Thursday: A Tale of Two Endorsements

Many of us have wondered what is really going on in this election.  Why was Hillary Clinton dumped overboard by her own party in favor of a less than one term senator with no experience, no qualifications and apparently no scruples? And where the heck is he getting all of that money? We have some clues.  Donna Brazile keeps making reference to the “old coalition” vs the “new coalition”.  The old coalition consists of the old, uneducated, working class sino-peruvian lesbians and the new coalition consists of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit models with PhDs in Architecture.  The latter group is very anxious to chip the last bit of ice from the floe they have put the old coalition on.  We simply ask too much of government. We’re a burden.  We tie them down.  They want to be free to fulfill their destiny, FREE, I say!

But there’s something more unsettling lurking in the background.  Lambert identified it back in January.  It’s name is High Broderism.  It’s the belief that David Broder and his ilk in the Village are the ones who REALLY understand Main Street America.  And what you main streeters want is a kinder, gentler, more passive Democratic party.  Howard Fineman’s latest column in Newsweek is a warning to Obamaphiles who thought they were going to get real change in Washington.  It’s not going to happen, guys.  That’s not really what you want, say the Villagers.  You want a party that is less partisan and doesn’t upset the Republicans.  You want a party that is less confrontational, less wedded to its committment to the old, uneducated, working class sino-peruvian lesbians.  You want a president who is going to meet post-partisanly with Republicans in a civilized fashion, without raising his voice and put everything on the table to be negotiated away for the calm, reasoned, non-confrontational benefit of all. That is, to the benefit of all of the villagers.

Barack Obama is their man.  The media love him for many reasons.  He’s african-american.  He’s young.  Ok, he’s my age, but since I belong to the old coalition, I’m old; he’s young and full of possibilities.  He went to the right schools.  Ok, so did Hillary Clinton, but she married a Bubba.  And she doesn’t have a penis.  But mostly, Barack Obama is going to let the Broderites have their way.

How do we know this?  It’s been there all along but the recent non-endorsement of Linda Stender in the New York Times shows us exactly what the unholy Obama-Broderite alliance is really up to.  In 2006, the New York Times endorsed Stender over her opponent, Republican Mike Ferguson:

His Democratic opponent, Linda Stender, says she got into the race because she opposed the war in Iraq and says the United States looks like a “big bully” in world affairs. She says she would work to prevent further infringements on a woman’s right to get an abortion, to obtain federal funding for stem cell research, to force the administration to negotiate lower prices for the Medicare drug program with pharmaceutical companies and to get out of Iraq by the end of next year.

As to the tax cuts, she says she would support restoring the estate tax as long as some protection remained for family owners of small businesses, and would consider rolling back the reductions on the capital gains tax. On Social Security, she says the income ceiling on payroll taxes will probably have to be increased and the age of eligibility raised.

Mr. Ferguson, who is regarded as a backbencher in the House, has in the past opposed some of the administration’s efforts to backtrack on environmental protection, but he has shifted recently to a more compliant position. To his credit, he continues to support gun controls.

Over all, however, we consider Ms. Stender, a member of the New Jersey Assembly since 2002, as someone who would better stand up to the Bush administration for the district’s best interests. She wins our endorsement.

She lost NJ-07 by less than 4000 votes in 2006.  So, you’d think that with Ferguson retiring from the House that Stender should be a shoe in for 2008, right?  She’s in one of those coveted “Red to Blue” races.  But this year, she’s up against State Senator and Republican Lennard Lance and the race is uncomfortably tight.  Not to worry, you say.  The New York Times liked her in 2006.  Surely they will endorse her in 2008, right?  She’s a progressive Democrat and they liked her positions in 2006.  Not. So. Fast.:

7th District: In the race for the open seat in this central state region, Republican Leonard Lance and Democrat Linda Stender are both excellent candidates.

Mr. Lance has a fine record in the State Senate, where as Republican leader he won praise from both parties for his fiscal conservatism and his thoughtful views on social issues. Ms. Stender is a progressive Democrat who would make a worthy member of Congress. But Mr. Lance’s leadership qualities and his voice of moderation are needed now in Congress and in the Republican Party. We endorse Leonard Lance.

So, let me get this straight.  She’s an excellent candidate and you endorsed her in 2006 but now she’s not endorseable?  Well, now that Bush is gone, we don’t need anyone to stand up to him, do we?  There you have it, folks.  This, I suspect, is the real agenda behind the powerful elite support of Obama in the media.  The rank and file liberal journalists like Obama because his african-american, hopey-changeyness is kinda neat!  But the establishment want Obama because he will not rock the boat.  And to make sure he has a compliant Congress, the elite are not going to endorse a progressive candidate who is a little too strong in her convictions.  Or maybe they will if the candidate has a penis:

5th District: Residents in this stretch from northeast Bergen County to rural northwestern New Jersey are represented by Scott Garrett, one of the most conservative members of Congress. Mr. Garrett supports constitutional amendments to ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. He backs President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and limited aid for the poor.

We endorse Dennis Shulman, a Democrat who is a rabbi and psychologist. Mr. Shulman says he would work to mitigate global warming. He would also take an interest in psychological counseling and educational opportunities for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Personally, I like Dennis Schulman.  He is socially progressive.  But his health care positions are closer to Obama’s than Clinton’s.  The Broderites will tell you that this is exactly what YOU want.  They just know that you don’t want any more messy food fights in Congress where one side accuses the other of being obstacles to progress.  No, no, no.  What YOU want is for the Democrats you send to Congress to be passive, high school student government types who will work in peace and harmony to undermine everything you believe in because there will still be a sufficient number of Republicans and Blue Dogs to prevent any real meaningful change.

Of course, if this is the goal, one wonders what the Broderites in the Village will have to report on since nothing of interest will happen in the next two years.  But Congress will move along, working in sweet harmony, untroubled by the shrill, unpleasant voices of the liberals and progressives.  The old farty Broderites in Washington can finally have some low key, high class cocktail parties and the Village can finally have some peace and quiet.  And after all, isn’t that what you on Main Street want for them?  They know you do.

One more thing: Check out Heidi Li’s Potpourri for her latest post.  She is calling on both candidates to get their supporters in line.  The hung effigies are going too far, although, I think Obama’s got more to answer for, since he has benefitted mightily from the misogynism and race baiting.  If you have $5.44 to spare, help Heidi and The Denver Group run ads in Michigan and Miami to tell voters that Obama isn’t what he seems.

And if you have *another* $5.44, consider making a donation to PUMA Pac to help Darragh and her crew in their activities in these final days leading up to the election.

Here’s Heidi’s latest ad: