Dave Camp And Steve Israel Sitting In A Tree... F-U-C-K-I-N-G... But Not Each Other, The American People

Dave Camp has nothing to fear but progressive Democrats better watch out

When David Broder first wrote about the determinedly centrist Congressional Center Aisle Caucus in 2005, he almost ejaculated for joy on the editorial page of the Washington Post over the sheer civility of the project. I wonder why they didn't make him an honorary member. Broder claimed there were 47 invited members (since grown to 60), roughly equally split between the two parties, although that membership roll isn't readily available anywhere, almost like it's being hidden. They meet, secretly, in a Chinese restaurant two blocks from Capitol Hill; no joke. The caucus was founded by Republican Tim Johnson (IL) and Blue Dog Democrat Steve Israel (NY) with the stated purpose of bypassing Congress' partisan ways.

Applicants for membership aren't admitted unless they recruit companion members from the opposite party. Caucus members avoid lightning-rod issues and focus only on areas that most likely would produce agreement. Under one unwritten bylaw, members never engage in political campaigns against other members.

Read that last sentence again. Does it remind you of when Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then head of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, decided her dear, dear Florida Republican friends, Ileana Ros Lehtinen and the notorious Diaz-Balart Brothers, just simply could not be Democratic electoral targets? Israel, of course, is now the brand spanking new chairman of the DCCC, much of whose professional staff has worked for him in the past.

So what's he doing in a tree with Dave Camp (R-MI)? Camp isn't nearly as moderate as his Michigan colleagues, Vern Ehlers or Fred Upton but, like fellow Michiganders Thaddeus McCotter and Candice Miller, he isn't the kind of whacked out teabagging kooks that his state just elected: extremist fringe characters Bill Huizenga, Justin Amash and Tim Walberg. And he's not one of the congressional crackpots along the lines of Louie Gohmert, Virginia Foxx, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Mean Jean Schmidt, Mike Pence or Marsha Blackburn. Or is he?

Camp is one of the 6 conservatives on the bipartisan ad hoc group set to negotiate the issues surrounding the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the other 5 being Tiny Tim Geithner, OMB Director Jacob Lew, Max Baucus. Jon Kyl, Chris Van Hollen (who will be the ranking member of the House Budget Committee). Camp's on it because he's the incoming Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

He hasn't been shy about explaining his attitude towards the tax policy. In short, he is one of the Republicans behind the de facto coup which explicitly insists it will shut down the functions of Congress until the richest Americans get tax breaks.

The Republicans' top tax guy in the House threatened in the clearest possible terms today that he and the rest of the GOP would vote to block any tax cut for the middle class during the lame duck session unless tax cuts for the wealthy are extended for the same period of time.

In a policy speech at the business-friendly Tax Council today, incoming Ways and Means Committee chairman David Camp called the Democratic plan for tax cuts-- a permanent tax cut extension for all income up to $200,000, and a temporary extension for income above that level-- "a terrible idea and a total nonstarter."

"We would be foolish to fall for it," Camp said.

Now, everybody knows what's going on here. Republicans have been clear for months that their long term goal is to make sure all of these rates are extended permanently. But that means they don't want to have a fight in two or three years in which they side with the wealthiest two percent of the country against the Democrats. That's a losing fight, and terrible politics.

But they can't really come out and say that. If you ask a Republican member about this "decoupling" idea, the most common response you'll get is that it's a recipe for future tax increases. The implication is clear-- but good luck getting a more candid explanation.

One wonders if Rep. Israel is putting together a team of strategists to defeat Camp in 2012... or is he preparing to let him off the hook again. Remember, President Obama won Camp's district in 2008 50-48%. (That year Camp didn't have a serious challenge and won with 62%, about the same as what happened in 2006, when he won with 60%, sans serious challenge against the same guy who he defeated 64-35% in 2004.) And this year the DCCC didn't bother with the district again-- and Camp won 66-30%, against Richfield Township Supervisor Jerry Campbell. Camp, who already had $1.6 million in his campaign coffers, raised another $2,766,154. Campbell raised $12,059. Andrew Concannon, Camp's 2008 opponent, had raised $122,041-- and was drowned out by Camp's $2,568,143 in expenditures. In 2006 it was the same story: Michael Ray Huckleberry spent $62,030 and Camp spent $1,111,769. In none of these races did the DCCC spend one thin dime. And yet... and yet... Obama won the biggest county in the district, Saginaw, 60,276 to 42,225 and Carl Levin was not just reelected senator with the help of Saginaw (67,025- 31,099) but he won 13 of the 14 counties in MI-4. The only exception was a neck and neck battle in tiny, rural, deeply red Missaukee County where Levin only got 3,286 against his opponent's 3,786. So we're not talking about some kind of neo-Confederate hellhole here. We're talking about a district that went for Obama over McCain and that gave a landslide win to Levin.

Defeating Dave Camp isn't going to be an easy job but we'll never know how hard it will be if no one gives it a serious, well-financed try. Is Steve Israel the man to recruit a solid Democratic opponent? Or is he someone to take a stroll down the Center Aisle with Camp and talk about civility and common ground while the GOP runs rings around the Democrats? Let's watch and see.