Reply #263: An example -- recruit Matt Gonzales to run against Pelosi

[pat_k]

The http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/usrepresentative_2008.pdf">filing deadline for a U.S. House candidate to get on the ballot for the Democratic Primary in California is March 7th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gonzalez">Matt Gonzales is already well-known in her district from the 2003 San Francisco Mayoral race, so the relatively short campaign would not pose a big problem. Given his strong performance (47.2% to Newsom's 52.8%) in the run-off election) he would pose significant threat to her, particularly given the depth and breadth of dissatisfaction with Pelosi within her district.

If Gonzales is not already a strong impeachment advocate, I suspect he could be brought around. Although he ran as a Green, I also think he would be open to running for the Democratic nomination.

Going after Speaker "off the table" Pelosi would be an effective means of telling the Democrats on the Hill "We're writing you off if you don't wake up and smell the coffee." The notion of recruiting Gonzales got a positive response when suggested to impeachment advocates in the area, but I don't know whether or not is being pursued.

I have no doubt that there are strong challengers to be found in every district and state, but we must abandon the shoe-string mentality that seems to dominate "insurgent" politics. We need to seek principled people who have already proven their viability, have name recognition, or deep pockets (or some combination of those attributes). For example, there are celebrities who would make great candidates. If he wanted (and it's not completely outside the realm of possibility) Springsteen could probably take almost any office in NJ. If she wanted to run in Connecticut, Cheryl Howard (Ron Howard's wife) would be a real threat to an incumbent.

Of course, your experience is shared by many, including myself. Your conclusions have merit. Over the decades, people have been pushed out of their own game. The "professionals" have been running the show and they are VERY protective of their turf. But that is breaking down, and breaking down fast. Contrary to beltway blather, it's not some "left v. right" divide within the Democratic Party. It's "insider v. outsider"; "weakness v. strength." The people who are getting engaged just don't fit the "left" or "progressive" or "moderate" or "conservative" boxes the establishment seeks to stick them in. The old guard's grip on the levers of power within the Party is being challenged, particularly as Independents and Republicans look to the Democratic Party for sanity.

Howard Dean's Presidential campaign was a compelling demonstration of people-power that kicked off a virtuous cycle of hope --> action. As Trippi put it to Dean:

The people are coming to this thing. And whatever we do, they take it and make it better. It's their campaign now. We're at a point where, if this is going to work, it's going to be because of them. All we have to do now is have faith in them. . .

People jumped in and were effective. As more and more outsiders -- insurgents -- demonstrate their effectiveness, others are being attracted. We all have basic need to be effective and an increasing number are finding ways to fulfill that need in the realm of politics. We also have a need for autonomy. As the politics of manipulation took over -- a politics where voters are treated like pawns, not independent actors -- many turned off and opted out. That's turning around and many are refusing to be manipulated. They are pushing the people they sent to the Hill to actually fight for what they want, not for the crumbs the "professionals" have decided they can get. There are many signs that the vicious cycle of alienation is becoming a virtuous cycle of engagement.

The effort to make impeachment a reality is so crucial because as we seek rescue our Constitution we are also declaring our own power and rejecting the lunatic "conventional wisdom" crafted by DC consultants, pundidiots, and the like. As I noted in my previous post, the fight itself, whether or not we "win", can yield big payoffs that can take us to future victories.

Perhaps I'm full of hot air, but I see people taking hold of the existing levers of power within the Democratic Party. I've concluded that continuing on that path is a far more effective way to move forward than to seek to create a parallel, competing Party infrastructure.

We do need to seek to break free of the two-party, winner-take-all system in which "lesser evil" candidates are offered up by a moribund establishment, but we cannot build on lies. We need to establish a foundation of truth and confront fact that we allowed the USA to become a War Criminal nation. Impeachment now is the most direct, and easiest way to deal with the truth as a nation. There are other ways (e.g., Impeachment in absentia by a future Congress).

Once we are back on solid ground, I think our best shot of escape from two-party politics is to make instant runoff voting a reality (starting with lobbying our State Democratic Parties to implement it in our primaries). As voters are exposed to it, they are likely to see the sense of running general elections in the same way. Instant run off voting would enable us to establish viable alternative Parties and run candidates who are committed solving our common problems in ways that reflect our values. Winners would know EXACTLY where their votes came from and what priorities those votes represent. (And the "professionals" are likely to be surprised at how far the electorate deviates from the profile and pigeon holes they've come up with.)

There are of course circumstances where it makes sense to run an independent. Gonzales running for Mayor as a Green made sense because the Republican had virtually no shot of winning in SF. Even within the current system an independent could mount a pseudo-instant-runoff campaign. For example, someone like Rocky Anderson could run in the Presidential election as an independent, but make the commitment to drop out and endorse the Democratic candidate if either he or the Democrat didn't achieve at least a 6 point margin over the Republican in key states by date X. (A margin that should put those key races outside the reach of Republican election thieves).