About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

415 Days

by: Andy Edwards

Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 18:10:31 PM EDT


(This is a brilliant diary -- don't let the initial lines fool you -- read it through to the end. - promoted by Mike Caulfield)

We are four hundred and fifteen days twenty-two days from September 2 9, 2008 - an entire year and fifty-seven days from the state primary elections.

A little perspective:
365 days ago, Senators Biden, Boxer and Salazar, and Bill Clinton were campaigning for Joe Lieberman.
415 days ago, Sen. Clinton was publicly criticizing the majority of Democrats who wanted to withdraw from Iraq.
410 days ago, I was filing for candidacy.

I think it goes without saying that a lot has happened since then...

Andy Edwards :: 415 Days
We as progressives have pulled off incredible victories within the Democratic party, but we've also been dismayed when centrism and beltway-syndrome have prevailed over our ideas.  We've exposed the corrupt Republicans and set the tone for an historic Democratic electoral takeover, but we've also seen the GOP continue to push us around when our aggressive stances aren't palatable to party leadership.

When we succeed, it's because we want what's best for democracy, not the Democratic party.  We aren't ammassing political points or consolidating power.  We are trying to put more power in the hands of the people, and it just so happens that our ideas match up pretty well with what the majority of Americans want.

Democrats in Washington have been behind the curve on the War in Iraq, but it was much worse before progressives proved that public opinion was ahead of them, showing that Iraq was not a sore subject but would be the central focus of the 2006 elections.  The netroots showed that withdrawing from Iraq was the right thing to do when Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. 

The lesson that the party took away from this should have been "trust the grassroots" and "empower the people" but instead, campaigning on the Iraq War was the right thing to do because it could win the election for the Democrats. The War in Iraq came to be seen as a great big hammer that could be used to repeatedly whack the Republicans over the head with.

2008 will be different.  We cannot stake electoral success on the issue of Iraq.

Progressives know better than to do this, not only could a lot happen in 415 days, but this is not what makes us effective.  Progressives' ideas get promoted when the interests of real people are promoted.  Democrats will get elected if they champion progressive causes like Global Warming, Universal Healthcare, Stem Cells (heck, even Medicinal Marijuana), all things that a majority of Americans want - "mainstream" if you will.

Democrats cannot lean on the War as their lead issue.  For starters, many supported it to begin with, while others did not, there is no consensus within the party on what to do, and nothing has changed so far despite the Democrats being put back in control.  And it isn't going to get any better in the next 415 days either.  Progressives represent the will of the American people on this - they want the War ended now.  But they're not being listened to in Washington right now, and to be honest, there's a pretty good chance that the left wing of the party won't get to decide the outcome of the Iraq War.

A small group of Republicans and Democrats could end up forming a crucial bipartisan swing vote, much like the "Gang of Twelve".  If so, then John E. Sununu will be among them.

From today's New York Times:

After the Iraq Study Group report was released last December, offering a blueprint for changing course in Iraq, it rocketed to the top of bestseller lists and more than 1.5 million copies were downloaded from the Internet. But the reader who mattered most, President Bush, quickly shelved it.

Now, with the Bush administration?s own assessment showing limited progress in Iraq and an increasingly exasperated Congress once again debating the future of the war, a growing number of senators from both parties are making a new push to adopt the study group?s recommendations into law.

Supporters of the study group plan say that it has the best chance, of the many war proposals ricocheting around Capitol Hill, of unifying Democrats intent on forcing the administration to shift its war strategy and Republicans who have criticized the president but so far refused to vote against him.

If this were to happen, these Senators would be credited with ending the Iraq War.  Harry Reid and most Senate Democrats do not favor simply implementing the ISG recommendations because they don't go far enough, and they certainly don't come close to what the American people want.  Unfortunately, if enough of these "moderate" Democrats band together with some of these "maverick" Republicans, the Democrats will have very limited options if they want to make progress.

One supporter, Senator John E. Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, said he had favored adopting the study group?s proposals all along. ?It?s a good framework,? he said.

It comes as no surprise that our vulnerable junior Senator is among them.  The unfortunate part is that he's basically telling the truth.

All the way back in December (h/t Dean):

In an interview last week on National Public Radio, Sununu said that withdrawing U.S. troops "without setting a goal for the Iraq people - for governing structure, revision of oil law, reconciliation process - I think that would be a mistake. I think refusing to make any changes in tactics or approaches is unacceptable, given that we can look and see what's happening in Iraq and recognize that we aren't being as successful as we'd like to be."

He told NPR that the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, "by and large, hit the mark."

He's covered his ass by supporting the bi-partisan ISG report, and he has preempted the lack of success with low expectations.

This isn't the issue that's going to take down John E. Sununu.

415 days from now, we have no idea what the situation with Iraq will look like.  What's certain is that Sununu has set himself up to blow whichever way the wind blows.  He can bash the President's foreign policy, vote for withdrawal from Iraq, even vote for impeachment, and in the end he could be just as safe as any Democrat who supported the War to begin with.

This election is not a chance for us to take advantage of Bush's failure in Iraq and to hang it around the neck of the Republican party.  Time will show that many people are partially to blame for this prolonged war.

We will not defeat a Republican Senator like John E. Sununu on the issue of Iraq because when it comes down to it, we don't.. we haven't provided that much of a difference.


  • We need to offer a clear alternative to John E. Sununu, not a red vs. blue distinction, but someone who listens to the people vs. one who ignores their constituents. 

  • We need a progressive candidate.

  • We need to advance progressive issues and people-powered politics - that is what won us the 2006 election and that is what Americans want more of.  Not calculation, posturing, pandering, and opportunistic attacks.

  • We need to lead with our ideas, and I argue that, as progressives, 2008 is our greatest opportunity to do so.  Politics as usual - where we run against things, like Bush or the War - has seen its day and Americans are sick of it. 
    They want bold ideas, they want fresh candidates, and they want politicians that are accountable to people and their needs, not to any political party.
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
415 Days | 17 comments
While I disagree in part (0.00 / 0)
on the issue of Iraq, I'd just like to add that this is one of the best diaries I've ever seen on this site.

Bravo!


Let's explore that disagreement (0.00 / 0)
A lot of what I said is based on predictions of what I think is liable to happen, taking history into account.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic about the possibility of this Democratic Congress in ending the War and removing Bush/Cheney from office.  I think if we demonstrate that the voters' trust was well placed in 2006, then we will be rewarded for it in 2008 with a mandate of sorts.

There is also a chance that America will be every bit as upset in 422 days as they are now, with Congress and with the war.  I'm attempting to disconnect electoral politics from governmental process here, so I do not at all advocate that we need to let up one bit on Iraq. 
I think this will continue to be the central focus of our efforts in Washington as well.  I just think that whatever comes of it will not be something to be proud of and the American public will be looking for strong leadership that takes us in new directions and gets back to their core needs and interests.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship


[ Parent ]
I know what I want (4.00 / 1)
and it's to get back to the value system that made me a Democrat as soon as I got out of my Republican household back in 1960.  (Yeah, I'm that old and my father was a good moderate Republican small town doctor in central MA.)  I want desperately to get away from the Clinton era triangulation, although I guess I can see why it happened, and get back to showing the American people what real progressive, liberal policies can do for them.  I hope it isn't too late.  I hope the damage to the nation's belief in any role for government isn't destroyed by the selfish, greedy, corrupt group who has tried to prove that government doesn't work by being as incompetent at governing as possible.

You know, last year in my town we had a couple of people elected to the board of selectmen who promised to cut our property taxes.  We've all run into them, they shriek and yell about how much money is being wasted, and then when they get in power, guess what?  Even in a small town, they can't run the place.  They think that they are there to give favors to their buddies, and punish their enemies, and they can't stand scrutiny and whine and cry when questioned or challenged.  And if left there too long, they destroy the faith of the people in their government, and no decent, sensible person wants to get involved, leaving the spoils to...guess who.

How are we going to bring the people back to faith in the power of government to do good?  To remind them that social security is a wonderful program that keeps our elders from starving, that the government, through Medicare and the VA (despite its problems, it really works quite well) for example, can provide healthcare for all at a reasonable cost, that business needs to be reined in for the safety of our food, water, drugs, etc.  To remind them that only government has the resources to face disasters of the magnitude of Katrina, never mind climate change. 

One of the many challenges we face as we go into this desperately important election.  And let us not forget that neighbor to neighbor, one person to another person, friend to friend, is the way that trusting relationships are built in politics, and the grassroots is the basis and the growing medium of a healthy electorate.

So go talk to someone about progressive politics!

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.


At the end of the day, (0.00 / 0)
what we really need to do is put a candidate in the Senate who really deserves to be there.  And we need more than just another vote to get a democratic majority and perhaps the 60 votes needed to actually bring bills to a vote.  We need a progressive, grassroots candidate with the vision to move us towards a sustainable, ethical, and prosperous future.  We need to stop passing our problems off to future generations because it's the prudent political decision today.

We need someone with the longterm vision to tackle problems like global warming, the energy supply, and health care.  We need more scientists and doctors in our government.

I try not to promote my guy too much on here, but it seems to be the proper response to this blog:  This country needs someone like Jay Buckey in the US Senate.  And New Hampshire has the opportunity to do that in 2008.

Where do we go from here?


2ns Tuesday, no? (0.00 / 0)
Meaning Sept 9th, and 422 Days?

Thank you (4.00 / 1)
Sep. 9 is the correct date.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

[ Parent ]
A Progressive Soldier's Diary (4.00 / 1)
This beautiful diary by a soldier who is a Democrat was posted on Daily Kos and rescued overnight.  It is well worth a read. 
So much extraordinary writing is taking place these days, it is impossible to keep up.  I read a number of blogs daily, often taking my laptop (I have a wireless network in my house) to bed to read blogs til I nod off with my finger on the page down button and wake to find myself at the bottom of the page!  And I do believe that the rest of the media is starting to pay attention to us.  It sure takes a long time, though!

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

It only seems to take a long time (0.00 / 0)
because you assume that electronic communications will speed everything up.  It won't for the simple reason that the human brain isn't any quicker than it's ever been (some are slower than others) and the influx of electronic information tends to cause an overflow.

In any event, what we are witnessing is blowback against the real democracy that got started in the sixties with the civil and consumer rights movements.  Conservatives are trying to return to a world in which public officials enjoy "sovereign immunity"--not being accountable to anyone.

Tax cuts are nothing more than a bribe, using other people's money, to persuade people to go away and let public officials play with the public's assets and money as they see fit.  "I'll give you a tax break if you just trust me to do right by Tom, Dick and Harry over at the country club."


[ Parent ]
Jeanne Shaheen meets your test (0.00 / 0)
Former Governor Shaheen has the record of accomplishment to be the best possible candidate. She took a leadership role on, and was able to get passed, progressive legislation on civil rights, womens rights and the environment, even though she had a Democratic majority in only one of the two chambers for just for one of her six years in office.  And, she listened and was accountable to the people of New Hampshire, even if it meant disagreeing with some in her political party. She also went toe to toe with the utility and insurance companies in order to get lower electric rates and lower insurance rates.  She established a judicial candidate screening process, so that nominations for the bench were based on qualifications, not connections.

As important is her experience as a teacher, a small business owner, a legislator, a three term governor, and now the head of the Kennedy School Institute of Politics. The next president and the next congress are going to have a lot - no, that is an understatement, they are going to have an incredible amount of work to do to clean up our government.  This administration has put ideology ahead of competency in hiring throughout every agency and department.  It isn't just FEMA and Justice.  I've talked to people associated with, or one step away from, departments ranging from Agriculture to NOOA, from banking to mine safety, and the story is the same everywhere.  Political ideology trumped qualification in hiring  everywhere.  Jeanne Shaheen knows government, and whatever committees she would serve on, she would bring experience and knowledge to her oversight role.



Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 


I want a progressive candidate (0.00 / 0)
You and I are not talking about the same thing.  You are talking about "the best possible candidate" which is subjective.  You feel that Jeanne Shaheen is the best, for the reasons you've listed.

I don't have any "test" for political candidates, as you have described.  It's very simple for me.  I support the candidate whose ideas I agree with - a progressive.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship


[ Parent ]
415 Days (0.00 / 0)
Excellent observations, Andy!

Good diary (0.00 / 0)
As a liberal, do I qualify as a progressive?


Good Question (4.00 / 1)
Short answer: no.

Long answer: they aren't interchangeable so you'll have to figure that out for yourself.

From Wikipedia

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy

A pretty good one size fits all definition.

The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations ...
Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.  Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform.

Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party... while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

The last part, about the Democratic Party, I would agree with.  You'll finding varying opinions on the usefulness of third parties, however.  Third parties aren't what they used to be but that still doesn't mean that many of us don't want a multi-party system. 

Kossary: Progressive

A democratic (not just Democratic) view:
(1) There is such a thing as the public good or public interest and it is more than the sum of individual private interests (examples: clean air, civil liberties, children's health).
(2) Governments can be important counter-balances to private power and wealth (examples: police protection, FDIC, EPA). 
(3) The public interest requires that some services be provided by governments (examples: old-age pensions, public education).
Genealogy: Theodore Roosevelt (R), Robert LaFollette (R), Franklin Roosevelt (D), Harry Truman (D), John Kennedy (D), Lyndon Johnson (D)


It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

[ Parent ]
I could quibble (0.00 / 0)
... but will err on the side of general agreement.

Here's one for you: John McLaughlin once observed that we do have a third party, which he called the Fusion Party, and which I would call the so-called independents. This party decides elections.

For my part, I am a liberal Democrat. This enabled me to support Phil Dunkelbarger, who challenged my sitting Democratic Congressman on the war. This was a safe vote --he had no chance -- but I wanted to register discontent. However, I could not support Joe Lieberman (not my state anyway) -- even though he had a solid record of labor support, which I think is important -- when he bolted from the party.

So I guess my question is ... unless and until this Progressive Party emerges, aren't progressives better off working within the existing Democratic Party? You never have to vote for Zell Miller, I promise.


[ Parent ]
I'm a registered Democrat (0.00 / 0)
When people ask me my political leaning, I tell them I'm a progressive dem.

I don't know if there's a uniform answer to your question, I think it depends on where you are.  If you were in Vermont, I think you'd get along just fine without a party affiliation.

In New Hampshire, it's a two-party system.  Independents are not a third party because they don't elect their own candidates.  They certainly have a huge moderating effect on electoral politics, but they have no organization of their own so they really only have two choices.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship


[ Parent ]
I know you are (0.00 / 0)
Really. :)

My point is, I shrink from the progressive designation, as defined, because it seems to allow abandonment of the Democratic Party.

That said, historically, liberal meant the same thing -- it wasn't tied to party. Now it is because the GOP has quite simply gone off the rails.

Re: McLaughlin's theory, I don't usually go for this sort of nebulous construction, but you could argue that party loyalists have only one choice, so the Fusion types gain an advantage by having two.


[ Parent ]
Progressive v Liberal (0.00 / 0)
It's funny that in Old Europe, including Great Britian, the term liberal, as in a Liberal Party refers to supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and "survival of the fittest" in the social realm. It's more akin to what we in the US call libertarianism. One of its founders and proponents was the English social commentator and "researcher" Herbert Spencer, whose extraordinary influence over political and social thought is literally breathtaking. As a matter of fact, the term "survival of the fittest" was Spencer's, not Darwin's, even thought the philosophy it represents is called "social Darwinism".

Maybe the US version of liberal harkens way back to the eighteenth century, when it meant open, or large, as in the benefit to the largest amount of people. I don't know. But the term's been vilified by the right and the left in this country, so maybe it's time for another moniker?


[ Parent ]
415 Days | 17 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox