I always vote for the lesser of two evils in an election. It really is a waste not to.

However, *support* is another matter. If you were planning to spend time or money supporting Arcuri, there is no longer any reason to: your time and money are better spent almost anywhere else, on any of the many competitive races where the Democrat *isn’t* enabling fascism. Like Dan Maffei, running against Bush rubberstamp Walsh. Or Eric Massa, running against “Shotgun” Randy Kuhl. Or Dr. Bob Johnson. Or John Hall. Or Stephen Harrison. Or…. well, you get the idea.

Michael Arcuri didn’t want to step into a trap set by Republican strategists. He wasn’t going to let Ray Meier play the ‘soft on terrorists’ card. On the morning of his debate with Ray Meier in Utica on September 28, the New York Times editorialized: “Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism….” Rushing off a Cliff http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092806D.shtml

“The few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line”, the editorial stated, which is quite apropos for a race that centers around a retiring moderate Republican, Congressman Sherwood Boehlert. Boehert’s essay The Debate of Torture is posted on his web site http://www.house.gov/boehlert/colDebateonTorture06.htm.

Boehlert’s essay might be taken as script for both the Arcuri and Meier campaigns. It extolls Senator McCain and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Who would disagree that “torture is not productive… and diminishes our moral voice and reputation in the world”? A casual reader browsing Congressman’ Boehlert’s web site, though, might easily infer that the bill that finally was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by the President really does protect against torture when in truth “the definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11″ according to the New York Times editorial which went on to say that “the bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture”.

Boehlert’s glowing words for John McCain were in regard to S.3901, the Military Commissions Act, as adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and not the compromise with the administration that followed.

Coming into the debate in Utica on September 28, Michael Arcuri would have been briefed on John McCain’s compromise with the Bush administration which had been widely reported in the press days earlier. Many who followed the news saw this as the “McCain cave-in” rather than the “McCain Compromise”. Here is a typical response: http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=545

Perhaps Michael Arcuri read Senator John McCain’s statement to Congress of September 27, in which he explained why the compromise with the White House was better than the original bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee that McCain co-wrote with Senators Warner and Graham. If so, then he would have found much ground for self-deception amid the rhetorical flourish. McCain has traded his moral authority as a P.O.W. for a presidential bid. Nonetheless, Arcuri has hitched his wagon to the McCain star which probably does resonate with some voters in the district. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109gNlVD2

So, it is not so surprising that Arcuri and Meier were eye to eye on their support for the Military Commissions Act, and both candidates probably happy not to go down that road. But as news filtered in, there was much anger from the base.

The Republican strategy, a senior Democratic aide has explained to me, was to use support for or against the bill as a litmus test for candidates in swing districts, and then use it again to divide the Democratic base if they didn’t take the bait. By that reasoning, I and others who have made public our outrage over Arcuri’s continued statements in support of the Military Commissions Act are just falling into the trap with every email we send. There may be truth to this. You be the judge, and vote accordingly.

However, it may be Arcuri who has stepped into a trap –a trap that has effectively neutralized his voice on an issue of momentous proportion. It has now become increasingly apparent to so many that the bill that the President signed into law on Wednesday is a major assault not only on the Habeas Corpus rights of detainees and aliens, but on our own Constitutional rights and protections as well. On the day Bush signed the bill into law, Keith Obermann opened a ten-minute MSNBC Countdown segment by putting viewers on notice that “We now face…a government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from” http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101906L.shtml (text and video –this is an amazing piece, all the more so given that it was carried by MSNBC of all media.)

All this comes on top of Republican scandal after scandal which has scrapped off any remaining teflon. But Arcuri is powerless to make any comment because he is on record as agreeing with his opponent on this issue, and he still holds to his belief in McCain. And so, an enormous political opportunity has been lost.

I believe a political miscalculation was made that has already cost Arcuri support and will cost him more votes in this election. Those within the Arcuri camp may think that it was a necessary calculation. He may still win this election, but by a narrow margin. An August poll gave Arcuri a 4% lead, and found that “of those polled, 68% say the country is on the wrong track, compared to 21% who believe we’re heading in the right direction.” http://www.wktv.com/news/local/3549442.html.

The political calculus appears to be that the general disaffection felt by by many whom might otherwise vote Republican in the district is greater than that felt by a relatively smaller number of informed Democrats who would take offense. “Why or why does the Republican Party run to their base while the Democrats flee theirs?” asks political theorist, author and teacher Jodi Dean on her blog http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/10/michael_a_arcur.html. The answer, of course, is this sort of calculus.

However, I can have some sympathy for Michael Arcuri. Had he changed position, the RNC probably would have flip flop ads ready in the wings, and as evident by recent remarks by both candidates regarding negative campaign ads originating from outside the district, I believe neither candidate wanted this issue to dominate their campaigns.

The problem, though, is that this is not just any issue, no matter how important any issue may be. This is about fundamental Constitutional rights and protections, and torture. The New York Times editorial concludes:

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

But here we are in this situation. Do we want Ray Meier instead? Have we gained anything with this limited dialog with the Arcuri campaign over this issue?

Well, the campaign finally did acknowledge our grievances and did try to clarify clarify the candidate’s position. “He would have supported the bill because, while imperfect, it places some important restrictions on this adminstration, and then he would have moved immediately to seek legislation to deal with the Habeas Corpus problem” his campaign manager wrote.

I am not going to suggest how folks should vote. Representation access and dialog after the elections are most important for me as they are for all activists, of all political persuasions. I am left with conflicting feelings. Will Michael Arcuri sit down in his office after the election with, say, a lawyer from the Center for Constitutional Rights , and will it make any difference? I used to think of political campaigns as a time to raise issues. Noew I see them as a time where issues are suppressed. This is a very bitter pill. I am pessimistic how much the dynamic will really change in 2007. Have I possibly become too familiar with Dr. Fear? It is just hard for me to envision things really changing that much, that the ‘soft on terrorism’ card is still going to hold sway; that Democrats will still be timid. But maybe new and stronger voices will emerge. Right now we are effectively under one party rule, because the ruling party makes the rules in Congress, procedural and otherwise.

Those who feel strongly that there is no way they can vote for Michael Arcuri can vote for the Libertarian candidate, Mike Sylvia. There is no question where he stands on this issue of the Military Commissions Act. He is also very good on Freedom to Travel to Cuba (as was Sherwood Boehlert; neither Michael Arcuri or Ray Meier responded to a simple candidate survey on the issue).

If you are a proponent of single payer universal health care, though, or don’t have faith in unfettered free markets, you might have reservations about voting on the Libertarian line. Greens too have issues over libertarian philosophy when it comes to environmental issues. But on Constitutional rights and protections, the Libertarian position is crystal clear. There is no compromise.

Ray Meier, Republican candidate for Congress in New York’s 24th District, hit a new low in right wing hypocrisy when he came into Geneva to meet with business leaders there.

Meier was asked a question about whether large companies ought to be required to provide health care for workers. Meier said no, and attacked people who support such measures.
http://tagworld.com/NYProgressive/PostDetail.aspx?id=9873df76-9bb7-4f6b-a299-63b9d08bb5f8

There are other issues to pay attention to.

–Cris

Sure, you can easily say that now, but it won’t be so easy after a couple more years of fascism.

Jon – “- after all, Michael Arcuri tells us that he’s going to vote in Congress to help those abuses continue!”

No, he didn’t. He said he would’ve voted for it. That vote is over. You have said that he is a political jellyfish and will just go with the flow as invertebrates do.

Jon – “I agree that, in 2008, whether Arcuri is in Congress or not, we need a different candidate. We gave it a shot with someone else this year, but the Democratic party bosses in the other counties buried their heads in the sand and endorsed Arcuri before Arcuri could be tested. I hope they’ve learned their lesson about the need for a primary, where the Democratic voters have the chance to have a say in the process.”

Do you know something I don’t know here? I thought most of the blame was on Les Roberts and the DCCC.

Jon – “The time has come for us all to make a fundamental moral decision. Do we stand with freedom or do we stand against it?”

The problem with infusing political arguments with morality is that it paints the other guy as immoral. Do you think I’m immoral? I just think it’s time to look at the real world situation. Look at the numbers. If a hard look at reality, without the lenses clouded by morality, indicates that we the people will be best served by you voting a certain way, then hold your nose and flip the lever