[Marxism] A prowar Democratic Congress has been readied

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Weekend Edition
October 14-15, 2006
How Rahm Emmanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Democratic Congress
Election 2006: The Fix is Already In

By JOHN WALSH

    "In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will
bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population
into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But
Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do
it.'"

    Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority."

"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject
Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post
informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like
this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single
word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying
the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for
gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course,
37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll
- 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a
timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in
the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable
for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat
worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or
defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of
Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is
vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is
indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of
the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic
candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on
voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in
the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the
answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some
reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget
them.

The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis
and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which
has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004
Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat
with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the
hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided
to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.

Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she
had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to
"staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience
and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million
dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak
Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her.
Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless,
Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four
percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not
the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied
at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the
same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004!
Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help
her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio
address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed
to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for
an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which
Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also
instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where
Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own
district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political
unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary
battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate,
Jerry McNirney, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal,
defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNirney,
strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the
general election McNirney is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican
opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent
has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! MicNirney has raised a
total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from
Rahm would ensure McNirney's victory it would appear, but it is not
forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money
in this very competitive race.

Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's
largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican
opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you
toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from
heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are
anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates
based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their
ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the
cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel
funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or
winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here
are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or
districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06):
Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe
Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL),
Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) - defeated in
primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa
Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken
Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT),
Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse
than one might have imagined. Here it is:

U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy
Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill
(IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the
candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that
the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and
amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by
the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten
Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry
Mitchell (AZ).

Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem
primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably
not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal
from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who
for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something
"worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)

So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And
it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states
and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If
you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and
do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most
importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to
be found - no matter how slight the establishment media regards their
prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and
justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.

The question arises. Who is Congressman Rahm Emanuel? From what does he
derive his power? What are his thoughts on the future for the Dems? And
where is The Nation in all this. More on that coming shortly.

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@xxxxxxxxx

Notes

(1.) Cegelis was against the war on Iraq but only in a very timid way.
She opposed it before it started, but it was only 4th out of 6 issues on
her web site, and she was not for immediate withdrawal. Here is what she
said on her web site at the time of the primary. "I have opposed this
war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this disastrous
point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our troops
home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for
withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible
date. " Notice she does not say "Out Now," like Murtha or Lamont. She
leaves it all up to Bush to set a timetable, which is the standard
copout for pro-war Dems. Although good enough for PDA (!), it was too
much for Rahm Emanuel and company.

(2.) Duckworth says of Iraq on her web site: "The fact is we are in Iraq
now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It
wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk
allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for
terrorists." Not even a mention of a timetable.

dc



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism