On Debbie Wasserman Schultz

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:02

By and large, the DCCC has been very good this cycle; I'm particularly impressed by Chris Van Hollen's choice to stay out of the Maryland fourth primary. But what Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing in not supporting Democrats against three extreme right-wing Florida Republicans is not just bad politics and disloyal to the Democratic Party, it is also enabling the worst instincts of the hardline conservative movement within both parties. Wasserman Schultz is purely doing this to sustain the embargo against Cuba, and she's reaping donations from sugar interests as a result.

Now obviously she believes in the embargo as well, but the corrosive effect of generating campaign donations from bad policy choices regardless of the intent damages trust in our institutions and makes them less powerful. The Cuba embargo is an easy question, and Congress is getting it wrong because of people like Wasserman Schultz and the Diaz-Balart brothers.

Here's Steve Clemons.

Just for the record, I'm not in favor of knocking out all Republicans either -- so perhaps I have a bit of the Wasserman Schultz sin in my own file. I was for instance supportive of Maryland Eastern Shore anti-Iraq war Republican Wayne Gilchrest who lost his primary battle recently.
But the Diaz-Balart brothers and Ros-Lehtinen are not moderate in any sense of the word, are embracers of Bush's wars, and have been responsible for sustaining a counter-productive embargo of Cuba by the United States that 183 nations of the world voted against us on this past year in the United Nations.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is helping to defend the political turf of not the best in the Republican Party -- but the worst.
If you want to join the effort today, feel free to call these numbers and express your own point of view.
Please be respectful:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (campaign office):
E-mail: AskDebbie@DWSforCongress.com Phone:
202-741-7154
DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen (campaign office):
E-mail: chris@vanhollen.org
Phone: 301-942-3768
DCCC Headquarters:
Contact form
Phone: 202-863-1500

Wasserman Schultz's actions regarding her position at the DCCC flow directly from her desire to sustain one of the most obviously counterproductive measures in American foreign policy history, the embargo against Cuba. Please be polite, and ask the DCCC why her policy choice is more of a priority than her position at the DCCC.

... Adding a fun fact about Wasserman Schultz: Did you know that she is the only Democrat to give money to both Al Wynn and Dan Lipinski this election cycle?

Matt Stoller :: On Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Tags: Dan Lipinski, Al Wynn, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

On Debbie Wasserman Schultz | 5 comments

Aha (0.00 / 0)

I asked this over at DailyKos, but you give a decent answer here:

Wasserman Schultz's actions regarding her position at the DCCC flow directly from her desire to sustain one of the most obviously counterproductive measures in American foreign policy history, the embargo against Cuba. Please be polite, and ask the DCCC why her policy choice is more of a priority than her position at the DCCC.

My question is/was: "What is the expected gain from this effort? Why is it so important to have Schultz support these challengers?"

Also, I'm wondering what level of support we could get from her that would be a "win." Is a statement of endorsement enough? Some money from her campaign fund? Appearing at a fundraiser? How much would these things matter in terms of the electoral chances of these challengers? Is Schultz that respected in Florida that her support would carry many votes?

I'm not dissing this effort, just trying to understand the pragmatic aspects to it.

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:13:09 AM CDT

Diffusing power and expanding opportunity within the Dem Party (4.00 / 1)

Last week in one post Chris invited folks to try to explain in a short phrase what unites the various progressive movements now and in the past. Diffusing power and expanding opportunity were my suggestions.

Act Blue is just such a diffusing mechanism. Instead of the DCCC controlling a huge pot of money which it then doles out to cooperating candidates, we are able to do our own aggregating through Blue Majority, Blue America and other recommenders, or just make our own decisions and give to the candidates of our choice. This puts power in the hands of the blogosphere and individuals who are willing to do some serious research to be sure their donations do the most good, however you define that.

This is very important in breaking down the culture of caution that has often paralyzed the Dem Congressional leadership and the Dem Party as a whole. Candidates who know that they will get donations for courageous stands will be that much more likely to continue to be courageous--think Darcy Burner and Nancy Boyda (KS-02), for example.

Everytime the DCCC (and DSCC) fundraisers call I explain that I find their leadership too timid and so I refuse to give into a pot of money that could be used to support Blue Dogs and others who do not reflect my views. Instead I explain I will make my own decisions and give to progressive candidates who have a chance to make a real difference in the direction of the country.

The recent FISA showdown, where the House Dems made a principled stand in cooperation with Harry Reid, almost made me decide to reconsider. But Debbie Dubya's antics show the wisdom of continuing to see that power is diffused within the Dem Party not kept in the hands of the same old folks who keep us stuck with failed policies like the Cuban embargo (any true baseball fan should absolutely support increased immigration from an area with excellent players) and BushCo's laissez-faire and pro-creditor economic policies. To say nothing of the war.

So that's why its important to give to the candidates of your choice through fundraising lists on Act Blue or just as an individual. It not only helps elect more progressive candidates (better Dems) but helps diffuse power away from the hands of the cautious corporatists.

Of course no one should give more than they can afford, but if you can, think of political giving as another form of investment, this time in a better future. The Q1 fundraising reports will give the GOP another heart attack when they see how much we are willing to put our money where our mouths are.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:32:52 AM CDT

Debbie-Dubya is toast (4.00 / 2)

There have already been hundreds of emails circulating here in So Florida, talking about a primary challenge for her in 2010. It is too late for this year. There is lots of talent here in So Florida. Too bad I had high hopes for her, but she has been steadily becoming a Bush Dog and after her appearance in the faux Clinton Victory rally with DINO Nelson and that criminal Hastings, she was already in trouble here. She got booed at a recent town hall where they were chanting Debbie Wasserman-Bush...she is finished and I say GOOD RIDDANCE!

by: gaiilonfong @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM CDT

Let's primary her in 2010!! (4.00 / 1)

(I live in her district, but am only a permanent resident )

The problem with her is that she is in a very democratic district, last time she did not even have a republican challenger, so she thinks she owns the seat for life.

To me (and her constituents) she always plays the super duper progressive. And when you look at her voting record you will see that it is fairly progressive.

I would like to find out however, how many times she voted the right way knowing that the bill will not pass due to all the Bush Dogs. This gives her great cover (A deep analysis of her voting record would be great, like how many bills she supported acutally became law etc., I can't do this right now because of my 80 hour work schedule.)

So I think we really need to stop looking at a person's voting record and rather assess "progressivesness" on other issues such as leadership.

The people who go to the town hall meetings and boo her are the few informed ones. She (and so many other elected officials) depend on the uninformed vote.

I have been thinking about what we can do about her and given that this is a safe district all we really can do is a primary challenge.

by: Spongebob1976 @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:32:01 PM CDT

It's ol' fashioned vote trading... (0.00 / 0)

according to M.J. Rosenberg, in the first comment in this Steve Clemons post over at TPMCafe.

It's a trade, Steve. She gets them to support the Likud position on Israel and, in return, she supports them on Cuba.
She is probably the Member of Congress farthest right on matters relating to Israel, serving as an enforcer of the Likud position on Israel (in fact, it's probably her #1 priority in Congress).
They don't care about Israel. She doesn't care about Cuba. They want her in Congress yo [sic] support Cuba Libre and she wants them in Congress to preserve the Israeli-Palestinian status quo.
It's a new kind of logrolling. You defend my favorite foreign country (or right wing part of that country) and I'll do the same for you.

~~~M.J. Rosenberg

Keep your mind free and clear, Donna Edwards, and don't sell your soul.

by: murlandguy @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 22:01:04 PM CDT