There are really two arguments towards supporting Scozzafava over Owens. The first is that Dede Scozzafava is a fairly liberal Republican. She drives the wingnutters crazy and would even provide cover for more moderate Democrats.
Sure, she is a Republican, and opposes the public option. But she's been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues (including supporting gay marriage). That's why conservatives are panicked about her -- for a party that is becoming more regional, more conservative, more ideologically rigid, Scozzafava's brand of moderate conservatism is grating.
Of course a liberal Republican is still worse than a progressive Democrat. We can count on progressive Democrats (for the most part) to back our agenda and stand up to the wingnuts on the right. You don't get the same guarantee with a Republican who is presumably voting for Republican leadership and caucusing with the Republicans. But what would get out of this Democrat running in this race?
The "Democrat" isn't even a Democrat -- he was a registered independent when selected by the district's Democratic county chairs for the special election. On social issues, he's pro-choice, but opposes gay marriage. On health care, he opposes a public option but doesn't have the balls to say so, so he talks all squishy like claiming he has no "litmus test" on the issue. He's a Lieberdem Blue Dog, and would strengthen the part of the Democratic caucus that is actually the problem, rather than the solution.
Exactly my problem with Owens. This guy was picked because of "electability" and, from my senses, some thoughts of self-funding. There were better choices in the race, like the former Mayor of Oswego. But the party bosses chose an outsider who appeals to "moderates". That's the type of logic we're constantly fighting. It's the legitimate belief of the netroots and progressives that a progressive candidate can win just about anywhere. They can certainly win in a completely split R+0 district where the right is divided with a conservative candidate.
When you look at the bigger picture, it all comes together.
If the Democrat loses the race, we lose nothing -- it was previously held by a Republican. If he wins the seat, we gain another obnoxious Blue Dog, undermining our caucus from within while adding just a single vote to our already dominant House majorities. Furthermore, the typical DC wankers will take this as "proof" that you need to run Lieberdems in such districts to win them, while ignoring the fragmented conservative opposition. Not much of an advantage at all. More than likely, a net disadvantage.
link
I'm not suggesting that we should get out there and pound the pavement for Dede Scozzafava. If she was someone we could fully support, she would be on the Democratic line (though some would contend that's the fault of the party bosses). At the very least, I see no reason to lift a finger for Bill Owens, a guy that we can't trust and someone who seemingly supports the conservadem agenda that's our Congress.
I'm not lifting one finger for Bill Owens. What about you? |
