FOX News' new favorite Democrat

As disappointed as I am... (4.00 / 1)

And believe me, I am -- I'm disappointed in the choice to push for a temporary extension of the upper-bracket tax cuts, and I'm disappointed in rhetoric like "the president has had a tin ear" to the concerns of the business community -- but as disappointed as I am, I will not stay home on Election Day and implicitly cast a vote for Dan Debicella.

I'm disappointed Jim is calling for a temporary extension of the upper-bracket cuts. But I prefer a temporary, 2-year extension to Dan Debicella and John Boehner's permanent extension that will cost $3.9 trillion and blow up the deficit. I'm disappointed Jim is calling for a temporary extension, and I'm disappointed with much of his campaign rhetoric -- but I prefer disappointments with a progressive representative who still takes the time to engage his most vocal critics to being represented by a right-wing extremist like Dan Debicella.

We should keep up the pressure on Jim when he disappoints us. We know he's listening. But we should also remember the great progressive accomplishments of this young presidency and the 111th Congress. The health care bill was flawed; I know it was! But so was every major progressive achievement in our history. It was still a tremendous progressive accomplishment. Less discussed but still significant victories include the passage of the Ledbetter Act and its promise of equal pay for equal work, student loan reform, and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- all of which Jim supported wholeheartedly. We should not make the mistake of staying home in November. It could be the difference between an imperfect but progressive Congress under Speaker Pelosi and a reactionary right-wing Congress under Speaker (perish the thought) John Boehner.

Is there any one of us here who would rather have as a representative a right-wing extremist who doesn't care what his progressive constituents think?

I'm confident that if re-elected Jim will make us proud far more often than we feel let down, and I know that when we do have concerns or disagreements, he will be the first to start a discussion about our differences.

---

by: OGDem @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:38:17 AM UTC

I hear you OGDem, (4.00 / 1)

or maybe we just roll-over on Himes this cycle, and simply plan on electing a different Democrat in 2012. (you know, the type of team player who won't go on FoxNews and sell us down the river.)

Two points:
A) Is this what true leadership looks like? What else is Himes saying about the 10% of Americans who remain unemployed? What measures is he calling for? Is he asking for common sacrifice, or a continuation of the "me first", pay no price, thinking that flourished under Bush?

B) I'm not scared of taking on Debicella in a presidential cycle. He's no John McKinney, and I'd be very surprised if he held the seat, -- were he to squeak out a win against Jim.

Anyway, Himes looks very comfortable with Van Sustern and Cavuto. Can't wait to see him on Scarborough, and then Hannity...

To me it probably plays out like this. Because of "Democrats" like Himes, leadership caves and extends all the Bush Tax cuts. Then if Republicans take-over Congress, they won't have to pay a price for re-extending them, (the Democrats already did, wink-wink).  

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:28:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

AndersonScooper (4.00 / 1)

... was the person who always told the rest of the bloggers that Jim was in a tough district, and he needed to raise a lot of money, so we should overlook those things that made us unhappy -- that Pelosi was going to release his vote on this or that bill, and that we shouldn't be too harsh on him for building up a voting record that deviated from the party at key moments.

So this kind of comment is a recent and dramatic change for him. One that bears pointing out, since it's not always clear to campaigns who your key defenders online are. I think of Anderson as the Walter Cronkite of our community.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 13:44:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to clarify (4.00 / 1)

I didn't say or imply that we should "overlook" these things. Rather, I made it pretty clear that we ought to strongly raise any objections we may have.

---

by: OGDem @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 14:36:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AS used to say that, not you [n/t] (0.00 / 0)

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 15:53:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It actually is about fairness (4.00 / 4)

I remember a long debate in the early days of 2009 -- a session that had been scheduled for Jim (and his new press secretary) to sit down and meet with the local bloggers -- which wound up more or less totally dominated by CaptCT.

Capt wanted to know why the broad array of bad actors that the economy's collapse could be pinned on weren't being ground into hamburger by a Democratic Congress that was just given a sweeping mandate to rewire the economy, with a special focus on the ratings agencies and the monopoly power granted to them by domestic economic policy. As it went on, it got a little uncomfortable, because while Capt came armed with an impressive array of facts and figures to make his case, it was apparent to those watching that Jim was basically dismissing the lot of it out of hand.

Finally, someone else jumped in and said (paraphrasing) "Look, this disaster was caused by these financial geniuses, and it doesn't sound like anybody at all is going to be held accountable for any of it. People want a pound of flesh, but it looks like these guys are going to get away unscathed." That was before the "tea party" was even in its astroturf phase, but right around the time that Bernie Madoff was hot news, and the public was just about ready to lynch the guy -- and we made a case to Jim that he and his peers should seize upon the obviously-brewing populist outrage to bring about the systematic change that the Democrats had promised.

After all, this was the candidate who once said:

The Democratic narrative must assert the central truth denied by Republican ideology:  that America is at its best when it sets aside division and prejudice to pursue improbably ambitious goals of opportunity and justice, and when its citizens sacrifice to achieve those goals. Three are particularly critical: superb education, the alleviation of poverty and an ideals-driven engagement with the world.

Anyway, it's nineteen months later, and conservatives have planted a flag in that populist power by default, with a hazy appeal to the "failed economic policies" of the last two years. And why not? Every weak-ass defense on offer from our leaders, every headline about record profits on Wall Street and the restoration of the banking sector, even the changing priorities on display (is it really time for a fiscal commission and a series of lectures about the deficit?) just infuriate those of us who can observe that the work of restoring the real economy has been left unfinished.

And now we're treated to the absurd spectacle of a Democrat telling the world that there isn't any time for fairness in the 111th Congress? Sure, I want to prevent a double-dip recession, but if that's some kind of code for "transfer more cash to people making over a quarter million dollars each year while the rest of the economy burns", let me off that train right now. And even if the policy was right -- even though we know that transferring cash to millionaires is just about the least effective way of stimulating the economy of any kind of government spending or tax cuts -- we've just been treated to television advertising touting how proud that same Democrat is to have opposed extra spending on SUPERTRAINS and affordable housing and brownfield remediation and COBRA subsidies as being, somehow, the wrong spending at the wrong time. Like there's a wrong kind of water to spray on a burning house.

If the public comes away from a spectacle like that thinking that our Representatives are focused on the well being of those who have already "recovered" at the expense of those who are spiraling deeper into crisis as the economic crisis continues well past where it was expected to end, then I can't say I blame them. And if going on a fiscal scold tour from the district to the Fox News studios is supposed to help our elected Democrats capture some of that sweet Tea Party mojo, I would plead with them (if my pleading counted for anything) to re-assess the source of the unhappiness being expressed by the public at this moment in time. It's about fairness -- trickle-down economics was always unfair, smash-and-grab business practices toppled our economy, and the suffering of the poor and middle class is being used as an excuse to tilt the scales even further. It's always been about fairness. And god help any candidate who believes otherwise.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:40:48 AM UTC

"Fairness can wait" (4.00 / 1)

TODD: Yesterday, the Census came out and said one in seven Americans are living below the poverty line. Do you look at that story today - you know, you open up your USA Today, right, and you see that story - and you see Washington is debating the tax rates for the wealthy, and you sit there and say, isn't that a disconnect in America right now?

BAYH: It is a disconnect, Chuck. What we need to be focused on is growth, how do we create jobs, how do we expand businesses. That needs to be job one right now. And all these other issues involving, oh, fairness and things like that can wait.

Seems to be a recurring theme this week among centrists.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:52:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also a bonus (4.00 / 1)

the table from my link:

While the question of whether these numbers are still accurate today (this was originally presented in the summer of 2008) is obviously debatable, making Bush's tax cuts permanent was never going to do very much for the recovery compared to just about anything else. If you want to prevent a double-dip recession, I don't see any compelling reason to believe that giving the money to those who are well-off enough to direct those funds to their savings account is a better way of increasing demand than, say, doubling the amount of food stamps in circulation, building some SUPERTRAINS, creating a nationwide sales-tax holiday, or even, failing all else, giving a brick of cash to every homeless person in the country.

There is even some evidence that tax cuts like the ones we're debating -- insofar as they lead to increased savings instead of increased spending -- actually deepens recessions. But what do I know.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:22:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The sad thing is... (0.00 / 0)

Some Good Guys, such as Russ Feingold, may lose because they are Dems... yet he was IMO the only truly honest Dem Senator on Dodd / Frank...

Reporter:  Why did you oppose Dodd/Frank?

Russ:  Dodd / Frank is a direct result of the bailout.  The bailout is a direct result of TBTF.  Dodd / Frank does nothing about TBTF.  So I oppose it.

Yet Feingold may lose.  There are a lot of Rs and Ds who should be removed... Russ isn't one of them.

(ok... I understand Bernie getting the diluted -- but worthwhile -- Fed Audit, but still... Russ cast a principled vote.  Feingold should be rewarded, not punished.)

Obama / Reid should have taken on Dodd / Wall Street and laid claim to doing the right thing.  I don't know why they didn't.

---

by: Tim White @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:05:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bravo! (0.00 / 0)

Matt, thanks for giving what I believe is the most fair and honest assessment of why the Democrats are now in the mess they're in!

---

by: Harriet @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 18:46:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One more (0.00 / 0)

From the archives...

This is a trying time to be a Democrat. The Republican leadership's five-year run of willful incompetence and moral vacuity has done real and lasting damage to America's institutions, values and reputation. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party persistently refuses to chart a better course.

One of the weird and wonderful things about Americans is our enduring belief in the promise and achievability of bigger and better things. We are uncomfortable with pessimism and negativity. We don't like complainers. But even as the harsh judgment of history settles onto the Republican regime--in a moment crying out for ideas rooted in our love of promise--the Democratic Party is simply crying out.

We Democrats face a stark choice. Either develop and promote a Democratic narrative for a bigger and better America, or remain marginalized and tacitly complicit in the dismantling of a great nation.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:27:48 AM UTC

Matt, please stop... (4.00 / 2)

It's too painful to remember the 2008 Jim Himes, who made such a point of running a high-minded campaign.

For the record, most of this year, I've tried to write-off my Himes disappointment to mere political posturing, necessary on Jim's part to get re-elected. But buddying up to Neil Cavuto?

Basically if Himes can throw basic tax fairness under the bus, and postpone all that ballyhoo'ed need for economic discipline, it makes me believe Jim would have been in that Rose Garden, along with Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, had he been in office back then.

Can we hope that Himes can only cost us Himes? In a year that everyone else is trying to figure out how to get Obama voters to the polls, Jim is threatening to become a poster child for why no one trusts Democrats either....

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:34:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remember the anti-cig commercial? (4.00 / 2)

"It's enough to make you sick. Is it enough to make you stop?"

For nearly two years now the Senate Democrats have made me feel that way. Here in Connecticut first Joe (before the last two years, of course) then Chris have made me ask the question.

Now Himes.

For the record I contributed to Chris when most people had written him off. I worked for and contributed to Himes. Even though I was on his Christmas card list, he didn't respond to my email concerning this latest "position" on the Bush tax cuts.

As Democrats keep chasing Republicans rightward (and Repubicans trying to avoid being caught by moving even farther rightward), there has to be a point where liberals say: it's not worth it any more. I am on the edge on the Himes race. I realize that Debicella is a dishonest joker. But the question is: who will harm the Democratic party more: Debicella or Himes? With Himes' recent activities, I am moving toward sitting this one out.

---

by: dkfennell @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 13:14:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We have fighters in CT! (4.00 / 3)

We have senator Lieberman fighting for the rights of the rich and working on a "compromise" to extend the tax cuts for millionaires.  

And now we have Jim Himes who will fight with Joe to defend those "rights" and going to the mat by being on TV and making sure people understand the point of view of the economic ruling class.

I do wish I had the opportunity to support the fighters for the things that I and most people want:  
* For the 1 out of 7 who live in poverty.  
* For the middle class whose jobs get shipped overseas.  
* For the people who want world class public transportation and instead ride on 100 year old infrastructure.  
* For the people who want clean air and water.  
* For a fair system that is not dominated corporate interests.  
* For people who want a democracy and know the free market is not the same thing as democracy (and trickle down economics does not always deliver--see crash of 2008, distribution of income, etc)

Maybe someday...

---

by: ctpublius @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 14:49:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

think long term - start looking for the next candidate now (4.00 / 1)

Elections aren't polls.  (Next time Gallup calls, answer.)

I share your frustration -- the question is, do we want to use elections for self expression, or as a strategic tool toward reaching long-term goals?  It's been less than two years since we managed to get Shays out of office.   What's next?

I think the way to deal with disappointment is to primary Himes or endorse a third party challenger -- but I don't find it to be a reason to vote him out in the general without a credible alternative. To paraphrase a comment some husbands make to their wives about George Clooney, the difference between Himes and the perfect candidate is that Himes is available.

I hope we will refrain from nominating anyone else who has worked on Wall ST anytime soon, as I have come to believe it disables that person from having any insight or greater perspective about how the majority of American people live.  It's also too humanly easy for former Wall Streeters to get caught up in having unconscious agendas related to the past -- seeking approval from people they could not sufficiently impress while they worked there, winning new brownie points and listening to a former boss as if he is still your boss.  We need a great deal distance and perspective now.

However, I have NO illusions about Debicella being an acceptable alternative.  Ergo I won't be using my 4th CD vote as an opportunity for emotional catharsis at the voting booth this year.  My vote can't be taken for granted in 2012, however.  Any credible, prepared, intelligent and principled candidate will not be turned away from consideration.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 15:11:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Between Himes and a Hard Place (0.00 / 0)

It's probably irrelevant what I actually vote, because Himes has already lost from me what he wants more: contributions, phonebank help and GOTV.

But just as a "thought experiment" let me lay out the considerations.

REASONS FOR SITTING IT OUT

1) Debicella is probably worse as a Congressman than Shays but easier to defeat. (The main reason for jumping on the Himes bandwagon in the first place was that at least someone was taking on Shays.) If that is the case, defeating Debicella in 2012 will be fairly easy and inviting for a quality Democratic candidate. (If not, then we are probably looking at the Obama boat sinking, and everyone will be looking for lifeboats.)

2) Losing after Himes got the Fox vote might send an unequivocal message to Dems. Particularly if Himes gets less votes than Malloy gets in CD-4.

3) It will probably be easier to recruit a liberal in CD-4 to go after Debicella than Himes. Especially because the White House hates primaries and will give aid to Himes no matter how conservative he gets. (Maybe because he is more conservative than the challenger.)

4) Conservative positions by Dems are MUCH worse than by Repubs because the former make them seem much more plausible and give the GOP a fig leaf for obstruction tactics. You can just hear someone like McCain droning on about "We filibustered because it was a stunt not even supported by the Democrats."

5) Himes has been moving steadily rightward. What can we next expect? Proposal for NO CAPITAL GAINS taxes at all? Vouchers? Cutting SS and Medicare in the name of "deficit fighting"?  (After all, all the guys who want the rich people tax cut want it paid for out of SS and Medicare.)

6) If Himes wins this time he is probably in for the long haul with no check. We might get a "Fightin' Jim" to go with a "Fightin' Joe."

REASONS FOR VOTING FOR HIMES:

1) Debicella.

2) The House majority looks like an iffy proposition. Every district counts.  

What to do? What to do?

I'm sure glad I belong to a party whose motto is: "We suck. But not as bad as them."

---

by: dkfennell @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 16:40:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The election isn't just a referendum on tax cuts (0.00 / 0)

Clearly, most of us here strongly disagree with Jim's public stance on the Bush tax cuts. And if this election were solely a referendum on those tax cuts, you might find it hard to take 15 minutes and vote on Election Day. (Even though Debicella and the GOP leadership's position on the tax cuts is far, far worse than Jim's temporary extension.)

But there are so many other issues at stake. Protecting the Affordable Care Act which, for all its flaws, is a landmark piece of progressive legislation. Civil rights: Dan Debicella followed his other Republican colleagues into the muck and didn't hesitate to make the Cordoba House an election issue, condemning it with the same ugly disregard for religious freedom shown by his fellow GOPers. Jim stood at the Greenwich Democrats' gathering several weekends ago and condemned those who were speaking out against our fellow Americans' right to practice their faith. Jim has been a stalwart voice for marriage equality: where is Dan Debicella on that issue? Would Dan Debicella have voted for financial regulatory reform? Where does Dan Debicella stand on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Jim signed on to co-sponsor repeal legislation days after the bill was introduced.

I really, really hope that people here don't stay home in November. Don't feel like making that campaign donation you were considering before? Fine. But don't give this election away to Dan Debicella and a potentially ruinous Republican congressional majority.

---

by: OGDem @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 16:55:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's referendum on Himes (0.00 / 0)

You make it sound as if the "tax cuts" were just one issue -- like declaring September 22 "National Banana Day."

The tax cuts are called the "Bush Tax Cuts" for a reason. It was the defining domestic initiative of one of the most destructive presidents ever. It was a cynical ploy to make the system vastly more regressive and choke the government of revenue so as to cut social (but not war-making) spending. It is not stimulative -- the excuse Himes makes. He could not even make that argument with a straight face unless his Goldman brain-washing is still in control. It's gone on too long already. Himes' going on national TV to embarrass the President and the House leadership on an issue where he is WRONG is giving aid to the enemy. (Betrayal is worse than opposition; that's why they shoot traitors and have a Geneva convention for prisoners of war.) The Tax Cuts are a major reason the Overton Window is where it is today. Himes is perpetuating the rightward drift and he's doing it at the expense of the good guys. And either he's doing it cynically for self-interest, or he has a world-view I don't endorse -- one that may justify him getting on a high-horse against some other major liberal issue. It's not like he's made a bunch of tough calls in his short career. This is one. And he made the wrong decision.

I agree having a Repubican majority is a scary thing. But frankly, given the supine Democrats in the Senate, nothing major is going to get done. They squandered their big opportunity after 2008. And they are not going to get it back by compromising on a bunch of little things. And certainly rolling over on the Tax Cuts are not going to get them anything but contempt.

As for the other things you mention, how his Himes going to help in the next couple of years? Tampering with the Health Care Bill will get a veto. DADT repeal can't overcome a filibuster, and Himes can't vote against one in any event. As for Cordoba House, I'm sure he can go to rallies even if he's an ex-Congressman.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do. (I'm certainly not voting for Debicella.) And I'm not staying home. The Q is whether I will circle that oval for Himes.

Himes has a big advantage. Debicella is likely to open his mouth between now and election day and push me and the others who are upset with this guy way over the edge. But, yes, right now, I'm very angry with the guy. And I don't think it's a minor thing.

 

---

by: dkfennell @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 18:08:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With apologies to Scooper (0.00 / 0)

I came across Rockwell's "Freedoms" paintings some time ago, and I was struck by "Freedom from Fear". The paintings, of course, were based on Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms". Fredom from Fear . . . imagine! The administration has used fear--fear of attack, fear of people who look, pray or think differently, fear of immigrants, fear of change--for so long that it's now part of the background noise. I was in Bridgeport for a meeting with community activists a few weeks ago, and a burly African American man stood up to talk passionately about the fear he feels, the sense that government has devoted itself not to giving people like him a leg up or a catch should he fall, but to the narrow interests of people who really don't need its help.

I think a big part of distilling the progressive message in the face of universally bungled government will consist of taking seriously the notion of Freedom from Fear, and addressing the anxiety I sense around my district by pointing out that government once not only protected the vulnerable and the needy, but did great ambitious things that benefited all of us.

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12...

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 20:56:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vote for Himes on the Working Families Party line? (0.00 / 0)

WFP just posted their endorsements.

It would seem that voting on the WFP line for Himes could suggest you support the WFP platform as regards taxes:

Fair Taxes.
If you think you're paying more than your fair share of taxes, you're probably right. As property taxes have risen, working and middle class families in Connecticut pay a far higher share of their income in state and local taxes than the very rich.

The very wealthiest individuals have seen their taxes plummet at the state and federal level. Large corporations dodge millions in state taxes. Meanwhile, our elected leaders have given tax breaks to any business with the lobbying juice to get one. The result is, the rest of us pay more.

It's time to make sure that the super rich and big corporations pay their fair share - and stop pushing the burden onto middle income families.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 18:38:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]