Stalinism Inside The DCCC-- Beware The Red To Blue Program

[Truth2Tell]

From: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/stalinism-inside-dccc-beware-red-to.html">Down With Tyranny
By Howie Klien

The DCCC's hopelessly corrupt and widely discredited http://www.actblue.com/page/redtoblue2008">Red to Blue Program, co-chaired by the ambitious and venal Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), who is working vigorously for the re-election of far right Republican fanatics in South Florida, has declared for 45 candidates so far in this cycle. Very few grassroots donors give to this project but it is a veritable stamp of approval for wealthy and institutional Democrats who don't pay much attention. Savvy activists learned long ago that the DCCC is entirely untrustworthy and that many of their hand-picked candidates are the mirror image of brainwashed or brain-dead Republican rubber stamps and that, in fact, way too many support Republican principles and values.

Typically, the DCCC advises Democratic candidates to disguise their stances on controversial issues that separate the two parties. With ABC News reporting today that the http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/story?id=5547899&page=1">lines are starting to blur between which party is pro-choice and which party is anti-choice, socially conservative candidates are meticulous in hiding their anti-choice and their homophobic manias from voters. There will always be one or two like http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-ask-your-forgiveness.html">Chris Carney (PA) who will actually lie about it when asked, but most just refuse to discuss it. Take a look at "courageous" Ohio Democrat John Boccieri http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-2WxquhZCE">tap dancing around these two issues.

Last year many of the Red to Blue candidates got into Congress and immediately started voting like Republicans-- but just on crucial issues like the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretaps, immigration reform, trade policies... If you don't pick and choose your own candidates and you instead just give blindly to DCCC Red to Blue candidates you will have donated to candidates who are social conservatives and who will oppose women's right to choice and not fight for equality for gay men and women (like, for example, current reactionary Democrats on this endorsement list Don Cravins, Paul Carmouche, Steve Driehaus, Bobby Bright, John Boccieri, and Kathy Dahlkemper, who are, essentially http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b&p=1">just like John McCain when it comes to social issues). Although they try keeping it on the down low, several on the Red to Blue list are pro-war and some are corporate-leaning shills. It's never about Democratic ideal, values, principles... it's always getting as many members willing to call themselves "Democrats," for whatever reason, into Congress. That's how Democrats wind up in the majority in the House and can't get anything accomplished.

There were 17 Democrats who voted more frequently with Republicans than with Democrats on the key substantive issues that divide the two parties. Of the 17, nine are freshmen. They are, from bad to worse, Don Cazayoux (LA), Zach Space (OH), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Travis Childers (MS), Chris Carney (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Jason Altmire (PA), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Joe Donnelly (IN), and-- with a ProgressivePunch score of 28.91 out of 100, Nick Lampson (TX). Further, 2006 Red to Blue candidates Tim Mahoney (FL) and Gabby Giffords (AZ) voted with Republicans as much as they voted with Democrats on these substantive matters. Last year if you donated to the DCCC's Red to Blue program, you helped elect people who are determined to keep the war in Iraq going, who voted to allow warrantless wiretaps, and who were willing to rubber stamp Bush trade policies that throw American workers out of their jobs... and who actually applaud Nancy Pelosi's decision to take impeachment off the table. In fact, they are a big part of the reason why Nancy Pelosi did take impeachment off the table.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/stalinism-inside-dccc-beware-red-to.html">Plenty more here.

[Truth2Tell]

1. More...

...The (sic) Chris Van Hollen first took over the chair of the DCCC from Stalinist Rahm Emanuel he promised-- in accord with democratic norms and Party rules-- to allow hotly contested primaries to play themselves out and not take sides the way Emanuel had done. Emanuel, you may recall, backed reactionary Establishment candidates in tough primaries against dozens of progressive and grassroots Democrats. In some cases his shills won and we wound up with pseudo-Democrats who vote with the GOP, like Tim Mahoney in Florida, or with a victorious Republican, like Vern Buchanan, who was able to beat a weak, vacillating me-too-Democratic who stood for nothing. In other cases the grassroots beat back Emanuel's anti-democratic strategy and that is why we now have progressives in Congress like John Hall (D-NY), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), and Jerry McNerney (D-CA). Van Hollen promised to not follow the Stalinist path Emanuel had lain out. But he has.

4 of the 5 endorsed candidates still contesting primaries are conservative, Establishment hacks fighting progressives. The DCCC's strategy of funneling money and the sense of inevitability into the candidacies of the conservatives makes it extremely difficult for the grassroots candidates to tap into traditional sources of Democratic funding. Even unions-- and not just notorious Democratic Party lap dogs like AFSCME-- often succumb to DCCC pressure to support candidates whose election is not in the best interest of progressive goals.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/stalinism-inside-dccc-beware-red-to.html">Linky

[dmr]

18. This is precisely why I donate directly to the candidates & not the party

Both parties have been hijacked by those who do not have their constituents best interests at heart. They can talk a good game, but that's about it. The proof is, as you've written above, in their voting record.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Ah, the "win at all costs" wing of the Party...

even if winning means signing that deal with the Devil. :eyes:

At some point the Dems and the GOP will be indistinguishable, and I will be looking for a new party. :(

[theboss]

6. What do you think the Democrats looked like in the 60s and 70s?

Do you think everyone was George McGovern?

[TheWraith]

3. Well, that's a good way to lose all your credibility right out of the gate.

Stalin is the new Hitler.

God forbid that formerly Republican districts would do things like, say, elect conservative Democrats. No, it's OBVIOUSLY the fault of the Red to Blue program. We need to end this, as well as excommunicating ANYONE who doesn't meet our 100% ideological purity test. :eyes:

[Truth2Tell]

7. Who said anything about excommunicating anyone?

You are a non-stop straw man factory.

Some of us are interested in supporting progressive candidates inside the Party. Some of us think the DCCC should stay out of primary fights, like Party rules and simple ethics would dictate (and like they falsely promised they would).

If you support conservative, pro-war, pro-Bush candidates that's fine. I don't want to excommunicate you. But I do want you to lose. Big difference.

[TheWraith]

8. That's rich. Calling people you disagree with Stalinists isn't a strawman argument?

You know who the Red to Blue program endorses? Candidates who can WIN. That includes endorsements in the primary process. Just because some dead-meat hangers-on are trying to win a nomination they have no chance of carrying through on in the general election does not mean that we should give up on those districts.

[Truth2Tell]

10. The DCCC are the ones using Party money

to marginalize and defeat progressives. I'm just writing about it.

"Stalinists" wasn't my term, it's Howie Klein's. I would've chosen something a tiny bit less provocative. But none of that changes the facts about what the DCCC is doing to guide the Party to the corporate right.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. The DCCC should absolutely stay out of primary elections

within the states. If they want to throw their money our way after the primaries are over, fine, but they should not be attempting to influence contested primaries. In 2006 Diane Benson, our duly-nominated Democratic candidate for House, was practically begging the DCCC for help and got nothing. Despite the lack of funds from the party she came closer to beating Don Young than anyone had since 1990. This year they've thrown all their support to her primary opponent who got into the race after Diane had already declared her candidacy. It's pretty obvious what's going on here -- the DCCC does not want Progressives in Congress.

[theboss]

4. God forbid we become a majority party again.

You know how we ended up with the New Deal and Medicare and Medicaid and the Great Society and every other program that actually makes us Democrats?

By having conservative Democrats give us a majority, which gives you control of committees, which gives you control of legislation.

We can be pure. And we can be a permanent minority as a result.

It's easier to compromise with members of your own party than it is the opposition.

[Truth2Tell]

9. The New Deal and Medicare and Medicaid and the Great Society

were all supported by enough Democrats to create a majority in favor of their passage.

If Congress had been comprised of Democrats who did not support those programs they would never have come to pass. This is the point you are missing.

We are electing "Democrats" who do not support the values of our Party or the programs the Party has pledged to advocate. The majority we are building will NOT advance the Party agenda. No achievement comparable to anything you list will result from the new "Democratic" majority, unlike the majorities of the past that you rightly praise.

Another point: Even if you agree with the DCCC pimping pro-war and pro-Bush candidates after promising to stop, it's still important for Democrats to be aware of what's happening. Nothing wrong with a little discussion.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. More from Howie Klein on Alaska's House primary

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/alaska-political-corruption-has-been.html


I don't know a whole lot about the Red to Blue program, but it's my opinion that the national Democrat PACs are supporting the wrong person in our House primary. This article gives excellent insight.

[Truth2Tell]

12. Thanks Blue! nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. Proud to be the fifth R

[Jim Lane]

14. Conservative districts versus contested ones

I agree with you that the DCCC should stay out of primaries.

In some districts, though, your excoriation of the conservative Democrat is really beside the point. Let's take the one identified as the worst on your list -- Nick Lampson. He's holding Tom DeLay's old seat. It's a very pro-Republican district. Lampson got in only because DeLay, under indictment, tried a maneuver to get off the ballot but couldn't, so Lampson was opposed by a Republican running as a write-in candidate.

So he has a ProgressivePunch score of 28.91. So what? His Republican opponent is a former staffer for Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, and has DeLay's backing. If he wins, imagine what his ProgressivePunch score will be.

It's better for us to have Lampson in than a DeLay clone. That means it's better for us to have Lampson voting conservatively on many issues so that he has a chance of holding the seat.

And, yes, the DCCC should definitely support Lampson's bid for re-election.

[Truth2Tell]

16. Fair point. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

It does depend on the district. The problem with the DCCC is that they've been pushing right-leaning primary candidates in many districts that could quite legitimately elect a real progressive. In fact, they seem to invariably support the more right-leaning candidate when they intervene. If they only sometimes supported centrists in cases where the district was very right-leaning, I could deal with that.

Better that they stay out altogether and let the primary chips fall where they may.

Incidentally, another bi-product of DCCC intervention in primary fights is increased discord and division within the Democratic caucus following election season. Resentments about who supported whom in primary season can poison the well when the time comes to work together on legislation. The behavior of the DCCC has bred, and continues to breed, discord between progressives and DLCers in the House.

[Enrique]

15. down with Stalinism!

we must root out and purge all DLCers and Blue Dogs! :irony:

[frog92969]

17. K&R For core party values!

Screw the republicrats!

[eridani]

19. Whenever I get calls from DCCC or DSCC--

--I tell them that I send money directly to individual candidates that support my values. Also organizations like ActBlue, PDA, DFA etc.

The DCCC narrative that is becoming all too typical--

1. A progressive candidate gets sick and tired of Repuke sociopathic representation and decides that if the party won't do anything about it, s/he will.
2. The progressive loses, but comes surprisingly close to unseating the Repuke.
3. DSCC acts like Starbucks or Tullys observing the success of a mom and pop coffee shop and moves in, often spending huge amounts in contested primaries to get rid of the progressive.
4. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes not, but usually don't have much better luck in the general election.

I flat out will not financially support that. It means a lot less money to spend against the Rs in general elections. I don't have any problem at all with socially conservative Dems running in socially conservative districts, and that is an entirely different matter.

[Truth2Tell]

20. Quite true.

The biggest false assumption of the DCCC program is that the so-called "centrist" message sells better than the progressive message. That has repeatedly been shown to be false, even in right-leaning districts. The DCCC continues to act as if universal health care or withdrawal from Iraq were fringe issues, when in fact they are issues that, these days, can propel a candidate to victory even in a red state.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. That is precisely what has happened in Alaska,

exactly that scenario. In 2006, Diane Benson, disgusted by the fact that Don Young did not take time to visit her wounded son at Walter Reed after both his legs were blown off in Iraq, went to the Alaska Democrats and inquired who they were planning to run against him. They told her they weren't going to run anybody since, in their estimation, he couldn't be beat. So she took it upon herself to conduct her own grassroots campaign, and, to everyone's surprise, gained over 40 percent of the vote, despite the fact that the national Democrats and the state party contributed almost nothing to her cause. All the party money went to Tony Knowles/Ethan Berkowitz who were running for the Governor's position, and they were soundly defeated by Sarah Palin.

This time around, Diane was the first to announce her candidacy, very early on, but immediately the DCCC and Rahm Emanuel got involved, and the next thing you know, Ethan Berkowitz is running for the House seat against her. As Diane put it in a recent interview (in language that Alaskans definitely understand) "People see that there's a wounded moose in their midst. I remind them it's like a pack of wolves circling the moose. It took the first wolf to strike to start bringing it down. The fact is, I'm the one who was out there when it didn't look possible. I frankly think that's the kind of representation people need." (I like the visual of Don Young as a wounded moose. :rofl: )




I can see the efficacy of the DCCC and DSCC supporting conservative Democrats when there are no other choices against the Republicans, but they should definitely stay out of primaries when a viable progressive is running against a status-quo Dem. They make their agenda all too clear when they do.