Nothing Will Happen Without More Progressive Senators- sayeth John Kerry

[LittleClarkie]

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.

But in 2006, you spoke up during the election, helped us elect more progressive Democrats who agreed with us, and by the beginning of 2007, the Democratic caucus was united around a deadline for Iraq.

You'll watch that happen again and again after January if we elect more progressive Democrats who can help change Washington. As you know, I didn't get good grades in math, but I know how to count: we need more progressive Democrats and fewer Republicans.

Follow this link to help us get more progressive Democrats that will get us to 60 seats in the Senate and clear the Roadblock Republicans once and for all:

http://www.actblue.com/page/progressivesenate

Sounds like a plan.

Y'all in?

[anonymous171]

1. I'm in. K&R

[yardwork]

2. Absolutely!

The more Democrats the better. Then we can move on to electing better Democrats.

[That Is Quite Enough]

3. We definitely need more aggressive progressives in both houses of Congress.

[blues90]

4. yes , I got the email too.

Problem is it seems many of the dems have helped destroy this country and the 4th ammendment and don't give a damn about you or me. So just who are they going to put in there that can be trusted?

After 2006 I saw just how fake this entire thing is and spending millions upon millions in the primaries for the big win .

[YvonneCa]

15. Well, blues90, John Kerry isn't...

...one of them. He's fighting hard to get the progressives into power. I'm helping him out...how about you? :)

[blues90]

23. I am still batteling with the term progressive

Before 2004 I must have sent Kerry over a hundred emails , there was always a response box to fill in back then.

I felt he was going the wrong way with his campaign , he was follwing bushs lead with the talk of hunting down and killing the terrorists , this was bush talk and not what I wanted to hear from Kerry.

Kerry was a hold my nose attempt and I still cannot get past his telling the people he would count every vote and I as many counted on this and hoped we would not have bush steal yet another election.

Now you might call this bitter but I do not. I think about what might have been if bush was not allowed a second term and this blows my mind.

How can we just move on and get past this occupation and all the needless deaths including what happened with Katrina.

Who speaks for those people?

All I ever got back was place to donate money , never an answer which I did expect more than nothing.

There appears to be two sides of Kerry , the one of hope and help and the one he holds as his own .

I am a person who stands by his word even if it costs me. It's not about the money . it's about principle and a conscience. If we don't have that then what do we have?

I doubt anyone in DC is listening to the people at all .

I reminds me now of the two dems tearing eachother to pieces and now there is the unity , the moving on , the change and the entire package deal. To me it makes it very difficult to see any politician as human and the people as more than blind hypocrites .

It's a difficult pill for me to swallow.

It's not that I don't understand it all , I do , but I don't agree with it. I have to be honest.

[lyonn]

5. Yup, and a change the leadership of the House and Senate. nt

[mtnsnake]

6. Sayeth mtnsnake: Give Representative Nancy Pelosi the boot

She was supposed to be such a Progressive, and look what happened. She jumped right into bed with Bush after we won the 2006 elections.

As far as what Kerry sayeth, we already know that, but it's nice to hear just the same.

We need to have more Progressives get in, but we need them to stay progressive once they're in there.

[rhett o rick]

12. How do you propose to do that. It sounds good and I do agree, but we can't. Plain and simple.

Unless we change our system, we can't replace an incumbent Democrat.

It sounds so cool to say "let's get tough and vote the bastards out". That is so much hollow rhetoric. No offense to anyone but face it. We are so screwed. Incumbents are golden and they are totally beholden to lobbyists.

And don't give me the Lieberman example. Think about it. With all Lamont's money and the people wanting to kick Lieberman out, they failed. The Democratic machine will always favor the incumbent as will all the money.

Flail all you want, just wake me when the revolution begins.

[LittleClarkie]

18. You'll be sleeping a long time then

If you want a revolution, but plan to nap until there is one, how do you expect that revolution will get started. Spontaneous combustion?

[rhett o rick]

26. I was being flip. I will continue to work hard. And I am not holding my breath

waiting for the masses to wise up.

someone once said: "In the land of gullible chuckleheads, a democracy may be the most dangerous thing to have."

[sandnsea]

7. Most progressive President we could have hoped for

Too bad the left didn't get it at the time. Anyway, we have an opportunity to make some great changes with Merkley in OR, Franken in MN, and more. Let's not let the disappointments that we're bound to face get in the way of long term change.

[YvonneCa]

16. Absolutely...

sandnsea. ABSOLUTELY.

[MBS]

25. oh, you're SO right , sandnsea. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

31. Right on

I'm still disappointed he didn't win.

[crankychatter]

8. dead on accurate - we have a Senate bottleneck now... NT

[TheDonkey]

9. coattails! That is why Obama's 50-state strat will help. I just hope the money can still come in

this primary was so expensive I understand how donors are now having fatigue.

[jgraz]

10. 2008, the "No Excuses" election

Once Obama lands with a huge mandate and overwhelming majorities in both houses, the Democrats will have no choice but to actually start governing. If they still whine about the big bad Republican Meanies, I'm fucking done with this party.

[rhett o rick]

11. I completely agree. However. How do you replace an incumbent Senator.

I say it is impossible. And Lieberman is the exception that proves the rule.

I agree with Sen Kerry but think it is close to hopeless. I will continue to work toward that goal.

[YvonneCa]

17. Not to us 'hopemongers'...

...it isn't. :7

[rhett o rick]

24. I appreciate your hope. But we need to do more than hope. We need a strategy. nm

[YvonneCa]

29. Believe me when I say...

...we Democrats DO have a strategy. Have you been to this site?

http://www.roadblockrepublicans.com/

Check it out! :7

[rhett o rick]

30. This is a tactic and looks good. I assume the strategy is to replace republicants

with PROGRESSIVE Democrats??? This would be a good strategy. What can we do about the road block Democrats???

[YvonneCa]

34. JMHO, but I think we start with the OTHER party...

...(this being DEMOCRATIC Underground and all :7 ). Then, when we have a REAL majority in Congress...which we don't now... those Dems that obstruct may change their tune. ;)

[rhett o rick]

35. I don't disagree. But it is so very important that we elect PROGRESSIVE Democrats to counter the

damn DINO's.

[YvonneCa]

37. We are in agreement...

...on that. :)

[Coexist]

13. can we please! replace my two Senators??

pretty please?

[YvonneCa]

14. You bet...

...I'm in. I want a repeat...only even better...of 2006. :7

[The River]

19. I'm Sure Obama

will make this a part of his stump speech
and campaign after the convention. We need a super majority
large enough to allow us to boot Lieberman out.
Whatever obstructionist Republicans (or DINO's) remain can easily
persuaded when the call goes out from the
"Community Organizer In Chief"
to write, fax, call or visit that Sen/Rep to
remind them who they represent.

[harun]

20. I think the Senate may need to change the rules, what the Repubs

were referring to as the Nuclear Option. We can't let (what will likely be) 43 freeper Senators to stop all progress in this country with a Dem President, Dem House and Dem Senate.

[LittleClarkie]

21. I have a problem with that. The nuke option was bullshit when they threatened to use it

and that shouldn't change just because the two parties have switched places. The minority has rights.

What we need is a filibuster proof majority.

[harun]

28. Well it will be interesting next year in Congress. Of the top ten legislative

items I would like to see passed I bet 0 of the 10 get passed. Dem's will say, well we don't have a big enough majority... *sigh* sorry. Kerry is already laying the ground work for that excuse.

If the minority was trying to actually get things passed that they wanted and would make deals with Dem's where they would say ok, we will work with you on Health Care if you work with us on a flat tax. (Just as an example I don't even know what the Repukes want anymore besides no regulation, more wars and no taxes). Then I could go along with it and live with the ground we give them on some issue to make up ground on ones that matter to us.

[styersc]

22. Unfortunately the top of the ticket turns his back on progressives.

Hopefully we will be able to elect progressive with grass roots efforts despite the efforts of the Presidential influence.

[rhett o rick]

27. Once again, you can't replace Democratic incumbents. nm

[NorthCarolina]

33. Well actually you can replace incumbents, but the time to do that is in the primaries

if your Democratic "incumbent" is a conservative DLC'er or Blue Dog, then the time to vote them out is in the primaries by casting your vote for the "progressive" Democratic challenger, if there is one.

[rhett o rick]

36. Listen to me very carefully. I have said this a hundred times in here. You can not ever ever

replace a Democratic incumbent in the primary's. It is not possible. Let me repeat. It is not possible under current methods.

It sounds soooo good when we say it but in reality (sorry about bringing in reality) YOU CAN NOT REPLACE AN INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT.

Let's take Nancy Pelosi for example. If you can find a Democratic candidate that is willing to buck the Democratic Party, which means putting their political life on the line, and challenge Nancy, they will get neither the state nor the national Democratic Party support. Nor will they get any big money contributions. It has never happened and will never happen. Lieberman is the exception and even he got the last laugh.

[Cha]

32. Of course, it's a plan and

it can be done.