When progressives attack: Defending Bobby Rush against Color of Change
Wow, It has been less than 48 hours since I blogged about Netroots groups attacking those minority civil rights organizations that don’t agree with them on the network neutrality issue. It looks like the chief minority-headed netroots group, Color of Change, has used the very same tactic to go after Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), an African American member of Congress.
Using the old, “you can’t trust them because they take money from corporations trick”, the group’s executive director James Rucker asks Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi to oppose Rush’s candidacy to become the ranking member on the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. In a November 18 dated letter, Ruckers says he questions Rush’s integrity and ability to lead the subcommittee because Rush has received campaign donations from communications companies. [See previous post about Paternalistic Netroots groups.]
Color of Change is a 5-year old advocacy group that is known best for its ground-breaking work on three campaigns: 1. assisting the Jenna 6 defendants get the case dropped against them; 2. helping Hurricane Katrina victims’ and 3. organizing an internet campaign that resulted in some corporate sponsors pulling out from sponsoring Glenn Beck’s Fox News television show over the race baiting Beck does on his show.
Each time I’ve inquired from the net neutrality advocates and even Rucker himself for a clear explanation, I have been disappointed by the answers because they leave me so empty. I just can’t be satiated with empty rhetoric and scare tactics when I thirst for tangible evidence and real answers.
But in any event, Nancy Pelosi has the challenge now to pick a side…
Let’s see… hmmm. Who to trust? Who to believe?
The head of a 5-year old group that has abandoned its previous mission of empowering people of color through real tangible means in exchange for championing one issue about arcane network prioritization, a “problem” that is NOT on the minds of any jobless, undereducated, disempowered and underemployed person of color…
A man who has*.
- served his country as a member of the US military;
- has been a Civil Rights Advocate since the 1960s when he founded the Chicago chapter of the black empowerment group, the Black Panthers;
- has a pro-civil rights voting record as decided by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU;
- is Against War given he voted against the war in Afghanistan, against going after Sadam Hussein, and against invading Iran;
- is Pro Gun Control having introduced legislation to create a national gun registry;
- has an active Pro Human Rights stance and was arrested while protesting the Dafur genocide outside the Sudanese embassy;
- is Pro Consumer having sponsored various consumer bills;
- supports Minority businesses and a return of the Tax Certificate which was the single most effective tool that enabled more minorities to gain ownership of broadcast properties and proposed legislation to reinstate the tax certificate; and
- is Pro Women having Sponsored a bill to expand research and provide funds for postpartum depression research and services; supported the funding for women’s and disadvantaged businesses; and reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment, among other things.
Notwithstanding Rush’s past voting, he has clearly gone against big business in the past, for example, when he,
- sponsored a bill to prevent the practice of drug companies paying generic drug companies to not produce a cheaper form of the same drug;
- voted on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting;
- introduced a bill to increase maximum civil penalty for violations under the Consumer Product Safety Act from 1,250,000to $20,000,000;
- sponsored a bill that would regulate commerce on electronic data containing personal information;
- voted to regulate tobacco as a drug;
- voted to ban Internet gambling by credit card;
- voted to end offshore tax havens;
- voted against a law that would’ve prohibited people from bringing lawsuits about obesity against food providers’;
- supported the prohibition of commercial logging on Federal public lands;
- voted to regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices;
- sponsored a law to prohibit the practice of drug companies from paying generic drug companies for not producing a cheaper form of the same drug; and
- Was rated 29% by the US Chamber of Commerce indicating an anti-business voting record.
So despite receiving contributions from some corporations, as every member of Congress does, he clearly has been able to put donations aside, vote against business and vote and act in the interest of the public and voters he was elected to serve.
Further, from all accounts, the man has an expansive record that is progressive, mainly liberal, anti-war, pro poor and promotes the disenfranchised and least powerful members of society. For Pete’s sake, Bobby Rush has been a member of the Progressive Caucus since 2001.
He clearly promotes all the ideals that Color of Change says it champions.
So despite all of this, I find it extremely peculiar and odd to discover James Rucker write THIS letter to Nancy Pelosi, throw him under the bus and sacrifice a relationship with a man one would think should be a Color of Change ally. Could it only be because Bobby Rush disagrees with Color of change on one insular issue: network neutrality?
As the SNL Church Lady would say, “Now, Isn’t that CONVENIENT?”
*Source: On the Issues, independent
Join the newsletter
Subscribe to get our latest content by email.