home

Take The Progressive Pledge

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:18:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Digby points to the part of the progressive blogosphere I want to be a part of:

[O]nline progressives are organizing around this concept:

Anyone with common sense will vote for Barack Obama and Democratic congressional candidates this November. But it's time for citizens to fight back and take this pledge -- will you join in signing it?

"In 2009 and beyond, I will be part of the movement that pushes Democrats to be bold progressives -- and that helps pass a bold progressive agenda into law."

Sign the pledge, and then follow through with it.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain = Bush = GOP | McCain's Health Plan to Cut Medicare, Medicaid >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Take The Progressive Pledge | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well that's well and good (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    but from what I read, this organization is just another bite at the apple for Stoller et. al to be big you know what in politics.

    Whatever (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    If Stoler makes money by pushing Dems to be bold progressives well good for him.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    BUT I don't have confidence, based on his track record, that he's going to be doing anything productive with this. Matt wants to be Eli Pariser, but I don't want another Eli Pariser.

    Parent
    Sounds a bit evangelical to me. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM EST


    Walk the sawdust trail. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Haven't you argued it's too late (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by rilkefan on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    to press after the election, or even post-primary?

    Well, "there's always another election" (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    is a double-edged sword.

    Parent
    When Obama signs it so will I (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST


    Seriously, the logical end (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    to this is to support a liberal primary challenger to Obama in 2012.  Is anyone signing htis pledge prepared to do that?  If not, it is just nonsense.

    Parent
    Ideological end.... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Oje on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:19:18 PM EST
    Excellent point. The same people that celebrate the DLC rhetoric of Obama are also throwing up Web sites about the need for bold progressives?!!?

    What is evident here is that the mantle of "bold progressives" is being used here as an ideological tool to mask the incredibly un-progressive compromises that the formerly A-list left blogosphere made with the DNC in the past year.

    Just words now folks.... h/t Somerby, these sites are just running the rubes!

    Parent

    That is sopmething I would welocme (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    But I support primarying everybody - including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    No one should get a pass.

    Parent
    It doesn't matter anymore (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    without counting the primary votes, not only at the time cast but even -- what a concept -- at the Dem convention.  

    Without that, it's all just a media show now, and the party is just its producer . . . and we the voters don't even get speaking parts.

    Parent

    LOL (2.00 / 0) (#10)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Feh. (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:25:20 PM EST
    Define "progressive".  It's a meaningless term used by everyone from Al From to Bill Ayers to describe their politics.  No one knows if it means ultra-liberalism, centrism, pro-business, anti-business, or what.

    It's not bad enough we have to register with a political party to have any voice in this country, now we have to sign a pledge to abide by someone else's platform and we don't even know what it is?

    You got that right. I don't agree at all (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    with some of the "progressive" BS I read at certain sites this year. I prefer liberal, anyway, and never describe myself as progressive.

    Parent
    I honestly don't see any way at this point (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    to push Dems to be more liberal, and vote for them at the same time. They have been rewarded for moving to the right for too long. Voting en masse for more liberal third party candidates would push Dems to the left, but few are prepared to do that.

    Is en masse signing of the pledge itself supposed to scare the candidates leftward? It won't if we keep voting for them.

    Parent

    I've asked this very same question since I found (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    this site.  What does it mean?  Particularly, when it seems we have a lot a fresh outta high school and just got to college folks (not that there's anything wrong w/that) who've attached their own meaning to the word.  Surely that's different from those of us who are in our late 30's/early 40's?  I would imagine our own definition is different from those who are older?  We need to get on the same page before there can any movement.  Otherwise, as you say, it's meaningless.

    Parent
    Oh, puhlease. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    Ayers isn't running for Pres.

    Parent
    Neither is Al From. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    My point is that everyone from the center to the far left uses the word "progressive" to define their politics.  It has nothing to do with running for office.

    This "pledge" asks us to sign our name to an incredibly vague platform.

    Parent

    From the same people who brought us (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    useless outrage over "betray us" and the bailout.

    Parent
    Your objection. . . (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    which is that the people floating this idea often act like jerks (although I don't think these folks supported the bailout) is valid, but different from mine.  I want to know, if I were to sign that pledge, exactly what program I'm promising to adhere to.

    Parent
    Well your objection is kinda ridiculous (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    I could say the same thing about being a member of the Democratic party.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has a written platform.  I may not agree with all of it, but at least I know what it is.

    This is more like asking people to sign a "goodness" pledge.  Well, okay.  Who wouldn't sign  that?  Who's against "progress", broadly defined?

    Parent

    You think the Democratic platform means (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    anything?

    I say look at the people who ask for your support, ask if they can advance the causes you believe in, and then decide whether or not to back them.

    Parent

    Progressive means what I say it means. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Manuel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:53:47 PM EST
    Nothing more and nothing less.

    Seriously though, it is not a meaningless term.  It is a relative term.  To judge it, you need multiple alternatives to compare.

    I may sign the pledge but I doubt its effectiveness because self identified liberal/progressives are still not a majority of the country and perhaps not even a majority of the Democratic party.  I also doubt the effectiveness because the time to hold feet to the fire is before the election.

    Parent

    define progressive? (none / 0) (#48)
    by wystler on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    better we understand common goals.

    hell, yeah. i want more better Dems.

    but until the midterm 2010 elections, and the subsequent post-census reapportionment, i'll settle for more Dems. period. especially at the state legislative level. that's what will define the makeup of the House for the next decade. and longer, if our side can accomplish.

    Gingrich's 1994 was a natural product of the 1991 reapportionment. only a broken promise (read my lips) managed to keep the Dems in charge for one additional cycle.

    as a strategy, pushing Dems to be more progressive sounds nice, and it should be adopted, but the short-term tactical consideration (imho) is more important.

    and, btw, where are these more better Dems that we want to send to washington going to turn up? building the party bench is the only rational approach. let's get/keep control of the state legislatures now, so that the next decade can actually see a successful push toward whatever it is that Digby and her pals want.

    Parent

    I'll fix FISA--later. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    Same re those homeowners/occupiers struggling with the "toxic" mortgages.

    I can't sign it (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    I have already committed my time to the movement to lecture other Democrats on how they're not doing enough.

    The movement to oppose bold progressive change on the grounds that the country isn't ready for bold progressive change and it will be 1994 all over again is also accepting applications, I'm told.

    Progressive to me means (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    Obama praises bipartisanship and plays nice with Republicans and moves to the right during the general election = good, go Obama.

    Harold Ford praises bipartisanship and plays nice with Republicans and moves to the right during the general election = you DLC sellout, I hope you lose.

    It's too broad - makes me suspicious (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    Commit to a specific, prioritized agenda, with UHC/medicare for all at th etop, and I'll support it.

    Looks to me (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    like it's just a way to harvest our names, addresses and e-mails to build a data base.  

    I don't need any more e-mails. I'll pass.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    there is no information on that site about who is behind this.  It says it is endorsed by bloggers but it doesn't say who will control that data base.  

    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Oje on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    Obviously, the left blogosphere has insider information on who runs this site, cuz it is not anywhere apparent on the home page or elsewhere:

    It is endorsed by BlogPAC and top progressive blogs OpenLeft, FireDogLake, and Digby.

    To get involved, the first step is to sign the Bold Progressives pledge. When you sign, you can write a message to top Democrats about what bold progressive leadership means to you -- BlogPAC will deliver your message to top staffers for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.

    Then, we'll take action together at key moments -- pushing Democrats to be bold progressives. Please join us by signing the pledge above.

    Look at the follow-up post... "Bold Progressives" is an internet handle, not a legitimate political group or movement. The site owners are running hard on these left blogosphere "endorsements."

    Seriously, are the people who follow those extraordinarily fallible, anti-Clinton sites (BlogPAC, OpenLeft, and FDL) willing to run to any old Web page to submit their name, email, and zip code.... Is it a test to see how gullible the New Left Followers are?


    And how humorous.... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Oje on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    There is actually a "Followers" list in the bottom right corner of the page. How amusing that the signers of this astroturf movement are willing to acknowledge their role!!!

    Parent
    So are they saying they'll support Kucinich next? (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by kempis on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST

    Kucinich is a progressive. Why didn't the Obama-bloggers support him if they're all about progressive principles?

    It's because he can't win.

    To win, one necessarily "waters down" one's purity. Neither Hillary nor Obama were pure progressives, and yet I bet many of those behind this Great Idea chose to support Obama and vilify Hillary--even though on something like health care and mortgage relief, Hillary was more progressive.

    So...no thank you. I don't trust these people. They speak with forked tongues. And, like Larry and others have said, no one seems to know what a progressive is these days--other than "the cooler guy."

    it's not that i don't trust 'em (none / 0) (#49)
    by wystler on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    it's that i doubt they have the muscle (yet?) to affect change at the most fundamental of levels: downticket politics.

    that's where the bench comes from. the winners there are going to remap congressional districts in 2011. there's this and the following midterm cycles to get that puzzle solved.

    frankly, i don't entirely trust the wisdom of a blogospheric collective to manage electoral success and overton window shifting on its (collective) own. it's not that they lie, nor do i believe them to be corrupted. rather, it's that they've an inflated (imho) opinion of their own ability to succeed by building an organization that can contend beyond the net merely by building a blog & email list. a lack of appreciation for the other necessities of polity is hardly a virtue.

    we're no better poised to win a confrontation with traditional media than we were in 2004. in 2006 and this year, the other side's the one with the TM problem, but they're a fickle bunch.

    Parent

    It is that I don't trust them. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:29:27 PM EST
    I don't trust them.
    Why should I?

    Parent
    it's a moot issue (none / 0) (#57)
    by wystler on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    one need not confront whether trust has been earned.

    Parent
    No thanks. I'm through with this kind of thing. (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:34:22 PM EST
    I used to think that the DNC would look out for my interests, especially considering all the money I gave them.  But they screwed me over in the primaries.  Lesson learned.  No more money to politicians and no membership in any organization in any way related to politics.  Thirty years of giving and I'm pretty confident I didn't receive any dividends.  

    "Better luck next year." (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    Signed,

    Yr New Dems

    I'd be a "centrist" (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    in Europe or Canada; here Im a soft-on-crime, America hating, unGodly, gun confiscating, closet socialist.

    Parent
    Closet socialist? (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Backassward (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    We're supposed to elect them, then pressure them to be progressive?

    Why don't they offer us a progressive agenda first so that we might know what we're voting for?

    i don't need to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:09:00 PM EST
    sign a pledge to know what i am. it's sort of like fox news declaring itself "fair and balanced"; if you have to say you are, you probably aren't.

    and, as others have noted, given the actions of the current democratic candidate, and the DLC/DNC, i certainly wouldn't describe them as "progressive".

    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Caro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:02:12 AM EST
    You have no leverage unless you refuse to vote for them. The entire so-called progressive blogosphere has already given up on that possibility.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

    Save your John Hancock... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    the Democrats are a lost cause.

    BTD, you describe yourself as (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    "centrist" but you push for liberal causes and fighting Dems. Are you just centrist when it comes to trade issues?

    I think it's about (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    defining the terms of the discussion. We should all think of ourselves as centrists.

    Parent
    You'll be a fine pol someday. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST


    Parent
    heh, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    thanks. . .I guess.

    Parent
    Or pollster. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:36:32 PM EST


    Parent
    oy (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Just be sure and make your cross tabs (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    available, please.

    The Dow is down almost 800 now!

    Parent

    I know. . . (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST


    Parent
    It really is a choice for Americans. (none / 0) (#35)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:56:43 PM EST
    The two parties reperesent a choice in how government fosters the distribution of wealth.  

    Ohhhh... (none / 0) (#56)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:49:49 AM EST
    BlogPAC will deliver your message to top staffers for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.

    Will it be a strongly worded letter?

    They like those, I hear.

    Take The Progressive Pledge | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment