I have just spent an enjoyable evening with several of my blogger brethren, and we have spent much time talking about the fall races.
It has led me to a conclusion: I have to respect the wishes of the Democratic electorate with regard to the United States Senate race.
Against my advice, they have selected Harold Ford Jr. (not, mind you, that they were given real choices) to be our nominee. I am not about to pull a Joe Lieberman and go off the reservation.
So, while I am not going to endorse him, neither will I oppose him at this time; I am declaring a moratorium on Junior attacks. If I expect people to vote for Steve Cohen for Congress and Mike Kernell for re-election to the state House, I have to accept that they are going to vote for Phil Bredesen and Harold Ford Jr as well.
This comes in light of some serious soul-searching about whether to just say, WTF, I'm going for Chris Lugo, the Green party candidate, or lay low on the subject.
I recently read that the Pennsylvania Green party sought and received almost 100% funding from the PA Republican Party, in order to derail Bob Casey's candidacy to defeat Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. As you can imagine, though it's no fault of Chris Lugo's, that soured me on the Greens.
I will decide later what to do about the Senate, but I will not make it public. This is a time for Democratic unity, and I've been at this too long to throw a monkey-wrench into the works now.
If I have to take Junior in order to get Steve Cohen, then that is what I have to accept, whether I necessarily like it or not.
Mazel tov, Harold, go in peace. Just remember, if you win and you screw up, I'll be on your ass like a rabid badger every day of your Senate career.
50 comments:
You been told a (and believe?) a flat out lie.
http://gp.org/press/pr_2006_08_04.shtml
Some soul-searching questions for you if you hadn't already pondered them:
1. Unless the Republicans have suddenly lost their mojo and their stomachs for political hardball, which is hard to believe, Harold will lose anyway. How does that affect your thinking?
2. For whatever reasons of his own, Harold is a Democrat who acts like a Republican. I can't imagine Republicans voting for a pretend one when they can have a real one. Why would you? Just out of loyalty to a party label? Is party above all?
3. Even if he could win, what good is he when you can't count on him? When you have to be grateful for small favors whenever he does happen to vote like a Democrat?
4. What message does it send to the people running the Democratic Party? On the one hand getting rid of a faker in CT, while on the other hand sending in yet another "Bush-kissed" faker from TN?
5. Aren't you tired of the Fords? They seem to think political greatness is in their DNA, such that every one of them right down to the family dog is worthy of public office? Do you really believe that? Isn't it about time to shut this Ford operation down and make room for something better? Would you be surprised to learn that some blacks are getting tired of the Fords? One politically active union member sat in my dining room the other night and told me he wouldn't support a Ford if it was the only name on the ballot.
6. Take the longer view. He has his sights on the presidency. Nothing about this man makes him worthy of that position. NOTHING. But elect him to the Senate and you are enabling his aspirations.
7. Did you vote for French? I sure as hell didn't, and I bet you didn't. Party loyalty doesn't trump good sense.
The way I look at it, if Corker wins Frist's seat we've lost nothing. We have a Republican right where we can see him.
If Ford loses, we may well have unclogged the political toilet in Memphis.
I say, flush him.
BTW, your "go off the reservation" analogy doesn't work. Lieberman is running for office. You are a voter.
In response to Mike, not that you care, or even know me, still, I think a response from the peanut gallery is appropriate.
1. Jr. may well lose, but the possibility of a Democrat losing doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't vote for Jr. Some will jump on the bandwagon more than others, I personally will offer only moral support, but actively campaigning against him seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
2. I don't think party rises above all considerations, but I DO think that there is something to party loyalty. The Republicans have retained their power up 'til now by keeping the faithful in line. Obviously, the Democratic Party has more challenges in getting people to walk in lockstep, but, wether we LOVE them or even like them, they're "ours", in the most loose sense of the word. I think the average Republican will vote for just about anyone that has an (R) by their name in November. Traditionally, in districts that have one dominant party the REAL race (much like it has been here in Memphis lately) is in the primary...if there even is a primary. I think most Democrats will vote for anyone with a (D) by their name, though Democrats traditionally suffer from more wanderlust that our Republican counterfparts. As such, in elections such as this, it's important to work for the party over the individual.
3. My sense of the situation, is that assuming that Democrats regain controll of the Senate that Jr. WILL vote more with the Democrats. Republican leaders have consistently kept Democratic legislation (Bills and amendments) off the table, leaving little or no alternative. Given the opportunity, I think Jr. MAY vote differently. Yeah, I know that's a lot of assumption, and I know what that makes me...
4. Had there been an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER to Jr., we might be in a different position (though I doubt ANYONE in TN could have beaten Jr.'s DLC connections).
5. The devil you know....
6. No Senator has been elected President since JFK. Being in the Senate is the Political kiss of death for those aspiring to be President. If he wanted to run for President he should have run for Governor.
7. I haven't lived here that long, but no, I voted for the guy who cleaned up 201 Poplar. I've lived in the area, and, in my younger days, spent a night or two in the drunk tank (the shame of it all), and know what a hell hole that place was. I'm sure it's not much better now, but at least people aren't getting the f**k beat out of them for no reason anymore.
Mike, I get where you're coming from, and I can say that all that potential that I saw in Jr. back in '96 seems to have been sucked up by the dark side of the party (DLC). Still, we have an opportunity to gain a seat (even if we only get one buttcheek on that seat). We should take advantage of the situation, if possible. Sure I have my reservations, but I have even MORE reservations about Corker.
I think you misunderstand. I did not, and AM not endorsing Junior.
My position is that if he wins, it will be without my help, and if he loses, it will be without my help.
I want no action of mine from this point until Noember to be construed as anything that could back lash on Steve Cohen, so I am simply keeping quiet on the race.
I am not doing either Junior's or Corker's work for them.
Well, as I posted on The cue, I don't see why if we support Cohen we have to support Ford Jr., I See NO connection. How could anyone confuse what a left-wing blogger like me has to say with Steve Cohen's campaign..
I am not confined to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. I will support THE PARTY when it stands up for progressive values and principles, I will not sacrifice my principles for THE PARTY. I am a Democratic Socialist, my goal is economic and political democracy, equality, social justice and peace. I am committed to THOSE principles NOT the Democratic Party. The Democractic Party may well be in its death bed, I hope, it's time for a real labor/progressive/left paty to replace it. I sick and tired of defending a weak spinless party like the TN Democratic Party, I've already given up on the TN Democratic Party. There is some hope in the national DNC, but the DLC centrists seem to still be winning over the party leadership..
1. Unless the Republicans have suddenly lost their mojo and their stomachs for political hardball, which is hard to believe, Harold will lose anyway. How does that affect your thinking?
Speaking for myself, very little. I do think it's pretty likely that he'll lose this fall. Things don't look good. As little hope of bringing the TN seat to our side of the aisle, he's the best hope we have for it.
2. For whatever reasons of his own, Harold is a Democrat who acts like a Republican. I can't imagine Republicans voting for a pretend one when they can have a real one. Why would you? Just out of loyalty to a party label? Is party above all?
Not above all. I personally would trade away the Dem electoral majority on the county commission if it meant getting Novella into 2-2 instead of Henri Brooks. But we need to get to the point where we're not playing defense all the time on the Hill. Even if he doesn't vote with us often enough, his mere presence would be enough to actually help us get some legislation on the floor once in a while. Win enough seats, and he plays a role in getting us subpoena power and a choice in committee leadership.
3. Even if he could win, what good is he when you can't count on him? When you have to be grateful for small favors whenever he does happen to vote like a Democrat?
Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and even John McCain (At least until he started trying to shift to the right to get a better chance at the GOP '08 nomination) voted with us as often as they did their own party. But their mere presence gave the GOP the numerical advantage that they needed to spike everything we tried to put on the floor. We can't pass that up. Even if he votes against us a lot and means we can't pass everything we want to, it slams the brakes on the runaway Republican government.
4. What message does it send to the people running the Democratic Party? On the one hand getting rid of a faker in CT, while on the other hand sending in yet another "Bush-kissed" faker from TN?
Maybe it will be different after ten years of work from the grass roots, but at this point, TN would not be able to elect my "dream Democrat". So the message I want to send is "I want us to have that seat and many more".
5. Aren't you tired of the Fords?
Certainly. Their time is coming soon enough. Well, maybe not soon enough, but it's coming. I don't believe in sacrificing what slim chance we have of picking up the Senate majority just to be rid of them, though.
6. Take the longer view. He has his sights on the presidency. Nothing about this man makes him worthy of that position. NOTHING. But elect him to the Senate and you are enabling his aspirations.
I aspire to get a three way going with Jennifer Connelly and Scarlett Johanssen. But there's a long way between aspiration and achieving the aspiration, and Jr. and I are stuck in the same limbo. There's not much that can be done to enable either of our aspirations.
7. Did you vote for French? I sure as hell didn't, and I bet you didn't. Party loyalty doesn't trump good sense.
No it doesn't.
As someone else pointed out, the "news" that the Green Party in PA was being funded almost entirely by the GOP is Democratic Party propaganda.
See Green Party Press release
Furthermore, I would rather an anti-gay ant-women's rights Republican win that election than an anti-gay, anti-women's rights Democrat like that sorry ass Bob Casey.
Again, we have the same problem nationwide, as the Democratic Party tries to move to the RIGHT of the Republicans to win Congress.... and how exactly would this help futher progressive political goals???
The sad reality is that the Democratic Party is dying. It does not stand up for progressive anything, only what will get it corporate donations and win elections, even if it means screwing gays, women, workers, etc...
I've almost had enough of the Democratic Party...I don't see much of a hope for it.
And let's not forget what happened when the DLC centrist Democrats occupied the White House under Bill Clinton...
Ending "welfare was we know it"... screw the poor..
"Don't Ask don't Tell" anti-gay military policy.. broken promise to gays, gays got screwed..
"Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) signed and supported by Bill Clinton--screw gays again..
"Three Strikes Your Out"--tough on crime, crowded prisons, screw poor minorities again..
Has anyone but me had enough of the "centrist-right" Democrats? Do they deserve our support just to keep the Republicans from doing the SAME things??
Jim,
I believe, just as you do, that gays should be able to marry. Let's get that out of the way first.
If course, I also believe that we should get the hell out of Iraq. I believe we should establish a sound energy policy. I believe we should impeach that son of a Bush in the Oval right now. I believe we need subpoena power to make that happen.
I believe we should be able to get bills onto the floor, and I'm quite frustrated that 85% of what we propose ends up getting killed in committee now by chairmen that we didn't get to choose.
I believe it's disgraceful that a third of our population only gets to see the inside of a hospital if they press their noses against the window of one. I believe it's a national disgrace that the ideological equivalent of hoodoo has put the GOP in a prime position to block legitimate means of medical research, and we don't have the numbers to do a goddamn thing about it.
I believe it's a disgrace that science has been trumped by superstition to the point that if the space shuttle crash landed in Kansas, residents would come out of their homes and beat it with sticks. And I believe it's disgraceful that Republicans are so eager to tap into that politically that they want to hang the Ten Commandments on anything that stands still too long.
I believe that if you want gays to be able to marry, you should probably quit helping the guys that sponsor all the anti-gay legislation by splitting Democratic voters. Too many of our guys are voting for it too; You'll get no argument out of me there. Is your cause helped by Bob Corker?
I really do want you to be able to marry whoever you want. As far as I'm concerned, the government should do nothing to restrict the relationship of any consenting adults. I'm straight, and I believe that we're as big a threat to the institution of marriage as you are.
But when I look at all the other things that are going wrong that putting a Democrat in that seat can help, if not fix outright (That depends on a few other races as well), the choice is very clear to me.
From AP:
Santorum staffers gathered signatures for Green Party candidate
"We welcome his entry into the race because at least he's willing to debate the issues, unlike Bob Casey," Davis [Virginia, Santorum spokeswoman] said in an e-mail. "So no one should be surprised that when we encouraged Pennsylvanians to help in this effort that people did exactly that."...
...Most of the Green Party donors were Republicans, including many who contributed to Santorum's reelection campaign. Among the list were a corporate lobbyist, a former aide to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and a state Republican activist.
"I like participatory democracy," said Charles Snelling, a former state GOP finance chairman from the Lehigh Valley. "Democracy works better when there are a full range of choices before the people and they get to decide what they want."...
Gee. The Greens aren't owning up to it. Let's put this in perspective: The Greens are being less honest about this effort than the Republicans are. It's shades of the same sense of denial Nader had when Republicans kept his 2004 campaign afloat.
Click here for an article about the Romanelli finances. Only $30 came from someone not identifiable as a big Republican donor, and that $30 came from the candidate himself. It would be a lot easier to prove if he actually did his campaign disclosures, but someone investigating what little he has disclosed and matching it up to Santorum's list is pretty conclusive.
And he must be using the money exactly the way the GOP wants him to. He's showing $17.20 on hand, despite taking in $66,000 from GOP donors.
Why are you so eager to blame the GREEN Party, which does stand up its principles, and defend the Demcratic Party which does NOT? Why is it tha the DEMOCRATS do not want voters to have a real choice in elections, and force them to choose between the Repbulicrats?
What would a Corker victory do for progressives? It willl show that when the Democratic party does not stand up and defend progressives values (you know those things like equality, social justice, etc.) they will LOOSE.
By supporting Ford Jr. (i.e, voting for him), Democrats are saying, well, screw progressive principles, we will support conservative Democrats no matter what.
So I think the worst thing for progressives would be for Ford Jr. or Bob Casey or any conservative Democrat to win elections, with the support of so-called "progressives" just to support THE PARTY. Why would the Democratic Party ever take their liberal/progressive base seriously, if they can count on their votes no matter how conservative their candidate is???
I don't see how having Congress controlled by centrist/conservative Democrats will solve many problems or improve much over the Republicans. Just look back to when they did have control of congress for a history lesson..
My point is, by supporting the DLC centrist Democrats, you reward their political strategy which takes your vote for granted and panders to the right=wing. In any case, the right-wing wins.
Oh.. and as for healthcare, does Harold Ford Jr. even support "universal health care"? I don't see it anywhere on his web page or platform...
The Democratic Party blew that one too. They had a chance a blew it.
Clinton rejected the "single-payer" universal health care model which did have poplar support, and tried to appease the insurance company with that monsterous "Managed Care" disaster that didn't get much support from anyone. They caved in to the BIG Insurance Companies, and suffered the wrath of the smaller/independent isurance companies, and finally caved in to them.
Democrats talk about health care but they aren't offering any real solution to the problem..
Liek Gas prices.. what the hell are the Democrats going to do about Gas Prices??
Harold Ford Jr.'s web page makes a big deal about gas prices, but what would Harold Ford Jr. do about that problem? Nothing.
More empty rhethoric from a party with no real principles.
Why are you so eager to blame the GREEN Party, which does stand up its principles, and defend the Demcratic Party which does NOT?
Because the Green Party allows itself to be constantly used by the Republican Party. So whose principles are they really standing up for? Who gets an agenda passed because of their presence? It sure ain't the fucking Greens. It sure as hell ain't the Democrats either. The commander-in-thief got his job in the first damn place because of Greens. The real question should be why the hell you're in such a hurry to let the Greens help the Republicans raise Santorum's numbers.
Why is it tha the DEMOCRATS do not want voters to have a real choice in elections, and force them to choose between the Repbulicrats?
Why is it that we're supposed to toss everything else to the side so you can rail about a single issue?
So I think the worst thing for progressives would be for Ford Jr. or Bob Casey or any conservative Democrat to win elections, with the support of so-called "progressives" just to support THE PARTY.
Have you enjoyed the Bush years? Have you loved the single party dominance that has led us to where we are today? Has not being able to get a bill to the floor unless it's something the GOP wants to squash for a photo op (Like the Kerry Iraq withdrawal bill) been fun for you?
I would guess that the answer is no. You're letting ideology (An ideology I share, for the most part) blind you to political reality. If I had it my way, the Senate would consist of 50 clones of Russ Feingold partnered up with 50 clones of Paul Wellstone. But they're not getting elected in Tennessee in the next decade, so we learn to use what we have. The (D) next to Harold's name makes him very useful when it comes to getting legislation on the floor, just as the (R) next to Chafee's name helps his guys get bills onto the floor.
I don't see how having Congress controlled by centrist/conservative Democrats will solve many problems or improve much over the Republicans. Just look back to when they did have control of congress for a history lesson..
That's a little shortsighted. I want hardcore liberals up there as much as you do, maybe even more. But we have to bring the country back to the left before we can make that happen. That's a long term investment in time, and time is something we don't exactly have a shitload of right now. We're in a pretty deep hole right now, and the Republicans (With an assist from the Greens they're helping to fund) are throwing dirt on us as fast as they can. Simply put--- If you want Republicans in power for the next half century, then by all means, keep helping them by helping the Greens screw the Democrats.
In the meantime, try to change America by changing the electorate rather than the elected.
My point is, by supporting the DLC centrist Democrats, you reward their political strategy which takes your vote for granted and panders to the right=wing. In any case, the right-wing wins.
And my point is, it could be a lot worse. Don't believe me? Keep helping the Republicans.
Before the horse gets run over by the cart, I would reccomend you at least look at the G.P. press release. It directly addresses the issue, Directly.
http://gp.org/press/pr_2006_08_04.shtml
regards
Democrats talk about health care but they aren't offering any real solution to the problem..
Nice, the way you repeat that tired right wing talking point.
Usually, when I hear that, it's from someone at Fox News.
I guess it's easy to characterize the guys that can't get legislation onto the floor as "offering no solution".
And it's a pity that you help them out with that by not only repeating the talking points, but by kneecapping any attempt to get something onto the floor.
What would be the Democratic solution to the oil crisis? I don't know yet. They can't get anythin onto the floor, so I haven't seen it. If it involves something less than blowjobs and tax breaks for oil industry executives, I'd say it's an improvement.
Helath care? Shit, I don't know. The last Republican attempt at health care was S.1955, which would have deregulated the entire insurance industry to the point that insurers would no longer have to cover mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, prenatal care, and postnatal care. Our filibuster held together by a very narrow margin, or the GOP would have found new ways to screw the poor and sick. So it's not just a massive stretch of the imagination to arrive at the notion that our idea would be something somewhat better than that.
So don't even try to sell me that tired horseshit about how there's "no difference". I expect that out of a casual observer that knows little to nothing about politics. I expect better out of you.
I forgot to mention #8, which is to me the most potent:
8. A Democrat voting Republican is WORSE than a Republican voting, because it not only gives them the vote, it gives the Republicans "bi-partisan cover".
And here's a bonus point #9:
9. Didn't I see a picture somewhere a while back of Bush giving Harold "the kiss"? And didn't I hear Harold once say, "I love my president"? I'm pretty sure I did.
I don't know what Harold learned at St. Albans, but it sure wasn't what I learned in public school only a few miles away. He doesn't get my vote. I'm not going to help put a lying hypocrite in the Senate for 20 years. As I once told Nikki Tinker to her face, "You worked for Harold? Well, I'm so mad at him I could spit." (She quickly stepped back.)
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted LWC. Maybe we're on the same page, except for one thingL: I'll tell anyone who asks what I think about Harold.
Firstly, LeftWingCracker, I have to commend you for posting your thoughts and the sincerity expressed therein.
Whilst I appreciate that you are not actually ‘endorsing’ Ford, your stance is, nevertheless, a much more decent, rational, pragmatic, fairer and mature approach, than some.
For instance, a couple of examples in: Bill Hobbs, Jim Maynard and Thaddeus Matthews respectively, who are sufficiently driven by a self-centred agenda - nay, malicious intent, to actively undermine Ford’s campaign any which way they can - masquerading under the guise of political discourse.
vibinc, I agree. In addition, the crux of what Bill Clinton said last week at the Nashville fundraising bash was essentially that Democrats had to soul-search on: “a philosophy versus an ideology”.
"Stand with Bush, and you lose."
My sentiments exactly.
Flush Ford. We don't need his kind.
Ford will lose anyway, but what he needs to understand out of all of this is that he didn't just get out-gunned by the Republicans, he lost the support of the Democrats, too.
Mike, guess you don't care too much for Harold, eh? I'm trying to listen keenly to what you have to say, but must say, in the midst of it all... you sound a little jealous...
As a good patriot should, he loves his president, don't you? Btw, if you haven't heard the latest... he's also said that he was quite fond of Reagan also.
Troll.
My whole purpose in this is not to help Junior, but to protect Cohen. Junior and cohen have to run together on the same ticket, and, unfortunately, attacks on Junior right now could drive African-Americans to jake Ford and I refuse to take that chance.
cohen's election is my HIGHEST electoral priority for 2006.
Period.
Maybe I'm dense, But you'll have to do a better job of explaining how Harold and Steve's fortunes are connected - other than they happen to claim the same party.
Lieberman shills have been claiming that if Loserman is rejected it will hurt down-ticket Dems. But that's b.s., coming from party leaders. It just ain't so.
Steve has a far better chance because he's being elected in a Democratic district. Harold is trying to suck up to a Red state electorate. I do not get how they are connected.
Dan Balz at the Washington Post frames a Lieberman loss as an effective shock heard round the world -- a shock which will shake up the Democratic establishment and "dramatically alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination."
I frickin hope so.
Freedonian,
You have really been drinking that DLC cool-aid dude.
You dismiss the factual points I made, i.e, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY record when they have been in control of the government...
What did they do for "universal health care" back when they did have control of government? Nothing. They were bought off by the same interest groups that paid off the Republicans.
Don't belive it? Go look, go ahead, and find ANY MENTION OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WEBSITE, ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM OR THE HAROLD FORD JR. WEBSITE, ETC.
The Democratic Party is not even suggesting "universal health insurance" anymore...
Wonder why.. (go look at the campaign contributions to start with..)
YOu acccuse me of only having ONE issue..I've been talking about a lot more than gay rights, and I'm not just focused on gay marriage..
And the reason they Democratic Party is not taking a stand for progressive principles like universal health insurance, is that they can count on the votes of THE PARTY loyalists who will support them no matter how far they move THE PARTY to the right to get more coporate money and win elections by screwing the workers, poor, gays, women, etc.
So when you have a choice between "third party" candidates who do support your views on these issues, but you keep voting for the party that does NOT support these issues.. who are you rewarding?
Mike, your "troll" dismissal was fairly predictable - yawn. I won't be put off expressing myself by your lack of civility. Indeed, my world is not going to come to a grinding halt if you are rude/ignore what I'm saying. I quite enjoy my own company and don't have a problem talking to myself...
You said:
1. “Unless the Republicans have suddenly lost their mojo and their stomachs for political hardball, which is hard to believe, Harold will lose anyway.”
If you are so sure that “Harold will lose anyway”, why are you so worked-up? Mind you, it will be difficult (but not impossible) for him to win. Even moreso because there is – according to polls taken at the outset of Ford’s campaign – a hardcore 13% of white voters in TN who will not vote for a black man, under any circumstances.
LeftWingCracker is not joined at the hip with a boatload of Ford detractors and doesn’t need to justify himself; he’s perfectly entitled to change his mind, and back again, if he so wishes. Besides, he’s left his options open.
2. On Ford’s supposed presidential aspirations: “Nothing about this man makes him worthy of that position. NOTHING. But elect him to the Senate and you are enabling his aspirations.”
“They seem to think political greatness is in their DNA, such that every one of them right down to the family dog is worthy of public office?”
Must say, I had to re-read these remarks. For a minute, I thought you were talking about George W. Bush!
Slightly off-topic: I daresay you are aware of recently declassified documents:
“George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz.
It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.”
Q: Do you consider George W. Bush “worthy”??? Apart from a dodgy family background, was his career outstanding or notable, in any way?
I only mentioned since you first referred to “DNA”… As if this isn’t bad enough, if we fast-forward to the current situation in the Middle East --- isn’t it an absolute disgrace that US - and for that matter world - security could be compromised because the Bush clan are firmly ensconced with the House of Saudi???
3. “Would you be surprised to learn that some blacks are getting tired of the Fords? One politically active union member sat in my dining room the other night and told me he wouldn't support a Ford if it was the only name on the ballot.”
How patronising. Spoken like a true blue-bloodied "liberal". Imagine that --- allowed into your dining room - lucky fella. Does your wide brush-stroke assertion about “black” dissatisfaction with Ford somehow validate what you are saying?
This may be of interest:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5539692
I guess Freedonian and other "progressives" have embrached the Communist Party's strategy of supporting centrist Democrats no matter what, in hopes that THE PARTY willl give liberals and progressives some poitical power...
This thread (combative tone, entrenched and myopic viewpoints etc) is fairly typical of what's happening right across the Democratic blogsphere. Implosion! And, sadly, it's so easy to see why the vast majority of people, just can't be bothered...
The Repubs must be laughing at y'all - scoring points off each other, seeing who can shout the loudest and navel-gazing your way to many more years in the political wilderness.
English Rose,
I'm sure that Harold Ford Jr. will lead us out of the wilderness once he is elected to the Senate..
Jim,
You're navel-gazing again.
Funny you should use the Clinton healthcare plan as an example making yhour point when in fact... It proves mine. Instead of rallying behind a decent, if imperfect plan, Democrats broke ranks, offered plans of their own, and created enough disarray to help the Republicans. Way to go.
The Democratic Party is not even suggesting "universal health insurance" anymore...
And that's the difference between playing defense and playing offense. We don't get to play offense right now. How stupid would it be to tip our hands and put out a plan we have no means to implement? It's better to do what they've done--- Give enough information on the site to let readers know they're still interested in it, but put forward no specifics.
See, this is the evidence that they learned a lesson from the Clinton plan. Clinton ran on his plan and laid out the specifics during his '92 campaign. That gave the right wingers shitloads of time to mount an effective attack.
YOu acccuse me of only having ONE issue..I've been talking about a lot more than gay rights, and I'm not just focused on gay marriage..
You are indeed focused on gay marriage. If you weren't, you wouldn't be dragging out the "there's no difference" meme. The rest of us would like to see a war end. We would like to see a better tax system established. We'd like someone up there to stop Republicans from screwing sick people any further. Republicans agree with social conservatives on one thing, so to you, there's "no difference". The rest of us have no problem spotting the differences.
So when you have a choice between "third party" candidates who do support your views on these issues, but you keep voting for the party that does NOT support these issues.. who are you rewarding?
Unlike you, I'm not rewarding Republicans. That may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a start.
guess Freedonian and other "progressives" have embrached the Communist Party's strategy of supporting centrist Democrats no matter what, in hopes that THE PARTY willl give liberals and progressives some poitical power...
Are you so completely oblivious to political reality that you can't see an advantage to a greater number of Democrats? Yes or no will suffice. If you can't grasp reality long enough to wrap your mind around increasing our numbers because it's the only way to stop the guys that sponsor legislation against you and your lifestyle, then I have absolutely no idea what to even tell you anymore.
But I know this from having read what you've written in the past. When the next Republican anti-gay measure comes along, you're going to complain that the Democrats aren't doing enough for you. At the same time, you'll be doing everything you can to undermine them by complaining that it's somehow unfair to point out that the Republicans have given a Green candidate 2,200 times what the Greens could have raised themselves in an attempt to divide the liberal vote.
Freedonian,
And are you so oblivious to political reality that you don't see that when you pledge your allegiance to THE PARTY instead of progressive ideas and principles, and you vote for THE PARTY even when it does NOT support progressive or liberal principles, you are rewarding the conservative political establishment. Are you voting for your principles or for THE PARTY?
You claim that in the long run, supporting THE PARTY will help forward progressive political goals becausse THE PARTY will be allow and support more progressive legislation, DESPITE the record of THE PARTY to the contrary...
Now, you admit that in the short run, voting for THE PARTY, is not going to support progressive goals, but in the long run it will, hopefully..
I'm arguing that in the short run, The Democrats may have to suffer political defeat IF THEY DO NOT STAND BY PROGRESSIVE IDEAS AND SCREW THEIR BASE. The Republicans went throw that process.. we should learn someting ffrom the Republican right. Republicans suffered defeats, but the conservatives kept fighting for their principles until finaly the Republican party took them seriously. Now, the Republican party cannot win without the support of their coservative base, or they may vote for Ross Perot or some other political party, which is what happened in the 90s when Perot won enough of the conservative/independent voters to cause the GOP to loose two Presidential elections (Clinton would not have been elected if Ross Perot had not been in the race to give Republicans disenchanted with Bush I a choice.)
I think most Americans see the "Two-Party" system as corrupt and county to democracy, which is why most of them don't vote.
We need more political parties and more voices in the political system, not this two-parties of the same party monopoly.
EnglishRose said:
"As a good patriot should, he loves his president, don't you? Btw, if you haven't heard the latest... he's also said that he was quite fond of Reagan also."
A trollish, baiting remark if I ever heard one. I won't take the bait.
Ok, this is going to be my last response to Freedonian (sorry Cracker..)
Freedonian actually said: Are you so completely oblivious to political reality that you can't see an advantage to a greater number of Democrats? Yes or no will suffice. If you can't grasp reality long enough to wrap your mind around increasing our numbers because it's the only way to stop the guys that sponsor legislation against you and your lifestyle, then I have absolutely no idea what to even tell you anymore. But I know this from having read what you've written in the past. When the next Republican anti-gay measure comes along, you're going to complain that the Democrats aren't doing enough for you."
OK, now lets take the issue of gay rights (we could find simlar examples with other issues..) We in the gay communty helped eleced Bill Clinton. We threw big fundraaisers. Clinton promised, PROMISED, that one of the first things he would do is sign an executive order lifting the ban on gays in the military. What did he do? He caved in to SAM NUNN AND OTHER DEMOCRATS who opposed lifting the ban, and he signed off on the "don't Ask don't tell" policy written by conservative Republicans and Democrats like Sam Nunn. That wasn't all..when the Republicans pushed the "Defense of MArriage Act" which basically prohibited any state from recognizing same-sex marriages, Clinton not only supported and signed it, to get reelected, he and the Democratic Party aired commercials onn CHRISTIAN radio stations throughout the south BRAGGING about how they supported "traditional marrage" and the DOMA.
Now, as much as I hated Ronald Reagan, and George Bush I, neither of them did as much damage to gay rights as BILL CLINTON.
To this day, Democrats like Harold Ford Jr. brag about how they supported the Republican Defense of Marriage Act!
So now you should see why I don't trut the Democratic Party to support my rights..
Folks,
I think you are being a little unfair to Jim to accuse him of being "single-issue". Granted, I haven't known him as long as you. Granted, he's pretty emotional about "that issue" - but you would be too if you were in his shoes.
But Jim makes many other good points that are not about "that issue", and I tend to agree with him.
It may be counter-intuitive if you are going to be tactical and short-term and count "Democrats" toward control of Congress, but I think it's more strategic that we stop enabling crass, manufactured politicians like Harold Ford, Jr. He does us more harm than a Republican in the very same way Lieberman does us more harm. I see no good reason to close ranks behind him just because he is running under the Democratic flag. I see a lot of reasons not to. I've enumerated 8 or 9.
As for Jim's issue, I'm pretty emotional about it, too. First, because I know what the crass game plan is with Amendment 1 and other initiatives of that ilk. I heard it straight from Republican Party lips. Second, because it is a repulsive misuse of the constitution to deny rights that I believe all citizens already have. It's been said many times that if you stand silent as your neighbors are led away one by one, some day they will come for you and nobody will be left to speak up.
Now, as much as I hated Ronald Reagan, and George Bush I, neither of them did as much damage to gay rights as BILL CLINTON.
Clinton took a pounding from every direction over his attempt to keep that promise, and you've said he was worse than the guy that refused to sign off on AIDS research because he perceived it as a "gay disease". 45,000 dead before he could bring himself to say the name of the disease in public. Very insightful.
Democrats can't make all your dreams come true overnight. It takes time, and how much time that is depends on all of us. It's our job to change the electorate. If we try to change elected officials first, all we do is guarantee that none of us are going to have any power for decades to come.
Now, if you like your odds with the Republicans, then please feel free to go ahead and keep undermining the Democratic Party. You're helping them with something they simply cannot do on their own. They love seeing a Green candidate file.
Here's an idea. When Chris Lugo actually gets around to filing his donor list, check it out. Cross reference it with the Corker, Bryant, and Hilleary lists. Then see who you're helping out with this.
If Lugo gets less than half of his financial backing from Republican donors, I will eat my hat.
Ironic, isn't it? You claim that Democrats and Republicans have been bought off by the same people, so you're moving towards Republican-funded candidates.
I cannot, cannot reiterate this enough; You change the political landscape by convincing the people, not their elected leaders. The Civil Rights Act didn't happen because a room full of stuffy old white men puffing on cigars thought it was a cool idea. It happened because Americans got angry when they saw black people getting beaten with axe handles by the likes of Lester Maddux and started marching with them.
Most progressives are already with you on this. It will take time to win the rest over. It's harder for gays than it was for blacks in some ways; A lot of people out there still perceive homosexuality as a choice rather than just part of who you are. No one could say that skin color was anyone's choice.
Those are the people you have to change the minds of. Simply getting pissed off and shoving the party off of a cliff because they can't snap their fingers and convince Americans to accept you does nothing but prolong your own struggle and at the same time, making sure that the war goes on for a long time to come, make sure that Republicans get to screw more people out of their healthcare, they get to screw up Social Security, and... Well, you're familiar with them. You know the agenda.
Keep weakening Democrats, and you will achieve no objective of yours in your lifetime. Keep them strong, and you have a fighting chance.
Mike,
I am an ideologue second and a tactician first. The ideology does us no good if we're standing on the outside looking in.
If all of us voted only with our ideals all the time, there would be one Republican Party and six variations on the Democratic Party clawing at one another for whatever crumbs drop from the GOP table.
Over the long term, I absolutely agree with you and Jim. I don't want another goddamn middle of the road Democrat going to the Hill. One of the few smart things Ann Coulter ever said was "The only thing you find in the middle of the road is roadkill".
But that's a strategy that has to be worked in over the long term. If we give the public nothing but candidates that are too progressive for them to vote for, we kneecap ourselves, and we guarantee several decades of uninterrupted one party rule.
TN would not elect a Paul Wellstone, or even a Russ Feingold. Not now. A reality that we all have to face is this; Even Harold Ford may be too progressive to win in TN.
If all of us work our asses off for years, we may succeed in creating an environment that could elect genuine progressive candidates. But for the time being, we have to build a future with the tools we have on hand.
Electing Harold and a few more brings the GOP juggernaut to a halt. Picking up a handful of seats makes it difficult for the Republicans to do any more damage. And that is always worthwhile.
Good talking to you, Mike.
Freedonian,
I doubt the Chris Lugo donation list, as small as I'm sure it is, will contain anywhere near the Republcian donations , not to mention the corporate donations, Harold Ford Jr is getting....
Those corporations are sure glad you support their candidate.
And the Republicans sure are glad you support theirs. The people that think of gay bashing as good political strategy love to see you coming.
Short list. Won't take long to cross reference. Surely, making me eat my hat has to be worth the few minutes it would take to check it out, no?
Like I say, if you think your odds are better with Republicans, then you go right ahead and keep sticking it to the Democrats every chance you get.
Apologies if a version of this appears twice... I thought I sent it previously... but it could be out in cyberspace...
Mike, for what it's worth --- my Bush and Reagan [throw-away] asides were made with tongue firmly in cheek :-)
I've had an opportunity to re-read the posts in the clear light of day and, on reflection, there are some thought-provoking and challenging assertions being made. Which is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.
After all is said and done... I would prefer to observe you guys passionately debating your corner/convictions, rather than the apparent lack of inquisition and indifference from the vast majority of the electorate.
Some arguments have helped to clarify some of my own thinking. And, I now know that - without apology - I belong to the 'political reality' school of thought.
Whilst vigorous debate is intrinsically 'healthy', I hope people remain engaged, focussed and resist cynicism. I'd be more surprised than not - given the stakes - if people were in complete agreement.
When push comes to shove, the Repubs demonstrate that they are more adept and inclined to circle the wagons. I've heard what I, initially, thought was a very simplistic notion being spouted over at Fox News. When discussing the possible outcomes in Nov, a talking head deduced that the Repubs would retain their positions in both Houses, merely because they wanted 'it' [power] more badly than the Democrats.
Whatever. Nevertheless, I hope that people - even those flimsily aligned with the Democratic party - will acknowledge that remaining 'open' and respecting the opinions of others, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Peace out.
Sorry, English Rose. I had actually considered that possibilitya couple times, but I just didn't get it. To cater to the denser folks among us, here is the cybersymbol you can use as a clue in such situations
;-)
For the progressives: Here is a rationale defending Ford that just might give you pause.
Ford is either so calculating or so stupid. Either way, I can't vote for him. It only encourages politicians of his kind.
LWC, as I said over at the 'Fly, I have just two words: unprincipled coward.
(Not you the man, of course, but the politics of this.)
I remember talking to you at the last bash and hearing how you felt. When it was a meaningless primary, you were ready to storm the battlements; now that the stakes are real, you run to the fortress begging safety.
If you don't have the courage of your convictions, then what do you have?
I have spent too many years investing this Party and what is supposed to stand for to throw it in the dumper.
Are you really that worried that he could win? You have to know in your heart of hearts that he will only carry Shelby, Davidson and Lauderdale counties and corker will win in a walk, why try to goad me into throwing more logs on an inferno?
Freedonian,
Get ready to eat your hat...I will get Chris Lugo's very small donation list and you can start chomping away...
Republicans are not going to be supporting Chris Lugo, they have a close race with Ford Jr. running as a conservative Republican against Corker, they will have to decide which Republican they want to vote for.
Al Gore Spoiled:
Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.
Democratic Senators Spoiled:
When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.
The Democratic Party Spoiled:
For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?
Don't Believe the Lies!
Lie #1: “This is a two-party system.”
Nothing in the US Constitution limits the number of political parties. Democracy means free participation, in the party of your choice.
Lie #2: “Green candidates steal votes from Democrats”
Greens will continue to affect election outcomes - and sometimes win. But Greens have no power to steal votes from Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone’s vote except for his or her own.
Lie #3: “If Nader hadn’t run, everyone who voted for him would have voted for Gore!”
According to exit polls, Nader’s support came from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and many others. Many would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run, and some voters might not have voted at all.
Kinda' makes me nauseated listening to the dem. mushroom growing medium
JJ, how does it feel to be part of the GOP machine? REad this from Kos and the Philly papers:
PA-Sen: Santorum staffers collected signatures from Green candidate
by kos
Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:54:32 AM PDT
Republicans didn't just buy the Green Party with cold, hard cash, they actually provided the foot soldiers as well.
Six staffers on Sen. Rick Santorum's campaign - including an intern who tailed Democratic candidate Bob Casey Jr. in a duck costume - collected voter signatures to help place the Green Party on the fall ballot.
The intern, petitions show, collected signatures from voters in five counties in one day.
T.J. Rooney, the state Democratic Party chairman, and other Democrats disclosed details of the petition drive that they said offered further evidence of involvement from Santorum supporters to get Carl Romanelli, the Green Party's Senate candidate, on the ballot. Not only did Santorum aides help collect signatures for Romanelli, but Republicans and Santorum supporters put more than $60,000 into the petition drive.
It's examples such as the apparent one-person, five-county petition tour - plus unregistered voters, multiple signatures by the same person, and fake names - that could form the basis of a challenge, Rooney said. John Michael Glick - the Santorum intern who has worn a duck costume to hound Casey for "ducking" issues - appeared to have collected signatures in Beaver, Washington, Fayette, Juniata, and Schuylkill Counties, Rooney said.
"It's un-ducking-believable," he said. "Instead of his duck attire, one has to ask if he wore a Superman costume that day."
Hmm, so what part of the Pennsylvania Green Party is, you know, Green?
Update: I've been very careful about singling out just the Pennsylvania Green Party over this mess, under the delusion that the national Green Party wouldn't want to be associated with the Republican Party's friendly takeover of one of their state parties. I was wrong.
The national Green Party has welcomed the GOP's loving embrace of the Pennsylvania Green Party.
Permalink ::
Here's the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/7/135432/2984
Post a Comment