MEET THE DEMOCRAT'S CANDIDATE X

Patient DWT readers, let me ask you to please bear with me on this one. I'll name names-- and, of cource, have le denouement tomorrow. For now, what I'm writing about is just an idea. Well, it's about a race for congress. The increasingly less and less popular/more and more out-of-touch with his moderate suburban constituents Republican incumbent is in trouble. He nearly lost his seat in 2004 and a vigorous, forthright ideas-and-issues-oriented challenger-- along with some luck, organization and finance-- would topple him in November. (It's kind of like when Glendale, CA, a similar district, made the switch a few years ago, sending it's out-of-step, right wing loon of a congressmen, Jim Rogan, packing with a measly 44% of the vote.)

A few weeks ago I was at a DFA meeting hosted by Jim Dean. We had just heard that Bill Casey, Pennsylvania's theo-con reactionary Democrat challeneger to theo-con reactionary Republican incumbent, Man-on-Dog Santorum, had gratuitously assured voters that had he been in the Senate instead of Santorum he would have voted exactly the same way Santorum did on Alito-- yes on confirmation and even yes on cloture! Talk turned to how unfortunate it is that national progressives have tended to buy into Schumer/DSCC hype that Casey's primacy was "inevitable" and that only he could beat Man-on-Dog, and how national progressives have tended to ignore the real grassroots progressive in the race, Chuck Pennacchio. And that led to a discussion of races closer to home.

One of the smartest and most energetic of the local DFA supporters talked about how important it is to support Candidate X (who will be revealed tomorrow). I had met Mr. X and talked briefly with him. And I had studied the X website and I still wasn't sure if he was a progressive or not. Would he stand with Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi and vote to extricate us from Iraq or would he buy into the Inside-the-Beltway nonsense that basically says that "now that we're (unfortunately-- bad Bush, bad, bad) there we have to stick it out and win" (pretty much Bush's position except for the "bad Bush, bad, bad" part)? What about the tough issues that seperate not Democrats from Republicans but progressive Democrats from... other Democrats? How would he tackle the thorny issues like equal protection for gays and lesbians, gun control, immigration, seperation of Church and State... I'm not one of those people who demands knee-jerk liberal orthodoxy of every issue, but I do like to understand how a candidate makes decisions and where he's coming from. (ProgressivePunch's vote analysis rates Hillary Clinton a 92 and Russ Feingold an 89. So she's more progressive? Maybe. But he's a far more attractive candidate-- a committed and dedicated fighter whose integrity and passion more than compensate for Hillary's studied political correctness on a few votes.)

Back to Candidate X. I had a note, presumably from his campaign, the other day urging me, and other local DFA members, to write to Jim Dean and ask the National DFA to endorse him. There is no doubt in my mind that Candidate X, the sole Democratic challenger to an egregiously right wing and dishonest Republican, should be a major priority for the DCCC and the Democratic Party in general. That's their job. But is he right for DFA? DFA uses its credibility and limited resources to help elect progressive Democrats, not just Democrats. Is Mr. X a progressive? I want to find out before I urge Jim Dean or the national DFA to get involved in the race.

I remember how haughty I used to feel, when I lived in Brooklyn, and Republican candidates for congress, who never had a chance to win, didn't ever mention they were Republicans. I mean their signs never mentioned a party and the Democrats had the name of their party as big as their own names! It worries me a little that Mr. X not only doesn't talk too specifically on his website about his positions, at least not about any controversial ones, but that he doesn't mention he's a Democrat. In 2002, 46.4% of the registered voters in the district said they were Republican (to 35.4% Democrat) but the district has been trending less Republican and the incumbent came closer to being defeated than any other California incumbent of either party (and by an unknown, un-financed, proud lesbian), winning by only 3% and underperforming Bush in the district.

I had a long talk with a charming local DFA leader in the area who is all gung-ho for Mr. X. Her local DFA affiliate already endorsed him. "Ah," thought I. "They must have interviewed him and found his progressive credentials sterling. Whew!" So I asked.

"He's not the most progressive guy, but he's the only Democrat running... I think it's important to wage a 50-state war, which means that every seat is contested. If we didn't support X in this race, we wouldn't support anyone. I want a Democrat in this seat. X was the only one brave enough to go for it... I don't think X is a DINO, I just think he's not a leftie in his heart. He spent most of his career building his own business; I don't think he's given serious liberalism much thought. I was happy to give him [the local DFA's] endorsement as thanks for entering the race. We don't have
money, so we won't waste any on him. We do have some members who live in his district and maybe they'll stump for him a little. We'll put some of his stuff on our table at the [local] Harvest Festival."

OK... I guess there's something to say about a little centralism inside organizations. Not that she's all wrong. But, like I said, all her points work perfectly well for why the Democratic Party and individual partisan Democrats should support Mr. X. Will he uphold a woman's right to choice? Will he risk alienating reactionary constituents-- and there are some in his district, for sure-- by voting for equality under law for despised minorities? Will he be a vote for wars and corporate advantages or will he be a vote for consumers and workers and for peace? I've been trying to find out for several months and finally the campaign has promised me a few minutes on the phone with Mr. X tomorrow. I'll get back to you.