I've been puzzled lately as I watch netroots activists support old school, DLC type Democrats.
I thought the point of the netroots movement was to elect progressives. To “crash the gate” with new candidates. To bring fresh ideas into the Democratic Party.
I can't count the races I've seen already where there is some state senator or state rep who is now going to run for Congress with the urging and blessing of the DCCC and DNC and state Party's. And it seems our netroots activists are flocking to them. Even though these candidates are much closer to DLC Dems than they are to being Progressive Dems.
Look how disappointed we have all been over FISA, Iraq, etc. We want to know why the Dems never stand up. Well it is because we keep putting the same people — or people just like them — back into office.
I'm not advocating we start a bunch of challenges against Dem incumbents ala Lamont/Lieberman.
But in those seats where there are incumbent Republicans, why aren't there more netroots, grassroots, progressive candidates? Why aren't we out recruiting them? Supporting them?
And when there are those candidates, why are netroots, progressive activists supporting the old school Democrats?
If we really want change, then we have to change who is in office.
I liked the votevet initiative last time. Those guys weren't old school Democrats who had worked their way up the party structure and were just running for Congress because it is the next step on their resume.
It was an effective initiative. It matched candidates with their districts.
The electorate is ready for change. If we keep running the same old school Democrats who sound exactly like Republicans (except for maybe stem cells and abortion) then what is the point?
Loading ...