(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)
Today, former Virginia governor Mark Warner criticized the Democratic Party. At least that’s the impression one would get from the title of the AP article. However, what Warner had to say was not to be critical of our party in the present, but instead supporting the idea of the DNC’s 50-State Strategy.
“I got pretty frustrated after 2004,” said the former Virginia governor. “We are making a mistake if we put up candidates that are only competitive in 16 states and then we roll the dice and hope we win Ohio or Florida.”
In an interview with The Associated Press, Warner insisted he wasn’t being critical of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, whom he called “a very strong candidate.” But Warner said Democrats must stop conceding entire regions of the country.
“We do our party and the country a disservice if we’re not competitive in the South and the balance of the Midwest,” Warner said. “I’m disappointed in campaigns that write off the South and leave behind wide swaths of our country.”
Indeed, the article goes on to mention that DNC chair Howard Dean has been doing exactly that – beginning to fund Democrats in deep red states that haven’t seen money in years. One would expect the results of such an effort to take years – even decades – to show results. However, in the upcoming elections, we may begin to see electoral results sooner than expected. Although some races are a combination of having a completely incompetent opponent – as is the case in the ID-01 race, where certifiable nutjob Bill Sali is opposing Democrat Larry Grant. However, we also have good candidates running as well. In Nebraska’s 3rd Congressional District – an open seat – Democrat Scott Kleeb is facing off against Republican Adrian Smith. Despite this being a heavily Republican district, Kleeb may very well pick off a seat that we should theoretically have no business winning.
Kleeb’s biography reads very well: a fourth-generation resident of Nebraska, he attended Yale University, where his research often led him back to his home state. Here are a few of his observations:
Scott heard tales of hardships brought on by globalization. He heard about the decline in commodity prices and the loss of manufacturing jobs. He heard about stagnant wages and rising costs of living. But he also heard tales of triumph; cases where creative leadership and targeted investment enabled some towns and cities to fare better than their neighbors. The lesson was simple: Nebraskans need more than business as usual from their leaders. They need energy, innovation and investment, and they need it now.
“Elected officials in this state tend to talk about free trade as though it were a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Scott said. “In reality, Nebraska wasn’t ready for free trade, and these deals have been hard on our rural communities.
“Can freer trade make us stronger than we have ever been before? Of course. Nebraska has some of the best schools in the country, high quality affordable housing, low crime rates, clean air, and first-class transportations systems–we are a globalization success story waiting to happen. But we need to invest in the systems, infrastructure and people that will enable us to take advantage of this new environment.”
This is a point that can play well in the state – over the first four years of the Bush administration, Nebraska lost over 6,000 jobs, including more than 12,000 blue-collar manufacturing jobs. One of the dirty secrets about free trade that the GOP brushes under the rug is that it forces many workers out of jobs. And the main idea behind free trade – that it will lower a company’s costs over time – isn’t necessarily true. However, this doesn’t deter Kleeb’s challenger, Adrian Smith, when it comes to the issue of free trade:
We talked about NAFTA and CAFTA. Adrian believes we should have free and fair trade. “NAFTA and CAFTA are here, so we have to live with them. The United States should focus on new technology, new crops, new genetics, and pharmaceutical crops.”
Talk about proactively seeking solutions. Better to deal with it than to learn from the flaws of the trade agreements so that we can indeed have fair trade.
Kleeb has a comprehensive issues page, which you may notice has one glaring omission: it does not talk at all about any of the hot-button social issues that get much play in Republican states, such as abortion or gay rights. Some may be displeased that he doesn’t take these issues head-on, but much of Kleeb’s plank is based on a populist message – and this is what the local people will care most about. Here’s a little tidbit from his section on agriculture:
Under the $249 billion farm bill approved in 2002, two-thirds of farm subsidy payments go to the top 10 percent of farm-subsidy recipients. Meanwhile, the incomes of most farm families remain stagnant, and our rural communities continue to decline.
We need a new generation of farm incentives that will reward farmers who support local economies, practice responsible land stewardship, and invest in bringing value-added farm products to market. We need to shift incentives to boost innovation. Because, as we all know-especially farmers-the best subsidy is a higher price.
There will probably be something in there that will displease everyone. His position on Iraq, to say the least, will probably make many of us upset, as it sounds an awful lot like a position that either the Bush administration and conservative Democrats are pushing:
Given the enormous costs of this war to the people of the United States, these are very serious matters. But, for me, that is where that particular discussion ends. And I’ll tell you why. We, as a nation, cannot afford to dwell on these mistakes any longer. We must focus our attention on finding solutions to the very serious challenges we face today.
It is disgraceful to see Washington politicians trying to score political points by calling Iraq an abject failure (which it is not) or by suggesting that it will be a beacon of Western Democracy in the Middle East the day after tomorrow (which it will not). Let’s not have civilian politicians standing up saying we ought to withdraw 20,000 troops by the end of the year. Such a move runs the risk of destabilizing Iraq further just when we are seeing real signs of progress. And let’s not make public comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam. This not only demoralizes our troops, but also ignores the facts.
While we can certainly run against politicians such as Lieberman in much bluer states who would hold such a position, in a place like Nebraska, it’s probably the best we can hope for at this point. In my view, where Democrats of all stripes can find the most common ground is on the bread-and-butter economic issues that affect working families the most. A unique aspect of Kleeb’s website is that he allows Nebraskans to post their own thoughts on the issues at the issues blog, allowing fellow 3rd District residents to express themselves and what they’d like to see. If you compare Kleeb’s comprehensive policy stances to his opponent’s, you’ll see that there is a clear difference – as well as the fact that Smith has a section devoted to the ‘culture of life’ that defends his opposition to stem cell research.
How is the campaign going? The most recent financial news is startling, to say the least. While Smith battled through a primary to gain the GOP nomination, Kleeb ran unopposed and was in a very good financial position:
Kleeb raised $203,821 in the second quarter of 2006; Smith raised $290,000. But Smith was forced to spend a lot of money to win a hotly contested three-way primary race, while Kleeb ran unopposed.
In cash on hand, Kleeb has $277,069 while Smith has just $105,000, according to data released by both campaigns.
And that $105,000 that Smith has? About $100,000 of it came from a fundraiser hosted by Dick Cheney. In other words, without help from the White House, the GOP candidate in a heavily GOP state would be just about broke. Even so, Kleeb still has a big cash-on-hand advantage. It’s also something that didn’t play too well with some of the local media, as seen above, and the Democrats hammered Smith about the cost to taxpayers that Cheney’s visit would cost:
“I think it’s completely unacceptable that the taxpayers of Grand Island are being asked to pay to help Adrian Smith raise money,” Kleeb said in a statement.
It is not unusual for challengers to demand that the party in power reimburse local governments for the costs of a presidential or vice-presidential trip. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) charged that operating Air Force 2, Cheney’s plane, costs $57,000 per hour, an amount U.S. taxpayers inevitably will incur.
The campaign seems to be infused with support from Republicans, if this excerpt is any indication:
Kleeb said it isn’t unusual for him to receive a phone call asking him to attend a fund-raiser.
“I got a call from Scottsbluff where a woman had organized an event, asked me to be there and I was greeted by 80 Republicans,” Kleeb said.
Kleeb has criss-crossed the Third District at least twice in nine days, and Hughes said people are glad for an opportunity to meet Kleeb.
Kleeb has also appeared at rallies with former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey. The Nebraska Democratic Party, which had been virtually nonexistent before Dean took the DNC chairmanship, is showing a resurgence – a movement that Kleeb is now a part of.
“We didn’t show up” is the explanation offered by Barry Rubin, executive director for the Nebraska Democratic Party. “I’ve had people tell me that they haven’t seen a Democratic Party person in their town for 20 years.”
Rubin sees job No. 1 as finding viable candidates for local office — “for town council, mayor or weed supervisor.” This puts a familiar face on the Democratic Party, he says, and helps groom talent for future races.
One recruit, Scott Kleeb, could very well set off a political earthquake. A rancher educated at Yale, Kleeb is running strong against Republican state legislator Adrian Smith in Nebraska’s sprawling 3rd Congressional District — the seventh-most conservative district in the country. Republicans are so alarmed at the prospect of losing it that they flew out Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert to buck up Smith’s campaign.
While he may not align with us on all the issues, it’s clear that Scott Kleeb would be a much-needed improvement over the current representative, Republican Tom Osborne. In a cheap media market, dollars will go a long ways towards helping fund any on-air advertisement that Democrats in Nebraska can run. The party in the state was probably thought to be long dead, but it’s come alive as a result of Dean’s committment to the 50-State Strategy. The state party has a blog that follows the races in Nebraska, including Kleeb’s, on a regular basis. Last month, Daily Kos had a front-page entry on the NE-03 race, along with the NE-01 race. At MyDD, blogger Ryan Anderson wrote a definitive entry on Kleeb a few months ago. While MyDD doesn’t have it listed on its latest House forecast, we can’t ignore a race simply because we may not win it. After all, the 50-State Strategy is about taking the fight to Republicans in every corner of the country, no matter how unfavorable the circumstances are. In this case, with popular Democratic senator Ben Nelson up for re-election in Nebraska, there’s an opportunity to ride his coattails – and the disapproval with Bush in-state (he is currently at 48% approval, with 50% disapproving) – to a surprising showing this November in Nebraska. Scott Kleeb may not agree with everything you and I believe in, but it’s a hell of a lot better than sending another rubber-stamp Republican to Congress. A close showing or a victory for Democrats in NE-03 would not only send ‘shock waves’; it’d also be a validation of the 50-State Strategy.
