How Blue Dogs Kill Hope + CDP Endorsement Process

by: caligal

Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 14:44:03 PM PDT

Excerpt:

Since 1995, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have collectively given $6.3 million directly to members of the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions, according to an analysis by the Huffington Post of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not an overwhelming sum when the average winning campaign nowadays costs more than $1 million, but it represents one-sixth of all giving from one faction within the party to another. It doesn't include the millions that progressives have given to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- rank-and-file members are supposed to cough up $150,000 every two years (though many miss that mark), committee chairmen $250,000 and up. The DCCC turns around and funnels that money to conservative Democrats in close races. Add to that the millions spent by organized labor and outside groups such as MoveOn.org, and it's clear that progressive donors have become major financial benefactors of the conservative Democrats who battled to undermine their agenda. "That tension exists a lot," George Miller says about the party's demand that progressives fund their intramural rivals. "That tension exists a lot. And it's real."

The money flows almost entirely in one direction: The conservative coalitions have given progressives less than $600,000. While Blue Dogs and New Democrats have each given their fellow travelers $2.4 million in the past 15 years, members of the much larger progressive caucus have helped each other to the tune of just $1.3 million.

Progressives have received very little return on their investment when it comes to important votes. The 34 Democrats who voted against the health care reform bill in March have collectively received $2.1 million from progressive members. More than half of that sum came in the past five years.

The costofwar.com shows the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are rapidly approaching $1 Trillion. 

That number right there is the biggest drag on our progressive hopes. 

We won't get the real change we seek until we elect more progressives to Congress.

Re the CDP endorsement fight in between Jane Harman and Marcy Winograd:

California CD 36 (Harman) is deep blue. Democratic registration leads Republican by 18 percent. No Republican is going to win that seat. Why not support a Democrat who will stand strong for women, work toward improving healthcare AND support the rest of the CDP platform? Why should the California Democratic Party give its endorsement to a half-a-dem like Harman?

The CDP endorsement process is deliberately complex. It allows for second chances and political manuevering. The Party endorsement is a valuable commodity and deserves to require a series of trials to earn it. 

A question I have is this: I wonder if any electeds from the rest of the State handed some of their appointed slots to Harman for her local endorsement? I know my Assemblywoman up here in Berkeley gave some of her delegates to Karen Bass. I don't like that part of the process, but that's what we have. 

I think it's appropriate there's a path to to let the Convention as a whole make a final determination after all the inner manueverings for hotly contested races are done. It is indeed a statewide prize to be fought over. From past experience, I know delegates don't overrule local endorsement votes lightly.

I think it's a fair fight.