Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I remain so agitated about yesterday's post on re-electing Rick Santorum to send a message that I feel the need to post a diary.  I feel that something has gone horribly awry here in the past few weeks.  I am not sure if it is anger on the Alito confirmation, an early 2006 campaign lull or a full moon but we have gone from really good posts on strategy and politics to intraparty war.  

This intraparty fighting reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where Brian must remind the disparate anti-Roman groups their common enemy is the Romans, not each other.  


Rick Santorum - The idea that we would allow Rick Santorum to be re-elected to screw Chuck Schumer is absolutely insane.  You don't like Bob Casey, fine raise money for and support his primary opponent.  However, once the primary is over defeating Rick Santorum should be one of our top priorities!!  He is a Senator with 12th century ideas who is the Senate head of the K Street project, is No. 3 in the Senate Leadership and wants to be PRESIDENT.  This man must be stopped at all costs.

50 State Party - For months, Chris has posted that we should be a 50 state party and run candidates in every Congressional district.  I am all for this but that means we must be tolerant of Dems who will not meet every liberal litmus test.  Should we oppose Brian Schweitzer because of his pro-guns views, Dick Durbin because of pro-life views or Ted Strickland because of his mixed record on the environment?  Of course not, but if we want to be a true 50 state majority party, we must tolerate Dems who are with us on many issues but will diverge on some.  

Do you think a NYC liberal like Jerry Nadler can win in Charlie Melancon's seat?  Of course not, but isn't it better to have Melancon than Billy Tauzin III?  I sure think so.

Look at the Repubs.  They tolerate moderates like Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe because it allows them to be in the majority.  Hell, Jim Jeffords was a committee chair when he was in the Repub party!!!

The major litmus test for this party should be to not criticize fellow Dems in public and there is only one major Dem I can think of who violates this rule.

Movements Take Time - We have been fighting the Conservative movement for almost 40 years and it has taken a long time for them to get this far on political spectrum.  We cannot expect this to change overnight and we will probably need to make some compromises while pushing the agenda back our way.  Think about the timeline of the conservative ascendancy.

Richard Nixon (1968) - After the Goldwater debacle, the Repubs went more centrist with Nixon.  He was a foreign policy hawk but on the domestic front he supported universal healthcare through an employer mandate and created both the EPA and OHSA.  He looks downright liberal today which is a little scary.

Ronald Reagan (1980) - Conservative through and through but definitely to the left of today's crowd.

Gingrich to Bush - The real right wing ascends pushing an extreme agenda which is starting to run out of steam.

If we want to change things, we need to gain power.  Look at how the conservatives did it starting with Nixon through Bush.  If you don't control things, all you can do is sit on the sidelines and throw bombs and shout.

Matt said yesterday that politics is about choices.  It is also the art of the possible.  This year, if we work hard and together, we could take one or both Houses of Congress in addition to winning on the state level.  

I have one goal this year and it is to elect as many Democrats as possible in as many places as possible.  Anything else is helping George Bush and the Republicans advance their agenda.

Tags: Paul Hackett, Rick Santorum (all tags)



Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???
No. The suggestion of re-electing Santorum-- or even DeWine-- is indeed insane (or from a right-wing troll) but the desire to constructively deal with an
Inside the Beltway power elite
controlling the Party and bringing it from one electoral disaster after another is the opposite of insane. Pennsylvania is not Charlie Melancon's district and
Chuck Pennacchio
is not Jerry Nadler. The registered voters of Pennsylvania
should get a chance to decide
which man is best suited to rid the state of the disgrace of having a senator like Rick Santorum. After the primary, all Democrats, as well as anyone else who sees what an extremist Santorum is and how badly he has corrupted national politics, should choose between him and whomever wins the primary.
Bullying candidates out of primaries
should not be the job of the DSCC or the DCCC.
by DownWithTyranny 2006-02-15 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

From Matt yesterday - "One, we can nail their thoroughbred, Bob Casey, with online ads.  That means a Santorum in the Senate, which, while it would suck, would at least teach insiders not to push us around anymore."  

This is insane and what I am responding to.  I really wonder if you read what I wrote because you have mixed everything up.  I said in my post that if you want to oppose Casey in the primary, go ahead but fall in line behind the winner to defeat Santorum.  I really don't care who it is as long as Santorum loses in Nov.

And I never compared Melancon to Pennsylvania or Nadler to Pennachio.

by John Mills 2006-02-15 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

"One, we can nail their thoroughbred, Bob Casey, with online ads.  That means a Santorum in the Senate, which, while it would suck, would at least teach insiders not to push us around anymore."

This is insane and what I am responding to.

No, it's called analysis.  You are also naive politically.  If Casey wins, he will be seen as the template for winning candidates in '08, and his candidacy will determine how the eventual Presidential nominee runs.  If you want to stop the centrist Presidential nominee now, the way to do it is to smash that meme in face.  Hitting Casey is one way to do it.  Hitting Lieberman is another.  There are downsides to both, though I would favor hitting Lieberman.

by Matt Stoller 2006-02-15 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I have been called a lot of things but never politically naive.  I have a pretty decent understanding of the political terrain of PA having worked some campaigns there.  I know it is Pittsburgh, Philly and conservative rural areas in the middle.  I know that we have won two Senate elections in 44 years - Clark in 1962, Wofford in 1991 so this is not exactly furtile land for Dems on this level.  I am not an expert but I am not exactly stupid when it comes to this stuff.  And frankly I really don't care who the nominee in PA is as long as they can take out that neanderthal Santorum.

You are clearly much more wedded to an ideological war than I thought.  I want to win in 2006 and 2008 because the last 6 years have shown me how much is at stake.

I'd love to have a liberal Democrat as President but you have to ask yourself if a centrist Democrat in the Bill Clinton mold would have started a war in Iraq, given mega tax cuts to the rich, ruined our countries finances, destroyed our reputation around the world?  I think the answer is no to all questions.

THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH RIGHT NOW THAT I WANT TO WIN CONGRESS IN 2006 AND THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008.   And when I see people suggesting we throw our chances out the window to make a point, it makes me mad.

by John Mills 2006-02-15 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I was throwing out a trial balloon, and clearly, the community is much more in agreement that Lieberman is a good target.

by Matt Stoller 2006-02-15 02:44PM | 0 recs
Popping Balloons

I really hope that this was just a trial balloon and that you get the Casey bashing out of your system BEFORE the primary ends. If you have a viable alternative to Casey then stand him up and get working to ensure Casey doesn't win. (No matter how much the netroots might like him, Pennachio is not a viable alternative. I doubt the guy could win a city council election, let along a PA Senate race. We have a term for people who think Casey can win in PA- no, not fool, though that also applies- "out-of-towners")

But if you can not or will not do the work to field an alternative then I would kindly ask you to keep your trap shut once the primary is over. Really- what are you doing, besides writing a lot, to field a viable progressive alternative to Casey.

Some of us will be working really, really hard to rid this nation of the embarrassment that is Man on Dog Santorum, and the last thing we need is to take fire from behind our own lines. If you or anyone else wants to fight against your fellow progressives once the general elections start, fine, but I'd suggest you stay out of PA, where you will be, without a doubt, persona non grata. I'd especially recommend staying out of Philly, unless you really want to find out what our brotherly love is all about.

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Popping Balloons

Pennachio is not a viable alternative. I doubt the guy could win a city council election, let along a PA Senate race.

Are you suggesting that Pennsylvania Democrats would vote for Santorum instead of Pennacchio?

We have a term for people who think Casey can win in PA- no, not fool, though that also applies- "out-of-towners")

I agree that Santorum is going to kick Casey's butt, which is why Pennsylvania voters deserve a robust campaigner like Pennacchio who will give the good people of Pennsylvania a real alternative to Santorum, instead of a reactionary faux Democrat like Casey.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 08:38AM | 0 recs

My Homer Simpson moment for the day (or hour). I meant Pennachio... Casey can definitely win...

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: DOUGH!!!

Pennacchio can win easily against Santorum. Casey is going to get stomped.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: DOUGH!!!

Gary, I am happy that you have spent enough time in PA politics to let everyone know who can and cannot win there.

Some questions:

1)  You complain about Rendell and Schumer clearing the field.  If they didn't clear it, and Casey ran anyway, who do you think would be the overwhelming favorite?  

2) How does clearing the field have anything bad for Pennacchio?  In fact, the Dems did not clear the field of Pennacchio, because he is not on their radar.  They cleared it of Hafer, and potentially Hoeffel.  If anything, less candidates should help Chuck.  He is still going to lose by 80 points, why is that?

3) You have these magical skills where you can tell us that Casey CAN NOT win against Santorum.  What, exactly is that based on?  A daydream or something?  Certainly not history, polls, or common sense.

I don't like how Casey has waged his campaign, and, I am worried when I see things like his Patriot Act BS.  That doesn't mean I am divorcing myself from reality.

by DanielUA 2006-02-16 01:16PM | 0 recs
Buddah Dollar Bet

(1.) We will never know now will we?

(2.) How much would you like to wager? I've got $100 that says Pennacchio gets over 25%.

(3.) History less: Casey was up by 17 points against Rendell and lost by 12%. The RWNM is going to swiftboat Casey and he is such a rotten campaigner that he will be unable to respond.

Santorum is going to be raising money from all over the country. Bob Dole's former staffer said Santorum is going to come out of this election with such a fantastic fundraising list that it will catapult him into being a Presidential contender.

We don't win elections against pigs like Santorum by running another Republican against them. We run a real Democrat like Pennaccio.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 04:26PM | 0 recs
this comedy hour brought to you by...

LOL! I needed some comedy relief!

I'm sorry, I think I forgot to bow to you before you imparted your worldly wisdom on how to win elections (more tofu!).

And Gary- don't stop with your comparisons of Rendell, who was an EXTREMELLY popular mayor in the most populous part of the state with some Liberal-Arts pre-madonna running a campaign to prove that all those bullies in high-school were wrong. Really, I haven't laughed myself into a coma yet, do you have any other comparisons you'd like to entertain us with? Gary- the 70s called- they want their tweaked out acid trip back!

$100? Dude- I'll bet you a hell of a lot more than that. You're really offering a straight up 1-1 bet that Pinocchio can come to life and get 25%? Tell you what- why don't you just sign over the title to your car to me now, and we can skip all the fun and games!

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 07:24PM | 0 recs
You're on Alex

Here's the deal. If Pennacchio gets 25% or better in the primary, you donate $100 to Pennacchio to help him retire his debt.

If Pennacchio gets 24.9% or less, I donate $100 to Casey to help him in the general.

The contribution will be made through Act Blue. Is it official?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 12:18AM | 0 recs
Most definitely!

Sounds like a plan. That's the type of opposition I like- i.e. that no matter what happens in the priamry we'll all pull together in the general.

Any other Pennachio supporters want to join Gary?

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-17 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Most definitely!

put a buck on chuck.

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-02-17 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Most definitely!

I didn't say I would support Casey in the general. I am merely willing to wager that Pennacchio will get 25% or better in the primary.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Most definitely!

Either way, your $100 will help!

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-17 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Popping Balloons


how much time have you spent in PA over the past, I dunno, 50 years?

Don't even bother, I know the answer (little to none) and yet you still somehow know what's best for PA Dems. Weren't you just complaining about outsiders imposing their will in local elections?

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 09:10AM | 0 recs
I'm not imposing anything

Schumer, Rendell and the DSCC are imposing Casey on Pennsylvania voters. How can I impose anything on anybody?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not imposing anything

If you can explain to me how they're "imposing" Casey on Pennsylvania voters, I'd love to know.  In fact, if you even need to put the words "imposing," "Casey" and "PA voters" in the same sentence there's a good chance you're not very familiar with that massive portion of Pennsylvania outside of the Philadelphia city limits.  

by Chesco Dem 2006-02-16 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not imposing anything

Rendell and Schumer are imposing Casey on Pennsylvania voters by putting pressure on other candidates not to oppose Casey, thereby rigging the primary. What's so complicated about that?

I know all about the "Red" counties in Pennsylvania.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 12:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not imposing anything

So, Rendell and Schumer cut deals with the other realistic candidates to get them to not oppose Bob Casey in the primaries.  You're assuming that a) Hafer and Hoeffel couldn't exercise free will and b) that all parties couldn't come to an agreement that it was in their best interest.

Joe Hoeffel is now running for Lt Governor, something he couldn't do without Rendell's unstated support, and something he has a much better shot of being successful doing than winning a Senate seat.  I think he's making out well.

by Chesco Dem 2006-02-17 03:24PM | 0 recs
you can't...

which is why you sound even more pitiful in your little buddha whimpers. ;-)

For the record, the only Buddha we know in Philly is the kind we stuff in blunts. You wanna get smoked like a blunt, Gary? Come to Philly and I'll see what I can do...

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: you can't...

It is entirely possible that I will be visiting Philly in the near future Alex. I look forward to seeing you there.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 12:21AM | 0 recs

That's awesome! I look forward to finally meeting you in person! Shoot me an e-mail when you have a better idea of when that might be: Alex a{}t draftzinni .

I promise to try and help you smoke while avoid getting smoked, though I can make no guarantee on the second count. We'll have to see how well you behave! ;-)

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-17 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Really?

I have impeccable manners when traveling or visiting. Travelling well is often better than arriving.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 05:07AM | 0 recs
The nicer brother agrees

I think you are pretty off-base Matt.  For example, who says he will be the template for Democratic candidates?  

He was chosen because, above all else, he was extremely well-known, and just collected a ton of votes one year earlier.  Casey is popular here, whether we like it or not.  That is why he was chosen- because PA voters like him, and, if he had run anyway, he likely still would have clobbered Hafer, Hoeffel or anyone else that did not have a base of support that is the entire Philadelphia region.  So, really, unless Rendell had run himself, this was Casey's seat to lose, in a big, big way.

Casey has run a terrible campaign, if you can call it that.  But, I also think that what his terrible campaign has done has overshadowed, at least for me, that besides choice, a lot of people who I trust think that Casey will be a good Senator, and will be a more labor-tailored politician than we usually get.  His statements on Alito and the Patriot Act have certainly given me some doubt, of course.

But, again, if Casey was not forced upon us, there is little doubt that he would at least have been the Dem nominee for Governor in 2010, with or without Rendell's support.  That name is worth a hell of a lot here.

What you are dead right on though, is this:  Democrats, especially Democrats in Pennsylvania, have done a poor job in multiple things:  one, creating any sort of depth amongst progressives at the State rep and Senate level.  (And our most reliable, smart progressive- Alan Kukovich, lost, and is gone.)  Second, there is no progressive infrastructure to push back when someone like Rendell clears the field.  Someone like Hoeffel would have made a good candidate, but, its not like there was an outcry of support for him.  The most likely candidate was Barbara Hafer, who switched parties to the Dems out of spite.  Then there was Kukovich, who again, lost his own seat in the Senate.

I feel your pain about a lack of a progressive candidate.  But, I hope you feel ours about a lack of a progressive bench in Pennsylvania, and instead of trying to make man-on-dog launch his campaign for presidency from our ashamed State, help us develop a real bench, and help us beat the crap out of Rick Santorum.

by DanielUA 2006-02-16 08:19AM | 0 recs
Boo, hoo, hoo

And when I see people suggesting we throw our chances out the window to make a point, it makes me mad.

We certain wouldn't want to do anything to make you mad. That would be just horrible.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-15 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Boo, hoo, hoo

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-02-15 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I'd love to have a liberal Democrat as President but you have to ask yourself if a centrist Democrat in the Bill Clinton mold would have started a war in Iraq, given mega tax cuts to the rich, ruined our countries finances, destroyed our reputation around the world?  I think the answer is no to all questions.

Fine, but this sort of argument is the exact argument that produced the goddamn Kerry nomination.  Since Clinton won in 1992, the democratic party has seen nothing but a long slow decline.  Why is it so hard for people to see that Clinton crippled the democratic party in order to bolster his position?  Clinton stuck us in this endless stupid moderate vs. progressive debate, producing the schizophrenic Gore campaign and the fucking pathetic Kerry campaign, and endless close losses in the Senate.  The dems will never be the talking point clones the republicans are, but let's get some people out there that can actually fucking communicate alternative ideas to the republicans, eh?

by Valatan 2006-02-16 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I agree. Lieberman already was a target, and it makes sense.

Peersonally, I've come up witha number which would have gone to Hackett, and plan to send that total to Lamont. If everyone who was going to donate to Hackett in the primary does that, we'll be well on our way to a solid start.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-15 01:53PM | 0 recs
You won't influence anyone that way

Peeing into your own tent will just marginalize you and eventually make you an outcast.   If centrist candidates are the wave of the future (and I am not saying they are) then you are going to have to show them what you and your friends online can offer them, and that is when you will get something in return.  

This is how the religous right came to slowly dominate the Republican Party in my view.   It didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen by them derailing Republican candidates.

Bomb throwers will get nothing in my opinion (and I think that is what Democrats running ads against a Democrat would be viewed as).

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-16 12:02PM | 0 recs
Are Schumer &amp; Emanuel Insane?

Bob Casey said that renewal of the Patriot Act is a victory in the war on terror. Why in the hell would I support another Zell Lieberman?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-15 12:40PM | 0 recs
List the 10 or 12 issues that matter to you most.

Stack up Casey vs. Santorum.

Which candidate do you think agrees with with you more often?   Which one do you think would be more inclined to at least listen to you, or other posters here, on the issues if elected in November?

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-16 12:05PM | 0 recs
Pennacchio on the issues

Pennacchio's issue page: (click through for links)

The Iraq War
Making Every Vote Count
Health Care
Women's Rights
The Environment
Trade and Outsourcing
Campaign Finance Reform
Living Wage    Social Security
Equal Rights
Generational Debt
Worker's Rights
Agriculture and Rural America
Energy Dependence
Promoting Democracy At Home
Gun Violence Prevention

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennacchio on the issues

LOL.   His speeches must go on for hours ... lot of ground to cover there.  

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-16 04:44PM | 0 recs
don't worry...

You'll fall asleep before 10 minutes are up.

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 07:25PM | 0 recs
Casey on the issues

Casey's issue page: (click through for links)


As you can see, it is impossible to list ten things anyone can agree with Casey on, because he only has five issues he is running on. He has excluded Iraq and Abortion. Very clever tactic. I'm sure no one will notice.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Casey on the issues

Casey is not new to politics so surely a little research will turn up his views on a wide range of topics.   Faulting him for a campaign strategy of focusing on a small, easily comminucated set of issues is silly.

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-16 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Casey on the issues

I am faulting Casey for ignoring Iraq and abortion. Since those are supposed to be the "red county" issues that will appeal to Independents why is he hiding his position? I'm more than a little confused about whether or not Casey is supposed to be able to peel off Republican votes from Santorum.

Exactly what are the demographics that Casey is supposed to be appealing to anyway?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 12:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Thats what i said about Hackett but whatever it's the DSCC's call not the voters.

by Liberal 2006-02-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

A 50 state party is the goal, but it is not the netroots that have gone insane (exception: trolls). Yesterday we had demonstrated that the "Beltway" crowd wants we "the people" to fall in line with their loosing philosophy instead of allowing the people to choose the direction & people to lead then getting behind us.

In my mind, I will turn my attention to getting a Democrat elected locally, but if the established losing Democratic Party is going the dictate who & how the national scene plays out,  they do it without my help.  They've demonstrated their ambition is basically the same exclusionary club as the Republican.  Except for point of view, heads or tails it's the sme coin.

by ddrich 2006-02-15 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???


Well, I'll still support a good deal of national Democrats whom I admire.  But Brown?  Fuck that guy, he's on his own.  Casey?  Sorry, I might be willing to cut his social conservatism some slack, but when you're that inept at campaigning agressively, I'm not going to waste my breath on you.

Now, McCaskill, on the other hand, I can get behind.
Webb I can get behind.
Carter I can DEFINITELY get behind (but he's not a DSCC pick).
Whitehouse or Matt Brown in RI?  Sure!

by HellofaSandwich 2006-02-15 10:38AM | 0 recs
Not Insane

Matt's suggestion that the netroots try and beat Bob Casey and thus help Rick Santorum was not insane -- it was just inexplicably stupid.

Chris's great post on the activist class-structure is a must-read, and his assessment will explain the underlying reason for Matt's moronic suggestion -- the need for the netroots to assert power and show the DC establishment that we matter.

In fact, Chris himself suggessted witholding money from the congressional races if they didn't meet his goal of competing in every district this year.

Both of these bad ideas stem from the same feeling of powerlessness, from trying to find a way to tell the Beltway insiders that we should be listened to. This is the issue that must be addressed, but cutting off the nose to spite the face is not the way to do it.

(To note: most of what Matt and Chris write is excellent, I just think these specific ideas are utterly idiotic, and deviate sharply from their normally well-reasoned logic).

by LiberalFromPA 2006-02-15 11:00AM | 0 recs
Punishing the DSCC

We have to hurt them and we have to hurt them bad. If we can hurt Casey enough to throw the election to Santorum, they will hopefully learn their lesson. If we let them get away with chop blocking liberal Dems in the primaries, like Cegelis and Pennacchio, they will just keep doing it.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Insane

The way to have influence with the establishment is to get candiates elected. If the netroots got progressives into offices the national party is not working on, that is bringing something to the table. Elect state senators or attorneys general if you have to. Give money to progressives who are running against Republicans so they win.

Success is what gives you influence in the organization. You replace the leaders by showing that you can do a better job. That is how Dean got the DNC position. It can happen with the other leadership positions as well.

by De Re Rustica 2006-02-16 04:46PM | 0 recs
How to get the attention of the DSCC

You take down Lieberman, Casey and Duckworth. If Santorum is elected to the Senate because of the bad judgment of Schumer and Rendell, so be it. Not my problem.

Maybe next time the voters of Pennsylvania will stand up to the party bosses and start demanding Democrats in Democratic primaries.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

...we are not members of the party apparatus...

Not exactly...

Deliberation and patience are not reflections of weakness or lack of commitment.  It's the tempering of ideology with pragmatism.  Those who aren't willing to take the long view are the ones that seem to be less committed.  The whole "I want it now or it's not worth it" mentality is exactly the problem.

What Lucas said.

Have you ever considered running for precinct/ward committee person?

by Michael Bersin 2006-02-15 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Do it. Found out about how to go about doing so and then do it. I bet your energy would be greatly appreciated.

by Michael Bersin 2006-02-15 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I find your analysis repugnant.  I agree that we, the ordinary citizen, are not members of the party apparatus, but that apparatus is supposed to be representative of the members that are the party.  Yes, they find and put forward candidates that might be electable, but it is not their job to limit the choices we members are allowed to select from.  If someone steps up and thinks they can represent me better, it is not their job to make that determination.  We are not Republican (I hope).

by ddrich 2006-02-15 12:07PM | 0 recs
The weather

Yeah, everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.

I find your analysis repugnant.

He actually made several astute observations. If you bother to read the rest of the thread you'll see that he's considering the possibility of involvement in that apparatus. The "party" is not some entity that sprang from the beltway at midnight. The party is whoever joins in to make it work. You don't need an invitation to do so, as much as you'd like to believe.

You have two choices. Sit back and do nothing (other than complain about it), or get involved in the party and take it over.

by Michael Bersin 2006-02-15 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

The Republicans do not tolerate nearly as much variation from orthodoxy as Democrats do.  Lest we forget, the man who pushed Jim jeffords out of the Republican Party was none other than that mad shooter, himself, Dick Cheney.  Not only did Cheney insist on orthodoxy, he also wanted to punish and ridicule jeffords for trying to help one of his constituency groups: dairy farmers.

Here is the proof of orthodoxy from the House, via the Progressive Punch scores.  A score of 100 is a perfectly liberal, er "progressive", voting record.  A score of 0 is a perfectly comservative voting record.  To make the comparison easier, I am showing each side's record from the extreme at the top, to the middle.

98 -100    NONE            0-1.99    17        
95-97.99      6            2-4.99    88
90-94.99     40            5-9.99    76
85-89.99     61            10-14.99  31
80-84.99     30            15-19.99  10
75-79.99     24            20-24.99   4
70-74.99     16            25-29.99   3
65-69.99     11            30-34.99   1
60-64.99      8            35-39.99   1
55-59.99      4            40-44.44  NONE
50-54.99      1            45-49.99  NONE
45-49.99      1            50 +      NONE
0-44.99     NONE

Or to put it in categories, 25 Democrats scored under 70 while 2 of those "tolerant" Republicans scored 30 or over. The Republicans, of course, enforce "loyalty" through The Club for Growth, an instrument they are now extending into a DEMOCRATIC primary.

At the extremes, 6 Democrats score 95 or higher; fully 105 Republicans score 5 or less.  The controlling rating for this House (half the Republicans is between 5 and 6, about equal to the 6 most liberal democrats.

Rick Santorum has a median rating for Senate republicans.  That's right, religious Ricky is "right" in the middle of their pack.

Would any Repub;icans tolerate the years of double-dealing that Joe Lieberman has dealt to Democrats?  No way!

by David Kowalski 2006-02-15 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Republican can enforce that because they are in the majority. The majority has power to distribute, which is one of the best tools for enforcement. The majority gets more money coming in from all the donors who want to give to the winner. That's another enforcement tool.

Concentrate on getting the majority. Concentrate on showing America that progressive candidates can win. Then consider punishing DINOs by running progressive candiates against them in the primary. Doing it too soon just prevents you from getting prioriteis 1 and 2.

by De Re Rustica 2006-02-16 04:52PM | 0 recs
Is John Mills Insane?

Look at the Repubs.  They tolerate moderates like Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe because it allows them to be in the majority.

The GOP "tolerates" Chaffee and Collins and Snowe because it allows them to appear to be a sane and rational party. They are probably the only semi-rational Republicans holding national office. So in exchange for the GOP being tolerant of semi-rational moderates, you expect us to be tolerant of Republican lite nut jobs like Casey, Lieberman and Zell.

Do you see the flaws in your analysis?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-15 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane?

I guess in this group I am b/c I want to win.

by John Mills 2006-02-15 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane?

Join a baseball team then. This isn't just about "my team" winning.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane? Probably!

Since I want to get the Republicans out of power it is "my team" winning.  That is a great way to think about it.  Thanks.

by John Mills 2006-02-15 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane? Probably!

But, the things that pass are a product of not only Republicans, but Democratic action. For example, Democrats providing cover under R said, D said part of the public discourse that leads to how the public will perceive debates. It hardly seems like a win if the members of the team get onthe field and score points for the other side. Yes, you may feel like wow we have more players- but the other side is still winning. I want this country to move left of center, not far right. If these guys are going to pull a Zell Miller then the concern isn't insane- it's a very useful question to ask.

by bruh21 2006-02-15 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane? Definately!

Gary - One other thought.  Lieberman and Zell Miller violate the cardinal rule I laid out in my post about publicly criticizing Dems so I am not going to defend them.  

What about the Nelsons who represent tough states for Dems?  Should we throw them overboard for not being sufficiently liberal?  

What about Claire McCaskill who will be undoubtedly middle of the road in order to win in Missouri?  Ken Salazar, another Dem in tough territory?  

Where do we draw the line and with whom?  What is the line?  Pro-choice?  Pro-environment?  Single payer healthcare v employer mandate?  Iraq war?

I don't want to be that arbiter because I have no idea and my line will make someone unhappy.  What I do know is the vast majority of Dems will be better than almost any Repub

by John Mills 2006-02-15 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane? Definately!

No, no one (or at least not a majority) is suggesting that red states won't produce redder Dems. Duh.

But in case of what happened in Ohio, it's more about rewarding integrity and penalize a lack of integrity.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-15 04:05PM | 0 recs
I beg to differ

What about Claire McCaskill who will be undoubtedly middle of the road in order to win in Missouri?

Claire McCaskill's views are quite in synch with the majority of Missourians - that she gets labeled something is of no consequence.

She has another trump card over the republicans in Missouri - she has a long record of exemplary, ethical, and highly competent public service as a legislator, as a tough prosecutor, and as one of the most aggressive State Auditors to ever hold that office.

Claire McCaskill is smart, principled, tough, pragmatic, and compassionate [No, I do not work for her campaign, but I'll volunteer for her].

The republicans in Missouri are stealth reactionaries - they talked one plan to the voters and presented them with something else entirely. dubya ain't too popular, and neither is Governor Matt "baby" Blunt. Jim Talent is Missouri's invisible senator. They comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. We see it and hear it here on the ground. 2006 will be the year republicans in Missouri start paying their past due bills.

by Michael Bersin 2006-02-15 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane? Definately!

The beef isn't about a litmus test. Hell, I'd admit Brown is, at least on paper, more progressive than Hackett.

The beef is with the party leadership in Washington, which controls not just the agenda and the message, but also the messenger.

Here's how they work: They observe - does the candidate play by our beltway rules, has the candidate networked with the right people for the donor base to be accessible, does the candidate relate well to the local/state party machine(s), do we like you? Yes? Ok, here's the dough, let us instruct our corporate donors to shift a little more (or a lot more) campaign bling your way, make your fundraising that much easier and voila, the establishment has just bought a candidate 75% -90% of what he or she is going to need to be on the November ballot with party blessing. You think Amy Klobuchar beat a seasoned Patty Wetterling (my first Hackett-style disappointment, off most other people's radar screen) in fundraising because she's got a singular flair for getting deep-pocketed Dem donors to loosen their purse strings? I don't think so. Don't believe me? Ask Ben Nighthorse-Campbell how the party leadership in Washington works, which in his case was enough to turn a Ben Nelson Dem into a moderate Repub.

Now, I'd be ok with this if this had proven to be a winning strategy. The problem is, it hasn't. McAulliffe didn't deliver the goods this way, the themes are stale, not only has nothing been delivered for decades, nothing substantial is even offered, and as an opposition party, these folks are worthless (bankruptsy reform, Alito, tax cts for the rich, need I go on?)

This isn't simply about ideology, whether the party needs a bigger tent or whatnot. It's how the party operated, and whether the Democratic party is actually democratic. And in my humble opinion, it is not, a fact underlined by the Hackett affair, preceded by Wetterling's dropping out of the MN Senate race, and also highlighted by beltway party choices in PA, CT and IL.

Tell you what though, if the national dems can come up with a progressive Contract for America like Newt did in '94, one which spells out what they will get put into law when they take power within say a year, which includes at a minimum some childcare initiatives, a raise in the minimum wage, extending medicaid to all children in the US explicitly as a first step towards national healthcare, a repeal of Taft-Hartley, and federal civil union legislation for gays and lesbians, a deeply pissed-off guy like me might let bygones be bygones.

But frankly, I'm not holding my breath. And if you think I'm dreaming about my wish list, just take a look at the rest of the member states of the OECD and tell me I'm out of line. Tell me this is extreme relative to the Contract with America, and tell me you disagree with any of these items.

The dems have done virtually nothing for 30 years, and if they want progressives to keep voting for them, they'd better get their asses moving. Because for some of us, we could more or less care less if it's Ricky or Casey. 18th century versus 14th century, I'd rather not pick.

Full disclosure, I'm a dual citizen, so I don't actually have to live in the US if and when the shit hits the fans.

by redstar66 2006-02-15 05:48PM | 0 recs
Nice dodge

Why should we be concerned about or cater to Nebraska Democrats when the issue is Pennsylvania?

Where do we draw the line? How about with the will of the voters instead of the party bosses? The Democrats who gave us bankruptcy "reform" and CAFTA are not better than almost any Republican, they are exactly the same.

As a matter of fact being in favor of women having the freedom to make their own personal medical decisions, instead of Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay is a fundamental issue.

As a matter of fact preference for the environment over oil companies and polluters is a fundamental issue.

National health care is a fundamental issue.

The Iraq war is a fundamental issue.

Bob Casey's anti-abortion position does not represent the views of Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania. His website does not mention health care or Iraq, so presumably these are either not important issues to Casey or he opposes Health Care for All and supports Bush's Iraq war.

Aside from being coronated by Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell, exactly what is it about Bob Casey that makes him an acceptable candidate for Pennsylvania Democrats?

Oh yeah. He's "electable." Where have I heard that before?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-15 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

I imagine that Pennsylvania Democrats will choose in the primary whether Casey is an acceptable candidate for them with there votes -- one way or another

by v2aggie2 2006-02-15 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

I think the point is that no they won't be "choosing" when the party is going in to strong arm candidates into not running. Now you can say they can run- but let's be honest here, that means shit when its up against the party insiders with the connection to the money, the media and other elements. If they were to take a hands off approach- then your argument would have some merit- otherwise as with Hackett- it just comes across kind of hollow rhectoric.

by bruh21 2006-02-16 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

Underdogs have won before.

Barack Obama defeated two, far-better candidates in the Democratic Primary in 2004.

by v2aggie2 2006-02-18 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

did the party actively work against obama's run?

by bruh21 2006-02-18 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

Someone else may have the answer to that question.  I was referring to the money issue.

by v2aggie2 2006-02-18 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

Also, is the party actively opposing Casey's opponent(s)

by v2aggie2 2006-02-18 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

is there someone working against others who enter the race- for example hackett, and in PA against other candidate beyhond casey- I don't know- i guess not.

by bruh21 2006-02-18 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice dodge

And since you seemingly know nothing about Pennsylvania....

In the latest poll, 59% of Pennsylvanians believe Bob Casey's views are "mainstream" while 49% believe the same of Rick Santorum's.

Could it be, and this may shock you, that YOUR views are not in line with those of Pennsylvania?  

I love how people like you scream about "democracy" when you don't really care about it at all.  You want to see your guy get elected, and because no one wants to vote for him, you scream its someone elses fault.  Let Pennsylvania be Pennsylvania, and if it wants to elect people who represent its views, we're going to do that.

by Chesco Dem 2006-02-16 04:50PM | 0 recs
This may shock you

Could it be that Pennsylvania voters are just like voters in most states and don't have a clue what the views of their Senators actually are?

If you want Pennsylvania to be Pennsylvania then demand an end to brokered primaries. Let Democrats decide who will represent them in Democratic primaries, not party bosses.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 05:23PM | 0 recs
Off with their heads!!!

Those who do not abide by the rules of the glorious revolution must be silenced!

I will tell you what's best for you- more cowbell!

"Come on baby... Don't fear the Reaper
Baby take my hand... Don't fear the Reaper
We'll be able to fly... Don't fear the Reaper
Baby I'm your man..."

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 07:30PM | 0 recs

Are we supposed to be taking Gary seriously? Am I missing some sort of joke?

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

by John Mills 2006-02-15 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

I was flirting with getting more involved- and actually it's what the party has done that has convinced me to focus on my efforts in the private sector. I am sure in your mind- that makes me a quitter. But the reality is that I have no interest in trying to convince people who have already made up their minds.

by bruh21 2006-02-15 05:52PM | 0 recs
Why are you still here?

That's it man, game over man, game over.

Then why are you still here?

I am sure in your mind- that makes me a quitter.

It sure does. I don't even want to know you.

by Michael Bersin 2006-02-16 01:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane?

How do you know that? What is the basis for your conclusion? Really, these are rhectorical questions- because at the end of the day- the answer is that you think it's enough to have D after the name. Whereas- the more fundamental question is what is the value of winning leadership in then to be so trapped by the far right of the party that we can't do much more than when we were in the minority. The goal should be a governing majority- not merely a majority. I find the analysis here short sighted in terms of asking- are these guys really going to rep our interests and goals. We don't want to just win- we want to win to create legislation that we agree with. It's a different way of looking at things than just "they are on our team." Remember all the "moderate" Republicans you mention still vote the way the crazies in the Republican Party do. Moreover, they don't come out and attack their party in public without retribution  (a la the primary challenge to Chaffee and Specter to name just two). So I find most of these comments win for the sake of winning, without explaining how this will produce a moderate agenda (I feel the need to repeat to centrists that being moderate is not the same as triangulation which I feel is at the heart of win without regard to whether someone will truly help in moving the country left of center versus keeping it on a rightward path).

by bruh21 2006-02-15 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Are Schumer &amp; Emanuel Insane?

So any neanderthal with a (D) after their name is acceptable, we shouldn't be concerned about brokered primaries and we should ignore our political principles so Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel can ignore the local grass/netroots.

Is that about right?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-15 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Your timeline omits the most important part - the beginning. Goldwater's massive defeat in 1964 which, while scuttling the GOP that year, set up the conservative movement's eventual ascendancy.

The problem with the Dems is that those who represent the same fresh air on the left, and I would easily put Hackett in there, are exactly those which the party establishment, firmly ensconced, see as a threat. And you can count on the M$M to demonize anyone talking about progressive issues like socialized medicine, publicly-financed democracy or workers rights, though it's ok for Ann Couter to advocate genocide.

This is why I don't think the Dems can reform themselves, the socio-political cards are stacked against it to begin with, the 4th estate is hamstrung by its allegiance to the capital which has bought it, and the dem party doyens themselves are a major hindrance to boot.

I do admire those of you who I can see are truly progressive and still see hope, Mr Stoller included. I suspect perhaps you all also believe in a God of some sort.

Not I, alas.

by redstar66 2006-02-15 06:09PM | 0 recs
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

It remains the job of the DCCC and DSCC to find the candidates that they think has the best shot at winning.

Actually the only job of the DCCC and DSCC is to support the incumbant Democrats who contribute to the organizations. The official policy of both organizations is non-interference in primaries. Which is as it should be.

Progress can and should be made, but you don't snap from far right to far left overnight or over two elections.

With Dems like Casey and Lieberman you don't make progress at all.

Those who aren't willing to take the long view are the ones that seem to be less committed.

Ah yes. The "long view." We should just sit back and let Schumer and Emanuel  broker primaries, against their own formal written policy, and not concern outselves with the direction of the Democratic Party. In forty or fifty years it will all work out.

The whole "I want it now or it's not worth it" mentality is exactly the problem.

No, the problem is Democratic apparatchiks who want to coronate Democratic primary winners who will do their bidding, instead of being accountable to the voters.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-15 06:16PM | 0 recs
This thread is suffering from a case of stollerism

Did anyone see stoller's post on "dick cheney's friend's heart attack"

dude. I just got out of the hospital with someone I love very much, spent 7 days by her side. three heart attack victims rolled into the shared room next to us + this guy did not have a heart attack.

The dude sits in his bed, he can barely notice the difference. they checked his protein levels and thats how they found it.

Want excitement, ok. fine. if that little mother of a bb gets dislodged, travels to the guys brain and he ends up like Ariel sharon. That would be a story.

Cheney is such a sleazebag, we've got this story - the real story is that cheney is trying to rewrite the way everyone does business right now with the CIA by simply saying, he had the right all along to nuke Valerie Plame.

THAT is what is going on. Cure stollerism with heavy doses of FEINGOLD

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-02-15 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: This thread is suffering from a case of...

I caught that too, the "I don't want to discuss if I were at liberty to declassify material" part of the interview.

Holding my breath to see if this gets wings, we know Fitz has Cheney in his sights so this may well be the pre-emptive defence.

All this being said, I'm not convinced we're going to get the 4th estate involved like they need to be on this or other matters of similar import (NSA spying, for instance). As Ted would acknowledge, the 4th estate has been bought and paid for, from him no less, and right now, the money is still behind the guys bringing you a politicized intelligence apparatus, among other things. It doesn't get in the way of making more money in this lifetime, after all.

Nope, the toilet has been flushed. Hopefully, the bowl gets re-filled, and when it does, it will be the water of the 2nd republic.

by redstar66 2006-02-15 07:13PM | 0 recs
A case of stollerism

You say that like it was a bad thing.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: A case of stollerism

well maybe in the way that there's good bacteria and bad bacteria ... :b

by turnerbroadcasting 2006-02-17 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats...the problem now is the control of the country by the Far Right.  The key race of 2006 that everyone should be looking at right now is Democrat Francine Busby's race for Duke Cunningham's vacated seat in California.  The special election in April 11.  It's an election to replace Congress' most corrupt member and it's a Republican district by registration, but not necessarily far right.  A Democrat winning this particular election will be the first sign of a trend in 2006 that the voters are fed up. Busby has strong local support and a real chance. During the next two months the entire country needs to get on board with Francine Busby. Find out more at BusbyForCongress.com

by JohnLeeEvans 2006-02-15 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Are Schumer &amp;amp;amp; Emanuel Insane?

Just one question:

What the hell was Casey thinking when he came out in favor of the goddamn Alito nomination?  Noone doubted whether or not he would've been a yes vote on Alito.  Why would he undermine his own party by taking an unnecessary stand?

by Valatan 2006-02-16 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Are Schumer &amp; Emanuel Insane?

Casey is not a moderate. He is an unacceptable reactionary tool of Schumer and Rendell. We need to fight against Casey to teach the party apparatchiks not to interfere in primaries or they will get burned.

If my kid asked for ten bucks, I'd tell him to get a job. If he burned my wallet I'd blister his little butt bright rosy red. Do you have any other irrelevant stupid analogies you would like to share?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Are Schumer &amp; Emanuel Insane?

How does saying he would have voted for Alito and supports The Patriot Act gain support for Casey in Pennsylvania?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

If you start bringing your own recipes into a restaurant because they're so popular with your family, super. But the restaurant doesn't have to A. hire you or B. prepare and serve your suggested dishes. Doesn't matter how often you eat there or how many people you get to vouch for your food.

Kind of like Rendell and Schumer bringing Bob Casey to the Pennsylvania primary and trying to force Democratic voters to order Spam and eggs instead of prime rib. I would walk out of the restaurant and never go back.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Let's say Casey was not foisted upon anyone, but he was still running:  Name me who would beat him.

by DanielUA 2006-02-16 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Perhaps you've heard of Chuck Pennacchio.

If Bob Casey is such a strong candidate, why did Schumer and Rendell do everything in their power to keep Pennacchio out of the primary? If the DSCC and the DCCC just followed their own policy of non-interference in Democratic primaries this entire discussion would not even be necessary.

I think progressive Democrats should vote for Pennacchio in the general election to teach the party apparatchiks a lesson.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

First, who says party leaders tried to force Chuck Pennacchio out of the election?  Do you honestly think they care about Chuck?  

They did lean on Hafer and Hoeffel.  And you know what?  Casey still likely would have tatooed either of them.  

Chuck is still there, and he is losing by 65 points.  A candidate with any chance would be polling better than that, no matter what party leaders wanted.  I asked you a question- name me someone who would beat Casey, and you name me the guy who is losing to him by 65 points?

Again: name me someone who would not be a serious underdog against Casey in a head to head.

by DanielUA 2006-02-16 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

This is very old news. Schumer and Rendell tried to block Pennacchio out of the primary altogether and have a coronation for Casey. Rahm Emanuel did the exact same thing in Illinois against Cegelis.

Pennacchio could crush Santorum.

Santorum will crush Casey.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

You know who disagrees with you?  People who want facts.

Your basis for Chuck "Polling within the margin of error in the Primary" Pennacchio - the same man who I have never seen a single person outside the hardcore, leftist activist base even know who he was - crushing Santorum, while Bob Casey (the man with the most votes in PA history) will get killed is based off what?

Seriously, despite the sarcasm of my tone, I'd really like to know what evidence you have to that.  

by Chesco Dem 2006-02-16 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Anyone who ridicules Chuck Pennacchio shits on Paul Wellstone's grave.

by rhealdeal 2006-02-16 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Go read a book.

Just because they are professors sure as hell does not make this the same.

by DanielUA 2006-02-17 03:24AM | 0 recs
It's quite simple and quite clear

Santorum's approval ratings are in the mid to high 30's in recent polls. I haven't seen a breakdown by party.

(1.) It is quite likely that Pennacchio would be able to get just as many Democratic votes in the general as Casey. Why on earth would any Democrat vote against Pennacchio and for Santorum?

(2.) Pennacchio is more lucid on the issues and will generate far more enthusiasm from the Democratic activists in Pennsylvania. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the next Drinking Liberally and take a poll.

(3.) Casey is very likely to alienate party activists in Pennsylvania. Between his positions on Iraq and abortion, he certainly is not going to generate any enthusiasm.

(4.) I believe the Democratic apparatchiks are kidding themselves about Casey's ability to pull GOP voters into his camp on the issue of corruption. Santorum is going to easily pull down 95% of GOP votes in the general.

(5.) I do not believe Casey will be successful in attracting pro-abortion votes away from Santorum. The pro-abortion voters will stick with Santorum.

(6.) Casey is probably a more lack luster campaigner than Kerry. I don't know who the commenters up thread think they are kidding by ridiculing Pennacchio for putting voters to sleep. Pennacchio is a far more invigorating candidate than Casey.

(7.) Pennacchio can present voters with a clear choice in the general. Voters are going to be very hard pressed to come up with a reason to prefer Casey over Santorum. At best it will be a coin toss which candidate they pull the switich for.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-17 12:36AM | 0 recs
Ahh, I think I see your problem

And why you feel the Angry Troll can be my next US Senator.  You have no clue what a Pennsylvania Democrat is.  

A large minority of Pennsylvania Democrats would not vote for Pennacchio.

Casey is far more lucid on the issues, not in a wonkish manner, but in articulating why he believes what he does.

He is an excellent campaigner.  I don't know a single Pennsylvanian (outside the real, hardcore activist base) who has met him and didn't love him.

Screw the "party activists" who probably aren't real Democrats anyway.  Nine out of 10 "party activists" who are actually involved in the party, that I know, are supporting Bob Casey.  Is it lower in Philadelphia?  Probably.  But thats not the whole state.

You also apparently don't know what a Pennsylvania Republican is, so thats cool.

Casey presents a very real, clear choice for voters.  Someone who is corrupt, who doesn't care about the people of Pennsylvania and just wants to put forward his extremist agenda, or someone who h as spent his entire life fighting for the average Pennsylvanian, for jobs, to make healthcare more affordable, to make sure our children are educated.  Just because that type of candidate doesn't mean much to you, doesn't mean it won't work in PA.

I think your major problem is you have no idea what PA voters are like.  You have this image of a stereotypical, white middle aged Democratic voter who cares only about the things you seemingly care about, and a stereotypical, white middle aged Republican voter who cares only about the things you seemingly care about (but opposes them!).  

by Chesco Dem 2006-02-17 03:19PM | 0 recs
Leave Casey alone

A DINO is better than a Republican because the DINO gets to vote for a Democratic Majority leader.

However in cases like Cuellar and Ciro--Cuellar is ripe for being voted out as he does not have a Republican opponent.

by jasmine 2006-02-16 09:17AM | 0 recs
This &quot;DINO&quot; stuff is destructive

If a decent well intentioned person wants to be a democrat we should welcome them as such.  

Do you want to be like the Republicans where an Arlen Spector only supports Bush 85% of the time and therefore he must be a labeled a traitor to the party and a "RINO?"

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-16 11:54AM | 0 recs
DINOs are destructive

The tent is too big. Lieberman, Casey and Cuellar need to join Zell Miller on Faux News bad mouthing Democrats and telling Faux listeners how wonderful Bush and his war are.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 05:28PM | 0 recs
Can the tent ever be too big?

I guess it could.   But considering we don't currently hold even one of the levers of power in Washington at the moment, and just about the entire middle of this country is red, I would suspect the tent is not too big yet.

If the Democratic Party's tent is too big for you maybe you would prefer the Green Party's little pup tent?

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-17 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

They at least consistently controlled Congress.

by Valatan 2006-02-16 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

And look where the democrats lost seats in 1994. They lost in mostly conservative districts. Hell, after 1996, republicans completely controlled Oklahoma, almost the exact opposite of 1992. Conservative/moderate democrats made up a great part of the House for the 40 years it was democratic.

by JRyan 2006-02-16 11:09AM | 0 recs
that argument just makes me hate casey more

That's exactly the probem.  If we have a bunch of jerks that are more concerned with getting themselves elected to congress than building the party, we end up with a divided, ineffective party.  Republicans don't put up with this shit--they fund primary opponents agaisnt the likes of spector.  The Democrats, instead, recruit these jackasses.  I'm sick of it.  I've got better places to send my support than to Casey--there are races where a true dem is running against a far right jackass.  

by Valatan 2006-02-16 09:24AM | 0 recs

All of you who are ticked off at the Democratic Party over Hackett because you think there should be open primaries: tell me honestly if you would be equally ticked off if the DP had muscled Brown out?  I don't think so. Hackett's campaign was a disaster. He had only raised $1 for every $10 that Brown had raised.  If you are going to take on an incumbent United States Senator, you need to raise millions of dollars, and he had not shown the capacity to do that.  If he had outraised Brown 10 - 1, the DP would have been muscling Brown out for Hackett. The Democrats showed something here you have been complaining that they haven't shown: the spine to do what it takes to win.  

by nascardem 2006-02-16 10:44AM | 0 recs
great question

On a personal level I wouldn't be mad, since I like Hackett, but I would side with those who were mad. A good example of this is Duckworth vs. Cegalis. I really, really like Duckworth as a candidate, but I think it was wrong for the Dems to try and push out Cegalis before the primary.

If Duckworth is as strong as I think she is than she should have no problem defeating Cegalis. And if she couldn't beat Cegalis, then, well, the better candidate won, and we'd know for certain that the best candidate was heading into the general.

But let me just say this: deciding who the DP should push out based on money alone is really, really short sighted. (Obviously this only holds true up to a certain point- i.e. Pennachio should just admit he's got a snowballs chance in the Bush/Walker Suite of Hell and think about running for state rep, school board, or maybe block captain) I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of candidates being down big in the fundraising game, only to come back and win the primary and general. I don't have any handy, but do you have any examples of why a primary fight would be bad in PA, OH, IL, or any other place?

by Alex Urevick 2006-02-16 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Question

Unh. Regardless of the righta nd wrong, please get your facts straight. Brown did not outraise anyone. In fact, he was getting a real smack around by the OH papers because he was only able to match Hackett's last quarter. The meme going though the OH media was "connected guy from 20 (ish) years in Congress can't even beat the newbie?".

What he had was massive cash on hand, because sitting in his nice safe seat for the better part of two decades allowed him to raise funds and not spend much of them, so he was sitting on nearly $2 million.

As I've said elsewhere, one of the reasons Brown annoys me is that he cowered in his nice safe seat (the party begged him other times in the past to run for this) until others proved that the Noe things made the Reps vulernable...and then he suddenly hopped back in.

Buts eriously, please get the facts straight.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-16 01:24PM | 0 recs
I'll agree on the latter

The antional party needs to STFU on primaries. All primaries. If PA wants a guy who's running a bit right of Attila the Hun, then they have the right to elect him in the primary. Ditto the reverse.

I simply don't believe that a bunch DC based politicos have the slightest right to shove their people forward. It not only insults and abrogates the right of Dems in their own state to choose their own people, but it also just asks for corruption.

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-16 10:45AM | 0 recs
John, Great Post

.... I often like to remind people that we currently lack any real power in DC (which is why Alito, and the Patriot ACT, are allowed to pass), and that perhaps we should think about first regaining some power before turning on our own.

by dpANDREWS 2006-02-16 11:51AM | 0 recs
I don't agree

Within limits. While I won't be running off to help Casey, I don't oppose him either. You deal with the mentality of the state, and everyone knows the old joke about what is between Philly and Pittsburgh. * However, targeted efforts like Angus McWeepy (Lieberman) are not only acceptable but demanded when a state is to the left of the candidate, or really egregious sleaziness has gone on (Hackett).

* Mississippi

by ElitistJohn 2006-02-16 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Well, well, I can understand the anger. That being said, the "I'm gonna take my little red wagon and go home" mentality will get you exactly no where.

It is going to take lots of time an money. It took the GOP decades.

by Ga6thDem 2006-02-16 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

it's not about anger. some of us just don't have the time or patience to deal with a party not ready for change. it does take decades, part of which probably will mean further election cycles defeats before people "get it". I wrote a diary recently about what the "it" was for me about Hackett. The "it" was a chance for experimentation to see if a new style would be better than the old. Instead, we are getting people who the leadership are "comfortable" with having run. The problem of course is that the leadership isn't necessarily in the best position (anymore than we are) to know who is the best choice. They need to allow for some experimentation rather than trying to control the process so tightly.

by bruh21 2006-02-16 03:16PM | 0 recs
Open primaries are an imposition?

Exactly wrong pal. I am making the case for the DCCC and the DSCC to butt out of primaries, just like their written policy claims they do. How can I decree anything?

You're the one who is full of shit. You are trying to accuse me of doing exactly what Schumer, Rendell and the DSCC did. All I have ever favored is free and open primaries so the voters can decide instead of party bosses.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 12:56PM | 0 recs
Silly Rabitt. Primaries are for voters.

Those are all very intelligent and appropriate things for the party to do after the primary.

I don't know if you are being intentionally dense or if you are really that ignorant. The entire rationale for the grass/netroots anger is that Schumer and Rendell hand picked the primary winner in Pennsylvania and Rahm Emanuel hand picked the primary winner in Illinois 06.

It is absolutely not the job of the DSCC to "pick" the winner in a Democratic primary. They are supposed to butt out until the voters decide who they want to represent them. A couple of weeks ago I posted a link to the DSCC policy of non-interference in primaries. That's why Schumer is tryin to pretend that the DSCC is not funding the Langevin and Casey campaigns.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-02-16 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

actually- I don't have to imagine it. It's called the majority of the American people who don't vote or, if they do, are like my fellow attorneys at work- they think politics as a joke. There is a reason why that's the case. You can either look in the mirror (you being the party) and understand why- or continue to say- it's just a minority.

by bruh21 2006-02-16 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Is John Mills Insane?

Casey is irrelevant to me unless he is part of a governing majority. If we don't have a 'governing majority' that can achieve our public and legislative ends, and if he is not a part of thatthen he is not very useful. there is a difference between achieving a majority, and being able to do something with it.

by bruh21 2006-02-16 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Have The Netroots Gone Insane???

Riiiiight...and Carter and Dukakis were such lefties. WRONG! They were centrists, and they lost BECAUSE THEY WERE CENTRISTS AND THEY DIDN'T FIGHT. The notion that it was moderation that won us the presidency in 1992 is nothing but a corporate DLC pack of lies, and you are just a part of that audience of suckers. If a true progressive had run in 1988, Clinton never even would have had the opportunity to run against Poppy Bush.

(Yes, Mondale was a liberal, but no one had a chance to win in 1984.)

by rhealdeal 2006-02-16 08:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads