Today's North Carolina Senate Primary Pits Rand Paul Against Mitt Romney

The Republican Establishment is trying to make a come back after badly losing two presidential cycles in a row with feeble and extremely unpopular establishment candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Today's primary in North Carolina is their shot to nominate the Speaker of North Carolina's widely hated state House of Representatives. He has two anti-Establishment right-wing candidates opposing him, including Greg Brannon, who has been endorsed by Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Paul, Thomas Massie (R-KY), Ann Coulter, Erick Erickson, the Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, and 2 seditionist gun groups, the National Association for Gun Rights and Gun Owners for America, that excite the extremists in the South's GOP base.



Just a few hours before Rand Paul's Brannon rally yesterday in the Charlotte area (Tillis country), Mitt Romney chirped in with his backing for Tillis. Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove are also backing him. The Republican/Chamber of Commerce Establishment is hoping to avoid a bloody, costly July 15 run-off between Tillis, who's trying to sound mainstream and Brannon, who's glad to sound anything but mainstream. Conventional wisdom holds that moderate Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan would have an easier time beating the extremist Brannon, but Tillis is so associated with the detested and dismally failed General Assembly that more astute observers think Hagan is better off running against him. CNN, of course, is always a good place to go for tone-deaf conventional wisdom:

For a Republican establishment still spooked by the ghosts of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock -- grassroots-backed conservatives who threw away winnable Senate races in recent elections with tone-deaf remarks about abortion-- Tuesday can't come soon enough.

In North Carolina, Republicans are watching closely to see if Thom Tillis, the state House speaker and maybe the party's best bet to unseat endangered Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan this November, can capture 40% of the vote in Tuesday's GOP Senate primary.

If he does, Tillis will become the party's Senate nominee, and Washington Republicans will breathe a little easier knowing they've dodged a long and expensive runoff battle between Tillis, the consensus frontrunner, and a flame-throwing conservative rival. Perhaps more importantly, Republicans will have picked a Senate candidate who doesn't immediately jeopardize their chances of defeating Hagan, whose approval ratings are dangerously low, and flipping a crucial swing state Senate seat into GOP hands.

...Tillis, a former IBM executive, has raised more than $3 million for his primary campaign and has about $1 million in the bank. Brannon, meanwhile, has the backing of national tea party outfits like the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, but the groups have provided little financial cover for the cash-strapped candidate. Brannon has just $206,000 on hand. Harris reported even less: Just $72,000, barely enough to fund a modest advertising campaign on cable news, let alone fund the final blitz of a credible statewide campaign.

Brannon is hoping that a last-minute visit to the state Monday by his top national supporter, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, might provide a burst of media attention and activist energy to push him into a runoff. It's a risky gamble for Paul: Republicans inside and outside the state are privately questioning his last-minute decision to help Brannon, who was recently found liable by a Wake County jury for misleading investors in a failed tech startup. Brannon is appealing the decision.

Harris, too, has national support. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has endorsed his fellow Baptist pastor. But Harris' in-state relationships are more valuable: The president of North Carolina's Baptist State Convention, Harris has in his corner a formidable network of evangelicals, still a powerful constituency in a Republican primary in the South. Tillis backers privately fret that Harris, polished and charismatic, would be a more dangerous opponent than the volatile Brannon in a runoff, but Harris has not marshaled the resources to broaden his name recognition beyond his Christian conservative base.

In a pair of recent debates, Brannon and Harris tried to outflank Tillis from the right, questioning his commitment to gun rights and his opposition to same-sex marriage, but Tillis stayed above the fray and kept his focus squarely on Hagan. He has made electability a selling point in his pitch to Republicans.

"If I thought any of the other candidates had as good a chance at beating Kay Hagan as me, I'd be on their campaign committee," Tillis told CNN in a recent interview inside his Raleigh office. "This is about securing a majority in the U.S. Senate. None of the other candidates have the experience or have taken the time to build a foundation to have a credible campaign in November. If the Democratic establishment is going to rain down heavy on North Carolina to try to keep Hagan, we better have someone who has the track record and the campaign strategy to have the support to match that."

...As he nears what could be the Republican finish line Tuesday, there are signs that Tillis is becoming more cautious with the general election on the horizon.

In 2012, Tillis eagerly embraced that year's version of the House Republican budget drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Questioned about this year's budget plan-- specifically if he supports Medicare vouchers-- Tillis punted. "I haven't studied it to the position where I can really give you a well-informed response," he said.

He was also asked which senators he admires and hopes to emulate if he gets to Washington. The names he mentioned-- "high-caliber" members like Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso and Texas Sen. John Cornyn-- aren't exactly tea party heartthrobs.

Gesturing to a bust of Ronald Reagan on his desk, Tillis characterized his work in the state legislature as "responsible and balanced," and he punctuated the interview by questioning the effectiveness of conservative hard-liners like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

"Mr. Cruz is obviously a brilliant member," Tillis said. "I think that he stands for a lot of things that we as conservatives stand for. But how do you mobilize that? How do you sell your colleagues and the American people on the things that are his priorities?"

Last minute polling from North Carolina-based PPP indicates that although Tillis is at the magic 40% mark that would avoid the runoff the GOP Establishment dreads, momentum going into this morning was with Brannon.

PPP's final poll of the North Carolina Republican Senate primary finds that Greg Brannon and Mark Harris are finally picking up some steam, but that it may be too little too late. Thom Tillis leads right at the 40% mark needed to avoid a runoff, followed by Brannon at 28% and Harris at 15% with the other candidates combining for a total of 8%. 11% of voters remain undecided so that should give Tillis the breathing room eeded to get over 40%, but it doesn't look as certain as it did a week ago.

The momentum has been on the anti-establishment candidates' side as the race has come to a close. Brannon's support has increased 8 points in the final week of the campaign and Harris' has increased by 4 points. Their increases in support come as voters report having seen more from their campaigns- they've each had an 8-9 point increase in the percentage that have seen their tv ads, while Tillis was already pretty much maxed out on that front.

Negative ads against Tillis have also started to take more of a toll. His net favorability rating with Republican primary voters has declined 9 points in the last week +32 at 56/24 previously to now +23 at 52/29. 73% of voters now report having seen negative ads against Tillis and they're having an impact-- among those who've seen them Tillis' favorability is only 47/38, and he leads Brannon just 36/35.

North Carolina's Senate Race Is Even Screwier That You Thought

The Republican Establishment and Kay Hagan both are rooting for the same candidate to win the Republican senate primary in North Carolina: House Speaker Thom Tillis. The latest PPP survey (in their home state) shows Tillis tied with an even further right sociopath and virulent racist, Greg Brannon, for the GOP nomination-- gigantic momentum for Brannon, who has been endorsed by some of the most fringe elements of the extremist far right, not just the teabaggers and Rand Paul, but Ann Coulter, Utah lunatic Mike Lee and FreedomWorks. Brannon, who opposes racial integration and public education and favors Confederate secession, admits his model as a senator would be Jesse Helms. He and Tillis are tied at 14% in the 8-way primary. They are probably headed for a runoff.

Yes, you may look at the blatantly treasonous statements that make Brannon so popular with the Hate-America crowd and think he would be the easiest to beat, but Tillis is so well known in the state-- and so discredited by the way he ran the House-- that the latest poll shows Kay Hagan beating Tills 45-43%, while tied with Brannon 43-43%. Tillis forgot he was in a primary with right-wing extremists and started trying to run a general election campaign that would appeal to mainstream conservatives and independents-- big mistake in a North Carolina primary but the GOP is one of the country's most backward and hateful.

Tillis drew a lot of attention last month for his comments on Obamacare and the minimum wage, and what he said about those things doesn't play well with the Republican base. On the day he filed Tillis made news by suggesting he didn't think there should be a minimum wage-- but even among GOP primary voters only 27% support eliminating it to 56% that would be opposed to such a move. Even more problematic for Tillis could be his statement expressed last week that 'Obamacare is a great idea that can't be paid for.' Only 15% of primary agree with Tillis' sentiment that 'Obamacare is a great idea,' compared to 78% who say they disagree with it.

Romney was the overwhelming victor in the 2012 North Carolina presidential primary and Ron Paul came in a very distant second. In fact, Romney swamped all his competitors combined:

• Mitt Romney- 638,601 (66%)
• Ron Paul- 108,217 (11%)
• Rick Santorum- 101,093 (10%)
• Newt Gingrich- 74,367 (8%)

On top of that, Romney did what McCain was unable to do-- beat Barack Obama. McCain only managed 2,128,474 votes in North Carolina (49%), while Romney pulled in 2,270,395 for a winning 50%. Brannon doesn't think much of his fellow Republicans' choices. Tuesday morning the Charlotte Observer reported that Brannon warned Republicans back then that anyone who was voting for Romney was voting for tyranny. Romney was already the GOP nominee when Brannon was railing against him.

Brannon also said Romney and President Barack Obama, a Democrat, “despise the Constitution,” as he minimized the differences between the two major parties.

…Brannon, 53, is standing by his statements.

“I’m a lifelong Republican who firmly believes that we will continue to lose elections if we don’t nominate candidates who will stand on principle,” he said in a statement. “Moderate Republicans have given us out-of-control spending, unsustainable debt and bigger government. Enough is enough.”

It was at a January forum in Winston-Salem that Brannon mentioned not voting for Romney, saying he had supported abortion rights. Romney once supported abortions but said as president he would sign legislation banning them. “You cannot ever waver on life,” Brannon said at the forum.

He used stronger language in the June 2012 post.

“Voters need to vote in light of the obvious truth that no substantial difference exists between Barack Hussein Obama and Willard ‘Mitt’ Romney,” he wrote. “Understanding and applying this simple truth is liberating.

“Casting a vote for either Obama or Romney will advance tyranny since both candidates are committed statists who despise the Constitution … Well meaning but manipulated voters continue to vote for tyranny based upon a terribly misplaced allegiance to the 2 major political parties.”

The “correct practical strategy,” he wrote, would have been to vote for anyone else on the ballot.

“Voting third party,” he said, “will help foster real political change.”

The party establishment Senate candidate in Iowa, Joni Ernst, just sent out an e-mail bragging about how Romney endorsed her campaign in that state's crowded primary. I bet they hope no one in Iowa is tuning in on how Brannon thinks about Romney. Brannon is very popular with right-wing extremists but he's only managed to accumulate $142,329 cash on hand, while Tillis is sitting on $1,286,910, which he would very much prefer to spend against Hagan… but won't be able to, not if he has any hope of winning the primary.

Republican North Carolina Senate Candidate Thom Tillis Caught Blatantly Lying About The Affordable Care Act Again

It may be hard for normal people to understand that there are actually candidates to the right of Thom Tillis running for Senate in North Carolina and that he's playing the role of the Establishment (Art Pope) shill. Tillis was first elected to the North Carolina legislature by beating a more mainstream Republican, John Rhodes, in a primary in 2006 and 4 years later was elected by the far right as Speaker. Most people in North Carolina view the General Assembly as far too radical for North Carolina and are horrified at how radical and extreme Tillis' GOP-controled legislature has been. A recent poll showed that a whopping 62% of North Carolina voters disapprove of the legislature and only 15% approve. Asked specifically about Tillis' caucus, 51% of North Carolina voters said they have an unfavorable opinion of the Republicans in the legislature and only 36% had a favorable opinion.

The ad Tillis began running against conservative Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan this morning, typifies his cynical and dishonest approach to politics. He's the first the employ the fully discredited Republican Party Big Lie about the CBO report on Obamacare and employment. Yesterday in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne was still marveling at the sheer mendacity of Republicans like Tillis, twisting the facts into their own baseless Foxified reality.

By broadening access to health insurance, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ends the tyranny of “job lock,” which is what the much-misrepresented Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study of the law released Tuesday shows. The new law increases both personal autonomy and market rationality by ending the distortions in behavior the old arrangements were creating.

But that’s not how the study has been interpreted, particularly by enemies of the law. Typical was a tweet from the National Republican Congressional Committee, declaring that “#ObamaCare is hurting the economy, will cost 2.5 millions [sic] jobs.”

Glenn Kessler, The Post’s intrepid fact checker, replied firmly: “No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs.” What the report said, as the Wall Street Journal accurately summarized it, is that the law “will reduce the total number of hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time jobs.”

Oh my God, say opponents of the ACA, here is the government encouraging sloth! That’s true only if you wish to take away the choices the law gives that 64-year-old or to those parents looking for more time to care for their children. Many on the right love family values until they are taken seriously enough to involve giving parents/workers more control over their lives.

And it’s sometimes an economic benefit when some share of the labor force reduces hours or stops working altogether. At a time of elevated unemployment, others will take their place. The CBO was careful to underscore-- the CBO is always careful-- that “if some people seek to work less, other applicants will be readily available to fill those positions and the overall effect on employment will be muted.”

…The reaction to the CBO study is an example of how willfully stupid-- there’s no other word-- the debate over Obamacare has become. Opponents don’t look to a painstaking analysis for enlightenment. They twist its findings and turn them into dishonest slogans. Too often, the media go along by highlighting the study’s political impact rather than focusing on what it actually says. My bet is that citizens are smarter than this. They will ignore the noise and judge Obamacare by how it works.

The most recent polling in the North Carolina Senate race shows Tillis leading a pack of drooling teabaggers and next and neck in the general with Hagan.

Despite Tillis' increased support this primary would still be headed to a runoff if the election was today. If the undecided voters broke proportionately to their current candidate preferences it would only be enough to get Tillis to 34%, well short of the 40% needed in North Carolina to win the primary outright.

…"The North Carolina Senate race continues to look like a toss up," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. "It would help Kay Hagan if the electorate shifted its attention to something other than Obamacare."

I wonder if Republicans lying about Obamacare would qualify.

Will The Democrats Blow This Opportunity For Genuine Health Care Reform?

Which clown is most likely to really harm American families?

I'm very worried that the Democrats are going to blow their opportunity to pass real health care reform. Needless to say, derailing reform is the #1 priority for the Insurance companies and their congressional shills. I would be surprised if there's more than three Republicans who haven't been bought off. Worse, though, is that so many Democrats have been as well. It's why Blue America is creating a series of TV ads to launch against anti-reform Democrats-- starting with Arkansas corporate pawn Blanche Lincoln (please consider donating). A rule passed earlier in the year puts the health care budget into an unfilibusterable category. Obama needs only 51 votes. Lieberman's fealty to the Medical-Industrial Complex ($2,391,719) and Big Insurance ($1,036,302) and Nelson's identical anti-working family positions (in return for the generosity he's experienced from the Medical-Industrial Complex-- $1,000,366-- and the Insurance Industry-- $1,196,799) don't spell the end of the dream for people who want to see universal health care in this country. But if other DLC corporate Dems, like Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, not to mention GOP renegade-- and flight risk-- Arlen Specter, are all allowed to defect, a once in a generation opportunity for changing the health care system is virtually dead.

Today one of the only Tribunes of the People in the heinous House of Lords, Sherrod Brown, co-sponsored legislation, along with Jay Rockefeller, that would establish a public health insurance plan that provides an affordable and accountable health insurance option. Their press release:

“Congress must include a real public plan option if we want to see truly transformative health care reform this year,” said Rockefeller. “I created the Consumers Health Care Act so we can give the American people the complete coverage they need at an affordable rate. As we move forward with health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee and beyond, I will continue to fight for a public plan option. It is time to end our days of private health insurance charging too much for too little, at the expense of the American people.”

“A strong public health insurance option will help reduce health care costs and improve the quality of health insurance plans,” said Brown, who authored a resolution cosponsored by 28 senators calling for a public health insurance option to be included in health reform. “A public health insurance option will keep insurance companies honest and set a gold standard for medical care. I’m proud to work with Sen. Rockefeller on this legislation which will protect consumer choice, improve patient care, and lower health costs.”

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and many consumer-advocate and health care organizations have come out in support of a public plan option in health reform. Over 60 percent of Americans also want to see a public plan option on the table (source: Kaiser Family Foundation, June, 2009).

The Consumers Health Care Act has been endorsed by many groups including Health Care for American Now (HCAN), the Children’s Defense Fund, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Overview of the Consumers Health Care Act

• Offer a “Consumer Choice Health Plan” as an option alongside private insurance. By bringing a competitive public plan option to the table, private insurance companies will be driven to provide Americans with better value for their health care at a better price, in contrast to the current private insurance framework, which is focused on avoiding risk and increasing their profits.

• Establish America’s Health Insurance Trust as a “good housekeeping seal of approval” to give consumers a voice in health insurance oversight. This nonprofit, consumer-driven organization will evaluate and give ratings to all health insurance products offered through the national health insurance exchange-- based on factors such as affordability, adequacy, transparency, consumer satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and quality.

Our Blue America action in Arkansas is aimed at holding one particularly corrupt senator-- maybe two) accountable. But it should also serve as a message over the bow to any Democrat who wants to sell out their own constituents for the flow of cash from the Insurance Industry. Max Baucus and Arlen Specter can expect to see the same blanket TV ads in their states as well. Senators-- who actually do behave as though they hold peerages in an American House of Lords, haven't bee feeling any real pressure from the public; it's how they can get away with their distortions and weaseling postures.

Chris Bowers at OpenLeft has launched an online campaign to make every senator declare in plain English where he or she is in the debate. (Russ Feingold has already responded-- very publicly and positively.) New Gallup polling shows that Americans distrust Republicans in Congress even more than they distrust the health insurance industry! But, as Jane Hamsher pointed out today, conservative Democrats like Kay Hagan are working hard to catch up with the Republicans.

According to a source with direct knowledge of what is happening on the HELP Committee, the problem is that two Democrats-- Kay Hagan and Jeff Bingaman-- are refusing to sign on.

"We can't bring it up because we'd actually lose the vote," said the source. "They'd vote with the Republicans."

Bingaman and Hagan are in favor of watering down a public plan into Kent Conrad's co-op plan, which is supported by insurance lobbyists. "It gives them the appearance of supporting a public option without getting them in trouble with the insurance companies," said the source.

We're working on holding them accountable. Please help us do that.

Does Obama Have What It Takes To Be A Truly Transformative President?

Neither the New Republic nor Jonathan Chait is exactly a trusted source but in the former the latter addresses the interesting Republican-pushed question about why Democrats can't govern. Chait, of course, blames Democrats, rather than Republicans, for failures suffered by Clinton, Carter and, he seems to hope, Obama. "The contours of failure," he warns "are now clearly visible" and the fault lies with the congressional arm of the Democratic Party which "remains mired in fecklessness, parochialism, and privilege." I bet Chait wishes they were just like Republicans and did exactly what they were told by Dear Leader, completely abandoning any pretense of being a separate but equal branch of government.

George W. Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, with only 50 Republicans in the Senate. After his disputed election, pundits insisted Bush would have to scale back his proposed massive tax cuts for the rich. Instead, Bush managed to enact several rounds of tax cuts that substantially exceeded those in his campaign platform, along with two war resolutions, a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to maximize profits for the health care industry, energy legislation, education reform, and sundry other items. Whatever the substantive merits of this agenda, its passage represented an impressive feat of political leverage, accomplished through near-total partisan discipline.

Obama has come into office having won the popular vote by seven percentage points, along with a 79-seat edge in the House, a 17-seat edge in the Senate, and massive public demand for change. But it's already clear he is receiving less, not more, deference from his own party. Democrats have treated Obama with studied diffidence, both in their support for the substance of his agenda and (more importantly) their willingness to support it procedurally.

Let's look for a moment at one of the newly elected Democratic senators, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, one of the first to eagerly join the Evan Bayh anti-Obama bloc. She went running to the media this weekend triangulating against Obama's agenda for change, sounding not unlike North Carolina's highly unpopular (and likely to loose his re-election) Richard Burr. Eager to prove her conservative bona fides, Hagan said that the president's budget proposal is... just fill in whichever talking points you've heard from McConnell, Boehner or Burr lately.

Hagan, drawing a contrast from the nation's top Democrat, said she has been working to limit the growth in non-defense spending in the budget. She questioned the Obama plan that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would place the country under a $1.2 trillion annual deficit even a decade from now.

"I agree with a number of ideas in President Obama's budget, but I was particularly concerned about the deficit spending in his proposal," Hagan said in a speech at the North Carolina Associated Press Broadcast annual meeting at Elon University. "It's completely unsustainable and unacceptable."

Her decision to renounce even some of the popular president's ideas comes as a striking contrast to her campaign last year, when she cozied to his mantra of change as North Carolina voters swept both into office. It underscores her eagerness to depart from the large-government plans of her party even as she tries to influence legislation as a backbencher in Washington's upper chamber.

Americans United For Change is running TV and radio ads in media markets represented by reactionary Democrats like Hagan (as well as North Carolina House members Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre):

For eight years, the Bush administration turned our economy into a house of cards.

Last fall, that house came tumbling down.

Now, President Obama has drawn up a budget blueprint that will rebuild our economy on a solid foundation.
 
Jobs. Health Care. Education. Clean energy. Reform.

On this foundation, we can build real long-term economic prosperity for all Americans.

Call Congress, tell them to support President Obama's budget. Let's all get to work, rebuilding America.

Not exactly a call to arms or declaration of war against right-wing Democrats, but enough to piss off Hagan, apparently. And there are plenty of Democratic electeds just as tone deaf as Hagan-- willfully unaware that the American people just went to the polls and chose "Change" and rejected "More of the Same." Even the right-leaning doofus Obama picked to head the DNC, outgoing Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia has vowed to sign a bill to ban stem cell research!

My friend Andrew pointed me to Robert Kuttner's new book Obama's Challenge as a way of looking at the opportunity Obama has to have a truly transformative presidency, one that would have to include the cooperation of the Kay Hagans and Evan Bayhs in Congress.

Suppose Obama does embrace a transformative program. What are its political prospects? Here is where leadership makes all the difference.

 Although it takes sixty votes in the Senate to break a filibuster, great presidents have demon-strated that a chief executive with a principled position, a compelling program, and a popular mandate can win over opposition votes. LBJ relied on moderate Republicans to enact civil rights laws over the objection of conservative Democrats, and then turned to racially conservative Dixiecrats in his own party to pass Medicare over the protests of Republicans. Lincoln presided over a shifting coalition of Radical Republicans, more prudent Republicans, and moderate borderstate and northern Democrats. One of the reasons he seemed to tack back and forth was precisely his need to hold that coalition together. But as he became a surer leader, he led and his “team of rivals” increasingly followed-- as did the citizenry.
 
With close to sixty Democratic senators and an increased Democratic majority in the House, Obama will be able to win over Congress if he first wins over the country. That was the pattern with Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. It describes Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt as well.
 
The numbers are also deceptive. Roosevelt, in his first term when the famous First Hundred Days saw the most sweeping and breakneck enactment of legislation in American history, had just fifty-nine Democratic senators, only about the average of the past eight decades. Johnson had a bigger Senate Democratic majority of sixty-eight at its peak, though like Roosevelt, his nominal partisan majority included at least fifteen racially reactionary Dixiecrats who were a de facto third party inside the Democratic Party (many of whom also held key committee chairmanships).
 
By contrast, while today’s congressional Democratic Party includes some economic centrists who are fiscally conservative and close to business lobbies, the most conservative Democratic senators-- Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Max Baucus (Montana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), and Bill Nelson (Florida)-- are somewhat to the left of the Dixiecrats that Roosevelt and Johnson had to reckon with. Even the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs are less anti-spending than anti-deficit.

Now the question is, does Obama have what it takes to be a truly transformative leader? The U.S. hasn't had one in quite a while. And thanks to George W. Bush, we're overdue, if not desperate.

Chuck Schumer-- Anti-Gay No More (He Claims)

Seeing North Carolina freshman Kay Hagan on the list didn't surprise me when Rachel Maddow revealed the names of the reactionary Democrats joining Evan Bayh's anti-Obama bloc. She ran as a tepid, non-progressive candidate against raging reactionary Elizabeth Dole. And in the primary, she was careful to not stray a millimeter from the center of the center. But after New York Senator Chuck Schumer, chair of the powerful-- and well-funded-- DSCC decreed that North Carolina was not ready for a gay man to run for Senate, Hagan was a shoo-in against openly gay and openly progressive Jim Neil.

Had Schumer not torpedoed Neil and had Neil gone on to beat first Hagan and then Dole, he would be helping Obama to pass his family-friendly rescue agenda instead of collaborating with reactionaries like Bayh and Mary Landrieu to water it down and make it more "business friendly." But that's a lot of "ifs" and long before Schumer has come to see the light and finally backed away from his homophobic posture.

Apparently Schumer has finally woken up and realized he represents New York not New West Virginia or New Utah and announced-- in front of witnesses-- that he supports same-sex marriage. Maybe he looked at the study measuring the correlation between homophobia and tumescence when looking at dirty gay pictures and left embarrassed. Or maybe it was just the risotto last night but Schumer has flip-flopped on gay marriage.

Schumer's office confirmed the meeting and also the senior senator's change of heart, issuing the following statement from the Brooklyn Democrat (who is traveling upstate today):

"It’s time. Equality is something that has always been a hallmark of America and no group should be deprived of it. New York, which has always been at the forefront on issues of equality, is appropriately poised to take a lead on this issue."

Maybe he's just afraid of Jon Cooper.

And speaking of gay marriage, the first state to have adopted civil unions (a decade ago) is well on the way to correcting the mistake. The Vermont state Senate voted 26-4 in favor of marriage equality. Next stop the House, which is also expected to approve, and then it goes to Republican Governor Jim Douglas who has so far ducked the question of whether he'd sign it or not. Hopefully he won't be consulting with homophobic sociopath Antonin Scalia.

Which Democrats Bought Into Vitters' Anti-ACORN Bait?

Community organizers: dangerous to criminal Republican banksters

Yesterday the Republicans-- all of them-- united around their fear and loathing for community activism. One of their more extremist members, David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), whose idea of activism is dressing up in a diaper and getting spanked by high-paid call girls in Washington DC or New Orleans, introduced another frivilous amendment to the Stimulus Bill, S. Amdt.107. The purpose is no prohibit "direct or indirect use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)." It was rejected, but just barely. Just barely? Have a dozen confused Democrats joined all the Republicans in supporting Vitter's red-meat-for-Limbaugh nonsense. The Democrats:

Max Baucus (MT)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Jon Tester (MT)

America's most vicious xenophobe, CNN hatemonger Lou Dobbs, along with some of the trashiest and most deranged and bigoted far right GOP propagandists sounded the alarm for the nation's paranoid reactionaries. Virtually nothing in her screed is true:

ACORN, you may recall, is the left-wing activist group with longtime ties to community organizer-turned-President Barack Obama. The nonprofit, which now takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers after four decades on the public teat, has a history of voter fraud, corporate shakedowns, partisan bullying and pro-illegal immigration lobbying.

...Talk about subsidizing failure. These are the same activists that helped sow the seeds of the subprime meltdown. They aggressively played the race card and pressured banks to loosen standards, throw out down payments and lend to some of the nation’s riskiest borrowers. Now, these mobs protest across the country, disrupt foreclosure auctions, threaten bank executives and accuse lenders of, yep, racism for lending to those riskiest of borrowers.

This is the Republican mindset and above are the names of the six Democrats who bought into it. I'm ashamed for Robert Byrd and Jon Tester. The other 4 are really just Republicans anyway and it makes perfect sense that they would vote against the interests of working families. Dick Durbin (D-IL) tried showing these sad excuses for Democrats how to stand up to a barrage like this from right-wing extremists. Clearly, it isn't enough to just elect Democrats. That whole "more Democrats" idea is bankrupt. BETTER Democrats is the only way to go. Had Schumer not intervened in the North Carolina primary, we would have had Jim Neil standing with Dick Durbin (and Chuck Schumer), not Kay Hagan standing with Jim DeMint, Miss McConnell, Rush Limbaugh and David Diapers Vitter.

Prediction: Elizabeth Dole Loses North Carolina Senate Seat

Two who have done more than enough damage-- au revoir

This isn't a blog where you've found any enthusiasm for North Carolina Democratic nominee Kay Hagan. She's not progressive by any stretch of the imagination and the best we can come up to say about her is that she looks like a C to Dole's F. So I have to admit that we did cheer for her a little when it started to look like she'd win.

Hagan pulled ahead of Dole late in September and she's stayed ahead of her since then, though not by much... until about two weeks ago, when Hagan's numbers took off. What did she do to pull out so clearly ahead? She ran against an idiot surrounded by bigots and smear artists. Elizabeth Dole lost the race when she ran an ad that seemed to claim that Kay Hagan is "godless." And when Hagan pushed back, Dole doubled down. The polling average shows Hagan with a modest 4.4 lead over Dole-- Hagan 48.2. Dole 43.8, but the Public Policy Polling data released this morning shows Obama only 1 point ahead of McCain, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue only 1 point ahead of McCrory but Hagan with a startling seven point lead over Dole. Here's how it happened:



Dole was losing and panicky when she ran the ad. But she lost herself the election with it-- as well as her credibility and dignity. McCain's campaign advisors declared the race over for her at that point.

Club For Growth Clubs McCain And Frightened Liddy Dole Decides To Skip GOP Hate Fest This Year

Wouldn't be caught dead at the GOP Convention this year

Last week we listed a number of Republican officials hoping to run away from their own rubber stamp records by avoiding the Republican Hate Fest in the Twin Cities. It's just too risky for reflexive rubber stamps like Gordon Smith, Ted Stevens and Susan Collins to be caught on film with Bush or McCain or even old Twin Cities hand Larry Craig. Today another endangered Republican, North Carolina wingnut Liddy Dole, announced she already had a "busy week scheduled" and she won't be able to make it.

Dole, widely considered a carpetbagger with no current connection to the state she represents, claims she just can't pull herself away from North Carolina to attend the nomination ceremonies for the man she hopes to rubber stamp for the next 6 years.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole will be a no-show at her party's big bash in St. Paul, Minn.
Dole spokeswoman Katie Hallaway confirmed Monday that Dole won't be at the Republican National Convention in September.

"She's got a busy week scheduled in North Carolina," Hallaway said. "When there are breaks in the Senate schedule, she spends as much time as possible in North Carolina."

Hallaway said nothing should be inferred about Dole's missing the convention-- either about her support for Sen. John McCain or about the security of her re-election in November.

Kay Hagan, the Republican-lite, me-too opportunist that Chuck Schumer saddled North Carolina Democrats with, seems so bent on proving that she is exactly-like-Dole-but-a-tad-better, that she is also toying with the idea of not going to the Democratic Convention. I hope she doesn't go and that the enthusiastic Obama voters in North Carolina remember in November and ignore her.

Meanwhile, Club for Growth isn't waiting for the Republican Convention to start attacking McCain. We weren't the only ones appalled by McCain's performance/trainwreck on Stephanopoulos' show Sunday.

"We listened with concern yesterday to your interview with George Stephanopoulos on Social Security," the club's president Pat Toomey writes in a letter to McCain. "When asked if you would be open to raising the payroll tax, you refused to rule out a tax increase, saying 'There is nothing that’s off the table.' This statement was particularly shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."

Then, the club pulls out one of McCain's own quotes from February of this year: “No new taxes... In fact, I could see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT.”

"We strongly applaud the above statement and believe further tax cuts would play an important role in stimulating the country’s economy," Toomey continues. "But your comments yesterday send American taxpayers and businesses a mixed message about where you stand on this issue."

The close: "We hope you will clarify where you stand on this important issue and reaffirm your commitment to eschew all tax increases."

Toomey-- and the rest of the country-- needs to come to grips with the fact that McCain has no policies and that his "agenda" is just getting elected. He will say whatever he has to say to whatever audience he's speaking to, even if it's the exact opposite of what he said to another audience 5 minutes ago. And because he has pre-TV instincts, he never seems to remember that whatever he says is on tape. That's why people are starting to go light on the flip-flopper appellation and get right to the "bodacious liar" description.

THE BIG PRIMARY NEXT WEEK: NORTH CAROLINA

Ex-Senator John Edwards could do the transformative agenda he has espoused a great deal of good by making an endorsement. One candidate is a committed, grassroots progressive and the other is a pitiful Big Money corporate shill, in some ways only marginally better than the Republican incumbent. No, no, I'm not talking about Hillary; she may be a corporate shill but she's certainly better than the Republican incumbent and she's also much better than his sadly transformed doppelgangerish would-be replacement. You see, while everyone else is urging the Edwardses to do what Governor Easley just did and endorse in the presidential race-- where I doubt he would have much impact-- I would like him to do the right thing in the race for the U.S. Senate seat, currently held by pathetic rubber stamp Republican Elizabeth Dole.

In a race like this, where not many people are aware of the giant chasm between the two candidates, Edwards really could make a difference. One candidate, Kay Hagan, stands for everything he claims to detest. She is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the same pernicious Big Money interests that own Dole-- and whom Edwards just spent two years railing against. The other candidate-- the one endorsed by Blue America-- is Jim Neal and he has a long way to go in the next 7 days if he's going to be able to beat back the Establishment and give North Carolina voters a real choice-- other than a basically meaningless choice between generic party labels-- in November.

Hagan rarely goes on the record saying anything. Her victory plan is to just be the establishment Democrat against the outsider in the primary and the generic Democrat against the hated Republican in November. And when she does go on record about something, she comes out against the basic values and principles that differentiate between the party of FDR and the party of George Bush. A corporate tool like Chuck Schumer may love her but she can't be trusted on choice, is as clueless as Dole on Iraq, is basically a George Bush Republican when it comes to tax policy, weak on economic policy, weak on ethics, adamantly unwilling to be pinned down on Equal Rights, on the wrong side of the health care issue, untrustworthy and confused about torture, weak on privacy rights, absolutely plutocratic when it comes to campaign finance reform, etc. She sounds like one of them, not one of us-- and certainly not the kind of progressive Democrat that Edwards has evolved into. In fact, you have to ask yourself, is Kay Hagan really a Democrat in anything but name? Hers is the party of corporate campaign contributions that are exchanged for favors at the expense of regular folks. 

It isn't likely that a Republican-light version of Elizabeth Dole is going to beat Elizabeth Dole, regardless of what Chuck Schumer's lizard brain is telling him. A few days ago the weekly paper in North Carolina's most Democratic area made passionate endorsements of the two candidates for real change-- Barack Obama for president and Jim Neal for U.S. Senator. The ten cogent reason they list for endorsing Obama are all also applicable to Neal-- except for #9:

He has a better chance of beating John McCain than Hillary Clinton does.

Jim Neal has the only chance of beating Elizabeth Dole. But the editors don't need to give Jim Neal a me-too endorsement. They had a whole set of reasons why he is a far better candidates-- and would make a far better U.S. Senator-- than Kay Hagan.

On the issues, there's a clear progressive choice in the Democratic primary: Chapel Hill businessman Jim Neal is our pick to take on Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole come November. And let's put it right out there: Neal is openly gay, which should no more influence whether he gets your vote than the fact that he's also openly white. What should influence it is his platform: Neal opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and supports getting our troops out now; he supports universal health care; is against capital punishment; wants to scrap No Child Left Behind, Bush's counterproductive education program; proposes making the federal tax system more progressive; and advocates an Apollo-style program to wean the country from imported oil and develop alternative-energy sources, including conservation.

On gay rights, Neal supports full equality, including marriage, as a matter of law. But he also recognizes that the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom when it comes to whether same-sex unions should be sanctioned by various faiths.

Given his background as a Wall Street investment banker and venture capitalist, Neal is at his best when dissecting the causes of the nation's widening gap between rich and poor and the erosion of middle-class jobs. He calls it "unconscionable" that corporate CEOs make 400 times as much money as the average worker. His prescription for fixing what ails us includes sweeping investments in education and our economic infrastructure, not war, and for junking free-trade policies in favor of fair-trade ones. He thinks the federal government should prepare to buy mortgages and refinance them to prevent foreclosures.

CHUCK SCHUMER POWER PLAY IN NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY?

Not unlike last cycle, I've been hearing from quite a few grassroots candidates that the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic committees are surreptitiously working against them in primaries or, where there are no primaries, ignoring or even being hostile to their campaigns. Earlier today we talked about the progressive Democrat, Roger Waun, running against rubber stamp loon Mac Thornberry in northern Texas and why he is so angry at the DCCC. The DSCC likes to brag to candidates that they're not like the DCCC and that they don't play favorites. This has never been true and it certainly isn't true this year.

Jim Neal is a Blue America-endorsed candidate who wants to take on Senator Dole in North Carolina. Although DSCC head Chuck Schumer claims, rather ingenuously, that he stays neutral in hotly contested primaries, there are at least two big ones this year where he is backing Insider Establishment candidates who give every indication that they will not support core Democratic initiatives. Kentucky's Bruce Lunsford has been a consistent supporter of Republican candidates and has been judged by Kentucky Democrats in the past to have proven himself unworthy of their votes. Still, Schumer has muscled aside other candidates and brow-beaten Democratic support groups and some unions into backing the same Lunsford they have loathed and campaigned against in the past. Ironically, Kentucky has a real progressive, grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, in this race-- running on a platform that clearly and authentically contrasts with incumbent Mitch McConnell's.

There is a similar situation in North Carolina, where Schumer seems to feel that voters aren't sophisticated enough to elect a progressive candidate, Jim Neal, who, among other things, is openly gay. Schumer twisted the arm of a mediocre insider, Kay Hagan, to get into the race after she had bowed out. And now, he has the DSCC, which is officially "neutral," signaling Democratic donors to support her and not Jim. This is standard operating procedure for the DSCC and DCCC. Schumer got slapped down when he tried the same tactic against populist Jon Tester in the 2006 Montana primary that pitted Jon Tester against an establishment shill Schumer was backing. Schumer's shill was slaughtered in the primary and Tester, of course, went on to defeat the Republican incumbent. Rahm Emanuel tried the same tricks in the House where he attempted to ax John Hall and Jerry McNerney with establishment insiders who would never have been able to inspire the kind of grassroots support to beat the incumbents the way Hall and McNerney did.

But insiders like Schumer never learn. You can't beat a Republican with a Democrat who acts like a Republican. On issue after issue Jim Neal's positions clearly contrast to those of Elizabeth Dole's, while Kay Hagan's are pretty much... more of the same, just not as terrible. Schumer has promised to stay neutral in this race, which would be an excellent idea because polls show the two candidates in a dead heat. But this morning I got a copy of a letter from James Spencer, president of the Campaign Network which works for the Jim Neal campaign, to the executive director the DSCC. Spencer, who told me he's run up against some rough campaigns in the past 35 years of electoral work, but never as bad as this, gave me permission to reprint it.

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director,
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

April 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Poersch:

I am writing to follow up on a phone call I placed to you regarding the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Jim Neal, Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in the North Carolina primary.

Mr. Neal is running a strong grassroots campaign and is tied in the polls with State Senator Kay Hagan.

However, you wouldn’t know it by reading the DSCC web site.

The DSCC site includes numerous newspaper articles about Senator Hagan, but none about Mr. Neal. The Race Profile for North Carolina features a positive summary of Senator Hagan’s campaign, but Mr. Neal is mentioned only in passing, lumped together with three minor candidates who have not mounted serious campaigns.

This is not an insignificant oversight and will have a serious impact on the Jim Neal campaign. As you know, would-be donors to Mr. Neal are likely to check the DSCC web site for an evaluation of the race. The inaccurate description and the fact that Mr. Neal is all but missing from the official DSCC synopsis of the Senate race serves to discourage donors from writing a check.

My staff has provided the DSCC staff with press coverage of the Neal campaign and other material to facilitate updating the DSCC site. Betsy Lin on the Regional Desk, responding to repeated phone calls by my staff member Curtis Ellis, told him that web site issues were "an internal matter" and that she had no say over what was posted. Consequently, Mr. Ellis then spoke with DSCC Political Director Martha McKenna, who told him the Neal campaign had "more important things to worry about" than what appears on the DSCC web site.

My understanding and concern is that Ms. McKenna was dismissive of the request, and repeatedly and pointedly refused to say that the DSCC site would be updated to give Mr. Neal fair and equal treatment.

This is particularly troubling in light of assurances the DSCC made to both myself and Mr. Neal.

As you recall, in our November 1, 2007 meeting at DSCC headquarters in Washington D.C., attended by Mr. Neal, myself, Ms. McKenna, and Chuck Wolfe of the Victory Fund, you assured us that Mr. Neal would receive equal access to services from the DSCC. And on February 13, Senator Schumer reassured Daily Kos readers the DSCC hasn’t endorsed in the primary.

These assurances notwithstanding, I understand the DSCC has the prerogative to endorse any candidate it chooses, at any time and for any reason. If that is the case, please say so openly.

Millions of voters across the country are looking to our Democratic Party and its leaders to set an example and encourage participatory, grassroots democracy in our nation.

I would hope that the DSCC would allow the people of North Carolina to choose their Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate without interference and favoritism from Washington.

With fewer than 30 days remaining before North Carolina’s primary, I look forward to your timely response. I am posting a copy of this letter which you should receive tomorrow.

There are many ways to donate to candidates these days without going through the DSCC or the DCCC. ActBlue has collected over $43,000,000 from grassroots donors for Democratic candidates. It's a much better way to donate and it cuts out the sleazy would be king makers like Schumer and Emanuel and puts the money directly into the hands of the candidates' campaigns. On the Blue America ActBlue page, for example, you can donate to Jim Neal or to Greg Fischer or, better yet, to both of them. If you do it today, add one cent as a message to Chuck Schumer to allow Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky to pick their own nominees. They know better than he does how to defeat Elizabeth Dole and Mitch McConnell.

NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATS CAN OPT FOR A REAL CHOICE AND A REAL CHANGE OR... FOR MORE OF THE SAME

Same, same

The North Carolina primary is only a month away. Obama is way out ahead of the Insider candidate who is frantically peppering him with vicious Rovian smears to try to damage his momentum. But in a Democratic primary these tactics backfire and the more the Insiders attack, the lower their polling numbers sink. When will they learn? May 6 is also important for North Carolina Democrats because it is the day they pick the candidate to go up against one of Bush's most pathetic rubber stamp lemmings, Senator Liddy Dole. Blue America has strongly endorsed grassroots progressive Jim Neal. Neal is being challenged by another Insider, Kay Hagan, who was recruited by Chuck "Lizard Brain" Schumer who doesn't think North Carolina voters are sophisticated enough to elect an openly gay men to the Senate. So far Jim has been holding his own in polls-- and even beat the Republican-lite Hagan in a straw poll, 54-46%. And he beat her in one of the most conservative districts in the state, the 10th CD, home of the diminutive neo-fascist congressman and betrayer of military secrets, Patrick McHenry.

The clueless Hagan, whose positions mirror Dole's and Bush's in many areas, has chosen to avoid debates with the articulate Jim Neal and is blanketing the state with slick-- and very expensive-- TV spots (paid for by special interests lobbyists, of course, who are eager to see her elected where she will work for them instead of working families).

Jim is supporting Obama for president and Hagan is frightened and laying low, though Clinton surrogates are campaigning for her.

North Carolina media has taken note of Hagen's disingenuous campaign. Friday the Ashville Citizen-Times reported that Hagan has refused to participate in a serious, televised debate.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kay Hagan declined an invitation Friday to participate in the only televised debate her campaign was considering, frustrating her chief rival for the party's nomination.

The campaign of Jim Neal responded sharply, saying the state senator from Greensboro is trying to buy an election victory with television ads and is avoiding a discussion of the issues.
"Sen. Hagan's cynical and disingenuous refusal to debate flies in the face of her claim to be a candidate of change," Neal spokesman Curtis Ellis said.

The Democratic front-runners have only participated in one debate, hosted by the League of Women Voters and Public Radio East late on a Friday night last month. That meeting did not allow the candidates to counter each other's answers or provide rebuttals, but Neal tried on several occasions to contrast himself with Hagan.

Jim has asked Hagen to debate from the instant she was lured by Schumer into the race. But the DSCC is advising her that she will lose the primary in a landslide if TV viewers see trying to debate him. Schumer is frantic to keep the race as undercover as he can so that he doesn't wind up with another embarrassment when he attempted to slip a Republican-lite Democrat into the Montana Senate in 2006, only to be rebuffed and made to look like a fool and a tool. Jim's campaign claims Hagen's spinning of why she is afraid to debate isn't fooling anyone. "Hagan wants to buy this election with TV ads and avoid a real discussion."

Senator Hagan’s campaign strategy is to raise more money, avoid legitimate debate and blanket the airwaves with television ads. It is typical Washington politics-as-usual and it amounts to selling our elections to the highest bidder.

Senator Hagan’s cynical and disingenuous refusal to debate flies in the face of her claim to be a candidate of change.

Political candidates and elected officials are supposed to answer questions from, not dictate terms to, an independent news media. We’ve had enough of the latter from the Bush Administration.

Progressives who would like to help Jim Neal challenge the Big Money Insiders of both political Establishments can donate directly to his campaign through our Blue America ActBlue page. Democrats, like Jim, who offer a clear contrast to the reactionary Republican agenda beat Republican incumbents like Dole. "Me-too" Democrats, who buy into GOP policies, like Hagan, never, never beat Republicans. There are only two choices in North Carolina-- Jim Neal a sensible and independent-minded progressive or Liddy Dole, a robotic Bush era throwback.

BROOKLYN LIZARD-- A DAY IN THE GLORIOUS LIFE OF CHUCK "MEAT AND POTATOES" SCHUMER

Today's Hill has a puff piece on the Senate's most shameless publicity hound, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with the kind of reptilian brain usually only found in Republicans. Reporter Aaron Blake is going to have to get the excrement sandblasted off his head. He makes Schumer sound almost as mythical as Rahm Emanuel or Tom DeLay!

Lizard Man is modestly claiming he might not be able to deliver a 60/40 Senate split-- and, by the way, he still defends his vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.

While Schumer has shone as DSCC chairman, he went through a rough patch as a legislator in recent months over the man he suggested the White House nominate as attorney general.

A former federal judge and a fellow New Yorker, Mukasey appeared to be sailing through his confirmation hearings in October until he struggled to explain whether he believed waterboarding constitutes illegal torture under domestic and international law.

Mukasey said he could not answer since the CIA had not briefed him on any U.S. program that employs the simulating drowning technique. His hedging infuriated Democrats.

Under enormous pressure, Schumer stood by Mukasey, and he continues to do so today.

“I had a difficult time,” Schumer said. “I don’t mind people having disagreeing views, but … a lot of the blogs said there was no courage.

“But believe me,” he added, “the easy decision for me would have been to go against Mukasey. I just thought it was wrong.”

Schumer, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), voted for Mukasey, saying he represented the best possible Bush administration successor to Alberto Gonzales to restore the integrity of the Justice Department. Their votes allowed the nomination to advance from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate.

“It became a symbolic issue, you know: ‘Vote against torture,’ ” Schumer said. “I tend not to be a symbolic politician. I’m a meat-and-potato politician.”

They didn't get into how he feels about having supported Joe Lieberman in 2006 and how that old chicken has come home to roost of late.

[P]ressure is nothing new for the man who oh-so-narrowly delivered the Senate to his party in 2006, and it’s clear Schumer is enjoying the ride and wearing each of his hats with pride.

...“Here’s what I think: We get 55, 56, 57, 58, you will pick up enough Republicans on any single issue,” Schumer said, adding: "Yeah, you’d have to make certain compromises, but not give away the store." [Compromises, of course, are Schumer's stock in trade... deal making, triangulation, that which allows him to be Senator Wall Street and still represent one of the deepest blue, progressive states in the nation.]

Nothing has served Schumer quite as well in his campaign role as his pragmatism and heavy hand.

Though irritating to certain parts of the party [the Democratic wing], Schumer has consistently picked his horses early, largely based on their electability, and rode them through to the finish line.

No mention of Montana DLC hack John Morrison here, who grassroots Montanans told Schumer to shove up his Insider butt, nominating their own populist candidate, Jon Tester, and then beating a very Schumer-like Republican in November, Conrad Burns. Instead he recounts the triumphs of Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill and, oddly, since I don't recall Schumer backing him, Jim Webb. [Update: a friendly DSCC employee reminded me that Schumer did indeed get behind Webb early on.] And then Blake writes about the corporate shills Schumer is trying to foist on Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky, Kay Hagan and Bruce Lunsford. He recruited Hagan because he insists a gay candidate-- Jim Neal-- can't win Jesse Helms' old seat and thinks the way to beat Elizabeth Dole is to confuse voters by presenting them with a candidate so similar that no one can tell them apart. That worked out real well in Tennessee in 2006, when Schumer's reactionary candidate, Harold Ford, was so much like a Republican that the voters just figured they might as well stick with an actual Republican. Schumer is trying to replay that same scenario in North Carolina and Kentucky.

In Kentucky he has been personally-- and quite unethically-- clearing the field for the state's most detested Democrat, Bruce Lunsford (a Zell Miller kind of reactionary) and strong-arming local unions-- who know better-- into endorsing the hated Lunsford over a genuine Democrat Greg Fischer. When asked if he takes heat for interfering in local primaries to pick reactionary candidates, Schumer went right to Kentucky. "Some people are very upset about [Iraq war veteran Andrew] Horne [dropping out] in Kentucky. … We obviously pick candidates who are in the Democratic mainstream, and we like candidates who will be good senators, but winning matters. And so, do I occasionally take some flak? Sure. But that’s part of the game and I don’t mind it. That’s my job." Actually, it isn't. He's supposed to be neutral.

Even one candidate Schumer didn’t initially like, comedian Al Franken, has won him over.

The Democratic race to face Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) is now all but clear with the exit of attorney Mike Ciresi-- a development Schumer said he was pleased with-- and Republicans were quick to go on the offensive this week, distributing a video of Franken faking an Asian accent.

“To be honest with you, I was really worried when [Franken] first announced,” Schumer said. “I was worried that his jokes would get him in trouble, but more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious. He is a very serious candidate, and he gets it and he knows how to talk to average people.”

Notice the reptilian brain at work: "more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious." I wonder if he meant that running from the left (i.e., representing regular people instead of business interests) is something he doesn't like AND that he doesn't like someone he judges not to be "not serious" (the same tact Coleman is taking on his attacks against Franken; Coleman and Schumer grew up within blocks of each other-- as did Ken, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and myself.) He also marvels that Coleman knows how to talk to "average people." Imagine that; maybe he can give lessons when he gets to the Senate.

My favorite part of the story was when we are reminded that "Schumer is up for reelection in 2010." Maybe someone who runs from the left and knows how to talk with regular people will decide to take him on in a primary. If you hear of anyone considering it, send them to Blue America.

BLUE AMERICA WELCOMES JIM NEAL (D-NC)

Jim Neal and his son Graham

Enthusiastic progressives often suggest candidates for our Blue America endorsement. We encourage that. I have to say, though, that since the beginning of Blue America in 2005 no candidate has come close to the amount of requests that we've had in regard to today's guest, Jim Neal, who joins us at FDL at 2pm (EST). I've been talking with him on the phone for several months, following his campaign closely at Pam's House Blend and I have come to understand why people are so excited about the prospect of Jim Neal replacing Bush rubber stamp, Elizabeth Dole, in the U.S. Senate... in a seat once held by arch-reactionary Jesse Helms. The delicious irony however is just a small bonus. Jim Neal in the Senate would go a long way towards righting the wrongs that have been inflicted on our country in recent years by corporatist rule.

Before I turn this over to Jim, let me mention that not everyone is as enthusiastic as the North Carolina grassroots Democrats and I. Remember a couple years ago when Inside the Beltway characters like Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC and Chuck Schumer at the DSCC were axing progressive, anti-war and grassroots candidates in favor of their own brand of insiders? The grassroots fought hard for Jon Tester against a Schumer placement in Montanan and against Emanuelist shills who fought John Hall, Jerry McNerney, Carol Shea-Porter. We won those battles. Schumer urged a reluctant Insider, Kay Hagan, to run when he made the decision that North Carolina needed a someone to run against Dole who is... well, just like her. I asked Jim how he and Hagan are different.

The differences are pretty stark. There were only 4 instances that I know of where we have both responded to specific questions about issues at the federal level. First, we were both asked by the Raleigh News & Observer whether or not we would have voted for the appointment of Judge Mukasey as Attorney General. My opponent's response was that she didn't know... she wasn't in the Senate and didn't have access to the testimony... it wouldn't be appropriate for her to comment... and so on. My response was 'Hell, no!' I wouldn't support anybody who has to parse words about whether or not water-boarding is torture.

Another instance was when just recently, within the past 10 days, she announced that she favored retroactive immunity for Telecoms that had committed felony violations of the FISA law. I do not.

Third, she indicated that she is in favor of expansion of S-CHIP but not if it taxes tobacco companies. It was exactly what Senator Dole said when voting to uphold President Bush's veto. [Note: this was the same position several reactionary Democrats took in the debate-- all of whom eventually backed away from it except Georgia's Jim Marshall. Blue America helped convince North Carolina's Mike McIntyre and Bob Etheridge it wasn't a proper position for Democrats.]

In addition she explained her vote in the state senate to lower income tax rates on the wealthiest North Carolinians by saying that if we hadn't lowered income tax rates on the wealthiest they would have moved out of state and we would have... lost them as part of the tax base. It made me wonder if she gets to Washington she will vote to grant an extension to the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest people out fear that the richest Americans will move to the Cayman Islands. It struck me as somewhat nonsensical. Those are four very specific, very tangible points that will help people see the contrast between the two of us. Fundamentally, there's very little difference between her and Senator Dole. That's why she won't be able to beat Senator Dole. And that's why I will; I contrast so much with the Senator. The stances I'm taking are going to appeal to the Democratic base, to progressives, to young people who are turning out in record numbers, to the African-American community who is also turning out in record numbers and they're going to appeal to independent, unaffiliated voters. 70% of those voters in North Carolina are Democrats just looking for a reason to vote for a Democrat. And that's how I'm going to win.

What motivated Jim to run-- his campaign's principal underlying theme-- is his feeling that Congress has not been responsive to the people who own and pay for and fund our democracy. "I believe that special interests-- money-- has become the single most corrosive influence in our political system. The Senate has ignored the will of the people of this country. In 2008 I happen to be fortune, being on the right curve in terms of where the electorate is because this is a year of change. Changing the status quo in Washington equates to what voters are looking for: new brand of leaders-- people with fresh ideas from outside of the whole political bubble mindset that has gridlocked Washington. It's a problem for both political parties. An example would be the number of Democrats just willing to role over on that FISA vote last week; they completely rolled, the way they did when they voted to give George Bush the power to go to war in Iraq. I would have never voted for that. The person who can attest to where I stood on that is my son Winston because he was out on the streets in Manhattan protesting with me. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Polling shows a dead heat in primary, although Hagan, as co-chair of the state Senate's Appropriations Committee, is able to depend on the big institutional money from political insiders and lobbyists. Jim is depending on the grassroots to help him get out his message, a message that shows the stark contrasts between himself and Dole and Hagan. Please consider making a donation to his campaign through the Blue America ActBlue page.

Yesterday, Jim made a little clip for us so we can get a better feeling for who he is and what he intends to do when he gets to Washington. Take a look: