POLITICO: Dems backed by group DCCC attacked

From Politico:

National Democrats have charged that a House candidate endorsed by a controversial anti-immigration group has “Nazi ties” — but six other congressional Democrats also have the group’s endorsement, and at least one has enthusiastically embraced its support.

The group, Americans for Legal Immigration, or ALIPAC, supports candidates and incumbents who oppose creating a path to citizenship for the thousands of undocumented immigrants in the United States. The Anti-Defamation League has criticized ALIPAC for what it says is support from white supremacist and racist groups.

“Another [National Republican Congressional Committee] Young Gun candidate, another Nazi tie — it should come as no surprise,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement Monday. He said the group was “on the racist fringe” and that it was “backed by anti-Semites and white supremacists.”…

…But six Democrats: Reps. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, Pete DeFazio of Oregon, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Jim Marshall and John Barrow of Georgia, all have the group’s endorsement. Including Kelly, ALIPAC has endorsed 179 Republicans…

…The ADL has carefully documented white supremacist groups that have encouraged their members to attend ALIPAC events or have posted ALIPAC information on their own websites. They have also pointed out white supremacist groups that have encouraged their members to attend rallies or lobby members of Congress in support of ALIPAC goals.

Updated list of Georgians ALIPAC endorsed thanks to griftdrift:

U. S. Senate: ENDORSED: Johnny Isakson for Senate, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A-, ALIPAC Release
# 1st district: ENDORSED: Jack Kingston for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
# 3rd district: ENDORSED: Lynn Westmoreland for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumberUSA Score A
# 4th district: ENDORSED: Lisbeth “Liz” Carter for Congress, Republican, Challenger, ALIPAC Survey, ALIPAC Release
# 5th district: ENDORSED: Fenn Little for Congress, Republican, Challenger, ALIPAC Survey, ALIPAC Release
# 6th district: ENDORSED: Thomas Price for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
# 8th district: ENDORSED: Jim Marshall for Congress, Democrat, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A, ALIPAC Release
# 10th district: ENDORSED: Paul Broun for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
# 11th district: ENDORSED: Phil Gingrey for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
# 12th district: ENDORSED: John Barrow for Congress, Democrat, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A-, ALIPAC Release
# 13th district: ENDORDED: Mike Crane for Congress, Republican, Challenger, ALIPAC Survey

48 comments

  1. polisavvy says:

    Another day, another bout of hyprocrisy. It’s terrible for a Republican to have the endorsement; but, it’s just fine and dandy for a Democrat to receive the same endorsement. Let the spin begin!!

    • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

      You said what I wanted to say.

      Tyler, you shame us all. This is seriously a joke of a post. Let me reveal to everyone your formula:

      1 Part Barrow Sucks + 1 Part Marshall Sucks + Anything = Hypocracy

      Dude, you should have seen this all coming.

  2. Bill30097 says:

    I do not support the Dems but this is a fine organization being smeared and this article shows the depths this site has sunk to over the last few months. Disgusting!

  3. Steve says:

    If Marshall is in-sync with the national party on something, it’s terrible… because he’s in-sync with the national party.

    If Marshall is out-of-sync with the national party on something, it’s terrible… because that somehow shows hypocrisy by the national party(?!)… and that somehow reflects upon Marshall because he’s in-sync with them (we changed it in mid-air just for giggles).

    Marshall has a ‘D’ beside his name. He will therefore always be in the wrong with some folks. The end. The rest is just cut-n-paste.

  4. griftdrift says:

    Of those 179 Republicans, 11 were Georgians. We gonna ding them too?

    U. S. Senate: ENDORSED: Johnny Isakson for Senate, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A-, ALIPAC Release
    # 1st district: ENDORSED: Jack Kingston for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
    # 2nd district:
    # 3rd district: ENDORSED: Lynn Westmoreland for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumberUSA Score A
    # 4th district: ENDORSED: Lisbeth “Liz” Carter for Congress, Republican, Challenger, ALIPAC Survey, ALIPAC Release
    # 5th district: ENDORSED: Fenn Little for Congress, Republican, Challenger, ALIPAC Survey, ALIPAC Release
    # 6th district: ENDORSED: Thomas Price for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
    # 7th district:
    # 8th district: ENDORSED: Jim Marshall for Congress, Democrat, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A, ALIPAC Release
    # 9th district:
    # 10th district: ENDORSED: Paul Broun for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
    # 11th district: ENDORSED: Phil Gingrey for Congress, Republican, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A+
    # 12th district: ENDORSED: John Barrow for Congress, Democrat, Incumbent, NumbersUSA Score A-, ALIPAC Release
    # 13th district: ENDORDED: Mike Crane for Congress, Republican, Challenger, ALIPAC Survey

    • Steve says:

      “Hypocrisy” is one voice saying two different things. The problem with crying hypocrisy over Marshall and national Democrats is that those aren’t exactly one voice.

      Tyler as an individual, however, IS one voice. So I’m intrigued by the definition he just cited for “ties” to racist groups:

      The Anti-Defamation League has criticized ALIPAC for what it says is support from white supremacist and racist groups … [such groups] have encouraged their members to attend rallies or lobby members of Congress in support of ALIPAC goals

      Going by this, even if you have made no overt efforts to attract bigots, but they nevertheless prefer you over your opposition (or simply happen to support some of the same issues that are in your platform)… it still means you have “ties” to bigotry. I wonder, Tyler… do you personally accept that definition? That definition sure seems disadvantageous to the Republican Party. Would you support it in attacking Marshall, and then reject it in defending the GOP?

      ‘Cause that would sorta be “one voice saying two different things”.

  5. drjay says:

    maybe i’m giving tyler too much credit, but i don’t think he is being critical of the group, more of the nat’l dems trying to make hay about it when apparently several members of their own party have been endorsed by the same group, in fact depending on your leanings, this may be a net positive for the candidates mentioned…

    • RuralDem says:

      If that was the case then why did Tyler single out Marshall and Barrow?

      If Austin Scott was listed instead of Marshall, this wouldn’t have been mentioned.

      • polisavvy says:

        Actually, I think you are incorrect on this one, RuralDem. I think it would have been mentioned. I have made no bones about my support for Austin Scott; but, having said that, I think it would have been mentioned. It now appears that all Georgia “recipients” of this endorsement have been called out.

        • RuralDem says:

          We know the others thanks to Grift.

          If Tyler had listed them in his post, then I wouldn’t see a problem with it.

          Think about it, Tyler’s done everything possible to go after Marshall over the past few months. It’s clear he backs Scott. Why would he suddenly do anything helpful for Marshall?

          • polisavvy says:

            I think you answered your own question. He is supporting Austin Scott. That is his prerogative. So, why would he do anything to help Marshall?

            • RuralDem says:

              Sure that’s his prerogative. I have no problem with it, but to act like he’s not trying to setup some type of narrative is hilarious.

              If it was a post to inform everyone about the endorsements from the group, then surely he’d inform everyone on PP of the Republicans as well.

              Instead, he conveniently left that out and fortunately Grift posted it.

              You can’t tell me though that knowing his bias, he made this post out of the goodness of his own heart just because “2 of the Democrats mentioned in the article and they are from GA”.

              • polisavvy says:

                Well, RuralDem, isn’t that what politics has become? Making the “enemy” look bad? That’s not just a page from the playbook of Republicans — Democrats are just as guilty. Look on the bright side — it will all be over soon.

    • Tyler says:

      Correct drjay.

      @RuralDem: I singled out Marshall and Barrow b/c they were 2 of the Democrats mentioned in the article and they are from GA. The post is not meant to say whether the group is good or bad.

      • RuralDem says:

        It’s just funny that you’ve gone out of your way to attack Marshall over the past few months, now, suddenly, you’re simply posting an article simply because it mentions an endorsement?

        Why didn’t you list the Republicans from Georgia who were endorsed?

        If Barrow had been the only Democrat from Georgia endorsed, would you honestly have posted this?

        I seriously doubt it.

        Usually I like your posts, whether or not I agree with them. It’s clear though that you’re not a fan of Marshall, so why should we suddenly believe that you’d do something without reason?

      • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

        Let’s look at your recent posts, shall we?
        http://www.peachpundit.com/author/tyler/

        Okay, anti-Marshall, anti-Marshall, anti-Marshall….anyone else seeing a pattern here?

        I don’t care, particularly, who you support, but after you’re called out on being a hypocrite, you backpedal and change the obvious motive behind the post in the first place. Why else, pray tell, would the first word in your post be “Marshall” swiftly followed by “Controversial?”

        I’ll say the group is bad for you. The group is bad. Not a good group. Don’t really care for them. You can outright admit that. But let’s be real here, you went out of your way to single out two Democrats (one of whom you actively campaign against), and ignored the many other GOPers from right within our fair state who got the endorsement as well.

        You’ve been called out on your BS. Like Rand Paul says “man up” and stop trying to BS us all.

  6. ricstewart says:

    Most people don’t realize that the overwhelming majority of anti-immigrant and immigration restriction groups in the United States are rooted in radical left-wing environmentalism, abortion rights, and eugenics.
    FAIR, NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, and ALIPAC have done an outstanding job of ingratiating themselves with neoconservatives, despite their liberal credentials. There’s an undeniable connection to Planned Parenthood, Audobon Society, the Pioneer Fund, and the most extremist wing of the Sierra Club.

      • ricstewart says:

        Dr. John Tanton is the founder of more than a dozen immigration restriction organizations, most notably the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, ChooseBlack America, and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
        Tanton is also the founder of the Northern Michigan Planned Parenthood Chapter and is an outspoken abortion rights advocate. His anti-immigrant and pro-abortion stance is rooted in his extreme environmentalist views. He was an active member of the Audobon Society and the Sierra Club who founded FAIR, et al, when the Sierra Club toned down its anti-immigrant views for a more moderate stance.
        Check out the board of directors and board of advisors of FAIR; it’s all abortion advocates and tree-huggers (Joyce Tarnow, Sarah Epstein, Dick Lamm….)
        FAIR was founded with more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a eugenics organization.

        • Red Phillips says:

          I see ric has been keeping up with his SPLC smear campaigns.

          What is your point? Are you a pro-immigration “conservative” who is trying to redirect the racism charge back to the left?

          • ricstewart says:

            What racism charge?

            Regardless of the intentions or political ideologies, lowering our already-too-low immigration levels is not good public policy.

            • Red Phillips says:

              “lowering our already-too-low immigration levels is not good public policy.”

              Oh good grief! Immigration, legal and illegal, are at historically unprecedented rates thanks to Teddy Kennedy’s disastrous Immigration Reform Act of 1965.

              Are you a “free flow of labor” libertarian? A liberal? A “conservative?” I’m trying to get a sense of where you are coming from.

              • ricstewart says:

                No, immigration RATES are not at historically unprecedented rates. They’re at historically low rates. From 1851 to 1860, 9.5 immigrants per 1,000 natives came each year. From 1901 to 1910, that rate increased to 10.5/1000. Today, that number is only about 3.3/1000 natives.

                Even though we admit about 1 million immigrants each year, we still don’t have enough immigrants to meet our economic needs. We demand about 1.5 million immigrants each year, but we only allow 2/3 of those in each year. Of the million visas we issue, only 15% of those are for employment purposes.
                Even though we demand 500,000 year-round low skilled foreign workers, we only issue 5,000 year-round work visas.

                • Red Phillips says:

                  ric, concern for mammon (“our economic needs”) above all things is not conservatism. (Please read my post below.)

                  And yes immigration rates are at historically unprecedented rates. I will find a link. They may not be at unprecedented per capita rates but that is because the denominator was much smaller in the past. (Are you intentionally being deceptive?) Had America only one person, and it added one new one then the immigration rate would be 1 to 1, but that would be meaningless with regards to the current debate.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      “You’re getting numbers mixed up with rates.”

                      No, “rate” does not necessarily imply per capita numbers. Rate often implies per unit of time, so total numbers per year would be a rate. But there is no need to play semantic games.

                      Did you read my post below? I support immigration restriction because I am a conservative and seek to conserve. Immigration, especially mass rapid immigration, does not conserve. Immigration transforms and mass rapid immigration transforms radically. Compare Doraville (“a touch of country in the city”) 30 years ago to Doraville now. It is not the same city. It is hard to imagine anything more inherently transformative and therefore unconservative than mass rapid immigration.

                      I went to Amazon to check out this Jason Riley fellow. Shocker! He is a “conservative” (Ha!) columnist for the Mammon … err … I mean Wall Street Journal. Riley is an “economic man” ideologue. He wouldn’t know conservatism if it bit him on the rear.

                      I assume you are a conservative or a libertarian. I assume you generally align yourself with the GOP. Just how do you think all these news citizens are going to vote? Look at how new citizen immigrants vote now. They block vote for the Dems in numbers that nearly rival the black block Democrat vote. If current immigration trends continue (despite the current backlash), the GOP will be irrelevant on the national level in a couple of decades. I hope you aren’t laboring under the Rovian delusion that all these immigrants can be persuaded to embrace the GOP and conservative politics. Good luck with that buddy.

                      You and Riley are writing the death sentence for your own soulless ideology. Do you not recognize this?

            • Red Phillips says:

              “What racism charge?”

              The ADL and the DCCC are labeling ALIPAC racist and anti-Semitic. I didn’t know if you were trying to turn the charge around by saying “No we aren’t the racist. Liberals are the racists.” I don’t get that sense now. Now I just get the sense you are pro-immigration and are regurgitating SPLC propaganda.

              • ricstewart says:

                It won’t let me reply under your most recent post, so I’ll have to respond here.
                Since I’m not a partisan, I really don’t care who they vote for, nor do I care who you vote for. That’s not what’s most important to me.

                Using the logic that immigration changes nations and communities too much, should we have reduced immigration in the 1850s and early 1900s when we had far higher percentages (is that better?) of the foreign born than we do today?
                Not to mention that immigrants of yesteryear integrated much more slowly than today’s immigrants do.

        • Erick's Mortal Enemy says:

          So your “connection” is a single individual? Sorry to tell you this, but your argument sucks. That’s not a freaking connection, that’s a single person’s ideology.

          Dick Lamm’s most recent foray into politics was over a decade ago, as a Reform Party candidate.

          Joyce Tarnow is a population control advocate.

          Neither of them remotely espouse Democratic ideals. And you have yet to prove your original point that “the overwhelming majority of anti-immigrant and immigration restriction groups in the United States are rooted in radical left-wing environmentalism, abortion rights, and eugenics.” So far you have only explained an extremely tenuous connection for a single one of them, FAIR, which hardly represents “the overwhelming majority” of anything.

          • ricstewart says:

            More than a single individual, a large portion of their board of directors. FAIR is founded and funded by the same man as 12 other anti-immigrant groups. It’s not just one organization.
            I also didn’t say they espoused Democratic ideals. I said they espoused left-wing ideals.
            Joyce Tarnow is a population control advocate in the form of an abortion clinic owner (although her clinic closed a year or so ago).
            Sarah Epstein is director emeritus of Pathfinder International and has given thousands of dollars to leftist groups and pro-choice groups.
            Dick Lamm is still very involved in environmentalism and abortion rights.
            Others on their board of directors and board of advisors have given thousands of dollars to EMILY’s List and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

            Most of the nationwide immigration restriction organizations are either founded or funded by John Tanton, and he is still very involved in them today.

        • Red Phillips says:

          I’m not even sure it is fair to describe Tanton as a left-wing environmentalist anyway. His cluster of beliefs fit a recognizable pattern, but not one that is really represented by the traditional American conception of left and right. Being concerned about the environment is easily conceivable as a conservative impulse. Conservation shares the same root word with conservative. It is because of how modern political divisions have played out that “environmentalism” (which is a really an ideology above and beyond concern for the environment) is generally associated with the left-wing. His concern for population control including abortion and wide access to birth control definitely puts him at odds with the Christian elements of the American conservative coalition. He is also a nationalist. His cluster of beliefs is similar to some elements of the much less overtly Christian if not outright anti-Christian European right.

    • Red Phillips says:

      Ricstewart, this is a very gross overstatement of a tiny kernel of truth. There is an element of the anti-immigration coalition that could arguably be described as left-wing environmentalists. Their concern is for what immigration does to the population density of the US. They will often speak of “carrying capacity” for example. But to say that “the overwhelming majority of anti-immigrant and immigration restriction groups in the United States are rooted in …” is flat wrong. The majority of immigration restriction groups reflect Middle American unease with the current situation. No more, no less.

      I don’t even know where you are coming from with this. I too would like some elaboration.

      • ricstewart says:

        The majority of people who support most of the immigration restriction groups are mainstream or conservative, but the puppetteers who are leading those organizations are not, by and large.

        There’s a good book on the subject by conservative author Jason Riley, called “Let Them In.”
        There’s a chapter in it about the history of the nativist movement.

        • Red Phillips says:

          ric, you are very confused. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be a conservative in any meaningful sense of the term and at the same time to cry “let them in.” Jason Riley must be likewise confused.

          Conservatism, as Kirk and others have taught us, is not the embrace of a particular ideology or set of ideals. Conservatism is fundamentally about conserving things (go figure) – a place, a culture, a way of life, a religious community, etc. Immigration inherently changes and alters. Mass, rapid immigration even more so. There is NOTHING more inherently conservative than opposition to mass immigration (especially rapid such as 1965 til now), and there is nothing more inherently transformative (unconservative) than advocacy of mass immigration. This is inherent in the very nature and essence of the thing (conservatism).

          If you think mass rapid immigration is a good thing, then fine. So argue. But please don’t deceive yourself that it is in any way conservative.

          I also think it is sad that people who want to conserve what they have and know are given a pejorative label like “nativists.” What you (and Mr. Riley apparently) need to spend time studying is not the history of the “nativist movement” but the history of the application of smear terms like nativist to describe intuitive common sense feelings. Start by studying Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. What you will find is that nativist is only every used to describe whites. Are indigenous people, for example, seeking to prevent encroachment likewise called nativists? I think not.

          • ricstewart says:

            This is an excellent example of why I never use labels to identify myself as conservative, libertarian, liberal, moderate, etc., since it’s impossible to get everyone to agree on a definition. So in keeping with the manner in which I identify myself, let me rephrase my description of Jason Riley: he believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and free people.

            • Red Phillips says:

              If he believes in small government and fiscal responsibility, how does he propose to enact policies consistent with this when the party that supposedly reflects those ideas is relegated to national irrelevance by a demographic tidal wave?

              This is simple mathematics, easily discernable for all to see. What I wonder about folks like Riley is whether he is such a blind ideologues that he can’t see what is plainly in front of him, or whether he recognizes this reality and is just a paid for shill of the cheap labor lobby who is willing to mortgage his future for temporary gain.

  7. Red Phillips says:

    ALIPAC is a perfectly mainstream anti-amnesty, anti-illegal immigration PAC. That Barrow and Marshall received their endorsement speaks well of them, not negatively.

    I hope Tyler was just posting this as a news item and not endorsing the ADL and DCCC “assement” of ALIPAC as a “racist fringe” group.

    The Dems and their leftist mouth pieces (the ADL) are getting desperate and it shows.

  8. Tyler says:

    Didn’t post Republican names b/c they weren’t listed in the article email sent to me. Will update list.

    I find some of this humorous b/c this wasn’t a commentary post, simply a press clipping from an email. Title change lists the 2 GA dems, original title attacked 6 dems. I don’t see anyone bashing Politico.

    Got some pro-D stuff? Send it to the tipline. Seems we’ve been putting some up lately. 😉

    • Red Phillips says:

      There is wonderful irony in the fact that a group the Dems smear as “racist fringe” has also endorsed some Democrats, but the real problem here seems to me to be the smear campaign against ALIPAC.

      I am not an insider to any immigration restriction group, but I do follow immigration restriction politics pretty closely. ALIPAC has actually taken a lot of pains to distance themselves from certain elements and have been accused by some of being too moderate. Some have argued that the focus on the illegal aspect of illegal immigration makes it harder to argue the immigration restrictionist case that includes H-1b visas, etc.

      I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion. I just want to make the point that ALIPAC is entirely mainstream. If ALIPAC can be accused of racism then any like issue group can be accused of racism just by their very nature of the position they represent. If someone wants to make that case, that concern over immigration is inherently racist, then fine, let them make it. They should just be honest about it and not rely of ADL/SPLC style tenuous connections.

  9. slyram says:

    Rep. Gene Taylor is a good conservative Democrat who has voted against Dems who became Speaker—he voted for other conservative Democrats.

    The DCCC can do Georgia a favor by running ads for real Democrats or better by sending that support to those Democrats. The airwaves are crowded with political ads and the electorate on both sides are near wit’s end.

    I know the DCCC means well but the radio ad in support of Rep. Jim Marshall is driving me crazy. Two Black women are talking about the advancements made by “our” efforts in 2008 (Obama election) and how Republicans like Austin Scott are trying to reverse that. “That’s why I am supporting Democrat Jim Marshall.” You just know those ads aren’t running on non-urban stations.

    PP people know that Marshall never lifted a finger to help the Democrat ticket in 2008 and I can’t blame him for that. But, why is the D Triple running these ads which have Dem voters from Covington to Moultrie puzzled when solid Democrats could use that support elsewhere.

    • polisavvy says:

      Once again, another post that makes sense. I love reading your stuff. I may not always agree with everything you say; however, it does make one think. Good job, slyram!

Comments are closed.