Perriello and the President

[davidswanson]

When Tom Perriello replaced Virgil Goode as our representative in the Fifth District of Virginia, I was glad to see an outspoken bigot thrown out of office. Heck, I'm glad to see almost anyone thrown out of office. When one quarter of the races being in play makes for an extraordinary election year, something's wrong with the system.

But what would Perriello do to represent us? When I spoke to him in person, on a few occasions, early in his tenure, his most common response was "That will be up to the president." From Day 1 Perriello planned to vote as the Democratic Party wished, and not step out of line. He meant this as pure pragmatism. He knew how the system worked, and he intended to work within it and to survive within it. He'd won by less than a percentage point, with over a million dollars coming from the Democratic Party late in the race. And he knew that the House leadership would pursue only legislation pre-approved by the president.

I repeatedly objected to the congressman that we didn't want an obedient servant to the White House, but rather someone who would represent us. The other night the President went on Jon Stewart's show to praise Perriello for voting against the interests of his own district. President Obama had in mind his health insurance reform bill, his cap-and-trade bill, and his stimulus bill. Or so we were supposed to believe. While I thought those bills were too weak and at least two of them worse than nothing, the Tea Party -- which seems to be the only constituency the President pays attention to -- opposed them for doing anything at all. But those were not the only votes that Perriello took in obedience to the White House.

On July 27, 2010, 115 congress members voted against a $33 billion escalation of the War on Afghanistan. Tom Perriello voted for it. He'd met with me and other opponents of that vote and refused to take a position. No media outlet has ever asked him about it.

On July 1, 2010, 100 congress members voted to fund only withdrawal from Afghanistan. Perriello voted against that amendment. Again, he has never been asked about this by a newspaper, television station, or blog.

On March 10, 2010, 65 congress members voted to end the War on Afghanistan. Perriello voted to keep it going. We don't know why.

In May 2009, 60 congress members voted against dumping another $97 billion into the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Perriello voted for it. Then, in June 2009, 202 congress members voted against that same war funding combined with a massive bailout for East European bankers. Perriello voted for both, even though both progressives AND the Tea Partiers in his district were opposed. The White House immediately rewarded him. Van Jones and Steny Hoyer came down and did events, just as the Secretary of Agriculture did this week. Remember when we protested Bush's use of our government officials for political campaigns? Who knew we were just faking, huh?

The Democratic Party has again flooded Perriello with funding, and the boss himself will be speaking in Charlottesville with his loyal follower this evening (teenage girls were already camped out at 9 a.m.).

Here's what happens when we dump all of our money into wars and the military, even if we refrain from making bigoted comments: 136 congress members have signed a letter promising not to cut Social Security. Perriello has not. Why not? Obama won't let him.

I get that the Republican campaigning against Perriello would be just as bad if not worse. I get that a Republican majority in the House would be worse, even if it might mean restoration of the power of subpoena and oversight (for all the wrong reasons). But we should drop the idea that we're voting for human beings or democratic representatives with a small 'd.' We're voting for parties, and the cogs in the party machines are not under our control.

[ralan]

1. Ungrateful

The Tea Party is the "only constituency President Obama pays attention to"? Really? I'm so sick of ungrateful whiners who stamp their feet and pout because they can't immediately get their way on every issue. In his first 18 months, President Obama has produced the most sweeping set of progressive change in the U.S. government since at least 1965 (and probably since 1933) in an absolutely toxic atmosphere where he's referred to regularly as a socialist dictator (among worse epithets). Yet he's not a pure enough liberal for you? And apparently he and Tom Perriello aren't even a "human beings." Do you have any idea how much you sound like a Tea Partier yourself?

[FSogol]

2. Do all of your posts bash Democratic candidates for not meeting your purity standards?

Perriello could take his pants off and dance thru the streets of Richmond and still be better than his opponent.

[beac]

3. You've already said that you won't be voting for Perriello, so why the piling on?

How you can POSSIBLY think that your pure ideals are more important than not handing the 5th back to the GOP is beyond me. Are you really THAT selfish?

[bigtree]

4. so your main objection is that he's inclined to support the president and his party

He could do much worse than support his president and his party.

I think its always amazing to 'hear' folks brush off the fact that the republican candidates (and their own party loyalty) are much worse. In our political system, we push for as much support as we can while working to advance the vehicle and platform (our Democratic membership and majority) from which to advance our ideals and initiatives into action or law.

At every step in that process we work as hard as we can to persuade as many folks as we can to organize behind our party and platform (or our positions). At general election time, we may well find that not all of our positions are represented, or that some of them are being ignored or countered by the nominee, but we are then challenged to keep pushing these legislators to bend to our ideals and initiatives as we keep our party membership in place to effect those things we want enacted. It makes no sense, as you know, to allow republicans to assume the majority and set the agenda in committee and on the voting floor.

Politics is a building process, more than it is a zero-sum enterprise. We can build on the advancement of Perriello. That's not a guarantee of success, but nothing really is guaranteed in our political system. We have to leverage our positions every step of the way, as you know well.

[davidswanson]

5. of course

he could be worse

but the model for progressives is becoming blind obedience to the White House, and constituents be damned -- and before the Bush LIE-bury has even opened

[davidswanson]

6. PS

I'm not the one running ads for Hurt on this website and register my vote against that FWIW

[bigtree]

7. it's hard

. . . for candidates and nominees to express fealty to positions which haven't yet garnered enough support in their state or region to advance them into office. If Perriello does advance, he'd be loath to disregard where the bulk of that support came from. Our (your) challenge is to continue to build support for the positions you believe he's neglected or opposed.

In all of that, it makes perfect sense to support a Periello candidacy at this point, because of the challenges our party faces in organizing a working majority from which to launch and advance whatever initiatives we intend to survive this election cycle.

[bertman]

8. What ever happened to the concept of elected representatives advancing their

own ideas about how our government should serve the people, bigtree? That is called leadership.

Following the lead of our Democratic party heads who are touting the same old tired-ass policies that benefit corporate American, military America, and Wall Street is like driving down a dead end road and expecting to find an on-ramp to a freeway to take you to your destination.

Leadership is what our elected representatives are supposed to supply for us. Standing up for a minority position that is the moral and correct position used to be considered courageous. Standing up for that position and EXPLAINING to the electorate how that position is THE best position used to be part of our democratic tradition. Now, if you're a Democrat, it's considered political suicide. Not because it's the wrong stance to take, but because it's not toeing the party line.

Perriello and most of the other Dems are being coerced by big money and the DLC to play the game. It doesn't make one damn bit of difference how many letters you or I write, how many emails we send, or how many phone calls we make, because OUR elected representatives are only listening to THEM--not us.

When was the last time you saw a Democratic Senator or Congressman stand up and make an impassioned speech to his/her constituents about an issue that was NOT considered an 'approved issue' by the DLC folks who call the shots in the Democratic party? The only ones I can think of are Grayson and Kucinich and we know how much support they get from the party leadership. Zilch. Let's face it. You either go down swinging or you stay in the good graces of the party by kowtowing to the corporate DLC.

For once, I would like to see a Democratic elected official stand up and say "IT IS WRONG to spend trillions of dollars on wars overseas while people in this country are starving, losing their homes, and unemployed, and we need to change that NOW!!" Or how about this one "Social Security is a COVENANT with the working people of this nation and I WILL NEVER vote to tamper with it for the sake of reducing a budget that is bloated by our unlawful military adventures overseas". That would be a Democrat I can proudly vote for instead of holding my nose and pulling the lever for the incumbent because he/she is 'at least better than a Republican'.

"In all of that, it makes perfect sense to support a Periello candidacy at this point, because of the challenges our party faces in organizing a working majority from which to launch and advance whatever initiatives we intend to survive this election cycle." Our President asked Americans to give him a 'working majority' in '08 and WE DID. Apparently the only way we will ever get Democrats to act like Democrats again is to have a 100% Democratic Congress and President. (Like that will ever happen.)

[bigtree]

9. it's as much our majority as it is theirs

As for leadership, I think the place where we are the most effective in seeking that is in the primary. After that, you have another long cycle of garnering support within and outside of Congress and, perhaps, promoting another candidate for the next election cycle to pressure our legislators into acting in our interests.

I'd like to see a great deal more from our candidates and legislators, but I'm realistic enough to recognize and accept the need to garner as much support as possible for our positions in time to influence the next election cycle. It doesn't make sense to just drop the ball and allow republicans to advance to the majority, just because we haven't gotten our nominees' and legislators' attention on issues personally important to us.