What About The "Better" In "More And Better Democrats?"

This morning in the FDL discussion of yesterday's victory in Mississippi, people were wondering about the progressive commitment not just to "more Democrats" but to "more and better Democrats." One might ask, better than what, of course, but one thing liberals is essential, are more Democrats like Donna Edwards -- genuine and energized progressive leaders. Can reactionary Republicans (basically all of them) and reactionary Democrats -- Blue Dogs and DLC types -- be held accountable for the Iraq catastrophe and for the de-funding and the disabling of the federal regulatory agencies?

Many of us were happy to see far right Republicans lose in deep red districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi. It is demoralizing and panicking Republicans; great. When grassroots progressives help beat reactionary Republicans, the Democratic Insider Establishment is as happy as we are. When I mentioned Al Wynn's political demise to Rahm Emanuel at a chance encounter in a bar a few weeks ago, I thought he was either going to lunge at me or have a heart attack. When Democratic reactionaries fall, you might notice rage in Beltway eyes. Democratic primaries are crucial for holding bad Democrats accountable and for electing better Democrats. Blue America is working hard to help trade in Bush rubber stamps Leonard Boswell (IA) and John Barrow (GA) for Ed Fallon and Regina Thomas. Another one of our favorite candidates this year, Leslie Byrne (VA-11), also has a primary coming up, but not against an incumbent. It's a primary pitting a proven progressive against a stealthy and reactionary puppet of war profiteers.

Long before Republican Tom Davis read the writing on the wall and announced he would not run for re-election, Virginia's 11th district was at the top of every Democrat's wish list. With Northern Virginia trending blue over the last two cycles, it's perfect for a red-to-blue turnover. But first we've got to make sure we don't elect another Blue Dog/DLC-type "corporate Democrat."

Fortunately, we have a great candidate in the field. Leslie Byrne has been a strong, progressive voice for decades in the state legislature, in Congress and as our nation's consumer advocate. She opposed the war in Iraq from the start, will fight to make health care more affordable and more accessible, and has always supported a woman's right to choose. Please check out her live blog session at FDL from last March.

As the Washington Post has pointed out, Leslie's opponent, Gerry Connolly, basically a Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman type Democrat, is trying to trick voters into thinking he's suddenly a progressive, just the way Lieberman persuaded Connecticut voters in 2006 that he had seen the light and had suddenly become anti-war. Let's go over why Connolly is such a terrible choice for grassroots and progressive Democrats.

First off, Connolly's record conforms to the worst stereotypes of the corporate Democrat and threatens to cost the party a long-awaited takeover. Connolly has been mired in questions about his employment with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), one of the worst of the major defense contractors, his cozy relationship with business developers and his general affinity for what most of us would call pay to play politics.

Connolly's most egregious offenses against the progressive agenda are only recently coming to light, largely due to his own hypocrisy on the Iraq war. Connolly, who was a proud "moderate" until the moment he declared for the House, has taken to touting his anti-war credentials by claiming that he's "been against the Iraq war from the beginning" and that he plans to "hold CEOs criminally accountable for wasting taxpayer's dollars."

So, why is this a problem? Well, it's an issue because Connolly's employer, SAIC, is one of the most secretive defense contractors in the world. Think about that: Connolly works for a war profiteering company that not only cheer-led for Bush's unjustifiable invasion but that makes much of its money by cheating taxpayers.

The War Profiteering Act that Connolly "claims" to support could devastate SAIC. If convicted under the terms of that act, the company could have to pay up to one million dollars in fines after forfeiting all property gained through the terms of the contract. Company officials involved in fraudulent behavior could have faced 20 years in federal prison. So we've got a congressional candidate claiming that he would vote for a law that could land his co-workers in jail for two decades and devastate his employer's profit margin -- and his stock options.

Gerry Connolly is running for Congress claiming that he plans to "hold CEOs accountable for wasting tax payers dollars" all while working for a company that made the case for the Bush Regime to attack Iraq and that has been accused of cheating taxpayers out of millions of dollars related to defense contracts.

Doesn't even pass the laugh test, does it? It sort of begs the question: Why would SAIC continue to employ someone who claims to support legislation that would have devastating effects to the company? Makes you wonder if maybe SAIC doesn't really believe Connolly plans to follow through, doesn't it?

Well, why shouldn't he be? He has a record of taking money from companies and then doing their bidding. He's already influenced local building projects as the board of supervisors chairman for local real estate developers. Why would one believe he wouldn't continue this influence for the war profiteers?

Right after Connolly was hired at SAIC, he pushed the Board of Supervisors to build a new Metro stop right by their property, raising its value by millions. Connolly talked about how important the new stop would be for SAIC. He didn't disclose the fact that he was now one of their employees.

When the real estate developer WestGroup wanted to build luxury town homes in his district without doing much for the neighborhood, Connolly voted for their proposal. He didn't think it was important to mention that he had been a consultant for WestGroup, making at least $10,000 after he went to them for work.

When Lerner Enterprises wanted to build a residential and office complex in Fairfax County, they wrote Connolly a series of checks for just under the amount at which they would have to publicly disclose. Gerry Connolly got their project approved.

Bad enough that he's trying to convince people that he wants to punish the company that pays his bills. But Gerry Connolly has spent years giving big developers everything they want if they were willing to fill his campaign coffers. Now that he's running for Congress, pay to play is suddenly the root of all evil instead of a fundraising strategy.

Yet, surprise, surprise, the mainstream media's not calling him on it. I suppose it would have taken some really hard-hitting, deep-digging investigative journalism to uncover all this, maybe even a Deep Throat from inside his campaign. Or they could have googled SAIC, Gerry Connolly, like I just did. He's gotten a pass from everyone so far, and he's hoping that it will last right up until Election Day.

Gerry Connolly: "Progressive change (unless it hurts my corporate backers)!" Now there's a bumper sticker I want on my car.

With only 27 days until VA-11's June 10th Democratic Primary, we can help send Leslie to Washington and give her a chance to clean up the mess made by the GOP and the corporate Democrats in power. I know she has the experience, the passion, and the courage to stand up and speak out on the important issues. Please stop by our Blue America ActBlue page and make a contribution of whatever you can afford. The netroots have a great opportunity to make a difference in this race. I hope you will join us.

Comments

[Uju]

I am not jumping for joy about this new crop of Democrats being elected to Republican strongholds, because they are not running on progressive platforms. They are anti-choice, pro-gun, pro-war, and swear they will work to eliminate "excess spending" (social programs, not defense contracts and corporate welfare). How exactly do these DINOs (Democrats IN Name Only) differ from the Republicans? How can they be trusted to vote in favor of the party's interests? I mean, the last thing anyone needs roaming the halls of Congress is an army of Joe Lieberman clones. Instead of electing so-called Democrats who talk, act, and vote like Republicans, why can't we concentrate on educating the disaffected Republican voters seeking change about how real progressive values serve them better than the snake oil salesmen who wield so-called "American values" like a blunt weapon to beat their base over the head while all the while robbing, deceiving, and disgracing them?

[ProudLiberalDan]

At the very least, a larger Democratic majority ensures that the Democrats stay in the majority and progressives tend to chair the committees and control the flow of legislation.

I totally support your idea educating disaffected Republicans too.

But it is also important to encourage Democrats who sometimes cross party lines in voting to throw out ALL of their Republican federal and state legislators. Even these so-called "moderates" like Arlen Specter and Susan Collins, however nice and reasonable sounding, must be replaced too, for they vote with conservatives on procedural motions and support conservatives controlling the overall process.

When the Republicans are in the majority, conservatives will control the flow of legislation and committee chairmanships, no matter how nice or "centrist" the individual "moderate" is. Don't directly empower a centrist who is going to indirectly empower conservative leadership.

However, I also understand and respect voting for minor party candidates for the legislatures who are more progressive than Democrats. We should have some form of runoff election, either two-round or ranked-choice, so that everyone can vote their conscience.

But when there are only two candidates on the ballot, a Republican and Democrat, support the Democrat to keep progressives and liberals in control of the legislative process.

This election, EVERY Republican must pay a price for either supporting George Bush, no matter how "nice" and "moderate". Supporting conservatives on procedural motions is more than enough reason to send Gordon Smith and Susan Collins down to defeat.

[GuyFawkes2008]

Another Leslie Byrne minion masquerading as a legitimate source¦

"Democratic primaries are crucial for holding bad Democrats accountable"

What does one have to say / how many elections does one have to lose before they are a "Bad Democrat"?!?

"But Ms. Byrne -- who is not known for grace in defeat -- is refusing to endorse Mark Warner. She is charging that his supporters effectively stole the election: that rules were twisted to prevent some of her delegates from voting in the caucuses, that supporters of Mark Warner were allowed to guard open ballot boxes and that some African-American delegates in Prince William County were grilled by a Warner supporter about whether they knew what they were signing when they filed for Ms. Byrne. "-Washington Post 5/6/96

[lboucher]

Obama is acting the diffident debutante, pretending not to care that he was given a raspberry by a state he will need in the fall. He was dismissed not only by the voters Hillary usually gets, but was also edged out in blocs that usually prefer him " the under-30 set, college graduates and affluent voters.

[Gemma08]

" the under-30 set, college graduates and affluent voters.

... they are wot, 2% (combined) of the WV population???

Dont know. Im asking.

[Aaror]

Um, what does your comment have to do with electing Leslie Byrne or opposing Dems in the corpo's pockets?
Unless you are implying that Clinton is in the corpo's pockets?

[leftcoastliberal]

That Hillary orchestrated a giant raspberry to the Democratic nominee shows just how much respect she has for the party... NONE. She and Bill are out only for their own power and the millions of dollars corporations will shower upon them for access to that power. Hillary was FOR Bush's Iraq war until it became a political liability and is now sounding the drum beat of war again, threatening to "obliterate" Iran. She is no Liberal, no Democrat, and quite possibly a sociopath.

[burnt]

Good post Howie. I would hope that this prolonged and destructive Democratic Party vs. Clinton Party travesty would open more than a few eyes to the way that the Democratic Party has been infiltrated and to a great extent, subverted and co-opted by "Republican Lite".

I've been extremely disappointed with those Dems who consistently shredded Party principles by aiding and abetting CheneyOilCo's war machine, pillage of the Treasury and decimation of important Constitutional guarantees. The abject failure of the Democratic leadership at important junctures has been just short of criminal.

It may be premature yet, but I believe we all must act on your suggestions soon by restoring basic Party ideals... and inviting exit door egress for those who continue to believe that self-service has higher priority than providing service for this nation's best interests and the people they were elected to represent. It is time for real change.

[Liberal2]

I was going to post something similar, but without including the Clintons as a cheap shot as you have. Ya know, in an odd way Bill Clinton may well be reaponsible for the survival of the democratic party. Rethugs were too good at creating and focusing the anger of the nation at democrats. But Clinton was rethug-lite. That allowed the start of a healing process, Clinton was beating rethugs at their own game. Clinton did not win a majority in 1992. By 2000 Gore was able to win the national vote. If Bush did not have his Iraq war, Kerry would have won.

Just like 1932, the country sees the falseness of the rethug economic model, the falseness of the rethug "values" model, the falseness of the rethug patriotism model. Hopefully Obama understands the nation does not want or need a JFK, a Jimmy Carter, or a Bill Clinton....we need a FDR!

If he isn't an FDR, the country will simply stop....the way the USSR did.

[altohone]

Media executives made any mention of the DLC, corporate Democrats and Blue Dogs taboo... not to mention pay-to-play relationships and funding sources.

As a female pundit said yesterday (I think it was on ABC's Nightline)-
"Hillary's newfound populism seems genuine".


The acceptance of the term "newfound" without pointing out that her voting record doesn't match her rhetoric passes without any elaboration... that would be too "journalistic" for a news program I guess.

It's going to take real Democrats to expose the truth that the media is sheltering establishment enablers.

Every time someone in the media insists "this isn't about ideology", the offending conglomerate cog should be inundated with requests to define the glaring and unreported ideological differences among Democrats.

The sins of omission are clearly part of a strategy.

[Gemma08]

Shew... Im thinking people like you should be on TV... America needs actual smart people on tv.