Chuck Schumer Is Playing Dangerous Games In North Carolina and Kentucky

Not unlike last cycle, I've been hearing from quite a few grassroots candidates that the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic committees are surreptitiously working against them in primaries or, where there are no primaries, ignoring or even being hostile to their campaigns. Earlier today we talked about the progressive Democrat, Roger Waun, running against rubber stamp loon Mac Thornberry in northern Texas and why he is so angry at the DCCC. The DSCC likes to brag to candidates that they're not like the DCCC and that they don't play favorites. This has never been true and it certainly isn't true this year.

Jim Neal is a Blue America-endorsed candidate who wants to take on Senator Dole in North Carolina. Although DSCC head Chuck Schumer claims, rather ingenuously, that he stays neutral in hotly contested primaries, there are at least two big ones this year where he is backing Insider Establishment candidates who give every indication that they will not support core Democratic initiatives. Kentucky's Bruce Lunsford has been a consistent supporter of Republican candidates and has been judged by Kentucky Democrats in the past to have proven himself unworthy of their votes. Still, Schumer has muscled aside other candidates and brow-beaten Democratic support groups and some unions into backing the same Lunsford they have loathed and campaigned against in the past. Ironically, Kentucky has a real progressive, grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, in this race-- running on a platform that clearly and authentically contrasts with incumbent Mitch McConnell's.

There is a similar situation in North Carolina, where Schumer seems to feel that voters aren't sophisticated enough to elect a progressive candidate, Jim Neal, who, among other things, is openly gay. Schumer twisted the arm of a mediocre insider, Kay Hagan, to get into the race after she had bowed out. And now, he has the DSCC, which is officially "neutral," signaling Democratic donors to support her and not Jim. This is standard operating procedure for the DSCC and DCCC. Schumer got slapped down when he tried the same tactic against populist Jon Tester in the 2006 Montana primary that pitted Jon Tester against an establishment shill Schumer was backing. Schumer's shill was slaughtered in the primary and Tester, of course, went on to defeat the Republican incumbent. Rahm Emanuel tried the same tricks in the House where he attempted to ax John Hall and Jerry McNerney with establishment insiders who would never have been able to inspire the kind of grassroots support to beat the incumbents the way Hall and McNerney did.

But insiders like Schumer never learn. You can't beat a Republican with a Democrat who acts like a Republican. On issue after issue Jim Neal's positions clearly contrast to those of Elizabeth Dole's, while Kay Hagan's are pretty much... more of the same, just not as terrible. Schumer has promised to stay neutral in this race, which would be an excellent idea because polls show the two candidates in a dead heat. But this morning I got a copy of a letter from James Spencer, president of the Campaign Network which works for the Jim Neal campaign, to the executive director the DSCC. Spencer, who told me he's run up against some rough campaigns in the past 35 years of electoral work, but never as bad as this, gave me permission to reprint it.

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director,
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

April 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Poersch:

I am writing to follow up on a phone call I placed to you regarding the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Jim Neal, Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in the North Carolina primary.

Mr. Neal is running a strong grassroots campaign and is tied in the polls with State Senator Kay Hagan.

However, you wouldn't know it by reading the DSCC web site.

The DSCC site includes numerous newspaper articles about Senator Hagan, but none about Mr. Neal. The Race Profile for North Carolina features a positive summary of Senator Hagan's campaign, but Mr. Neal is mentioned only in passing, lumped together with three minor candidates who have not mounted serious campaigns.

This is not an insignificant oversight and will have a serious impact on the Jim Neal campaign. As you know, would-be donors to Mr. Neal are likely to check the DSCC web site for an evaluation of the race. The inaccurate description and the fact that Mr. Neal is all but missing from the official DSCC synopsis of the Senate race serves to discourage donors from writing a check.

My staff has provided the DSCC staff with press coverage of the Neal campaign and other material to facilitate updating the DSCC site. Betsy Lin on the Regional Desk, responding to repeated phone calls by my staff member Curtis Ellis, told him that web site issues were "an internal matter" and that she had no say over what was posted. Consequently, Mr. Ellis then spoke with DSCC Political Director Martha McKenna, who told him the Neal campaign had "more important things to worry about" than what appears on the DSCC web site.

My understanding and concern is that Ms. McKenna was dismissive of the request, and repeatedly and pointedly refused to say that the DSCC site would be updated to give Mr. Neal fair and equal treatment.

This is particularly troubling in light of assurances the DSCC made to both myself and Mr. Neal.

As you recall, in our November 1, 2007 meeting at DSCC headquarters in Washington D.C., attended by Mr. Neal, myself, Ms. McKenna, and Chuck Wolfe of the Victory Fund, you assured us that Mr. Neal would receive equal access to services from the DSCC. And on February 13, Senator Schumer reassured Daily Kos readers the DSCC hasn't endorsed in the primary.

These assurances notwithstanding, I understand the DSCC has the prerogative to endorse any candidate it chooses, at any time and for any reason. If that is the case, please say so openly.

Millions of voters across the country are looking to our Democratic Party and its leaders to set an example and encourage participatory, grassroots democracy in our nation.

I would hope that the DSCC would allow the people of North Carolina to choose their Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate without interference and favoritism from Washington.

With fewer than 30 days remaining before North Carolina's primary, I look forward to your timely response. I am posting a copy of this letter which you should receive tomorrow.

There are many ways to donate to candidates these without going through the DSCC or the DCCC. ActBlue has collected over $43,000,000 for Democratic candidates. It's a much better way to donate and it cuts out the would be king makers like Schumer and Emanuel and puts the money directly into the hands of the candidates' campaigns. On the Blue America ActBlue page, for example, you can donate to Jim Neal or to Greg Fischer or, better yet, to both of them. If you do it today, add one cent as a message to Chuck Schumer to allow Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky to pick their own nominees.

Follow Howie Klein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/downwithtyranny

Comments

[AlanJohnPrescott]

11:50 PM on 04/19/2008

Why is North Carolina Super Delegate taking huge sums of money from someone he has to cast a vote on? Is that like paying the judge before the verdict? North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler took $10,000.00 from Barack Obama kinda puts his potential endorsemen­t in question.


Do North Carolina voters know that Barack Obama has "donated" the huge sum of $10,000.00 to North Carolina Super Delegate Heath Shuler? Talk about back room politics. Is he trying to buy votes from this UNDECLARED Super Delegate and take votes away from North Carolina voters?

Do North Carolina voters know that
Reps. Heath Shuler took a $10,000.00 "donation" from Barack Obama?

http://www­.unheardam­ericanvoic­es.com

[gureumi]

03:24 PM on 04/17/2008

Obama camp should send a lot of delegates to the convention and try to set the tone of '08 election in a novel way. There has always been a big gap between the floor people and the stage people in the Democratic Convention­. Time for a dramatic change!

[jhNY]

12:46 PM on 04/17/2008

Interestin­g thesis, but the election of Jim Webb, plus the continued careers of the blue dogs, seem to run counter to your conclusion­.

[skip4Obama]

10:43 AM on 04/17/2008

Good old boy is not the role model for democrats.­...remembe­r how pushed our new Attorney general thru the judicary committee and look at what we have there. I am voting for Jim Neal and i will feel good to know that good old chuck can't have my vote! Chuck needs to be gone from this critical position for the 2008 election!

[tea in the harbor]

12:09 PM on 04/17/2008

As Mr. Washington told us in his final address as President, political parties are a danger to Democracy. They add a component to elections that has nothing to do with the will or good of the people. A component instead is designed to promote their own power, which by definition reduces that of the citizen. Today's ineffectiv­e and uniformly corrupted system is the natural result, predicted all those years ago. Only two, out of three-hund­red thirty million of us have a legitimate chance a the Presidency­, it is unimaginab­le that such a process would bring forward the best available solutions to our concerns.

[mlaiuppa]

10:36 AM on 04/17/2008

This type of "election tampering" (Because that's what it is) basically makes the Democratic Party as corrupt as the Republican Party.

Is that really what the Democrats want?

[sdrawkcab]

10:15 AM on 04/17/2008

Why do Dems now go out of their way to violate our party's best interests?
Why does the President & Congress go out of their way to violate our country's best interests?
Why did Bremer, Rumsfeld and Bush go out of their way to violate everybody'­s best interest in Iraq?

No way so many could be stuck on such a profound stupid.
Certainly not people with the resources to get themselves elected.

I keep computing a hidden agenda is at work.
Maybe I'm losing my sanity -- but, if so, why isn't everybody?

I am getting to the point where I would prefer a government of random citizens.
I have absolutely no doubt that an average HS grad could do better than:
Bush, Clinton, McCain, Lieberman, Schumer, ... nevermind Bremer, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, ...
The lists go on and on and on...


I would love to understand more about what is really going on here.

[Cathi]

10:08 AM on 04/17/2008

Not a surprise..­.it's the Schumers and Clintons who need to be REMOVED from politics as if they were a disease.

[joja]

07:17 AM on 04/17/2008

i once read a blog by someone who claimed to be from NY, who referred to Schumer as, "sound-bit­e Schumer."

It seems to fit. I don't think I've ever heard him open his mouth, that he didn't strive to make his words take on an importance they didn't deserve, or were never followed up on with actions.

He's typical of the old-school Clinton-st­yle politics that are soooooooo old and stale. And THAT'S why the Democrats will continue to lose elections, or win them with such razor-thin margins that they have no consensus to enact anything worthwhile towards alleviatin­g peoples' problems.

[Jaswneal]

01:44 AM on 04/17/2008

Change will come about only by the election of people who aren't afraid to make others feel uncomforta­ble.

Before we head down the road of policy reform, the transforma­tional election which must be 2008 will require have to inject new vitality, and fresh faces not associated with the status quo. Our culture of politics is rotten. I'm committed to redefining that-- starting with purging the money. It's corrosive. I will not accept PAC money-- and could put to good use certainly. But I'm leading by example-- right now, now after election day,

You are the future-- the real voices of change. The netroots generation is fired up and the blogospher­e is erasing the need for filters which always have a perspectiv­e, and agenda, for themselves first and foremost.

I can beat Senator Dole. Her record in one of under achievemen­t: locally and on the national stage. We contrast decidedly.

Get the netroots generation to contribute­-- big and small. Hope a plane our a train and head south. I need you.

Support my candidacy.

With you, nothing is impossible­.

All the best,

Jim

[Jeremiahthemessiah]

12:22 AM on 04/17/2008

John Edwards won in 1998. Anyone remember his progressiv­e voting record he carried from 1998 to 2004, on to 2008 when he ran for president again? No, he had a more conservati­ve voting record while he was a US Senator. Mike Easley, governor of North Carolina isn't known for being a progressiv­e Democrat either. Jim Neal is openly gay. I don't have a problem with it at all. But realistica­lly, it is going to create a glass ceiling for him in a state like North Carolina. People have tossed names around for the first openly gay US Senator. Congressma­n Barney Franks of Massachuss­ets, and Congresswo­man Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin are both realistic and possible.

Yes. Kay Hagan is running to the middle, even a little right of center on some issues. If it helps us pickup another senate seat that wouldn't be competitiv­e otherwise, I'm all for it. Part of being a yellow dog Democrat is rememberin­g, and knowing that a Democrat is always better than a Republican­. (Unless your name is Joe Leibermann I-CT for a reason) The worst of us, are still better than the worst of them.

At a time when reaching 60 senate seats to stop Republican obstructio­n is very important, (Republica­ns have set a record and are more than doubling the previous record of obstructed bills in this congress) now isn't a time to toss away a possible US Senate pickup. Dole doesn't live in North Carolina, she is a weak incumbent.

[Pupster]

01:54 AM on 04/17/2008

How do you know which candidate will beat Dole? How do you know that the people of NC aren't ready to elect a gay candidate? How do you know which candidate is more realistic?

Why don't you let the primary play out in NC without your unnecessar­y and rather obtuse commentary­. That's what a primary is for, not for Chuck Schumer to decide who should run.

[Jeremiahthemessiah]

12:23 PM on 04/17/2008

Money in politics. The candidate who raises the most, wins almost every time. (2006 was a huge exception to that rule due to the revolt against Iraq, as 2008 may also be) Kay Hagan has proven to be a proficient fundraiser in her two fundraisin­g quarters, showing much stronger hauls than Jim Neal. She's a better fundraiser than him.

I plan on letting the primary play out, but it appears as though we have a divide. Are you saying that being a homosexual will not hinder the electorate away from him at all? Not make a decent pickup opportunit­y harder? If you refuse to accept that, then again, it's a lack of realism on your part. We're talking about doing something that has never been done, but can be in the near future, in a more applicable state.

North Carolina doesn't have a statewide progressiv­e Democrat in either the governor's mansion, or the senate. Hell, they might not even have elected one in a long time for all I know. You seem rather ahead of yourself on this one. There are a lot of factors at play.

[1dogs2]

11:47 PM on 04/16/2008

That's precisely why I don't contribute to the DCCC or the DSCC any more. I choose my candidates and contribute to them directly.

[colleen2]

09:30 PM on 04/16/2008

What a shame that NY cannot elect a decent Senator

[robeson]

08:58 PM on 04/16/2008

Schumer's job, clearly depicted in his votes, is to keep corporate people in power in any job from any party. See Lieberman, Mukasey, Torture, Rendition, Domestic Spying.

[microbial]

04:23 PM on 04/16/2008

I've had about enough of these wolves in sheep's clothing telling us which way to vote. We need less "boss" politics and we need Schumer to stop sticking his nose into every race. Not to mention the fact that in this race Kay Hagan seems to be another cookie cutter candidate with nothing to offer. Neal actually has a refreshing approach to government­. I hope the voters in NC show Schumer that they're ready for real change and vote Jim Neal for Senate.

[ohmemercylard]

04:13 PM on 04/16/2008

Lunsford is the only guy we're even hearing about in KY. Clearly, there's a lotta money and power behind him. I do not like this guy. However, it's gonna take lots and lots of money and power to defeat the evil no-lipped Mitch McConnell. He just won't go away, alas.

[KYD]

10:06 PM on 04/16/2008

I am always encouraged to support a viable grassroots­/netroots candidate, but this is not the time or place to fall on our swords. We progressiv­es/Bluegra­ssrooters had our horse in this race, USMC Lt. Col. (Ret.) Andrew Horne, but he dropped out in February. He, like myself, then realized that Bruce Lunsford is the only (and best) shot we have to force McConnell to give a concession speech. Horne, being a very astute man, publicly endorsed Lunsford a few weeks ago.

I looked at all candidates personal donations before deciding whom to support. I will not bore everyone with minutia, but suffice it to say that candidates who live in glass houses should not throw political stones.

McConnell is political public enemy #1. Defeating McConnell will take name ID, institutio­nal resources, a highly competent staff, access to money and tough political experience­. Lunsford is the only candidate that possess all of these skills and resources. As a Kentuckian­, it is hard to imagine why anyone would not support our best candidate to retire McConnell.

A new SUSA primary poll came out yesterday, which stated that if the election were held today Bruce Lunsford would receive 47% of the primary vote. No other candidate broke out of single digits! I may not always agree with the principle of cherry-pic­king candidates­, BUT in this case Lunsford is our only hope to Ditch Mitch. When the DSCC recognized that too, then they made the right call (in this case).

[rmreddicks]

11:00 AM on 04/17/2008

Locally (as if all politics were local) it might be better (and I gag at the thought) to keep McConnell as reprehensi­ble as he may be on the national scene and with his bag man role for the lesser Republican­s, should Lunsford be the Dem. nominee.

With McConnell'­s position he would be a good point man for focusing dissatisfa­ction. Lunsford would make those blue dog democrats of the past LOOK like Democrats. He brings very little to the table other than a doubling of the Lieberman party. Nominally a Democrat he may help to maintain control of some committees­, though it shouldn't come to that. Lunsford would cast a deciding vote only after weighing the money which either side might give to him.

I've said it. I'm sorry.

Better to re-double efforts for Fischer. He is incredibly unknown to the average voter in the Northern Ky area. There is a certain progressiv­eness creeping in up here (outside Boone Co. Don't overestima­te it. I think there's enough votes to help.