Hello Lisa,
Let me cut to the chase: If you want anything big to happen after January, you need to give President Barack Obama a big progressive majority. Period.
We need a more progressive Senate to fight for a better America. With your help, we can elect some more great progressives and take another jump forward to a government in DC that works for all of us.
In my lifetime, there's only been one moment of truly progressive legislating - and it came in the 1960's. We've had great Democratic Presidents before and after those years - so why didn't we have comparable burst of major, dramatic legislative progress?
It's no secret - it's because it takes a President with big majorities in the Congress. Especially in the Senate where the truth is it takes 60 votes to do anything controversial. And it will take more progressive Democrats to fix the result of years of Republican assaults on our fundamental freedoms, our environment, and our workers.
In June of 2006, Russ Feingold and I stood up and demanded we set a deadline to get our combat troops home from Iraq. Yesterday, on FISA Russ and I stood together with Chris Dodd and voted against rubberstamping George Bush's abuse of the Constitution and retroactive immunity for the big telecom companies. Both times, we got around a dozen Senators to stand with us.
He wants me to donate money to elect more "progessive candidates" to help Barack Obama when on that very vote he mentioned:
Russ and I stood together with Chris Dodd and voted against rubberstamping George Bush's abuse of the Constitution and retroactive immunity for the big telecom companies.
Where was Obama?
Not Present...
So let me cut to the chase, the focus should be on demonstrating that those that are elected that call themselves "Progressive" really are first...At this point in time? I'm not exactly impressed with what we have right now to want more of that.
3 comments:
The email also seems to pass by the years Democrats did hold a majority in Congress and even had a Democratic President - Bill Clinton.
Maybe some will fall for the OMG it's all the falut of those evil Republicans schtick...but for me? It's getting old. It's time to stop playing politics, take responsibility for what is not being done in our Country that needs to be done? And to actually do it.
The e-mail was to elect Democrats to Congress. Right now we don't have the 60 votes in the Senate to pass the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. I understand you are disappointed in Obama on FISA, but there are many, many issues for which I think you agree with him. Without a healthy majority in both the House and the Senate, it will be more difficult to get our agenda through.
Secondly, Bill Clinton only had a Democratic Congress through '94. Then came the Republican Revolution. So you are incorrect that we had the Dem majority in Congress during most of the Clinton years.
First, some numbers on how many years we've held the majority in just the Senate that I was going from when I made that brief comment, I could have mentioned Carter which would be a relevant example of why it takes more than 60...
87th Congress (1961-1963)
Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)
88th Congress (1963-1965)
Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (34 seats)
89th Congress (1965-1967)
Majority Party: Democrat (68 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (32 seats)
90th Congress (1967-1969)
Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)
91st Congress (1969-1971)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)
92nd Congress (1971-1973)
Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1
93rd Congress (1973-1975)
Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (42 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent
94th Congress (1975-1977)
Majority Party: Democrat (60 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent
95th Congress (1977-1979)
(President Carter)
Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
96th Congress (1979-1981)
Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
100th Congress (1987-1989)
Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
101st Congress (1989-1991)
Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
102nd Congress (1991-1993)
Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)
103rd Congress (1993-1995)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)
107th Congress (2001-2003)
Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)
110th Congress (2007-2009)
Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
In the House 12 years ago we had a majority there.
Secondly, even if we had 60 votes there would not be a timetable for withdrawl in Iraq, considering very few have demonstrated any political courage on a huge variety of topics beyond just FISA. (Think Jimmy Carter as to why I believe that, there is a huge division in the Democratic Party now as there was then.)
Third, if you want to be a leader, you lead by example. Not being present does not demonstrate leadership. I'm not "upset" over FISA, I am a bit disgusted that it was used as a reason to state we needed more progressives when the current progressives we have did not do their part.
Lastly, I stood here in Toledo in front of Howard Dean when he promised that the Democrats with a majority would accomplish things even under Bush as president. Using the excuse that we don't have 60 in the Senate as a reason does not explain quite a bit of what has happened since we've held the majority.
Post a Comment