YOU ROOTIN' FOR ANYONE IN THE MISSISSIPPI CONGRESSIONAL RACE?

Travis Childers has a "D" next to his name but...

Earlier today we posted about how reactionary Democrats are putting the whole country in serious jeopardy. Blue Dogs are no less a danger to progressive values and to our country than are radical right Republicans. The post happened to have been about how Blue Dogs like Chris Carney are pushing the spineless House Democratic caucus towards the right, but next year at this time, the post could well be about Travis Childers.

The run-off election to fill the seat (MS-01) abandoned by Roger Wicker when he was appointed U.S. Senator following Trent Lott's decision to fulfill his life's dream and become a school teacher sleazy lobbyist, is May 13. In the first round Democrat Travis Childers came in first with 49% and Republican Greg Davis came in second with 46%. It's a heavily red district in northern Mississippi where Kerry managed to carry a mere 37% of the vote, worse than he did statewide. The district is 71.3% white, whereas the state of Mississippi is 60.7% white. The PVI of Mississippi's first CD is R +10. When Ken Hurt challenged Wicker here in 2006, he only got 34% of the vote. So to find Childers the front runner is miraculous. Should we be jumping up and down and cheering for him? Sending his campaign cash so he can run more TV spots (like this one):



I watched it originally because I had read how he was running away from an association with Barack Obama. The GOP has been trying to claim Wright= Obama= candidate X (in this case Childers). Had Childers responded by calling Davis out on it and slapping him down, maybe I would have felt good enough about him to root for him. But he didn't. And I won't-- especially after hearing what about himself he chose to emphasize in his own ad:

I'm pro-life and pro-gun

Who needs Republicans when you have Democrats like Travis Childers? Some Democrats will argue that he is better than Davis on many issues-- which is true. He is. Some of our progressive friends are promoting him as "an economic populist who supports S-CHIP, opposes CAFTA and wants us to withdraw our troops from Iraq in 12 to 18 months." I like all that.

But what I don't like can be found right here. Scroll down 'til you find Dan Boren (D-OK), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), John Barrow (D-GA), Nick Lampson (D-TX) and Jim Marshall (D-GA). This 5 reactionaries are each "better" than the Republicans they ran against. But each, since getting into Congress, has voted more frequently with the right-wing Republicans on substantive issues than they have with Democrats. Even worse, they have pulled the Democratic majority right-ward. Travis Childers will fit in somewhere between Joe Donnelly and Jim Marshall.

If he wins, I'll be happy to see the GOP sink further into a morass of demoralizing, debilitating fear of impending doom. But that isn't worth a single prayer-- not when I'm sending every good vibe I've got out to real Democrats like the ones on this list. Some of these men and women are also in prohibitively red constituencies. Not one is running away from Obama or from core progressive values. And, as we mentioned before, the race in Baton Rouge (run-off on Saturday) is nearly identical, although I gather Cazayoux isn't quite as reactionary as Childers, and not as anti-Democrat as the NY Times article makes him out to be. This morning's CQPolitics reminds us that the GOP is battling against the odds to hold onto this seat. And, as usual, they're playing dirty. Here's something I got from one of Cazayoux's supporters:

They claim wrongly that the only reason we have a chance of winning in this ruby-red district is because our candidate has rejected the Democratic party and its issues.

Cazayoux's campaign signs say: "Don Cazayoux-- DEMOCRAT for Congress". True he's pro-gun and pro-life, but he's focused his campaign on solid Democratic issues-- expanding health care, against CAFTA and Columbia free trade deal, strongly pro-union, increased funding for public education.

What about Iraq? The candidates in this race are diametrically opposed. Don's website says: "I believe we need to change directions in Iraq and bring our troops home responsibly and with honor"

Woody Jenkins, his Republican opponent, says on his website "Woody supports the Surge in Iraq and continued efforts in Afghanistan and opposes a fixed timetable for withdrawal. U.S. military action should be guided by ground commanders not politicians."

The reporter apparently went to one candidate forum and was shocked that Don didn't sing a love ballad to Pelosi and Obama for the audience. Like any smart candidate, he deflected the question by saying the he owed his allegiance to his constituents first, not national party leaders. But he certainly didn't disown them.

The article goes on to say that Don "spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain." People at the forum told me all that he said was that he wouldn't reject McCain's gas tax without further study. Wow, I guess that means he really loves John McCain.

UPDATE: GOP SLANDER ADS BEING PULLED OFF TV STATIONS

The swiftboat-like GOP front group, Freedom's Watch, is the one running the race-baiting ads deceptively tying conservative southern Democrats like Childers and Cazayoux to Rev Wright. TV stations are loathe to reject ads but this one was found so outrageous that Baton Rouge's top station, CBS-affiliate WAFB-TV, took it off the air. And today we hear that a station in Memphis, WHBQ, FOX 13, did the same thing with the Freedom's Watch attack ad against Childers.