RE: campaign finance issues
It would be interesting to rate all the Repubs and Dems on where their campaign funds are coming from.
See http://www.opensecrets.org/pol…..cycle=2008 for where Conrad’s money is coming from. Someone could do an analysis from opensecrets data for that kind of task.

BLessings to all,

One thing which I did not see addressed in Public Campaign’s list of strategies was a remedy for the congress/lobbyist revolving door. I think that two-year waiting period is still way too short. Maybe 10 or 15 years would be okay – let them earn an honest living for a while before they make a fortune on K Street.

I guess what it comes down to is, if it doesn’t look like a third-party candidate is able to get elected, then it’s hard to see what we gain by supporting them. Again, if we just want to scare or get rid of Blue Dogs, we can just stand by and watch them go down, or support a primary challenger.

thanks for engaging with me on this.

this electability crux we have here is another chicken & egg dilemma, like true Single Payer, where ‘pragmatists’ cannot fight for it because it is regarded as politically impossible, yet it will remain politically impossible as long as such a broad swathe of people who care about such things won’t fight for it.

I use ‘chicken & egg dilemma’ to refer to a real dilemma, without a clear right/wrong.

I’m just holding up my side, which, I guess, is don’t try to mutate the chicken, that (D) hen is ornery, mutate the egg.

I still have trouble envisioning very many scenarios where an independent candidate would do anything other than sabotage the election of a Blue Dog. Which I’m increasingly in favor of, but it could probably be accomplished just as well by simply sitting the race out, which is a lot cheaper and easier.

I believe FDL actually *did* host a Green candidate on Blue America once, so it is a possibility, but it has to be someone who looks like a strong enough candidate to win without any party backing at all, and those are few and far between (and that’s not a slight against independents – most Democrats & Republicans couldn’t win without any party backing either).

I guess what it comes down to is, if it doesn’t look like a third-party candidate is able to get elected, then it’s hard to see what we gain by supporting them. Again, if we just want to scare or get rid of Blue Dogs, we can just stand by and watch them go down, or support a primary challenger.

asking them to level the playing field would be like asking them to remove their throwing arm with something rusty, and toothy.

netroots is still a baby, very young – showed some skill in 2004, catalyzed authentically by Howard Dean. 2006, netroots power contributed to booting loathsome Lieberman.

2008, Obama dazzled everybody with shiny objects – winning AdAge’s Marketer of the Year campaign as well as the Presidency:

http://adage.com/moy2008/article?article_id=131810

my point is – and end run around the maginot line of corporate money/2 Party duopoly should not be ‘left off the table’ as the saying goes.

netroots strength has not really been tested yet, and it needs to release the apron strings that tether it to the Democratic Party before it can have any idea what it is capable of.

The best way to get third party candidates elected is to level the playing field for them. But I suspect that the Democrats would be a lot more progressive (or perhaps attract more progressive candidates) if they didn’t have to chase corporate money. They would have both the need and the ability to be more responsive to their constituents’ needs, which is what their job is supposed to be all about.

and, for those who pine for a Democratic party that does the right thing occasionally, a 3rd party to its left is just what the Dr. orders . . ..

why not dare to address running grassroots Independent or 3rd party candidates who are not beholden to corporate money?

serious health care reform = bad for the insurance cartel, but progressives will consider it. . .
serious reform and regulation of the financial sector = bad for Goldman Sachs & such, but progressives will consider it . . .
serious reform to slow CO2 buildup that could tip the climate over = bad for the oil industry but progressives will consider it….
serious opposition to Bush/Obama failed, missionless wars = bad for the MIC but progressives will consider it . . .

serious reform of the corrupt, broken two-party duopoly = bad for the Democratic Party so progressives will not consider it!!!

er, seriously, none of the other things will be addressed until you dare to address the futility of trying to get the corporate controlled Democratic Party to do the right thing . . . it is not in the Donkey’s nature, and it gets rewarded richly for doing the bidding of your opponents!