Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn
If Carney makes a public pledge not to support telco amnesty I think you should take his word for it and move on to other Bush dogs.
If he lies and still supports it then we go after him in 2010 with a primary challenge.
The optics are such that even if there's a good chance of betrayal, you really have to take his word or risk making the netroots look like the bad faith actor. It's only too easy to paint pictures of "uncivil" bloggers who won't take yes for an answer.
But private assurance should not be enough. Foster proved this issue is not a political loser so unless Carney has some convincing polling that shows his distrinct in particular is really pro telco amnesty, there is no compelling reason to keep such a pledge quiet.
-
Maybe
....But let's say that Carney came out and said: "After further consideration, I have decided that telecom immunity is wrong and I will oppose any bill that includes it."
Meanwhile, there were still, say, 5-10 Blue Dogs -- including some vulnerable ones -- supporting and agitating for it. Wouldn't it be preferable to declare victory in Carney's case and then aim the weapon at one of the other recalcitrant Blue Dogs?
[...] if we do this sort of stuff, and they do change behavior, and then we pull the trigger anyway, what then is their motivation to listen? -- GlennGreenwald
You still have useful ammunition through ~October '08, in the form of the not-yet-deployed ad campaign (as long as you retain enough money to unleash it at will. If you leave yourselves too broke to use it while going after some other target, then I can gay-rawn-tee you'll lose him, and possibly others.)
Go ahead and give him a break if he changes his behavior pattern (not just his tune in public, but his actual voting and activity pattern.)
Who's next on the priority list?
-
GG(2)
Wouldn't it be preferable to declare victory in Carney's case and then aim the weapon at one of the other recalcitrant Blue Dogs?
Well yes. Now that you mention it, he really could avoid all this. But wouldn't one have to be very careful in assessing how Mr. Carney "comes out" as you put it?
I'm very mindful that non-public pledges or assurances mean nothing. But words from the well of the House (accompanied by PR statement, sort of thing) would be reassuring.
-
Great job with the ads, this feels good.
To see the direct outputs of a political contribution really gives one a sense of ownership. More please! When you give to a candidate, you get the "thank you" snail mail and then follow-up calls/mails to give more. But to see the contributions in action makes it personal.
Great job Glenn & company for their hard work and tireless activism on this issue. We will all look back some day and be proud for standing up and doing the right thing.
Question for GG: will you be able to post the financial status of this endeavor periodically? Meaning, can you periodically post what has been spent so far, what's left, and set some other goals to continue this campaign once it heats up again?
-
Carney will not be able to take this lightly
Wouldn't it be preferable to declare victory in Carney's case and then aim the weapon at one of the other recalcitrant Blue Dogs?--GlennGreenwald
If Carney were to make a statement that he had decided to vote against the telecoms' desire for being let off the hook, and then he chose to vote for it after he assumed that the heat was off there would be such an ample supply of beat down that he would regret his error for the remainder of his life. That would be a lesson not only to him but to all of his Blue Dog interlopers.
-
tail wagging the (blue) dog
Pelosi should absolutely not give an inch to the Blue Dog caucus. It gets tiresome watching the Democratic caucus be held in thrall by a small minority of its membership.
It is understandable that Blue Dogs would not want to support certain types of legislation. But the telecom issue is something different entirely. They are trying to dictate policy to the majority of the party.
This kind of "bipartisanship" is not bipartisanship at all.
-
@GG re: Update
NANCY! Now there's a pressure point. She even has a challenger or two, doesn't she?
-
Scientician
...making the netroots look like the bad faith actor. It's only too easy to paint pictures of "uncivil" bloggers who won't take yes for an answer.
Absolutely True.
But.
The Constitution has been Trampled.
I remember bodies floating throughout New Orleans, and I was told that this was in response to a gay parade someone was planning. Proportionately, a trampled constitution requires some small degree of incivility. Some small bit of dust on the lapels of those who helped trample it.
-
a little more ammunition...
Apparently, John Boehner would like to have it both ways.
He is in favor of amnesty for telcoms, but sued for damages when he was taped illegally.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10458.html
When a federal judge ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and his attorneys more than $1 million in damages and legal fees for leaking an illegally taped phone call to the media, Boehner said he pursued the case because “no one — including members of Congress — is above the law.”
Why, then, is the Ohio Republican trying to squash similar lawsuits against telecommunications companies who cooperated with the government in warrantless electronic surveillance, ask the attorneys behind the class action suits.
“Mr. Boehner is trying to kick millions of Americans out of court in a wiretapping case while collecting more than $1 million in his own wiretapping case. It’s the height of hypocrisy and seems to indicate that members of Congress are entitled to their day in court but the average American is not,” said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the consumer rights nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
There's more. Read the whole story at the link at my sig.
-
Run the ads regardless
The ads should run regardless IMO. Listen to what you all are saying. Let him change his mind on this issue and that will be enough? What about other issues? Isn't this about who the guy is, rather than what his vote may be on this issue or any other? You all want to buy (coerce) him just like everyone else. You created a PAC for effin sake! You are just playing the game. The game is what gives us people like Carney in the first place. People who don't care about truth or right and wrong... only what it takes to get and maintain power.
You really want to affect change? You really want "better Democrats"? Run the ads regardless -- get rid of the guy and anyone else who has considered voting for telecom amnesty. Their waffling on an issue such as this (an issue that has only one legitimate "side") speaks to who they are and their willingness to be bought. If he capitulates to you it will just be further evidence of that fact.
* My use of the term "You" is not meant to represent GG alone. It is of the inclusive variety... for anyone and everyone associated with these ads.