|
I just got back from the gym, and this was in my mailbox from a party activist. It rings true to me, as I know other candidates who were put in the exact same position. I was too late to hear the conversation.
Just putting it up here for discussion.
(start)
John I got this from MYDD. It's about the DCCC.
David Lutrin is on Firedoglake right now talking about his experience
running for Congress in Florida's 16th district. Lutrin didn't get the
nomination, that went to now freshman Congressman Tim Mahoney. Here's
Howie Klein on what happened:
Early on in the process- in mid-2005- Dave contacted Democratic Party
organizations throughout the district, as well as the state party and
the DCCC in Washington. Everyone was enthusiastic and encouraging. Glen
Rushing, the DCCC point person for the region, told Dave he was "just
the type of candidate we're looking for." He offered to introduce him to
Alabama Congressman Artur Davis, the DCCC-appointed mentor for
Democratic candidates in the region, who following their first phone
conversation offered to help him with his race. Rushing then promised to
get him in touch with Florida DCCC chief, Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz, Emanuel's lieutenant for the Southeast.
Then something happened, something very dark and secretive,
something people are just uncovering now. DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel
found out something that could- and did- change the dynamics of the race
in FL-16 dramatically. Emanuel became aware that Mark Foley- well-known
for years Inside-The-Beltway, albeit not among his church-going
constituents, as a very active (and very hypocritical) homosexual- was
molesting the underage male congressional pages, and that he had been
for many years. Did Emanuel call the police? Did he even call the
staffers who are charged by Congress with looking out for the welfare of
the pages? Doesn't look that way. What it does look like is that he
called a fast-and-loose Republican businessman he knew, someone, like
Emanuel, with elastic values and an even more elastic code of personal
ethics. He offered him a congressional seat and all he'd have to do was
switch party registration and become a Democrat. That man is freshman
Congressman Tim Mahoney.
Suddenly there was a new DCCC point person, John Vogel, and he had
no idea who Dave was. Rushing called and suggested Dave talk to someone
named... Tim Mahoney. Dave did. And Mahoney offered him an intricate
bribe to drop out of the race and run against Republican Bill Young in
FL-10 instead. Dave Lutrin never had a single conversation with Rahm
Emanuel. But Emanuel's paw prints are all over this operation. It's the
way he worked in district after district, everywhere in the country,
seeking to find business-friendly, quasi-Republicans who would
soft-peddle their opposition to the war in Iraq and never mention
"impeachment." Many of us have experienced first hand Emanuel's tactics
in CA-11, FL-13, and IL-06 to name a few. Scared of career-ending
retribution, virtually no Democrats have been willing to go on the
record about DCCC practices that are at variance with internal party rules.
I would add that in NC-08 the DCCC backed anti-choice and pro-war
veteran Tim Dunn (disliked by the grassroots) over eventual nominee
Larry Kissell, who narrowly lost in the general to Robin Hayes. I know
that Emanuel is kicking himself for that one, since he didn't put
resources into that race (one of his assistants at the DCCC, Ali Wade,
is reported in the latest issue of GQ to have said on a targeting
conference call that 'NC-08 is for suckers').
Democrats have traditionally recruited millionaires, conservatives
and/or former Republicans to run for the House and Senate. There are a
variety of reasons for this, all dressed up as 'we are just trying to
win and we're willing to overlook ideology to do it'. Of course, the
idea that conservatives, millionaires, and former Republicans are the
best candidates is itself ideological and not particularly pragmatic.
Anyway, there is no evil conspiracy in which someone gives the order to
undermine liberals in these races. It's just sort of understood that
progressives can't win and so should be pushed out of viable districts.
As a result, it's much harder to raise money and get to the magic
'viability' threshold if you are a grassroots progressive - politicians
badmouth you to donors, unions and PACs, and your lifeblood is cut
before you know it. It's part of the culture, sort of like people with
mid-Atlantic accents who think that they have no accent.
Within the political class there's this set of illiberal values wired
into our cultural norms, a kind of Broderism and Gergenism and Iraq
Study Groupism. This culture is changing within at least the Democratic
Party itself, declining rapidly from 2002-2006. I felt a very different
environment in Congress a few days ago, a genuine sense of mutual
respect. Staffers are no longer reflexively snotty and members are no
longer all skeptical. It's even gone Presidential - John Edwards is
overtly calling himself a progressive, and the press isn't going with
stories about that crazy John Edwards and his uppity wife. I would
trace this shift within the party to the netroots - we have been able to
explain the general public mainstream anger to the our party elites, and
they are beginning to listen.
Anyway, head over to FDL and chat with Lutrin. He's spilling the beans
Lee
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
