Skip to main content

View Diary: ID-01: Let's Send Larry Grant to Congress (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Naive? (4+ / 0-)

    Um.  Mirror?

    Idaho.  Look at the demographics and the history, and tell me what you honestly think the chance of electing an openly hard-core progressive is there.

    If we can elect a moderate Democrat to cover a fairly conservative seat, that's a major win.  Where are the Repugs going to replace the corporatist, Bushite wingnut they'll lose?  Where are they replacing the hard-right nutjob?

    If we can put Grant in office, and let him become--over time--the face of rational conservatism (rather than the moderate he is, now), this country will be so much better off....

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:09:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, there are plenty of others (0+ / 0-)

      who are progressive who aren't getting front page on DailyKos. Look, I'm not AGAINST Grant and I agree with your points that he is better than any Rethug. But this is about who gets the netroots endorsements and I think it ought to go to progressives.

      Grant's position on Iraq is one that Lieberman would agree with.

      •  If Lieberman were running (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SallyCat, FlawedAI, AUBoy2007, rearlgrant

        in a red state, we'd have ignored him--and Lamont wouldn't have managed to yank the primary out from under him.

        For Grant to support getting out in a red state -- in a state that still supports Shrub, for godsake! -- is pretty bold.  And note that the squishy wording cuts both ways.  You can read it as meaning something Liebermanesque... or you can read it as supporting getting the hell out--but not wanting to lay himself open to pointless political injury by being tagable as "cut and run."

        "Netroots" does not equal progressive.  It's a big part of it... but netroots is what Dean--the radicalized moderate--stirred up.  It's larger.

        Endorsements are fine.  I'll endorse the progressives, even the hopeless ones.  

        But I'm going to fund the ones that might win--and then I'll endorse and fund the moderate Dems who could win, too.  Especially if they show some progressive leanings.  And I'll do my utmost to ensure that those moderates know whose support made the difference....

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:26:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  HE supports getting out of Iraq as (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          soon as possible. And by reading his own statements, that means as soon as the Iraqis are trained and can provide for their own stability!!

          That is no different than Bush. We can do better than that...and we need people like Lamont who will stand up and say so. The fact Grant has a great resume (by the way, read corporate lawyer) should demand that he say the reasonable and responsible things on Iraq.

      •  So noted (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        N in Seattle, FlawedAI

        But this is about who gets the netroots endorsements and I think it ought to go to progressives.

        So noted. However, that has never been a deal-breaker criteria for the netroots page.

        As I never get tired of saying, if you are unhappy with the netroots page, we STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU to start your own page and blog.

    •  I'd reframe "rational conservatism..." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to "progressive libertarianism..." that's really more the progressive streak in the Inland Pacific Northwest, from my view.  I think it plays well to the conservative types well enough for progressive candidates to win elections.

      •  Yup. They're very individualist (0+ / 0-)

        I think that IndySteve fails to really grasp the fundamentally ornery, stubborn streak that typifies many Western conservatives.

        They do what works, as long as it's ethical and makes sense.  They don't seek to meet the expectations of someone on a blog.

        They don't tolerate other people telling them what to do, or how to live.  They can figure out which politicians are lying to them, squandering their money, and behaving like thieves.  

        People may be stubborn, ornery, and ardently pro-life, but in no way, shape, or form does that imply that they are stupid.  They're looking for solutions; don't get in their way by creating some arbitrary standard that serves your interests while failing to listen to their needs.  They're plenty smart, and they probably raised the corn you ate for dinner and the steak on your plate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (27)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site