Patterico's Pontifications


Hypocrisy Not A Winning Look For Democrats

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:07 pm

[guest post by Dana]

House Democrats are angry with the DCCC for putting money behind MAGA candidates in the GOP primaries to try and put in place what they see as a easier candidates to defeat in November:

A growing number of House Democrats are seething at their own campaign arm for meddling in a GOP primary to promote a pro-Trump election conspiracy theorist — after months of warning that such candidates were a threat to democracy.

In public statements, private chats and complaints taken directly to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic members are aghast that the committee is spending nearly half a million dollars to air ads boosting Donald Trump-endorsed John Gibbs over Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), who voted to impeach Trump last year.

While Meijer is one of the few GOP lawmakers who voted to hold Trump accountable for his own false claims about the 2020 race, his blue-leaning seat is also a top Democratic target district this fall — and Gibbs is seen as an easier opponent to beat in November. The primary next Tuesday will kick off a three-month sprint to the general election.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy points to why this strategy is a problem:

“No race is worth compromising your values in that way”…

Democrats, like Murphy, fear the strategy could easily backfire, if a candidate like Gibbs were to win the general election amid a GOP wave — and the party also risks undercutting its own core message about the dangers of MAGA Republicans taking power. It could be harder for Democrats to claim that certain GOP candidates are an existential threat to the country if they are also using party money to push them closer to winning office.

A number of other Democrats have voiced their frustration about this “strategy,” citing the obvious danger if it backfires:

“Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to tell the truth about Jan. 6. To have people boosting candidates telling the very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in danger, is just mind-blowing,” said Murphy, who is not seeking reelection this fall.


“It’s very dangerous, I think, in this environment to be propping up candidates like that,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who called it “a terrible idea” and said he has raised his concerns to the DCCC.

“Of course, it could backfire. And that’s part of the reason why I don’t think it’s a good idea,” he said. “Not only do I think it sends the wrong message, but it’s substantively risky.”


“It’s dishonorable, and it’s dangerous, and it’s just damn wrong,” said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who said his party was at risk of accelerating the loss of the remaining “truly honorable and courageous Republicans” like Meijer, who was one of just 10 in his party to impeach Trump last year.


“Dirty games like this are part and parcel of political campaigns. But when you talk about putting money behind candidates who want to come to Washington and destroy our democracy… it’s not a political, dirty trick anymore,” Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) said. “It’s unconscionable.”

This just seems like an unbelievably stupid risk taken by Democrats. If the plan backfires, it would not only be very problematic for the party, but also for the nation if Trump-backed election conspiracy theorists got elected to office. But, even if it went the way Democrats hope it will, the optics would still be seen as craven. Democrats have now exposed themselves as the lip-service only party when it comes to what is a threat to our democracy. Because either Democrats believe that Trump-backed election conspiracy theorists are a threat to democracy and do not belong in government (like they’ve repeatedly claimed), or they do – so much so that they’re willing to spend money to help them get there. And the latter message, ultimately, is that they are the party of massive hypocrites. There really isn’t a middle ground in this. That hypocrisy is a point of attack that Republicans will be able to make over and over again.

Anyway, here’s how Rep. Peter Meijer summed it up, and rightfully so:

I’m sick and tired of hearing the sanctimonious bullshit about the Democrats being the pro-democracy party.

Also, as I was unable to locate video of just Meijer’s full reaction to the Democrats’ hypocrisy, in which he find himself a target, here is an interesting panel discussion about the issue, which includes Meijer blasting Democrats for their “strategy”:


38 Responses to “Hypocrisy Not A Winning Look For Democrats”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (1225fc)

  2. Democrats, like Murphy, fear the strategy could easily backfire, if a candidate like Gibbs were to win the general election amid a GOP wave — and the party also risks undercutting its own core message about the dangers of MAGA Republicans taking power.

    Sigh. There shouldn’t be commas after “Democrats” and “Murphy”. Otherwise, it’s just Democrats writ large, which would seemingly include the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, meaning there’s no conflict here.

    Politico needs better proofreaders.

    norcal (da5491)

  3. They just did it in Illinois, too. The Democrats. Spent $30 million in the Republican primary to knock out the sane Republican candidate and give the nomination to the Trumpkin nutjob whom they figure will be easier for J.B. Pritzker to beat.

    It’s worse than hypocritical. It’s unpatriotic.

    nk (e7e629)

  4. Why would they stop? They’ve been doing this for years, going back to Akin in 2012. The Podesta email leak showed that the Hillary campaign specifically identified Cruz, Trump, and Carson as the guys they wanted to run against, and their allies in the media willingly complied by boosting Trump’s signal in particular (no one here actually thought Joe and Mika had him on all the time early in his campaign because they were actually interested in what he had to say, are they?).

    Being a former Colorado, aka East California, resident, I’m pretty sure that’s how Boebert ended up beating a rather anodyne, bog-standard Republican like Scott McInnis, who was about as invisible, non-controversial a Representative as one can get. They ran that playbook in the state’s major elections this year, too, although it didn’t work and the MAGA candidates lost.

    They don’t care if middle-of-the-road GOP candidates that they can actually work with are voted out of office, all that matters is winning.

    Both Kinzinger and Meijer are understandably steaming about this, but what did they expect? The Democrats are driven by Cathedral neo-marxists these days, and their will to power is off the charts. Their playbook hasn’t changed since Lenin waltzed off that train. Kinzinger was rewarded for his stance by getting his district gerrymandered out of existence, and Meijer’s getting undermined for his. For what it’s worth, I don’t think he’ll actually lose, because that’s Amash’s old district, but he really needs to open his eyes about the kind of snakes the people running the opposing party are.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  5. But when you talk about putting money behind candidates who want to come to Washington and destroy our democracy… it’s not a political, dirty trick anymore,” Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) said. “It’s unconscionable.”

    Liz Cheney’s latest fans: Democratic donors

    JF (a6d404)

  6. Getting my cringe on for the upcoming tiresome and wholly predictable posts from the usual suspects. Sigh.

    I appreciate how hard you (and the other co-bloggers) work on the posts.

    Simon Jester (8089ba)

  7. Liz Cheney’s latest fans: Democratic donors

    JF (a6d404) — 7/27/2022 @ 7:55 pm

    Apples and watermelons

    norcal (da5491)

  8. We have seen Liz Cheney’s primary opponents. Right here, on this site. Wyoming Democrats who love their state and their country are no different than the Connecticut Republicans who supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in 2006.

    nk (e7e629)

  9. nk (e7e629) — 7/27/2022 @ 8:27 pm

    “Wyoming Democrats” LOL

    you didn’t read the article

    JF (a6d404)

  10. @9. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Katzenberg, Wyoming.

    Weinstein and Katzenberg: A Couple of Old Pals Wrestling for an Oscar

    Vividly recall when this was going on. And at the time, everybody in the bowels of Tinseltown knew Harvey’s rep. Everybody. Profits bought a lot of looks the other way. So Katzenberg’s ‘Captain ‘I’m shocked’ Renault’ act when Weinstein was finally outed is hypocrisy times 10 to the 23rd power.

    DCSCA (027b62)

  11. @9 Your linked article may have referred to supporters from outside the state, but I’m sure there are many Wyoming Democrats who support Cheney as well.

    norcal (da5491)

  12. @11. You’re sure??? Many???? All of them wouldn’t give Daughter Darth a snowballs chance in Hell:

    Gap Between GOP, Dem Voters In Wyoming Reaches New High

    The gap between the number of registered Republicans and Democrats in Wyoming reached a level in July higher than any on record with the secretary of state’s office. The percentage of registered Republicans as of July 1 was the highest since at least 1968, the earliest date for which records were available, while the percentage of registered Democrats was at its lowest point.

    Political experts on Wednesday attributed the chasm between parties to changing values, changing laws, and political strategies like crossover voting. “There’s no doubt that we’ve seen a real shift in the alignment of Wyoming voters. They’ve become more conservative, more aligned with conservative values, and that’s happened across the country in rural areas,” Matt Micheli, former chair of the Wyoming Republican Party, said in an interview with Cowboy State Daily. But, added Micheli, ideological changes aren’t the only factor behind that shift.

    There were 200,579 registered Republicans as of July 1 compared to 43,285 Democrats, for a split of about 71% to 15%.

    DCSCA (027b62)

  13. Nobody’s predicting a Cheney win, DCSCA, but have fun torching your straw man anyway.

    norcal (da5491)

  14. Principals? When has the dccc and dnc had principals. In states where the democrat party is in the minority many democrats register as republicans or if independents can vote in republican primaries register as independents. In my district when I voted early the democrat ballot had only two races where there was more then one candidate. Andrew yang and some never trumper neo-cons formed a third party today. Its supposed to attract moderate republicans and a few conservative democrats.

    asset (00a073)

  15. I think one could make a case against individual contribution limits, given that unlimited funds can be spent to promote fringe candidates of another party, thwarting the ability of grass-roots members of that party to support the candidates of their choice.

    The combination of unlimited party-committee donations and strict limits on individual contributions in these cases mutes the entire idea of political speech and free and fair elections.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  16. I’m with George Will on this issue, Kevin. Unlimited contributions, but full disclosure.

    Restricting contributions is restricting speech.

    norcal (da5491)

  17. @14: A party called the “Forward Party”? Sounds like a bunch of Progressives to me. At a guess: pro-abortion, anti-gun, higher income taxes, Supreme Court “reform”, national popular vote and fighting global warming.

    So, “centrist”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  18. @17 It’s a brilliant name for a party. If you’re against it, then you are “backwards” or “gridlocked”.

    norcal (da5491)

  19. Then “Progressive” would be a winner already.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  20. I’d favor chucking the whole system and having two parties called “statist” and “Free”, but only statists would run for office.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  21. I do think that #15 is a good way to challenge the current campaign finance system. It thwarts and sometimes criminalizes honest grass-roots action and enables and protects false flags and RF-ers.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  22. @19 But the Progressive Party (is there such a thing?) can’t make a claim to being centrist.

    norcal (da5491)

  23. @13. but have fun torching your straw man anyway.?

    You’re the torch bearer; you set ’em up:

    “I’m sure there are many Wyoming Democrats who support Cheney as well.”

    Bring your own marshmallows.

    DCSCA (027b62)

  24. This corrupt system only works if the corporate controlled democratic establishment keeps acting like a punching bag for the republican party. Obama was able to fool the left that he wasn’t a moderate waiting to cash in when left office. Reaching across the isle to have his hand slapped away by rethugs. Clinton and biden were corrupt grifters in it for the money with biden’s senility masking the grift. Trump came along and cleaned out the corporate stooges in the republican party like bush. Trump nearly sent the house of cards crashing down around the deep state. The right has restraints because of their capitalist and libertarian heritage that left does not. It all depends if democrat party can put up another corporate stooge/grifter to replace biden to delay the inevitable take over of the democratic party. Just today a bill to fund the police to help protect vulnerable moderate establishment was stop by left democrats and black caucus who want to defund the police. This is the ongoing fight to control the democratic party. The more moderates who are defeated makes it easier to take control the democrat party. To many here are in your bubble who think pelosi and biden have only minor differences with the squad and the rest of the left.

    asset (00a073)

  25. hypocritical is spelled “McConnell”

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. This country is run and ruled over by a political cartel dripping with so much corruption that it makes the mafia look like altar boys by comparison.
    And like an iceberg which shows only a small part of its mass above sea level, I get a very disconcerted feeling we have no grasp of the massive rest of it we can’t see beneath the waterline.

    mg (8cbc69)

  27. @19 But the Progressive Party (is there such a thing?) can’t make a claim to being centrist.

    This one won’t be either. It will be Left instead of Hard Left.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  28. I’ve always favored closed primaries and am surprised more states don’t use them. Open primaries or hybrid primaries seem to invite mischief and unwanted influences. Of course changing registration is not a huge obstacle, but it’s enough of an inconvenience in most cases to dampen broad schemes.

    Wyoming preferring the lies of team Trump over the hard-truths of Cheney just shows the virulence of the party infection…and that only talking about Biden while ignoring the elephant in the room is the ivermectin of politics. The GOP needs to attract and keep smart leaders like Cheney….and let them lead. This is the problem with supporting Trump, a man who will lie to his dying breath. Once you’re complicit with spreading lies, it’s hard to stop and admit error….there’s always something to rationalize the next lie.

    Eventually this stop-the-steal melodrama will run out of steam and the current crop of MAGA acolytes will demonstrate an inability to win elections or govern effectively. A diet of Twinkees and Ho-Ho’s can only go so far….

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  29. Do they not remember 2016 GOP presidential primary?

    It’s partly why we got Trump, when every liberal/Democratic-allied media where proactively “cheering” on Trump to win the primary.

    whembly (b770f8)

  30. This is the kind of dirty tricks that turns voters off. But that’s the way the politicians want it. Low turnout. It makes it easier for their faithful to reelect them. An incumbent would need to be pretty repellant in his own right to get the ordinary voter energized enough to vote him out. Oh, hi, Mr. Trump!

    nk (1ea1f4)

  31. 28… now that is a great impression of columnist Frank Rich. Well done!

    Colonel Haiku (159f8d)

  32. AJ_Liberty might be a little bit too harsh on the Wyoming GOP establishment. As I recall, the Central Committee almost split on the vote to un-recognize Liz Cheney — the Trumpkins only got one or two votes over. Fewer than the votes to not recognize each other at the sheep camp.

    nk (1ea1f4)

  33. OT: interesting piece at Bulwark on Orban. Would be interested in JVW’s take as he’s been a fan of Orban.

    PS: I was unable to read comment #31 as it appeared as a muddied puddle of orange bile…please have tech support investigate

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  34. It really sucks that both major political parties are in such dysfunction.

    Paul Montagu (062b7e)

  35. This sort of thing (running “anti”conservatice ads before a Republican primary in the hopes that pro-“conservative” Republicans will learn from that who is aligned with their ideology) goes back to Harry Reid in Nevada and even earlier other places, but it kind of worse to do when dealing with Trump allies, who may not stick to the constitution.

    July 29, 2012 at 1:17 p.m.

    …. Democrats have their thumbs on Republican scales in Senate primaries in Missouri and Wisconsin this summer, hoping to improve their own chances of maintaining a majority in November.

    The idea isn’t quite as far-fetched as it might sound.

    Two years ago, [in the election of 2010] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s allies invested heavily in an effort to help Sharron Angle win a contested GOP primary in Nevada after deciding she would be the easiest Republican to defeat in the fall. She won the nomination, but ultimately lost to Reid.

    Now Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri is running a series of television advertisements that strategists in both parties say indicates a preference for Rep. Todd Akin over primary rivals John Brunner and Sarah Steelman.

    At the same time, Majority PAC, a group with ties to Reid, has run television commercials selectively attacking Republican contenders in Missouri and Wisconsin, where primaries are set for next month.

    At first glance, each of the three ads run by McCaskill’s campaign appears to be an attack, one at each of her potential rivals.

    Yet one calls Akin “too conservative” to be a senator and says he once referred to President Barack Obama as a “complete menace to our civilization” — characteristics that seem more likely to appeal to Republican primary voters than to repulse them.

    In a brief interview in the Capitol, McCaskill said she decided to advertise before the primary because she has been attacked heavily by Republican outside groups and didn’t want to wait any longer before telling voters “how extremist, how flawed” the GOP field is.

    She sidestepped when asked if she has a preferred opponent, saying they were “three of a kind, one and the same.”

    The Democrats lost control of the House of representatives in the 2010 election but maintained control of the Senate till the 2014 election. (In 2018 they regained control of the House but not the Senate, and in 2020 – actually January 5, 2021, Donald Trump managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the Senate runoffs n Georgia and equally divide the Senate)

    Sammy FInkelman (1d215a)

  36. Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 7/27/2022 @ 10:58 pm

    The combination of unlimited party-committee donations and strict limits on individual contributions in these cases mutes the entire idea of political speech and free and fair elections.

    And there are higher contribution limits to PACs (political actions committees) than to individual candidates.

    These were all post-Watergate or ore-Watergate “reforms.”

    Better is 100% refundable political contributions up to a certain limit, and allowing a limited number of contributions that are very high (a small proportion of the number of potential donors)

    Sammy FInkelman (1d215a)

  37. “A 104-page report issued three months after the events at the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021, said the Capitol Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) was ordered by supervisors not to use “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” like flash bangs. However, video evidence—along with Capitol Police Use of Force Reports obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times—exposes conflicts in timelines, the brutality of the unprovoked attacks against Jan. 6 protesters, and how leadership ordered the deployment of munitions on a peaceful crowd.“

    Colonel Haiku (159f8d)

  38. Col Haiku: The Epoch Times headline seems to be talking about the Capitol Police, but most of their examples and video concern the Metropolitan Police! (local Washington, DC police force)

    The one Capitol Police possible excess use of force concerns Ashli Babbitt. But that attack was not unprovoked.

    They are also not giving us where this fit in the timeline.

    Sammy FInkelman (1d215a)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0869 secs.