I see heaps and heaps of comments to the effect of "Well, Dems in Congress haven't come through. They're not representing us. They don't have our backs, why should we get theirs? If they want to ignore us, this is what they get." et cetera, ad nauseam. Such comments are almost always offered up in explanation for why people are not enthused to do much more than grudgingly vote Dem, holding their noses all the while.
But the thing is incumbents given the boot for disappointing various constituencies don't suffer one whit. Sure, they sadface over lost franking privileges and what not, but you can take it to the bank that they suffer very little discomfort on the whole. Whereas the entire country suffers if the GOPstructionist caucus is strengthened. As unfair as that is to every living thing on the planet, it's grossly unfair to one demographic in particular:
The kick-ass people we have running this fall who have never served in Congress.
Since it always bears repeating, I will reiterate here again that as much as the current crop of Dems may falter, the only alternative is Republicans. The choice is obvious. But that is old hat and not at all the point of this diary.
You want to be mad at the sitting members of Congress for their asshattery and short-sighted self-absorption? Great! I'll be right there with you to give Lieberman his lumps. And I do hope Lincoln has shed at least one tear. But when I hear people here at dkos talking about how they won't GOTV because they're so disappointed in Dems' performance, I get mad. Because we have a TON of awesome candidates who are guilty of no such betrayal. Is there really, seriously, not one, single Dem candidate in any race throughout the country for whom you'd be enthused to volunteer?
Decry Dem Leadership as vichy turncoats if you wish. But why on earth should that stop you from working on the better half of the "more and better Dems" mantra? Or more to the point, how are long-term goals at all served by holding first-time candidates responsible for the failings of people who are already in Congress? Can we not rally enough around new Dem candidates to keep Republican misrule at bay?
Lee Fisher is running against Rob Portman in Ohio for U.S. Senate. Is he an exciting, inspiring candidate? Not exactly, but Portman was Bush's economics man; the choice should be obvious. This race is an open seat to replace Voinovich, who is retiring, i.e., there's no incumbent advantage in this one. The ROI on a little phonebanking is huge here. And Fisher has never held Federal office; he hasn't betrayed any of your hopes and visions. So, whaddaya say; got an hour or two or maybe a fiver to flip an R Senate seat to D?
We also have Elaine Marshall running for Senate in North Carolina against Richard "I'm going to block unemployment" Burr. How is the prospect of unseating him not absolutely thrilling? I find the notion of an all-woman Dem Senate contingent from North Carolina irresistibly motivational. Elaine also has never served in Congress and so does not deserve opprobrium; she deserves heaps of phone banking and LTEs and donations, etc.
So does Roxanne Conlin, who is running to take Chuck "pull the plug on Grandma" Grassley's seat. She diaries here a lot and has, like Fisher and Marshall, not cast a single vote in Congress. She, also like Fisher and Marshall, deserves nothing but gung-ho support and backing from us. While it's true that letters to the editor have to be local, you do not have to live in Iowa to phone bank for Roxanne or donate to her campaign.
And you can write a diary here on Daily Kos about any candidate you wish; as someone reminded in Morning Feature yesterday, enthusiasm is contagious. Please find a candidate that does inspire you -- surely there is at least one -- and convince the rest of us to go convince people. I picked these three candidates off the top of my head, because I've been paying attention to those races already; I'm sure I could find umpteen awesome candidates to include in this round-up of those who have not yet served in Congress, but then this diary would never actually get posted.
Just as we change the country one person at at time, e.g., neighbor-to-neighbor, we change Congress one candidate at a time. And here's something else we can take to the bank: not voting and/or depressing Dem voter turnout (i.e., not working to GOTV) does, indeed, send a message. It just doesn't send the right one. It's sort of like behavioral psychology and conditioning. The term gets thrown around a lot, but there is no such thing as "negative reinforcement." You either reward a behavior (positive reinforcement) or you punish it (aversion).
Riding the "throw the bums out" vibe regarding Dems is the "negative reinforcement" of the political sphere; there is no such effect. We can either reward awesome Dems with support or we can punish. Or can we even actually punish? So we throw the bums out and they shed a tear or two, but where does that leave us and our goals and visions? Just as you don't quit your current job without a new one lined up, ya don't go throwing out your bad dems without shoring up your numbers.
Not when the GOP is openly declaring, with glee, their full intention to impeach Obama for looking funny. Not when so very much really is at stake. You think Obama and the Dems have failed us? Just wait until the GOP gets more/back in power. But I digress; sorry...just can't help myself sometimes.
We have 55 days, folks. Fifty-five days in which to shore up Congressional support for Obama so that he can move more leftward. The Big Dog described the dynamic quite eloquently at NN a couple of years ago:
Here we are in a different world. It's not like the 1990s. You want to talk about DADT? I'll tell you exactly what happened: You couldn't deliver me any support in the Congress.
And they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military. And the media supported them; they raised all kind of devilment. And all most of you did was attack me instead of getting me some support in the Congress. Now that's the truth.
Secondly, you may have noticed that Presidents aren't dictators. They voted -- they were about to vote for the old policy by margins exceeding 80% in the House and exceeding 70% in the Senate. They put test votes out there to send me a message that they were going to reverse any attempt I made by Executive Order to force them to accept gays in the military.
Please resist the urge to view Clinton's comments in terms of casting blame and instead embrace their truth: that the President can only do so much; Obama needs support from Congress. And it's on us to give that to him.
So please, pretty please: for the next 55 days, rec all the candidate/action diaries you see. Find a candidate, even just one, about whom you can get a little excited. Help us help ourselves.
Peace