This has to be the best tactical news of the day for Republicans thinking about 2010: "Bloggers and Unions Join Forces to Push Democrats to Left" The lede:
WASHINGTON -- A group of liberal bloggers said it was teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn.org to form a political action committee that would seek to push the Democratic Party further to the left.Soliciting donations from their readers, the bloggers said they were planning to recruit liberal candidates to challenge more centrist Democrats currently in Congress.
The formation of the group is another step in the evolution of the blogosphere, which has proven effective at motivating party activists to give money and time to political campaigns, especially in local races.
But it also illuminates a deepening wrinkle for President Obama, whose attempt to build a broad governing coalition -- often by tempering some of his more liberal positions -- has already angered some of his supporters on the left.
The new organization is in many ways the liberal equivalent of the Club for Growth, a conservative group that has financed primary challenges against Republicans it deems insufficiently dedicated to tax cuts and small government.
Ironic they would mention the Club for Growth. That group has laudable goals and an impressive record of winning primary contests in recent years. The record of the candidates they have supported in competitive primaries actually winning and retaining seats in the general election has not been so spectacular.
Furthermore, such moves to the left run counter to the successful strategy implemented by Rahm Emmanuel and others of running candidates who fit the district (i.e., running conservative Democratic candidates in traditionally red districts).
The attacks against more moderate Democrats have already begun in the Northwest, as MoveOn.org goes after newly elected Democratic Representative Walt Minnick, a moderate Democrat in a very conservative district.
Not very smart, but you won't hear many Republicans complaining.
UPDATE: Kos adds to the merriment:
Leading progressives are putting congressional Democrats on notice that they will recruit and support primary challenges to vulnerable incumbents who become "more responsive to corporate America than to their constituents.""We don't want a repeat of 1994 and we don't want our own version of 2006," said Markos Moulitsas, publisher of the liberal DailyKos blog, invoking two recent elections in which the congressional party in power was voted out of office.
Question: will they encourage a run against Obama in 2012 if his aggressive agenda items (tax & spend budget, healthcare reform, etc.) tank and he holds to pragmatist positions (free trade, 50k or more troops in Iraq, "state secrets" and the like) that are viewed by Kos & Co. as too "corporatist"?
Posted by Eric Earling at February 26, 2009 02:07 PM | Email ThisObama is neither a moderate nor a centrist. He is governing from the left, not the center. I can understand the pressures leading some conservatives, in the period between November 4 and January 20 to succumb to the wishful thinking that Obama would "govern from the center."
Considering what he already is doing, that state of denial is less and less tenable.
Key to actually governing from the left is putting forward a false image of governing from the center.
Republicans and conservatives should not engage in wishful thinking.
If Obama, for example, deals with the economy before pushing card check or the fairness doctrine, that does not mean he 's "tempering" his views on card check or the fairness doctrine.
If the liberal elite media says Pelosi and/or Reid and/or leftist organizations are in any substantial conflict with Obama, we should not fall for that analysis. A kernel of truth is only a kernel.
The true impulses leading some Republicans to think we should compromise on principle, for example, comes from a misplaced acceptance of the Obama propaganda putting forth Obama as so popular that he is virtually invincible.
If, however, he was really so weak that he was being pushed around by Pelosi, Reid, and the leftist organizations, there would be no "strength" and "popularity" leading some Republicans to feel they have to tread gingerly and with deference when dealing with Obama.
Obama is governing from the left. His agenda is supported by the far left.
The Obama/far left agenda is a united approach which will lead to higher taxes, wasteful spending, hyper-inflation, increased unemployment, and prevention of economic growth.
The Obama/far left agenda is a united approach which will increased the size and reach of government, reduce liberty, interfere with free speech, weaken democracy, slash the military, and retreat in the face of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 26, 2009 02:23 PMHere is an article about this group I found in the Washington Post:
It sounds like it might be the same group mentioned in the NY Times article Eric linked to, but apparently that group calls themselves "Accountability Now"?
Posted by: Bill H on February 26, 2009 06:33 PMWhat will the conservatives do in response to this ? It is time to answer, lest we want to repeat the last two elections in 2010. People are living in a dumbed down culture and even in a failing economy, marching on the road to Socialism - it is not enough to take anything for granted. If nothing is done, the Republicans have indeed earned their reputation of being the "Stupid Party".
Posted by: KDS on February 26, 2009 06:34 PMThink about the megalomaniacal leaders and failed political movements of the past, almost all of them left leaning. Catastrophic overreach.
And Obama is right on schedule with the same overzealous ante. Do I hear $500 Billion? No, $1 Trillion. Not enough, do I hear $2 Trillion, $3 Trillion?
When the dust settles, Obama is going to own this failure like nothing has ever been owned.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2009 09:44 PMFirst of all the Contract WITH America (you don't even know what it was called--typical grade school tactic) was a huge success. How many House and Senate seats did the Republicans win in 1994 because of this?
Second, this had NOTHING to do with Gingrich resigning, but it DID have to do with him becoming Speaker of the House?
Third, CPAC apparently has the largest attendance ever this year, and who cares whether (I assume meant to say McCain and just misspelled his name) was there or not. What would be your point with that? Most conservatives did not want him as their nominee anyway!
Finally, what does any of this have to do with the topic of the post? I can see no relevance to anything in your post.
Posted by: Bill H on February 27, 2009 05:38 AMmmm no, they have one of their best. Try again...
"It was the Contract ON America."
mmm no--it was the Contract With America. Try again...
Posted by: Bill H on February 27, 2009 08:50 AMRead the whole thing here:
Washington Insider with Ronald Kessler
Posted by: Bill H on February 27, 2009 08:55 AM