May 25, 2007


Et tu, Sherrod, Zack and Charlie? (And more: a Kucinich aide leaves) (Sabrina Eaton and Stephen Koff, May 25, 2007, Cleveland Plain Dealer)

Anti-war bloggers and web site activists are fuming over yesterday's congressional vote to keep funding the Iraq war without requiring a pull-out date. They say they feel betrayed by Democrats -- including Sen. Sherrod Brown and Reps. Zack Space and Charlie Wilson -- who won office opposing the war, then voted to keep sending money that, activists say, merely keeps the war going.

Off with their heads, say some, including, a progressive group seeking defeat of Democrats who supported the war-funding bill. Its web site has posted calls for "aggressive progressive" candidates to mount primary challenges against several dozen Democrats including Space and Wilson.

The site's entries on Wilson and Space were penned by none other than David Swanson, a media consultant who sends out press releases on behalf of Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign. Or who did until a few minutes ago, anyway. After we asked him and Kucinich's congressional office about the propriety of soliciting primary opponents to run against Kucinich's Democratic colleagues, Swanson sent an e-mail saying he is "taking a leave of absence from the Kucinich campaign."

Folks gotta back off the crazy pills.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 25, 2007 8:36 PM

Ohio didn't suddenly become a Democratic state. These guys know that if they vote like Kucinich, they will lose the next time out. Obama is safe (for voting 'no'), but Hillary will pay a price, because she is now about where Kerry was in Sept. 2004.

The nutroots will huff and puff, and the presence of Obama and Edwards means that the other candidates will have to dance up through the early primaries, but their power has probably peaked. 2006 was a mid-term election, and Ned LaMont was the MAN! 2008 is a general election, and the hard left will be a liability that no Democrat outside of a 65% district is going to want to embrace.

For example, Murtha won with about 65% of the vote last time. If the GOP finds a good candidate, and hammers him in the campaign, he'll have to fight to get 60% this time, I suspect. It's probably too much to hope that he could be beaten, but the dynamics of the election will not be as favorable for him.

But the GOP needs to run to win. Last time, they didn't (especially in places like Ohio).

Posted by: ratbert at May 26, 2007 1:16 AM

Riddle me this Batman:
Which party's wingnut base is more enraged: the Democrats and their anti-war left over the spending bill or the Republicans and the nativist right over the amnesty bill?

Posted by: Bryan at May 26, 2007 6:48 AM

THe GOP had good candidates in Ohio, but that didn't matter. The fact is, after Bob Taft messed up so royally, the Dems could've run a duck-billed platypus for all five statewide office and they probably would've won at least four of them. (Actually, a duck-billed platypus would be a marked improvement over Governor Ted Strickland!)

Posted by: Mike Morley at May 26, 2007 7:10 AM

And what's the difference between the two....

Posted by: oj at May 26, 2007 9:03 AM

I'll take your riddle: Both parties' wingnut/moonbat caucus are equally outraged. In fact, both are outraged enough to help scuttle the amnesty bill, at least on the House side.

The wingnut base will never trust Bush enough to give him even an inch on amnesty, just like Bill Clinton's moonbat base could never trust him enough to give Clinton Fast-Track trade authority.

Posted by: Brad S at May 26, 2007 9:18 AM