to allow the Democrats in Boehlert’s old district make their own choice for a nominee. Let the DCCC and Rahm Emanuel come in after the primary - which is still six months away. The last thing we need is for the national Democratic Party to spend its money to help Democrats fight other Democrats. The candidates can do that very well on their own.

Progressive America, we have been been putting up with fools in the Democratic leadership for too long. It’s time to fight back, and take back the Democratic Party from the right wing, Bush-loving, namby pamby, spineless, career politicians.

Here’s a quick test: When I say Bush-loving, namby pamby, spineless Democrat, who is the first person that pops into your head?

Recent medical research has shown that 9 out of 10 Democrats will give the following response: Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Admit it. Joe Lieberman makes your skin crawl. From the minute that George W. Bush took office, Lieberman has played lap dog to the Republicans. Roll over, Joe! they say. And Joe Lieberman rolls over, happy, with his tail wagging, hoping for a little doggie treat from Bill Frist. You know who has endorsed Joe Lieberman for re-election to the Senate this year? Republicans!

What would you give to see Joseph Lieberman out of office at the end of this year? That’s not a rhetorical question.

There is a genuine progressive Democrat running a very strong campaign to take the Democratic nomination for Senate away from Joseph Lieberman this year. His name is Ned Lamont.

The first thing you’ll read when you get to the Ned Lamont web site is this: “I am running for the US Senate because Connecticut deserves a Senator who will stand up to the Bush administration” Have you ever heard words like those coming out of the mouth of Joseph Lieberman? No, not once.

When Joseph Lieberman heard about Bush’s program to spy against American citizens without any search warrants or any legal restraint, he did nothing. Lieberman has declared that he will never sign Russ Feingold’s resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law. Lieberman is more interested in defending George W. Bush than he is interested in defending the American people.

Ned Lamont won’t betray us in that way. In his announcement speech, Ned Lamont made it clear what he thinks of the NSA spy program against Americans. He referred to it with the phrase “President George Bush’s illegal wiretaps”.

If you’re sick and tired of Joseph Lieberman betraying the progressive base of the Democratic Party, then do something about it. Go and visit Ned Lamont’s campaign web site and volunteer or make a donation. He’s running against an incumbent with powerful friends in the Republican Party, and he needs our help. Then, get yourself a Ned Lamont for Senate bumper sticker to show that you’re in solidarity with the movement to stop Joseph Lieberman from wrecking the Democratic Party.

In response to my first irregular diary entry, Jim asks the question:

“…perhaps it’s time to stop voting Democrat.
Gall, what do you have in mind?”

Oh, good question.

Yes, and no. I think it’s time to stop accepting the partisan frame of politics. We need to stop looking at politicians according to whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and look at them according to how they vote.

Imagine if we could group politicians according to their votes, right wing or progressive, and then give those groups our own labels, and identify ourselves according which group we feel most affinity with - then work with politicians in that group, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.

This would have to be a totally grassroots effort to reject the dominant political party framework - going even more alternative than the third party efforts by groups like the Greens.

So, we vote with the group of politicians who votes our interest, and whether they’re Democrats or not is as irrelevant as whether they’re members of the Rotary Club.

What do you think?

I was thinking that you could use something like the resource you’ve developed with your progressive scorecard for the House to do this.