The (liberal) Girl Next Door answers:
The debate rages within the Democratic Party about whether or not the numbers matter more than the ideology. I understand the value in taking a pragmatic approach, especially considering that taking control of the Senate means Democrats will be chairing committees, able to bring important legislation to the floor that has been sitting dormant for the past five years and finally have the subpoena power that will allow them to really investigate the Bush administration and GOP corruption. That’s a pretty powerful motivator for sending even moderate and conservative Democrats back to the Senate, although I remain unconvinced that it’s the best long-term strategy for the Party.
I have stated in the past that I would rather lose by a large margin with a candidate that actually represents the ideals I believe in, than lose by a slim margin with a merely adequate one. But the climate has changed and it’s no longer a choice between losing and losing badly, now there is actually a chance to win. I’m not sure that the new math changes my opinion, but the possibility of a tourniquet made of an adequate majority is becoming harder and harder to resist. But with Senate incumbents enjoying a reelection rate of around 80% (and it’s even higher in the House), we better be ready to live with these barely adequate, anti-choice Democrats for years and years to come. A tourniquet will stop the bleeding, but it certainly won’t solve the problem.
Howie opinion: I think she is saying she’ll take a Democratic senate, even if it includes the likes of Maria Cantwell.(Since I wrote this, she has told me, “yes, I am saying that.”) I didn’t ask if this position also applies to Senator Lieberman. For me, that’s a line I’m not crossing.
Lieberman should just join the GOP. You know he wants to.
That will never happen. He will become an “independent” if he loses the primary, he has already pretty much admitted it. His party loyalty isn’t particularly high, not that this is much of a surprise.
Whatever Lieberman chooses to label his corporate cronism, he is not a Democrat, if by that term we mean a person who stands up for working people, for keeping the gov’t out of our private lives, and for not sucking on the corporate tit to stay in office. Sorry Joe, whatever you may call yourself, you’re a frucking Republican.
…finally have the subpoena power that will allow them to really investigate the Bush administration and GOP corruption.
This becomes a good base for questioning candidates. I’m not sure it is pragmatic or reasonable to assume all candidates would support investigating Bush and Co.
A personal question Howie, if you don’t mind. Cantwell, you can go with, yes? But Lieberman is a line you won’t cross. Where does PA’s Bob Casey fall on your pragmatic/ideology scale? Would you vote for him?
I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I am curious.
I am far away from PA, but it seems to me the Casey Case falls somewhere in between Cantwell and Lieberman, so it’s a tough call. He hasn’t gone up to Bush and given him a hug, has he?
Noooo, but would he if he could? That is one of the questions 🙂
generally get all they are willing to take.
This is true whether the subject is relationships or governments.
It is you who set the standards for your ownself.
And you are free to set them as high – or as low – as you choose to do.
Just to clarify my position on Maria Cantwell, I will be voting against her in the primary, but when it comes down to it, in a close race, I’d have a hard time voting for a third party candidate. I think a good primary battle makes for good democracy and the current Democratic leadership’s “top down” style of stifling that process is a disgrace that must be dealt with.
welcome to the hood, lgnd.
“What we can get” hasn’t been able to get elected (or bothered to challenge electoral fraud). We can do better.
Yeah, heavy electoral fraud is why I think we might as well put all of our effort into supporting candidates we believe in instead of marginal democrats just to get a majority. I fully expect a quiet announcement by media outlets in the next 6 months that there will be no more money “wasted” on exit polls, the better to hide the 15-20 point inexplicable differences in some races. They are going to have to cheat more blatantly this time to steal some seats that wouldn’t even be close given how much the Republican party has self-destructed in the last year.
I don’t understand why so many Democrats think we can’t win if we support Roe v. Wade, oppose flag-burning amendments, oppose illegal surveillance, oppose the imperial ambitions of CheneyCo. and so on. If holding unpopular positions was disqualifying, Bush would never have been reelected. People respond to strength and confidence. They do not respond to flip-flopping and prevaricating.
The above is from Booman’s diary about Feingold. I just wish the Dem candidates would get this point. I see it from the local level on up. They never say anything definitive, they’re always hedging their bets so as not to offend anyone. And they wind up not saying anything at all. I think this is what turns people off to politics. They know there is nothing real being said, so they ignore it all.
The Bottom Line is that Demcorats have to take responsibity for seizing defeat from the jaws of victory with lousy coandidates.