Progressive Block -- no Jan? No Mike? No Danny?

As a IL-09 resident (0.00 / 0)

I actually am very curious as to why a liberal stalwart like my congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, is not on that list. It seems like it should be a done deal for someone as so progressive.

Basic stuff: The common wealth should be used for the common good, not to enrich the well-connected few.  

---

by: Sandra_Verthein @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 19:46:34 PM CDT

or why Mike (0.00 / 0)

who states he supports a public option on his website, isn't on the list either.

---

by: maven @ Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 21:10:29 PM CDT

Disappointing (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I noticed the missing names, too. No Bobby Rush, either.

Wimping out with Pres. Onamby-Pamby.

Ill and Uninsured in Illinois

---

by: Ill and Uninsured in Illinois @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 00:26:01 AM CDT

Why did you waste $30, Sandra? (2.00 / 1)

While I am certainly glad to hear that you are doing well enough to throw those tenspots at the three Illinois Congressmen most likely not to even face a real GOP challenger in 2010, I must advance the argument that the money could have been sent to assist candidates that really need it.

Nearly all of the House Democrats here in Illinois (the possible exceptions being Bean, Foster and Halvorson) need only show up on November 2, 2010 with a pulse to whip the Republicans.  The question that should be raised is why Act Blue has chosen to misplace its financial priorities by including districts where a 10-year-old could easily manage the incumbent Democrat's campaign to victory.

---

by: Randall Sherman @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 09:16:08 AM CDT

what's your plan for influencing Dems (0.00 / 0)

to be better on this issue?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 09:43:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is how we keep good people in office (3.00 / 1)

and these people will still need to run again, that costs money.  It's not like they can sit back and just assume they will get re-elected.  Also, if Sandra (and now I) give a few bucks to these people to show them how much we appreciate them voting for the people, that's money they don't have to compromise there beliefs for to raise money.  

---

by: richwawronowicz @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 14:45:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm glad you have the money to spare. (0.00 / 0)

But unless you have enough resources to also make maximum contributions to every progressive that will be involved in a nailbiter with their Republican opponents next year, that money donated to candidates who will win re-election with 70-90% of the vote is not the most effective use of one's donation dollars.

---

by: Randall Sherman @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:55:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

again, WTF is your plan? (4.00 / 2)

Or do you have a personality issue that compels you to be obnoxious, even to people you are nominally trying to work with?

Are you this big a tool to the other people participating in your organization that endorses people?

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 16:28:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait a second . . . (0.00 / 0)

Any time Randall posts, Bob is there dinging him with looser ratings. For what it's worth Randall isn't always wrong. And in this case, while I don't particularly care for the hyperbole, he's got a point.

Personally, while I would like to know why Jan, Mike and Danny are holding out, I'm sure as hell not going to send them ten bucks to (a) find out, or (b) induce them to do their job when so many of us have been put out of ours and there's little to no risk they'll be put out of theirs.

---

by: Suzanne @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 22:41:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

while I didn't rate Randall's post (3.00 / 1)

I find his condescending attitude and finding fault with other members of the community offensive.

I've asked him to work on his attitude. He hasn't made any progress that I've noted.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:41:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with Carl (0.00 / 0)

while I wouldn't troll-rate Randall's post, he certainly manages a put-down of everyone else in everything he posts.

Plus, he fires off a "zinger" but doesn't respond to any critique, as if his original analysis is the limit to his thinking on it -- and it doesn't expand, change, or deepen with anyone else's thoughts.

In other words, its not really a dialogue: he drops off condescending monologues here and vanishes.  

---

by: maven @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:25:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We all have room for improvement on that count. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Suzanne @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:36:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

two things (4.00 / 1)

Why "waste" $10 on people who will have no GOP challenger?  

At this point it is not about the GOP.  Dems control the white house, both houses of congress, the Illinois governorship and both houses of our general assembly. Getting that accomplished was certainly a step forward, but we still can't get things done.  Why?  Because too many of those people with a "D" after their name won't support basic stuff like a public health care option or raising the state income tax rate. Letting Dems know that there is measurable (and monetary) support for things like the public option is one way to try to get them to support it. If after achieving a Democratic majority we still can't get them to vote for these things then there becomes little strategic value in adding to their numbers. The point of all this is to enact progressive legislation.  If we just want to tally up the number on each team regardless of what they did to affect people's lives we could watch sports instead.

Secondly, as a point of clarification, "Act Blue" is just a clearinghouse for contributions to Democratic candidates.  Anyone can start a contribution page there of any theme they wish, and can include candidates from local to federal levels.  Even Randall could start a page, if he wished, to raise money for Bean and Foster and Halverson if that is what he thinks would best help achieve whatever he wishes to achieve.  

Basic stuff: The common wealth should be used for the common good, not to enrich the well-connected few.  

---

by: Sandra_Verthein @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:12:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand (0.00 / 0)

I just don't believe any elected official is going to be moved by small amounts of money and those that are moved by large amounts of money are, as we well know, problematic. More than symbolic cash contributions, I think a robust, well-funded primary challenger would be far more communicative.

---

by: Suzanne @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:42:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I hope 3500 givers and a quarter million $ (0.00 / 0)

looks good to someone.

I know it's not Health Insurance money, but, probably more than 10% of enough to primary Baucus.

---

by: BobB @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 15:58:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Should Look Good... (0.00 / 0)

is the only morally sustainable position---that health care is a right, not a privilege, and what we're doing now is, besides being immoral and stupid, works against national self-interest. The return on our public health dollar is absurd and shrinking. Yet this debate is getting pounded into the sand by design and by many of the same entities that killed the Clinton plan. Big money rules. So yeah, I'm with Randall. As long as our elected officials allow big money to rule, I say keep your small money in your pockets. You're going to need it for your co-pay.  

---

by: Suzanne @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:56:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know I can't talk you out of your darker view... (0.00 / 0)

but, it's my view is that it's better to try, and fail, than not to try at all.  If you don't try, you're guaranteed to fail.

That's the end of the broadcast from 'FairyLand'.  I'm going to pet my Unicorn now.

:-)

---

by: BobB @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:44:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Darker? (0.00 / 0)

Hardly. Just different.  

---

by: Suzanne @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 19:22:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And now, the king of Big Money, Terry McAuliffe, (0.00 / 0)

thinks it's a good thing to raise money for supporters of a Public Option.

The more the merrier, IMHO.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

---

by: BobB @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:31:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a LOT of little dollars can do... (4.00 / 1)

You heard me right: the $347,000 and counting you've raised for signatories on behalf of the public option has absolutely dwarfed the money used to buy off the Blue Dogs--to tune of $5,341 per progressive member from you, versus $4,401 from the anti-reform industries per Blue Dog.  That's amazing.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

---

by: BobB @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 21:15:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if the insurance guys are contributing so little to Dems (0.00 / 0)

The the Blue Dogs should ignore them.

I'm sure there are promises being made about how the money will be released once the Blue Dogs deliver.

But technically that kind of deal is illegal.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:43:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More than most (0.00 / 0)

I think I'm pretty familiarized on what a lot of dollars can do. ;-) We should be clear about what we're doing when we promote contribution solutions--especially in situations like this one. The key phrase in that quote sums it up better than anything I've said, "the money used to buy off..."  

---

by: Suzanne @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:16:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Want to raise that expectation? (0.00 / 0)

ActBlue reports over 5,000 supporters raising over $300K as of this morning. The three from Illinois range between $3,000 and $3,500 so that's bound to make an impact.

I jumped in at the very start so I'm glad to see the success. When you scan the alphabetically arranged list, it looks like the first names are drawing the most, however, Rep Weiner has drawn nearly $8,000. Donors are thanking members for the stands they have taken.

---

by: Books Alive @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 08:30:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Weiner deserves (3.00 / 1)

all he gets, if only for introducing the bill to kill Medicare to force Republicans to live up to their beliefs and vote to kill it ... or not, and be labeled hypocrites.

---

by: maven @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 22:07:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]