Tweet
I’m just going to put this bluntly: It didn’t matter who won the special congressional election in upstate New York yesterday because, no matter who won, the result was sure to be a victory for conservatives.
Let’s do what the Republican in the race, Dede Scozzafava, did when she dropped out and endorsed not the painfully uninformed Republican-turned-Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, but rather the so-called Democrat, Bill Owens.
Following Scozzafava’s example, let’s set aside the party labels and look at what was behind the curtain.
Among others, Jimmy Vielkind, whose “Meet Bill Owens, a DCCC-Approved Non-Democrat for the House” appeared in the New York Observer on August 11, 2009, deserves kudos for shining light on Bill Owens and for calling out the DCCC. According to Vielkind, Owens wasn’t a registered Democrat as of August 11, 2009. That’s not a crime, but already in early August, Owens wanted voters to look at his smile and not worry too much about his positions on issues:
My beliefs and principles are essentially Democratic beliefs and principles, and what label you want to slide on me I don’t think is necessarily appropriate.
Really, his beliefs and principles are essentially Democratic beliefs and principles? He says it with a smile (I’m sure), but is it so?
As he revealed to Vielkind, Owens
does not support a public option available to anyone
The f*cking Democratic Party has done it again.
In the wake of Obama’s 2008 victory over McCain (52%-47%) in that district (thanks owed to Jim White for the reference), the DCCC saw fit to search all corners to find the most conservative candidate they could to run in this special congressional election and slapped a “Democrat” label on him.
In the party’s ranks are the likes of Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14), a friend of PhRMA who wants everyone to look at her smile and not bother themselves too much with looking at what she’s doing and who thinks she can play the victim while attacking Jane Hamsher for uncovering what she is really doing in regard to granting manufacturers of life-saving "biologic" drugs the huge gift of never having to face competition from generic "biosimilar" versions, i.e. for catching Eshoo in bed with PhRMA (see my “Jane Hamsher vs. Rep. Anna Eshoo”).
Also in the party’s ranks are the likes of Rep. Mike Ross (Arkansas-4), big-time friend of PhRMA, Rep. Jim Cooper (Tennessee-5), who will never vote in favor of any legislation to reform health care that includes a public health insurance option (btw, I wrote to Chip Forrester, Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman, about this one, and it does appear that Rep. Jim Cooper has since modified the b*llsh*t at his website to take out the more embarrassing assertions in presenting his views on health care reform), and Rep. Melissa Bean (Illinois-8), who until recently was trying to pull defeat out of the jaws of the victory that is the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 by handing executives in the financial services industry a way around tough state regulations. (By all means, list the rest of the Conservadem, Blue Dog, so-called Democrats in the comments.)
I would argue that the Republican Party showed a whole lot more courage in nominating Dede Scozzafava for the congressional seat in NY-23 than the weak Democratic Party showed when it nominated the non-Democrat Bill Owens.
But wait! The DCCC’s not done. Now DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen wants us to know that he’s proud of what the DCCC has done.
Here’s the laughable email he sent out this morning:
Congratulations to Congressman-elect Bill Owens on his remarkable victory. Voters in New York’s 23rd District responded to Bill Owens’ message and track record of creating jobs and attracting economic development to Upstate New York.
This election represents a double-blow for National Republicans and their hopes of translating this summer’s ‘tea party’ energy into victories at the ballot box. Not only did eight extreme right-wing groups spend more than $1 million to drive the moderate Republican – and the NRCC’s chosen candidate – out of the race. Now, after losing a seat that was held by Republican for nearly 120 years, they have to deal with an emboldened and well-funded far right-wing that refuses to tolerate moderate Republicans with differing opinions.
I am grateful to President Obama, Vice President Biden, House Democratic Leaders, Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, Congressman Steve Israel and the entire New York Congressional Delegation for their tireless work on behalf of and support of Bill Owens.
With his commitment to reaching across the aisle to help President Obama enact his agenda for creating jobs and getting our economy moving again, Congressman-elect Bill Owens will be a tremendous asset to our Democratic Caucus.
Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Chris Van Hollen
DCCC Chairman
LOL ROFL L L…
Oh, wait. He’s serious.
I’ve presented at least one of the letters I’ve sent to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the DCCC, at the Lake before.
Now I am asking you to take a few minutes to send him an email via the DCCC contact page HERE telling him what you think of his and the DCCC’s strong support for the nomination and candidacy of the non-Democrat Bill Owens.
And why stop there?
Send Speaker Pelosi an email, too, via her contact page HERE and tell her what you think about the current leadership of the Democratic Party, which is doing everything possible not to represent our principles and interests well at all.
20 Comments
I’d say it definitely matters, in that it fuels the civil war in the GOP and promotes the Palin wing of that party, which clearly can’t win elections. So I’d call that, on the balance, a good thing.
Meanwhile, we’ve been stuck with yet another non-Democrat in the Democratic Caucus, and unnecessarily at that.
Once again, imo, you’re looking at a glass that’s half empty and choosing to see it as being half full rather than asking what happened to cause the glass to have so much less in it than it should!
Hey, we also replaced a moderate Dem with a progressive in CA, so at least it was a wash. And yes, I’m relentlessly optimistic, part of my personality.
In a related story, I got an email yesterday from Bob Fertik at Democrats.com (The Aggressive Progressives!), which reads, in part:
As you can see, they need our help in reaching their goal of 100,000 signatures!
The text of the petition is as follows:
Hi Knoxville. Thanks for the clarification on that matter. For my part, so long at Dems are in the majority, I prefer the election of Republicans to Blue Dogs and other conservadems.
See, I’m not sure I get that! Here’s why: at least if it’s a conservadem (and I detest Blue Dogs!) we get to set the agenda, we get to make the appointments to chairs, we get to be the “majority” with all the rights and benefits that entails.
Hi Knoxville, Thanks for clarifying what the Owens victory really means. At this poiny I really don’t know about the Two Party system. It seems to me there are really three parties. The Corporatists, the Progressives, and the wingnuts. Maybe if we throw enough blue dogs out of the caucus they’ll start their own Party, which Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, TPAW, and other Republicans would feel comfortable joining.
“It seems to me there are really three parties.” ; you’re kidding ,right?
If one is simply keeping score on the most superficial of levels–basically that anything with a “D” is good, and anything with an “R” is bad–if you’re keeping score in that manner, then the Owens victory is easy to tally.
But if one is actually interested in policy issues, and how the legislative branch functions, the growing power of the blue dog caucus is of concern. “More Democrats” is not the answer. We know this to be true. What is needed are legislators who hold true progressive or liberal positions. These may be Democrats, or they may be independents.
Let’s track how Owens votes on issues FDL readers care about, once he’s in office. After a year or two, I doubt that many liberals will be happy he got the job.
I agree and disagree with this post.
First I agree that Owens isn’t exactly a “win” for progressives. Hardly that.
However, I do feel pretty good that the locals in an historically conservative area voted their own vote vs. getting suckered by rich outsiders trying to manipulate them. I take that as a win for democracy.
I take the rejection of the manufactured “backlash” as a win for progressive ie death of a storyline at least as far as ny23 is concerned.
And as we are hearing ad nauseum, TPTB in the GOP so wanted to assure themselves that they are still in charge. And clearly they cannot use NY23 as evidence of that.
That’s a win. Is it a vote in the House for a progressive agenda? No. Is it a vote in the House for NY23, I think so. They took their piece of the country back.
I totally agree that it’s a good thing that the voters chose someone who knew the local issues and concerns of the people there over someone who didn’t.
But in the post, I indicated that Barack Obama won this district 52%-47%.
The question is:
Why didn’t the Democratic Party leadership and the DCCC specifically find someone in the district who could represent better that 52% who voted for Obama just a few months ago?
Why did they pick out a conservative independent and slap a “D” next to his name instead? Why do we now have yet another Blue Dog type in the Democratic Caucus? Not enough of them already? And why does DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen now want to take a victory lap for this failure of leadership in having nominated Owens, this non-Democrat, in the first place when they should have nominated a real Democrat?
Knoxville, guess you missed this yesterday.
CNN’s Political Ticker published the following comment to the article Axelrod calls NY-23 ‘only national race of consequence’:
I saw it. You were the 31,504th to sign it and, because of your quick thinking in putting it up in a diary, I was the 31,505th!
But is it a problem for progressives for the same reason? I imagine Rahm will be upping his f’ing stupid rants at those who want to call out conservadems and pointing to the Repubs losing this district with their infighting.
Hey Knoxville, point taken! :]
And that takes us to CA10 where a progressive won handily. And the fact that VA dems didn’t turn out for conservadem who rejected public option…
I hope progressives smack Rahm back with those races.
Promote the war in the GOP? Going to happen regardless of who won in NY-23. Teabagrrrs winning would have emboldened them more, losing just pisses them off more. The people in the movement are somewhat crazy.
I lived in that area for a while when I was stationed at FT. Drum. A democratic party candidate winning in an area that is a military town (Jefferson county) while smashing a teabagrrr is notable in itself.
I would also note that on October 16th 3500 soldiers from Drum had a deployment to Iraq canceled and recently a huge chunk of federal money directed to the base. Little wonder why a county in that race would love them some Dem and hate the warmongering teabagrrr type.
A narrative that could and should be exploited to a certain degree.
yes it is so, because this is 2009, and the Democratic Party has not been the party of FDR since, well, FDR, many decades ago.
the candidate is talking about the real principles of the Party, not the fake ones they use to repeatedly seduce and abuse their credulous, gullible, ever forgiving ‘base’.
Speaking as a moderate Democrat of nearly twenty years – my entire adult life – I think it’s safe to say that time’s up on forgiveness for failure.
I’ve waited over a decade for the opportunity that we now have, and I intend to hold them accountable for all the promises they made during these years of Republican rule.