I live in the 10th congressional district of Pennsylvania, which encompasses the larger portion of Northeast Pennslyvania. The district voted 60 percent for Bush in 2004, yet in the "historic" election of 2006, the incumbent Republican Don Sherwood got into some personal trouble, and Democrat Chris Carney came out on top with a resounding victory.
In the fabled April 22 primaries that supposedly decided the Democratic presidential nominee, Carney and 10th district Democrats learned who their opponent would be--Chris Hackett--in a contest that almost went to a recount it was so close. Hackett's opponent, Dan Meuser, was supported by the Republican Party a little more than Hackett was, so it was nice to see a real wingnut take the nomination, further solidifying the chances of Carney being reelected as Representative to the district.
To some Democrats in the PA-10, this was good news, because we have suffered for so long with inept Republicans in so many of our public offices. Frankly, it's very nice to have a Democrat representing us in congress. But to many in the progressive movement, it seems that Bush/Blue Dog Carney is not so great for Democratic politics, especially when it comes to FISA and Hate Crimes.
I have lots to say about this later, probably more vaguely but more well-articulated, like how compromising on core values simply because the district is Republican (49-42, according to internal Carney polls) hurts everybody more than it helps in getting votes, or what the role of a Representative is in this Republic (represent the values of the district or make hard decisions?), and how the idea that the telecom companies should get retroactive immunity is the dumbest thing ever to be defending, which Carney is, but disguises it as if he's supporting some vital piece of intelligence gathering--he's an expert you know, and as soon as you ask him about FISA, he gives you a long, condescending history lesson about how he has used FISA when he was in military intelligence, but as one of my colleagues has said, "what was unconstitutional in World War Two is unconstitutional today."
But what I really wanted to talk about is that I went to a fundraiser in Lewisburg, PA, to meet Carney, finally, after supporting him in 2006 and doing a heck of a lot of campaigning for him, unbeknownst to him, and unrecognized by many (long story). It was the first time I've ever been to one of these things, and since I don't really know anybody into Democratic politics in the area, I wasn't really able to talk to anyone except Carney, and we made small talk. He told me how these things work and such. I told him about McDaniel. In brief, he's a nice guy, and it's nice to have a political science professor actually become a politician and use skills he's learned to be a public servant. He's a heck of a lot better than some rich dude who has no grasp of what people at the bottom or middle, for that matter, go through day in and day out.
I did, however, ask him about the blogs, since on the RSVP form I put down that I am a "Student/Blogger" by occupation, and I asked him if he was bothered by the blogs. He said he wasn't, which I guess is a good answer for him personally, but maybe not for us bloggers. I asked him kinda tounge-in-cheek, "Can you take the heat?" He replied that he could, and I said, "Good." And under my breath, as he walked away "because you're gonna keep feeling it way beyond November."
At any rate, he did offer up a few words to the group of about fifty people that turned out (I'm thinking that he probably raised about $10,000 showing up here). He talked about various noble pieces of legislation he authored, supported, etc--all very core Democrat stuff. Hackett, his opponent, is basically completely running on fiscal responsibility and the idea that earmarks should be eliminated from Congress. I think this is a very good idea, and I think it's definitely a progressive value. Eliminating earmarks would mean limiting the ability of politicians to become legally corrupt.
I met with Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer who took down the Maverick Duke Cunningham. They came and spoke at McDaniel, and they were really very nice, but they are convinced that there will always be scandal in congress as long as there is the ability to deal out money to special interests through the earmark system. I totally agree, and after reading their book, The Wrong Stuff it is so clear that earmarking needs to go.
So Carney, in a very weird effort to differentiate himself from his opponent, is campaigning on the fact that earmarks are the way to do business in congress, and the best way to get money for the district. He denegraded the "bureaucrats in Washington" who try to take our money away from local areas. So basically he's saying that he love using earmarks to sneak money into the district for pet projects.
Now, normally, this is something I totally disagree with. But we have been trying to get money for a huge highway construction project that would finish up and create Interstate 99 that runs from Frederick, Maryland to Corning, New York. That would be nice to get money for. But its such a large sum of money that it would be impossible to sneak that into an earmark. In short, I think Carney is doing a disservice, compromising on core Democratic values, and is losing a political battle here in an effort to differentiate himself from a Right wingnut.
And that's just not a good sign for Carney's next term.