PRIMARIES HAVE CONSEQUENCES-- LIKE WAR AND PEACE: A CASE FOR JOHN LAESCH

If you're a regular DWT reader you're already aware that the axiom "All Republicans Are Bad And All Democrats Are Good" is pure hogwash. Well half of it is hogwash. All Republicans are bad; every. single. one. But plenty of Democrats are just as bad: corrupt, power-hungry, impervious to the best interests of their constituents and disinterested in protecting the common good or promoting basic progressive values and principles. Even on an issue as basic as the Bush Regime's war in and occupation of Iraq, you will find rubber stamp Democrats every bit as bad as Republicans-- not many, but enough to prevent Nancy Pelosi from exercising an effective opposition to the Regime's toxic agenda.

There are no surprises on the list of the worst Bush-Dogs, those Democrats who vote most frequently with the Bush Regime on issues related to endless war in Iraq. Using Progressive Punch's Chips Are Down scale here is the list-- from bad to worse-- of the handful of  Democrats who have consistently voted most frequently to rubber stamp Bush's policies in Iraq. These are fake Democrats (except for Tim Mahoney who is an actual Republican who just re-registered as a Democrat in order to win a congressional seat-- and vote like a Republican):

Eliot Engel (NY)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Bud Cramer (AL)
Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Tim Mahoney (FL)
Melissa Bean (IL)
Zach Space (OH)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Baron Hill (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Chris Carney (PA)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Jason Altmire (PA)
Dan Boren (OK)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Nick Lampson (TX)
Jim Marshall (GA)
John Barrow (GA)

The bolded names are on the Democrats' own list of most vulnerable members of Congress. They are on the DCCC Front Line list for 2008, the list of Democrats that the DCCC judges most in need of lifeline infusions of cash to combat, basically, a lack of popularity with their constituents. When you donate to the DCCC most of the money goes to shore up the re-election campaigns for these Democrats. In many cases-- like in the ones above-- it is to support Democrats who consistently vote against Democratic values and principles, even in the most crucial instances like the occupation of Iraq. Would it be fair to consider these members war-mongers? Yes, absolutely. Would it be fair to consider these members worthy of defeat and in the same category as a Republican? If you think the war in Iraq and Bush's policies there are wrong, the answer is absolutely yes.

Many of these congressmembers were once candidates, candidates who were being pushed by Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC. Just as Emanuel is telling favored insider candidates today to "inoculate" themselves by moving right on immigration issues and throwing immigrants under the bus, last year Emanuel was hysterical in demanding that Democratic candidates inoculate themselves by not speaking out against the war in Iraq. Many Democratic candidates were defeated because they followed Emanuel's lousy advice. But much worse, many anti-war progressives and grassroots activists never got a chance to even run because Emanuel, Hoyer and the DCCC pushed them out of the way in favor of pro-war, insider schlubs, schlubs who are now on the list above (Tim Mahoney and Baron Hill being perfect examples) or who went down to defeat in November (like Christine Jennings and Tammy Duckworth). Matt Renner did an extensive report on many of these catastrophic Bush-Emanuel Dogs in the September 6 (2007) edition of Truthout. He explores how Rahm Emanuel sabotaged progressives all over the country and helped elect the conservative Democrats who have thwarted Nancy Pelosi's agenda and her ability to battle the GOP. The races he focuses on include IL-06 (which Emanuel threw to a far right Republican by supporting a mediocre, non-grassroots Democrat who could never win against a progressive activist in the primary), FL-13 (identical scenario to IL-06), CA-11 (where an enlightened grassroots gave Emanuel the finger and beat his shill in the primary and went on to defeat a far right Republican without his help), and FL-16 (where Emanuel drove the progressive out of the race in order to install an actual Republican, Tim Mahoney, in the place of the doomed Mark Foley).

Renner comes to similar conclusions that most people who have followed Emanuel's machinations have:

Many of the candidates that Emanuel helped elect have joined with a group of self-styled conservative Blue Dog Democrats and have cast key votes with Republicans and stymied Democratic efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Thirteen of the Democratic members of the House elected in 2006 joined The Blue Dog Coalition; a group that, according to its spokesperson, has no official stance on withdrawal from Iraq or the president's warrantless wiretapping program. However, 30 out of 47 of the Blue Dog members broke with the majority of Democrats and cast votes in favor of the recent Protect America Act, a bill that greatly expanded the power of the executive branch to spy on Americans. The caucus also broke with the majority of Democrats when 40 of the Blue Dog members voted to continue funding the occupation of Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal.

John Laesch between 2 would-be Bush Dogs

Now, let's take a look at the race in the northern Illinois congressional district being abandoned by Denny Hastert. IL-14 a district we've been talking about for several years because of our support for a progressive, grassroots young military vet named John Laesch. Last week the other Democrats who are trying to move in on the chance to fight it out with whichever millionaire representative of special interests the Republicans decide to attempt to replace Hastert with tested themselves out against Laesch. They came up short-- very short. Today's Daily Herald tells the story:

It was Laesch who won the crowd; the Newark carpenter's remarks garnered more applause than that of the other two 14th District candidates combined.

Oh... so what, you say-- he must have brought lots of fans to cheer for him, the way Mitt Romney does at the GOP straw polls he always wins. Nope. As the story makes clear, the forum at the Kane County Government Center in Geneva was open only to Democratic Party committeemen. These are the people who watched Laesch's campaign last year and who know from on the ground experience that he is the one who can turn this red district blue. In Washington, on the other hand, Emanuel is insisting-- working behind the scenes-- that self-described Blue Dog millionaire Bill Foster be the nominee. Foster was recently invited to a training session in Chicago for favored candidates during which Nancy Pelosi, Chris Van Hollen, other DCCC functionaries, incumbents, labor leaders and cash-rich PAC officials spoke with the candidates. Laesch was excluded. Emanuel is determined to make sure Foster is the nominee regardless of what the local Democratic Party thinks and regardless of the likelihood that he would be disastrously defeated in 2008. He's an Emanuel kind of candidate-- no values, no positions, just a Republican-lite power-hungry player. When Emanuel spouted off at the session that Democrats must "move to the right" on immigration in order to "inoculate" themselves, many of the candidates rolled their eyes and ignored him. Foster was straight out of the gate immigrant-bashing (in a district with a vibrant and growing 20% Hispanic community). See that list of bad Democrats above? Emanuel will do whatever he can to make sure Bill Foster is on it next year.

Why should you care? There are many reasons-- not the least of which have to do with the potential for national progressive leadership John Laesch is displaying. But the story in today's  Herald goes straight to another matter that I know is of great concern to all readers of DWT: Bush's and Cheney's vow to provoke a war with Iran.

A former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who served in the Middle East, Laesch repeatedly lashed out at President Bush and the Iraq war. Starting a war with Iran, Laesch said, would cause "World War III."

"If you think Iraq is a mess, Iran would be a complete and utter nightmare," Laesch said.

Laesch pushed Stein and Bill Foster, a scientist and businessman from Mill Creek, to say whether they'd immediately cut funding for the troops in Iraq and whether they'd authorize going to war with Iran. Laesch pledged, if elected, to cut funding for the Iraq war and to vote against going to war with Iran.

In response, neither Foster nor Stein would commit to vote "no" on going to war with Iran, saying they would need to study the issue further.

Do I need to say any more? Do you take this kind of thing seriously? Prove it by kicking in-- even $5 if that's what you can spare, for John Laesch's campaign. It's your country. You want Bush and a bunch of craven Bush Dogs like Bill Foster getting us into a war with Iran?