No, not the King of Pop. I’m talking about state Rep. Michael Jackson (“D”), who’s running as an Independent with an official campaign strategy of taking as many African-American votes away from Democratic Rep. Don Cazayoux as possible. Jackson insists that such a strategy will allow him to sneak up the middle and win in November, but at only 9% in the polls, such a scenario is beyond dubious.
As of August 17th, Jackson only had $12,600 on-hand. That’s peanuts. But it’s still worth asking: who’s giving him the peanuts?
Well, a significant share ($6,900) came from developer Lane Grigsby, a man who spent tens of thousands of dollars on his own attack ads and mailers against Cazayoux in May, and from two of his relatives. Grigsby’s motive for bankrolling Jackson is pretty sickeningly transparent — he doesn’t want Jackson to win; he just wants to satisfy his desire to see Cazayoux lose.
That sort of thing is messed up, but it’s not as messed up as this contribution that Jackson collected on July 26th. Yes, you read that correctly: Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield (NC-01) sent Jackson a $500 check from his campaign committee two weeks after he entered the race as an independent. Let me repeat this: G.K. Butterfield, a Democrat in the House of Representatives, donated $500 to help defeat Don Cazayoux, a fellow Democrat.
Pardon me for saying so, but that’s pretty fucked up.
contribute to jackson when he was running in the primary?
then maybe you could infer some sort of personal or political affinity… which doesn’t expunge him, he should still be working to elect the democrats that are on the ballot as democrats, but…
if he’s only giving up money as an afterthought when the guy’s running against a democrat… that’s something more sinister.
As the above comment noted, if there is some individual or family connection, that doesn’t excuse this but perhaps explains it. But, my guess is that’s not the case. If this is a case of someone wanting to support another black candidate for the sake of supporting a black candidate, this is no different than Nikki Tinker without the racist venom. It’s potentially worse, as unlike the Memphis seat, we could very well lose this one because of crap like this.
I think this indirectly brings up a larger issue that has been discussed off and on here over the campaign — progressive support for Blue Dog Democrats in conservative districts. Like most (but certainly not all) of the regular posters here, I squarely put myself in the liberal wing of the party. But I have absolutely no problem supporting more conservative Democrats in seats where they are good matches for their districts. Don Cazayoux certainly fits that qualification for me. So does Travis Childrers. So does Gene Taylor (who should be up for canonization for his work on Katrina recovery).
Where do I draw the line? On so-called Democrats who go out of their way to stick it to the party. Obvious candidates are Joe Lieberman (who I think is operating out of a genuine but misguided sense of what he thinks is right), and Zell Miller (who I think just wants attention). I also have no problem ousting crooks like Bill Jefferson, or supporting progressive challenges in progressive districts (like Donna Edwards — she’s going to be a great Congresswoman). That’s very, very different from someone who is going to have a more conservative voting record, especially on military and social issues, than the rest of the party. Consider Representative Cazayoux. He could have very easily pulled a Rodney Alexander or John Kennedy, moved to the right, glossed over a few past positions, and ran as a Republican. He didn’t. In a Republican-leaning district, he stood up as a Democrat and won. Same thing with Representative Taylor. I’m sure he’s faced pressure (or at least had the opportunity) to switch parties during the long span the GOP controlled Congress. He didn’t.
I understand the opposing viewpoint that we’re progressive people first, and especially on issues like gay rights and reproductive rights, we should not support people who oppose that vitally important agenda. I myself am a Democrat because I’m on the left, not on the left because I’m a Democrat. On those issues, I’ll oppose the Blue Dogs as much as I will conservative Republicans. But I’ve chosen to identify with and support a broad-based political party that needs 50%+1 of votes and seats in Congress to push forward any agenda.
Let’s not be like the Republicans. Look at the 2006 elections, and the candidates they put up in the open seats in southern Arizona, the Denver suburbs, upstate New York, and eastern Iowa. All of those are swing districts that in a normal year could equally support Democrats or Republicans. But the GOP chose candidates so far to the right of the majority of those districts, only in a Republican wave year would they have any shot at winning. Increasingly, the folks that control the GOP seem to have a very, very narrow definition of what a “Good Republican” is, and they are increasingly paying the price for it.
OK, I’ve gone off topic a bit — and now am ready for my next cup of morning coffee!!
It seems to be a D+9 district. Is it safe to primary this guy? Seems like it might be; he won unopposed two years ago.