From the New Nebraska Network:
Below, you can see Sen. Ben Nelson's ad responding to the ongoing campaign by Democracy For America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee targeting him as a supposed enemy and potential supporter of progressive health care reform legislation.
The ad delivers exactly the message Nebraskans have come to expect from Nelson after his two terms as Governor and his eight years in the U.S. Senate. It also sets him apart from the state's otherwise Republican Congressmen as being fully-engaged and a constructive partner in this vitally important debate.
Although vague, this is an excellent ad that the people of Nebraska will be seeing plenty of over the next two weeks. While one can't help but notice Nelson's funding the ad through his 2012 campaign committee, the real story lies in DFA and the PCCC's response. They've mocked Nelson's ad as "boring" and "lame." They've declared it a sign that their campaign is working and has Nelson "scrambling." And, of course, they used it to issue another fundraising plea to keep their ad on the air for an additional week.
That fundraising plea appears to have been successful. More than 3,000 supporters have donated more than $100,000. But, this is the only measure by which this campaign's been anything but a bust.
I know I've been radicalized in the defense of Nelson on this issue, and it pisses me off. At this critical juncture, the New Nebraska Network should be devoted entirely to keeping people informed and holding our state's Congressional delegation accountable. But, then, these so-called "Bold Progressives" showed up with their ill-conceived and ineffective attack on Nelson, in which Ralston small business owner Mike Snider states:
"I hear that Ben Nelson - the Senator that I voted for - is leading the charge to delay health reform this summer. That's exactly what they want - the health and insurance companies that have given Senator Nelson over $2 million know that if they can stall health reform they can kill it.
"I have to ask - Senator, whose side are you on?"
Yes, this ad's suggestion that Nelson is beholden to the insurance industry and its campaign donations is most definitely an attack. Yes, this ad's singling out Nelson for "leading the charge" to delay reform is also an attack - and a pretty damn ridiculous one at that.
Let's see - is Nelson one of the so-called "Gang of Six" who have held-up the Senate Finance Committee's work with the promise of a bipartisan compromise? No. Those Senators would be Max Baucus of Montana (D), Kent Conrad of North Dakota (D), Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico (D), Susan Collins of Maine (R), Mike Enzi of Wyoming (R), and Chuck Grassley of Iowa (R).
Is Nelson even on the Senate Finance Committee, where Democrats hold a three seat majority but still have not advanced their health care reform legislation? Again, no. Those other Democratic Senators would be John Rockefeller of West Virginia, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Charles Schumer of New York, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Bill Nelson of Florida, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Thomas Carper of Deleware.
That's a whole lot of Democrats who sound like they could use some pressuring on the urgency of reform. All of them, with the exception of Baucus and Conrad, represent states that are much more heavily Democratic with a stronger liberal base to which this sort of ad directly appeals. The same could also be said of Republicans Grassley and Collins. Still, it's Ben Nelson - Nebraska's only statewide elected Democrat - who they've chosen to target with this national campaign.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Either Ben Nelson is pulling all of these strings from behind the scenes or we're looking at a whole lot of barking up the wrong tree.
Of course, Nelson is guilty of drafting a letter supporting the efforts of the Finance Committee and calling for "additional time to achieve a bipartisan result." But, guess what, that letter was also signed by Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and the aformentioned Wyden of Oregon. Again, those Senators hail from three states where delaying reform is much more of a liability, where an attack from the left might have made a whole lot more sense.
Yet, it's Nelson who's attacked. And, in that attack on Nelson is an implied assault on the interests of the people of Nebraska - not to mention the Nebraska Democratic Party and our local progressive community. How so? Precisely because we are considered weak and precisely because our being divided is the most likely to mean our being conquered.
As for the people of Nebraska, this campaign could be declared an act of war against our entire political culture. I've never bought into the notion that following Ben Nelson's model is the only pathway to success for local Democratic candidates. I've also spent years fighting against the idea that Nebraskans will never elect anyone who's more progressive than Nelson. But, the fact remains that Nelson has campaigned, has won, and has governed on the promise of bipartisan leadership. It's that very promise for which he's now being attacked.
I agree that too high a priority is often placed on the appearance bipartisanship. But, I also know that Nebraska Democrats working to rebuild and Nebraska progressives working to open peoples' minds would stand to lose much if Nelson broke faith with the wide spectrum of Democrats, Republicans, and indepenedents who've elected him - especially under such intense pressure from out-of-state liberal activists.
These organizations have shown no concern at all for the ramifications and the stakes at the local level. I suspect this speaks to a genuine belief that their progressive movement would be better off without Ben Nelson serving as a Democrat in the U.S. Senate. - even if, right now, that would mean Nebraskans losing their best representative and their strongest foothold from which to build a new political identity.
Three quotes really stand out for me in defining this whole back-and-forth. For starters, there was the intro by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow when she welcomed Mike Snider to her show last week:
Republicans just aren't that relevant to policy outcomes, to what passes in either House of Congress. They got really, really, really, really badly trounced in the last election and therefore they are now a really, really, really, really small minority in both Houses of Congress.
So, Republicans don't matter that much. And, that means that even the pro-health care reform forces are targeting Democrats - conservative Democrats.
Whether it's because Conserva-Dems are sympathetic to the insurance, or drug, or medical supply companies or because they're simply ideologically opposed to health reform for some reason, conservative Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson of Nebraska have cast themselves as swing voters on health care - the ones who will make or break this chance at reform.
What Maddow doesn't understand is that Nelson hasn't cast himself as a swing vote on health care. He was elected to that position by the people of Nebraska, whom he still represents. Like it or not, in Nebraska, Republicans are still relevant. They matter. They're certainly not a "really, really, really, really small minority" - no matter who's won how many elections across the country. Deal with it.
The second quote comes from Snider himself reporting to the Huffington Post about the personal phone call he received from Nelson:
[The Senator] didn't offer to do the one thing Snider wanted to hear: support the public option. And that, in the end, might end up affecting how Snider votes the next time Nelson is up for reelection.
"I volunteered to put signs up for him," he says of Nelson's earlier runs for office. "But if he is not going to support this it is going to be real tough to support him next time around."
The one thing I regret about my prior post on this subject was writing, "It's cheap and unfair to reduce Nelson's well-known philosophical difference with the left-wing of the Democratic Party to just some insidious instance of quid pro quo." That statement was jumped upon as my suggesting the public option was strictly a left-wing idea. I don't believe that's the case and will freely admit that, on this particular issue, Nelson's out-of-touch with mainstream Democratic voters - probably even in Nebraska.
Snider, though, hits the nail on the head - speaking as a Nebraskan, as a Democrat, and as a recent Nelson supporter. We volunteered. We nominated. We elected. Nelson hasn't lied to us about who he is, what he stands for, and how he leads. We've made choices in our elected representatives, and - yes - those choices are bound to have consequences for the rest of the country. If enough of us come to regret our choice, that damn well should be reflected in future elections. However, that's our fight for our principles - which won't be dictated to us by outside political actors pretending to be some ultimate authority on who passes for a progressive and what's acceptable of a Democrat.
Finally, the last quote that stands out to me comes from President Barack Obama's Chief Of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, as he simply declared this sort of attack against Nelson is "f--king stupid". I couldn't have said it better myself, so I'm not going to try.
Honestly, I'm glad that Snider has had the opportunity to tell his story. But, it's really unforgiveable that so much money has been wasted attacking Ben Nelson over health care reform rather than winning over the people of Nebraska to the principles we want to see represented and the policies we want to see supported.
Such a campaign might have done amazing things - but it wouldn't have attracted national attention and certainly wouldn't have made for as strong a fundraising pitch. Yet, this is where the true battle's being fought - at our kitchen tables, around the water cooler, in the coffeeshops.
This isn't a fight for one man's vote but for the people's faith. This "stupid" attack on Nelson loses sight of that. Both in Nebraska and across the country, we can't afford to do the same.