We need a Stupak amendment of our own

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15926/a-stupak-amendment-of-our-own

A Stupak amendment of our own
by: Chris Bowers
Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 17:00


Last night, 23 Democrats voted against providing 36 million Americans with health insurance while reducing the deficit, but in favor of the Stupak amendment to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women. Those 23 Democrats are:

Jason Altmire (PA-4); Bobby Bright (AL-2); John Barrow (GA-12); John Boccieri (OH-16); Dan Boren (OK-2); Ben Chandler (KY-6); Travis Childers (MS-1); Artur Davis (AL-7); Lincoln Davis (TN-4); Bart Gordon; Parker Griffith (AL-5); Tim Holden (PA-17); Jim Marshall (GA-8); Jim Matheson (UT-2); Mike McIntyre (NC-7); Charlie Melancon (LA-3); Collin Peterson (MN-7); Mike Ross (AR-4); Heath Shuler (NC-11); Ike Skelton (MO-4); John Tanner (TN-8); Gene Taylor (MS-4); Harry Teague (NM-2)

In 2008, more than $1 out of every $12 the DCCC spent on electing Democratic House members went to electing one of these Democrats. Based on expenditure reports compiled by Swing State Project, here are the details:

* Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against the stimulus, the budget, climate change legislation, and health care reform
Bright: $1,231,976.45
Griffith: $1,076,369.58
Total: $2,308,346.03, or $0.030 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.

* Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against the budget, climate change legislation, and health care reform
Childers: $296,766.97
Total: $2,605,113.00, or $0.034 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.

* Voted to restrict reproductive rights, but voted against health care reform
Boccieri: $2,461,828.65
Teague: $1,535,780.01
Total: $6,602,721.66, or $0.086 of every $1.00 the DCCC used on independent expenditures.

These Democratic members of Congress are a net drag on progressive efforts. Not only do they vote to pass regressive legislation, and not only to they vote against any meaningful progressive legislation, but they vacuum up Democratic money in the process.

It does not matter that these members of Congress are from supposedly conservative districts. What matters is that your money is being spent to elect these people to Congress.

If you donate to the DCCC, then your money is being spent to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women, and against health care reform. In 2010, an even larger percentage of DCCC money is likely to be spent defending the 23 Democrats who voted against health care reform, but who voted in favor of restricting reproductive rights for low-income women.

If Republicans held those seats, there would absolutely be no difference in the outcome of legislation in the House. However, at least more Democratic money would be spent on more progressive candidates. Giving to these candidates is worse than a waste of money--it actually has a net negative effect on progressivism.

It is time for progressives to pass a Stupak amendment of our own. We need to stop giving money to organizations that spend money on John Boccieri, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Parker Griffith, and Harry Teague. We are better off without spending a single dime on most, if not all, of these 23 Democrats.

[emulatorloo]

1. Good post. It will also be important to call Sens and Reps to get Stupak Amend out of final bill

Recommending

[Ineeda]

2. If you donate at all, give directly to candidates you support, not DCCC.

Or give to progressive activist organizations instead.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. And TELL DCCC exactly why you are not supporting them

I do. I told them I did not want to support any Blue Dog type Dems which the DCCC seemed to specialize in and would confine my support to the most progressive Dems I could find on an individual basis.

[Vinca]

3. Good post. Money talks when nothing else will get through.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Nice try, but it won't work

If the DCCC doesn't get money from individuals, the party muckety-mucks will find a way to fund it themselves, either by directly taking from their campaign chests (if legal), or by doing fundraising appearances for it, and obfuscating where the money is really going.

The DCCC has one function: maintain Democratic control of Congress. The individuals named above simply cannot raise enough money in districts that would just as soon go Rethug, so extra funds are funnelled in to make up the difference, and keep numerical majority in the House.

[babylonsister]

7. If the DCCC gets enough negative responses to their fund-raising efforts,

and people tell them why, maybe they'll support more progressive candidates. These people do NOT have our party's best interests at heart, nor do they even represent what most Dems stand for.

[customerserviceguy]

10. I disagree

Progressive candidates who are already officeholders usually get plenty of support from the districts that elected them, because in order for someone with high ADA ratings to even get elected, the district in question has to have high levels of progressive people.

The DCCC is in business to build, then maintain high numbers of Democratic officeholders for the purpose of establishing control of Congressional committees. They know perfectly well that there are districts where both GOP'ers and Blue Dogs have to straddle so many fences that they have tepid support from their respective bases. The RLC would love to have those districts back, no matter how "RINO" (rethuglican in name only) the congresscritter would be.

The GOP base stopped supporting it's moderates, that's how we got those districts back. If we do as they do, then look to hear Eric Cantor addressed as Mr. Speaker someday soon.

[mopinko]

6. this doesn't even count the thugs who won because the dccc meddled

in the primary process, and got some crap candidate on the ballot. peter roscum can thank the dccc for his seat.

the dccc can go back to mooching off rich people. we the people have seen how the game works, and we quit.

[sydluna]

8. I let the DCCC know today

I had pledged by phone a donation, then received the pledge form yesterday. Instead of a check I enclosed a note that said something like, I will not send another dime to the democratic party because they passed the stupak amendment. I said Fuck the party for stripping women, not men of their reproductive rights.

[babylonsister]

9. That's what we all need to do, and welcome to DU, sydluna!

:hi: