Crossposted at my campaign site. Four years later I am actually running against Don Norcross and am on the ballot. But this journal is not about that aspect. It is about a progressive candidate looking for exposure, and finding something insidious…
So a couple of weeks ago I was invited to take part in fireside chat (basically a video conference) with Lisa McCormick, who is running for Senate in NJ against Bob Melendez) and Tanzie Youngblood, who is running as the progressive alternative in NJ District 2.
The forum was sponsored by a group called CFAR 2018— with the unfortunate full name of Contract For American Renewal– those of you who were politically active in 1994 will know why this sounds bad, but I digress. So the point of this group is that they have this contract that they want candidates to sign off on, most of which is pretty boilerplate progressive stuff which I agree with. There are some things I don’t go along with– restricting the military to defensive use only, getting out of all trade compacts (which I think has to be handled on a case by case basis, and requires nuance) but again, it’s mostly a pretty liberal line. Then there is the added language– this is a legal contract. If you do not not for these measures within 18 months of being elected you agree to resign and refund all campaign donations. OK… probably absolutely unenforceable, but weird nonetheless. Still, they appeared to be endorsing a national slate of candidates and maybe there is some good exposure to be had. I certainly wasn’t going to commit to anything, but again, exposure is good.
I didn’t talk much at the beginning of the forum. I didn’t realize that I wasn’t going to be asked things directly and that I would have to jump in. The beginning was largely focused on what it’s like running as an outsider, and the like. Eventually (after Tanzie retired for the night) I got in some things about my pet issue, voting in America and then it took a weird turn. Those of you who know me, or know of me are aware that I am as anti-Trump as one can get. I let slip (intentionally) that one reason I was running is that I wanted some candidate running for national office to say that Trump was a traitor. That seemed to strike an nerve with the hosts. “Do you have any proof of that” which led to “there is no proof of collusion with Russia” and “if we talk about Trump, we have to talk about Hillary”.
Now I understand reticence to use the word traitor. It’s a strong word. It’s true, but still accusatory. But the no proof of collusion statement, and especially the Hillary remark also crept in. Then the conversation began to turn a bit more heated. The hosts wanted to talk about the Democratic party and how corrupt it was. By this time Lisa McCormick retired from the conversation and her husband and campaign director Jim Devine came on. Jim did his best to guide the conversation back to progressive talk –largely agreeing with me on Trump and the Republican party and saying that while the Democratic party had corrupt elements, it was in no way like what the Republican party has become. It was obvious that there was disconnect, but we all reined it in on positive notes and said good night.
So a little about me and the Democratic Party. I am a Democrat and I believe in the ideals of the party. I am running against a sitting Democrat who is the pawn of the most powerful and corrupt regional machine in the country. I do NOT however believe the entire party is bad or corrupt. To be sure, there are corrupt and heavy-handed corporatist elements to the Democratic Party. There are also a lot of good people involved in it and it is the only defense we have keeping the country from becoming a fascist state. Full stop.
I have no dislike for Hillary Clinton. I disagreed with her Iraq war vote, but I largely feel she was as qualified a person as there has ever been to be President of the United States. I have no dislike for Bernie Sanders. I liked his economic positions more than Hillary’s even as I thought she would be a more effective President. I voted for Bernie in the end (knowing that by the time of NJ primary it was effectively over) because a friend of mine would have been a Bernie delegate. I think the animosity between the two factions has been tragically damaging not just to the party but the country. The only people I have a problem with in all of this are those who abdicated their responsibility to America and voted for Jill Stein or Trump.
Fast forward to this past Thursday night.
I got a call from Jim Devine (who was the one who told me about the first event) and he mentioned that if I was available I could do most of talking tonight. OK. I like talking. I came on and Lisa wasn’t available yet (she actually never made it on– another interview was going on) so it was me and Jim and the CFAR people. We started off nicely, I talked about how it is important that we have the option to use the Military for humanitarian purposes. We talked about voting again. They really want open primary voting– I said I’m OK with parties getting to restrict voting to club members. We talked about how in NJ if you are unaffiliated you can immediately declare, but if you are in a party you have to wait 50 days to change. I said that sounds fair, right? Hosts kind of went along. Hosts then wanted to talk about how the nomination was stolen from Bernie (ed. note– again, I like the guy, but 100s of delegates and millions of votes say otherwise). More stuff about the Democratic Party. Hmm the Democratic party really is the enemy to these guys. OK, lets take this in another direction. I mention that in my case I AM running against an insider specifically because the controller of the machine that runs him is in bed with Trump. Then the defense mechanisms start.
“We can’t just overturn a legitimate election.” I point out that this assumes the election was ever legitimate.
“If Hillary won we’d be bombing Syria already”. Oh really?
A ton of back and forth follows about collusion, with the hosts insisting IT HAS BEEN TWO YEARS and there is no proof. Jim Devine, to his credit, pretty much agrees with me and starts itemizing all the guys who are under investigation or are co-operating with the Mueller investigation.
Then Mueller is castigated. They don’t like Mueller.
I ask at one point flat out if they are pro-Trump. They kind of laugh… “oh no, we get that a lot. We just…”
Later I ask if Putin really cares about the American people. Response: “I don’t think he wants war anymore than any one else”
Jim says at one point that we would obviously be better off under Hillary. The hosts don’t like this. ”How?” Jim rattles off healthcare stuff, taxes, we’d still be in the Paris accords, etc. Host: ”I don’t agree with the Paris accords!”. My jaw drops. Every country in the world is signed off on this! What’s your problem with it? ”It doesn’t take into account deforestation.” OK. A measure that the entire world agrees with– it doesn’t deal with your pet issue so you are willing to throw out the entire good?”. The creepy feeling I had the first time has been much more pronounced this second time, and now it is reaching full on paranoia. It’s getting late and we agree to cut off, and I say something civil about we’re all in this together, if we agree on 80% of things we should be able to work things out and make things a better place and eventually we say good night.
The next day I’m bothered, and I talk to my wife, a couple of friends and my oldest daughter about this. I think this group is a Russian front. I feel like an alarmist, then I do some research. I ran an Internet whois command on cfar2018.com. Registrar is John D Rachel. Country of registration, Japan. Say what?
I go to the CFAR website and check “About us”. There are the two hosts and John D Rachel, book author and creator of the contract. After leaving America in 2006, he visited 34 countries before settling in Japan. Why the f— is he creating conditions for running for Congress in a country he doesn’t even reside in? Amazon search of his books reveals he has written for Greenville post and ..the Russia Insider??
From Wikipedia entry on the Russia Insider–
The website has been criticized for its pro-Russian stance, and considered a “pro-Kremlin propaganda site” by Newsweek, BBC News and Slate, among others. It is considered by the Euractiv website to be alongside “several highly visible partisan outlets such as RT, Ruptly and Sputnik”.
And ad some anti-semitic editorial content for good measure…
In conclusion, if you think that Russians aren’t trying to interfere in our elections, I just gave you a first hand account. Putin wants to destroy the Democratic party, because that is what threatens his puppet.
Anything you don’t like is a
SovietRussian plot.If Mommy is a Commie then you have to turn her in.
Been there. Done that. 1950s. Don’t want to do it again.
BTW. The Iron Curtain is supposed to be down. Business deals with Russia are legitimate now. Just like deals with Red (still!) China.
None so blind as those who will not see.
How true! All of you still stuck in “How could she lose?”
Russiagate is destroying the Democratic Party
And we have moved into the “blue dress” phase. As for myself, I don’t care one bit that one pig screwed another pig, but I guess it se;;s newspapers and blog hits.
Notice, Janicket, that although my opinions are 180 degrees from yours, I do not troll rate you for having a different opinion unlike the vigilantes who Booman has allowed to infest this blog. I respect your right to be wrong, unlike the newbie Nazis.
TVITW-So point out why or where you think the diarist is wrong. Teach us old wise one in where we have gone so gullibly wrong. You only offer snark in search of a point. Your teacher evaluation will not go well at this rate.
Do you have any experience running for office that might explain the behavior of CAFR in other terms?
I followed many supposed Bernie supporters that were also allegedly vehemently anti Trump during the primaries, and noticed so many that went to Jill Stein, then to Trump after the election or silence on his administration’s malfeasance. There are many on the Left like Nader who are either used by Republicans or Stein who I think really coordinated her campaign with Russian help. I find it odd that so many that can accept any charge no matter how outlandishly implausible against the U.S. or the CIA, are so skeptical when it comes to the GRU, Russia, or any foreign entity for that matter.
In your own mind, you are an unappreciated Cassandra, but too often when I read you, I hear Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
The sands of time are quickly running out for you. Is this really how you want to be remembered with your head in the sand, yet again?
. . . substantive challenges.
So I hope you’re not holding your breath while waiting for a substantive response.
Granted, you won’t die.
But you will probably pass out first.
“Russiagate is destroying the Democratic Party.”
First, how do you define “destroy?” Every candidate for president is running to the left of Bernie Sanders 2016, tripping over themselves to try and figure a way to distinguish themselves with different left wing ideas. Sanders met with Larry Krasner to discuss his criminal justice reforms. Gillibrand is backing job guarantees and public banking. Booker is backing serious drug reform. Democrats won a senate seat in Alabama, and they’re currently favorites to take the senate in a year that was very possible for Republicans to win 60 under the correct environment. What the hell are you talking about? Just because you don’t like how the media sucks oxygen out of the room doesn’t mean these things aren’t happening. Pay attention.
Second, serious crimes were committed, including direct quid pro quos. Crimes that you’d flip out about if Hillary Clinton committed them. Moreover, you’ve previously repeated verbatim Russian propaganda on this very forum at the same time you doubt its effectiveness.
Он должен быть эффективным. Путин будет доволен.
LOL at the link. i was just thinking that Rooktoven was speaking to a room full of c99ers. I don’t need to hear anything from the “Hillary would have been worse” crowd.
. . . repeatedly troll-rated substantive, factual posts. Then run away when that’s pointed out.
. . . comment here ever . . .
Congratulations! You won!
He beat AG?
. . . Guess I’d have to insist on seeing ag’s entry in contention for the “award” side-by-side with this one to make that difficult call.
What’s disturbing about the Russian attempts to interfere is not just that they are trying but that they are good at it. They are doing a good job of exploiting disagreements within the Democratic party and when the Republican sheep are so close to 50% it doesn’t take a great deal of disaffection among the Democrats for them to win.
They’ve a lot of practice because I feel like RT and maybe Al Jazeera were the only outlets to cover things like Occupy Wall Street on a serious basis beyond mockery. Moreover, what really brought the “left” together during Bush was the Iraq War, and geopolitical events (Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt) allowed them to propagandize through with narratives which echoed one another.
Certainly instructive. Thanks for sharing your observations. Personally, I am a bit wary of organizations that want candidates to sign binding contracts. Maybe I like my politicians to have some flexibility once they actually get the seat – there is often one hell of a learning curve once one gets in office, just as is the case with any other job. No need to be hamstrung from the get-go. Not sure I’m all that impressed with CFAR at this point. If anything, a bit turned off.
To clarify, I never signed the agreement, nor will I ever. I was invited to appear and did so (twice), but I am not one of their endorsed candidates. I considered striking the parts I didn’t like and signing the pact, but the second appearance and subsequent research gave me a “no f-ing way” attitude.
The contract part is fishy.. That would qualify for a “not impressed” take in my book, even with the mostly standard progressive laundry list. The contract plus the “destroy the Democratic Party” aspect and Trump/Russia apologism is pretty disgraceful.
I pretty much figured that was the basic vibe.
. . . Second, easy for me to say, I know, hindsight 20-20, live and learn, etc., etc.; but unfortunate you or someone assisting your campaign didn’t think to do that research before the fact rather than after.
Good luck!
You are absolutely right on the second point. So yeah, shame on me.
I was told it was a progressive group endorsing candidates nationwide by someone who had been involved in politics for a long time. Not to deflect blame, it just seemed like a good opportunity for exposure. I probably should have done more than just look at their front page at first. That said, I probably wouldn’t have dug as deep as I ended up digging if I was just doing a cursory check. Maybe the 12 years out of the country would have jumped out at me, not sure. I had no reason to suspect anything beyond the pale until the hosts’ remarks gave me reason.
He who has himself as campaign manager is working for a fool, or something like that. If I tell myself it’s a dry run for the next time I don’t feel so bad.
. . . critical, given you’ve made the plunge and I haven’t, shouts for itself.
Totally understandable you weren’t on the lookout for such ratfucking (not sure that’s the best descriptor, but can’t think what else to call what you ran into).
Hopefully, you are now, going forward.
My hat is off to you for trying.