8 Responses to The DCCC Stepped in to Stop NY-23 from Turning Blue

1. greenharper November 5th, 2009 at 11:07 am «

   Thanks. I respond to every DCCC begging letter and email by saying, no money for Rahm. Might make no difference over there. Over here, though, I’ll take whatever therapy I can get.
2. ubetchaiam November 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm «

   Knoxville, in case you missed this analysis
• Knoxville November 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm «

  Thanks for the link!

  I would take issue with Adele Stan, Washington bureau chief of AlterNet.org, only to the extent that she makes no mention of the fact that the Democratic Party threw the race away before it even started by nominating Bill Owens, a conservative independent (slapping a D after someone’s name does not a Democrat make), to run in a district where Barack Obama won 52%-47% just a few months ago, and to the extent that the result of the election is significant also because we now are stuck with yet another non-Democrat in the Democratic Caucus when we didn’t have to be stuck with him.

  Had the DCCC shown more courage or really cared about the core principles and values of the Democratic Party, we would have a real Democrat in NY-23 and have good reason to change the map from red to blue.

  ADELE STAN: Well, this race is significant in a lot of different ways. I mean, not only did the Democrat win for the first time a Democrat has prevailed in that district since the Civil War, but the way that that came about is what’s so significant. And that is, of course, via the third party candidacy of a guy named Doug Hoffman, who sort of came out of nowhere, was a terrible candidate, but earned the backing of the Tea Party movement [Teabaggers for all of you who laugh at calling that mob a movement] and other right-wing operatives, really a candidacy launched in many ways by Dick Armey, who heads another astroturfing group called FreedomWorks.

  And what makes this so significant is—you’re going to hear a lot of talk now from—is that the right, the far right of the Republican Party, as if the Republican Party wasn’t right-wing enough now, you know, threw down a gauntlet, and there was this great contest of wills between the party establishment, which, you know, used to be a flamethrower called Newt Gingrich, who is now party establishment, who backed the Republican candidate, a woman named Dede Scozzafava. And Scozzafava was determined by the right to just not be right-wing enough. She was—she is pro-labor. She supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which I think is really what drew Dick Armey’s group in. And on the cultural issues, she’s a liberal. She supports same-sex marriage. She’s pro-choice. So the right threw in behind this third party candidate, in defiance of the party establishment, which is House Minority Leader John Boehner and Newt Gingrich and RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

  And then [Sarah Palin] was really the thing that put Hoffmann over the top and pushed Scozzafava out of the race. Once Sarah Palin came in—and she did it by a note on her Facebook page and with a little link to Hoffman’s site, where you could, you know, donate to him. And, I mean, it was all over for the Republican establishment candidate.

  Now, you’re going to hear a lot of talk from the right that even though Hoffman lost to the Democrat, that it’s still a victory for them, because they managed to, you know, kind of frame out what’s—who’s an acceptable Republican and who isn’t. And, you know, that’s not just happy talk. That’s not just the next day spin. That’s true for them. In having done what they did, they have put the fear of God into Republican candidates across the country. Dick Armey is now promising that other Republican candidates in the 2010 elections—he’s promising, you know, ten or twelve will kind of be facing this sort of litmus test, and there’s a real battle for the—you know, the direction of the party. And this is how the right plays it. They do this inside-outside game. You know, they’ll launch a third party that—to exert pressure from the outside onto the established party, where the money is. But the outside often has the organizational prowess, which you’re seeing with this tea party movement, which is constructed not unlike the religious right of the 1990s.
  
3. ubetchaiam November 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm «

   DNC,DSCC,DCCC all are Rahm’s ‘babies’; that’s they why of ‘slapping the ‘D” on Owens.

   It’s a completely topdown approach that demeans citizens upon the alter of mammon.
4. TalkingStick November 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm «

   Simple answer. The ObamoRhamas are conservatives and plan to pack the Democratic party with conservatives.
5. Teddy Partridge November 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm «

   Owens matches the template of most of Rahm’s 2006 recruits, under the rubric of “representing the district.” These clowns have been nothing but trouble, and Rahm also chased lotsa progressive Democrats away that year with his bigfooting and funding.

   Thank heavens Tuesday also brought us John Garamendi from CA10, an unabashed liberal who disproved all the lies Ellen Tauscher told the Village about the conservatism of her district. Faced with a clear choice between a Club for Growth conservative v. our former Insurance Commissioner who favors Single-Payer, voters in this suburban, demographically fluid swing district chose the lefty. By a wide margin.

   (I have read elsewhere that Bill Owens endorsed Public Option in the final debate of the NY23 campaign, but don’t have a handy link, K-burg. You may want to check it out; we’ll certainly know for sure by Saturday’s vote.)
• Knoxville November 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm «

  I’d be very pleased to learn that Owens was pressured into ultimately having to say that he will support a public option, but the fact remains that he did say in early August that he did not, i.e. when he was tapped to run, he didn’t support a public option at all (in fairness to those who selected him, health care reform hasn’t been much of an important issue this year…).
6. liberaltothecore November 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm «

   I send every “begging letter” back in the stamped, self-addressed envelope, with a message to the DNC, DCCC, etc., telling them I am no longer interested, due to their mismanagement. I then list the reasons why. Hopefully, they will eventually get the message.