It's More Important To See A Few Real Progressives Win In November Than Dozens Of Nominal Democrats From The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party

We need more like these (not counting me)

The DCCC says there are 75 Republican-held seats in serious play this cycle. That's a lot-- and it doesn't count under-the-radar races they're not tracking, like Bill Durston's now tied contest against right-wing extremist Dan Lungren in CA-03. Monday afternoon GOP propagandist David Brooks termed Sarah Palin a fatal cancer to the Republican Party. And this afternoon Chris Bowers posted an interesting electoral vote analysis over at Open Left and he's wondering just what Obama's electoral vote ceiling really is. So what do these three factoids have to do with each other?

There's the little matter of the coattails of the two men at the tops of their tickets to consider. I've noticed that when McCain and Obama campaigned in the three congressional special elections since they became their parties' nominees-- all three being in redder than average, Republican-held districts (in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi), McCain's candidates were rejected and Obama's candidates were elected. Most of the 75 seats the DCCC is talking about are actually easier seats for Democrats to win, at least in terms of voter registration, not to mention the recent events that have confirmed in voters' minds that the Republican Party has been not just extreme, but extremely detrimental to the health and safety of their families.

If this sounds good to you, don't get too excited. Most of the money-- though not all-- the DCCC is spending on candidates is being spent on nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to the campaigns of anti-choice activists, homophobic fanatics, war-mongers, and generalized reactionaries that smell as much like Republicans as Republican-voting Dems like Tim Mahoney (FL), Nick Lampson (D-TX), John Barrow (D-GA), Chris Carney (D-PA), Travis Childers (D-MS), Heath Shuler (D-NC), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Don Cazayoux (D-LA), all of whom have voted significantly more with the GOP than with their fellow Democrats on the tough substantive votes that divide the two parties. They're not even Democrats in any meaningful way. Yet the DCCC props them up with cash and is seeking to elect more-- many more-- just like them.

Of the 22 Red to Blue candidates (the DCCC's highest priority after the incumbent protection racket) for open seats, ten are so reactionary that I wouldn't even be able to force myself to vote for them! And of the 33 Red to Blue challengers taking on incumbents, there are another 4 I wouldn't vote for-- and that's with very lenient standards. And when it comes to actually donating money to help elect candidates, especially in their tough economic environment... well, do you want to fork over your good hard earned cash to a "Democratic" candidate who then goes on to voting against choice, against equality, and for little things like the war and wiretaps?

We're very careful about who winds up on the Blue America list of endorsed candidates. There are no generic Democrats likely to get into office and start voting with the Republicans across a broad array of issues. These are the good ones you can count on, real leaders for the future, like Darcy Burner (D-WA), Annette Taddeo (D-FL), Alan Grayson (D-FL), and Gary Peters (D-MI). These are the ones who will vote to implement the kind of change Obama is campaigning on. It isn't enough to elect Obama president and then have a Senate with reactionaries like Bruce Lunsford (KY) and a House filled with garbage like Chris Carney, Heath Shuler and John Barrow. Nothing will get done except gridlock and watered down Republicanized bullshit. If you can afford to give, give here-- except in the case of Bill Durston, Andrea Miller and Doug Tudor, all of whom can be found here.