Steve Israel (D-Long Island) is going to be chairman of the DCCC, replacing Chris Van Hollen. I don’t have strong opinions about Mr. Israel, although I would like to note that he voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq, and that he was a vocal critic of Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Perhaps this isn’t surprising considering Mr. Israel’s background and constituency, but it isn’t exactly laudable, either. He’s also a co-founder of the Center Aisle Caucus. McClatchey wrote about their aims in a September 2008 article.
In politically divided Washington, the idea of Republicans and Democrats trying to find ways to agree might seem as improbable as a blizzard in Tahiti. But that’s the goal of a little-publicized group of House of Representatives members known as the Center Aisle Caucus.
The 60-member bipartisan group, which will rev up again next week when Congress returns from a monthlong summer recess, operates with the lofty objective of finding common purpose at a time when much of the public is fed up with congressional gridlock in Washington.
Applicants for membership aren’t admitted unless they recruit companion members from the opposite party. Caucus members avoid lightning-rod issues and focus only on areas that most likely would produce agreement. Under one unwritten bylaw, members never engage in political campaigns against other members…
…Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Timothy Johnson, R-Ill., founded the caucus in 2005, but it’s largely operated under the public’s radar. Most of its members, Israel said, are “defiant centrists” from both parties, hence the name Center Aisle.
Now, I don’t want to go war with this guy before he can even begin doing his new job, but doesn’t it strike you as a profoundly bad idea to have a DCCC chairman who has taken an oath (of sorts) against campaigning against about 30 Republican members of the House? I have to say, this concerns me.
And then there is his lack of prescience. Here’s what he said on the eve of the 2008 elections:
In addition to issues, caucus leaders hope that the group’s very existence can engender a more genial atmosphere in a Congress torn by political discord.
Israel thinks that the caucus could have dozens of potential recruits from the November elections.
“There’s going to be a tidal wave of new members, and those new members are going to want to show their constituents that they’re not part of the old inside-the-Beltway Washington culture,” he said.
How many of the Republicans in the Center Aisle Caucus contributed to a more genial atmosphere over the last two years? How many freshmen joined his caucus?
Mr. Israel may have some useful skills. Speaker Pelosi didn’t select him for no reason. But I’d rather have Rahm Emanuel’s attitude and skill-set at DCCC than this guy. At least Rahm knew how to deal with the enemy.
I wish Mr. Israel success, and I hope he proves me wrong. But I am not encouraged by this choice.
It is purely conventional thinking to tap a centrist – who will presumably focus on recruiting centrist candidates – to challenge for seats in primarily more conservative districts.
But honestly, how well has “Republican Lite” worked for the Democrats? How many seats were left on the table in 06/08 by choosing less populist nominees, the folks who had establishment rather than local backing and less to distinguish them from their opponents? And what kind of cost has the caucus paid in having less unity on things like the health care reform package?
In the face of a unified opposition, this suggests that the Democrats aren’t adapting and aren’t learning from past experience. Again.
I’m less concerned about ideology than I am about fighting spirit, to be honest with you.
I know that there were maybe a half-dozen seats where Emanuel put his finger on the scale to push out a more progressive candidate, but overall he was really successful as DCCC chair. While his recruitment left room for improvement, his drive and his management were just outstanding. I think Van Hollen was better at recruitment and also quite good at management. My problem with Mr. Israel is his why-can’t-we-all-get-along attitude.
Neville Israel or Steve Chamberlain?
We have somehow managed, over the last 30 years, to entirely emasculate and remove all the aggressiveness from the Democrats. Now, the Democratic impulse is to give in early, to avoid losing in an embarrassing way.
I remember about 5 years ago the cover of the Washington Monthly, showing Daschle and other Democrats of the time dressed like street toughs carrying knives. The headline was something like “What will it take for the Democrats to fight back?” And years later, here we are again, capitulating before the fight, allowing the Repukes to set the terms of the debate, and simply showing no ability to defend Democratic ideals whatsoever.
Obama is among the worst, with that bipartisanshit shit. When I hear “bipartisanshit”, I know that soon we will be giving the Repukeliscum some political victory.
Here’s the link – it was a piece by Paul Glastris about the Bush White House, and in particular about the FL recount. In the FL recount, the Republicans played to win, and did whatever it took. The Democrats played to the press, and did things that would make them look high minded and morally right. That means that they lost.
I get so fucking sick of this appeasement crap.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0203.glastris.html
I don’t want to get into too long a discussion of why Pelosi chose Israel. But do you have any idea at all? Was he the only guy that wanted it? Was he trying to drive a wedge between Hoyer and the rest of the so-called “moderates”? Also, did we ever hear who was named DSCC head? I don’t remember that a name was ever made public. And if Reid did, then I missed it.
Almost by definition you can’t aggressively fight people you’re emulating on the issues. And that’s usually how it plays out. Emanuel, I think, was an anomoly (and unfairly maligned by many progressives), in being a centrist willing to knock heads together. Usually, I think the distinction between ideology and willingness to fight is a false distinction.