What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
How to Spot a Police
Spy
Is it the
guy who asks you after the meeting about how the antiwar movement
needs to get "serious" and asks you lots of questions
about terrorism and "fighting back"? Jennifer Van Bergen
reports, first-hand. Part
2 of our series on what really happened on 9/11/2001: the physics
of collapse, and how not to make a "pancake" by Manuel
Garcia, PLUS Engineer Pierre Sprey on why "controlled demolition"
theories are off target.What
you just missed, but can still get, in our last newsletter: Paul
Craig Roberts on the Collapse of America. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater
declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of
Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration
camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson
said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"
Characterization (paraphrased)
of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor
Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."
"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops;
In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline
atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the
election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound
these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word,
"betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are
for "staying the course," 53% want immediate
withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among
all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate
withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll -
9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a
timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.
In contrast to voters' sentiment,
64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested
House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal
from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies
oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding
the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem
candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly
small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable
from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic
rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates
that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on
voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get
elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely
forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies,
and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment
would dearly like us to forget them.
The first case is the Democratic
primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in
Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the
disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine
Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat
with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against
the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before
Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis
in 2006.
Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a
pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her
legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying
the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience
and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised
a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe
Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary
Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis
campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke
out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to
a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that
Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote
with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage
that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently
(9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help
her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly
Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where
Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus:
"She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or
a timetable for withdrawal."
But in one case, and sadly
in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention,
he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second
case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in
money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in
Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown,
who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary
battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate,
Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal,
defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey,
strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost.
Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war
Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even
though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000!
McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's
$2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory
it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm
Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive
race.
Meanwhile, even though Duckworth
has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8
million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign
has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line
for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven
and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you
are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick
candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did
he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she
damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did
win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent.
Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates;
he is choosing pro-war candidates.
Rahm
Emanuel's Stable.
To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans.
Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open
districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according
to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky
(FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH),
Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane
Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) defeated in primary by
Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen
(NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken
Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy
(CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).
If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much
worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:
U.S, must "win" in
Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth
(IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken
Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).
More troops should be deployed
in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);
Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than
the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This
means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other
withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush
without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby
(CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy
(OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).
Not for immediate withdrawal
(3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron
Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);
Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter
Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher
without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it
is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason
probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse"
like a Green is waiting in the wings.)
So only one of Rahm's candidates
is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that
Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like
CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live
in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and
do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds
and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates
where they are to be found no matter how slight the establishment
media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and
other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to
expose Emanuel's candidates.
The question arises. Who is
Congressman Rahm Emanuel? From what does he derive his power?
What are his thoughts on the future for the Dems? And where is
The Nation in all this. More on that coming shortly.
(1.) Cegelis was against the
war on Iraq but only in a very timid way. She opposed it before
it started, but it was only 4th out of 6 issues on her web site,
and she was not for immediate withdrawal. Here is what she said
on her web site at the time of the primary. "I have opposed
this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this
disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us
to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide
a comprehensive timetable for withdrawal of the majority of our
combat troops at the earliest possible date. " Notice she
does not say "Out Now," like Murtha or Lamont. She
leaves it all up to Bush to set a timetable, which is the standard
copout for pro-war Dems. Although good enough for PDA (!), it
was too much for Rahm Emanuel and company.
(2.) Duckworth says of Iraq
on her web site: "The fact is we are in Iraq now and we
can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It
wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and
risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a
base for terrorists." Not even a mention of a timetable.
Now
Available
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case
Against Israel
By Michael Neumann
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
