I really don't want to vote for Arlen Specter...
there are some good, sincere progressives who don't dislike him. As a senator, he's been quite good on some health care issues. Or so I'm assured be people I respect, and for whom I'm hot. (Hi, Kathy)
But I have a hard time forgetting that this cretin voted for the Reagan tax cuts, voted for the Bush tax cuts, voted for the Iraq War...
in fairness, he opposed warrantless wiretapping. And he opposed the insanely conservative Robert Bork. But that takes me to the heart of my very visceral dislike of Arlen Specter...
the payback for his opposition to Bork was his intentionally dishonest public slandering of Anita Hill. Arlen Specter is directly responsible for the elevation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. What he did to Anita Hill was reprehensible. What he did to the country, by placing Clarence Thomas, (a man who opposes Marbury v. Madison, for Christ's sake) on the Court verges on the treasonous.
The problem I face is the apparent ineptitude of Joe Sestak. He comes across as a total amateur. The guy is not a disciplined speaker, at least not on TV. He seems completely surprised that Specter's gone negative, despite the evidence of every election Specter's ever run. And...
I got a robocall inviting me to "stay on the line" to participate in a "telephone town hall" with Joe Sestak.
AS THEY WERE DROPPING THE PUCK IN THE FIRST PENGUINS GAME OF THE STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS.
Look, I don't understand it, but not everyone is a hockey fan. If Sestak's campaign staff doesn't include any hockey fans, one can see how a scheduling gaffe can happen...
except, that's why you read the local paper, so that you can find out about things that are important to the locals. For example, PHILLY WAS PLAYING NJ AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Perhaps the two cities aren't important in Sestak's campaign to win the Democratic Primary. Perhaps he hopes to win the nomination with Democrats from the middle of the state...
all six of them.
I'm voting for Joe Sestak. I'll never be able to forgive Specter for what he did to Anita Hill, and I'll never be able to forgive him for putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. But Sestak's a leaky vessel to put much hope in. And in November, I'll have a choice between the despicable Arlen Specter and the maniacal Pat Toomey.
To quote Rahm Emmanuel (when discussing the opposition to conservative Democrats in Democratic primaries by liberals, among which I count myself) "That's flipping stupid." OK, that's not what he said, he was much funnier, more colorful and offensive. But, you get the point.
ReplyDeleteAs we've fought about before. I think the Obama "big bang" approach (or the visceral cry of progressives "no compromises") to have put a ruling progressive coalition at risk. The right (some would say "way right" of center types have had control of the government five of the last seven presidential cycles.
I'm not saying go soft on our goals, but take the victories we can get. For God's sake, begin winning the public debate, partially by showing how the world doesn't end every time the right-wing elite don't preserve their disproportionate willingness to shape public policy for their personal interests and move on.
Your unwillingness to be pragmatic is putting my agenda at risk.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "big bang" approach...
ReplyDeletean ambitious agenda is mandatory, given the mess the conservatives have left us with in the last 30 years. The country simply has too many problems. So the NUMBER of different issues the administration is tackling can't be criticized, in my view.
As for compromise...
the administration has displayed an admirable willingness to compromise, and a determination to seek bipartisanship that a storm of criticism from the left hasn't reduced. I cite the long, futile pursuit of Charles Grassley, among other examples.
Pragmatism demands that progressives make their policy preferences plain, particularly in primaries.
Progressives are only "fucking retarded" if they allow their dissatisfaction with the eventual Democratic nominee to keep them from supporting that nominee in the general election.
The specter(get it?)of a nominee too far to the left to win the general election is a boogeyman. Nobody is suggesting that Pennsylvania nominate William Ayers as their Senate candidate. Neither am I suggesting that people stay home in November...
the idea is to get the best nominee possible, and then to support that nominee. I'll vote for Specter in the fall, if I didn't make that clear.
But he's a moral leper, and we'd do better to nominate Sestak, assuming someone can teach this yutz to campaign before August.