WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT SAYING "I WILL SUPPORT THE NOMINEE OF MY PARTY"?
Joe Liebermann has a strong opponent in the August Senate Primary in Conn. He is also covering his bets by arranging an independent candidacy. When his democrat colleagues are asked whether they'll support him if he loses, they turn themselves inside out avoiding the question. (Notable exception is HRC who correctly says a contested primary is the way our party selects candidates). Chris Dodd is the latest example.
Nothing wrong with expressing a preference in the primary but what the hell is so difficult about, at the end of the day, saying "I'll support my party's nominee." It turns out the big jocks on the national scene are no better than some of my local friends at this particular skill.
Maybe our party should have a giant teach-in on this subject.
posted by UMRBlog @ 07:01
38 comments
38 Comments:
Unlike our local scene, noone questions Lieberman's motives or party affiliation. If he were asked if were a Democrat or not, we all know what his answer would be.
;)
p.s. I still remember and will NEVER forget a certain candidates answer to the "gut check" question.
Au Contraire, 0933
That is almost the entire basis for LaMont's campaign. The contention is that L moved so much to DLC positions that he left the party behind him. L then cleverly confirmed that susspicion by qualifying to run as a something else.
Phil Hare has gotten some of this mockery and non-support, yet I challenge anybody to demonstrate he's ever been anything but loyal to the Democrat party. Lexi G. has gotten the same thing, just because he came off as friendly to someone who's out of favor. Locally, it's personal. I actually heard one local party official say "We'll support him (LG) if he wins in November." That'll be a little late to get on the train, won't it?
There is one difference that I can see. Locally, it seems personal, directed at anyone who associates at all with a small number of folks. Nationally, it's just lack of principles. In both cases, it's sure not a very inclusive way to build a political organization.
To be clear, I'm not against Liebermann. I'm against people who benefit from being members our party mix and match their support after primaries. Nationally and locally, we used to come together after a primary better than we do now.
Thanks for coming by.
"Phil Hare has gotten some of this mockery and non-support, yet I challenge anybody to demonstrate he's ever been anything but loyal to the Democrat party."
No one has ever stated that Hare is not a dem. What has been stated is that he does not have the same beliefs that the majority of our local dems have. Also his inabilty to build bridges is one of the major points of contention. Poor example.
"Lexi G. has gotten the same thing, just because he came off as friendly to someone who's out of favor."
No, poor example again. Lexi has major problems that are totally unrelated to the local scene. Many local dems won't touch him with a 10 ft. pole for fear of being tied to his percieved wrong doing's. The ones that don't mind being painted with such questionable charateristics have picked up his local campaign.
"I actually heard one local party official say "We'll support him (LG) if he wins in November." That'll be a little late to get on the train, won't it?"
Not me. I'll stick to much more credible officeholders such as Lisa Madigan. LG train. Not one I care to be on even if he does win.
" I'm against people who benefit from being members our party mix and match their support after primaries."
Well, I guess this is where we differ. I personally do not HAVE to support any candidate I don't want to. Past that point in my life. Favors repaid and such. I make the decision on who I do and do not want to support. If a candidate has something that I am personally not comfortable with, I don't support that candidate.
;)
p.s. I still have the balls to answer the gut check question with "I am a Democrat" no matter which crowd I am in.
Anon 1310,
I understand both objections to Phil H. and would concede really bad style points in his intraparty relations. Still, that's not why the majority of T-club members are blasting him.
It's fair to bring him up. I understand your objections to him are principled and based upon his political philosophy. You are the exception. Most of the others are "He's not one of the cool kids."
LG is just taking a position and then having Rich Miller find a reason to stick to it. The only thing factual I've seen is that the family bank made a real estate loan to a guy who passed South Carolina's gaming background check and the real estate fully secured the loan. Nobody can point me to where there's anything either illegal or improper about that, whether LG had anything to do with it or not. Most of the people I hear popping off about this have never talked to him about it or even know him. Rumor and innuendo is a bad barometer for measuring candidates.
Your philosophy (and I know you have good heart) is what I have always called the Buffet Democrat Philosophy. I'll pluck one off that I like and I'll have a little of this guy with my salad. Because our party is so wide-ranging, we tend to do that and that is exactly where the Repubs SWOOP, collar a few, free thinking Buffet Democrats and Sweep Offices like they did against us in the 80's statewide.
And the argument about bridge-building and fence-mending is without basis. Blago didn't build bridge one and all the Vallas crowd (correctly) turned itself inside out to help him. He's proof that it's a matter of choice and not what the candidate does to promote unity.
Beyond Locally, though, for Chris Dodd to benefit all these years from being a democrat and to duck the question of whether he'd support his party's nominee is disgusting. I've been quick to criticize my friend's wife in the past but HRC knocked this one out of the park. We should all take a lesson.
Now, Buffet Lootie, that's a different question but my day job beckons.
Thanks for stopping back in.
" Sweep Offices like they did against us in the 80's statewide."
The year was 93.
;)
" Sweep Offices like they did against us in the 80's statewide."
The year was 93.
;)
" would concede really bad style points in his intraparty relations."
Its more than style points. Hare has a long history of placing his nose squarely in matters that they do not belong. If I were to rate each of the six candidates in the caucus, he would have rated the lowest in my opinion based on both philosophy and past actions. Personally I am not much on the "He is a son of a B****, but at least he is our son of B****" philosophy.
"I have always called the Buffet Democrat Philosophy. I'll pluck one off that I like and I'll have a little of this guy with my salad."
Your probably right on this assumption about me. You know who I am and what I am about as well as anyone. I work my a** off when I take on a venture, but my heart has to be in that venture or I have little motovation. Thats just the way I work and think.
Ther are too many good local candidates to worry about than these two candidates that I don;t see eye to eye with on philosophy. Plus it is real easy for me to sit back and take shots this time around since as I will have very little involvement in this campaign cycle due to family obligations.
;)
p.s. have fun!
Lootie, have you ever spoken with Hare? He is far from the "mental migit" you make him out to be. I suggest you take the time to get to know someone before you decide to bash them on the internet, and then, when you decide to bash someone, it always helps to use your name.
Lootie,
From in your shoes, that's the appropriate position. You're gonna educate yourself. A lot of Americans are too busy or too limited in other ways to keep up. They need a default position for the the odd county board or judicial race, about which they know squat.
"I vote for the person" is a noble thought, and it works for you. For most people it is unattainable because they lack the wherewithal to determine "the person".
There were no statewide constituional offices elected in either '93 or '92.
Lootie's not anon and his technique is to take an extreme position to provoke discussion. No doubt he'll go on your site and email you. In fact, Lootie's one of the least anon peeps in the blogosphere.
He's dangerous though. Those sawhorses around his property will rack your @$$ if you take a walk through the 'hood at night.
Anon.
10-4 on the family obligation! You have much bigger fish to fry than some election for the rest of this year. Be where you need to be. Your friends know you'll be back at the proper time.
We are all waiting anxiously for your good news!
" Lootie, have you ever spoken with Hare? He is far from the "mental migit" you make him out to be."
C average Highschool student speaks wonders! Not saying that is all bad if he would have followed it up with further education. I want my Congressman to be able to fully comprehend what he is reading and voting on!
;)
soory then it must have been 94 we got swept.
;)
You could be right. That was the Mrs. Doubtfire year and it was the year we spit up the hairball in the AG race. Just what state gov't needed, another Ryan!
Coronary Jim for Gov.
Breast Cancer Lady Lt. Gov.
Ryan I "Safe Roads" for SOS
Ryan II AG
Spike Treasurer
Anonymous Suburban Woman Comptroller (Lolita, I think)
You're right!
In the 80's we had the Odd Hartigan or Dixon to prevent Sweepers (even though we classically underachieved).
ABC
Lolita Didrickson
;)
HaySues still be treeeeying to figger out watchu talkin' bout, mang. Dju called him Spanitch and he ain't nevah bin to no Spain. Went to Tookson once, but no Spain.
Dju shudda seen dat keed on da trail bike hit djur saw hurses, mang. Yorked heem right in da neck.
I knew what it was, I just didn't know how to spell it. Not real sure you do either, but I give you points for trying.
Anon, I think it is important to vote on how someone did in school 40 years ago too. Really, I don't understand why people would even look past 40 years ago. I mean he has been involved in DC politics for over 20 years, but why look at that.
I think Anon. is right instead of voting on the issues, you should vote one test scores and grades from 40 years ago.
I sure as hell wished someone wiuld have done that in 2000 or in 2004.
Phil is a great candidate and will be a great Congressman. As for Adams county. Phil will work hard to represent everyone in the district. Even if you insult him and then whine about not getting face time.
Craig,
Wouldn't get too distressed about Anon. At the end of the day, he usually does the right thing. All of here in the 47th are still processing our friend's disappointment. Also, Phil did slip here out of the gate in his dealings, or non-dealings, with our Central Committee.
We also have a recent history of hard feelings after primary contests. We used to be much better at that but, we'll improve.
10-4 on the education profile in 2000 and '04! Maybe if the political parties quit running two Yarvad guys against each other and mix in somebody from the U. of Kansas or Minnesota, people will feel like they're getting a real choice. We have to take some of the blame for putting up someone who freaking windsurfed for the TV cameras.
Please come by again.
UMRBLOG,
"but I give you points for trying."
not sure if the spelling is right either. Just remember her because she was an IDES product and I heard just about everything that went on with that state agency for over 27 years.
" We also have a recent history of hard feelings after primary contests."
No hard feelings. Just differences in political philosophy. Even if I knew what the outcome was going to be ahead of time (which I had a good idea of what was going to happen), I would not have changed my vote to Hare. I voted and would vote for Sullivan again due to his stance on most issues being the same as mine. Most of you probably don't remember but I voted for Edwards even though Kerry allready had it wrapped up when it reached IL. Then I got pissed at Edwards because he changed his political views to be more in line with Kerry's platform.
Craig,
"I sure as hell wished someone wiuld have done that in 2000 or in 2004."
I too think our current prez is lacking a bit upstairs, BUT the guy still has a degree from Yale. Pretty sure they don't just hand those out regardless of what your lastname is. I have no doubt W can fully understand a bill when he reads it. Hare I have doubts. Do I think it is mandatory for a Congressman to have higher education? no. Do I personally want my congressman to have at least an Undergrad degree? HELL YES!
(Lootie, Hell must be freezing over! I actually took Bush's side on something.)
Damn it Craig, look what you made me go and do! AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!
*shakes head*
;)
Lootster,
Better start that blood pressure cuff. You gotta clean up that mess in your yard before you have stroke.
Are we back to Hay Soos the Unofficial Spaniard. or are you talking about the real Bethlehem Manger Guy? Man, you gotta define your terms.
Congratulations Lootie, you just made yourself look less mature than a 23 and a 20 year old.
Anon, I am sorry I made you conpliment Bush. I just think that Phil's experience and also the rest of LAne's staff, who intends to keep intact, I think they will do fine.
UNR, I can understand your issues with the Primary. I am a fan of Sullivan, and I have spoken with him personally quite a few times (see Lootie, face to face contact works). I think he would be an excellent candidate for the 18th. La Hood is gone come 2008, and it is time Peoria had a Democrat.
P.S. Sullivan lives in the 18th.
Scott,
Valuable, contructive input but I can guaranty you that anyone who visits this site already knows which CD JS lives in. It's still a valid, interesting point.
The way it plays out would be very like the Hare nomination. Traditional Dem sources in Peoria would be the dog and the rest of the district would be the tail.
Thanks for coming by. I haven't forgotten about the link. Any of the guys who know me will tell you I work some freaky hours.
". I just think that Phil's experience and also the rest of LAne's staff, who intends to keep intact, I think they will do fine."
Once again this is where we greatly differ on opinion. I have kept my mouth shut for years about our congressional staff because of respect for Lane. Now that Lane is gone. Well I bet you can see this one coming. I want a Congressman that can read and will put his staff to work on things that matter! Sick and tired of these overpaid flunkies (such as Hare) playing solitare and choking down Chi style Pizza instead of actually doing some work. Ever been in the Washington office. Let me give you a hint. They are all there and have been there doing nothing for years! I am sure your end of the district has been quite happy. They actually got off thier ass to save thier ass's on occasion to bring home a small bit of pork for the QC's.
p.s. In twenty something years, I think this is the hardest I have seen them work. Of course when thier jobs are on the line they seem to get motivated.
None of this matters. Phil Hare wins by 20 points.
anon 0952,
OK, but let me plumb your reasoning. Roll Call and the Repub house committee both have this district at vanilla dem 56/vanilla repub 44. So you're saying Hare runs in front of the district bias by four percent (60/40). Is that because Zinga is so personally unacceptable or because Phil's campaign is going to be so dynamic, or both?
To be clear, I'm not picking at your premise, just trying to get your reasoning.
Thanks for coming by.
I would say mainly Zinga's incompetance
My question to Zinga supporters is this. Why vote for Andrea Zinga. Notice Lootie this wasn't, why not vote for Phil Hare.
Really though, what does Andrea plan to do that will be better for any of the counties in the district. I would liek to know.
Way to not answer my question.
What are you, twelve?
Way to do exactly what Craig said not to do. It's cute to see that you really have no reason to vote for Zinga.
Lootster,
Grammatically, that would be "fewer". That statement would be foolish but it would then, at least, be grammatically correct.
I happen to be a corner-sewer of constituent service. Lane's was, in fact, the model for incoming congress persons of both parties (as in "this is the way you create accountablility among staffers".) Also, we have two federal deals that matter here. IVH and the Lock and Dam system. Zinga is gonna cut spending (Good bye UMRB improvement legislation, even if the first wave passes the Senate.) And, c'mon, who's gonna be better on Veterans' issues? An empty suit from Chico's or a veteran who's been supervising the service for 22 years?
Consider it.
TYFCB and don't forget to read the Friday Flash.
Your asking Lootie to look past partisanship. Don't hold your breath.
" None of this matters. Phil Hare wins by 20 points."
Mark Baker came within 3000 votes of Evans. Better not overlook the Shrew because Hare is far from a stellar candidate!
Keep pissing off the Adams guys, 3000 is not a very large number when you only have to change 1500 minds.
think about it.
;)
Earth to 1712,
After the decennial census the district changed (Thank you Tom Delay) and fell into one of the conceded "Safe" districts effective 2002. Baker was RPCC favored candidate in '96 and '98 BECAUSE OF THE DISTICT. (He was favored by nobody in 2000).
Very much apples and oranges.
I am not saying the 60-40 is correct but your premise is incorrect.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home