Senate Candidates Who Can Save The Democratic Party From Schumerization
>
As "journalists" go, Josh Kraushaar is certainly well-known as a major Beltway asshole, but his headline writer at National Journal did a piss-poor job on a relatively (for him) decent article, despite a few ridiculous assertions on his part that his readers have come to expect. The head is Democrats' Identity Crisis." The subhead is better, though: "In a normal year, Democrats would clear the field for their favored candidates. But this year, some unconventional candidates are taking on their party establishment."
When Schumer isn't trying to recruit a state legislator in New York to run against Jerry Nadler-- retribution for Nadler's principled and eloquent support for the Iran deal-- he's working his ass off to make sure the Wall Street-friendly conservaDems he backs get the party nomination in the races that Kraushaar, a Ron Fournier disciple, discussess in his poorly headlined article. The authoritarian Schumer bears a particular animus toward independent thinkers like Alan Grayson in Florida, whom the boorish Kraushaar smugly dubs "boorish," and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania.
The Senate races are almost identical to the primary races Blue America is involved with: progressive Alan Grayson vs. "ex"-Republican Wall Street shill Patrick Murphy in Florida, progressive Donna Edwards vs. establishment hack Chris Van Hollen in Maryland, and progressive P.G. Sittenfeld against wishy-washy noncourageous Ted Strickland in Ohio. "If Hollywood," Kraushaar begins, with a paragraph that makes up for the terrible headline crafting,
Not a single Senate Democrat has the guts or will or inclination to stand up to Schumer in his Wall Street-backed power grab to control the party's Senate caucus. It's very disappointing. But it's something worth working on-- and here's a good place to begin.
When Schumer isn't trying to recruit a state legislator in New York to run against Jerry Nadler-- retribution for Nadler's principled and eloquent support for the Iran deal-- he's working his ass off to make sure the Wall Street-friendly conservaDems he backs get the party nomination in the races that Kraushaar, a Ron Fournier disciple, discussess in his poorly headlined article. The authoritarian Schumer bears a particular animus toward independent thinkers like Alan Grayson in Florida, whom the boorish Kraushaar smugly dubs "boorish," and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania.
The Senate races are almost identical to the primary races Blue America is involved with: progressive Alan Grayson vs. "ex"-Republican Wall Street shill Patrick Murphy in Florida, progressive Donna Edwards vs. establishment hack Chris Van Hollen in Maryland, and progressive P.G. Sittenfeld against wishy-washy noncourageous Ted Strickland in Ohio. "If Hollywood," Kraushaar begins, with a paragraph that makes up for the terrible headline crafting,
wanted to produce a superhero movie about an eclectic bunch of Democratic Senate underdogs looking to take on their party’s establishment, they wouldn’t be able to script a more unusual cast of characters than the ones actually running: There’s a three-star admiral who has no interest in taking orders from party leaders. There’s the wealthy left-wing millionaire whose main campaign “talent” is to pulverize his opposition, at least rhetorically. There’s a boyish 30-year-old Cincinnati city councilman who’s looking to play David to a former Ohio governor’s Goliath. And there are two highly accomplished African-American women vying to make history in the Senate-- but both trying to do it against candidates who enjoy the backing of the Democratic establishment.Kraushaar claim that "none of these candidates are favorites to win their party’s primaries," which is patently false, even absurd, since the only polls from Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania show Grayson, Edwards and Sestak beating their conservative, Schumer-backed opponents. He also claims that the conservative candidates are "running against better-funded, better-organized" campaigns, also demonstrably false in several cases. "But," he acknowledges,
the mere fact that they’re not being cowed by party leaders to step aside for the greater good is a reflection of the rising tide of progressive, antiestablishment angst taking place within the Democratic Party. Just as the once-seemingly unbeatable Hillary Clinton is looking more vulnerable than ever in the presidential campaign, some of the party’s brand-name Senate front-runners can’t depend on big-name endorsements translating into public support.At least he got that right.
The most interesting test will be in Pennsylvania, a race critical to Democratic hopes of retaking the Senate. Party leaders got so tired of the unpredictability [in Kraushaar's Beltway universe, "independence" and "unpredictability" are the same, and both equally negative] of former Rep. Joe Sestak, the highest-ranked military officer to ever serve in Congress, that they recruited Katie McGinty, the fourth-place finisher in last year’s gubernatorial primary. On paper, Sestak is an accomplished candidate as a decorated military veteran, former Philadelphia-area congressman, and someone who nearly bucked the 2010 Republican wave in the Keystone State. He fits the political moment as a political outsider willing to buck the party establishment-- so much so that he wouldn’t even tell the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee about his campaign launch.With the exception of sold-out pseudo-journalists like Kraushaar, no one-- least of all actual voters-- could care who the DSCC backs. In fact, in the current political climate, at least outside the Beltway, being backed by corrupt establishment operations like the DSCC and DCCC probably isn't worth the baggage and probably loses a candidate as many votes as it brings in, which isn't many to begin with.
But wary of his unconventional campaign approach, party leaders felt it was worth the risk to recruit McGinty, a more conventional politician (most recently, she served as Gov. Tom Wolf’s chief of staff) even though it’s sparking a heated Democratic primary. One senior Democratic official worried about Sestak’s electability still acknowledged that he holds even odds to win the nomination. And given the public’s growing distaste of establishment politicians, his outsider persona would certainly match the current political moment.
If Pennsylvania’s Senate primary offers a contrast in candidates’ backgrounds, the Florida race between two wildly differing congressmen-- DSCC-backed Patrick Murphy and progressive pugilist Alan Grayson-- will be a jarring contrast in ideology. Murphy is one of the most centrist [English: conservative and corrupt] Democratic officeholders in Congress, winning past support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Because of that, party leaders [other corrupt conservatives] view him as the most electable candidate to pick up a seat in a crucial battleground state. But Grayson, who has built a national profile thanks to his scathing, over-the-top attacks against Republicans, is betting that, like Trump, he’s the candidate that best appeals to the party’s base.
By the traditional metrics of fundraising and endorsements, the Senate primary in Maryland shouldn’t even be competitive. Rep. Chris Van Hollen raised nearly three times as much as Rep. Donna Edwards in the last fundraising quarter, and has been winning over the majority of Democratic elected officials in the state, including in her home county. For Van Hollen, being one of the House’s most influential Democrats as a past DCCC chairman and current ranking member on the Budget Committee usually confers political benefits. But Edwards is betting that her identity is a more powerful political asset than his influence. In a state where a near-majority of Democratic voters are African-American, running to be the only black woman in the Senate carries clear appeal. There are signs that her assumption is accurate: Her campaign released polling in August showing her leading Van Hollen by 5 points.
The other two notable Democratic primaries-- in Ohio and Illinois-- wouldn’t even be taking place if party leaders had more sway over their candidates. Democratic officials assumed that 30-year-old Cincinnati city councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who entered Ohio’s Senate race in January, would step aside if former Gov. Ted Strickland decided to run (which he did). Instead, Sittenfeld stuck to his plan and has been a persistent nuisance to Strickland, attacking the former governor over his advanced age and his flip-flopping on issues. He’s very unlikely to win, but the primary is worth keeping an eye on given the clear generational contrast. If the party’s voters want fresher faces, Strickland could have a tougher challenge than he anticipated.
In Illinois, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin worked to clear the primary field for Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran who looked like the strongest candidate to challenge Sen. Mark Kirk. But former Chicago Urban League president Andrea Zopp didn’t get the message, and is hoping to rally African-American voters to her side in the primary. With the DSCC fully behind Duckworth, she’s a long shot, but her record as a business leader and attorney should give her enough credentials to get attention.
Not a single Senate Democrat has the guts or will or inclination to stand up to Schumer in his Wall Street-backed power grab to control the party's Senate caucus. It's very disappointing. But it's something worth working on-- and here's a good place to begin.
Labels: Alan Grayson, Chuck Schumer, Donna Edwards, Joe Sestak, Kraushaar, PG Sittenfeld, progressives vs Democrats, Senate 2016
2 Comments:
These great Democratic Senatorial candidates might not only save the Party from "Schumerization," but perhaps constitute an important part of a new Democratic majority in the Senate and save everyone from Schumer, one of the most professionally obnxious, Likud-centric politicians in American politics.
Never trust a person who is looking over his glasses and down his nose at you.
Post a Comment
<< Home