When the Netroots went to work for Democratic majorities in 2006, we knew that we were supporting some conservative Democrats in a lot of districts. Each of us had to define our own breaking points, and we all took some arguably merited criticism for lack of progressive purity. Now that we have majorities we don’t have to succumb to the temptation to support Blue Dogs and New Dems in the interest of a greater good. Over at OpenLeft, Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, et. al., are profiling BushDems…essentially Democrats that are totally unreliable on big votes. But, our problem can run deeper than how Democrats vote. What do we do when Democrats lie to us about how they will vote?
Freshman Indiana Democrats (Hill, Ellsworth, and Donnelly) were honest about their social conservatism. Chris Carney (PA-10), however, promised to support Hate Crimes legislation, and then voted against it. His excuse?
[Howie] Klein’s group [Blue America] planned to stay quiet despite Carney’s having what they viewed as one of the worst records in Congress until he allied himself with what Klein calls “a bunch of horrid homophobes” and voted against the hate crime bill that he said the congressman promised during the campaign to support.
“It makes many of our contributors says what difference is it if we had Sherwood in there,” he said.
The group’s Blue America PAC that raised $545,000 for progressive candidates wants Carney to refund $8,210 raised for him.
Carney denied misleading the group and said it was naïve on their part to think he would vote 100 percent in sync with their views.
If there is a case that can be made for a big tent within the Democratic Party that includes some very conservative members, there is no case for members that lie to us about how they will vote and then contemptuously call us naïve.
Carney’s district is extremely conservative (PVI R+8.0) and he only won it because the incumbent was accused of choking his mistress. It’s not like we can go run a progressive candidate against him in the primaries and think we’re going to replace him with a better Democrat that will win in the fall. No, that’s not what this is about.
The problem is not that Carney is voting his district. The problem is that he lied to people to get their financial support and some free positive media and now says that his ideal candidate for president is Chuck Hagel.
The best way to punish him is to just withhold all support and point out that he has character issues. We probably can’t hold this seat in the long run anyway, so there shouldn’t be too much concern about making an example of Carney.
Do not come to the Netroots and make promises you have no intention of keeping. If you are going to vote against hate crimes legislation and endorse a Republican for president, then say so upfront and let the cards fall where they may.
to hell with carney- all he represents is one more liar that promised and we all bit!
BUT- when fuckers like levin stick it right up you know where, then to hell with them all. Like I have been saying for quite awhile, the dems are dead!
Levin- “measureable success”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that is that. these cocksuckers are gonna jump all over that and their press stooges will rip every single admin critic apart!
It is absolutely unbelievable and I have been saying that for the past 6 years!
screw the dems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carney needs progressive opposition to give Democrats a choice. To assume that his district is irrevocable conservative in 2008 because it was in 2004 or 2006 is to defeat ourselves before we begin.
Primaries are good. They test the appeal of candidates to the party at a retail level. They sort out the clever talkers from those who have principles, and they let Democrats decide.
Primaries only become bad when a politician is so enamored of themselves that they cannot take the rejection of the party’s voters. And vow to split the party in order “show the voters”.
and what are primaries when the party leadership cuts the legs out from under the public positions of the primary competitors? And what are primaries good for if the leadership doesn’t even bother to take into consideration the position of members of the troops in the conflict that is being used to destroy everything that the party has claimed to stand for?
Primaries are bad when the leadership destroys the positions taken by its own competitors.
billjpa
Primaries were created by progressives in the early twentieth century to break up the power of trusts and vested interests. The professional politicians and kingmakers have hated primaries. After the McGovern loss, the Democratic Party leadership started trying to avoid primaries by picking candidates beforehand and undercutting other candidates. The return of the kingmakers has coincided with the resurgence of trusts and vested interests.
The progressive moment has come again.
Bowers points out that Carney has technically forfeited his right to be a member of the party.
Speaking of Matt Stoller, I saw him this morning on C-Span and I am telling you – this guy has a gift for debate. He respectfully and wittily smacked down every right wing caller. And he’s very funny. He consistently referred to the “Blue Dogs” as the “Bush Dogs.”
And I just found the segment at C-Span if anyone wants to watch it. (Requires RealPlayer.)
Of the few things that really and truly set me off on a personal level, it’s being lied to. I fucking hate it. I won’t accept it.
And that IS the best way to deal with him. Withhold all support and make sure to spread the word, relentlessly. keep the pressure on.
it gets fucking tiring. It’s like dealing with a belligerent teenager.
Perhaps instead of interviewing candidates it would be better to check a candidate’s record. If someone really is a progressive their actions will support that.