What Makes The DSCC Click? Who Knows-- But Let's Look At North Carolina's Senate Race

Leaving David "Diapers" Vitter (R-LA) and his hypocrisy and ethical lapses aside for a moment-- in a state that seems to pride itself in ignoring hypocrisy and ethical lapses in its political elite-- there is one incumbent Republican senator up for re-election next year who could conceivably be replaced by a Democrat: Richard Burr, a die-hard obstructionist buffoon from North Carolina. (I know I said we should leave Vitter aside for a moment, but I do want to point out one more thing about the race in Louisiana before moving on to North Carolina. Vitter's opponent is a mangy old worthless Blue Dog, Charlie Melancon, who consistently votes more frequently with the GOP-- on substantive issues-- than with the Democrats. He voted against the healthcare reform bill, though not before voting for the Stupak amendment, and last night was one of the 28 Dems crossing the aisle to oppose a jobs creation bill. The rest of this post will not mention Louisiana, Melancon or Vitter again.)

Burr, who used to represent the good folks who now elect Virginia Foxx to the House bi-annually, is a former lawnmower salesman and a clueless and bought-out shill for Wall Street (which has ponied up $2,730,319 towards his political career) and the Medical-Industrial Complex (which has heaped on another $2,350,726). That's over $5 million from the two most special of the special interests with business pending before Congress, business which is always-- 100%-- supported by Burr, regardless of how disastrously it impacts working families back in North Carolina.

Last year North Carolina took a decidedly blue turn. Obama won the state and Burr's senior colleague, Liddy Dole was trounced, winding up with a mere 44% of the vote. Republicans forfeited yet another House seat-- their second in two cycles-- and the Democrats now control the House delegation 8-5. So what are the Democrats doing to exploit the shift and to exploit Burr's weaknesses? Glad you asked!

Virtually every person I know in North Carolina has been complaining this week about the ham-fisted nature of the interference of the DSCC there. Pam Spaulding, North Carolina's most respected blogger was fuming a few days ago in a private e-mail: "My question-- why does the DSCC keep meddling in our (NC) races like this? It really looks bad this time around with a woman and a black man getting the brush-off for another candidate the Beltway thinks is 'more like NC.' ...Let the flipping people decide. It's good to have all three hats in the ring."

Another dedicated progressive blogger sent me a note that was even angrier:

The DSCC has made clear their intent to decide our Senate primary for us. The have chosen a one term [former] state senator with close ties to some of the more conservative (and ethically challenged) in our political establishment. 

In doing so the DSCC spits in the face of the two announced candidates:

• Kenneth Lewis - A Durham lawyer who has fought predatory lending for over 10 years

• Elaine Marshall - Our veteran Sec of State who has campaigned and won statewide as a progressive. Also the first woman to win statewide office in NC.

Unfortunately, neither of these two progressive candidates are a white man willing to fake a Southern drawl.

Since the DSCC's pick is virtually unknown in North Carolina, they intend spend money attacking progressive Democrats in order to secure their desired election result... 

The DSCC should not be involved in primary races. Democrats have held virtually uninterrupted control of North Carolina state government for over hundred years. In the past 25 years, this has been in large part because the NCDP remains neutral in primary elections, whereas the NCGOP leadership has kept their party divided through ill advised interference in primaries.

Funny, just when John Cornyn is cringing that the NRSC has come into devastating conflict with the Republican grassroots by endorsing establishment figures like Charlie Crist (FL), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Kelly Ayotte (NH), and Mike Castle (DE)-- and when the NRCC chair himself is being forced into a potentially damaging race against an angry teabagger because of NRCC behavior in the same vein-- Inside the Beltway Democrats are re-implementing the same failed strategy.

I wondered if any of this had to do with ideology. Certainly all three candidates are campaigning as progressives, even though no one seems to think the DSCC is doing anything more than placating and pandering to a base he will abandon the moment he has the nomination. Pam Spaulding's interview this week with Kenneth Lewis goes a long way towards explaining where he is on the issues. He's from what Howard Dean once mentioned as the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." And so is Elaine Marshall.

She hasn't been shy about being an early and aggressive advocate of healthcare reform, some Burr is hysterically opposed to and something that the DSCC candidate is still trying to figure out how to position himself on politically. This is from the October 4 issue of the Asheville Citizens-Times:

"On health care, [Cunningham] said he wasn't ready to make a statement about the public option, but said costs needed to be reduced and insurance providers should not be able to turn people down for pre-existing conditions."

AP has already picked up on the difference between how Cunningham and Burr on the one hand, who are supporting escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and Elaine Marshall and Kenneth Lewis, who aren't.

"As a former small business owner and attorney in domestic cases," Secretary of State Marshall explained to North Carolina voters, "I’ve seen, firsthand, the hardship visited on our families during tough economic times: families disintegrate when there are no jobs, no hope, and no future.

"Therefore I agree with President Obama that the nation I’m most interested in rebuilding is our own. Our commitment in Afghanistan though has become a deadly distraction of attention and resources from the real suffering that is going on here among the American people.  

"I acknowledge that there are no easy answers in Afghanistan and I respect the time and consideration that President took in making his decision. However, I disagree that now is the time to commit 30,000 additional men and women into harm’s way to prop up a corrupt government that has shown no real effort to reform itself. The mission that we are about to undertake has too much to do with building a nation that has not had a stable or responsible government in decades and too little to do with keeping us safe at home. 

"Our goal should be to stop terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. Right now, the greatest threat to the United States and the rest of the world is Pakistan. I heard too little about political cooperation from Pakistan and the threat it poses. Pakistan harbors the most dangerous mix of terrorists and nuclear weapons in the world. Our efforts should be there, using political and diplomatic pressure on the their government to root out Al Qaeda elements.
 
"Failed states provide havens and training grounds for terrorists. However, at no time in history, have these states been “fixed” by the foreign powers. They have only been made stable by long-term occupations that, eventually, fail. That is not the route we should take in Afghanistan."

Or maybe it's not ideological. Maybe the DSCC just really thinks one woman senator for North Carolina is enough and that it's time for someone who will pass for a good ole boy. One thing is clear though-- the DSCC isn't evaluating candidates based on who has a track-record of winning statewide races and it isn't evaluating candidates most likely to support Democratic initiatives in the Senate.