An article entitled “Tt’s Time to Replace the Worst Democrats in Blue Districts”, says this about my Congressman Derek Kilmer:
Derek Kilmer (WA-06), is facing off against Rebecca Parson, a Democratic activist committed to Medicare for All and single-payer. This is a deep blue, working-class district in Tacoma, yet Kilmer’s record with labor is abysmal. Washington heads to the polls on Aug. 4.
Based on that, the poster listed Kilmer as “pretty bad” and urged Kos readers to support his primary opponent. My reaction: the author of the post should not have been expressing an opinion about matters of which he clearly knows nothing.
The purpose of the post was lauditory. It is important to improve the quality of Congress by getting rid of Dems who are more conservative than their districts and are out of touch to a significant degree. But is that the case with Kilmer? No.
And is Kilmer’s district a “deep blue, working class district in Tacoma? No. It’s a highly mixed district that includes parts of the Olympic pennisulal, the well-off areas of Brown’s Point, Gig Harbor, and North Tacoma as well as two military bases. Also Longshoremen and Teamsters make too damn much money to qualify as working class. (I was married to a Teamster. We were upper middle class.)
I don’t know what the alleged abysmal labor record consists of. According to this, his record is good: justfacts.votesmart.org/… He has two 100% ratings and three more ratings that are over 85% from unions with locals in the Tacoma area. He voted last year to pass the Protection for the Right to Organize Act . It’s true that he voted for TPP, but as a port city, Tacoma expected to benefit from the agreement: www.portoftacoma.com/… It is also true that the Longshoreman’s union among others withheld endorsements of Kilmer over TPP: whydidyoujointheunion.blogspot.com/… So abysmal? NO. Pro-union, pro labor and at odds with some unions on one major issue, for which he has, apparently been forgiven—he has a 90% rating from the Teamsters.
I checked out his other ratings:
100% Rating by Planned Parenthood Action Fund
100% rating by the Humane Society
1oo% Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
He has an outstanding record on reform to remove the influence of money on Congress.
No issues that I could see with his history on civil rights except that he opposed divestment in Israeli businesses: justfacts.votesmart.org/…
He has a 95% rating from the Alliance of Retired Americans (an organization of retired union members) for supporting Social Security and the safety net.
He is behind the Wild Olympics Bill to protect remaining wilderness and salmon
I could go on and on, but I’m sure the picture is clear by now. Kilmer may not be for Medicare for All, but that is not a requirement to be considered a good Congressperson. He is ,in fact, an outstanding Congressman and I plan to vote for him in the primary. I do not appreciate what amounts to a smear of him being posted on the front page of Kos.
Monday, Mar 16, 2020 · 4:00:49 AM +00:00 · wren
Update: It turns out the author of the post based his opinions on an issue of Current Affairs. That was a mistake! The article is written from a pretty far out edge point of view. There’s a lot of guilt by association—ooh! Kilmer is on the Problem Solvers committee! So what? Is AOC a bad Congressperson for being willing to work on an issue with Cruz? Kilmer tends pro-defense contract. His primary opponent will lose the election to a Republican if she doesn’t get real about what it means to respresent a district with two large bases and a very large military population. The fact remains that Kilmer is pro-union, pro-living wage, and pro-expanded health care. And, in spite of the guilt-by-association smear in the article, he is not under the thumb of the pharmaceutical industry; he voted for the House bill to reduce drug costs. kilmer.house.gov/… The article is an example of how the purity police can misrepresent a politician’s record.