We don't expect the men and women we support to necessarily support the same position we do on every single vote. But even in the short time Chris Carney has been in Congress, he has moved further and further away from all the other Blue America endorsees who won seats.
In terms of supporting progressive issues in general, he has established himself at the bottom of the barrel among the freshmen, along with candidates we chose not to endorse, like Jason Altmire (PA), Rahm Emanuel's Heath Shuler (NC), Nick Lampson (TX) and Brad Ellsworth (IN). Some of us were disappointed but none of the writers at DownWithTyranny, Firedoglake or Crooks & Liars chose to castigate Carney. And then something happened that has made us decide to speak up. We realized Chris Carney lied to us.
In the course of last year's midterms I had several relaxed and pleasant conversations with candidate Carney and, unlike other netroots groups, Blue America endorsed him. We encouraged our members to volunteer for his campaign and to help raise consciousness in PA-10 about Don "The Choker" Sherwood… and to donate money to the campaign. 722 of our members made donations to Carney's campaign. We even made a 30 second spot sung by Rickie Lee Jones to help focus PA-10 voters on the issues at hand. And we were overjoyed when he won, convincingly, on election night.
When he wanted our support he told us he favors equality for the GLBT community, something he also made clear to the folks at Project Vote Smart when he checked the little box that indicates he would like to "Require that crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability be prosecuted as federal hate crimes." So weren't we in for a surprise a few days ago when Congressman Carney joined 13 of the most die-hard reactionary Democrats in the House — near-Republicans who almost always support a reactionary social agenda — to vote against the Hate Crimes bill. The bill passed 237-180 and all but 14 Democrats supported… well, supported exactly what Carney promised in his campaign he would support, "that crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability be prosecuted as federal hate crimes." I felt betrayed — like I had been kicked in the stomach.
Based on my research and interview with candidate Carney, Blue America had endorsed him and hundreds of our members had donated effort and money to his campaign. Some of these donors are members of the GLBT community and others have friends and family who are part of that community and others just like to think that the candidates they contribute to will support equality as a core value. Chris Carney let us down, violently.
I requested an opportunity to speak with him and went back and forth with his office a few times until they finally sent me this e-mail:
Hi Howie, I have a short statement for you that I hope will be sufficient. This statement has been issued exclusively to you. Please let me know that you received it. Thanks.
Congressman Carney has not wavered from his original position of equality. Treating people the same is one of his core values, creating separate constitutional classes detracts from that goal. This was overarching legislation that created too many classes of people, and Congressman Carney could not support it.
This was a difficult decision and some of our supporters will disagree. As always, Congressman Carney voted with what he saw to be the best interests of Pennsylvania's 10th District.
I explained that sending me the Republican Party talking points — which have long and routinely been used by the party of hatred and bigotry to try to please their rabidly homophobic base while covering their asses — is not satisfactory.
So what do I want from Congressman Carney? Well, I'd like him to publicly apologize for a vote that encourages and enables the bigots and haters and I'd like him to return the 722 contributions he accepted from Blue America members. I have had dozens of complaints from members already and one (TeddySanFran) has sent Congressman Carney a letter, copying me, requesting a refund:
Dear Congressman Carney:
Apparently, we had a misunderstanding with regard to your support for equal rights for gay Americans when you sought Don Sherwood's seat last year. I supported your campaign, through BlueAmerica on the advice of Howie Klein of DownWithTyranny.com.
Now that you have voted, with some of the most reactionary Democrats in the House of Representatives, against the Hate Crimes Bill, I have reconsidered my previous support of your campaign. I would like to have my contributions returned, please. I am disabled and on a fixed income. I can only support candidates who support gay rights and, more importantly, keep their word to me and to those I trust to evaluate candidates.
I have provided my contribution information below and would appreciate your sending a check as soon as possible, as there are candidates who share my values who need my support. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Blue America doesn't ask much of our prospective endorsees. On GLBT issues, for example, we don't ask them to promise to support a gay marriage bill; we just ask them if they will fight for gay equality, even if they have to exhibit some leadership in a tough environment. If they can't do that, we may still root for them to beat a much worse Republican, but we don't raise money for them. We expect the candidates we endorse and raise money for to support a woman's right to choice, to support serious campaign finance reform, to favor serious proposals to end the occupation of Iraq, to support gay equality– and, like I said, to be willing to exercise leadership on difficult issues. I mean, sure we want candidates who are for the minimum wage and who oppose the dismantling of Social Security, but those should be the easy issues for Democrats.
Yesterday I joined 3 or 4 other bloggers on a conference call with DCCC chairman, Chris Van Hollen. He was waxing eloquently about the importance of the D-Trip's Frontline Program when I asked him a simple question about faithless incumbents. I wanted to know if he felt it was kosher for the DCCC to ask unsuspecting Democratic contributors to give to this program not knowing that their hard earned dollars would be going to Democrats like Jim Marshall (GA) and John Barrow (GA) who voted with the Republicans to sustain Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill and like freshman Chris Carney (PA) who joined Republicans to vote against the Hate Crimes legislation last week. Chairman Van Hollen graciously suggested that it is up to the netroots to inform Democrats about where these congressmen stand on these issues.
Consider yourselves informed.
(Note: Howie has this diaried up on Kos. If you're a Kossak please go hit the "recommend" button and help get some attention for this, it is not okay to make promises to raise money and then forget about them — JH)
Related posts:
- Brave New Films, Connecticut, and Chris Murphy
- GOP Will Target Blue Dogs Who Vote “Yes” on IMF, Senior Republican Campaign Official Confirms
- Supplemental: Why Must Progressive Members of Congress Grovel For the Blue Dogs?
- AFL-CIO Threatens to Cut Aid to ConservaDems Who Don’t Vote for Health Care
- Shibboleth: the Hate Crime Amendment
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Stop hypocrisy! (Go Howie)
No need to ask us or any blue America donors for forgiveness, Howie. Last year, you did more for establishing a new vetting process for progressive candidates than any non-career political organizer I can think of. They ALL couldn’t possibly turn out OK.
OK?
Chairman Van Hollen graciously suggested that it is up to the netroots to inform Democrats about where these congressmen stand on these issues.
The dismissiveness just blows my mind. Rahm couldn’t have done better himself.
Thanks, Howie. I’m going over to Kos right now.
Give ‘em Hell Howie! And let Mr Carney know that liberals have some pretty good memories after we’ve been lied to.
Sometimes, we… through no fault of our own, misjudge. But we get up and fight sgain another day. Political betrayal of trust is an awful thing. I feel bitterness toward a Democratic candidate for president in 2008. A candidate who not so long ago I would have walked on live coals for. I was fooled. But I am not a fool.
Howie, I was not here yet when all this occurred, but I commend you for taking responsibility, telling us clearly the status of your correspondence with the congressman, and for your integrity.
Somewhat OT — The bill also has provisions for hate crimes against the disabled. Wish that got coverage also.
Texas Betsy @ 7
And, of course, seniors and the military, which the Republicans were really gung-ho for… until the Democrats added them.
Howie, I’ll contribute anytime to your recommendations. You went out of your way to present the best candidates you could; Congressman Carney is the one at fault for lying to those he took money from.
It takes a strong and character-filled person to apologize, and an even more amazing person to apologize for the bad position another party put him in.
Congressman Carney, you should be ashamed of yourself and your actions. I’ll be thrilled to write a check to the progressive opponent that will be unseating you in the next election.
-S
Ed*ard Teller @ 2
amen.
howie – this is exactly why i trust you…. your good judgement, openess and willingness to rethink when new info comes in. thank you.
The perfect example for me of bing fooled by a Democrat is Joe Lieberman. Hard lesson to learn.
I support Mr. Klein.
Howie, I know this is a disappointment but try not to beat yourself up. The guy is a fuckwad, he lied, and if nothing else, we can take this as a lesson learned and perhaps be a bit more vigilant about who we support, and a little more demanding on the front end.
Think of it this way, now you don’t have to waste any money on him in ‘08, we can find someone else, a challenger against a repuke, who will better use the money.
It sucks but if we learn, it’s not in vain.
Voting in PA is always a matter of holding your nose.
Eli @ 8
Eli,
What was the story with the military and seniors? I saw that the ammendment was defeated on a “near party line vote” but the article did not go into any more detail than that.
Keep up the great work Howie.
dakine01 @ 5
Umm, not in every case.
not your fault, Howie. keep up the great work!
Howie,
This is very calssy of you.
You got lied to, you got punked, you are the victim here not the victimizer.
While I’m not a fan of Democrats eating their own, I think there is some merit to publicizing acts by “faithless incumbents” as you call them.
A so called Deemocrat who won’t vote like a democrat, is just taking up a seat a real democrat could be occupying.
I realize it’s nt nearly as simple or clear cut as that, but conceptually, it resonates.
Checking in for a minute. It’s a disappointment, but you guys have done some great work. It’s always important to keep hope alive.
first, let me admit that i haven’t read the hate crimes bill. i’m going to go find it in a minute and see what it’s about, i just want to express my reservations here first.
i am 100% in favor of upholding equal protection before the law; i am also kindly disposed to policies that actively support real parity – affirmative action, the e.r.a., etc; and am against those that seek to exclude a class of people from protection under the law. if someone could help me understand how a hate crimes law is in fact the right way to bring about equality, i would be receptive and much obliged. it doesn’t seem fundamentally sound, though, to me. i see a great deal of what goes on in this country as motivated by a kind of hatred of the poor and disenfranchised in general, yet we do not guarantee court appointed council to the indigent from the perspective that it is hateful to try them without council. does this make sense?
Carney is obviously a Bushie-in-training. Smoke him out and make him admit he’s one.
He’s in now and his seat is safe in 2008 so he don’t give a damn.
tw3k @ 15
I was critical of Blue America backing Joe Sestak, but have since come to regard Sestak’s service in a positive light. And Weldon is gone!
I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that so many folks out there who criticize the Hate Crimes Act don’t seem to have bothered to read it.
For one thing, hate crime laws don’t criminalize hate speech, they simply add an additional charge (and possible additional punishment) to “violent crime motivated by bias”.
For another thing, such laws are inevitably worded such that they equally apply to minority and majority citizens subjected to bias-driven crimes. That is to say, if someone is attacked for being white, or straight, or a Christian, that too is properly considered a hate crime.
(And if someone then wants to say — and I’ve seen this — “yeah, but but but … this helps minorities more ’cause they’re attacked more”, all I need to do is say, “Yup, that’s correct. And …?”)
Always important to mention John Barrow at a time like this.
Thanks Howie, This betrayal slipped by me up until now.
Lines must be drawn and betrayal must be punished.
No regrets.. we helped change the seat once, we can do it again…)
What’s next?
What did Carney have to gain by opposing this bill? Are far right bigots a large component of his constituency?
Conservative districts usually breed conservative voting records. Don’t know much about this one- but it harbored a gooper previously- so it may be pretty conservative.
redX @ 24
How safe is his seat? Who says his seat is safe? As safe as Tauscher in the CA-10? Safer?
The Blue Dogs are as safe as WE let them be. Don’t forget, 2008 has primaries, too.
oddmommy @ 29
it’s nuts. he was elected while promising support for this type of legislation… so, it doesn’t make any sense for him to argue (now) that his vote represents his constituency.
redX @ 24
Why? There’s no way a challenger can’t be found in the next 12 months?
I don’t believe it.
Thanks for sharing Howie’s remarkable post Jane. I saw this on Kos and wholeheartedly agree it deserves wide attention. Sadly, in my livid state I stupidly hit the disagree vote link and of course cannot undo my careless error not recommending the post.
Aggghhhhh – heartfelt apologies and hopefully the pro Howie comment I left will count more favorably then my inept rushing to hit the wrong recommended button. ;~(
Eli @ 3
Yeah, silly me, thinking it was incumbent on a candidate(no pun intended) to state his positions clearly and honestly. No, it’s our job to know what he’s thinking.
He must have thought you meant Tammy Bruce kind of gay people who are happy to sacrifice their own rights for the greater good of George Bush
He joins a long line of distinguished liars such as Mary Matalin who told the Lincoln Logs in 2000 that George Bush would probably support gay marriage after all she did.
Ed*ard Teller @ 25
3rd and 5th here, both R strongholds
falasafa @ 22
Nope. This is a complete red herring.
(((newspaperbrat)))) awwww
Not your fault Howie, your batting average is still pretty high…
katherine graham cracker @ 36
When do Republics not lie? You know they’re lying about the surge review in the fall. It’s clear that if you are not willing to lie, you are not welcome in any capacity in the Republic Party.
Twisted Martini @ 40
Oh, no, it’s not Howie’s fault in the slightest. As the saying should go: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a thousand times, shame on you a thousand times, for you are only destroying yourself.”
Howie, just one suggestion: Video of campaign promises (”I approve this message” kinda thing) before the check is drawn.
This news certainly doesn’t diminish my willingness to donate to Blue America supported candidates in the future.
OT- I might be mistaken, but isn’t RNC chair mike duncan supposed to be talking to Big Hank today? Wonder when we might get a nugget from that one.
Eureka Springs @ 39
You’re too kind dear ES – and thanks for the hug cause I’m soooo mad at myself and as always your compassion in the face of carelessness proves comforting. Hugs right back at cha!
EvilDrPuma @ 42
Amen.
looseheadprop @ 20
I think it’s significant that he came on FDL, lied to people to get their money and then went off and did something else. I think if we let this slip, say it’s okay then we’re setting ourselves up to let it happen again.
With Blue America we’re trying to build a community fundraising aparatus that supports progressive candidates. You can’t pretend to be one just to get our $$$ and then go off and turn in to a Blue Dog and think there will be no consequences, or everyone will be taking big bucks from MBNA once they get into office.
Howie, this post is exactly why BlueAmerica, and not the DLC/DLCC, is the organization I trust to help me make decisions about electoral contributions and campaign work.
My, he’s got those strategic negotiating skills down cold. I’m sure that works really well–for the relationship$ that matter.
BlueAmerica: the anti-thug.
Maybe Carney was just afraid of Gay-Bashing Bashing!
“I think it’s significant that he came on FDL, lied to people to get their money and then went off and did something else. I think if we let this slip, say it’s okay then we’re setting ourselves up to let it happen again.”
Jane’s got it here, pups. We have to do something.
Jane Hamsher @ 47–
Exactly. I don’t think any of us are naive enough to think we’ll never call it wrong, or that all of the politicians we support will always honor the promises that got them elected. But if we don’t deliver consequences when someone tries to use us like this, we might as well give our time, money, and passion to the DLC.
Consequences. My new favorite word.
retirin’ in five @ 50
Agreed. In many jurisdictions, this is called “fraud,” but apparently some politicians feel that it’s okay for them to do it.
oddmommy @ 29
Perhaps Congressman Carney is actually a closeted bigot who just mouthed the appropriate words at the appropriate time… All the while thinking of the GLBT community as less than human.
I’ve made a note to myself to write him a handwritten letter tonight expressing disgust at his contemptible and bigot-supportive behavior.
A man, let alone a “leader” who lies, straight-faced, while hiding his true nature as a bigot or an enabler of bigots and racists is beyond low. He’s worthy of scorn and contempt.
And Howie… One out of what, 35? I’ll take that batting average any day!
oh sweet jesus Howie – my yet to be born grandkids will owe you their thanks for all you have done to date – I am certain it will only sharpen your radar in the future
I am up for hearing and hopefully participating in any “consequences”
and shouldn’t we be out looking for a disabled gay veteran to run against this little puke ? *g*
Oooo, that’s harsh, Howie. Are you sure this isn’t a case of a person from a particularly conservative district getting cover from his Democratic colleagues? Or maybe he *did* think the bill was too inclusive. Mayeb he would have been more comfortable with more narrow language.
Having not read the legislation, I can’t say what he might have objected to. But I do know that however decisive his victory last fall, he comes from a very conservative part of the country. You’re talkin’ big time evangelicals there not to mention Christian sects like the Moravians and Mennonites. This is getting into Monica Goodling country, know what I mean? I guarantee you that the Republicans would have beaten his vote like a giant drum if he had voted for it.
Hey Nate…PEACE brother! Doolittle in jail yet? *wink
I don’t know….
Maybe I’m being naive here. We want candidates and representatives who think about policy before blind loyalty don’t we? Is it not possible to disagree about this piece of legislation and still support the rights of the GLBT community? I think there is room for disagreement between friends. We should examine his entire record, not simply one vote before we toss him to the wolves.
Badwater @ 41
Yes, I think the “surge review” is a cheap trick to get Dems back in line and a CYA for re-election. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know the “review” has already been written and the evidence is already been constructed. All while they are whining about “political gameplaying”. Thanks for caring.
I’ll say it again to the bushies: Stop manipulating me!
Gah.
DLCDNC.DLCCDCCC. I do actually know that.retirin’ in five @ 50
Another thing you never want to have happen is for the competition or some opposition camp to be the first ones to point out the snub to the donators. By coming out and bringing this to our attention before someone else can call anyone out, you only strenghen your credibility and proof of caring.
Lou Costello @ 49
Indeed! And maybe his exposure as garden variety weasel like most Blue Dog dems whose alliegance is unto himself first and foremost. Thanks to Howie’s leadership and innate integrity I hope and trust such Blue Dogs will think twice before seeking Blue America consideration in the future.
Sigh. It’s OK Howie, we all get fooled some of the time.
Apparently there’s not even one G/L/B/T citizen in all of PA-10, nor the parent, sibling, child or friend of a G/L/B/T person living in Carney’s district who would benefit from the protection this bill offered.
I don’t recall if I contributed to Carney thru FDL, but I know I did contribute to him.
I understand that not every Democratic legislator can be convinced/pressured in accepting full gay marriage, but surely something as simple as protecting GLBT people from hate crimes should be a no-brainer for any good Democrat.
Come on gang, let’s make sure Carney knows that it’s not nice to tick off foks who helped you win that seat in the first place!
ny nick @ 57
Looks like we’re in the minority on this one. I worry about things like this fracturing a fragile coalition. It is reminiscent of the single issue politics that Markos lamented. In the end, the bill passed and Carney won’t be singled out in his very conservative district for it. Who knows if he might have voted for a different bill? I doubt that he is a bigot. Most likely he’s just a pol.
The “September Review” has 2 purposes:
1) Stop the Murtha ‘Two month plan’ before it catches on.
2) We’ll be heading into Iran by then.
How do you prepare for another war without
looking like you’re preparing for another war?
Send them to the ME and turn right instead of left.
portia -
then please explain Murtha; a socially conservative guy from an equally conservative district voting for it
Hi Howie –
I think the real lesson here is that following up on “our” candidates is critically important. If they don’t follow through on their promises once they are in office, then we know to support someone else next time (hint hint — know any good candidates we could support against Carney?).
So from me, you will receive only thanks for the work you have done to vet candidates for us. And if they lie to you that’s their fault, not yours. And of course when we refuse to support them next time, that’s their fault, too…
Howie, thanks for a great post. No apology necessary.
Lou,
and some of us believe it’s true purpose is to provide cover for Repubs to put down the Chimp and slowly back away before 08 gets going in earnest –
p.s. Atrios says I’m a fool, we’ll see
portia.vz @ 55
Perhaps, but he could have said something like… I know my constituents overwhelmingly want me to vote this way even though I strongly disagree..
Hi Howie, I have a short statement for you that I hope will be sufficient. This statement has been issued exclusively to you. Please let us know that you received it. Thanks.
While Congressman Carney really enjoyed all of the contributions from your Blue America pac and the other little silly progressive groups out there, he had his fingers crossed when you all spoke with him. Hell, he’ll say anything for a buck. Did you really expect that he would keep his word? HAHAHA!
(Not your fault, Howie.)
I’d like to read the legislation; can anyone provide a link?
portia.vz @ 55
Before the election, when Carney filled out that survey for Project Vote Smart (link in the post above), he didn’t feel like this would have completely sunk him. Why did he say one thing before the election, and operate differently afterwards?
I don’t think it’s because of the specifics of the bill. After I read that post-vote statement issued to Howie, I can’t understand why Carney would have told PVS he supports hate crimes legislation last year. Something smells here, and I don’t think it’s Howie.
One last thing: There are few Christian groups with stronger credentials on peace and human rights than the Mennonites and Moravians. I know a fair number of folks in each group, and while in some matters they are quite conservative, more than a few of them would be upset with Carney’s position opposing this legislation.
portia.vz and ny nick: I don’t think any of this outrage would be happening if Carney had been up front about the realities of his district. He could have said that he wouldn’t be able to support this kind of bill and still get elected. I’m betting most of us would be just fine with that. At least then we could make an informed decision about whether we wanted to support the guy *knowing* that he couldn’t vote for such a bill.
It’s not *just* the bigotry, it’s the lying.
JF @ 16
Eli @ 8
Texas Betsy @ 7
Somewhat OT — The bill also has provisions for hate crimes against the disabled. Wish that got coverage also.
And, of course, seniors and the military, which the Republicans were really gung-ho for… until the Democrats added them.
Eli,
What was the story with the military and seniors? I saw that the ammendment was defeated on a “near party line vote” but the article did not go into any more detail than that.
Hopefully someone not on a Treo can elaborate, but IIRC, the Republicans claimed to oppose the bill because it didn’t include seniors or soldiers as protected groups. Democrats said Okay, we’ll add ‘em, and the Republicans voted against it anyway. Much to everyone’s surprise, I’m sure.
Mod note: Zig freed for the treo impaired.
Sounds as if the sucker lied- and then tried to brush Howie off with a weasel e-mail when confronted. Bad character and bad politics. He should at least have called and dealt honestly with the issue- that was chicken shit.
He should not be forgiven- but we should also be aware that if you put a politician in a conservative district- he will begin to look rather conservative- that’s the way the damned thing works. Otherwise he/she won’t be re-elected.
I don’t like his vote, but remember, he voted for Nancy Pelosi for speaker, and his opponent would have voted for John Boehner. So Blue America did its job. Don’t ever regret electing a Dem over a Republican.
Just work to put a better Dem in via the primaries.
portia.vz @ 63
As highly as I would put the issue of hate crimes legistlation, that’s not what I see as the problem here. It’s that Carney said one thing before the election, then acted in a completely contradictory way after he won.
When I looked at the Project Vote Smart survey, I found myself asking one question: are there other “convenient” answers here?
I expected more integrity from a candidate who ran on an “integrity” platform.
Folks, the makeup of Carney’s district isn’t the issue — it’s the same district he won in 2006. He knew this bill was coming up this year, and in 2006 he checked the box on the survey saying he’d support the bill. He also assured Howie in 2006 that he’d support our rights and support this bill.
Howie did not misjudge.
Carney lied.
Carney took our money under false pretense.
Carney owes us our money back.
He’s welcome to represent his district.
He’s welcome to change his mind.
He’s not welcome to take our money under false pretense.
I’ve only got so much money to give to candidates, and they must meet strict standards: Howie’s. If candidates are gonna lie to Howie and not get called on it, what’s the point of having Blue America at all?
Electing Democrats to create a majority is well and good, but there’s plenty of places for lying, fraudulent Democrats to go and get their money. Blue America is not one of those places.
I want my money back.
I want Blue America’s integrity back.
cbl @ 68
You can see that with the GOP
circlejerkdebate the other day and Lott and Boner looking for ‘Timetables’ already. They’re heading south (pun intended) and they know it.Glenn @ 76
1
No one vets candidates better than Howie Klein
Just so that candidates don’t make a habit of punking the netroots, I feel that some example should be made of this @sshole.
However, other than supporting the pants off of whoever runs against him in the ‘08 primary, and possibly following TeddySanFran’s example of asking for our money back, I’m out of ideas.
portia.vz @ 55
I beg to differ, comparing us to Monica Goodling is apples and oranges. It is against the law to discriminate against job applicants because of their party affiliation. While it is the job of every citizen in a democracy to hold their elected officials accountable. If they lie to us to gain our support and then do something other than what they promised, it is our responsibility to remove them from office.
Yeah, I’ll echo the “weasel” sentiments. It’s not so much that he voted against the bill, but the fact that he took our money under false pretenses. “Hey, I can get all this netroots money and support, and all I have to do is answer a few questions the right way? Awesome!”
I have a feeling that future Blue America candidates in red districts are going to find themselves getting grilled a little extra when they visit here. Be sure to tell ‘em who to thank.
TSF @ 78 Word(s).
I’ve got limited intellect. I’ve got even less time. But I can spare a few sheckles in this the BushCo economy to deliver a message. We need, if you will, “The Howie Fund,” to deal with this kind of betrayal.
Portia at 63–
I’m going to point out, with respect, that Markos positioned himself squarely in the old, familiar “You women and minorities need to shut up and get us elected and we’ll get to your agenda after that–eventually” tradition. Which, frankly, hasn’t done much for women and minorities in the last 40 years. It’s a mug’s game, in fact.
The charge of single-issue politics is a red herring, imo. As someone pointed out during the debate about equal pay as a fitting issue for the Hilary Clinton guest appearance, every issue connects to every other issue on the progressive agenda. But beyond that, when a guy I supported because he said he’ll fight for me and mine turns out to be a liar, he doesn’t get a pass. No way.
That’s pretty clear, and it makes him a liar based on his email to Howie.
Howie, Thank you for your integrity. The reason he gave in his letter of explanation is beyond lame (and shows a very corrupted way of thinking)
The Constitution was written by a bunch of white guy slave owners..and has been extended and fine tuned. (why its lasted over 200 yrs) it allows for tweeking, a fine aspect of it,indeed . It works if we work it so to speak.
Ensuring the complete inclusion of * WE” the people into our Constitution, which then is honed with laws,to enable the implementation of inclusion and protection. Our Civil Rights. This country has been dominated by white guys for way too long but i digress.
WE the people means everyone and HATE is not a family value. Our families are rainbows. They include women, married or single mothers, somebody’s daughter or son, the disabled, the eldely, the young, workers, tax payers, recipients of social services. people with insurance , people with or without health. People with handicaps to a some degree and some in perfect health.
-the peeps they work for US. To govern us away from the mob mentality and to increased well being of ALL the people. The little guy, not the Corporte Giants. And look out for OUR interests and tax dollars…Our needs from a good government.
And as for the criminal code , it too evolves. Pre Meditation in murder for example..NOT an a minor part of any mandatory sentencing laws and guidelines. NOT all crimes are Equal. etc. The FBI says one in six crimes/murders are Hate Motivated.
YES he should apologize and give back the money. He lied to an important constituency – not a mere “interest group” Thank you for bringing this to our attention..And standing UP.
i want to write this Carney, fellow and ask him what he was thinking and why did he lie ? Earnestly. Just my 2.5 cents
PP
What kind of extra grilling would have worked here, though, really? What are we asking Howie to do that he didn’t do here?
Carney checked a box.
Carney talked the talk.
When the vote came, he bailed on us.
His reasoning mirrors reich-wing talking points.
We deserve a refund.
Good job, Howie. Looks like Carney may be a one-term congressperson almost like Katherine Harris.
And it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy .
TSF, Thank goodness you showed up! I really wanted to hear your thoughts.
One little issue with your points. All others points are spot on, imo.
Blue Americas integrity remains intact due to this quick heartfelt response, imo. If someone is lied to and at that point in time there is little or no evidence to suspect it’s a lie, I don’t see how that in and of itself mars integrity..
I have to confess that one fear that I have is supporting and donating to a candidate that I believe is a real Democrat, only to find out that they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. There is nothing to prevent it. All they have to do is lie. Maybe they will be thrown out of office in the next election, or maybe not.
Do we have a Joe LIEberman in the making?
What kind of extra grilling would have worked here, though, really? What are we asking Howie to do that he didn’t do here?
I’m not saying it’ll work; just predicting that the next blue-candidate-in-red-district who is a guest here is going to get some pointed “We got punk’d before, how do we know you’re for real?” questions.
Again, not saying that that will be either fair or effective, just making a prediction.
Thank you, Howie, for the follow-through in keeping track of performance vs promises.
Admitting when things go wrong is something the Bush administration cannot seem to bring themselves to do. That’s one of their greatest failings, and one of the clearest differences between them and those such as yourself.
You can’t be expected to vouch for the guaranteed honesty and true moral fiber of all the Blue America candidates. Rather, we expect and trust in your best judgement. That’s all we ask.
Thankyou for your honesty and candor.
Maybe, if I could ask one small favor, I would like to request, by way of penance on your part, s’more indications of how well Sen. Sherrod Brown is measuring up, even though some Blue America contributors lost faith in him for awhile during the recent elections.
Carry on, stalwart fella! ;->
yea, chin up brother. welcome to politics. it happens.
TeddySanFran @ 87
And Howie deserves an on the record public apology from Carney for starters. Is Carney’s contact info already posted somewhere today.If not I’ll be oh so happy to dig in and post it in the comments.
1,510 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Peterr:
Bless your heart, your response to portia.vz and ny nick was elegant, I wish I could be so gracious when takin’ down folks who would give away the game to win a single battle. There is a point at which progressives hafta learn ta seize the moment and stop bein’ afraid of those “very conservative district(s)”. There is a reason that districts (north of the Mason-Dixon Line) are “very conservative” and it is usually that the liberals are scared to death to pick a fight. It is necessary to advance progressive ideas and candidates in “very conservative” districts in order to prepare the ground for moments like 2008 is shapin’ up ta be. When progressive candidates and ideas are given legitimacy in conservative areas, it makes it possible to elect a progressive when the voters are recoverin’ from 8 years of fascist ineptitude.
Anyways, the hate crimes vote is a fundamental, it exposes more about the politician’s real values than the nature of his/her district. Human rights ain’t negotiable!
KEEP THE FAITH, THEY DON’T HAVE ANYWHERE TA LAND NOW!!
There are many progressive reasons to worry about bills like this one, which are often bad laws no matter good their intentions. It is not clear that you want to expand federal criminal jurisdiction this way. It is not clear that the intended beneficiaries receive any help. It is not clear that the criminal law is more just when it treats certain motives and classes of victims unlike others. In fact, many people who study these things — including some progressive legal scholars and lawyers — worry that it will backfire terribly. I haven’t read this bill, but an intelligent discussion should not take it for granted that a law of this nature deserves such unquestioning support that we accuse a man who votes against it of betraying his promise.
Here’s the email that I just sent to DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen. On http://www.dccc.org, click “About DCCC” on the homepage to get the dropdown menu with “Contact Us/”
Dear Congressman Van Hollen:
I am an active Democrat in Massachusetts who was very happy when you became Chair of the DCCC. I am very sorry to have to write now about reported comments of yours on the recent vote of Representative Chris Carney (D – Pa) against the Hate Crimes Bill.
As a former federal prosecutor, I never like to see the prosecution have to prove up an extra element — in this case, the mental element of hate — to get a conviction. Yet state and local law too often fail to bring to justice those perpetrating hate-driven assaults on and murders of gays and other minorities, as well as other damaging conduct that would have been covered by that bill.
Congressman Carney campaigned on a platform of equal rights for all Americans. He voted against the Hate Crimes Bill.
Of a conference call you had yesterday with Howie Klein and several other bloggers, Klein reports (www.firedoglake.com, 9 May 2007) the following:
“I wanted to know if he felt it was kosher for the DCCC to ask unsuspecting Democratic contributors to give to this program not knowing that their hard earned dollars would be going to Democrats like Jim Marshall (GA) and John Barrow (GA) who voted with the Republicans to sustain Bush’s veto of the Iraq spending bill and like freshman Chris Carney (PA) who joined Republicans to vote against the Hate Crimes legislation last week. Chairman Van Hollen graciously suggested that it is up to the netroots to inform Democrats about where these congressmen stand on these issues.”
Chairman Van Hollen, “caveat contributor” is not enough.
If the DCCC holds out a candidate as honest, and asks for our money to support him or her, then that candidate had jolly well better be honest.
I’ve given occasionally to the DCCC. That my money would support the campaign of a Member of Congress who votes against the rights of gays etc. is not acceptable.
Thanks for frankly letting me know that I’m better advised to choose my candidates and contribute to them directly rather than through the DCCC.
Sincerely,
Eli @ 91
Those kinds of questions might not go over so well with the powers that be.
Eli @ 91
Agreed.
Potential candidates would do well to be prepared for this, and point to some tangible actions they’ve taken in the past which would back up the words they’re speaking now.
I’m going to be interested to see not just how Carney reacts to being called out like this, but how other Dems react — especially those supported by Blue America.
Ruby Tuesday @ 62
The point is, Carney said he supports it. It’s not a matter of being in lock step.
E. Orazi @ 96
Again, as has been repeated here several times already, the greater issue is that this Congressman collected contributions for his re-election campaign saying specifically that he would vote one way on a bill like this, and then voted the other way. If he opposes such legislation, fine, he can say that as a campaign position with whatever justification he likes and people can choose to give him their money or not with accurate information. He did not do that. He said one thing and then did the other. He defrauded contributors of their money. That is the issue here.
Howie and others:
What do you think congress will do about the Iraq spending bill? Will they give the prez a shortened period of funding?
What is likely to happen in September when the generals come to congress and say that “progress has been made”? Will congress then cough up more dough?
The september report gives goopers cover- if the results are unimpressive, how many of em will be willing to say: “that’s enough”?
Norse,
I disagree about the hate crimes bill being fundamental. We can agree that attacking someone with baseball bat because you think they might be gay or a lesbian or whatever is bad. The problem is the law of unintended consequences. There is room to have different opinions about policy issues and still be on the same team, that’s all I’m sayin’…
As Jane @85 points out so succinctly, the Progressive Agenda is not based on One Issue politics!!! The underlying foundation is created on universal rights, all interwoven into one fundamental basis for good governance!!! One has to truly embrace the whole, not pick and choose for political expediency!!! It truly is that simple!!! Howie clearly exemplifies that credo!!!
OT BushCo sending out Fran Townsend to CNN to pushback against Kansas Gov. re lack of resources because of war.
Snowjob giving the full pushback as well.
They know this hurts.
ny nick @ 103
Let’s just keep repeating this until you get it. The issue is not the unintended consequences or the wording or the intent of the legislation. The issue is that Carney collected campaign contributions telling people specifically that he would vote for a piece of legislation and then voted against it. He has willfully broken a campaign promise, and it cost contributors money. Do you understand now?
Lou Costello @ 56
Working on it amigo. Workin on it…
Chris is doing it again: He is rolling his eyes at Blackburn. Do you have any views that are independent of the President?
1,510 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen E.Orazi:
“…but an intelligent discussion should not take it for granted that a law of this nature deserves such unquestioning support that we accuse a man who votes against it of betraying his promise.”
Awe gee, where ta start, let’s start with the bad faith accusation. When a politician represents him or herself as supporting an issue, especially an issue of fundamental human rights, and then votes against it, I think we can accuse him of breakin’ his promise. Secondly, many laws can be turned around by local prosecutors in attempts to convict the victims instead of the perpetrators. See the anti-lynchin’ statutes in the South, where black youth have been indicted and convicted of felonies because they were part of an interracial fight.
No, brother, to vote against this particular hate crime and hide behind a false fear of it’s misapplication not only exposes the values of the voter but his or her lack of faith in the checks in our legal system.
KEEP THE FAITH, THERE AREN’T THAT MANY ANGELS ON THE HEAD OF THAT PIN!!!
FYI, new thread
Methinks the honorable Mr. Van Hollen knows not what is asking for.
I was mildly pleased when Van Hollen took over from Rahm. This answer, however, is straight out of Rahm’s playbook, and makes me rethink my earlier opinion.
The DCCC has long been in the incumbency protection racket, with adding to the size of the club as a parallel operation. What they fail to realize is that the best way to protect an incumbent Dem — especially in 2006 and 2008 — is to hold forth vigorous progressive voices, calling for oversight, integrity, checks and balances, and the constitutional rule of law.
Covering up for political doublespeak, on the other hand, reinforces the “just a pol” mentality that protects no one.
*sigh*
Back to work, firepups . . . Van Hollen needs to understand that we have accepted his suggestion to be informed about democratic politicians, and that we are less than pleased with what we’ve seen from his lack of leadership on this.
I consider myself pretty far left on social issues. I love Amato’s Crooks and Liars site, and am often referred here from it.
But really, “hate crimes” classification is a make or break here? I find it very odd that this is prioritized above equal rights in marriage, military service etc. And for what it is worth, whether it’s a Rep talking point or not (monkeys at typewriters, I suppose) I believe in full and equal treatment of individuals in the GLBT community, which includes fully discharging prosecutorial duties to protect those same people as would be applied to protect the rich, the white, the straight, or the Christian majority. Failure to faithfully and equitably prosecute felony crimes against GLBT individuals is a current problem. I suppose you could also infer my stance on non-enforcement of existing gun laws/allowing gun-show loopholes, de-policing poor black neighborhoods, and creating a sub-class of citizen with no rights only for Mexican immigrants and their children. In my view, ALL of these are abhorrent to our Constitution and any basic sence of human decency.
However, I do not believe in special protections for certain classes in felony crimes. We are all entitled to protection of our freedoms as law-abiding citizens equally, no matter who we are or what we believe.
Why is this not the view of the Democratic party? Hypocrisy on this issue. By allowing stratification of citizens with different rights, you may also open up an opportunity for the full reversal of Roe v Wade. After all, once we are no longer equal under the law, why not prioritize the life of the fetus over the life/liberty of the woman? “Hate crime” indeed. Let’s not give the government any leverage in this area; there are better ways to approach the issue.
Having separate laws to protect law enforcement agents is bad enough, even if it is an understandable necessary evil.
Prairie Sunshine @ 105
Ooooh, the OfGeorge for Homeland Security, Ms Frances! These people have no shame — don’t they know that after Katrina the only acceptable response is:
HELP IS ON THE WAY. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED?
Evil Dr Puma,
Betrayal is ONE of the issues being debated here. People are also debating Carney’s politics and political principles. I’m only pointing out that there are lots of people on the right side of things who would regard Carney as having done the right thing to renege as a result of having studied the bill. I agree that it is bad that he said he would vote for a bill of that general description while seeking votes when he either didn’t intend to vote for it or didn’t know enough about the issue to make a promise.
Thank you for this information. This only makes me trust Blue America more. It’s comforting to know they have the courage to do the right thing even as they continue to grow in size. I only hope this level of integrity remains intact as the pendulum continues to swing our way. It is refreshing to see such heartfelt accountability taking place for a change. Thanks again – it feels good to know I have a place I can still trust.
Just one of many reasons why people in this country don’t get more involved in politics. Because all politicians, no matter what their party affiliation is, are crooks and liars (no pun intended).
By the way is their any way to remove this guy from office if he has reneged on his campaign promises?
Ha! Atrios has named Carney Wanker of the Day via this post.
1,510 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen ny nick:
“The problem is the law of unintended consequences.”
No, brother nick, the only fear of unintended consequences is the fear of homophobes that they will be accused and convicted if they bash a queer. Hate cuts both ways and so does the law…if a gay person bashes another person because that person is heterosexual then he/she suffers the consequences. If you are worried that the law will be applied only against those whom it was intended to protect, then you have little faith in the system of local law enforcement and it’s application.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND SAVE US FROM EQUIVOCATING LIBERALS!!
1,510 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen swokem:
Yes, the hate crimes legislation is fundamental. None of the other attempts to advance human rights (marraige or civil unions) of gay and lesbian folks means a good god-damn if those gay and lesbian people can brutalized indiscriminatly and that action is not seen as an attack on the fundemantal civil and human right to exist.
What do the rights to marry or inherit property mean if the right to exist as a human being is not acknowleged?
No folks…bigotry is protected when the humanity of “the other” is no recognized.
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T GIVE ME ANY MORE BULLSHIT!!
Amen Norske!
you know, isn’t it at least possible that Carney *does* support GLBT rights but is unconvinced that hate crime laws have sufficient ethical and intellectual integrity?
I for one am not fully convinced on hate crime laws. I know this board will rend me to pieces, but I’m open to being persuaded.
I suggest you keep a close eye on Nick Lampson as well. He had heart surgery and was not available for the last troop funding supplemental vote, but he gave an interview to the Houston Chronicle that did not make me feel very good about his position. Now he is in Tom Delay’s old district, so some slack may be in order. He did not blow his opponent away, though, even with her not on the ballot! The chances are slim he can hold the seat next time, and there has been (not very serious) talk about him running for the senate. But he is unknown outside his district so that is not likely to be successful. Just keep a close eye on him
There were clues about Carney’s role in the buildup to the war on Iraq that should have planted the seeds of doubt. Unfortunately, they were cited by Howie Klein as pluses — supposed expertise on national security.
Here:
Similarly, Chris Carney, who worked in Intelligence in the Pentagon during the run-up to the attack on Iraq — and even briefed key players like Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz — understands the dangers inherent in putting weak, insecure, conflicted men in charge of national security.
This apology is six months late. It should have come after James Risen’s article in late November last year, in which Carney was revealed as a wingnut former OSP staffer who still believes in an Al Qaeda-Saddam connection.
E. Orazi @ 114
It is not the substance of the bill that is being debated here at FDL. It is the response from a candidate and a DCCC chair that is inadequate to the questions posed.
Those of us who have been here for a while trust Howie. There is a reason for that. This post bears that out. Howie feels betrayed on behalf of the community. He gave both Rep. Carney and Rep. Van Hollen an opportunity to explain to him and to us how this votes reflects the trust he and FDL gave to the candidate based on previous interactions.
Had either of the Reps pointed out intricacies of the bill that merited the no vote that might have explained their positions that would have been one thing. But the response Howie got was basically the repig. talking points we have been working so hard to defeat.
This is an honest community that expects honest answers.
I’m with Howie and Teddy. Don’t tell us one thing to earn our trust, respect, and dollars and then go do something else unless you can justify in concrete terms why you did it. Neither of these elected officials gave a sufficient answer, thus they no longer have our trust, respect, or $$.
“Those of us who have been here for a while trust Howie. There is a reason for that. This post bears that out.”
Damn right!
Let it go, Howie.
The guy was a stealth candidate, although the fact that he worked in the Pentagon after 9/11 would have raised me up a little since with Rummy there it was a very doctrinaire place to be.
I think there was another guy running in PA who was also running as a Democrat even though he had worked in Feith’s Office of Special Plans unless this is the guy and he just put worked in intelligence on his resume to distance himself from the stupidest man on earth.
The more I think of it, the more I’m convinced that this dick is one of the people who manufactured intelligence to fit the administration’s lies. I was pissed that he was getting support from Democrats.
Check it out…this asshole played an important part in getting us involved in a major war with false information.
Guitar_Playing_Bastard @ 98
So let’s see if I have this clear, you spent all last evening and all of this morning insulting Jane and a good number of us women for hours on the On Topic thread from yesterday until the 24 hour time limit expired a bit ago only to drag it up here in a backhanded manner.
Let’s review some facts here of the nicer things you said about Jane and Christy:
In which I’m sure everyone here would be quite interested to see why Jane comes back with:
And you keep it up:
Perhaps you’d like to explain this statement
big he man badass threatto all of us “hiding behind our skirts” sycophants:portia.vz @ 63
This is not about a difference in policy views-Carney stated flat out that he supported such protections.
Nor is it about a single issue-nor a single bill.
It’s about accountability. It’s about lying. It’s about trust.
I’m deeply grateful to Howie for the hard work he does vetting Blue America candidates. It’s not always possible to tell when someone is giving you a bald faced lie.
But once you do know, you have to acknowledge it, and amend your assessment of the liar in question.
cbl @ 65
Murtha is from South West PA near Pittsburgh. That was a big steel union area with many enlightened individuals. A lot of people there might be conservative but they are not knee jerk about it. A lot of my extended family is from around there. They are by and large working class FDR Democrats, not hard asses.
Carney is located just above where my immediate family live. THAT area is probably one of the most conservative areas of the country. I can’t remember who he ran against but Carney either had to be very charismatic, his opponent a bozo or his constituents were angry about something else.
PA is not uniform. It just has this big, honkin’ bible belt in the middle.
TeddySanFran @ 78
This, this, a thousand times this, with one exception.
Blue America’s integrity is intact. Chris Carney’s took a self-inflicted beating.
So, I guess that means 999 times this…
RevDeb,
I repeat: A casual look at the comments reveals that that is not the only thing being debated here. As for betrayal, I agreed it was bad. But the issue is complicated for anyone who fears that the legislation was a bad idea from the getgo. However, taking your hint, I will not intrude such ideas on this loyal, close-knit community again.
E. Orazi @ 96
If you haven’t read the bill, then, with all due respect to the importance of political discourse, it’s not clear you’re doing anything but talking out your ass.
[Mod note: We are mod and we will not allow this line of attack. Please bring it down a knotch.]
If he was already on record with Project Vote Smart, what’s he gain by switching his position now?
Who appreciates a feck flip-flopper?
NorskeFlamethrower @ 95
Reasonable people can disagree. However, if you end up winning a victory, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to demand unanimity from all of your team players.
As for pressing your advantage, it’s ok to feel your cheerios since Nov 2006 but dont’t get too far ahead of yourselves. My limited experience in local politics tell me that if you get in the face of the evangelicals, they mobilize. That’s what happened in the nineties when I was elected to my local school board and the Democrats would ridicule them during open comments and the school administration pulled shit like forcing all students to attend a Diversity Day presentation where an AIDS activist led the students in a recitation of Fuck! and taught the female students how to put condoms on a purple dildo- with her mouth. That brought the evangelicals out in droves. If you don’t push their buttons, they just look like the fools they are and no one takes them seriously. Treat them kindly, listen to them, thank them and they have no reason to be angry.
I’ve dealt with them. I’ve had to vote on stuff they didn’t much like and I have no problem taking a stand. But I can’t see any advantage to making a principled stand over something you have already won.
Now, if this turns out to be a pattern with Carney and he holds out on other similar legislation or Iraq War votes, then we will have inadvertantly elected a stealth Republican and he’s fair game. But don’t write him off over this. We give a pass to Ben Nelson all of the time.
This is just my opinion. I’m actually quite happy that they vote went as well as it did.
It’s different to rope in a member of Congress b/c s/he’s a Democrat on an issue near-and-dear to the base.
But this seems to be a situation where the MOC flipped after making a specific commitment.
Since his reasoning is no more sophisticated than the Republican talking points it’s hard to argue he’s had an epiphany based on deeper thinking. This is a naked political calculation.
If Carney can’t keep commitments to his supporters how can you ask someone to be a Carney supporter?
clichy @ 127
Gotta agree with Clichy here. You cannot trust these DOD types. There are no Ellsbergs around the building nowadays.
Howie and everyone else simply got had.
And don’t expect any refunds.
Carl Nyberg @ 136
It is obvious that this issue really bothers some posters. It sounds like they feel that Carney has betrayed them. I’m not sure how we resolve this with Carney unless we talk to him directly and candidly. Maybe someone should have called his office before the vote and arranged a meeting. Maybe there is no time like the present.
Politicians frequently make promises they can’t keep. Sometimes you feel in agreement on an issue and recognize its importance to some constituents but the bill ticks other constituents off and they are louder and more boisterous and a lot more threatening to your employment plans. If Carney’s vote was so important, it would have been better to talk to him before the vote to see where he stood on the issue.
There is no good time to push controversial issues. Sometimes a politician needs to be made uncomfortable. But at least hear him out before you write him off. It’s the fair thing to do.
I just noticed the comments posted by Nell regarding this asshole.
Sorry if my post was redundant. The fact remains that as unfortunate as it is we cannot trust anyone who has held any position in this administration even if they are now persona non grata. Why? Because at some point they were part of the anointed ones and to associate with evil you have to be evil.
Clive A. @ 137
How did he vote on:
the minimum wage
the supplemental funding bill
any of the other “First 100 Hours” bills?
I also have concerns about legislation like this. I know the Republicans have raised a similar objection, but even wingnuts are not necessarily always wrong (greedy, hypocritical and self-serving are a given, of course).
The problem (as I think other have stated) is simply that individual groups will be protected, while victims of equally serious crimes who do not fall under any identifiable category probably will not. I think it is a mistake to dismiss this objection as lightly as some have done here.
As an example, my youngest daughter, white and unremarkable, is regularly bullied at school simply because she is “different”. A group of the students recently made a MySpace page to publically air their “opinions” about her. She has mild ADHD (nowhere near to being a disability) and, more significantly, an unusual way of looking at things and interacting with others. But would being “different” in that way be sufficient to trigger federal protection under this bill? I wonder. Not without raising a lot of eyebrows, anyway. It kind of assumed that if you get beaten up, it’s usual for your assailants not to like you, and they may hate you. So, unless it’s a random attack, there will always be a reason – the question then is whether that reason qualifies as “hate”. Is just being a “complete dork” adequate?
I grew up in the ‘60s in an essentially all-white area, and later moved to a city with more ethnic diversity. In my experience, the level of violence targeted to individuals was similar, but the victim selection was different. In the white rural areas, the targets were the more obviously unusual whites – various weirdos, mods, kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, etc. In the city, race was usually the most obvious distinguishing factor.
It’s an unfortunate side of human nature – those inclined to senseless violence tend to pick on whoever is the most different from them. Maybe it’s similar to the phenomenon where you can’t help but notice the most attractive person in the room, even if he/she would not be obviously attractive among another group. Unless that’s just me of course :`)
A possible solution – if anyone is interested in looking for one – would be to establish whether the criminal specifically selected his/her victim(s) for a particular reason (whatever that reason might be), as opposed to a crime with an entirely random target.
BTW – I do understand the “checked box” problem with Carney. I thought about this issue after T.Rex’s post the other night, and I am just commenting here in the hopes that someone will want to address the substantive issue (and maybe educate me a bit.)
I should have been clearer. What I meant about Monica Goodling is that the blob of Carney’s district that extends into the central part of PA is chock full of Monica Goodling types. The are very evangelical, obsessed with sex and sexual orientation, anti-evolution, boob covering prudes. In fact Goodling worked at my mother’s pool club when she was younger. I can’t tell you how hostile people are to liberals there but I once went to a party at my sister’s house and without mentioning politics at all, I got some VERY hostile “I just can’t wait to shoot me some liberals” stares from some of her friends. Literally. I heard one of them even saying something like this as I served him an appetizer. To be honest, I can’t quite figure out how Carney got elected to this district except that maybe the folks in Scranton, Bethlehem, Wilkes-Barre are a lot more urban than I thought. The rest of this district is full of gun-totin’ hunters, Amish and fundamentalist Christians with their own radio stations broadcasting homophobia 24/7.
A Democrat who gets elected there is a rarity, like a blue moon.
I am in the 10th district of PA and Chris Carney
is my congressman. Guess what, I will vote for him next election and give him money. I hate single issue politics! His votes are far and away better than Donnie “Choke” Sherwood. People outside of PA. confuse PA with Mass., We
were told Senator Casey wasn’t pro choice. A friend who relocated from NY told me Casey couldn’t win in PA and wouldn’t vote for him.
You have the Dems in charge of both houses because of people like Carney and Casey! He traded on a vote Where the bill was passed anyway for an easier time in 08 in a district redrawn to keep sherwood in foreever! I am relocated from NJ 14 years ago. In NJ you can have super liberal candidates, not rural PA.
swokm @ 112
I am not gay. But I have been attacked by those that have justified their attack on the fact that they THOUGHT I was gay. Elsewhere I have been assaulted and called a “N***** Lover”.
Both of these attacks are efforts to intimidate people…both the groups themselves, AND those that would support these groups against TARGETTED attacks. Quite frankly, this is a form of terrorism.
This isn’t a “random” assault, or an assault based upon a personal dispute, or even an attack that is for the purpose of robbery.
It has nothing to do with “free speech” anymore than a murder threat to a trial witness is “free speech”.
That is what irritates the heck out of me by people that argue that this is some sort of “Special Right”.
It’s a right that applies to all of us…because these attacks are terrorism.
>In NJ you can have super liberal candidates, not rural PA
Alas, this is not entirely true. I live in NJ-07 and my congressman is Santorum lite bad boy Mike Ferguson. I might as well be living in Camazotz.
ny nick @ 103
What are these “unintended consequences” going to be?
Sending a message to those that might attack someone that attacks someone becasue they think they are gay/lesbian/straight, black/white/Asian, male/female, etc.
I’m not quite sure what these “imagined” ills would be?
If someone attacks me because I’m “cinnamonape” it’s one thing, but if they threaten to kill me and my kids, and my wife, after they beat me…isn’t that assault more than something that is just an assault of me…but an attack (or threat) against others. That’s precisely what an attack by those that use gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc are doing. It’s terrorism, pure and simple.
Jane Hamsher @ 47
But, OTOH, if you over-react and spend money to unseat him the Repubs could use this tactic to distract us from going after Repugs. It’s better to put up with a conservative Dem than to get bent out of shape and let the whole country to Red.
I say, don’t give him any more money and see if he sinks or floats with his constituents. We should go on picking off weak Repugs and replacing them as best we can with Progressive Dems. At least with more Blue seats we stay in the majority and keep Speaker Nancy in charge.
Sorry, I came from hudson county in NJ where the butterfly ballots were set up in the dems favor.
treebark @ 143
Once again, it’s not the bill.
It’s the lie.
treebark @ 148
If there’s a point there related to whether it’s okay to lie for an endorsement, then by all means, make it.
MarkH @ 147
I say, don’t give him any more money and see if he sinks or floats with his constituents. We should go on picking off weak Repugs and replacing them as best we can with Progressive Dems. At least with more Blue seats we stay in the majority and keep Speaker Nancy in charge.
Democrats need to be held accountable just like Republicans are.
Elections have consequences. So do lies.
Its called politics. Sorry when your offended when a politican acts political. Clinton “lied” too
In the immortal words of Abraham Polonsky: “Everyone says ‘Forgive and Forget.’ Well I NEVER Forgive because I NEVER Forget!”
What David E. said.
PS: Abraham Polonsky.
cinnamonape @ 144
If you are the victim of assault, why does it make any difference if they beat the sh*t out of you because you are actually gay or black, or because they thought you were gay or black, or because they didn’t like your tattoo or the color of your hair, or because you went out with their ex?
If I understand your argument, the rationale for this new law is a presumption that attacks on identifiable groups are often intended to send a message to other members of that group. An otherwise identical attack on an individual who is not associated with any particular group has no broader significance.
In other words, this law is addressing the problem of the message, not the crime. Is that correct? And if so, is that OK?
I personally equivocate hate crimes with acts of terrorism. It’s not the “message” that these perpetrators are trying to get across that the law is trying to prevent. It’s the “terroristic”, intimidating way that they deliver that message.
It’s a hard thing to legislated against. I understand both sides of the argument, and both sides have several good points.
At the risk of going way off topic, the nationalistic fervor that followed 9/11 really worried me. I was as sad about the event as the next guy, but when I started seeing all these American flags everywhere I started to get really nervous. There were some reprisals against foreigners, but luckily it never got as bad as I thought it may. Thank God. But the same thing could happen again, and the second time around is bound to be worse. I’d really hate to see this country consumed with Nazi-Germany style nationalism. It’s a pretty scary thought.
I’d feel more comfortable if there were strong hate-crimes legislation on the federal books. I’m aware of the trade-offs but in this case I think we have to be pragmatic.
Evil is…
so easy to recognize, even when it’s
so hard to see.
I am actually of the opinion that singling out hate-crimes is not the right way to go about it. A person murdered in cold blood because they were cheating on their spouse is no different than if that same person is murdered because they were black, gay, or Jewish (or whatever other idiotic reason the murderer used to justify the horrific crime in their pathetic little mind).
Murder is murder.
Assault is assault.
That being said, I utterly respect Mr. Klein for immediately bringing the lie that Representative Carney told to those who donated to his campaign based on how he would specifically vote on such a bill to everybody’s attention. That shows real leadership, real courage, and a genuine respect for those with whom he works. That should also show all of us that Mr. Klein, at least, is as good as his word. Kudos to you, sir!
Now if only Rep Carney could be convinced to give back all of that funding as a message to anyone else.
Regardless, Rep. Carney should be told, point blank, “You lied. You are cut off. Don’t expect Blue America’s help the next election cycle. Oh, and we just might give our money to someone else in your primary, to boot, buddy.”
Welcome to “big-time” politics. Unfortunately, this is par for the course.
Until G.W. Bush and his enforcer, Karl Rove, came along it was common for Republican politicians to tell one group one thing and another group another thing to get their endorsements, their support and their contributions. That all stopped rather quickly when the Enforcer came down on the offenders with an iron fist.
For a long time, politicians would go to the Christian Right and tell them they agreed with their agenda, take their endorsement, their support, their work and their contributions and then once elected go off on their merry way and promptly forget about all those promises they had made to support all those sundry Christian Right pet projects and work to pass their legislative initiatives. This all stopped once the politicians were held accountable for their bad behavior. Few politicians would dare cross the Religious Right nowadays.
So, unless you hold offenders accountable for their actions when they go off to Congress, you can expect more of the same. Not all politicians do it but a lot of them do it. You have to let politicians know that you will hold them accountable for their actions. Of course, you may find that some politicians, once elected, may decide they don’t need you anymore and go on their merry way. There’s not much you can do about this, yet. At some point you’ll become powerful enough that politicians wouldn’t dare take your money and bolt. In the meantime, all you can do is vet the candidates and trust them to do the right thing. Most of them will be people of good character and good faith. Occasionally, one or two may turn out to exhibit bad character and bad faith. When they do, it’s time to lower the hammer on them so that the next politician who comes along, who doesn’t have any qualms about taking your money and running, doesn’t do it because he doesn’t want to suffer consequences.
The excuse given for voting against the Hate Crimes Bill was the same identical one used by B*sh when he vetoed similar legislation down here in Texas after the horrid James Byrd incident in Jasper, a bill that included GLBT. The man currently occupying Our White House did not want to “create a special class of citizens.”
Here’s a great tip on geting your money back for contributions:
Call the credit card company that you used and file a DISPUTE of charges. The reason: false advertising of the product.
You can dispute any charge you like and the credit card company is obligated to contact the billing company (candidate) to investigate. And such dispute investigations? Probably doesn’t bode well for the credit-worthiness of the candidate, imo. Looks real bad.
This worked like a charm for me. I forced Howard Dean to return a $250 donation. Yeah, I love Dean in his DNC position but I gave to his campaign early based on his support for lifting the embargo on Cuba and for his alleged support for the Palestinians. A couple of months later after he hit the bigtime (August 2003), he completely flipped. Sorry, not giving one red dime to pro-aipac aggression in any form.
Anyways, the Dean campaign dicked around with me for a month and pretty much laughed in my face about wanting a contribution back. I called AmExp to initiate the dispute investigation. Et voila, a week later, I got a campaign check refund.
“What did Carney have to gain by opposing this bill? Are far right bigots a large component of his constituency?”
In a word, yes. I’m PA-10, and you can’t believe the kneejerk racism and bigotry in this district, from both Democrats and Republicans. It’s not called the Alabama of the North for no reason.
That being said, I’m pissed as hell, as I gave to him and I voted for him. But really, there’s no one more left-wing that would have any chance at all up here. It’s a straight red district, and the only reason Carney won was Sherwood’s idiocy. in 2008, look for everyone to just pull the Republican lever again.
also PA 10 – worked hard for Carney and gave through BlueAmerica -
very disappointed in this and other votes he has made ( DC Voting Rights) but I agree with JoanBeach4 above – I think Chris is trying to give himself some cover for the next election so he can say he didn’t vote lock step with the Dems and is his own man- he will need some of that here as you can’t get much redder in PA- but he should and will be called on this
we have not had a Dem in office for ever- and if Don Sherwood hadn’t been caught with his pants down we still wouldn’t
Chris has some learning to do
JoanBeach4 @ 162
I am sick to death of not have LEADERS. What do leaders? They lead by example. They do things like Carter did in 1976 and go on tv at primetime and demonstrate how to turn the thermostats down to save energy and demonstrate how you put on a sweater if your chilled.
They lead.
So PA is red and bigoted. So you just keep giving them a bigoted policy so they feel good about themselves. This ‘anything to save my own damn job’ type of leadership is BS. I love Kucinich more everyday.
“In early 2002, Mr. Carney, a Naval Reserve officer, was assigned to work in a tiny intelligence unit created by Douglas J. Feith, then the under secretary of defense for policy, to search for links between terrorist groups and their possible state-sponsors, most notably Iraq.”
Er… you don’t think this guy was veted before he worked with Feith?
Oh and didn’t you guys who were on the ground look into who his friends were?
“…Mr. Carney’s campaign certainly caught the attention of some major players in the Bush administration’s decision to go to war. Richard Perle, the former senior adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld who was an influential advocate of war with Iraq but has more recently criticized the administration’s conduct of the war, was the host of a fund-raiser for Mr. Carney…”
http://globalparadigms.blogspo…..chive.html
I mean — Hello! If you dance with the major neocons then of course expect that his focus and priorities aren’t going to be social issues… nuff said.