Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In the Battle for a Progressive Congress
At this point, many journalists are speculating about the number of congressional seats that Republicans will lose on Election Day. But a boost in the size of the Democratic majority might not count for much if a blue wave simply makes it possible for conservative and centrist "blue dogs" to end up doggie-paddling into the House.
Less than two weeks before Election Day, the scent of red blood is in the water. "A big wave for Obama might be too much of a burden for Republican congressional candidates to bear," the Rothenberg Political Report says, "at a time when they are already saddled with an unpopular Republican president and an unpopular Republican brand." On Nov. 4, dozens of GOP candidates are likely to lose contests for House seats deemed "safe" just months ago.
But moving a progressive agenda on Capitol Hill will require more than defeating Republicans. It will require electing strong progressives. And the most meaningful shifts will come with genuine progressive candidates who actually take seats away from right-wing Republicans.
That's why Bill Durston's campaign against a very conservative incumbent, the notably arrogant Rep. Dan Lungren, has symbolic and substantive potential for helping to change the direction of Congress.
In late winter, I visited Durston as he was launching his long-shot campaign to unseat Lungren in a far-flung congressional district that extends from the Sacramento area all the way to the Nevada border. The conventional wisdom was that Lungren couldn't be beat. So, Bill Durston had the Democratic primary all to himself.
Congressman Lungren -- whose latest rating from the League of Conservation Voters gives him a score of 0 percent -- went into this election year with a mainstream aura of invincibility. The national Democratic Party apparatus showed no tangible sign of interest in ousting him.
But after a long grassroots campaign against the odds, polling now says that Bill Durston is in a statistical dead heat with Rep. Lungren.
If Durston wins, he'll be one of the most progressive members of Congress. I'm sure of that -- not just because of his background but also because this year I talked with him a lot and watched him in action many times. It's fitting to say that Durston is a former Marine who fought in Vietnam and is now strongly anti-war; that he's an emergency-room physician who is adamantly in favor of single-payer healthcare for all; that he's a genuine progressive on every issue under the sun. All true enough. But I've also learned, firsthand, about his resolute integrity and determined humility -- qualities that no piece of campaign literature is quite able to convey.
It doesn't surprise me that even now, as far as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is concerned, Durston scarcely exists. While pouring large amounts of money into dozens of other congressional races, the DCCC has done nothing for his campaign. Durston is not a "moderate," and he doesn't trim his sails for prevailing winds.
Thanks to grassroots volunteers and groups like Take Back Red California, Democracy For America and Progressive Democrats of America, the hold that Lungren had on his seat is now so shaky that Politico recently included him in a list of several Republicans now "fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise."
A defeat of Lungren would be something of a political earthquake in Northern California. Similarly, a few hundred miles to the south, in Orange County, the luck of fellow right-wing incumbent zealot Rep. Dana Rohrabacher may be about to run out as he tries to fend off a strong grassroots challenge from progressive Democratic candidate Debbie Cook.
Understandably, this year the presidential campaign has largely overshadowed congressional races. But as a blue wave appears to be swelling across the country, it's a good sign that progressives are becoming more focused on what they can do to carry like-minded candidates into Congress.
- Posted in

56 Comments so far
Show AllNice article, Mr. Solomon. Unfortunately, it's about a year too late.
Also, I wonder if Solomon could be as enthusiastic about third-party progressives as he is about the few bright spots in the Democratic Party.
q
Well, it sounds like it was a pretty good strategy to me.
Yes, I wonder how much real 'change' a Democrat Congress & President will make...Will they cut the obese military budget? Will they enact serious campaign finace reform? Only when the Progressive Caucus of the House is the most powerful group in Congress will there be any real progressive change...
If we do get a Democratic Congress and President, we can keep the pressure on the congress to get things done. The flooding of e-mails and phone calls during the bail-out for Wall Street had an impact, even if it didn't have a chance of changing the bill's passage.
In the meantime, we continue to work for more Progressive representation.
"We can keep the pressure on the congress to get things done?"
I've heard that pabulum since 2000 and you see the state of things don't you?
Is that in the same category with "holding their feet to the fire?" That BULL SHIT?
That's supposedly what "we" have been doing since 2000 and you see where we are today.
Oh man, where do some people dream this stuff up from? I swear.
You see that the Bush-accomplice Dems have CONTINUED to enable Bush since 2000 despite all the e-mails, faxes, phone calls, visits, sit-ins, protests, you-name-it. THEY HAVE IGNORED IT ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE WHAT WE THINK. HAVEN'T YOU FIGURED THAT OUT YET? HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED TO SEE TO GRASP THAT?
As for the bail-out, the flood of e-mails and phone calls had no effect whatsoever on the Dems. They voted FOR it.
But have another sip of that Dem kool-aid. That is some intoxicating stuff. Side effects include but are not limited to:
1. Delusions
2. Illusions
3. False Hope
4. Denial
5. Grandiose wishful-thinking
Right on, bro.
"In the meantime, we continue to work for more Progressive representation."
Which you will vote for on corrupt, easily-hackable, riggable, voting-flipping (TO REPUG) electronic voting machines, right?
Good luck with that.
You should have written:
"In the meantime, "we" must continue to work to get rid of these damnable voting machines. Throw them in the garbage. Every one of them. Why? Because all the work we put in to getting more so-called "progressive" representation is a waste of our time when the voting system we will be voting on is corrupt and fraudulent and favors non-progressives. Until that #1 issue is addressed, "we" are wasting our time working for so-called "progressive" candidates. "We" have it ass-backwards as far as the priorities are concerned.
How can anyone not understand this?
hey, I said all that other stuff on another post yesterday. I said we need to get the two miserable parties totally out of the voting process for a starter. There's a lot that needs to be done to fix the whole voting mess.
I mailed my Oregon ballot already. And yes, I know, it's read by an electronic machine, but at least it isn't the touch screen. It's probably the same machines they've used since before the repugs brought their nasty machines in.
Impact? WHAT impact? They got the money, you nitwit. They GOT-THE-MO-NAY!
Progressive Congress is nothing more than a frame describing an oxymoron.
Yes, great strategic voting America, elect Democrats so the 99 percent of them can vote down the progressives like Bill Durston.
As Nader said in his interview with NBC this week, "I'm hoping for a Democratic landslide, so that the Democrats no longer have an excuse for whining about not being able to get anything pushed through." I know, not an exact quote, but close enough.
I’m tired of their excuses too. Unfortunately, you underestimate the Dems. Here is a list of potential replacement excuses (incomplete) why they can’t give the people what the people want: peace, jobs, healthcare civil rights etc:
No money left, gave it all to Halliburton, Goldman Sachs etc.
Must increase defense spending to protect the world against Rwandan WMD, or rogue nation Sweden.
Must lower wages to stay competitive with Ethiopia.
That’s just three off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more out there.
Add to the list the #1 excuse that the Dem kool-aid drinkers were chanting following the 2006 "election." I kept criticizing the Dems for serving as a Bush-accomplice and the Dem kool-aid drinkers kept trying to defend their Dems by saying,
"You have to give them tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime."
I kept hearing that nonsense for months on end. Haven't heard it lately though. I guess the damn fools woke up and realized that their Bush-accomplice Dems were not going to do all the wishful-thinking things against Bush that these gullible and naive Dem kool-aid drinkers thought they were going to do.
Should Walk on Water Obama be selected and allowed to reside in the White House, the Dem kool-aid drinkers will most assuredly resurrect the:
"You have to give him tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime" slogan once again. That's a guarantee.
If anyone has any interest, today's DemocracyNow! was very interesting. It was on the electronic voting machines. At least Amy Goodman doesn't live in Denial.
Yeah, me too. And I think its gonna happen. I can't WAIT to see what they do.
Well you must agree that if you elect more republicans 100% of them would vote down progressives like Bill Durston.
"if you elect more republicans"...
How do you know that Republicans are "elected," and not SELECTED by electronic voting machines which flip votes?
More W.Va. voters say machines are switching votes
In six cases, Democratic votes flipped to GOP
http://wvgazette.com/News/200810180251
It's amazing to me the number of people who write comments as if we have a sound, honest and legitimate voting system, when we DON'T, and that it's not even a passing concern.
One important fact must be pointed out.
In all of the anecdotal evidence since 2004 of voting machines switching votes, there is not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a vote for a republican being switched to a vote for a Democrat or the candidate of any other party.
q
Did not more of the Republicans vote against the 700 billion dollar give-away than democrats? Seems to me that progressives could have used that money on education spending, healthcare, environmental upgrades etc.
You may find allies in the Republican party. Unfortunately they are as ineffective in trying to do what the people want them to do as their Democrat friends. And, voila, we’re back to the only real alternative, which is to be part of a real “people’s” party that goes after votes, and not corporate cash.
Progressive Congress? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
You are exactly correct. It was Republican Conservatives that defeated the bailout the first time. Not the progressives in Congress.
So perhaps some here will take your meaning about finding allies in the Republican party. Maybe getting something accomplished is better that touting ideological purity.
"Did not more of the Republicans vote against the 700 billion dollar give-away than democrats?"
Indeed they did. The first time. The "Progressive" supporting Republicans (lol) had no problem passing the 700 billion bailout package when its was re-fried in pork fat. The truth is that the first bill wasn't bad enough for the newly "progressive" Republicans so they had to make it worse.
Touche, said the Musketeer!
Good one John Locke!
Here's a thought:
Let's elect a few more progressives to Congress.
Yet, these first few CD posters seem to feel that's a BAD idea.
What WON'T you shoot down?
Seems to me that having a few more decent voices in the halls of Congress might -oh, I don't know- save a few lives, make some really bad legislation a tiny bit better, help the states out with a little funding for health care, maybe even end the Iraq war a little sooner and stuff like that.
Meanwhile we can all continute to work for that U.S. socialist revolution- it's just around the corner. Right?
I guess I've reached a point (right before I give up on this county and move to Canada or Tahiti) that I'll work for what I can get as far as Congress goes.
Please explain to me how my first response constitutes a complaint abut electing progressives to Congress.
q
As I have said for years, the useless and worthless Dems could have every seat in the congress and NOTHING would change for the positive from the way it is today. Period.
A "progressive" congress? LOL. Dream on.
I notice that Dem kool-aid drinker Norman Solomon didn't say one word about the easily-hackable, riggable electronic machines which flips votes to Repugs. How on Earth does anyone expect to elect so-called "progressives" when the very voting system for doing so is corrupt and fraudulent? Duh. Yet most every so-called "professional" writer whose articles I read choose to ignore that factor. They choose to live in Denial that it's even a problem, as is the case with the majority of people. Yes, ignore the problem and deny that it exists. Denial is always a way of remedying things.
I'll believe it when I see it that the Dems have a landslide in congressional seats. Not that it will make one bit of difference if they do, as you said.
If we voted with paper/PEN and had all the votes counted in public view, the Dems might have a landslide due to D party-line programming and willfully-ignorant voters who haven't been paying the least bit of attention to what the Bush-accomplice Dems have done for the Bush regime since 2000.
But with these hackable voting machines all over the place (owned by Repugs and encouraged by the Dems) and with these voting machines ALREADY flipping votes to REPUGS, I wouldn't bet on any Dem landslide.
I'd more likely bet on McCain with a Repug congress with the pollsters and corporate networks asking "what happened?"
Well DUH, you pollsters in Denial didn't even consider the voting machines when you were spewing your polls. You were living under the illusion that we have fair, honest and legit elections and that's what your silly poll was based on.
That's why Zogby was wrong in 2004. Because he's also in Denial about these voting machines. He said Bush-accomplice Kerry was going to win. We see how that turned out.
Teh few bright spots in the Democratic Party are more often than not fully complacent with the overall corporatist/imperialist policies of the vast majority of Democrats. At the end of the day, they are party loyalists - those who are not, know that they have to leave in order to stay true to their principles (such as Cynthia McKinney). Those who stay, make a few noises here and there, and then shut up when told to (Kucinich).
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
I believe Obama will be a one-term President, who will fail big time (it's inevitable). His pledge of bipartisanship will be used effectively by the neo-cons to gut any meaningful progress & Obama's own despicable positions will do the rest. This is why I believe a vote for Obama & Democrats is truly a wasted vote. Take a look at my home state, the commonwealth of Massachusetts, to see what I mean, with our awful Governor Patrick & Democrats in control of our legislature - and YET nothing good is happening!! If ONLY we would work together and defeat Dems and Repubs, and create a progressive party for a progressive majority - not next year, but right NOW!!! Vote for Nader if you don't want to waste your vote! (or McKinney)
I've already voted for Nader/Gonzalez and Cindy Sheehan to replace that piece of garbage and Bush-accomplice Pelosi.
"If ONLY we would work together and defeat Dems and Repubs, and create a progressive party for a progressive majority - not next year, but right NOW!!!"
I suspect you know the answer to that as well as I do. To do what you suggest quickly: You'd have to sit all of these partisan Dem kool-aid drinkers in a psychologist's chair and have him/her work intensely at deprogramming that D party-line crap that was programmed in the person at an early age...around the same time the supreme being thing was indoctrinated into the person.
That's what it will take. Most people (who are not Repugs) can't possibly conceive of voting for a candidate who does not have a big D behind their name. Families even rally behind this shit. I have heard people say over and over, "My family is a good Democratic (or Repug) family and we will always vote Dem (or Repug) until the day we die" or "I always vote Dem and can't imagine doing otherwise."
That's what you're dealing with. That party-line programming. They always vote Dem even when their politician is really a Repug in many cases.
This is most frustrating, I know. But until people deprogramme themselves and see the phony Dems for who and what they really are, nothing is going to change because in most cases people don't want to see the reality. I can't begin to count the number of times I've rattled off politician's despicable voting records to the Dem kool-aid drinkers. They didn't want to hear it. Instead, they attacked ME for telling them the voting record/the truth. They prefer to make whiny, mealy-mouthed excuses and apologies for their politicians such as the one that has been going around lately, "Obama is not perfect" or "Obama may not be perfect." Oh lord, if I hear or read that one more time. UGH.
Dear Sam,
Thanks for your vote!
Bill Durston is a good guy and I support him over Lundgren, for sure,
but if we want a truly "progressive" Congress, then we start by kicking
the neo-con, corporatists out.
Starting with Nancy Pelosi.
www.CindyforCognress.org
xo
Cindy
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
You're welcome Cindy.
I'll just add to the chorus of laughter at the notion of a "progressive" Congress under the Dems. What evidence would lead anybody to believe in even the remote possibility of such a scenario?
Good news. Next, oust the conservative Dems in the DCCC.
How about clearing out the whole shabang. Every single one of these scum-of-the-Earth people, excluding Kucinich. He can stay.
Yeah, I'm sure Diebold will help us all out there to achieve that pipe-dream goal.
How about Lee, Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer and other good Dem progressives? Should we throw the progressive baby out with the bathwater conservatives?
Boxer is a good progressive? Just for starters: The woman voted for Bush's USA PATRIOT ACT which shreds the US Constitution. Despicable. If memory serves correctly, Boxer voted FOR the $850 BILLION bailout to Wall Street.
Barbara Lee said she opposed impeachment before the 2004 "election." She said she wanted the election to be the referendum on impeachment. So she wanted a fraudulent election to be the referendum on impeachment? Anyone with an ounce of a brain knew that 2004 was going to be stolen since 2000 was stolen and the voting system was the same, if not worse, with more electronic voting machines in place. It seems that the woman is also in Denial that our presidential elections have been stolen since 2000. Barbara Lee also voted FOR the Wall Street $850 BILLION bailout.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee votes to reward those predatory and subprime lenders who are creating such havoc in the lives of millions of Americans!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/10/03/18542771.php
Other people can comment on the others you mentioned.
Hey, the dem guys from Oregon are good too. At least Wyden is. He generally votes no on the things I'd vote no on. He voted no on the big bail-out for Wall Street fat cats. I haven't check the other guy's voting record, but he did speak out against the bail-out, and didn't vote for it.
Let's at least make sure we VOTE against the worst of the worst like Lungren, Jerry Lewis, Rohrabacher, Bilbray, Boehner, Blunt, McConnell and that nut case in MN Michele Bachmann
"It will require electing strong progressives."
The days when you could successfully pretend to be a progressive are about over. You openly support a right of center candidate who is about as far from progressive as it comes.
As for Congress, we gave them a majority so they could counter CheneyOilCo and their monkeypuppet. Just what did that bring us? Completed capitulation and gluttony at the trough?
Congress has the lowest approval ratings in history... 10%.
There is a reason for this.
If only we could blame Bush on the cowardly and treasonous Democrats who have consistently failed to live up to their oaths of office to serve the public.
The Democratic Party controlled Congress have only their political careers as a priority and serve their corporatist masters without question. They are a travesty and an unqualified disgrace... and 90% of the voters know it and are not afraid to say so.
The self-serving Pelosi and Reid and all the rest who have pushed America downhill, must go.
You progressive? ha! Thanks for the laugh, right-wing Democrat.
Right-on! Keep telling it like it is.
We need more progressive Dems in next primaries.
The electronic voting machine problem will still be the same "next primaries."
Also, for the so-called "progressive" Dems to be successful in their congressional career, they must follow the so-called Bush-accomplice "leadership" which is NOT progressive whatsoever. Otherwise, the so-called "progressive" politician will be minimized and ignored like a Kucinich.
There were some potential progressives if the 2006 race, but Obama-Pelosi-Emanuel-Reid-et. al. sabotaged their campaigns.
"But moving a progressive agenda on Capitol Hill will require more than defeating Republicans. It will require electing strong progressives."
This doesn't mean much coming from an Obama delegate.
"And the most meaningful shifts will come with genuine progressive candidates who actually take seats away from right-wing Republicans."
Because Soloman opposes supporting progressives who could "actually take seats away from right-wing" Democrats.
It doesn't surprise me that even now, as far as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is concerned, Durston scarcely exists.
-Didn't surprise me either. Are you surprised?
As long as AIPAC holds such sway over any candidate for President (and witnessing Barack Obama kiss the ring of AIPAC at its convention leaves no doubt who will hold the power and the purse stings in his presidency), the Bush Doctrine, AKA, the war to make the Mideast safe for Israel), will be alive and well.
The scurrilous leadership of the DCCC got a toady who doesn't even live in the district to run against truly progressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich in the primary, forcing Dennis to abandon the Presidential campaign he was waging to talk about the REAL issues in order to actively defend his usually safe seat. They then have the gall to expect truly progressive Democrats to financially support them and their corportist/Zionist masters. I suggest that everyone reading this who gets a call from the DCCC or the DSCC makes it perfectly clear to the solicitor calling them why they will only give to individual candidates and what we really think of their organizations and their tactics. It might start to give them a clue as to what the activist base expects a REAL Democrat to be. They disgust and sicken me.
We need to also challenge the rest of the complacent leadership, especially Zionist tool Steny Hoyer, who is fat and happy, getting over 80% of the vote for re-election every time. I've lived in his district for a lot of years, already voted absentee, and left the Congressional race blank, rather than vote for either him, a Republican or a Libertarian. The Greens need to have someone on the ballot in every district every time so we have an outlet for our displeasure.
"His campaign make me want to be a better person"
http://www.wilypython.net/Better%20Person%20.asp
Unabashed Nader supporter.
It is too late to teach a 17 year old what a 17 year old should know.
It will be too late to convince the American people to vote for a candidate that places the pubic trust ahead of corporate profit, if they don't know that already.
Seriously, Bill Clinton, Gore (and Lieberman), Kerry, and now Obama? That is who the democrats feel represents their views?
They don't represent my version of a leader with a vision. We are living in critical times socially (the wars), economically (bailout of Wall Street), and environmentally (Global warming plus so much more). Which one of these issues is Obama addressing? You tell me.
At least Nader is talking about these issues is a rational manner, offering solutions.
so it goes,
www.votenader.org