Yes, I’ll acknowledge that some of this stuff is a matter of semantics and spin, but I definitely think Melber misses what is going on here, and I’ll explain.
As Melber notes…
While the group says it is too early to finalize its targets, Moulitsas told me he wants to unseat Al Wynn, a Maryland Democrat who has backed Republican legislation on bankruptcy, oil drilling, flag burning, Terri Schiavo and the estate tax, along with Representatives (Ellen) Tauscher and (Henry) Cuellar. Rosenthal argues that they do not have to win any races to be effective. "The primary is not the victory; the victory is getting Democrats to act like Democrats," he says.In case anyone thinks this is just some kind of a litmus test by the PAC to determine the ideological purity of its candidates, I should note that a lot more than that is involved here.
Regarding Henry Cuellar of Texas (pictured above receiving an overtly friendly greeting from Dubya before a State of the Union address), this post from Daily Kos blogger Septic Tank (love some of these “handles”) documents in nauseating detail the seamy financial relationships Cuellar has established with Repug-friendly interests in order to hold onto his office, Koch Industries in particular. As the post notes via Source Watch, Koch is…
...the second largest privately-held company in the United States (behind Cargill), with annual sales of more than $40 billion. Its owners, brothers Charles and David H. Koch, are leading contributors to the Koch Family Foundations, which supports a network of conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the libertarian Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, the Manhattan Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council. Koch was started in 1927 by Fred Koch, a charter member of the John Birch Society, with an oil delivery business in Texas. It quickly diversified into a number of other areas, but it amassed most of its fortune in the oil trading and refining.Next we have Ellen Tauscher of California, and, as Howie Klein of FDL notes here, she...
…supported legislation to scale back the estate tax, tighten bankruptcy rules and promote free-trade agreements. She served as vice chair of the pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, which many liberal activists dismiss as a quasi-Republican K Street front group. And she voted to authorize the Iraq war.And in particular, concerning Iraq…
Between October 10, 2002 and May 25, 2005, the House voted on 44 Iraq War bills. Tauscher's Iraq voting record is one of the worst of any Democrat's, and far from being in "lockstep" with Nancy Pelosi's, as Eilperin and Grunwald deceitfully attempt to convey. Starting on October 10, 2002 with Roll Call 454 on H.J. Res. 114, the final resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, Tauscher didn't vote with Nancy Pelosi and other progressive Democrats– and the majority of Democrats in the House; she voted with Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt and the worst reactionary, warmongering scum in the Congress to give Bush the authority to do what he's done in Iraq.Howie is great – totally a master of understatement.
And this brings us to Al Wynn who, as noted here by Kos blogger MTinMD, is a Democrat who votes with Republicans on key issues such as Iraq, energy, bankruptcy, the environment, personal privacy (though, strangely, he has a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America…go figure).
Wynn survived a valiant primary challenge from progressive Democrat Donna Edwards last year, a campaign in which workers for Wynn beat up an Edwards worker, and Wynn stated that the Edwards worker “got the worst of it” in response in a manner befitting a street thug much more than a member of the U.S. Congress.
This post isn’t meant to be a commercial for this new PAC, by the way, or Kos in particular, who needs no assistance from me also. I am merely trying to point out that when Democrats decide to take on one of their own, utilizing precious valuable campaign resources in the process, it is usually for a good reason (and as far as I’m concerned, Cuellar, Tauscher and Wynn are good reasons).
Finally, I have a question for Melber. In his post, he states that “None of the incumbents targeted by the blogosphere in the last cycle hail from vulnerable districts or red states.”
Cuellar is from Texas, is he not?
3 comments:
the point also to be made here is that many democrats, including much of the democratic leadership and power structure (e.g. mark penn, hillary's campaign guru), have allied themselves so tightly with the super-rich, behind-the-scenes power brokers (who don't give a shit which party holds office, as long as they call the shots), they have lost all touch with grassroots, netroots and all of us poor schmoes in general...
a friend commented on a post of mine the other day by asking if hillary becomes the democratic nominee, was i saying that i wouldn't vote for her... it's a good and fair question and deserved a good and fair answer... here's how i responded...
i honestly don't know... there's a lot of time and space between now and then but i will surely work to see that she ISN'T the nominee and that someone with an honest-to-god, full-tilt dedication to the common good is...
a democrat is not a democrat is not a democrat and i am not ready to violate my principles to vote for someone i think will very likely exploit the unconstitutional measures bush has put in place... at this point in my political evolution, i would have great reservations voting for her husband again either...
things have come to such a critical pass in this country, we simply can't afford to vote for cosmetic changes in the hopes that the substantive ones will somehow magically follow, but that's the way we've been going for many, many years... if all the dems can manage to do is put forth another dlc-blessed candidate, we're in deep shit... let me rephrase that - even DEEPER shit than we are already in...
apologies for the wordiness...
Yeah, how come you’re being verbose on my blog : -)…
I was asked a couple of times over the past week who I supported (by people who didn’t have much familiarity with this site, as it turned out, but they do now), and I said John Edwards without missing a beat, of course. I realize no politician is perfect, and all I can do is judge based on their policies and performance up to now. Obama cannot help but be interesting coming from nowhere as he has, and someone of his background and ability is sorely needed, though I’m not sure it is so sorely needed in the White House. And I have issues with Hillary, though she may be the most clever of everyone in the pack; I must admit that her recent call to end Congressional authorization for the war is a slick (if you will) attempt to get her off the hook for her vote to authorize it in the first place.
I’ll vote for the nominee of my party regardless and laugh at the Repugs who, in their irony, “hate the gay” through their words and actions, though they profess a sort of “man love” for Reagan that makes that stand just a tad hypocritical as far as I’m concerned (Bill Maher probably took note of that before I did).
I share your concerns, but it could take years and years to undo all the damage wrought by Bushco to our institutions of government, to say nothing of Iraq’s aftermath and the legitimate war on terrorism, and we have to carry on based on the imperfect choices we are given as far as I’m concerned.
The Democrat who deserves a primary challenge the most is Nancy Pelosi. She has blocked the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, even though the majority of the voters in her district voted for it on the ballot. She has stubbornly insisted on funding the illegal war in Iraq. She is pushing a trade deal which will cost American jobs and generate more poverty worldwide.
She always has been a big-money, DLC-style Democrat who pretends to be a liberal because of where her district is.
Democrats like her are good arguments for switching to the Green Party. If the Democrats don't clean their house, many of us will have to leave it.
Post a Comment