Ever Wonder Why Pelosi Pushes A Woman Theme So Heavily-- A Counterbalance To Rahm's Ugly Sexism

overcompensating tiny ballet dancer, Rahm Emanuel

No one has a worse record of candidate recruitment than Steve Israel-- although when you consider that almost all of Rahm Emanuel's recruited candidates were subsequently defeated for reelection or forced to resign rather than face certain defeat, you can see a clear bridge between the two machiavellian clownish DCCC chairs. Emanuel, a classic runt-bully type, was always good at p.r. and effortlessly played the always lazy, naive and credulous Beltway press. Even before he became DCCC chair he had made sure he was known as Rahmbo and that he lost a finger fighting off a Syrian tank on the Golan Heights (instead of slicing pastrami at an Arby's; his time in Israel was spent making pot-holders and lanyards at a camp for the children of rich American Jews). He's always over-compensating for a painful sense of inferiority-- an untreated and very severe psychological problem that has proven catastrophic for the Democratic Party.

When it was published, there wasn't much interest in the literary equivalent of a blow job from Wall Street Journal hack reporter Naftali Bendavid, The Thumpin': How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution, pure Emanuel p.r. In it Bendavid write about Emanuel's laughable "macho strut." (He once pulled his silly routine on me in a bar down the street from the DCCC building.) Here's for the p.r. masquerading as a book that Emanuel had Bendavid write to glorify him:

Despite the incongruous fact that Emanuel for years studied ballet, he projected a masculine assertiveness-- with his missing finger, his browbeating style, his cursing, his stint helping Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Emanuel and John Lapp, his top aide at the outset of the campaign, delighted at finding candidates who fit the manly mold-- military veterans, police officers, pilots. Among their most prized recruits was Brad Ellsworth, an Indiana sheriff, and there were many others. Emanuel bragged repeatedly about how many military veterans he'd recruited. "That's the stuff I love-- tough, macho Democrats taking on the Republicans," Lapp said. Emanuel at one point described a Vietnam veteran he was trying to recruit, whom he did not name, by saying, "I don't know if he's going to win, but I'll tell you this: I don't want to cross the motherfucker. I think he would take out a knife and kill you. I think he would kill you." He seemed to view this as an asset.

Some saw this as a pose or worse. David Sirota, a liberal blogger, had had enough when he read an October w5 Rolling Stone article quoting Democratic consultant Paul Begala saying of his friend Emanuel, "He's got this big old pair of brass balls and you can just hear 'em clanking' when he walks down the halls of Congress. Sirota posted his reaction on the Huffington Post Web log: "We have a name for talk like this: It's called B.S. Because here's what Emanuel never seems to answer: How is someone 'tough' if they are so wimpy as to refuse to push their party to take clear contrasting positions on the most important issues facing America?" That's what real toughness would be, Sirota argued-- confronting the Republicans forcefully on Iraq, health care, union organizing.

But Emanuel was fighting a weak, femininine image that had long haunted the Democratic Party, in part from its ties to women and gays, in part from its perceived weakness on national defense. Republicans often promoted their strength, while Democrats promoted their caretaking. Television host Chris Matthews had famously called the Republican Party "the daddy party" and the Democrats "the mommy party." Republicans had effectively portrayed candidates from Michael Dukakis to Walter Mondale as effeminate. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, George Bush presented himself as a tough guy, a rancher, a cowboy; Gore and Kerry-- both of whom served in Vietnam while Bush avoided the draft-- were ported as effete. Gore was derided when an internal campaign memo came to light advising him to wear "earth tones." Kerry was painted as a French-speaking sissy who favored such dubious soprts as sailboarding. These undertones of gender had been part of the parties' images at least since the Cold War, and at a time when voters were feeling fearful of terrorism, it was crucial for the Democrats to combat this perception. Emanuel and Lapp were determined to do so, not only in the candidates they recruited but in their own personalities. They presented themselves as men of action, like characters from an Ernest Hemingway novel. "There's so much in politics where people move too slow. It's never that [with us]," Lapp said. "If we make a mistake, its going to be because we moved too fast. Like if we recruit too heavily and get the wrong guy. It's not going to be an omission or hesitation."

To get the right candidate, Emanuel was more than willing to fight with other Democrats. He was looking for a candidate in a tough district in North Carolina, for example, and Congressman Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, pleaded with Emanuel to back a protégé of his. But Emanuel thought the man was too liberal for the district and refused to support him, leading to shouting matches between Emanuel and Miller. Instead, Emanuel recruited a more conservative attorney named Tim Dunn, who had served with the Marines in Iraq.

I recollect this race well in NC-08, then a swing district represented by weak Republican multimillionaire Robin Hayes. Progressives and grassroots activists were determined to not allow Emanuel to insert his right-wing candidate and backed purported progressive school teacher Larry Kissell, who beat Dunn 53.48- 16.89% in a 4-way primary, which Rick Glazier, a progressive state legislator-- who won another term just 3 weeks ago, by the way-- did not take part in. The general election was the closested in the country and Kissell lost by 329 votes, challenged Hayes to a rematch in 2008 and beat him 55-45%. Kissell then made the classic mistake of listening to his enemies at the DCCC who remade him as an unconvincing transactional Blue Dog-- which alienated his entire base-- and led to his defeat in 2012 by GOP nut-job Richard Hudson. Had Glazier been the candidate the DCCC backed, instead of Emanuel's macho buffoon (who all the other Fayetteville lawyers considered the dumbest guy in town), Glazier would probably still be in the seat today. What made Glazier "too liberal" was that he introduced a bill to allow North Carolina drivers licenses to be issued without regard to immigration status. Dunn's ridiculous campaign sounded great to pathetic clowns like Emanuel and Lapp but it didn't survive his first appearance before a Democratic audience in the district. He said he opposed abortion rights because it encouraged promiscuity and said any contracts between gay partners that replicated some of the legal attributes of marriage should be void as against public policy.

There were rumors at the time that after Dunn realized he had no chance to win the primary and dropped out (still on the ballot), Rahm called Glazier, as a better alternative to Kissell and his unruly mob of populist supporters who Emanuel detested, and Glazier refused to take his calls.

Today Rahm is busy wrecking the city of Chicago on behalf of his bankster cronies. We urge you to consider the progressive candidate running against him there, Jesus Chuy Garcia.

It Must Really Suck To Be Larry Kissell

But, at least Kissell got to play congressman for 4 years, which may or may not have been more satisfying that his previous job as a high school social studies teacher in Biscoe. When we first met up with Kissell, he was a fighting populist and we had every reason to believe he would make a great congressman. Were we ever snookered! He's been one of the worst mistakes in the history of Blue America.

In 2006 he won a 4-way primary (with 53% of the vote) and challenged independently wealthy incumbent Robin Hayes in a district that was leaning Democratic. Following local grassroots activists, Blue America got behind Kissell, who was perceived as a progressive so, naturally, ignored by Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC. When he lost by 329 votes-- the closest congressional race in the country-- the DCCC had an "oops" moment. Kissell immediately announced he would run again in 2008 and this time both Blue America and the DCCC were, for once, on the same side. This time Kissell routed Hayes, 157,185 (55%) to 126,634 (45%), winning 8 of the 10 counties, killing Hayes in giant Mecklenburg and Cumberland counties, with red, red Cabarrus and Stanley counties the only places where Hayes really held his strength.

Then something odd happened. The corrupt Beltway leadership got to Kissell... fast. If he wanted to hold the seat, they told him, he'd have to grow up and stop being a hippie and start voting conservatively, not the way he had promised his constituents he'd vote. He alienated his entire base and his voting record started looking a lot like... Robin Hayes'! Eventually he just outright joined the Blue Dog caucus and in the 2011-'12 session he's had one of the most reactionary voting records of any Democrat in Congress. His ProgressivePunch score on crucial roll calls is 36.93, which is worse than fellow North Carolinian Walter Jones (40.61). And Walter Jones is a Republican. A small handful of Blue Dogs votes with the Republicans as frequently as Kissell. Although the Democratic Party convention was in his backyard, he decided he didn't want the association with Obama and the Democratic Party; he skipped it, making himself into a local laughing stock... again. Kissell, who voted with Darrell Issa to censure Eric Holder and who refuses to endorse President Obama for reelection and voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, is despised by Democrats. And Republicans have their own candidate, Establishment insider Richard Hudson. 

Hudson is attacking Kissell the wrong way and I've thought about fixing the mistake Blue America made in 2008 by taking him out with some ads that don't (falsely) point out he's a liberal, which is what that imbecile Hudson is doing, but by advertising his conservative record in Democratic strongholds. It's how Blue America beat Alabama Blue Dog Bobby Bright in 2010 and... I'm tempted. But I think the redistricting against Kissell is so strong that even a dimwit like Hudson will be able to beat him. In 2008 Senator Obama won NC-08 with 53% of the vote. Under the new boundaries drawn by the Republican legislature Obama would have lost with 42% of the vote. That's too drastic a shift for someone like Kissell, with a crumbling base, to survive.

So what about his pals at the DCCC who persuaded him to grown up and stop being a hippie? Kissell is the very first incumbent Steve Israel cut loose this cycle. Last week, The Hill reported

that "the DCCC has already canceled two weeks of its buy for Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), a sign it thinks he's a lost cause." No loyalty among scumbags... what a surprise!

Larry Kissell... Very Sad

If you just discovered DWT or Blue America in the last 2 or 3 years this may sound incongruous, but there was a time we used to cooperate, to one extent or another, with the DCCC. After all, they were trying to elect Democrats, occasionally even progressive ones, and they were the guys with the big bank account holding back the Republican barbarian hordes. Or so we told ourselves.

In 2008 Blue America took a big interest in the Robin Hayes/Larry Kissell rematch. Two years earlier the progressive school teacher Kissell-- with no help from the DCCC-- had nearly bested the multimillionaire incumbent Hayes. The 50/50 vote was Hayes- 60,926; Kissell- 60,597-- a 329 vote difference. Blue America got behind Kissell in a much bigger way than how we supported most candidates. Aside from raising money for his campaign, we gave him tactical advise and, in late October we did the single biggest independent expenditure in our history. Kissell, running on an entirely progressive/populist platform won a smashing victory, clobbering Hayes 157,185 (55%)- 126,634 (45%)... 3 points better than Obama's 53% win over McCain in the district.

But almost as soon as Kissell got to Congress, he started to change. The outspoken progressive champion wasn't quite so outspoken at first. And then he wasn't progressive either. The DCCC got to him and told him that if he hoped to hold the seat, he would have to vote like a conservative. He's a weak, insecure, vane and vacillating man-- and he flipped. He started voting regularly with the Blue Dogs and, shockingly, after the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010, he actually joined the shriveled, shrunken caucus. Now he has no support among the progressives who elected him in the first place and the Republican-controlled legislature has redistricted him in such a way that he can't possibly win. Recall a minute ago when I mentioned Obama scored 53% in NC-8? Under the new lines, he would have scored 42%. Kissell is toast and he has virtually no chance to beat a corrupt Republican establishment hack named Richard Hudson, who won the GOP primary a couple weeks ago with a gigantic cash infusion of Chinese prostitution money (via Sheldon Adelson and Eric Cantor). A real Democrat would be able to make that work for him. But not Kissell. He has no credibility with anyone. Yesterday Think Progress reported that he's now trying to take credit for the benefits his constituents are starting to get from the Affordable Care Act, even though he was one of the Blue Dogs who voted against it-- and then joined with the GOP to repeal it!

Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and was one of five Democrats to support repeal of the law earlier this year. But opposition to health care reform hasn’t stopped this two-term Congressman from taking credit for it.

In June, Kissell bragged about helping secure $379,167 in federal money provided by the Act “for a new health care clinic near China Grove in Rowan County.” “I’m glad to have worked to help secure this funding and will continue to make sure that our tax dollars are being spent here at home to put people to work and take care of our citizens,” Kissell said in a release and then dodged reporters who pressed him on the hypocrisy...

Kissell has also “refused to endorse Obama’s re-election bid” and joined Republicans in voting to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

But guess who loves Larry Kissell? "Ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel, chairman of the DCCC, won't help endangered progressives who are struggling for reelection-- let alone progressive challengers going up against GOP monstrosities like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Buck McKeon-- but he sure put Kissell right up on the DCCC Frontline candidates list, making him eligible for millions of dollars in ad money the DCCC will waste on trying to reelect him. Kissell doesn't deserve reelection-- and he certainly doesn't deserve any help from real Democrats. If you contribute to the DCCC, some of that money will find its way into Larry Kissell's campaign. If you want to see a more progressive, pro-family, pro-worker, pro-environment Democrat in Congress from North Carolina, think about Patsy Keever. She's running against corporate whore and deceitful closet case Patrick McHenry in a district that is somewhat bluer than it's ever been-- bluer because the state legislature was trying to make Kissell's district redder. It would be a GREAT trade-off. Needless to say, Steve Israel and the DCCC isn't lifting a finger for Patsy. Once she beat Israel's handpicked recruit, an anti-Choice, antigay conservaDem, the DCCC decided the district was no longer viable. That's how they roll. If you can, please consider making a contribution to Patsy's campaign in NC-10. She has a sterling voting record as an activist and as a state Rep.

Eric Cantor vs The Tea Party In North Carolina

Eric Cantor's Young Guns PAC plunked down close to $400,000 this week in NC-08, not to beat drowning Blue Dog Larry Kissell-- probably the second most vulnerable Democrat in America (after Georgia Blue Dog John Barrow)-- but to beat Tea Party candidate Scott Keadle. Keadle, a dentist and grassroots activist will face Establishment hack Richard Hudson next Tuesday, July 17 in a primary runoff and then the winner gets to beat Kissell in November and help the DCCC waste as much as $2 million.

Hudson, once an aide to defeated multimillionaire Robin Hayes, who represented the district before Kissell beat him (when Kissell was still posing as a populist) led in the 5-man primary with almost a third of the vote. Eric Cantor has been orchestrating a vicious series of attacks against Keadle, who is viewed by the Inside-the-Beltway Establishment as too independent-minded and extreme. Tuesday Cantor's PAC, which has been gifted $5 million in Chinese organized crime money, announced it had just spent a fortune on more anti-Keadle TV and radio ads, as well as mailers. Previously Cantor's PAC gave Hudson $75,750. Cantor cronies at the American Action Network have also announced that they'll be spending heavily on TV to tear down Keadle, although they're trying to keep the ad, "Layers," out of the hands of the media. Cantor, Boehner, Ryan, McCarthy and their pals hope to crush the Tea Party's fondest hope of winning a seat by burying them in cash. And Tea Party financiers like the Koch brothers and Dick Armey are not interested in the race. Neither are fair-weather friends like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann.

Meanwhile, the far right Hudson Project and the Club For Growth endorsed Keadle and put up some lame and ineffective ads. Two of the losers from the primary, Vernon Robinson and John Whitley, have endosed Keadle, as have fascist anti-immigrant lunatic Jim Gilchrist, Citizens United and Red State. Red State started warning in April that Cantor would try to steal the race for the Establishment.

There is a reason why this is Cantor’s first independent expenditure on behalf of a Republican challenger. Keadle will never beat to the drum of leadership. Richard Hudson is a creature of Washington with his robust ties to GOP establishment leaders.

People often ask me where they could get the best value for their political contributions. There are a few good stars this cycle, but if I were forced to pick the best individual to support, it would be Dr. Scott Keadle. If you don’t believe me, just ask leadership.

And Monday Red State was at it again Monday, pushing Keadle even as they come to grips that Cantor was drowning their dreams in a flood of Adelson cash. They're hoping they can accomplish in NC-8 what they did in the Indiana Senate race. I'm sure Kissell is too-- but it won't matter for Kissell since he's so alienated the Democratic base that he might as well start looking for a job as a lobbyist now-- not than anyone would ever hire him.

Conservative Scott Keadle-- who has been endorsed by Red State, the Club for Growth, Citizens United, and the Madison Project-- will be facing off against establishment-hack Richard Hudson in a runoff-election to face faux blue dog Democrat Larry Kissell in North Carolina District 8. This is a conservative district and is ripe for picking this November; however, we must pick off the seat with the right Republican.

Throughout this election season, we have seen a number of candidates run to the right during primaries in the hope that voters will fail to look into their souls. Most House candidates are successful at this endeavor, especially those without a record in public office. After all, they can tell voters anything, and there’s not much information to refute their claims.

One such creature is Richard Hudson. Hudson talks the talk of an intrepid conservative, yet there are clear warning signs to the contrary for anyone who understands the political dynamic of establishment Republicans.

Hudson has served as a Chief of Staff to establishment Republicans on the Hill for years.  He served as the top aid to a member who voted for the debt ceiling deal and the omnibus bill in 2011-- the two worst pieces of legislation to come out of Congress that year.  Somehow he just wasn’t strong enough to convince his boss to vote the right way, assuming he tried at all.

While Hudson tosses out the red meat on God, guns, and babies (who wouldn’t in a southern district?), he has shown himself to be wanting on issues pertaining to free markets and government intervention. He has sent out mailers hitting Keadle’s support for free trade as a gift to China-- a typical talking point we hear from Barack Obama. He also loves himself some  subsidies.

Most importantly, you can tell a man by his friends and supporters. Hudson, who came of political age at the feet of the Republican establishment, is being supported by all establishment players. In fact, Young Guns Action Fund is so scared of Keadle’s promise to challenge leadership that they are running ads and mailers against him all over the district. The only other Republican who has incurred negative attacks by Young Guns was Richard Mourdock when he was challenging Dick Lugar. It appears that they are as confident in Hudson’s support as they were in Lugar’s. Hudson has also received support from Kevin McCarthy, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan’s PACs. Now there is word that American Action Network will be coming to Hudson’s aid with anti-Keadle ads.

Welcome to Lugar vs. Mourdock 2.0. There’s a reason the establishment fears Keadle; he will not be co-opted.

Any Tea Partt patriots looking for revenge against Cantor, you're more than welcome here.

Which Democrats Will Cross The Aisle Today And Vote Against Health Care Reform?

Several right-wing Democrats, perhaps aware that the DCCC will give them more money for their reelection campaigns if they back the GOP agenda, are expected to make certain that their pals Boehner and Cantor can call today's vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act "bipartisan." In 2011 when the Republicans took over the House and Boehner became Speaker, the first thing they did, H.R. 2, was to vote to repeal health care reform. Every single Republican-- no exceptions-- voted for repeal. They were joined by 3 of the most reflexively reactionary Democrats-- Blue Dogs, Dan Boren (OK), Mike McIntyre (NC) and Mike Ross (AR)-- and the bill passed 245-189... and then quickly died. Since then, the GOP has forced several more pointless votes on repealing what they call ObamaCare.

And they're going for it again today. While there has been some speculation that several vulnerable Republicans-- particularly David McKinley (R-WV), who's likely to lose his seat to progressive Sue Thorn, Brian Bilbray, who is unlikely to survive a challenge by ConservaDem Scott Peters in a swing district that has been redrawn to swing bluer, and perhaps Mary Bono Mack, who could be facing a serious challenge from a popular progressive doctor, Raul Ruiz, campaigning on health care issues-- could jump ship and vote with the Democrats, it's much more likely that Boehner and Cantor will pick up some more Blue Dogs.

Although Larry Kissell first ran for Congress as an unabashed progressive and a champion of working families, he quickly sold out to the Dark Side and began voting pretty consistently with the corporate interests and the Republicans. Last year he gave up and pretensions of even being a Democrat at all and joined the Blue Dogs. Thousands of Democrats in his district have already made up their minds to not vote for him in November, allow a Republican to win and then try to elect an actual Democrat in 2014. Not likely that his announcement this week that he's voting against the Affordable Care Act will change any minds. Remember, before he stabbed progressive voters in the back in 2009 and morphed into a conservative, Kissell ran in 2006 and 2008 as a fire-brand populist. In 2006 he came within a few votes of defeating multimillionaire Bush rubber stamp Robin Hayes (60,926 to 60,597) and won a big victory in crucial Mecklenburg County (10,931- 5,157). In 2008 as part of the Democratic tidal wave-- Obama beat McCain in NC-8 with 53% of the vote-- Kissell dislodged Hayes in a highly contested rematch, 157,185- 126,634. Enthusiastic, fired-up Democrats and left-leaning independents came out to vote in great numbers and gave Kissell impressive victories in 8 out of the district's 10 counties. 2010 saw a very different race. North Carolina Democrats felt let down by Kissell's abysmal voting record and disappointing performance as a congressman. He barely scraped by against a lunatic fringe hate talk radio host, Harold Johnson, 87,394 (53%) to 72,626 (44%), setting off alarm bells at the DCCC. Almost half his 2008 voters stayed home. But the lesson the DCCC learned wasn't that Kissell should cultivate the base and stay true to his roots; it was that he should become more conservative and vote more frequently with the GOP. That's why he has virtually no chance to win reelection this November, not that that will stop the DCCC from wasting between a million and two million dollars on his race.

Boehner and Cantor claim they have several other conservative Blue Dogs and New Dems in the bag. There are 19 Democratic incumbents on the DCCC's top spend priority list, "Frontline Democrats," and of them most are extremely reactionary and extremely open to abandoning their own party and crossing over to the GOP side. Tucson's newly elected Ron Barber, for example, has only been in Congress for a couple weeks and has already shown that Cantor can generally count on his support of the Republican agenda. He even voted for civil contempt against Eric Holder and for gutting the most important environmental laws ever passed. The fact that he's being challenged vigorously by progressive doctor Matt Heinz has put him into a bind and he's torn between following his gut-- to vote to kill the Affordable Care Act-- and being wary that if he does, his alienation from AZ-2 Democrats will be complete and unsalvageable. Aside from Barber, there are 7 Blue Dogs (Barrow, Boswell, Chandler, Kissell, Matheson, McIntyre and Schrader) and 3 other ConservaDems (Critz, Hochul and Owens) who often vote with the Republicans on key roll calls. Not a single one of them could win reelection without massive DCCC financial support. But DCCC Chair Steve Israel, far from demanding they toe the line, encourages them to vote with the Republicans.

The GOP’s hope is that a strong House vote-- and fresh Democratic opposition-- will thwart the White House’s effort to boost political support for the law in light of the court ruling, said one House Republican leadership aide.

Wednesday’s vote represents the House’s 31st attempt to kill the law as a whole or in part.

On Monday, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) went after Republicans with this figure, criticizing the GOP for an effort that will go nowhere in the Senate.

“The effort that the Republicans are undertaking on Wednesday [is] the 31st vote to repeal healthcare,” Hoyer said, chuckling, at an event. “And after every vote … not one alternative has been proposed.”

...North Carolina Reps. Mike McIntyre (D) and Kissell have both said they will support repeal. Kissell joined the Blue Dogs earlier this year amid a tough fight for reelection, and both men made headlines recently for declining to endorse Obama.

“I’ve heard from hundreds and hundreds of people from my district about their opposition to the healthcare law,” Kissell recently told the Charlotte Observer. “I voted against it originally and I will vote to repeal it.”

However, when House Republicans originally brought the repeal motion to the floor, Kissell told reporters he wouldn’t support that measure.

“I made a promise and commitment that I would look out for Medicare, and I’m doing that,” he said at the time, according to reports.

But several other Democrats, including Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.) and Mike Ross (Ark.), did not respond to repeated inquiries about how they will vote on Wednesday. Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), who is running for the Senate, has not said how he’ll vote after opposing both the law and its repeal.

The Democratic leadership is whipping its members against repeal, but aides said Monday they did not have an estimate of how many will vote with Republicans.

The GOP expects no defections from its ranks and is not formally whipping its members, a Republican aide said.

Later today we'll be examining what Democratic candidates who oppose the ACA because it's too compromised and tied to Big Insurance are proposing to make the bill function better for ordinary working families. And we'll be launching a series of ads on behalf of progressives running against Republicans who vote to kill health care reform.




UPDATE: No Surprises!

All the GOP lemmings voted to repeal and they were joined by, basically, the 5 worse Blue Dogs. Boren (OK) and Ross (AR) are retiring to become lobbyists and why would they change their pattern? The other three are endangered incumbents Kissell (NC), McIntyre (NC) and Matheson (UT). All 3 are on the DCCC Frontline List which means that despite their votes against health care reform today, each will get far more money pumped into their reelection campaigns than Democrats not on the list. In all, close to $5 million will be wasted by Steve Israel trying to save their miserable necks. Kissell has no chance whatsoever and the other two aren't good bets. But never forget, Israel was a Blue Dog too and his ties with these assholes is what he bases his hopes for a fantasy-speakship on.

GOP Declares Class War... But There Are Democrats In Congress Who Side With The Republicans

CNBC, because of their demo, seems to have a very different take on the world than, say, MSNBC-- or at least MSNBC not counting that Republican morning show and Pat Buchanan. But a posting from CNBC this week could well have come from people working on the Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz show: GOP Faces Risk Of Political Backlash On Budget Cuts. It's a poll-based warning about the hard reality GOP leaders are too scared to look at-- scared because of nihilistic and voracious teabagger extremists-- but that puts them in an untenable position. Most Americans are concerned about jobs and are feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Boehner & Co pushing whacky social issues and budget cuts that will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and trade policies that will send more jobs overseas.

The survey shows Republicans in Washington caught between powerful opposing forces: demands from the Tea Party right for spending cuts to reduce the budget deficits, and fears by crucial swing voter groups that cuts would harm them amid anxiety over the weak economy.

Those pressing hardest for spending cuts represent "an incredibly powerful but small ideological part of our electorate," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts the NBC/WSJ survey with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart.

To the peril of Republican politicians, their priorities collide squarely with the concerns of younger voters, senior citizens, independents and suburban women whom the GOP needs to win elections. Mr. McInturff called that "a huge flashing yellow sign for Republicans" in their pending showdown with the White House and Congressional Democrats, but wasn't sure his party would heed it.

"It may be hard to understand why someone would jump off a cliff," explained Mr. McInturff, who advised the 2008 campaign of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, "unless you understand they were being chased by a tiger. That tiger is the Tea Party."

That encouraging news for Democrats is not reflected in assessments of President Obama's job performance, which has receded after the boost he received from his handlings of the Tucson shootings in January. Mr. Obama's job approval rating in the survey was 48 percent, down from 53 percent in the previous NBC/WSJ poll.

Yesterday "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel, the worst possible choice the Democrats could have made to lead the DCCC (even Wasserman-Schultz would have been a thousand ten times better), announced that the DCCC will be channeling massive amounts of contributions into 15 endangered incumbents, most of whom are endangered because they vote with the Republicans on tough bills and have disappointed the party's base. So, when the DCCC solicits money to "protect" women's choice or to "protect" the environment, they are practicing a politician chicanery that will only lead to further disillusionment, since immense amounts of money goes towards reelecting Democrats who vote with the GOP on these issues. The worst of the bunch are cronies of Steve Israel's, Blue Dog reactionaries Mike McIntyre (NC), Jim Matheson (UT), Ben Chandler (KY), as well as proto-Blue Dogs Mark Critz (PA), Bill Owens (NY) and Larry Kissell (NC).

Let's look at how these priorities for DCCC resources-- money that could and should be going to elect progressives who fight for the values Democrats believe in-- have been voting since the 112th Congress convened. First, their overall ProgressivePunch scores on crucial votes, showing each of them voting far more frequently with Boehner on the issues that matter than with their own party:

Mike McIntyre- 33.33
Jim Matheson- 33.33
Ben Chandler- 34.15
Mark Critz- 34.15
Bill Owens- 31.71
Larry Kissell- 31.71

Eight Republicans, some of whom-- like Michael Fitzpatrick and Charlie Bass-- are being targeted by the DCCC, voted against Boehner's insane agenda more often than Kissell and Owens! But let's go right back to the very first vote in the House this year, a vote to pick the Speaker. Generally, all Republicans vote for the Republican leader (in this case Boehner) and all Democrats vote for the Democratic leader (Pelosi)-- and indeed all the Republicans rallied around Boehner and elected what is turning out to be the is already looking like the worst Speaker in history. But close to two dozen Democrats bolted. Blue Dogs Jim Matheson and Mike McIntyre and Kissell (who lied to Democrats and ran as a progressive) voted for uber-reactionary Heath Shuler. And then McIntyre was one of the 3 Democrats to join Boehner in voting to repeal healthcare reform.

Vote after vote, saw this list of Steve Israel's priorities crossing the aisle and voting with Boehner on all the tough votes, whether it's Matheson and Chandler backing Boehner's intention of ending public financing for presidential elections or Chandler, Critz, Kissell, Matheson, and McIntyre voting with Boehner (and Israel) to extend the PATRIOT Act or Mike McIntyre walking in lockstep with his pal Mike Pence to defund Planned Parenthood.

Israel claimed yesterday that "voters sent a clear message" in November. It's a shame he only heard what teabaggers and Republicans were saying and not what Democrats were saying. Let's take Larry Kissell as an example. Before he stabbed progressive voters in the back in 2009 and morphed into a conservative, Kissell ran in 2006 and 2008 (as a fire-brand populist and across-the-board progressive). In 2006 he came within a few votes of defeating multimillionaire Bush rubber stamp Robin Hayes (60,926 to 60,597) and won a big victory in crucial Mecklenburg County (10,931- 5,157). In 2008 as part of the Democratic tidal wave-- Obama beat McCain in NC-8 with 53% of the vote-- Kissell dislodged Hayes in a highly contested rematch, 157,185- 126,634. Enthusiastic, fired-up Democrats and left-leaning independents came out to vote in great numbers and gave Kissell impressive victories in 8 out of the districts 10 counties.

Last November saw a very different race. North Carolina Democrats felt let down by Kissell's abysmal voting record and disappointing performance as a congressman. He barely scraped by against a lunatic fringe hate talk radio host, Harold Johnson, 87,394 (53%) to 72,626 (44%), setting off alarm bells at the DCCC. Almost half his 2008 voters stayed home. Below is a list of the 15 Members on Israel's list, along with their victory percentages in 2008 and in 2010

• Representative Tim Bishop (NY-01)- 58%/50%
• Representative Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)- 56%/51%
• Representative Russ Carnahan (MO-03)- 66%/49%
• Representative Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)- 65%/50%
• Representative Gerry Connolly (proto-Blue Dog-VA)- 55%/49%
• Representative Mark Critz (proto-Blue Dog-PA)- 53*/51%
• Representative Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ)- 55%/49%
• Representative Larry Kissell (proto-Blue Dog-NC)- 55%/53%
• Representative Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- 63%/51%
• Representative Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC) 69%/54%
• Representative Jerry McNerney (CA)- 55%/48%
• Representative Bill Owens (proto-Blue Dog-NY)- 49%*/48%
• Representative Gary Peters (MI)- 52%/50%
• Representative Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 54%/51%
• Representative Tim Walz (MN-01)- 63%/50%

*-indicates special elections to fill open seats

Funding the DCCC, especially under a Blue Dog and corporate whore like Israel just furthers the bipartisan conservative agenda. The DCCC is not the friend of anyone hoping for progressive governance in this country... quite the contrary. They are very much part of the conservative consensus that keeps us fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and Yemen and Pakistan, while making sure the wealthy become forever wealthier at the expense of the rest of us. A little better than Republicans? Yeah, but very little.

Can The Democrats Save Themselves From The Republicans? Maybe They Should Start By Saving Social Security From The Republicans

How's that bipartisan thing working out for you, Dems?

Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse wrote a potentially explosive issue in the Sunday Times, Democrats Plan Political Triage To Retain House. Why should that be explosive; trying to retain the House seems like a perfectly normal thing to do. Here's Webster's definition of "triage":

With the midterm campaign entering its final two months, Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach, including re-election bids by Representatives Betsy Markey of Colorado, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland, whose districts were among the 55 Democrats won from Republicans in the last two election cycles.

Representatives John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, chairman of the Budget Committee, and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, who is seeking a 10th term, are among the senior Democrats who have appeared to gain little ground in the summer months in the toxic political environment. A sputtering economy and discontent with Washington have created a high sense of voter unease that has also put control of the Senate in question.

Pelosi's asking Democrats in safe seats to contribute to Democrats in tough races; Obama's doing more fundraisers around the country; and ineffectual consultants and media buyers are getting rich because panic-stricken incumbents have no idea how to connect to voters or strategize a reelection campaign. The DCCC leadership-- careerist climbers Chris Van Hollen and Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- are way beyond inept and worthless, and better described as toxic to Democratic chances to cling onto power. If they manage to hold on, it's only because Republican are worse.

While Democrats have all but given up hope that the political or economic climate will improve substantially before the election, they are not conceding control of the House. Several party leaders and strategists privately acknowledge that about 20 seats are already probably lost, but they believe they can build a fire wall around seats in the Northeast and in other pockets across the country where Republicans have nominated untested candidates.

The battle is boiling down to a question of mathematics and difficult decisions for Democrats. By the best-case Democratic calculation, party strategists believe that Republicans must beat about 35 sitting Democrats if the parties split 16 highly competitive open seats and Democrats win four of five Republican seats they see as within their reach in Delaware [Castle's abandoned seat], Florida [Putnam's abandoned seat], Hawaii [Djou], Illinois [Kirk's abandoned seat] and Louisiana [Cao].

I don't doubt that Zeleny and Hulse used every contact and every bit of reporting skill they collectively possess to find out about the triage. They failed. I can imagine that's not a topic even a notoriously loose-lipped egomaniac like Emanuel is going to talk about outside of a very closed environment. Democrats seem to think they they've benefited from Republican primary voters going for beyond-the-pale extremists in several races, like Jesse Kelly (the teabagger running against conservative Arizona Blue Dog Gabby Giffords who has her own problems after having demotivated Hispanic Democrats) and Raul Labrador (the teabagger nutcase who beat a more mainstream conservative, Vaughn Ward, in a very bitter primary with very unhealed wounds, and who now faces one of the most conservative Blue Dogs in the House, Walt Minnick. But to get the full flavor of what kinds of insanity the Republicans have inflicted on themselves-- and how that can help endangered Democrats-- let's look at a different race, the one for the North Carolina seat currently held by freshman Larry Kissell.

Kissell originally won in 2008 after 4 years of campaigning as a grassroots populist. He almost immediately bought into the DCCC line that he would have to abandon any pretentious of being either a grassroots candidate or a populist if he were to win reelection in two years and he took a hard swing right and disillusioned his loyal supporters who helped him beat a powerful incumbent. It should be an easy seat for the GOP to take back. Kissell comes off as a putz with no values-- and no dedicated base behind him. But the Republicans have managed to make a mess of the opportunity. The primary runoff between hapless sportscaster Harold Johnson and Glenn Beck neo-fascist Tim D'Annunzio was so bitter it tore the local party apart. Johnson won but in a way that turned off local GOP and tea party activists and with a Libertarian in the general election the GOP will probably not be able to dislodge the worthless Kissell.

All five Republicans in North Carolina's congressional delegation endorsed Johnson after state Chairman Tom Fetzer called D'Annunzio "unfit for public office at any level." And last week House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and other top GOP lawmakers hosted a Capitol Hill fundraiser for Johnson.

D'Annunzio ran against the establishment. He sent out an Election Day e-mail telling supporters about rumors of "the NCGOP hijacking this election" by installing Johnson as the nominee even if D'Annunzio were to win.

"I'm very glad that Harold won," Fetzer said Tuesday night. "The 8th will be one of the top battleground seats in the country. ... Most of Mr. D'Annunzio's troubles were self-inflicted."

Polls - including D'Annunzio's own - showed Johnson leading by double digits in the campaign's final days. Last week D'Annunzio told the Observer it would "take a miracle" for him to win.

D'Annunzio made headlines by raising money at "machine-gun socials." But only two House candidates in the country invested more in their own race. He gave his campaign more than $1.3 million, including $25,000 last Friday.

Johnson gave his campaign nearly $300,000.

They used the money to finance an aggressive and bitter media campaign.

One Johnson ad highlighted D'Annunzio's "history of drug use and time in prison," an allusion to his opponent's past legal problems.

Court documents from 1995 detailed D'Annunzio's earlier arrests and episodes of violence and drugs. A judge called him a "self-described religious zealot" who once called the government the "Anti-Christ."

Johnson's ad prompted D'Annunzio to file a defamation suit. D'Annunzio then used that suit as the basis for ads that said, "According to court documents, Harold Johnson BROKE N.C. election laws."
D'Annunzio railed against the media as well.

Last week he told WBT host Keith Larson that "there's a special place in hell for people like you" after accusing Larson of narrating a Johnson ad.

A profile in Sunday's Fayetteville Observer quoted him telling the reporter, "I know your type. I don't need to know you personally because I know you. I think you are the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, the vilest of the vile."

Johnson entered the six-way primary field late and didn't even move into the district until January, when he traded his longtime home in Statesville for a Concord condo.

But he clearly benefited from his years on WSOC-TV, whose signal reaches as far east as Rockingham, covering more than 70 percent of 8th District voters.

D'Annunzio questioned Johnson's grasp of issues, but chose to cancel the runoff's lone debate, blaming what he called collaboration between the Johnson campaign and the media.

The GOP had been trying to get former seven-term Charlotte Mayor Patrick McCrory to run and they don't take Johnson seriously; all they cared about was keeping D'Annunzio, with a long criminal record and shocking drug abuse problems-- but who finished first in the primary-- from becoming the official party nominee in the runoff. They're not likely to spend a dime on Johnson's general election campaign. Kissell, who was able to leverage grassroots enthusiasm for his populist promises (as well as Obama's formidable coattails) when Robin Hayes outspent him 3-1 in 2008, hasn't raised much money this year and will be completely dependent on the goodwill of the DCCC. He's raised $704,115 and has $292,993 on hand. Johnson raised $481,537 and has $81,730 on hand. In 2006, 74% ($578,543) of Kissell's contributions came from the grassroots and in 2008 59% ($888,387) was grassroots money. This year only 25% ($177,299) has come from the grassroots and the rest is coming from PACs, some labor but mostly business. His vote against the healthcare reform bill has turned off the Democratic base and will discourage small donors and-- more important-- turnout. As I said, only Republicans can save Democrats like Larry Kissell.

Another Democrat mentioned by Hulse and Zeleny was Betsy Markey. I recall a friend of mine in Congress-- defending her vote against healthcare reform-- telling me the DCCC forced her to vote against it and that she wept when she voted no. Did they also force her to join the Blue Dogs? And did they force her to run up one of the most reactionary voting records of any freshman Democrat? They may have-- but since her election she's voted far to the right of her district (-23.33 according to the ProgressivePunch tilt score). Why should the Democratic base care if she wins or loses? Keeping the Democrats in charge of the House is supposed to be the answer. That's pretty abstract and removed from voters back home-- especially when "Democrats" are being seen by some voters as almost as bad as Republicans.

Of the freshman Zeleny and Hulse speculate may be the victims of triage-- Markey, Tom Perriello, Mary Jo Kilroy, Frank Kratovil and Patrick Murphy, only Kilroy has been a remotely progressive voter. Is Van Hollen actually ready to abandon her for a two-faced banking lobbyist after she's poured her heart and soul into doing what’s right in Congress? Mary Jo Kilroy’s hands are all over Wall Street Reform. She authored numerous provisions, was one of two freshmen who served on the Conference Committee and worked hard behind the scenes to stand up to Dodd and others who tried to weaken the bill. Her opponent is going to vote to repeal the law, and lets not forget, this is a guy who spent his entire career tearing down regulations on banks and investment firms, allowing them to become too big to fail, and allowing them to gamble away people’s homes and retirement investments. He is one of John Boehner’s protégés and will be one of his most dedicated lieutenants. Mary Jo, unlike most of the Members the DCCC is trying to save, was a strong supporter of the public option, of cap and trade, is vocal on repealing the Bush Tax Cuts on the richest 2% of Americans and has signed on to the Grijalva letter to stop the cat food commission from proposing social security cuts. The fact that the DCCC would suddenly decide that her D+1 district isn’t worth saving, that Mary Jo Kilroy isn’t worth saving, is frankly a spit in the eye of everyone who worked so hard to build this majority in the first place.

The worst of the lot is Kratovil, whose ProgressivePunch score is a dismal 33.90, the 5th worst of any House Democrat. On important votes he's with the GOP much more than with the Democrats. Why should a Democrat bother to vote for him in November? They shouldn't; and Republicans have their own candidate. Kratovil's chances of winning reelection are negligible. His race is a rematch with far right loon Andy Harris; Kratovil has outraised him so far ($1,853,869 to $1,543,831) but 81% of Harris' money is coming from the grassroots and only 48% of Kratovil's is. In 2008-- when Kratovil beat Harris by less than 3,000 votes (out of over 350,000 cast)-- Harris had outraised him, again with 81% of his money coming from individuals, but at the time Kratovil was getting nearly 70% of his money from the grassroots as well. The grassroots despises him now, as well they should.

Yesterday Ezra Klein stumbled onto "what's wrong" with the Democratic base this year and why the headwind is so strong against so many Democrats. In his report on Social Security he demonstrates the bipartisan and toxic power of conservatism in his first paragraph: "But there is one thing that both parties increasingly seem to agree on: You should work longer." That isn't what Democratic voters want to hear-- basically that Social Security has to be made less attractive so that millionaires can have more tax breaks. Democrats advocating tax breaks for millionaires are going to lose in November-- and, regardless of DCCC and DSCC polls, they are going to lose big... every single one of them-- from a bungling and corrupt asshole like Suzanne Kosmas, who deserves to lose to a friend of mine... who doesn't. Wisely, Ezra has changed his position on raising the Social Security retirement age. I hope Democrats read his column yesterday:

Raising the Social Security retirement age has become as close to a consensus position as exists in American politics. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) supports it. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has said that "we could and should consider a higher retirement age." And for a while, I agreed with them, too. It seemed obvious: People live longer today, and so they should work later into life. But as I've looked at the issue, I've decided that I was wrong. So let me be the skunk at the party. We should leave the retirement age alone. In fact, we should leave Social Security alone-- unless we're making it more, rather than less, generous.

Social Security provides disability insurance and survivor's benefits, but when people talk about it, they tend to be referring to its role as a program that provides income support to retirees. The average monthly benefit of $1,170 replaces about 39 percent of the person's pre-retirement earnings. Over the next two decades, the "replacement rate" is slated to drop to 31 percent. That is less than in most developed countries-- the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks it 25 out of 30 member nations.

The system, in other words, is not that generous, and it's becoming less so every year. The age at which you can begin collecting full Social Security benefits is moving from 65 to 67, as part of a deal struck in the 1980s to ensure the system's solvency. And all this at a time when employers are getting rid of defined-benefit pensions, which means that most workers will have no guaranteed retirement income except for Social Security.

Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants). As Stephen C. Goss, the system's chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance "because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman." That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. "Importantly," Goss continues, "this shortfall is basically stable after 2035." In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once.

The size of that fix is significant, but not astonishing. Over the next 75 years, the shortfall will be equal to about 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. How much is 0.7 percent of GDP? To put that in perspective, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that it's about as much as George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich will cost over the same period. Saying we can afford those cuts-- which is the consensus Republican position-- but not Social Security's outlay is nonsensical. Coming up with 0.7 percent of GDP isn't a crisis. It's a question of priorities.

That doesn't mean that Social Security shouldn't be on the table when we look at how to balance the budget. Everything should be on the table. And Social Security is our single largest program-- though Medicare is projected to overtake it in the next couple of years. But if you really put everything on the table-- the health-care system, the tax code, military spending, farm subsidies, etc.-- then raising the retirement age or otherwise cutting Social Security stops looking so good.

Start with the basic rationale for raising the retirement age. As Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has argued, when Social Security was signed into law, the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 63. "The numbers added up pretty well back then," he said on Fox News. But that's misleading. That figure was driven by high infant mortality. If you were a white male who'd made it to age 60 in 1935, you could expect 15 more years going forward. If you're a white male who lives to 60 today, you can expect 20 more years going forward.

Moreover, those averages conceal a lot of inequality. In 1972, a 60-year-old male worker who made less than the median income had a life expectancy of 78 years. By 2001, he had a life expectancy of 80 years. Meanwhile, workers in the top half of the income distribution shot to 85 years from 79. Insofar as the argument for raising the retirement age is that "Social Security beneficiaries live a lot longer today than they did in 1935," it should be restated as: "Social Security beneficiaries tend to live somewhat longer today than they did in 1935, and that's much more true of rich beneficiaries than poor beneficiaries."

And so what? Lurking beneath this conversation is an unquestioned assumption: We live longer, so we should work longer. That's pretty intuitive to members of Congress, who seem to like their jobs and don't seem to like the idea of retiring. It's also pretty intuitive to blogger/columnists, who spend their time in air-conditioned rooms opining about pension programs. But most people don't work in Congress or in the media. They work on their feet. They strain their backs. They're bored silly at the end of the day. By the time they're in their 60s, they want to retire.

You see that reflected in Social Security. Age 66 is when you get full benefits. But most people begin taking Social Security at age 62. They get less, but they can retire earlier. To them, the trade-off is worth it. And remember, the country is much richer than it was in 1935. Adjusting for inflation, our gross domestic product in 1935 was $865 billion. In 2009, it was more than $12 trillion. We have more than enough money to buy ourselves some leisure time at the end of our lives. At least if that's one of our priorities.

Polling suggests that it is. An August survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research tested reactions to a variety of Social Security fixes. One of the options was raising the retirement age to 70. Two-thirds of respondents opposed it. Another option was eliminating the cap on payroll taxes so that well-off workers pay the tax on their full income, just as middle-income workers do now. A solid 61 percent supported it. [My emphasis-- which is what we've been harping about all year at this blog and what I talk with all Blue America candidates about as well.]

That's almost the reverse of the conversation in Washington, where affluent people who like their jobs propose cutting benefits for the poor (which is, after all, what raising the retirement age would do) rather than lowering benefits or increasing the payroll tax on, well, themselves. Which is not to say that we should be raising taxes or cutting benefits on the better-off, either.

The universally unpleasant options for reform are a testament to Social Security's efficiency. It's a simple transfer program, with administrative costs that amount to less than 0.9 percent of total spending. There's not much fat to cut.

That can't be said for much else in American public policy. Our health-care system costs twice as much as the German system and doesn't deliver better results. Our defense sector is wasteful and bloated. Our tax code could raise more money and do less to harm growth if we cleaned it out. Our home prices are driven upward by the mortgage interest tax deduction. Our health insurance premiums are goosed by the exclusion of employer-sponsored insurance from taxable income.

Reforming any of those sectors (or, in the case of health care, reforming it more) would be politically difficult, but would mean better policy. Reforming Social Security will be politically difficult and result in worse policy. That's the good thing about putting everything on the table. It allows you to think more clearly about what should be taken off.

I've always had a lot of faith in Ezra... and I'm glad to see he's back on the right path. Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey and Frank Kratovil, on the other hand, are all hopeless and Congress and the American people will be better off without them.

North Carolina Democratic Candidate Nancy Shakir Makes The Case For Opposing The Afghan Occupation And Escalation

When many of us contributed to electing Larry Kissell to the house from North Carolina's 8th CD, we were convinced we were voting for someone who opposed wars of aggression, foreign occupations and the dishonest budgetary procedures, "supplementals," the Bush used to pursue wars without paying for them. But last June when the House voted on Obama's war supplemental, Kissell was not among the 32 Democrats who has the guts to stand up and say no. He went along with the crowd-- and didn't stand up and say "no" until it came to helping ordinary American families with protections against predatory banksters and with healthcare reform.

Over the last few days we've looked at why North Carolina Democrats have grown disenchanted enough with Kissell to start flocking to the primary campaign of an outspoken Democratic activist, Nancy Shakir, who's offering a far more family-friendly vision of what America should look like. Last December, writing in the Fayetteville Observer, Nancy explained why she opposes Obama's troop escalation agenda and continued occupation of Afghanistan. She shows a great deal more insight into it than Kissell:

Like most Americans, I have close relatives who have served, were casualties or retired from the military. I support our troops, their families and my family. My mantra is "Love the warrior; hate the war." But I am opposed to President Obama's proposal for troop escalation in Afghanistan for some of the following reasons.

...In Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency doctrine, the accepted ratio of soldiers to natives is 20 to 25 per thousand. The current ratio is 1 to 430. Afghanistan today is a country of about 33 million. Even if we discount the population to the target group of Pashtuns, we must deal with 15 or so million people. So, when he and Gen. Stanley McChrystal ask for 40,000 more troops, it must be viewed as a first step only.

As the generals did in Vietnam, they will have to ask for another increment and then another, moving toward the supposedly winning number of between 600,000 and 1.3 million. Thus, over 10 years, a figure often cited, pretty soon we'll be talking real money. The overall cost to our economy has not yet been summed up, but by comparing it to the Iraq war, it will probably amount to upwards of $6 trillion over a 10-year period.

Then there are the casualties: So far we have lost about a thousand in Afghanistan - or about 20 percent as many as in Iraq. Although casualties can be counted, the number of seriously wounded keeps growing because many of the effects of exposure to modern weapons do not show up until later.

About one in four soldiers have reported "acute stress, depression or anxiety." In Iraq, at least 100,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers who served there suffered severe psychological damage and about 300,000 have reported post-traumatic stress disorder and a similar number have suffered brain injuries. These veterans, sometimes referred to as the "walking wounded," will be unable to fully contribute to American society, and also will require care for many years to come.

It has been estimated that dealing with a brain-injured soldier over his remaining life will cost about $5 million. Cancer from exposure to depleted uranium is only now coming into full effect. Exposure is then passed on to the offspring of those who served, resulting in birth defects.

About 40 percent of the soldiers who served in the 1991 Gulf war-- which lasted only 100 hours-- are receiving disability payments. Inevitably, more "boots on the ground" will lead to more beds in hospitals.

What of our own casualties at home: unemployment, foreclosure, growing "food insecurity," homelessness, despair resulting in suicide and homicide?

The initial Soviet war in Afghanistan began in 1979. The final troop withdrawal ended on Feb. 15, 1989. The Russian army fought a bloody, brutal campaign, using every trick or tool of counterinsurgency, killing a million Afghanis and turning about 5 million into refugees. But after a decade during which they lost 15,000 soldiers and almost bankrupted the Soviet Union, they gave up and left. Gen. McChrystal says it may take him a decade or more to "win." But what is winning? Even Gen. Petraeus has said, "You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency."

Removing Afghanistan as a threat requires rebuilding that whole country. Unfortunately, that is a 20-year project at best, and we can't afford it. So our political leadership needs to insist on a strategy that will get the most security for less money and less presence.

We don't have the surplus we had when we started the war on terrorism after 9/11-- and we desperately need nation-building at home... We need to reduce our footprint in Afghanistan and not dig in deeper. We do not have the Afghan partners, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan. We cannot afford intercontinental warfare to rebuild Afghanistan. It doesn't take much thought to realize, as most Americans do, that if any rebuilding should go on, it needs to be here at home-- rebuilding America's economy, its infrastructure, its educational system and its healthcare system.

If you'd like to help Nancy replace the faithless Kissell, please click over to the Blue America Sending A Message page and contribute what you can afford. Her grassroots campaign can really use some help.

What Happened To Larry Kissell?

-by Diane Frederick, North Carolina Democratic activist

The night John Kerry lost the election in 2004; I was one of the progressives who woke up stunned and deeply dejected. Soon after I vowed to do everything in my power to help elect a Democratic majority, with an eye towards progressive Democrats I could support in North Carolina. My progressive friends shared a desire to work for Democratic majorities that would support our goals and objectives including ending the Iraq occupation and shifting the focus to problems at home. We needed to provide healthcare for all; address climate change; and level the playing field for working and middle class families who were losing ground at alarming rates under Bush policies. Enter Larry Kissell.

In late 2005, progressive activists in Charlotte were making the rounds at candidate forums; there were several Democrats running in the primary. Robin Hayes was a “moderate” Republican, who had held this seat for several terms in North Carolina’s 8th congressional district. The 8th district has a majority of Democratic voters, and Democrats were confident that they could take back the 8th. The DCCC was promoting a “conservative” Democrat as the frontrunner; someone in the group discovered Larry, and invited him to come out and speak to local progressives. Larry told us what we wanted to hear. He was for bringing troops home from Iraq, healthcare for all, support for working people, immigrant rights, etc. That was what we needed to get on board Larry’s campaign and volunteer to help. Progressives began helping Kissell, and others took notice. We knocked doors, made calls, and worked polls for Larry… and he won the primary! Democratic activists in the district mobilized and volunteered in large numbers to fuel Kissell’s grassroots campaign. Kissell’s campaign lost to Hayes in 2006 by 327 votes; a disappointment that was somewhat tempered by the Democratic majorities we won in 2006.

In 2008, Democratic activists and progressives were more fired up then ever! Volunteers spent countless hours calling, knocking doors, and donating to Kissell’s campaign in the 8th district. Larry campaigned as a populist who would go to Washington to represent working people. With the help of President Obama’s win in NC, Kissell was propelled into office and progressive rejoiced! We had finally taken back the 8th District; Kissell would be there to help the President implement the change we voted for! Healthcare for all! Action on climate change! Representation for the working class! Hooray! ...Or not.

When Kissell got to Congress, he surprised us by voting against the cram down bill which would have helped judges restructure mortgages and keep people in their homes. Larry’s responded by saying it was “unfair” to help people who took out loans they couldn’t afford when other were “doing the right thing” and paying their mortgages. Kissell’s vote against Cap and Trade was even more worrisome; he responded that it would cost jobs in the district; ignoring the potential for green manufacturing in a district devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

When the debate shifted to healthcare, local activists expected Kissell to support healthcare reform. Sure he had voted against cram down and cap and trade, and was promoting the repeal of the estate tax, but surely he would stick with the Democrats on this key initiative. We began mobilizing through MoveOn, OFA, and HCAN, calling Democrats and urging them to contact their congressman and support healthcare reform. Alarms began going off when callers to his office were told that he had not taken a position on healthcare reform. More calls were mobilized, and protesters showed up at Kissell offices to encourage his support of the bill. Letters were written to Kissell’s office and local newspapers, petition signatures were collected and sent to Kissell. While other Democrats were holding town hall meetings to promote healthcare reform, Larry avoided the issue and refused to take a position. As the first vote neared in the house, progressive and Democratic activists were pressing Larry for to support healthcare. A few weeks prior to the vote, Kissell and staffers told several groups of Democrats that he would be supporting the President on healthcare; activists breathed a sigh of relief. Then, on the Thursday before the vote Larry put out a statement saying he would be voting "no" on the healthcare reform bill. We mobilized once more; calling his office, reaching out to everyone who had been influential in his election. We called, emailed, lobbied; Kissell wouldn’t take anyone’s direct calls. Staffers announced that Kissell was voting "no" to protect seniors, embracing false Republican talking points to justify his no vote. Despite Kissell’s no vote, the House passed the healthcare bill by an extremely close margin. After the Senate passed their version, and the Democrats lost the Senate seat to Scott Brown, the House was poised to vote once again on the final healthcare bill. Activists in the district once gain targeted Kissell; calling, pleading, and visiting his office. Thousands of pro-healthcare calls were placed to Kissell’s office and promptly ignored. Pro-reform letters and calls were discarded; Larry Kissell was a no show at local events. Constituents around the district watched with frustration as Larry cast his final no vote against the healthcare bill even as we celebrated the historic passage of healthcare reform.

Progressives and rank and file Democrats are outraged and angry. Kissell’s no vote on healthcare left many people feeling let down and deceived. Democratic and progressive voters, key grassroots supporters and donors are being ignored, their concerns left unanswered and their wished ignored.  Voting against the best interest of voters is not what we elected Larry Kissell to do. We don’t need just any Democrat in that seat; we need a proud Democratic progressive who will support our agenda. Nancy Shakir is that progressive, and that is why we are working to elect Nancy Shakir as the Democratic candidate in the 8th district in 2010 and send Kissell home.

As a progressive in North Carolina reflecting on the last year’s fight over healthcare, there is one more point I’d like to note. Activists like me pushed long and hard for a more progressive healthcare bill; we strongly supported single payer, and then the public option. Although Republicans stayed in lock step opposition to even the moderate healthcare bill that finally passed, it was Blue Dog and conservative Democrats like Larry Kissell who really prevented a more progressive healthcare bill from being considered. Blue Dogs undermined our efforts at every turn. As one fellow activist said to me last summer; it’s not supposed to be this hard! Having to fight our own at every step was almost more discouraging than fighting the Republican party of no. We need proud Democrats who will fight hard for our issues, and explain how progressive policies will positively impact the lives of their constituents. Please contribute to Nancy Shakir's primary campaign here.

Some Conservative Democrats Don't Join The Blue Dog Caucus-- They Just Vote With It... Like Larry Kissell

Like progressive activists and bloggers in North Carolina Blue America has felt very let down and very disappointed in freshman Congressman Larry Kissell. Our PAC worked hard for four years to help elect him, raising money for him, sharing ideas, even buying $50,000 worth of last minute TV spots in 2008 to help put him over the finish line. We neither require, request nor expect ideological purity from any candidate. We do expect honesty and respect though. Before the last ad even ran, the once very forthcoming Kissell stopped communicating entirely. I was somewhat shocked but as I watched him slowly slipping into a morass of reflexive conservatism I understood that he couldn't even look at himself let alone at any of his old supporters.

And, like John Barrow, Larry Kissell knows better and made a stupid political calculation that is going to destroy his political career. Last week Kissell was on the wrong side of history as he defied his own constituents to vote with the Republicans against healthcare reform. Over the last few months, progressives in North Carolina have encouraged and recruited Nancy Shakir, founder of Cumberland County Progressives, to primary Kissell. His votes against healthcare has been a huge boost to her campaign.

Here are some typical comments after an insincere, self-serving and misleading OpEd Kissell wrote after he betrayed his own constituents by voting with the GOP against the bill.

One Time Only

I am ashamed to actually say I even worked for your campaign. I took the time to call people and tell them that you were a teacher from the small town of Biscoe. I believed that you cared about people. What I found is that you cared more about what you felt would get you re-elected. I will tell you in advance, I am telling every single person I know to vote against you. You do not represent me, nor do you have the values that you were voted into office on. Enjoy your one term, because as I write this I can promise you this will be your last term in office. You do not deserve a second term!

Disappointed Voter

I'm so disappointed in you Larry! You rode Obama's coat tail during your campaign and you turn around and stab him in the back.

I'm not sure where you're getting your advice from, but I’m ashamed I voted for you believing in your message.

The few people that call you or email you do not add up to the voters in your district. There are way more voters out there working hard who do not have the time to call or email, we just believed in you which is sad to say, we were wrong.

Sorry Larry, this will be remembered come reelection.

You're A Phony

Larry Larry!!!!

OMG, you're such a Hypocrite! Spare the psychobabble for your non educated constituents. I know a phony when I see one.

Voting "Yes" was the right thing to do. It's not about the popular thing to do; it’s about the right thing to do.

You voted "No"? Are you serious? I was there in the Crown Coliseum when Obama supported you're campaign in front of thousands. How could you vote "No" for someone who supported you and is doing ground breaking work trying to give YOUR voters health coverage that they didn't have?

Please Larry, you make me nauseous with this reply to your voters, we can see right through you.

Newton Smith

One-timer Kissell :
From the comments I`ve read so far it don't look good for you in the up-coming primary. As stated by others I too supported you, voted for you, believed you were really for change [ riding Obama`s coattail into office]. How disappointed I have become since your election! As I have personally relayed to you over your "NO" vote on health care reform [via many unanswered emails] I will now do all possible to see that you are not re-elected. You went over to the DARK SIDE when you arrived in Washington. You need to go back to the mill!

On the health care bill you told me [and as stated in your pre-election campaign article] the reason you vote "NO" was because of your "campaign pledge" not to vote on ANY bill that reduced funding to Medicare. To protect the seniors. Hello! What percentage of the voters in your district are beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare? How about the number or percentage of those under 65 who have not reached that age and are still struggling to keep their job or looking for a job or the children of this percentage ??? I would think that that percentage is considerably higher than those presently using Medicare. According to a recent ELON poll over 78% of ALL North Carolians FAVORED passing of the bill that was passed EVEN WITHOUT YOUR HELP! I think the voters have spoken! GOOD-BYE !!!!

Nancy also penned an OpEd for the Fayetteville Observer introducing herself to voters two weeks ago and explaining why she decided to take on the burdensome and thankless task of running against an incumbent:

He voted "no" on legislation that would have allowed people to reorganize their finances and avoid foreclosure. He voted "no" when North Carolinians and Americans were facing the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression. His "no" vote was a "yes" vote for family despair and homelessness.

He voted "no" on cap-and-trade, a bill that could open doors for high-paying and living-wage "green collar" jobs-- a bill that could open the doors for entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow.

He voted "no" for health care, claiming he was committed to helping seniors. The AARP, which represents 40 million seniors, supports health care reform as presented by the House and the Senate. The estimated cost to seniors to get the private Medicare Advantage out of the government Medicare program while saving billions over a 10-year period is about $1.67 a month over a 10-year period.

Under pressure, our representative may change his vote this time, but I ask you, do you want someone who has to be forced to represent your best interests?

I am not merely running against the incumbent because of his "no" votes.

I am running for the people. I am running to help create job growth-- jobs that provide decent, living wages. We must support small-business owners, the backbone of our nation, so they are able to stay in business and be able to pay their employees wages that allow people to take care of their families and to live in dignity.

I am running to help create and support affordable, accessible and rigorous avenues of education from pre-school through technical and college education. North Carolina produces about 6,000 fewer teachers than it needs each year. Our country has fallen to No. 10 in the world for young people holding college degrees. We have got to do better.

I am running to assure that we have access to health care for all Americans.

I am running as a true Democrat and an independent thinker. I will not tell you I stand for one set of principles, then go to Washington and vote against my commitment to you. We need to make change now-- before we spend years living with uncertainty.

Kissell has betrayed everyone who supported him in the past. Blue America has added Nancy Shakir to our Sending The Democrats A Message page and will help her raise money to defeat Kissell.

Have We Been Stabbed In The Back By Larry Kissell?

Is Larry Kissell sending out résumés for a teaching job in 2011?

Thursday I started getting urgent e-mails from several friends on Capitol Hill. I would have rather heard from Blueberry Hill. Larry Kissell, a freshman Democrat from North Carolina, was making noises about killing the health care bill. Why would they be contacting me out in L.A.? Well, in 2006 Blue America raised $10,995 for him, and last year we raised him another $15,331. On top of that, the Blue America blogs promoted his candidacy relentlessly and gave him the idea that put him on the front pages, the gas station promotion in 2006, and spent around $50,000 in the last few days of the 2008 campaign on the TV ad below:



Yesterday James at BlueNC spoke for the entire blogosphere when he expressed his heartfelt remorse for having endorsed Kissell. Since getting into Congress, Kissell has not only swung way to the right of the promises he made during the campaign, but he has refused to engage with his former supporters. I haven't been able to get his office to return a call or e-mail in months. The last exchange was on August 18. I asked his chief of staff if he'd be interested in signing on to the Blue America effort we had put together to thank the members of Congress who were standing firm on the public option. As you can see at the link above, he never joined. He also never responded. The exchange:

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM, HowieKlein wrote:

I would love to add Larry to this list. We'll be pounding this across the blogosphere all week and we'll be re-setting the goal to $100,000. Any chance he wants to get onboard?

http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge

The response, in part:

"That is a great list of folks. I'm picking him up at the airport later this evening. I'll discuss it with him and get back with you. He supports public option."

He may have had some reservations, but despite the promise to get back with me, I never heard from him or his staff again, and eventually gave up e-mailing and calling. Until yesterday, when I called to see if I could get a clarification about his position on health care. Crickets. And today: more crickets.

Inside the caucus he doesn't have a reputation for being the sharpest tool in the drawer, and one of his brighter colleagues wondered aloud why he even wants to be a congressman-- "just to live in fear everyday? Is he that hard up for the paycheck?"

Kissell-- who unlike fellow freshmen Suzanne Kosmas (FL) and John Adler (NJ) , isn't corrupt and doesn't take piles of money from special interests-- is similar to some of his colleagues in another way. They're scared of Republicans, scared of teabaggers, scared of Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter and Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh. These people smell their fear and come after people like Larry Kissell. "I have a lot of old people in my district," he whined. So? The AARP-- their own organization-- is backing the bill, even if Glenn Beck and Virginia Foxx aren't.

I'm afraid what Kissell has done was confuse himself about what happened in Virginia Tuesday. The conservative Democrat, Creigh Deeds, got up during a debate and said he would opt out of the public option if he were elected. The result wasn't to make Republicans-- the only ones who support that position-- vote for him. They voted for the Republican, of course. But what killed Deeds-- and what will kill Kissell and cowards like him-- is that Democrats get turned off by this kind of bullshit. Bush won NC-08 in 2000 and in 2004. But Obama beat McCain 53-47%-- considerably better than he did statewide. And Kissell beat the incumbent, Robin Hayes, 55-45%.

Next year, Kissell-- who has a reputation as an abysmal fundraiser, and won't get a dime from the netroots ever again-- is being challenged by retired Army Col. Lou Huddleston. Huddleston and GOP front groups will call Kissell a Nancy Pelosi clone no matter how he votes and no matter what he does. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh fans are not going to vote for Larry Kissell. And if he follows through with his threats to vote against health care reform, neither will Democrats, just the way they didn't come out to vote for Deeds in Virginia.

The Hill has a running whip count they keep updating. As you can see, Kissell isn't the only Democrat betraying his own constituents, although many of the others were bought off. Jim Himes (D-CT, $60,787), Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL, $55,516), John Adler (D-NJ, $50,967), Dan Maffei (D-NY, $46,587) and Walt Minnick (D-ID, $38,517) are the Democratic freshmen who took in the biggest contributions from the Insurance giants. Kosmas, Adler and Minnick have all come out against the kind of meaningful health care reform the K Street whores they throw down with oppose. We're eager to hear from Himes and Maffei, and I feel confident that both will put their constituents before their donors, the way non-Blue Dog Democrats are supposed to do.


UPDATE: Big Changes In The Hill Whip Count This Morning

Reactionary Pennsylvania Blue Dog Jason Altmire was bragging how a call from Obama didn't sway him and that he's still leaning "no" but that he won't announce a final vote before he casts it. Drama queen! Meanwhile a slew of other Democrats who were on the fence last night have come down on one side or the other. As we expected anti-choice progressives Marcy Kaptur (OH) and Jim Langevin (RI) are now leaning "yes." Conservative Dems Gerry Connolly (VA), Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA), Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ), Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND) have all come on board.

On the "no" side, we now have Democrats who think the way to victory in 2010 is the Creigh Deeds route of alienating Democrats by trying to placate Republicans. I'll go out on a limb and predict defeats for the Dems who added themselves to the "No" list: Harry Teague (NM), Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL), Artur Davis (AL), and, tragically, Larry Kissell (NC), now in the firm no column.

Meanwhile the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops-- apparently happy that there will be an up or down vote that will, effectively, cut off access to legal abortion for anyone who can't pay in cash-- has endorsed the bill. That probably explains why Dahlkemper, Connolly and Kaptur came on board. I guess Michael MacMahon (Staten Island) still believes in the Creigh Deeds route more than the Jesus route.