The Kentucky Dilemma: McConnell vs Lunsford-- Is One Worse Than The Other? Does It Matter Who's Worse?

If you know another blog that has been more unkind to Miss McConnell than DownWithTyranny, please let me know. I was delighted when I found out that he was outed to the GOP base this weekend and I'd like to see him get zero votes on Tuesday. That leaves me with a real problem. I'd also like to see his opponent, Bruce Lunsford, a nominal Democrat from deep, deep in the bowels of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, get zero votes. You don't always get what you want and in this case we won't be getting what we need either, not even in the unlikely event that Lunsford wins.

The Kentucky race has tightened in recent days-- McConnell 47.3% to Lunsford 44.2%-- and Pollster.com rates it a toss-up, all 21 public polls since May, other than 2 ties, show McConnell winning. McConnell is a singularly unattractive senator: corrupt, unsympathetic to the aspirations of working families, pro-war, a rubber stamp, and the Senate's premier obstructionist. The most recent Survey USA poll shows him running significantly behind John McCain. As of two weeks ago McCain was trouncing Obama 54-41% (Kentucky gave Bush 60% in 2004) but the same voters were evenly split between McConnell and Lunsford.

Lunsford is easily the most odious Senate candidate the Democrats have running anywhere-- and he is hardly the only reactionary the Democrats are running. But if I had to guess which Democrat would be most likely to pull a fence-jumping stunt ala Strom Thurmond/Ben Nighthorse Campbell/Richard Shelby, Lunsford would win hands down. He's already using McCain in his campaign ads, the way Gordon Smith used Obama in his.

And even if the circumstance never presents itself to make a party switch personally advantageous, I have no hesitation in publicly predicting he will give Ben Nelson (D-NE) a run for his money in future years when it comes to racking up the most reprehensible party unity scores. And looking at substantive partisan votes in the current session of Congress, Nelson voted just a bit over half the time with his own party. There's no reason to think Lunsford will do any better. There is ample reason, on the other hand, to see Lunsford, who most Kentuckians have long seen as a personally corrupt man, pushing the Democratic caucus further in the direction of Big Business interests and away from the interests or ordinary working families and the middle class. He made a deal with Big Labor to support them on one issue in return for their help. Their anti-strategic, typically shortsightedness will leave their overall program in jeopardy from a full-fledged proven reactionary who Labor has violently opposed in every race he has ever run previously. Similarly, according to Roll Call, African-American voters turning out in huge numbers for Obama, and understanding that McConnell has been a disaster for their interests, could well give Lunsford the margin he needs to squeak to victory. It reminds me of the special election in Louisiana a few months ago when African Americans put Don Cazayoux over the top and he immediately started proving himself as bad a choice for working families than any Republican and is currently one of the 5 most GOP-voting Democrats in the House, not exactly what the African-Americans who voted him into office expected. Lunsford will be far worse.

Tomorrow we'll have a look at the Senate race that presents Democrats with the polar opposite-- an inspiring, straight arrow progressive leader, and one who looks like he will win his race and go on to work with members like Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ben Cardin and Patrick Leahy to bring integrity and progressive values to the forefront of at least the Democratic caucus if not the hopelessly corrupt and systemically reactionary Senate itself. Meanwhile Fox News took a fair and balanced look at the Kentucky race: