Author: The Caped Composer

I suppose the best way to begin this screed is to thank everyone here.  It is because of us, and other such activism-minded denizens of the blogosphere, that the formerly hesitant Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) reached out to the Democratic challengers in districts 18, 21, and 25– Joel Garcia, Raul Martinez, and Annette Taddeo, respectively– by inviting them to a DCCC fundraiser in Aventura, FL, last night.  Apparently, Wasserman Schultz actively introduced the challengers to major donors and Democratic party bigwigs.  For someone who quite recently recused herself from campaigning in these races, this is big news.  And there's no way she would've done it without the fighting spirit of the blogosphere, so, again, thanks and congratulations all around!

With that being said . . . inviting Garcia, Martinez, and Taddeo to one fundraiser isn't enough, especially when that fundraiser is for candidates in other parts of the state and the country, as this one was.  If Wasserman Schultz truly wants to maintain her standing as a rising star in the party, in addition to obliterating the remnants of this controversy completely, she needs to actively campaign with all three challengers, appearing with them at campaign stops and, most importantly, hosting a fundraiser for them, not just introducing them at someone else's.  I think there's a good chance she'll follow through with all that . . . IF we keep an eye on her and hold her to it.   So . . . keep up the good work, folks.  Our fighting spirit pays off! 

On a humorous note: if we keep this up, Wasserman Schultz will get a lot of her repentance out of the way long before Yom Kippur– we got her to start the atonement process just after Purim!

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!

I'm sure that, by now, everyone has heard the news about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's ties to a prostitution ring.  I must say, it comes as a major disappointment after Spitzer established himself as the ethical white knight who fought Wall Street corruption during his tenure as the state Attorney General.  During the run-up to the gubernatorial election, Spitzer was heralded as the next FDR.  It is, therefore, amazing to see how quickly his political capitol evaporated, as he clashed with State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R-Rensselaer).  That was disappointing enough; this latest offense is nauseating.  Right when the public is just beginning to build enthusiasm about the political process and the Democratic party, something like this happens, reminding everyone of the Lewinsky scandal of ten years ago, and reinforcing the idea that all politicians are sleazy, self-serving, Huey Long-esque megalomaniacs. 

Meanwhile, if Spitzer steps down, Lt. Gov. David Paterson will become the Governor.  I'm very interested to see what effect he'll have on the state and congressional races in New York if he ascends.  Is his name too tied to Spitzer's, or will his presence provide a breath of fresh air for the party?  I cautiously await . . . 

I would also like to note that Walberg’s fellow GOP Congressman, Joe Knollenberg (MI-09), also voted against H.R. 5351.  Republicans.  Argh!

At some point this week, Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to make an appearance in a suburb of Battle Creek to raise funds for Rep. Tim Walberg. It's no surprise that these two Republicans will share the stage; just a few short days ago, Walberg voted “nay” to the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (H.R. 5351), a bill that would lower gas prices and reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East. Why on earth would a congressman from Michigan, a state whose economy has been especially wounded by the wrongheaded policies of the Bush administration, vote against the economic interests of his constituents? For the same reason that GOP congresspersons cheat their constituents every time; money. And apparently, ExxonMobil is one of the prominent contributors to Walberg's campaign.

Walberg is a textbook example of what the Republican party has become; he hoodwinked his constituents into voting for him by getting them all worked up over the social/religious issues.  Once he entered Congress, he became a shill for Big Oil and other moneyed interests, at the expense of the people he is supposed to represent.  So, I certainly hope that Cheney's visit to Michigan serves as a giant motivator . . . for progressives to donate to Mark Schauer's campaign, so that the residents of the 7th District can actually be, you know, represented. 

Republicans.  Sheesh!

While all of us on the left rejoice at the NRCC's lackluster fundraising, and while most Republicans are resigned to the fact that this will not be a blowout year for them, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is clearly not content to sit this one out, as he exhorted his colleagues to get off their "dead asses" and pony up for the party.  Boehner has a lot to be angry about, what with the slew of retirements, and now the corruption scandal surrounding Rick Renzi (R-AZ).  Apparently, Boehner has been urging Renzi to step down– the one time he actually wants a colleague to retire, it doesn't happen!

Either way, seeing a Republican become this unhinged gives me a thrill.  It shows that they are losing control, and, if more of them start showing their tempers publicly, we can trot out the footage, and frame their entire party as foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic beasts.  And that, I dare say, would be a satisfying payback after their decades of characterizing us as effeminate sissies.  So, go on, Boehner.  Keep ranting . . . PLEASE!

In the opinion of Quinn McCord at the National Journal, a primary between candidates Scott Kleeb and Tony Raimondo will actually bring about more positive than negative results for the eventual nominee. McCord argues that, because both candidates are relatively unknown statewide, a primary will increase exposure for the eventual nominee. So, I'm curious: does the readership here at SSP concur with McCord, or do you think a primary will ultimately bruise the eventual nominee, rendering him weaker against Mike Johanns?

In a shocking development, Nancy Skinner, the 2006 candidate who ran against Republican Rep. Joe Knollenberg, has withdrawn her candidacy for that seat.  She would have faced state lottery commissioner Gary Peters in the Democratic primary before moving on to face Knollenberg in the fall.  

I’m not quite sure which way this news cuts.  On the one hand, Skinner ran a strong race against Knollenberg the last time around, and has been championed by the netroots, especially Democracy For America.  On the flip side, I remain wary of “grudge match” candidates who were unable to beat the Republicans in 2006.  That was a Democratic year, without any GOP pull at the top of the ticket.  If a candidate couldn’t make it over the finish line then, how would he or she do so this year?

I also don’t know much about Gary Peters.  How strong a candidate is he?  Any Michiganders with insights, I encourage you to chime in!

I yield the floor.

This news comes as a bit of a downer for us.  Apparently, the GOP arm-twisted John Shadegg into un-retiring, according to this article from the Arizona Republic.

Too bad.  On the up-side, I guess we’ll be able to portray him as someone who is not committed to serving in Congress, since he had to be begged to stay on.

(Please forgive that groan-inducing pun in the subject line.  I just couldn’t help it).

I know this site is all about down-ballot races, but I noticed that the topic of the Veepstakes became rather popular as it spun off from the thread on coattails.  So, I’d like to open up the floor to discuss the matter . . . from the specific vantage point of how it affects the dynamics of the down-ballot races.  I’ll start with the example of one of my favorite blue-trending states, Virginia:

The names of the Virginia Triumvirate (Warner, Kaine, and Webb) have all been tossed around as VP candidates here in the blogosphere.  But, there are problems with picking any one of them.  Most obviously, Mark Warner is running for senate this year, and taking him out of the running for that will leave us with no strong candidate.  And if we don’t take that Virginia senate seat, there is no way we can get anywhere near the magic number 60.

Moving on to Tim Kaine, the first disadvantage of picking him is the fact that the Lt. Gov. of Virginia is a Republican– and not a moderate one, either.  In addition to that, Kaine is not exactly a compelling presence on the stump.  In Drew Westen’s recent book The Political Brain, Westen uses Kaine’s 2006 rebuttal to the State Of The Union as an example of what Democrats have been doing wrong in terms of presentation.  Apparently, Kaine presented himself in a way that seemed de-fanged, reminiscent of “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.”  I had to agree with that when I saw Kaine’s introduction to Obama at the state Jefferson-Jackson Dinner a few weeks back.  He just doesn’t come off with any oomph, if you know what I mean, and we need an attack-dog on the ticket.  Furthermore, Kaine rode into the governorship on Mark Warner’s coattails.  I highly doubt that his own coattails are as long, or that his pull statewide is that strong.

Finally, getting to the man who was “Born Fighting,” Jim Webb.  He can definitely sucker-punch the Republicans into oblivion, and appeal to voters whose top concern is national security.  And, as a writer by trade, he gives great speeches that get people fired up.  So where’s the downside?  Well . . . my lingering concern is that, while Webb would be replaced by a Democrat temporarily, no Democrat in Virginia is strong enough to hold that seat in a special election.  And, behind the scenes, the loathsome, rapacious miscreant known as George Felix Allen has been plotting his comeback. Replace Webb with a weaker candidate and we just might see Mr. Macaca back in his old senate seat.  And, if that isn’t a chilling enough image . . . remember that, before his defeat, Allen had every intention of running for president.  If he gets back into the senate, he will use it as a springboard to a national run, be it in 2012 or 2016.

To sum up the above paragraphs: Virginia is currently in a delicate stage of its development toward blueness.  Its political ecosystem must be left intact, and it will trend our way naturally.

I yield the floor!

These days, many of us in the blogosphere are turning our attention to the coattail effect in this year’s election.  I’ll leave all the presidential speculation to every other blog out there, but I wanted to open up the floor to discuss the effect of gubernatorial and senatorial candidates on congressional and state-legislature races.  Who hurts?  Who helps?  I can’t help but speculate that some down-ballot candidates in Minnesota are waiting with bated breath to see how much of a liability Al Franken turns out to be.  And I definitely foresee Mark Warner helping down-ticket Dems in Virginia win new seats in the U.S. House and in state and local offices.  Got any other observations and insights?  I yield the floor!