Sunday, October 29, 2006



I don't agree with the electoral analysis in today's Washington Post at all. They have far fewer "contested seats" on their chart than I do on mine. As always, they are following the Inside the Beltway rear view mirror prognosticators and they are 3 weeks behind reality. Where's McNerney v Pombo? Where's Brown v Doolittle? Where's Wulsin v Schmidt? Where's Kissell v Hayes? They're missing 20 contests. Maybe they only had room on the page for 35. But that isn't why I'm writing tonight. I mean I think anyone who reads DWT already knows the mainstream media is behind, way behind.

November 7 the Democrats are likely to have a huge victory in the House. Rahm Emanuel and his nefarious allies will come streaming out from under their rocks and crawling out from the dark places they share with the worst Republicrooks to claim "their" victory. But will it be their victory? Doesn't look like it to me. Most of Rahm's handpicked pro-corporate, a-little-better-than-a-Republican candidates aren't fairing too well. Grassroots candidates are the ones who will bring Democrats the victory the nation calls out for. Emanuel's more-of-the-same crap candidates... we'll see. But let's take a look at what the Post says.

The 3 Florida seats in contention all have Emanuel shills. The Post says only Jennings is out front at this point. Tammy Duckworth in Illinois? Up for grabs. Baron Hill in Indiana? Too close to call. Ken Lucas in Kentucky: too close to call. Heath Shuler, too close to call. Grassroots Dems, mostly unbeholden to Emanuel-- who is busy trying to catch up with the front of the parade so lame TV political correspondents can see him leading it-- are winning their races without his help. Many of them hate his guts and wish him all the worst.

Meanwhile, other writers in today's Post lay bare some of the DCCC's tactics. Anyone interested in the lameness and backward nature of how the dinosauric party functions and why they always do so badly ought to read it. And read the Dewan/Kornblut/Emanuel story in tomorrow's New York Times about Democrats running to the right.

I'm not certain why Emanuel allowed the Dewan and Kornblut hacks to take any credit since he totally wrote the whole piece-- an opening salvo in his p.r. war to take credit for something that has very little to do with him-- and what it does have to do with him is all bad. "In their [he means "our" or, better yet, "my"] push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party." And then he brags about Republican-lite Heath Shuler in NC-11, Rahm's star shill, who couldn't quote decide if he wanted to run as a Democrat in North Carolina or a Republican in Tennessee until a week before he announced. And then Rahm goes on, 8 days before the election, to declare war on the Democratic base.

"But if candidates like Mr. Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it could come at a political price, which may include tensions in the party between its new centrists and its more liberal political base. While Democratic leaders have gone to great lengths to promote the moderate views of these candidates, some, like Mr. Shuler, have views on issues like gun control and abortion that are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party. On some issues, they may even be expected to side with Republicans and the Bush White House." How unexpected is that when Rahm was out hunting for Republicans to run against Democrats in Democratic primaries-- like Tim Mahoney in FL-16 (the Foley district Rahm seemed to be sure would become very winnable for some strange reason... what a coincidence. Lucky we have Tom DeLay Rahm Emanuel fighting for us. What would politics be like without amoral scumbags?

When he asks himself if his crop of pro-corporate, Republican-lite, homophobic, misogynistic, holy rollers will have any power in the new Congress, Rahm licks his chops. "Absolutely. They're going to have an impact on the Congress and the caucus." And he's counting on them to tilt the balance of power within the party.

"There are two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the New Democrat Coalition, a caucus of centrists formed in 1997. While there are differences between the two-- the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty-- there are members who belong to both. Both, of course, have a stake in helping the centrist candidates succeed. Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California [a bribe-taking corporate whore and shit eater who has guaranteed herself a nasty primary in 2008], a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility."

Ironically, progressive and grassroots Democrats have rallied behind the right-of-center Emanuel shills for the sake of party unity, while Emanuel, Schumer and their cabal have done all they could to undermine progressives. If McNerney loses in CA-11, it will be because of Emanuel and if Lamont is beaten by the despicable Lieberman it won't just be the renegade Democrats like Mary Landreiu and Tom Carper and Ben Nelson who at least had the guts to openly announce they were supporting Lieberman, regardless of the wishes of grassroots Democrats in his state, but the sneaky backstabbers like Schumer, the Clintons, Obama, and Biden.

Labels: ,


At 8:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tammy Duckworth in Illinois is not a "crap candidate." I think you need to check her out a bit more closely before you call her that.

At 1:18 AM, Blogger Jean said...

She is compared to Christine Cegelis. She has an interesting biography and seems like a decent enough person, but Duckworth is a Rahmocrat and hence tainted and compromised. And her positions on Iraq and health care, the two most critical issues for America today, are utterly pallid. The Rahm/Clinton/DLC machine is simply exploiting her for her war disabilities, so they can hold her up and say to the right (as Clinton did the other day), how can you say Democrats are weak on national security? Why, our candidate left her legs in Iraq defending this country!

Which is just crass exploitation and obscures the real issues.

At 10:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

62% of the voters in the FL-13 Primary supported Jennings, and yet you're still whining that Schneider didn't win. Give it up--we here in the district don't care who YOU think is a better candidate. We KNEW who the better candidate was, and we nominated her with 62% support!

I live in Sarasota, and I voted for Jan Schneider in 2004. I was damn glad to be able to vote for someone other than a perennial candidate with no grassroots support and a crappy campaign operation. Schneider was a nice lady and a bad candidate, and we here made the right call. YOU need to stop trying to interfere in our races!


Post a Comment

<< Home