In his solid blue district, Democratic Partisan Voting Index of +8.3, Dennis Kucinich is facing a primary challenge from Rosemary Palmer. Palmer's run appears to be focused on two points. First, she argues that by running for President again, Kucinich is not doing enough to represent the OH-10 in Congress. Second, she seems to oppose the specific ways in which Kucinich is trying to bring an end to the war in Iraq. Concerning the latter, here are some points of disagreement:
Through that tenure, he has accomplished very little, and has been ineffective in working with his colleagues to negotiate a common sense Iraq withdrawal plan. The war has now spanned almost five of those 12 years.
The Congressman was elected to fulfill his role in the Congress, cast votes and work with both Democrats and Republicans to reach an agreement on responsible conditions of withdrawal from the war.
OK. So Kucinich is supposed to find a "common sense Iraq withdrawal plan" through "work with both Democrats and Republicans." Even though I have taken a different strategic approach to trying to end the war than Congressman Kucinich, I have to say that this passage sets off some red flags for me. What withdrawal plan, exactly, would both Democrats and Republicans support? Perhaps, just like the Washington Post, Palmer has some sort of never before seen withdrawal plan that would be supported by more than two House Republicans and three Senate Republicans. Looking for more information on this plan, I turned to the "Iraq and Iran" section of her website. Here was the first sentence:
After six years of fighting the War on Terror, terrorism remains the single largest threat to America's national security.
Now she is validating the "war on terror" frame. Yeah, that is exactly what we need Democrats in blue seats to do doing. I did eventually find Palmer's plan:
I call for a concurrent two-tiered program that involves negotiations with all parties to the Iraq conflict (except Al Qaeda) leading to a floating timetable for withdrawal as well as an overall regional security conference involving all nations of the Middle East. Both discussions should be sponsored by the United Nations.
A floating timetable for withdrawal? I admit that I am not really sure what that means, but my best guess is that it means a withdrawal timetable without fixed dates, aka, not actually a timetable. So, I guess we are in Washington Post territory now, where a "common sense" withdrawal plan that would receive Republican support actually means a meaningless, vague notion that we might withdraw someday, but we aren't promising anything. And then there are the multiple mentions of the need for a "strong military" on her site, which strike me as code for saying that we need to increase military spending. Whatever problems I have with Congressman Kucinich, I applaud him for his stance on reducing military spending, as the national security state is a serious obstacle to progressive governance. Overall, it strikes me that Palmer's challenge to Kucinich on Iraq is coming not only from Kucinich's right, but from the right of the Democratic Party mainstream.
More in the extended entry, including Paul Hackett's entry into the campaign.
. Paul related a story he'd never told, which occured on the day after he won the Democratic Primary in the OH-02 Congressional race in 2005. You'll recall, this was the point when folks were starting to realize that we had a real race on our hands down south, and national attention was trickling in to this candidate from Southern Ohio. Well, driving through the District that day after the Primary, Hackett received a call from Dennis himself. As Paul said, Dennis stated he'd be rooting for Schmidt, that Hackett was a Democrat in Name only, that he didn't like Paul because he'd served in the Iraq War, and a whole host of other statements that made it sound like not only is Dennis out of touch, but anti-military.(…)
Hackett also stated that Dennis policies on the war are "circus politics" and that Kucinich is intensely partisan. Since Paul and others believe that the Democrats need to take the reins on Iraq, but that we're going to have to eventually fix the problem in conjunction with the other party, these sentiments came into play with Paul's endorsement as well.
Jerid also has the complete audio of the conference call. If true, that is a pretty damning story against Kucinich. However, not only does the Kucinich campaign deny that is how the conversation went, but how can Kucinich both be cheering for Schmidt and be intensely partisan at the same time? I can't say I really accept Hackett's version of events on that call, especially since they only come out now, two years later, during a campaign to unseat Kucinich. Not to mention that in Hackett's statements, we once again see the echoes of the "we must work with both Democrats and Republicans" to end the war theme.
If Kucinich gets in trouble for spending too much time running for President, that is one thing. However, the attacks he is facing in this primary campaign on how to end the Iraq war appear to be in line with the claims of many Republican "moderates" who want to end the war, but those darn Democrats only allow them to vote on legislation with fixed, rather than "floating," timetables. In essence, when it comes to Iraq, it is a primary battle between someone, Palmer, who would have voted against the fully-funded withdrawal plan long pushed by the Out of Iraq caucus via the McGovern amendment, and someone, Kucinich, who voted in favor of the McGovern amendment. One progressive foreign policy vote in the House would be replaced with a non-progressive foreign policy vote in the House, and progressives would be one step further away from a "total party takeover."
Whatever problems I have with Kucinich, I have to side with him in this primary. This is the opposite of the sort of primary challenges we need to help improve the progressive base in the House. Hopefully, his second quixotic run for President won't lead to his downfall in Congress.
