You may have seen on Kos an announcement about the new group They Work for Us.  TWFU is going to run primary challenges and put pressure on lawmakers to better represent their districts.  TWFU is going to be much more powerful than groups like the Club for Growth on the right for a number of reasons.

It's People-Powered:  The Club for Growth is entirely money-driven, which means that they can put commercials and pay for GOTV in races, but they cannot deliver actual votes.  TWFU has a base of labor support and blogger support, and while it's not going to eschew money, it has a real base of voters that it can communicate with right off the bat.  In low turnout primaries, this can be very powerful.

It's Mainstream:  The Club for Growth is pushing fundamentally unpopular policies.  Perhaps at one time there was a strong anti-tax sentiment, when marginal tax rates were in the 70s, but that day has long passed.  The public has seen that the low tax scam from the right is just another way of screwing the middle class.  TWFU is part of a new progressive ecosystem that is pushing mainstream policies supported by large segments of the public.  Primary targets are going to choose themselves.

It's Faster:  Unlike the Club for Growth, TWFU has the blogosphere as a communications network built into its DNA.  The Club does a lot of blogging, but the netroots on the right haven't broken out yet.  On the left, we're seeing a rapid 50 state communications and organizing network emerge, which can put huge amounts of pressure on lawmakers without direct involvement of TWFU.  Just knowing it's there, and that bloggers have a seat at the table, is going to create huge progressive leverage.

It's Low-hanging Fruit:  I love trash-talking the Club as much as the next progressive, but the reality is that the Club already has a well-developed right-wing infrastructure on its side and has been effective within that infrastructure.  Aside from the blogs in 2004, though, there had been very little work done on the left to hold lawmakers to the standards they set for themselves.  With TWFU in the game, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit out there simply because no one's tried this on the progressive side before.

Ah, good times.

There's more...

Some say the feud between Nancy Pelosi and Ellen Tauscher has always existed. Some say that it that it is a Hatfield-McCoy stories that goes back generations in east coast politics. But one thing is clear, it erupted in the press during the summer of 2001:

The story nonetheless laid bare a dispute that belies the solidarity of Bay Area delegation, arguably the most liberal in the nation. Its origins are a matter of dispute. Some believe Tauscher sees Pelosi as competition. Some believe Pelosi feels betrayed after helping Tauscher first get elected in 1996.

The rift has isolated Tauscher to a certain degree from her California colleagues, who almost universally are behind Pelosi.

"I've searched my heart why Ellen Tauscher would not support Nancy Pelosi for whip," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a firm Pelosi backer who was appalled at Tauscher's assertions. "I cannot figure out in my wildest imagination as to why she is not excited at this history-making prospect. Her doing this says to me she is a very bitter person."

There's more...

Calitics is doing good work tracking Ellen Tauscher (including video).  She's a real problem for Democrats, and should face a serious challenge.  As I see groups like Third Way gaining more influence on Capitol Hill, it's becoming increasingly clear that the progressive movement is way behind in some critical infrastructure areas.  At the same time, we cannot stop putting pressure on people like Tauscher, who empowers Third Way style policy people.

By the way, the President of Third Way, Jonathan Cowan, was a strong advocate of privatizing Social Security, saying that "this entire discussion is really a discussion that's at the heart of whether there's a future for the Democratic Party." Now, I don't know if the Democrats are really going to work on Social Security 'fixes' with the White House, which would be incredibly stupid.  I've spoken with one high level business-friendly Democrat who really wants to modify the program in a bipartisan manner, seeing it as a matter of political bravery to do so.  

It's a really really awful idea, and it's terrible politics.  That said, I don't think it's completely off the table.  It's the kind of stupid trick that centrist Democrats will want to run in parallel with very hard core investigations of the President as proof that they aren't one of us hippies.  That's why pressure on people like Tauscher is really important.  

This started off as an open thread, but it's turned into a warning about Third Way and why primaries are critical.  

So to get back to the open threadiness spirit, who else should be primaried?  

There's more...

This is amazing. Charlie Gonzales proposed and 10 other Congressmen voted for an amendment to investigate search engines.

Update: The bill passed 42-12, but not before AT&T got off its final counterattack, just before passage around 7 p.m. In the empty room, right before final passage, Gonzales, from the home town of AT&T, San Antonio, offered an amendment to require the FCC to make a study "competition in the Internet world," particularly what he called "special arrangements" between Web sites and other companies. It would be similar, he said, to the type of tie-in arrangements that proponents of Net Neutrality said will exist with telephone companies favoring content. Such arrangements between Web sites and others, Gonzales says, would make it hard for a "garage-bases startup" to make a go of it. Citing an article from Southwest Airlines' magazine, he noted that Google gets revenue from ads tied to searches and that Yahoo is "fighting for deals."

Democrats were flabbergasted. Eshoo, who represents Silicon Valley, said she was "baffled by the amendment, because Gonzales, who earlier said he was opposed to regulating the Internet. This, she said, "is about regulating search engines." Markey said he was preparing an amendment to expand the study to include the top five telephone companies and top five cable operators, but didn't get to offer it. The Gonzales amendment was defeated 11-43, but Google, and Yahoo! and the others should be on notice. This isn't over. They are squarely in the gunsights.

This is hardball.  Well guess what?  We've got a possible primary challenger to one of the Verizon/AT&T five.  I'll have more soon.

There's more...

I've been asked for background, so here goes. This post refers to a vote on internet freedom (or 'net neutrality') that took place in a House Committee today. Right now your broadband ISP isn't really allowed to block legal web sites or services to their customers. A law that passed in a House Committee today lets them. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist. Pretty soon your broadband provider will be allowed to block Google, Vonage, or your favorite blog if a competitor pays them, if they develop a competing service, or if they just don't like you. This sort of undermines the whole internet thing, and I'm fighting against it. More info is at Savetheinternet.com. These five people I'm highlighting are the Democrats who voted against a free internet, and I'd like you to call them up and let them know that their vote against the Markey Amendment (that's what the amendment was called) is simply outrageous. They need to know people are mad.

Dear Verizon/ATT Five,

I know how much you enjoy getting campaign contributions from telecommunications interests, and I hope that you find yourself swimming in contributions.  I mean, you've earned it, since voting against freedom on the internet isn't going to get you many fans.  I'm also glad you're so accessible to your constituents, and I've taken the liberty to list the amount of money you received from cable and telephone interests, as well as your office's phone number.

1. Ed Towns (NY-10) received $22,000 from cable and telecom company interests.  I'm glad I can you reach you at (202) 225-5936.

2. Al Wynn (MD-04) received $19,100 from cable and telecom company interests.  I'm glad I can you reach you at (202) 225-8699.

3. Charlie Gonzales: (TX-20) received $16,500 from cable and telecom company interests.  I'm glad I can you reach you at (202) 225-3236.

4. Bobby Rush: (IL-01) received $21,000 from cable and telecom company interests.  I'm glad I can you reach you at (202) 225-4372.

5. Gene Green: (TX-29) received $12,000 from cable and telecom company interests.  I'm glad I can you reach you at (202) 225-1688 tel.
   

It's hard work to make hundreds of thousands of internet users really really mad.  But you persevered, and in all likelihood your reelection campaigns will be that much richer.  Congrats, guys, you made Santa's naughty list.  

Oh yeah, and incidentally Blogpac is making a list of people to primary and people to make nice with in 2008.  You know, the PAC for the internets, which is raising money here.  

love,

The Internets

PS.  And as an aside, we didn't include Eliot Engel (NY-17) and Bart Stupak (MI-01) on this list, because they changed their votes and decided to protect freedom on the internet.  The other Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Republican Heather Wilson of New Mexico, voted to protect the internet as well.  Thanks.  They can be thanked and should be thanked here.

There's more...