So Was Van Hollen Just As Bad As Emanuel All Along? Or Did He Just Turn Bad Along The Way? Let's Look At AZ-01

Lucas did such a good job on CVH's knife. Please click on it

I don't want to say I didn't believe Chris Van Hollen when he told me the DCCC would avoid the divisive tactics his predecessor as DCCC chair, Rahm Emanuel, had used to disadvantage progressives and grassroots candidates in hotly contested primaries. He had just taken over as chairman and I saw he had a thoroughly progressive voting record and, after the bloody internal battles precipitated by Emanuel's systemic flouting of the party rules, I sorely wanted to believe a new day was dawning. Still, I felt more secure-- at least about the crucial congressional race in Arizona's sprawling first CD-- when Van Hollen himself promised the grassroots progressive candidate in the race, Howard Shanker, that he wouldn't take sides between a clueless establishment hack and Howard. I felt even more secure when Arizona's most admired and respected Democratic congressman, Raúl Grijalva, enthusiastically endorsed Howard and started campaigning for him. It is highly irregular for the DCCC to diss a senior member of the caucus that way.

I don't know if it was a coincidence or not, but two things happened late last week. The DCCC staffer in charge of Arizona-- who had previously left the DCCC when Emanuel had decided to run it like a Stalinist fiefdom and then returned when Van Hollen took over-- left again. He left the day after the DCCC broke it's pledge to not endorse either candidate in this race and added an utterly worthless hack to the Red to Blue list. We covered it, as part of a "what's wrong with the Democrats?" piece, hours later. Go back and take a look at it and you'll see the DCCC statement and the furious reaction from grassroots Arizonans.

Last October, Blue America looked at the race to relieve the GOP of a seat occupied by indicted criminal/McCain For President co-chair Rick Renzi and endorsed Howard Shanker. The other leading candidate, a blatant shill for corporate interests, who has managed to scoop up immense amounts of money-- the excuse Van Hollen gives for endorsing her-- is Ann Kirkpatrick. She served, without distinction, as a state legislator. With not a single accomplishment to recommend her, she was appealing to the party leadership because she never showed any interest in leading-- just following-- and she never took a controversial position on anything-- the perfect little puppet for the Insiders. And that ain't Howard Shanker.

From day one Kirkpatrick has been pushed as the candidate because “she paid her dues." At one of the first debates she was asked about her positions on the war, immigration and other important issues. Her response stunned the audience. She said “I can’t answer those questions, there are people working on my position statements.” This must have had Emanuel salivating, but it isn't something one would expect Chris Van Hollen to find attractive.

Early on, she was saying that we need to “stay the course” in Iraq, again perfect from an Emanuel perspective. Eventually her handlers/pollsters/DCCC consultants convinced her to tweak her message. She is being told what to say, how to say it and recently got the “party” makeover on how she looks. Even so, she runs as a Republican-lite because her people think that’s the only way to get elected. Party Stalinists did the same thing in AZ-01 before, forcing Paul Babbit onto everybody-- even clearing the primary field for him. And he was a disaster, taking only 36% of the vote. Everyone I know in Arizona is referring to Kirkpatrick as “Paul Babbitt in a dress.”
 
The establishment is trying to circle the wagons because they are feeling the heat of a real grassroots campaign. That’s why the DCCC broke their promises, why Van Hollen has crossed over to the Dark Side... an independent-minded progressive like Howard Shanker, who will serve his constituents, not the special interests who donate to both hopelessly corrupt political parties. It matters not one bit to them that he has a far broader base of support, much more impressive and meaningful  credentials, far more experience, and that he is much better positioned to win the general election.

I tried getting Van Hollen on the phone but he wouldn't speak with me about this. The DCCC insists he didn't break his pledge to not endorse because... um... well, they have a few excuses. He only said he would "prefer" not to endorse, not that he wouldn't. And they insist that being on the Red to Blue page isn't really an endorsement anyway. Another high level Democratic insider who understands their arcane world far better than I do told me that "generally speaking, when candidates meet certain benchmarks and show that they're competitive, the DCCC ratifies their success by adding them to Red to Blue... this isn't really a Rahm-style muscling out of a candidate-- it has nothing to do with hurting Shanker and everything to do with getting the probable candidate ready in the fall... if and when Shanker becomes the probable candidate, you know the dccc will hop on board." I suspect that there are an awful lot of progressive candidates who have raised immensely more money than the shill in Arizona but who haven't been added to the Red to Blue non-endorsement program. I hope some of them will ask the DCCC about that.

And if you're in the DC area this week, please mosey over to the Oyster Bar at Clyde's Gallery Place (707 7th Street, NW) and join Rep. Grijalva (and me) in welcoming Howard to town (6pm, June 4). The primary isn't until September 2, so whatever donations you can spare for Howard's race, will go to good use. And, by the way, Blue America is open for business right now.


UPDATE: RAHM TO THE RESCUE

So the DCCC says they didn't endorse/endorsed Kirkpatrick because she reached certain benchmarks. On March 31, Rahm Emanuel generously decided to shower some benchmark-making dollars on her-- twice. Circular... something.