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.

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.

Larry Kissell Could Be Facing A Serious Challenge From Mike Minter

Last year the candidate who Blue America spent the most money for was Larry Kissell in North Carolina. In a district where Obama beat McCain 53-47%, Larry, a high school civics teacher, ousted long time multimillionaire incumbent Robin Hayes 55-45%, a great turnaround after the closest race in the country in 2006. Immediately approached by the Blue Dogs, because of the nature of his district, Larry politely begged off and declined to align himself with the conservative Democratic caucus which is so powerful in North Carolina. According to Progressive Punch his all-around score so far this year is 90.91, unpredictably better than Connecticut's Jim Himes (87.41) but not as strong as Virginia's Gerry Connolly (95.62), two freshmen who we had very different expectations from.

Anyway, we've been laughing about how the Republicans are falling on their face across the country when it comes to recruiting first tier congressional candidates. Every few days you see more and more tough local political figures telling the NRCC "thanks but no thanks." Unfortunately that hasn't happened in NC-08, at least not yet, and Larry may face one of the strongest challengers of any of the freshmen we backed in 2008.

Mike Minter is a 35 year old African-American Republican who was a star safety for 10 seasons with the North Carolina Panthers. (He wasn't some laughing stock football player like Heath Shuler either; he was a genuine star with huge positive name recognition.) Thursday's Raleigh News & Observer reported that he's seriously considering entering the race, speaking to the press after a trip to visit the NRCC.

The PVI in the district is R+2, not as bad as Shuler's district's R+6 or Mike McIntyre's R+5 but, remember, both Shuler and McIntrye vote with the Republicans as a matter of course. Larry votes like the Democrat he is. The district is about 27% African-American which, because of Obama's presence on the top of the ticket helped Larry win last year, but might not be as big a factor this year because of a lighter turnout and because of Minter's personal popularity in the community.

My biggest worry is that Larry hasn't been an avid fundraiser. He spends a great deal of time on being a conscientious congressman and not very much kissing up to special interests who finance campaigns. Last year he won because of grassroots donations. If you could help again, it would be very much appreciated. You can do it here at Blue America.