Hackett's not a liberal, so answer me this

[sandnsea]

Why do the so-called DLC sell-out DUers always seem to get behind the real liberal in any given race, while the purists always seem to get behind the centrist who does nothing more than yells the loudest. They all said Schweitzer and Salazar were proof Dems could win if they just ran with guts, or some such, but now they beat Salazar over the head at every turn. And Obama isn't even good enough for them. Sure it's good to fight for what you believe in, but why don't they listen to what these particular politicians actually say they're going to fight for?

It's like the Patriot Act. They don't even know Feingold doesn't want the Patriot Act repealed. They're fighting for something that has absolutely not the remotest possibility of happening.

How can we ever have a real Democratic Party or a platform when too many people simply don't know what the hell they're talking about and are supporting people or issues that are in exact opposition to the reality they say they want.

[whometense]

1. Great question.

Ask myself this every day.

Same as with JK - how many of those people still have no freaking idea who the man is, but are ever-ready to jump all over him.

I've come to loathe the words "spineless" and "balls".

[sandnsea]

6. Me too

Except when I'm needling some Dem basher who doesn't have the guts to stand up against the right wing onslaught themselves. :evilgrin:

[Mass]

2. Feingold is doing a great job right now explaining where he stands

on the Senate floor, but I doubt that anybody is really listening.

[sandnsea]

4. I understand his position

I've just listened to repeal the Patriot Act for what, 5 years now. Because Feingold wants to filibuster the current legislation, people who support him are still in "repeal the Patriot Act" mode. They have no idea he never supported repealing the complete Patriot Act. So what's America supposed to think when you get a lefty on Hardball calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act, a Bushie saying we need it, and Feingold trying to explain his, correct, position. It sounds like he's trying to split the difference or straddle the fence. You know this as well as I do, I know that. How do we get the left to figure it out?

[FreedomAngel82]

10. We need to actually talk to each other don't we?

[FreedomAngel82]

9. Do they ever?

All they want is someone who can scream the loudest. But that doesn't really mean much does it?

[ginnyinWI]

3. we have these types of people on both sides now

These people are just the ones who blindly support *. They follow a politician based on personality and nothing else. You have to dig deeper and see what a candidate really stands for, not, as you say, how loudly they can oppose the establishment.

[sandnsea]

5. Anti-Establishment Politics

Can we frame that to our advantage? Can we make anybody understand we have to be more than that? Or that there are Democrats who are more than that and you don't have to be Lieberman to be more than an anti-Establishment candidate. Or that you can be a change the Establishment person who doesn't think tearing the whole thing down is what we really want to do.

[ginnyinWI]

7. the trick is

A politician needs to appeal to the fringe, and then to the main voting block, too. Give them red meat as well as substantive dialog on the issues. The far fringe left won't ever get the candidate they want, which is someone who is 95% rant--but in the end most of them will vote for the mainstream guy.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Good post

It's like in 2004. Dean was the popular one while the true progressives like Kerry and Kuicinich were ignored and Dean was a member of the DLC too and is a very centrist democrat. Check this link out: http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/kucinich/libdeane.html

[emulatorloo]

11. That "Bush Cult" blogger actually explains this DU stuff pretty well to me

That Glen Greenwald piece, although he is writing about how Bush supporters wildly decide that anyone who criticizes Bush, no matter their political persuasion, is a liberal.

Gonna go get snip and link,

LInk: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html

<snip>

I want to leave the personal issues to the side and examine a few of the substantive issues raised (unintentionally) by Alexandra’s post. It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

<snip>

Seems kinda the same here -- if somebody talks loud against Bush (and the media picks it up, because as we know, some Dems are doing a lot and not getting covered), then on DU you are a 'progressive' no matter what your actual positions on issues might be

DISCLAIMER - I like Paul Hackett and all the other Democrats who are giving Bush hell.

[karynnj]

12. That does make sense

and leads to comments that Murtha is a liberal.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Right

When he's pretty conservative on issues. It drives me crazy as a true blue liberal. I like both Hackett and Murtha but they are not freakin liberal. Ugh. While Kerry is a true liberal and he's constantly dissed.

[sandnsea]

18. It's true

I was reading some Howard Zinn earlier, and it occurred to me they're all just anti-Establishment.

In one instance, he says Democrats and Republicans all supported something or other (I forget what it was). Then he lists 5 Democrats who spoke against the particular issue. But Ted Kennedy didn't speak against it, therefore all Democrats and Republicans really supported the issue. :crazy:

Anti-Establishment is as valid a political view as any. But I don't see it as particularly useful when you're a Katrina victim and need an established government to come to your aid. It's like that Bruce Willis article in GD, he's "apolitical", not a Republican. But oh yeah, he wants to help the sick and the children and the elderly, just not without big taxes and big government. Well sorry Bruce, but it doesn't work that way. That's how I see some of these people, they want government when they want it, and just want to bitch the rest of the time.

[rockymountaindem]

13. You can't fight for what you believe in if you don't win the election

And in some cases, the most liberal candidate just can't win in that area. So, we should support the person who is most in line with our personal views but who also has the best chance of winning. It's as simple as that.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. That doesn't have anything to do with the post

[TayTay]

16. Aye, there's the rub.

And the everlasting question of politics: Where to stand on principle and where to stand on reason. Sigh!

[sandnsea]

17. Just like Salazar

So why do people get mad when he votes like the centrist he has to be, at least for now. Why do people say he sold out to the corporate whores. It's insane. The same people who drool over the Hacketts and the Clarks are the same people who rant when we have a hard time getting a coalition against Alito or the Patriot Act. And they're the same people who won't move two steps off their far left agenda in order to be able to present a policy that the majority of the country would truly rally around; from health care to Iraq and yes, even civil unions.

That's what is frustrating to me.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. It is frustrating

I feel like banging my head sometimes.

[JI7]

20. the Salazar thing makes no sense

i didn't pay much attention to Schweitzer's campaign.

but Salazar ran a conservative race and often trying to claim he is to the right of his Republican opponent on some issues. he went after his opponent for OPPOSING the death penalty. he avoided campainging with Kerry because Kerry was viewed as a liberal. he finally appeared with him in one of the final campaign stops.

i laughed when i read some article after the election that if Kerry had just run as a liberal like Salazar he would have won. but i'm sure it was one of those articles from the "liberals" who never supported Kerry and were just looking to bash him.

as for the Hackett, Brown thing. i think a lot of people view politics as entertainment. they were looking forward to HAckett bashing DeWine, Bush etc.

Sherrod Brown is "boring" to them. he most likely wont bash. but he will be critical of the Republicans as he has always been. and he will talk about issues like trade, jobs, health care etc . of course Hackett would have had to talk about these things also. but for some who supported Hackett it was never about those issues, i twas about how he was going to bash Bush. but Brown supporters it's about his record and where he stands on the issues.

personally, i look forward to a Senate with the addition of Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown.

[rockymountaindem]

21. Speaking from my memory, I wouldn't call Salazar's campaign lib. or con.

Most of all, I would say Salazar's campaign was about being Mr. Colorado, to an extent. If you asked me where "Colorado" stood on a list of issues prior to the election, I would say Salazar campaigned exactly the way I would have answered those questions. He really had his finger on the pulse of the state. Every time he said something, my reaction was "wow, that's exacly the feeling I get from people in this state".

His campaign was mostly about connecting with people, not with specific issues. He connected with the voters in a way big-money Coors just couldn't match.

[JI7]

22. that's kind of similar to Mary Landrieu in 2002

i remember she made it about Louisiana. when her opponent tried to appeal to the mostly conservative state by bringing Trent Lott, Landrieu replied by saying something like that's great for the people of Mississippi but she is there to represent the people of Louisiana and work in their interest. it made her opponent out to look like someone who will just follow Lott whose priority is another state.

[sandnsea]

23. Same with Schweitzer

It didn't hurt that Judy Martz was a complete disaster. But Schweitzer connected, sounds like the same as Salazar. And I understand that to some extent too. But it leads back to the same thing, just like Bush. If you vote for a candidate because you connect, or because he's the guy you want to have a beer with, you better be prepared for the politics they bring with them. Like Hackett, who people think would connect in Ohio. Same as Clinton. People get really angry about welfare reform for instance, but I know that was right where huge numbers of Americans were at on the issue. So it leads me back to the same kind of question. How can we become a national party when big chunks don't understand what makes other big chunks, tick.

[Mass]

24. Other problems concerning outsiders - they dont seem to understand they

have to fight for it and that the keys will not be given to them. I am a little bit disillusionned by the notion of strong outsiders coming in the Senate and who say they want to change things (and I think they need to change). Hackett is the last one of a series to bail out after having realized that it would not be easy:

- Dayton, businessman, out after one term
- Corzine, businessman, out after one term (at least to become governor, but still)
- Edwards, lawyer, out after one term.

- Hackett, lawyer and marine, out before the primary.

All had the same complaint that things cannot happen in the Senate and that they dont get responsibility quickly enough, but if the Senate is really the good ol'boys club they are describing, did they actually expect to change things just by coming?

[JI7]

27. there are others like Wellstone, Feingold

who want change. but seem to be the type to get along and form relationships with those totally opposite them in order to get through what they want. they seem to understand that it IS hard and long work. but's it's something that must be done. their ideals are so strong they are willing to give their time and effort to it. is it a surprise we know far more of where these people stand on specific issues than the ones who claim to want change and are known more for the things they say or how they say it than where they stand on the issues ?

while Kerry and Wellstone worked on campaign reform (real reform) they alone could not do it. sometimes it takes someone like Feingold working with a conservative like McCain to get something done(even though it was weak compared to the other).

what's interesting is KErry and FEingold's personality types is similar and opposite of the Republican they are known for working with , John McCain.

[sandnsea]

28. Two possibilities, probably more

Either they get in there and discover that they're dealing with people who truly believe in their views, and maybe even have facts and theories to back them up, and it isn't going to be so easy to get them to change. Or they get in there and discover the agenda is so far beyond what they thought, running the world kind of would be, that they realize things they thought were simple have massive consequences and so can't be done. I'd say they get in their and discover the whole thing is corrupt, like Edwards or Dayton maybe, but then why wouldn't they just come out and say so and name names. Or maybe something else entirely.

But it isn't easy, there's an enormous amount to learn, I think some like Hackett don't fully appreciate it either.

At the same time, the direction they're taking the world scares the shit out of me. I don't like any of it either.

[karynnj]

30. I had never seen that pattern - but it is striking

I was very annoyed that Corzine, not only didn't complete one term, but pushed the popular, but not wealthy acting Governor out of the race. (Corzine got all the party bosses behind him and he had a personal fortune.) By the time of the election, Cody (the acting Governor) had an incredibly high approval rating and was viewed as clean (not common in NJ)even by the Republicans. I hope Corzine will run the state as well as Cody did.

I wish Edwards would have made an effort to hold his seat rather than run for President on his short record. He really didn't stay long enough to even try to make a difference. I was not surprised to find that as a private citizen in earlier years, he didn't even always vote. Am I cynical in thinking his whole run was his stump speech, honed to a Tee and likely tested to focused groups before being debuted. (My cynicism started when I read that in court he "channeled" the voice of a dead baby to win for his client. )

Not to mention that I'm sick of Edwards supporters suggesting that Kerry could learn rhetoic from him, which is like saying a diamond should be more like a rhinestone. Kerry's short message on Bush waiving the royalty payments from the gas companies was far more on target and effective than Edwards' rambling message sent out 2 days later was.

[IronLionZion]

25. There are unknown unknowns

we don't know what we don't know.

Come on, you know there's a lot of false or misleading information slung around. Opinions passed off as fact. misquotes, skewed poll results, changing information as it's passed on, etc. We're all guilty. I've passed on information I read here as fact, only to later find out it was incorrect.

DU is a great resource because there's a lot of info here. Some of it isn't entirely accurate. But like the X-files, the truth is out there.

[TayTay]

26. Hey, welcome to the JK group.

Stay a while. Talk, kibbitz, have a scone.

Thanks for checking in.

[saracat]

29. MMMMMM.Scones.

And a cup of coffee or tea maybe?