Tag: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Man, I sure do miss the Debbie Wasserman Schultz of old. Just one cycle ago, she was utterly unafraid to stand up for her party and campaign fiercely on behalf of her fellow Democrats:

While her moxie during debates over Terri Schiavo and Hurricane Katrina has earned kudos, it has also gotten the 39-year-old rookie into some trouble. She has rankled the longest-serving and most powerful congressman from South Florida, Republican Clay Shaw, by openly supporting his Democratic challenger.

Shaw’s staff said he tried to welcome her to the Capitol by offering advice and temporary office space and was upset to learn that she was helping state Sen. Ron Klein raise money and meet party leaders.

…

Wasserman Schultz served with Klein in the state Legislature for 12 years, and they are close friends. She was tapped by Democratic leaders to help with recruitment and said she could not stay out of a competitive congressional race.

“It’s not good for my relationship with Clay Shaw, but Democrats can’t afford to leave a seat like that uncontested,” she said.

What happened to DWS? Why are things all of a sudden so different? She took a big gamble taking on Shaw like that – Klein could easily have lost, and the Dems could very well have remained in the minority. Note that the article is from 2005, when Dem prospects didn’t look nearly so bright as they later would. Also note the URL – Debbie was proud enough of that piece to re-print it on her own website.

Now, Debbie Dubya has far less to lose – and yet she’s being far more hesitant. In fact, she’s being downright destructive toward Raul Martinez, Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo, all in the name of “bipartisan comity.” Debbie was right two-and-a-half years ago – Dems couldn’t afford to leave a seat like Clay Shaw’s uncontested. And they can’t afford to leave FL-18, FL-21 & FL-25 anything less than vigorously contested this cycle, either.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D?) has been busy kneecapping some of our best challengers this cycle. Amazingly, she is part of the DCCC leadership  – she’s currently co-chair of the Red to Blue program, which is tasked with helping our most promising challengers. But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen something like this. From Naftali Bendavid’s The Thumpin’ (p. 78-79):

“I’ve got hundreds of examples of members screwing us. I’ve got members telling our challengers, ‘I won’t help you to challenge that X Republican.'” Emanuel continued, “I did say to one colleague once, ‘You have an interesting concept of the word team. But when they come after you, I’ll remind you of what you said to me. Because they will come after you.’ I can give you chapter and verse of people acting like knuckleheads.”

In one example, Congressman Adam Schiff of California, who served on the DCCC’s recruitment committee, declined to recruit a challenger to a California Republican congressman. Schiff explained that he was seen as a bipartisan type and wanted to keep it that way. “I thought Rahm was going to strangle him,” said the staffer who recounted the story. “I’m sure you’ve seen that look before.” (Emphasis added.)

It’s pretty stunning to me that anyone who would take on a leadership role in the DCCC would be so willing to undermine the cause. Yet where we had Adam Schiff dragging his feet last cycle, we now have Debbie Wasserman Schultz doing the same – if not worse – this time out.

This job is not for the faint of heart. Rahm Emanuel knew that. As Larry Sabato said of Rahm, “You need someone whose favorite word is not a or the but fuck.” In other words, we needed a hardass – and we got one, and we won. Rahm did not tolerate sandbagging, whether from Adam Schiff or Alcee Hastings or anyone else.

And we need Chris Van Hollen, the current DCCC chair, to have the same zero-tolerance policy. We know that he has a very different approach from Rahm, but being a hardass isn’t about cursing, or withering glares, or high-decibel rants. It’s about not accepting bullshit from people who want to call themselves your fellow Democrats, whether backbenchers or leaders.

By whatever methods he chooses, Van Hollen needs to make Debbie Wasserman Schultz fall in line. If we want to expand our majorities this fall, we can’t have party leaders holding us back. Health insurance, stem cell research, global warming, the war in Iraq – these are all issues which Democrats are champing at the bit to address. Surely Chris Van Hollen can’t let Debbie Dubya’s personal friendships with the likes of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stand in the way.

I address this screed to Congressman Kendrick Meek and Congresswoman Deborah Wasserman Schultz.  I know that both of you have been under much scrutiny here in the blogosphere, based upon your recent recusals from campaigning against your neighboring Republican congresspersons.  I suspect that you probably have your eyes on a senate race at some point in the future. In preparation for that, you probably think that you're positioning yourselves to be perceived as moderates who can work well across the aisle. However, I'm here to show you that if you consider such positioning to be part of a winning strategy, you are terribly mistaken.

One need not look further than the results of 2006 to learn that authenticity works.  During that crucial election season, the Democratic party was faced with the outrageously tall order of winning at least six senate seats.  As is the usual tendency of the deck, it was once again stacked against us.  Our GOP opponents appeared to have financial advantages.  At the outset of the year, we didn't even have six, let alone seven, viable seats, and severe party infighting threatened at least one critical race (Ohio).  From that mess, the DSCC scrounged up seven viable challengers in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Montana.  Of these seven, six won.  I will not focus on the Rhode Island race, since it was an unusual scenario in a state whose dynamics do not mirror those of swing states or of the nation at large.  I'll also leave out Pennsylvania, since that was an instance of an incumbent who was so off his rocker, a piece of cardboard could've defeated him.  And the Virginia race has been written about ad nauseum, so I'll skip that one as well.  I will instead focus on Ohio, Missouri, Montana, and Tennessee; three wins and a loss, and why it turned out that way.

When Sherrod Brown prevailed over Paul Hackett in the primary for the Ohio senate, many Democrats became nervous; Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, seemed like a more viable option to run against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine than the unabashedly liberal Cleveland congressman whose record on the hot-button social issues was completely progressive.  In the fabled state that won the election for Bush in 2004, it seemed like a bad idea to run a candidate whose record was to the left of John Kerry's.  Well, as it turned out, Sherrod Brown proved to be an excellent candidate. Instead of fudging his answers and trying to make himself look like something he wasn't, he proudly stood up for his principles, emphasizing his economically progressive ideals, but without attempting to conceal his stances on the social issues.  His unapologetic championing of the disadvantaged called to mind another progressive who never backed down from his core beliefs: the late, great Paul Wellstone.  

Over in Missouri, then-State Auditor Claire McCaskill waged a tough fight against Jim Talent, the incumbent GOP senator.  The stem cell initiative was on the ballot in that state, a potential risk in a state with such a high number of evangelicals.  It was, therefore, a pleasant surprise when McCaskill put Talent on the defensive on that issue, and on the issue of abortion, in nearly every debate.  In a key appearance on Meet The Press, Talent lobbed Republican talking points at McCaskill, and, rather than attempting to fit her responses into those frames, she effectively twisted them around to leave Talent as the weaker candidate, hemming and hawing and making excuses for his every statement.  McCaskill's margin of victory was small, but in a very conservative state like Missouri, it was enough!

Out on the ranges, where libertarianism runs strong, the Montana senate race saw a battle between two very colorful characters: the doddering embarrassment Republican Conrad Burns, who was often looked upon as something of a senile uncle even by his fellow GOPers, and the plain-spoken, buzz-cut-sporting Jon Tester, who won the senate primary over a less progressive state official.  Burns trotted out the old canard of fearmongering, trying to to use Tester's opposition to the PATRIOT Act as a political bludgeon.  Had Tester been a weaker candidate, he would have attempted a nuanced explanantion, trying to convince people that he could be patriot without supporting the PATRIOT Act, accepting the right wing's frames instead of creating his own.  Luckily, Tester unleashed the no-nonsense directness that is a trademark of the Mountain West; in one key debate, in which Burns accused Tester of wanting to “weaken” the PATRIOT Act (clearly a standard GOP frame, portraying the Democrats as weak on terror and weak in general,) Tester famously responded, “I don't want to weaken the PATRIOT Act, I want to repeal it.”  Had John Kerry been anywhere near this bold in 2004, Bush would not have had a second term.

After looking at the victories of Brown, McCaskill, and Tester, I now turn to the only high-profile loser on our side, Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee.  Yes, I am well aware of the racist tactics that the Republicans used against Ford in the infamous “Call Me” ad (a frame-by-frame analysis is available here,) but I remain convinced that a stronger candidate, one with more backbone and more confidence in his own platform, would have been able to fight back and prevail. Ford embodied the ideals of a DINO at best.  He appeared in a clumsy ad in a church, going too far into the territory of unsubtlety in an attempt to prove his religiosity.  (I had serious flashbacks to John Kerry's 2004 proclamation of himself to be the “candidate of conservative values.”  The minute we accept the GOP frames, we're dead in the water). On the campaign trail in '06, Ford frequently trumpeted his opposition to gay marriage.  He spoke in tones that ranged from cautious to mildly complimentary toward Bush's Iraq policies, all the while distancing himself from the Democratic leadership in the senate.  In short, he ran as a Republican.  And why would anyone vote for a Republican who doesn't have the conviction to actually run within the party that actually represents the conservative values he preaches, when they could vote for an actual Republican whose voting patterns are more sure-footed? 

You see where I'm going with this.  2006 was a Democratic tidal wave, yet Harold Ford lost because of his own spinelessness and willingness to act like a Republican.  The moral of the story here is to stick to your guns, champion your own progressive record, and be who you are.  It's obvious that if you have achieved anything in Congress, you have been able to work with the other side.  Playing “footsie” with Republicans does nothing to further your goals; in fact, it undermines them, since progressive voters might doubt your convictions.  I certainly hope that your aides and advisors read this post, as it is crucial that you absorb its message.  (For all the readers of this blog, I suggest writing to these Florida congresspersons and calling their offices to relay a similar message).  Please, be a Sherrod Brown or a Jon Tester.  Don't be a Harold Ford.  Your political futures will be brighter for it, if recent history is any indicator!

So sayeth Debbie Dubya:

“I can’t say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.”

I wonder, exactly, what sort of good things Debbie Wasserman Schultz can’t say enough of about her BFF, Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Perhaps it was Ileana’s vote to repeal the estate tax? Hmm, Debbie voted no on that one.

Ileana’s vote to approve weak fuel efficiency standards for cars? Nope, Debbie voted in favor of stricter rules.

How about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Debbie certainly doesn’t support that – but Ileana does.

I know that Debbie voted against making the PATRIOT Act permanent. I just checked, though, and Ileana voted in favor of it.

Now, what about CAFTA? Maybe Debbie approves of Ileana’s support for the bill? Naw, Debbie gave a thumbs-down there.

Alright, alright, let’s see. The House had a big vote on the McGovern bill last year, authorizing withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Debbie was in favor… Ileana, not so much.

Maybe the Military Commissions Act – you know, the bill which eviscerated habeas corpus rights? Debbie said ixnay. Ileana? All for it.

I’ve got it. Warantless wiretapping – that’s the ticket. Debbie sensibly said “no” when this bill came up in the House last summer. Ileana… oops, she voted for it.

Okay, this is an easy one. What reasonable person opposes stem cell research? Not Debbie, of course. And surely not Ileana, right? Sorry to disappoint – she thinks that blastocysts = human lives.

Man, I’m almost out of ideas, but I still have one more. Debbie obviously voted in favor of SCHIP – only the worst crumb-bums could possibly be so heartless as to deny healthcare to kids. But damn, wouldn’t you know it – Ileana is indeed exactly that sort of crumb-bum.

On the major issues of the day, these women are far, far apart. Debbie, to her credit, strikes a strong progressive stance. Yet Ileana, despite her allegedly “moderate” image, stands with the worst of the GOP in supporting endless war in Iraq, and continued environmental degradation while opposing stem-cell research and healthcare for kids.

It seems to me that saying even one good thing about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen would be more than enough, yet Debbie Wasserman Schultz just can’t get her fill. It’s clear to any rational outside observer that Ros-Lehtinen stands in the way of progressive change, and that Annette Taddeo’s candidacy is our best shot at removing that roadblock we’ve had in a long time. Why can’t Debbie Dubya see that?

It’s not just the netroots who are up in arms about the fact that key South Florida incumbents Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek are refusing to support fellow Dems Annette Taddeo, Joe Garcia and Raul Martinez. Local Democrats are outraged, too:

Two influential congressional Democrats from South Florida are coming under fire from Miami-Dade Democrats for sitting on the sidelines as the party seeks to oust three Republican incumbents.

Miami-Dade party members meeting late Monday to elect a new leader said they were dismayed that Democratic Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston and Kendrick Meek of Miami have decided not to publicly support the Democratic challengers.

“I was appalled when I saw certain elected officials think they have the right to anoint who can run,” Bret Berlin said as he was elected chairman of the county party. “That’s not their job, it’s our job.”

His words echoed those of North Miami Mayor Kevin Burns, who also ran for county party chairman. He told the crowd at the meeting that he couldn’t “believe two of our elected Congress members have the nerve to stand up and say they won’t support three local Democratic candidates.”

Fortunately, party leaders in the area are having absolutely no trouble getting behind our three excellent candidates:

County Democrats say they may have their best shot in years to unseat at least one of the three, and after winning the county party’s election, Berlin immediately moved to “pledge support behind the three Democratic candidates.”

The more than 100 party executive committee members who assembled at the American Legion Hall in Miami unanimously agreed.

But rather than upbraid Wasserman Schultz and Meek for their embarrassing attempts to recuse themselves from these vital races, the DCCC has signalled its assent:

The national party has said it’s “very excited” about the races, and Jennifer Crider, communications director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the party has made similar arrangements when other members of Congress have conflicts.

“It doesn’t change our level of commitment in any way or diminish it,” Crider said. “Members [of Congress] have to do their own politics as well. We completely understand they need to do what’s best for them and their constituents.”

How utterly dismaying. Anyone who has read The Thumpin’ knows how bitterly Rahm Emanuel fought against this insulting practice. Attitudes like Meek’s and Wasserman Schultz’s were one reason the Dems languished in the minority for twelve years – and, if they aren’t curbed now, will be a reason we don’t expand our majority.

What’s more, Meek & DWS sit in totally safe districts. In Debbie Dubya’s home base of FL-20, voters chose Kerry over Bush by 64-36 in the last election. Meanwhile, in Meek’s FL-17, Kerry was favored by an almost hilarious 83-17 margin. So the idea that DWS and Meek could possibly be doing “what’s best for them and their constituents” by kneecapping strong challengers and damaging the Democratic Party’s prospects is totally ludicrous.

As I’ve said before – and as I won’t stop saying – Debbie Wasserman Schultz either has to completely change her tune on this and vocally embrace our challengers, or step down from the DCCC. And for his part, Kendrick Meek should do the same. South Florida Democrats – and the whole party – deserve nothing less.

I’m getting a lecture on recruitment when A, you haven’t done a goddamn thing and B, we’ve got a [Republican] target and you’re out there kissing his ass in the press?

– Rahm Emanuel (The Thumpin’)

I can’t say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office.

– Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Miami Herald)

You see, in my trade, this is called – what you did – you cracked out of turn. Huh? You see? You crumbed the play.

– Joe Mantegna (House of Games)

Why is a co-chair of the DCCC’s Red to Blue program blathering to the press about her inability – nay, refusal – to help fellow Democrats, and how fond she is of a particular Republican? If this truly is such a sensitive issue, Debbie Dubya could at least have kept things quiet and handled matters privately in Chris Van Hollen’s office.

Instead, for no reason at all, she chose to make a big public mess of it. And things like this have serious reprecussions:

However, Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political campaigns, said the lack of support from top Democrats could make donors leery.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a favorite of leadership, somebody on the move,” Rothenberg said. “When somebody like that doesn’t want to be a major player in taking on a Republican, that’s a signal.”

No shit. Bizarre public confessionals like Debbie Dubya’s can have a devastating impact on promising challengers like our South Florida trio, especially with big donors and establishment players. Is it too much to ask key Democratic leaders not to air their dirty laundry down at Lincoln Road Mall?

Debbie Dubya herself said: “At the end of the day, we need a member who isn’t going to pull any punches, who isn’t going to be hesitant.” We also need someone who is savvy enough to keep his or her mouth shut for the duration of the campaign cycle. It’s bad enough that Wasserman Schultz is kneecapping excellent candidates. Her inability to refrain from “cracking out of turn” is another reason why she should step down from her post – unless she does a 180 on this, and vocally supports Raul Martinez, Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo, just like proud Democrats everywhere are doing.

A key leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by her own admission, has a serious conflict-of-interest:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

Let’s leave aside for a moment that the first part of this statement is incorrect – the first round of Red to Blue challengers has already been announced. It’s the second sentence that troubles me.

Debbie Dubya co-chairs the Red to Blue program. She has a major say in who gets tapped for it. Yet here she is saying she couldn’t help three awesome candidates – Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez, and Annette Taddeo – if they get picked for that program. But if she’s already so hostile to the idea of them running, don’t you think she might steer the D-Trip away from choosing any of these three for R-to-B status in the first place?

This is a major conflict of interest, one which threatens to hurt not just our South Florida trio, but the fortunes of the Democratic Party as well. I also think it undermines the DCCC, too – what other decisions might start to look suspect? Who else harbors a conflict like this? And which other potential recruits might shy away from running if they thought that the scales were tipped against them?

As James Hell said, there are no recusals in politics. Debbie Dubya has to buck up, heartily endorse all three candidates and throw fundraisers for each of them. If she can’t do that, then she is hopelessly unqualified to perform her job at the DCCC.

An enraged Rahm Emanuel once thundered: “[W]e’ve got a [Republican] target and you’re out there kissing his ass in the press?” Rahm didn’t accept this kind of bullshit from Alcee Hastings, and Chris van Hollen shouldn’t accept it from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She needs to change her tune, or take a seat on the bench.

Match the following statements…

1) George Bush is “the right man at the right time.”

2) “Let’s put the United States first again, and John McCain is the man as president who will help us do that.”

3) “There is not a better Congressman in Washington than Chris Shays.”

4) “I can’t say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office.”

… to the list of politicians below:

A) Zell Miller

B) Joe Lieberman

C) Harold Ford

D) Debbie Wasserman Schultz

I doubt anyone needs an answer key to know who said what. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the DCCC’s leadership, sure keeps good company.

There’s a great passage in The Thumpin’ about former DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel’s frustrations with Democratic colleagues who aren’t serious about doing what it takes to win.  Allow me to share an excerpt:

In early 2006, Congressman Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, was quoted in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel speaking sympathetically of Congressman Shaw, one of Emanuel’s top Republican targets.  Hastings, because of his friendship with Shaw, also refused to endorse Shaw’s Democratic challenger, Ron Klein.  In the Sun-Sentinel article, Hastings even gave Shaw strategic advice on how to defeat Klein, advocating that he knock on doors to connect personally with voters rather than relying on television ads as he had in the past.  Then, in a closed meeting of Democratic House members, Hastings chastised Emanuel and the DCCC for not recruiting more candidates across the country, saying Democrats needed to run a respectable candidate in every House district.

[…]It enraged Emanuel, who saw Hastings as typifying those of his fellow Democrats who were content to criticize but did nothing to help the cause.  “He’s great on lectures,” Emanuel said of Hastings.  “Phenomenal lecturer.  I’m getting a lecture on recruitment when A, you haven’t done a goddamn thing and B, we’ve got a [Republican] target and you’re out there kissing his ass in the press?”

Keep Emanuel’s indignation in mind as you hear the following story of betrayal in South Florida.

Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers — Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.

While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of “comity” and “bipartisan cooperation” with their Republican colleagues:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. […]

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

“At the end of the day, we need a member who isn’t going to pull any punches, who isn’t going to be hesitant,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Now, you’d expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn’t expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC’s Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds.  Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm’s memo about doing whatever it takes to win:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

“It needs to be somebody who can roll up their sleeves,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I’m just not that person; it’s just too sensitive for me.”

Hey, Debbie: there are no recusals in politics.  If you want to consider yourself a “rising star” in the Democratic caucus, don’t think you can get away with this:

A day later, Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen lavished compliments on each other at a Washington luncheon with Miami-Dade commissioners. “I can’t say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office,” Wasserman Schultz said, noting she relied on Ros-Lehtinen’s advice to help balance the demands of elected office and motherhood. (emphasis added)

Debbie’s behavior is tantamount to no-confidence in Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez, and Annette Taddeo, and a betrayal of her fellow Democrats everywhere.

I have a few suggestions for Debbie, if she’s at all interested in saving her credibility within the DCCC, the caucus, grassroots Dems and pretty much everyone who cares about Team Blue: enthusiastically endorse all three of these candidates and organize a fundraiser for each of them.  It’s the least she could do to help undo the damage that she’s inflicted in South Florida.

Ask yourself: What would Rahm do?

(Hat-tip: FLA Politics)