More . . . But Not Necessarily Better Democrats

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I am rather perplexed by Todd Beeton's excitement about the Democratic candidate in MS-1 (and I understand Beeton sees this as a sign McCain might be vulnerable in Mississippi, an absurd thought imo):

[T]he Republicans' hold is being unexpectedly tested by a self-described "Mississippi Democrat," a gregarious local courthouse official whose positions on social issues -- guns, abortion, same-sex marriage -- are indistinguishable from those of the other party. . . .

I am for the Democrat in EVERY race. And a "economic populist," anti-Iraq Debacle Democrat is better than a Republican of course. Heck, I infamously had nice words for Gene Taylor. Buuut it seems to me the Left blogs have lost their way on the "better" part of the "more and better Democrats" formulation. The 50 State Strategy seems to require, unfortunately, anti-choice, anti-gay Dems in Mississippi. Hopefully, that will change one day. But let's not think that this potential gain in Mississippi is going to move the Democratic Party to a more progressive position. There is a "more" component here, but not a "better" one.

< Thursday Open Thread | The Other Media Darling >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

More . . . But Not Necessarily Better Democrats | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ooh.. I sense a potential VP (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST

candidate

heh (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM EST

LOL (none / 0) (#5)
by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST

Apparently, anti-Iraq trumps all other issues for some.

Any Democrat should be for withdrawal from Iraq. It should be a given. What about the rest?

A person who doesn't support my right to control my own body is no Democrat!


Which. . . (none / 0) (#9)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST

party?


America for Obama, naturally. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST

: Whom one could characterize (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST

as anti-gay also.

I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by TomP on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST

We may hold our noses and support blue dogs becuase they are better than Republicans, but there is no reason to rejoice.

Consistency is the thing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST

As a centrist Dem myself, I have no issue with enthusiastically supporting Blue Dogs vs. Republicans.

But I agree that the blogosphere is maddeningly inconsistent on this issue -- the archetypal example being Markos' hysterical pushing for centrist/conservative "Fighting Dems" (all male, of course, like Webb and Tester, et al) but virtually defecating on Hillary Clinton, surely the fightingest centrist Dem there is.

Next to Tester and Webb, (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM EST

Hillary is a flaming liberal.

It's to her credit that her public persona no longer really reflects that.


HRC is more liberal than her image (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST

BO record and talk is more conservative than his image.


: Prabhata (none / 0) (#38)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST

speaks the truth.
Funny how all we 'low information voters' are able to grasp that fundamental truth.

Since Testor is my senator I just wrote an (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST

email to him about this upcoming primary and his role as a super D....He is usually really great at answering this stuff so we will see....I told him the "ranchers" in my part of the state werent impressed with Obama at all, but they would consider Hillary because of her health care plan...I also told him that Obama supporters didnt necessarily vote downticket....:-)


From An Ideological Standpoint, I Have Less (none / 0) (#31)
by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:17:20 PM EST

trouble with Tester than I do with Webb. At least Tester is firm in his opposition of dismantling the constitution and has backed this up with votes on FISA. Webb OTOH votes with Republicans on the war and on FISA.


And I've (none / 0) (#39)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST

read many comments from alleged 'high information voters' suggesting that Webb be Obama's running mate.


: Blog Reality: Issues Aren't Important (none / 0) (#41)
by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:57:50 PM EST

Webb was made a blog "hero" and that is all that really counts. Not to mention that he does the tuff guy talk as well as Bush.

I have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:32:28 PM EST

that the prospect of having any democrat win a non majority-minority seat in Mississippi is exciting.

But that's doesn't mean I'm going to get excited about this guy. I mean, watch his commercial and watch him check off the ways he's a DINO.

I don't know Beeton's viewpoint. . . (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST

but I'll repeat my previous observation that much of the so-called "liberal" blogosphere is made of people who are Republicans who are too smart and self-respecting to remain in the party of Dobson and Hagee but whose outlook and interests remain more aligned in some ways with traditional Republicanism than with us "women's study, New York money liberal" types in the Democratic Party.

: How True (none / 0) (#12)
by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST

Unfortunately, many of them are the driving force behind the so called progressive blogs.

What do we stand for anymore? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:46:07 PM EST

Seriously--what defines us as democrats? That this mostly-male controlled party (supported by mostly female voters) is throwing around reproductive rights like a softball is alarming to me.

A bad democrat is worse than a good republican. At least the latter way our enemy is defined.

This is the "unity" Obama is talking about--rack up the quantity, screw the quality.

That's not my party.

No, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST

but the big blogger Boyz have made it quite clear how they feel about women and our "issues."

It's their party now. Didn't you get the memo?

[bitter snarkage]


: yeah (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:10:04 PM EST

It's their party now. Didn't you get the memo?
Wonder if they'll like the sound of one hand clapping.

: It is a win at all costs (none / 0) (#29)
by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM EST

I understand the desire for all Dems, but couldn't we find a Dem there who had some GOP qualities but still was for women's rights? What, is this the only guy in that entire state who is a Republican running as a Dem?
If our core values which include rights for all is ignored for another D, and the party is about to be split, we might as well say it how it is. No from the women. Yes from the men. Now What's his name will be here calling me a sexist any minute now. He's right.

I am sitting here wondering what our new (none / 0) (#21)
by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST

party will be called. I have a few ideas. Too bad 'w' stands for George. Otherwise we could be like 'O'. We could be W, the party for women.

BTW, see how Scranton went 75%. Pretty cool. And I am so glad that is over with in this state.


: I'll stick with NWP as the name (none / 0) (#47)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:51:13 PM EST

to ensure that Alice Paul lives on in more than history books. After all, her National Woman's Party existed as a party until only 10 years ago, after a run of more than 80 years, and it can re-up that status.
And it's still got its historic headquarters in D.C. for the party offices again. (Great gift shop, too; get your own replica of her "Jailed for Freedom" pin for hundreds of women who endured prison and torture for us to be able to vote . . . but not to vote for guys like this.)

Quantity over Quality (none / 0) (#22)
by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM EST

Couldn't have said it better. Thank you!


Thank you for saying that Kathy! (none / 0) (#50)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:12:53 AM EST

I am so sick and tired of any Democrat being touted as better than any Republican.

Just speaking for me, a Blue Dog Democrat is worse than any Republican. Like you say, we know where Republicans stand and at least they don't hide it. Blue Dogs infiltrate the Democratic Party and bring it down.

We, as liberals, just a few short years ago, used to laugh and deride conservatives that would vote for anyone simply because they were a conservative. Now we are supposed to do the same thing. I don't get it. And I'm not gonna do it.

If we win with faux progressives and Faux Democrats, what have we won? And what do we stand for? And who are we?


John Q. Public is already angry at Congress (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST

because he doesn't understand why the Dems can't get anything done with our "majority". He doesn't care about veto override majority-he thinks simple majority does the trick. So Dems acting like Repubs is not a good thing for the brand. Most people still think Lieberman is a Dem!

this guy doesn't even sound (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by cpinva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST

like a "DINO", just a republican with a donkey on his keychain.

Something has to change (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by jen on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:21:02 PM EST

The Democratic Party is too big of a tent. We're watered down. Even with a slim majority, nothing progressive Dems want gets through congress. Repubs vote in lockstep, and then the Blue Dogs go with them, and our small majority in too many cases becomes a minority.

Time for a progressive party. It will take time to grow and have influence, but in the long run it's better than what we've got now. Right now we've got the Repub party and the Repub Lite party.

I don't know enough about this situation (none / 0) (#11)
by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST

But I think it's very hard to judge who is better.

You can have a dem in San Francisco who says 10 different things, 9 of which are pushing progressive issues even further to the left, but then says or has a position on one issue that supports a more right wing view of the world.

You can have a dem in Mississippi who says 10 different things, 9 of which appear to be pushing progressive issues further to the right, but then says or has a position on one issue that supports a more left wing view of the world.

And I really don't know how to judge the two.

My reflexive response was to keep focussing on the hypocrisy of bloggers, but even that's getting a little old now (although I'm sure it's not exhausted), my opinion on this is probabably less progressive (no quotation marks, if one gets my meaning) blog friendly than it should be.

Even if the guy's a total waste of space, having more Ds instead of Rs shows that Rs are being rejected and at least we can say we're a big tent.

Even if we don't get the votes or rhetoric out of the MS rep. we want.

: Well, start with the party platform (none / 0) (#48)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST

which is the agreed statement of principles for which the party stands -- agreed at the convention every four years.
The guy does not support the party platform. So why does the party support him?
Thus, as the party supports candidates like this -- and Casey, not to mention party officials like Dean and Brazile -- I no longer support the party. I just support its platform, 'cause somebody's gotta.

Oh, and you can now update (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM EST

with the fact that Swing State Project just endorsed the guy.

Their Blue page?? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST

Right (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM EST

on their front page.


: Well (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:01:49 PM EST

They make my point it seems to me.

I grew up in NOLA (none / 0) (#15)
by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST

this is pretty common in states like MS & LA -- still bitter & clinging to the fact that Lincoln was a Republican, so they "register" Democrat, identify themselves as such, but are really Republicans -- and they vote that way. This isn't anything new from my pov.

I don't want too many conservative Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST

elected to Washington. I want the parties to be defined. I'm not for unity.


: Well there is a big difference (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST

between a Conservative Democrat and a Democrat that is basically Republican (see: Casey, Bob also: Lieberman, Joe). There have to be absolute lines drawn as to what makes someone a Democrat or Republican. Namely: abortion, the role of the government in determining economic well-being for the country, and lastly, regulation regulation regulation.

Is it a progressive goal (none / 0) (#32)
by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:19:54 PM EST

to elect people that don't share their values?

It's a big tent. (none / 0) (#33)
by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST

I'm absolutely done hand-wringing about somenoe who's 50% Democrat just to watch a 0% Democrat get in (as if there was a 100% Democrat even running!). It's a big tent. If any of the commenters want it to be a smaller and more Liberal tent, move to Massachusetts and pretend the rest of the country doesn't exist. These lamentations of impurity -- or worse: of some strange species of personal persecution by winning Southern/Western Democrats of a different stripe -- are no match for the blunt argument of electoral success.

Nothing to do with my post (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST

Everything to do with it... (none / 0) (#37)
by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST

...you're handwringing about the difference between "more" and "better." That's pointless. The commenters were certainly doing a better job of being ridiculous, but your anxiety about the width of the tent is only valid if the alternative is, indeed, "better" Democrats. It's not. We need more Democrats, even if they're not "better." If that drags the party one way or the other nationally, but at the same time increases the proportion of Dems in Congress (unlike the strategy of the Bill Clinton era) then that's a net gain against the Republicans in a two-party system. The conversation you're having about "better" Democrats is without merit if we're talking about reality, where "better" Democrats aren't an option in many of the 50 states' districts.

Shorter: give cover to conservative Dems to go a little Liberal by having a majority made up of all kinds of Dems, not just the "better" among them.

Anyways, just because a comment about your post isn't what you wanted to talk about (directly, above the table, anyway) doesn't mean it has nothing to do with your post.


My anxiety is not about the Tent (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST

It is about the Left blogs. hence, your point is irrelevant to mine.


Left blogs. (none / 0) (#43)
by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:36:50 PM EST

Left blogs, yes, but left blogs that are commenting about the preferred size of the tent in the Democratic party. I don't see the separation you do.

Whatever. This isn't a useful discussion if we're still discussing what we are discussing. However. Whether it's the party or left blogs, "more and better Democrats" cannot possibly be interpreted as talking about hypotheticals. The discussion should be about reality. "Better" isn't the right thing to debate in the party or on blogs. It's not the right metric -- "more" is -- because it doesn't admit an alternative to "bad" Dem or "better" Dem in these districts. But the alternative, the likelihood, is neither of those but instead a Republican. That's the fundamental basis of discussion.

If you insist on being anxious about left blogs, get anxious about cannibalistic, self-destructive, internecine warfare, the old bugaboo of lefties since time immemorial.


It is not about the people in the tent (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST

It is about what you are arguing for in the tent. that is the difference.


Well... (none / 0) (#45)
by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:48 PM EST

...I disagree on that (as the fundamental thing of importance, anyway).

A vision of a half dozen Liberals in a tiny little pup tent, discussing all the most wonderful progressive ideas in existence, pitched outside a giant striped three-ring circus Republican tent full of people and animals and noise.

That's what comes to my mind when I start worrying about what's discussed before I worry if there will be anyone to discuss it with (or, for that matter, anyone listening).

Obviously it's a basic difference in approach.


: My rights are only a "progressive idea" (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:59:56 PM EST

to you? And here I thought reproductive rights moved from a legal argument or idea to become areality with Roe v. Wade. But, of course, the current status of those rights as that decision has been reinterpreted comes from considering my rights still just an "idea."
When rights are treated not as a part of the party platform but as a sort of "product idea" to be test-marketed by the party, and rejected if such rights get in the way of winning, we end up where you are. Sad.

you're a good sport, btd (none / 0) (#34)
by Klio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST

That was a highly diverting trip down memory lane :-) It says much about you that you provided the link!

THE now Democratic party is made up of the (none / 0) (#40)
by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:44:55 PM EST

progressives and have no use for the Terry McAuliffes in the party.

And they're former Republicans. This can't be ignored, but is and us older and saner ones see the difference watching the shrill young uns' use their "new" standard to judge what a "good democrat" is.

I have a hard time with this. I mean, they raise all kinds of money and time to elect those who say they want out of Iraq, blah blah. When they get to the hill, they fall in line with the culture that tells them how things are done, the old guard . It runs counter the support of the people powered politicos who worked to elect them and they expect a reasonable return for their efforts.

It happened with WEbb and others who got in through the support of the blogs and online fund raising efforts

So what happens then? Good question.

Its a good strategy, but it has to be fine tuned. I see both as valuable, but by not honing the two,has caused the situation we have today with in the primary.

i'm sorry your arguments that BO is most electable (none / 0) (#46)
by scorbs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:51:10 PM EST

just don't hold water. He did not win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, and he won't in GE. Hillary will. Get it yet????