Correcting Roll Call: No, Carnahan was Not "Tipping His Hand"

Roll Call reported today, based on a KMOX story, that Russ Carnahan might have tipped his hand about running in the 1st Congressional District against Lacy Clay. Roll Call says that a Carnahan aide said that he'd be running "in the district he lives in," which would currently mean running against Clay. However, they actually left out a key part of the quote (which was included in the KMOX story); the full quote was: “Umm, I’m not trying to be flippant but he will run in the district he lives in.”

The "I'm not trying to be flippant" is a clue that the aide knew that the question wasn't actually being answered. According to Missouri law, Carnahan could move to a new district and run there, so "running where he lives" doesn't really mean much. And this has been confirmed in quotes from Carnahan's office who said that the quote was misinterpreted. Roll call also cites an anonymous "Missouri Democratic source" as saying that Carnahan has been "sniffing around the 1st District for a long time." I wouldn't be surprised if he's exploring his options, but please keep in mind that both Antonio French and the St. Louis American have pointed out that there are St. Louis political operatives who have a vested interest in pushing for a primary fight.

I suppose it's possible that saying he'd run "where he lives" is a way of testing out some messaging he would use if he decided to run against Clay, but reading too much into a quote from an aide who was clearly instructed not to reveal his decision would be a mistake.

I Agree With Antonio French (and mostly with the American) on Russ Carnahan's Options

Antonio French is back blogging at Pub Def for what seems like the first time in eons and offers a pretty strong argument that Russ Carnahan should not run in Missouri's First District against Democrat Representative Lacy Clay. French offers several important reasons for Carnahan to avoid a Democratic showdown including tarnishing the family name and the threat of constant primary challenges even if he pulled off a victory. But what I think is the most interesting point is this one:

Some people are encouraging Carnahan to run against Clay for very selfish reasons, such as to increase turnout in their own elections. A well-financed, racially charged Congressional primary fight is sure to bring out voters for lower profile races down ballot. Like the treasurer’s race, for instance. Carnahan shouldn’t allow himself to be a tool of self-serving people who care less about the Democratic Party and the principles it stands for (such as inclusion) than they do their own ambitions. And even if Carnahan squeaked out an Election Night win, he will have so divided the district and the city that there would be little to celebrate.

If you recall, in late December I reached a fairly similar conclusion with different arguments.

French also links to the latest Political EYE in the St. Louis American which also argues, as I did, that Carnahan should run in the slightly Republican leaning 2nd District rather than against Clay. While I agree with much of what is said in the American, some of it is a bit perplexing. First of all, the title is "The growing isolation of Russ Carnahan," which strikes me as needlessly antagonistic. Carnahan might be somewhat isolated if he decided to run against Clay, but he hasn't decided that yet, so there's no reason to use that terminology. The EYE then goes on, I guess in support of their "isolation" thesis, to say the following:

Carnahan’s increasing isolation in this legal battle was made most painfully evident when the three judges on the Supreme Court appointed by Democratic governors – Chief Judge Rick Teitelman (appointed by Gov. Bob Holden), Judge Mary Russell (Holden) and Judge George Draper (recently appointed by Nixon) – recused themselves from the case.

If the EYE were to look suspiciously for evidence of behind-the-scene power-playing by party giants, such as Nixon or U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, this is the place to look. With these recusals, the EYE would conclude, the Missouri Democratic Party abandoned Russ Carnahan and all but doomed this legal effort to failure.

This claim doesn't make much sense to me. McCaskill and Nixon, as the EYE points out elsewhere, don't want a contested primary. So why would they tinker with the courts in a way to make a contested primary more likely?

But there's one part of the EYE that I think would be an especially good lesson for Democratic activists in the St. Louis area:

Democrats, both in Missouri and nationally, who do not want to see the black base antagonized by a primary challenge to Clay have pledged Carnahan all but limitless financial support to run against Akin, the EYE is told.

We need to remember that both sticks and carrots are important. Many people are spending their time telling Russ Carnahan about all of the bad things that will happen if he runs against Clay. But it's just as important for people to be committed to making good things happen if he decides to run in the 2nd. If Carnahan makes the right decision and engages the Herculean task of trying to win in the 2nd (while leaving Lacy Clay a cakewalk, and perhaps one he really doesn't deserve given the way the redistricting fight played out), then Carnahan should be rewarded with serious energy and money from St. Louis Democratic activists. He got screwed in this mess, but if he decides to do the right thing in spite of his raw deal, people should make sure that he gets the praise and support he deserves.

Jeff Smith Is Using The Wrong Sense of 'Should' And Carnahan Should Run In Missouri's 2nd District

Hotline has posted a thorough analysis from Jeff Smith arguing that, with the newly redrawn Congressional district lines, Russ Carnahan should run for Congress against fellow Democrat Lacy Clay in Missouri's 1st District. Writes Smith:

So Carnahan shouldn't put too many eggs in his legal basket. Instead, he should be raising money and canvassing the new 1st CD.

As you would expect from a Political Science professor and former State Senator, the analysis is detailed and insightful. However, the fatal flaw in Smith's argument is that he's relying on a self-interested notion of 'should' where saying that a person should do action A is equivalent to saying that A is in that person's best interest. This certainly is a common usage of the term and one used to make many decisions. However, this isn't the correct notion of 'should' for a public servant like Congressman Carnahan.

As a Congressman, Carnahan ought to be making his decisions based on a moral 'should,' where saying that someone should do action A means that A is in the best interests of the country, in the best interests of the constituents, or in the best interests of the Democratic party, or better yet, that A is the right thing to do. And on any of these senses of the word 'should,' I think it's pretty clear that Carnahan should run for office in the Republican-leaning 2nd District. Yes it would be an act of altruism, since Carnahan's chances of winning might be slightly lower in the 2nd, but it nevertheless would be the right thing to do.

In fact, one doesn't even have to stray very far from Smith's own analysis to see this is true. First, as Smith has noted, the Democratic Congressional leadership is urging Carnahan to run in the 2nd. Now, Lord knows, the Democratic Party is not always the best judge of what's in its own interest, but the fact that they think Carnahan should run in the 2nd is at least solid initial evidence that someone has crunched some numbers and decided that the best thing for the Democratic Party is to put up a good fight in the 2nd District.

Second, as Smith acknowledges, there's no clear reason to think that Carnahan winning Clay's seat would make Congress any more progressive. Here's what Smith writes:

Although I've seen both congressmen in action, I don't have a strong opinion on who would be a more progressive or effective representative.

So while Carnahan might gain something by beating Clay, it's not at all clear what anyone else would gain (other than the pundits and insiders who would love to cover the race).

But finally, and most importantly, a heated primary between Clay and Carnahan could be tinged with racial acrimony and possibly jeopardize turnout in the general election. Again, here's what Smith writes:

It would be nice to have a high-minded debate about the direction of national policy in a time of gripping economic anxiety, but anyone who knows St. Louis politics or the two principals doubts the likelihood of that. It won't be a race between a modern-day Bobby Kennedy and Barack Obama. Instead, given both candidates' limited crossover appeal, observers should prepare for a racially polarizing campaign in the long, sad tradition of St. Louis politics.

Even without any intentional shenanigans, a bitter primary might turn off voters from a general election if they felt like dirty tactics were used in the primary. And in the reddish-purple state of Missouri, with important Senate and Gubernatorial races and a legislature that's on the brink of a fully veto-proof majority, we just can't afford to have people sitting at home during the general elections. And it's actually worse than that, because the reality is that there will be shenanigans, as sadly both people in the Democratic Party and Republicans have cynical reasons to stoke racial divisions among Democrats. A primary battle would very likely be a bloody fight, and that might be good news for pundits but would only create new scars in an already damaged St. Louis political landscape.

So while Smith is right that Carnahan's own short-term self-interest might be better served by running against Lacy Clay, it would be better for the citizens of St. Louis, for the Democratic Party, and, yes, for the country if Carnahan ran in the 2nd District against Ed Martin or Ann Wagner. He might be slightly more likely to lose in the Second, but at least he would be fighting for the right reasons.

Press Release: Clay to Announce $2.5 Million in New Grants to Support Affordable Housing

Press Release:

Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) will be joining community leaders, government officials and grant recipients to announce $2.5 million in new funding to build and upgrade affordable housing in St. Louis.

Congressman Clay will be joined by officials from the Federal Home Loan Bank to announce $2.5 million in grants to provide affordable housing and home repairs for low-income residents and homeless veterans. The event will feature check presentations to Beyond Housing, Better Family Life and the Salvation Army.

The following organizations will be receiving Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines Affordable Housing Program grants:

Better Family Life, Inc. and Midwest BankCentre
$500,000 grant
Beyond Housing and Midwest BankCentre (2 grants)
$1.0 million grant
Beyond Housing and First National Bank of St. Louis
$500,000 grant
The Salvation Army and Heartland Bank
$480,000 grant

Clay Announces $2 Million Federal Transportation Grant to Begin Engineering and Planning for the Gateway Arch Connector

Press release:

Big Win for Downtown St. Louis Will Spur Arch Grounds Redevelopment

WASHINGTON, DC-Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay (D) Missouri announced today that the U.S. Department of Transportation has awarded the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (the Gateway Arch) a $2 million grant to begin engineering and planning for the long-awaited pedestrian connector that will link the Arch grounds with downtown St. Louis.

“This is a big win for downtown St. Louis that I was proud to support,” said the Congressman. “We have been talking about building a lid to connect the Arch grounds to the rest of downtown for more than two decades. This $2 million grant will fund the first step in that long-anticipated project. It will also give the entire Arch grounds redevelopment project a big boost. As the Congressman who has the honor of representing the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in Washington, I will do everything in my power to help provide the resources needed to complete the project in time for the 50th anniversary in 2015."

The $2 million DOT grant was awarded under the Public Lands Highways Discretionary (PLHD) Program. The (PLHD) provides funding for transportation planning, research, and engineering and construction of, highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that are within, adjacent to, Federal public lands, including national parks, refuges, forests, recreation areas, and grasslands. The program is administered by the Federal Highway Administrations Federal Lands Highway Office.

Congressman Clay Says Deal Must Not Cut Medicare and Social Security Benefits

Congressman Lacy Clay joined 80 house progressive caucus members in signing a letter to Leader Pelosi and President Obama.

The press release:

WASHINGTON, DC- Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay (D) Missouri joined with eighty members of the House Progressive Caucus as signatories to a letter directed to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and copied to President Obama, insisting that any compromise package to reduce the deficit and raise the debt ceiling must not harm basic Medicare and Social Security benefits.

“This is a time for shared sacrifice, not devastating cuts to seniors and our most vulnerable citizens. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit and raising the debt ceiling in a responsible way, then we have to cut spending and increase revenue…especially from those wealthy individuals and corporations who have accumulated great wealth while working families and seniors on fixed incomes have suffered great hardships,” said the Congressman. “I am pleased to join with my Progressive Caucus colleagues to send this strong message that any negotiation must protect the vital interests of seniors, children and the disabled. That means that basic Medicare and Social Security benefits must not be bargained away.” Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American have also signed the letter which says that middle-class families “have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.”

“We are united as Democrats in saying that it’s time to stand up to the Republican hostage-taking. We will not be forced to vote for a “final agreement” that we do not agree to -- and that the American people do not agree to. We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side,” the letter continues.

Signatories include CPC Co-Chairs Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison, along with Reps. Baca, Karen Bass, Bordallo, Brown, Carson, Christiansen, Chu, Yvette Clarke, Hansen Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Critz, Cummings, Danny Davis, DeFazio, DeLauro, Deutch, Doggett, Edwards, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Frank, Fudge, Garamendi, Al Green, Gutierrez, Hahn, Hinchey, Hirono, Holmes Norton, Holt, Jesse Jackson Jr., Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Kaptur, Kildee, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Lofgren, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Moore, Nadler, Napolitano, Oliver, Pallone, Payne, Pingree, Rangel, Reyes, Richardson, Richmond, Rothman, Roybal-Allard, Tim Ryan, Sablan, Schakowsky, Serrano, Stark, Sutton, Bennie Thompson, Tierney, Tonko, Towns, Waters, Waxman, Frederica Wilson, Woolsey, and Wu.

The full text of the letter is below.

Dear Leader Pelosi,

We write in strong agreement with your unwavering defense of the Democratic programs that form the bedrock of America’s middle and working classes, and which are overwhelmingly popular.

On July 7, you made very clear that “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” and that “we do not support cuts in benefits” for vital safety-net programs. We agree completely.

Especially in these tough economic times, we should not be cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of our constituents paid into and depend on. Such benefit cuts should be off the table in current debt discussions.

Our Republican colleagues should be embarrassed by their insistence that unless Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are cut, the nation will default on its debts. Middle-class families have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.

We are united as Democrats in saying that it’s time to stand up to the Republican hostage-taking. We will not be forced to vote for a “final agreement” that we do not agree to -- and that the American people do not agree to.

We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side.

Clay & Carnahan: Partisan Redistricting Plan Would Screw Over St. Louis Region

Ok, so maybe that wasn't their exact wording, but I think it covers the basic idea. Here's their joint press release:

Clay and Carnahan Say Missouri Congressional Redistricting Map Fails the Fairness Test, Weakens St. Louis Region

-WASHINGTON, DC- In a joint statement issued today Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay (D) Missouri and Congressman Russ Carnahan (D) Missouri objected to the proposed congressional redistricting map for Missouri as "overly partisan, damaging to the St. Louis region, and unfair to communities of common cultural and historical interests.":

"We are extremely disappointed that the Missouri House Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting has produced a map that emphasizes partisanship over fairness," said Mr. Clay and Mr. Carnahan.

"The population of the St. Louis metropolitan area clearly justifies three congressional districts.

"We are surprised that the committee chose to weaken representation for our region, which is the economic engine that drives Missouri's economy.

"Historically, the City of St. Louis has been represented by two Members of Congress who strongly advocated for neighborhoods of like interests.

"This proposed map ignores vital historical and cultural considerations which should be taken into account in this process.

"The current proposal is unfair and it ignores the best interests of the people of Missouri and the entire St. Louis region."

BTW, I'm not so sure this plan doesn't screw over Kansas City as well. It sure looks like a blatantly partisan power-grab meant to disenfranchise half of the state's voters.