Wasserman Schultz: A Good Start, But Not There Yet

Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Miami Tuesday night:

Under fire from Democratic political activists and bloggers for not actively campaigning for three Miami Democrats, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz invited the trio to a Miami fundraiser last night, introducing them to the assembled donors and politicoes.

Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez and Annette Taddeo all got invites to the Chef Allen's fundraiser in Aventura. Beneficiaries of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser: four incumbent Democratic House members from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Indiana and California.

This is a good start, considering that just last week, DWS said she preferred "working behind the scenes to help those Democratic candidates but not - by not publicly coming out against my - the Republican incumbents." (See 1:22.)

However, it's not enough. This was merely an invite to a fundraiser for other candidates. What we've asked is for Debbie to endorse our South Florida trio without reservation, and throw fundraisers for each of them - just like she did for Ron Klein, just like she did for Suzanne Kosmas. Really, it's not that hard.

I think our pressure on this issue has helped push Wasserman Schultz in the right direction. Now she just needs to take a few more steps.

•  so much for "behind the scenes" work

  can "behind the scenes" be called "beltway"?

  Those days are numbered.  

  by jalapeno on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

  •  Yes, I really didn't understand

    how a public figure who holds the position she does could say that she preferred not to support Democratic candidates publicly. Democratic politics is supposed to be public politics. Failing to support them publicly is failing to support them, particularly when supporting and promoting them is your job.

    If the Diaz-Balarts and Ross-Lehtinen are such good friends to her, they should understand that her public support for their Democratic rivals is just part of the world, the political world, that they inhabit, and they should be adults about it and not let it affect their friendships. On the other hand, when DWS says she doesn't want to come out publicly against them because she doesn't want to damage her ability to work with them - which of course assumes that their Democratic challengers will lose - then she has to explain in which respects she has been able to successfully win them over to vote for Democratic positions. I think she will be hard-pressed to demonstrate that her ability to work with them has produced positive outcomes for the country or their districts.

    by psnyder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:48:45 PM PDT

    •  if the foo was on the other shoot

      or shoe on the other foot, do you actually think they would sit back?  If they smelled blood they wouldn't have a choice.

      by jalapeno on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM PDT

      •  No way they would.

        Have you seen their voting records? Yikes! They are relics of the south Florida Cuban community of the past. Time to sweep them aside and put in new leadership that is more in tune with the current constituency.

        by psnyder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM PDT

      •  They'd give her their full bipartisan support

        a la Norquist and Delay.

        Date rape.

        And they'd do con much gusto, to the applause of their party.  To Wasserman Schultz, it'd be "Hey, it's not personal, Debbie, it's just business."

        Beware of Republicans bearing "friendship."

        by ogre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

•  Pressure from the bottom up

  Is inherently good for the system. It is Jacksonian Democracy in action, and the more, the better.

  by Ivan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM PDT

  •  Good to hear you think so......

    especially after you beat up on Andrew at NPI for doing that very thing when he called out the BIAW 7.
    From "The Slog" and comment #16....

    "Just because twerp "progressive" bloggers demand that the Speaker club certain Democrats into submission on their pet causes doesn't mean that is necessary or desirable -- or even politically possible."

    I wonder why you haven't commented directly on the NPI post about this issue.

    I guess it's ok for you to club the grassroots "twerps" who don't have powerful positions like you.

    by rickeagle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM PDT

    •  Oh, get real!

      "Powerful position," my ass! I'm just a volunteer like everyone else, and at least I don't hide behind an anonymous handle. I don't comment on NPI posts because nobody else does, either.

      For your information, Andrew and I corresponded about this issue in private, in which I laid out to him exactly how he could use his blog to lobby effectively, instead of just spewing into the air.

      See, people get so caught up in this "netroots" thing that they lose sight of what actually, precisely pushes the buttons of individual legislators, and how they can use the medium as a supplement to and an adjunct to other concerted action.

      Twerp bloggers, and bloggers who are not twerps, like everyone else in the society at large, lose perspective sometimes and tend to inflate their role in the mix beyond its actual context and proportion.

      Just because blogs are the new toy doesn't give them any more clout, necessarily, or make them any more effective. If and when they are, great! But the end is the point, not always the means.

      I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss my particular interaction with another blogger. But what I said applies to DWS also. Activists in HER district have to be putting on the pressire IN ADDITION to the noise coming from the "blogosphere."

      That's exactly the same point I made in relation to the situation in WA, and I stand behind it.

      My contract information is feeely available if you wish to discuss this further.

      by Ivan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

•  she does seem to be slowly moving

  towards where she should be. she should have open support for them by december.

  by Liberal Youth on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM PDT

  •  of which year?

    by agnostic on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM PDT

  •  So what?

    She's still not doing her job.  As per her job description.

    It's really simple:  If you're a cop happens to be buddies with a crook and therefore refuse to do your job, you can resign or get fired.  Never heard of a grace period there.

    by Jules Beaujolais on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM PDT

    •  it was dry snark

      she comes out by december, the election is in november. so she would be too late. that was my point that she is not doing her job.

      by Liberal Youth on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM PDT

•  Yay us. n/t

  by LightningMan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM PDT

•  Does she realize....

  That she could actively campaign for these three without giving the incumbents anything to complain about.   Point out the incumbents' records.  Highlight the things that the incumbents are most proud of and explain to the people of Florida why the Democratic challengers represent a better option.

  There is no reason why she can't take a high road while still being a ferocious campaigner.

  by Juneappal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM PDT

•  Oh, for crap's sake

  ... by not publicly coming out against my - the Republican incumbents." (See 1:22.)

  Squeamish about publicly coming out against Republicans?  Play bipartisan paddycake on someone else's dime.  First we need a majority, next a veto proof majority, and now we need to win without criticizing the opposition.  How much higher can the bar go?  

  by DWG on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:02:15 PM PDT

  •  You'd imagine that she's felt a lot of heat

    for being "friends" with scum who vote against health care for kids.

    Who could have... I mean, WHO would ever have imagined that might happen?

    by ogre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:35:48 PM PDT

•  Not enough by a longshot.,,

  for someone in her position

  by irate on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM PDT

  •  Her democratic "position"

    Rep. Wasserman Schultz (FL) is in charge of the DCCC’s Red-to-Blue campaign, intended to turn red seats and red states to blue ones.
            For someone in this position to fail to give support to Democratic candidates because of friendship with or a working relationship with republican incumbents is inexcusable or dare I say liebermanesque. She should resign from the DCCC post immediately.

    by irate on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM PDT

•  Somebody should check to see

  if she's really a member of the party.

  

  Stranger things have happened.

  by Sprinkles on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:05:25 PM PDT

•  Wasserman Schultz needs to go.

  Half-hearted support is as bad as whole-hearted opposition. I guarantee that Republicans will use Wasserman Schultz in their advertisements against Democratic candidates.

  "They can't even get their own people to endorse [Democratic candidate]."

  With friends like Wasserman Schultz, who needs Wasserman Schultz?

  by jimbo92107 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM PDT

•  stay on her

  She does what we need or she gets a nice, juicy primary challenge. Repeat process until she is removed.

   They work for us. We'll keep reminding them in case they get confused.

  by Stranded Wind on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM PDT

  •  I'd think she'd be ripe for one...

    There are some pretty liberal pockets in her district. The voting records of her Republican friends in South Florida might hurt her in some of her support groups. She has Wilton Manors, for instance.

    by PBCliberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM PDT

    •  I don't see her losing a primary

      anymore than I see Meek losing one (it's funny how Meek skates here, although he's not on Red to Blue).  She has name recognition, she has to have chits galore stored up, and she'd spend any challenger into the ground in an expensive media market.

      At this point, the problem is w/ Pelosi more than it is w/ W-S.  W-S is free to stay on the sidelines here.  She is not, however, free to do so while retaining her Red to Blue position, as her current approach is antithetical to her holding it.

      Pelosi should give her until, say 5/1 to make a choice.  If W-S can't fully commit to these 3 challengers by then, she needs to be replaced.  It's not all that complicated.

      Hell, Rahmbo could explain the facts of life to W-S here in the amount of time it would take for them to drink a little coffee together.

      by RFK Lives on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:40:43 PM PDT

      •  I don't think she'd lose either...

        ...what I think she'd do is back peddle until she was saying precisely what she should. You probably couldn't pull her Jewish constituency, but you might be able to cut into her gay one with a gay candidate.

        I think the right set of candidates would make her sweat.

        by PBCliberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM PDT

      •  A choice

        It doesn't seem that hard - if you want a job getting Democrats elected, you have to try and get Democrats elected.  I think Rahmbo could probably explain the facts of life to her in the time it takes him to fill a cup of hot coffee and toss it in her general direction.  It is frustrating.  If you want a job in the party leadership, you have to be partisan.

        by robertgp124 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM PDT

•  Considering the stakes

  Not coming out against Republican incumbents seems bizarre.

  Makes me wonder what the Repubs hold over her to make her hum such a different tune from last cycle.

  "Nice kids ya get there, be a shame to see sumpin happen to one of 'em if someone started campaigning against their delegation friends, know what I mean?"

  by Bionic on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:23:53 PM PDT

•  The threat of a primary challenge, and following

  through is the netroots greatest tool.  When nominal Democrats deviate from the basic principaled political and legal positions of Democracy they need to be primaried.  Up next should be Chris Carney, Chucky Schumer, and Heath Shuler.  And if DWS doesn't follow through consistently here, she needs to go.  The only powers the people have left--vetting good progressives and the ballot box.  The "rule of law" is lost for a generation so only an overwhelming political response will produce change.

  by rrheard on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:25:31 PM PDT

  •  When is she

    up for re-election. And what type of district is she in?  Seems like she has gotten a little too comfortable in the Washington lifestyle.

    by ctsteve on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM PDT

    •  House seat

      EVERY two years.

      by ogre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM PDT

•  If she can't do her job

  she ought to be taken out of leadership positions..

  We can't be fighting Republicans and Lieberman wing Democrats.

  I've donated directly to the candidates instead of the DCCC.. I hope if we capture these seats these 3 are give special props in the party, then we need to start nudging the Wasserman-Shultz out of leadership.. Primary challenges could be the next step during the next election cycle..

  by Blue Texas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM PDT

•  Term Limits

  I really think we need to look at the terms we set for these critters, even amending the constitution.

  It is great to have the option to re elect a good critter.

  But there are downsides to incumbency and so many problems could be solved by  having term limits.

  There is plenty of talent around and all the time critters spend on raising money to run again would be spent doing the people's work.

  Heck lobbyist would have less sway as well.

  Oh and it should be unlawful to become a lobbyist if you worked in government or run for elective office if you worked as a lobbyist.

  by defjef on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:05:24 PM PDT

•  I've contacted Hoyer

  the DCCC and DWS office telling them all the same thing - if she will not do her job then she should be removed from her post and an aggresive dem put in her place. Hoyer's office was very courtious and seemed to take my call seriously. They did not try to cut me off.  

  by exconservative on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM PDT

•  I smell AIPAC on Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

  sorry, I don't want to be conspiratorial but it's the only other link between DWS and IRL, (other than them being from the same state).

  Ros-Lehtinen isn't just any Republican, she is one of the hawkiest hawks on the Hill, and I'm not just talking about Cuba policy.

  She's been trying for years to have the "terrorist label" removed from an Iranian terrorists-tuned-US-informant group: MEK. A truly nasty bunch of people who carried out Saddam Hussein's dirty tricks.

  http://www.iranpeyvand.com/...

  The group killed several Americans during the 1970s. It also participated in the 1979-1981 U.S. Embassy seizure in Tehran. In 1997, the MEK and its various appendages were designated a "foreign terrorist organization."

  Last week, State Department spokesman Greg Sullivan told The Hill the MEK is considered "a combatant" and U.S. officials believe its soldiers "are undertaking some of the action in the south [of Iraq] where enemy combatants have disguised themselves as civilians."

  Ros-Lehtinen vehemently disputed State’s assertion to The Washington Times, calling the spokesman a "weasel" and a "gutless bureaucrat who won’t come out of his cave." Sullivan did not respond to a request for further comment.

  Ros-Lehtinen dismissed the group’s anti-American actions as "past history." She said, "It has no bearing on what is going on right now in the field."

  "In no meeting or briefing I have ever attended has anyone called this group an anti-U.S., terrorist organization," she continued, adding that the group has provided useful intelligence to the U.S. government on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

  Ros-Lehtinen is well to the right of even BushCo on foreign policy, if that is indeed imaginable. (well, yes: McCain)

  No one knows why US and Israel are actively protecting a terrorist group that has killed American civilians. But they are:

  The MEK also has the support of the state of Israel. It has the support of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby here in the United States. It has the support of many members of congress, whether they have arrived at their position independently or as a result of intensive lobbying. The MEK does have a base of support among the anti-Tehran groups in Washington.

  This is why I have been saying there is more than meets the eye on the DWS issue.

  Ros-Lehtinen is a deadly mix of cold-war anachronism combined with neocon amorality. There is no excuse for supporting that. Any other member of the Florida delegation, even the Diaz-Balart's may be excusable but not Ros-Lehtinen.

  by Florida Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM PDT

  •  Lincoln Diaz-Balart

    is a big supporter of the Center for a Free Cuba of Felipe Sixto fame.  Due to  the Sixto story, the Center is now coming under increasing scrutiny and there seem to be quite a few suspicious things happening there.

    by Jules Beaujolais on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM PDT

    •  Please keep us posted ...

      ... on the "suspicious things happening there".  Exposing them for what they are would be sweet.

      by Florida Politics on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM PDT

      •  It's not a secret

        what they are;  Here are a few links for you:

        http://www.terrorfileonline.org/...

        http://www.terrorfileonline.org/...

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

        http://www.zmag.org/...

        http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/...

        And USAID itself is rather a right-wing racket.

        by Jules Beaujolais on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM PDT

•  It's time to Primary her because

  that's the only message that Debbie Wasserman Schultz understands.  With her close Republican "friends," she definitely sounds more like Phony-Joe-LIEberman, and I wonder if she got off the sidelines for his Republican backed win.  Furthermore, it's been long overdue to replace her as chair for The Red To Blue Campaign.   When she said that she preferred "working behind the scenes to help those Democratic candidates but not-- by not publicly coming out against my-- the Republican incumbents" sounds disingenuous, smarmy, and totally uncool.  She needs to make a party decision now rather than later (is she getting a cue from Hil...-oh no, not another one?).  

  by yowsta on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:29:18 PM PDT

•  She stopped ostracizing them.

  That's all.

  To imagine that she deserves applause and laudatory comments for it is... astonishing.

  Get off your butt, Debbie, and DO YOUR JOB.  Do it, or step down and let a real Democrat--someone who will campaign AGAINST Republicans--do it.

  by ogre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM PDT

•  It's the Cuban PAC money

  I read some place that Debbie Dubya was getting some of
  that Cuban PAC money.  

  THAT's why she won't go after that particular trio of
  Republicans -- they're ALL Cubans!

  by byDesign on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM PDT

  •  Keep in mind

    that in South Florida Cuban-Americans (not Cubans) represent a sizable portion of the population and many are politically active. All politicians in S Fla have support from one or another portion of the Cuban-American population.

    by doc2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM PDT

•  Dear Debbie

  Most of us here know that you're not a Joe Lieberman or a Zell Miller. You are one of the good guys/gals.

  Working with republicans from neighboring districts to help serve your constituents is acceptable and admirable. But during election season, it is your job as a democratic congresswoman and leader to do all in your power to defeat your republican colleagues and friends.  Period. No justification of your laying back is acceptable, whether it is based on personal or professional considerations.

  If you don't come around, this will hurt you long-term as you seek to move up in the party, but it's definately not too late to change your position. You've had a meteoric rise in your short time in the house, but there's a fine line between a rapid rise to the top and what many are now perceiving to be a rapid descent to the bottom, from being a fresh face with new ideas to being the worst type of insider politician.

  Joe Garcia and the other candidates are putting it all on the line to fight uphill battles against Ileana and the Balart Bros. The very least you can do is to do everything you can do. That's all we're saying.

  by doc2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:18:25 PM PDT

•  Is there an ActBlue page dedicated to these 3 yet

  If there wasn't, I just created one for them (miamitrio). Please give what you can. Stand up to the democratic establishment and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Support changing FL to blue.

  by tnichlsn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM PDT

•  Tell Debbie to Stand Up or Stand down

  Please sign the petition (include your Congressional District number) to let Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz know how you feel about her unwillingness to support South Florida candidates for US House.  Please keep your comments positive.

  http://www.petitiononline.com/...

  by wsejour on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM PDT

•  She used to understand: Rubberstamp video

  http://www.crooksandliars.com/...

  She got it then.  She understood what we were trying do, jumped on the drama and humor that the FDL netroots people had created. Only a few weeks later, she met with some of the people who had "Crashed the Gate" with  Crashing the Gate.

  We just need to reminder of who she brung to the dance floor.

  by JayAckroyd on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:45:29 PM PDT

  •  You're a wallflower now...

    ...you've been dumped for the power politics crowd. Grassroots and netroots were her ticket to the prom and once this sophomore showed her moves to the in-crowd, what more could you offer her?

    Her district is ultrasafe. She doesn't need your help or your crumpled dollar bills. The DLC can pimp her out to pull in the big bucks for more blue dogs like Heath Shuler. Go ahead try to "primary her" and you'll see the big bucks and big names come out to backhand whatever John Doe rabblerouser you can dredge up.

    by Enterik on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:10:39 AM PDT

•  There's something

  very unclear about all of this.  DWS was/is one of the founding members of the '30 something working group' that preens in front of the C-SPAN cameras after the formal business of the day of the House is concluded.

  I don't understand her reluctance to support democrats attempting to unseat re-fascists, especially based on her very public and archived rhetoric.  I can only conclude that there's some unknown quantity involved.

  I hope that she reconsiders, she has the potential to do some very good work.

  by Four of Nine on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:02:14 PM PDT

  •  None of them are under 40?

    Seriously, she is a member of the Congressional Cuba Democracy Caucus with the three republican incumbants in question and also shares some of the same GOP-leaning top donors FloSun Inc (federally subsidized, privately owned by Cuban expatriots which makes sugar crystals) and Greenberg Traurig LLP (Lawfirm with cuban-expatriot CEO).

    by Enterik on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:26:13 AM PDT