DLC Disavows Case And Other Things
by Chris Bowers, Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 09:07:21 AM EDT
In response to my piece from this past Saturday on how the political and media establishment are hypocritically attacking Lamont's primary challenge to Lieberman but staying quiet on conservative primary challenges to incumbent Senators in Hawaii and Rhode Island, Ed Kilgore of the DLC writes the followingThis is the third time Chris has made this argument, and after the second one, I did a response making it clear that the DLC has nothing at all to do with Case's challenge to Akaka, which is, best I can tell, mainly about Akaka's advanced age (81) and the possibility that he could be replaced at some point during the next six years by a Republican apointee. The rationale for Case's candidacy is not one for the squeamish, to be sure, but it certainly does not reflect some sort of national centrist "purge" of Akaka, whom I barely knew anything about until I started reading that I was apparently involved in a plot to drive him from office.
OK, the DLC has sworn off support of Case, who they list as a member of their caucus. I wonder if he knows that. Looking back at their earlier response to an earlier post of mine, I noticed that the DLC has sworn off quite a few other things as well:Aside from the fact that the DLC doesn't raise money or endorse candidates or recruit volunteers, I'm quite sure nobody at the DLC was more than dimly aware of the Case challenge to Akaka, which is apparently more about Akaka's age than anything to do with ideology.
OK, so the DLC does not endorse, recruit or support candidates. I take them at their word and expect them to stay neutral in all Democratic primaries nationwide. Further, they don't raise money? Really? How do they operate? I'm just going to assume that they mean that they don't raise money or recruit volunteers for candidates. So they seem to have sworn off support for any candidate ever.
This is a passage that really caught my eye though: I respect Chris Bowers, but this time he's missing a very basic point. The DLC is not arguing against the right to "primary" incumbents; if Connecticut Democrats want to replace Joe Lieberman with Ned Lamont or anybody else, that's fine by me. It's the national effort to dump Joe, evidenced by the heavy involvement of national organizations like MoveOn and Democracy for America, that's objectionable. And as Chris knows, much of the progressive blogosphere is nearly as obsessed with the Lamont candidacy as it is with delivering a Democratic Congress this November, for reasons that have zippo to do with the vindication of the sovereign rights of Connecticut Democrats to choose whomever they want. First, I want to say that I respect Ed Kilgore as well (Marshall Whitman is a different story altogether). However, if I am to take his words to their logical conclusion, it would appear that the DLC is not only not actually supporting Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, but that they are opposed to the idea that any candidates receive any resources or help from people who live outside of their district. That is fine. On a pure democracy level, it is a position that makes some sense. However, I don't know a single federal candidate that follows this philosophy, including Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman has raised 79.6% of his money in this election cycle from out of state donors. Unless Lieberman returns all of that money, will the DLC now decry the national effort on behalf of Lieberman to thwart the sovereign rights of Connecticut Democrats to choose whomever they want? Interestingly, Ned Lamont has actually raised a far great percentage of his money in state than Lieberman, simply because Lamont is significantly self-funded.
Also, I noticed that the DLC is based in Washington, D.C.. Will they cease to write about any election that does not take place within Washington, D.C., because that usurps the rights of people living outside of D.C.? Of course not, and they should not have to. People can write about whatever election they want.
There isn't a single major Senate candidate who raises his or her money entirely in state. The same goes for House candidates. Everyone receives large out-of-district help. There is nothing wrong with claiming that such out-of-district support is a bad thing, but there is something wrong with claiming that it is bad for one candidate and not another. Lieberman gets almost all of his funds from outside of Connecticut. Why is this somehow OK for Lieberman, but not OK for Lamont? That is a double standard.
The best blogging on the Connecticut Senate primary is coming form local Connecticut blogs. The volunteers we helped recruit are overwhelmingly from Connecticut. Lamont is raising more money in state than Lieberman. The voters of Connecticut will decide who wins the election. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that most of Lamont's staff comes form Connecticut as well. Lamont is running a campaign every bit as local, if not more local, than Lieberman. If people want to decry national movements providing resources and help to primary campaigns in local districts, that is fine. However, at least be consistent. Decry all out of district assistance, and then practice what you preach by not commenting on primaries taking place outside of the district where you live.
This is a passage that really caught my eye though: I respect Chris Bowers, but this time he's missing a very basic point. The DLC is not arguing against the right to "primary" incumbents; if Connecticut Democrats want to replace Joe Lieberman with Ned Lamont or anybody else, that's fine by me. It's the national effort to dump Joe, evidenced by the heavy involvement of national organizations like MoveOn and Democracy for America, that's objectionable. And as Chris knows, much of the progressive blogosphere is nearly as obsessed with the Lamont candidacy as it is with delivering a Democratic Congress this November, for reasons that have zippo to do with the vindication of the sovereign rights of Connecticut Democrats to choose whomever they want. First, I want to say that I respect Ed Kilgore as well (Marshall Whitman is a different story altogether). However, if I am to take his words to their logical conclusion, it would appear that the DLC is not only not actually supporting Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, but that they are opposed to the idea that any candidates receive any resources or help from people who live outside of their district. That is fine. On a pure democracy level, it is a position that makes some sense. However, I don't know a single federal candidate that follows this philosophy, including Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman has raised 79.6% of his money in this election cycle from out of state donors. Unless Lieberman returns all of that money, will the DLC now decry the national effort on behalf of Lieberman to thwart the sovereign rights of Connecticut Democrats to choose whomever they want? Interestingly, Ned Lamont has actually raised a far great percentage of his money in state than Lieberman, simply because Lamont is significantly self-funded.
Also, I noticed that the DLC is based in Washington, D.C.. Will they cease to write about any election that does not take place within Washington, D.C., because that usurps the rights of people living outside of D.C.? Of course not, and they should not have to. People can write about whatever election they want.
There isn't a single major Senate candidate who raises his or her money entirely in state. The same goes for House candidates. Everyone receives large out-of-district help. There is nothing wrong with claiming that such out-of-district support is a bad thing, but there is something wrong with claiming that it is bad for one candidate and not another. Lieberman gets almost all of his funds from outside of Connecticut. Why is this somehow OK for Lieberman, but not OK for Lamont? That is a double standard.
The best blogging on the Connecticut Senate primary is coming form local Connecticut blogs. The volunteers we helped recruit are overwhelmingly from Connecticut. Lamont is raising more money in state than Lieberman. The voters of Connecticut will decide who wins the election. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that most of Lamont's staff comes form Connecticut as well. Lamont is running a campaign every bit as local, if not more local, than Lieberman. If people want to decry national movements providing resources and help to primary campaigns in local districts, that is fine. However, at least be consistent. Decry all out of district assistance, and then practice what you preach by not commenting on primaries taking place outside of the district where you live.
Tags: Activism, CT-Sen, DLC, Fundraising (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
34 Comments