Maddow: Dems are on the offensive in Ohio

Rachel Maddow has been talking about not just stopping the Conservatives from doing what they’re doing in the states, but “exacting a political cost” for their having done it in the first place. In other words, she’s talking about Democrats (real ones) going on offense and rolling back Conservative victories.

In this segment she first lays the Wisconsin groundwork, then discusses the latest Democratic offensive, this time in Ohio. Watch:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

As we noted, going on offense in Wisconsin means:

Goal Thermometer▪ Supporting JoAnn Kloppenberg in the April 5 state Supreme Court battle against pro-business David Prosser — very important, since the Court will likely decide (in Scalia-Thomas fashion) how legal the recent union-stripping measure is.

▪ Supporting all eight Republican recall efforts.

▪ Recalling Scott Walker at the earliest opportunity.

▪ Taking Wisconsin money out of Walker-loving M&I; Bank (Captain Sully’s co-pilot Jeff Skiles has reportedly done his part in this).

▪ Continue contributing to the Wisconsin Republican Recall effort (see link at right).

Now the offense in Ohio (3:45 in the clip). The Republican-dominated state legislature is considering a union-stripping measure. The Dems have said, if you do that, we’re going to put forward a state-wide referendum. And if history is any indicator (not to mention recent polls), you lose — big.

Maddow argues (starting at 5:40) that, in essence, Dems have two modes — support Money, or support “people who have to work for a living.” When they remember to do the latter, Dems win. That’s a pretty solid Progressive argument in my book, and why I generally like Maddow. She knows who the predator is, who’s the prey.

Don’t forget Claire McCaskill. As Maddow notes (6:25), Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill narrowly won in 2006 by supporting a number of progressive ballot measures. Since then, she’s been both an Obama surrogate and an anti-progressive in the Rahm Emanuel mold.

McCaskill is up for re-election in 2012, and the race is likely to be tough, despite her attempt to raise the alarm again about a new anti-minimum wage effort. This presents a problem for Progressives, since McCaskill has been good in elections, but bad in office.

So a serious question for Progressives (as opposed to Dems). Given the way McCaskill won last time (by riding a real progressive-issue wave), is it better for the Progressive movement to support an Evan Bayh-type Conservadem for the office? Or to run and support a more reliable (i.e., real) Progressive next time?

As I say, a serious question. Conservadem or Progressive; Conservadem or Progressive? It will get asked a lot, I think, as we near the next election.

GP


Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

© 2018 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS
CLOSE
CLOSE