| There he goes again. Fresh off from trashing liberal bloggers (like us) for pushing "long shot" House candidates, Stuart Rothenberg is taking aim at DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen himself for the crime of, um, promoting Democratic House candidates. But let's walk through Rothenberg's latest opus one step at a time before we get to that.
After a long hangover spent lying face-first in the gutter, the GOP is on the upswing, Rothenberg says:
Given that, it certainly appears that the DCCC is running a risk by promoting some candidates who have little or no chance to win in the fall, and by lumping together very strong contenders with second-tier campaigns.
Running the risk of what, exactly? Losing the undeniably uphill races and having blowhards like Stu Rothenberg say "I told you so!" in their beltway-brained columns? I think that's a risk that the DCCC would gladly take with a yawn.
Rothenberg singles out the campaigns of Sam Bennett (PA-15), David Boswell (KY-02), Judy Feder (VA-10) and Anne Barth (WV-02) as dubious choices for the committee's "Red to Blue" program based on either the redness of their districts, the popularity of the incumbents, or their financial disadvantages. That's all well and good, but who says the DCCC shouldn't fight against the odds? After all, as well-timed expenditures by the DCCC in districts like CA-11, KS-02, KY-03, NY-20, and PA-04 showed in 2006, it's worth keeping your options open and having as many strong campaigns in place around the country as possible. Instead, Rothenberg would rather see the DCCC wave the white flag like "sensible realists".
Rothenberg seems to subscribe to a very particular view about politics: if a campaign is not in the obvious top tier of pickup opportunities, they are not worth your attention or even your respect.
Take his sniping against the candidates listed in the DCCC's "Emerging Races" and "Races to Watch" slates, which he lambastes for including some "truly odd" and "bizarre" choices like Jim Harlan (LA-01), Linda Ketner (SC-01), Josh Zeitz (NJ-04) and Ron Hubler (IA-05). Rothenberg admits that Democrats are not expecting upsets by this bunch, and that their inclusion on these lists does not mean that the D-Trip is committed to funding them, but he can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that the committee wants to give these hard-working candidates a friendly pat on the back. I guess he would prefer Chris Van Hollen to give each candidate a personal kick in the ass instead.
Rothenberg goes even further:
But if the DCCC is going to go out of its way to promote certain races, it ought to be responsible for those selections.
Responsible how, exactly? Should the DCCC be tried before a jury of Stuart Rothenberg, David Broder and Brendan Nyhan on charges of slight exuberance in the service of politics? Should we be demanding that MAD Magazine devote an issue to mocking the D-Trip? Should we get out there and tar-and-feather Chris Van Hollen?
Somehow, I have a feeling that CVH's reputation will do just fine after this election. Not that Stu Rothenberg would agree:
But if the national landscape continues to move even slightly more back toward the Republicans, eroding (but certainly not eliminating) the Democrats' huge early advantages, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) might find himself promoting dozens of candidates with no chance of winning. And that would be embarrassing and self-defeating.
It's sort of funny. This is at least the second time this year (by my count), that Rothenberg has implied that Van Hollen should be ashamed of himself. (Back in May, he claimed that CVH should be embarrassed for putting GOP incumbents on notice after Travis Childers' win.) But does he deliver this kind of special scorn to NRCC Chair Tom Cole? No, he bends over backwards to call Cole "not the real problem". Of course, the fact that Cole lost three special elections in deeply red seats is nothing to be embarrassed about. Not at all.
But hey, since we're talking about people who ought to feel embarrassed, how about Stu Rothenberg himself for writing all this? |
