Skip to main content

View Diary: Help Connie Saltonstall Defeat Stupak (319 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prima, phidda, Flying Goat

    Guaranteed winning is far more important (practically) then "ideological purity in minority"

    •  Couldn't have said it better myself! (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, Prima, earwulf, gustynpip, Ken in Tex

      I've always preferred political systems in which 'guaranteed winning' is a feature.

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:39:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure, but the subtle irony (5+ / 0-)

        might be getting lost.

        Dick Cheney proves that the difference between stupid and evil is about 15 IQ points.

        by Ken in Tex on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:51:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't the name for that system (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrblifil, jct, Ken in Tex, elwior

        dictatorship?

        @AlmightyGod Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

        by Scott Wooledge on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:10:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          Dictatorship is almost always based on ideology. Desire to win - on practicality

          •  *Whoosh!!!* (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ken in Tex, elwior

            @AlmightyGod Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

            by Scott Wooledge on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:45:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  each of your comments on this thread (6+ / 0-)

            have been ridiculous. People here mostly want to win on issues. Fuck the horse races, we want to get the policies we like implemented. Having Representative Stupak in our caucus has not advanced our goals.

            Rep. Stupak is anti-abortion, and - more to the point - he insists on forcing his feelings on that matter on others (even though he could, say, work to promote adoption in his private life and accept people's right to choose in his public capacity instead). Even more to the point, he is willing to sink the legislative chances of one of the most important planks in the Democratic platform over his refusal to compromise on this issue.

            He is also against gun control.

            This means that desiring Rep. Stupak to win is the same as desiring that on paper the number of "Democrats" goes up but in practice the republicans are securing votes in their favor on two of the most important issues distinguishing their side from ours.

            This is deeply impractical, unless you are Rahm or someone else who cares more about the number of people who put "D" after their name than you do about passing the planks in our platform. I know where I stand. I can see where you stand too, and I think your stance, like Rahm's, is ass-backward.

            "If you're scheming on the chance to put a stain on my name/ Don't even think about it cuz ain't no shame in my game" Get well Guru!

            by joey c on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:50:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what YOU (0+ / 0-)

              and people like YOU want. I don't. And i will not change my opinion to suit your tastes  - you may prefer iddeology, i, as i said, prefer "horse races'. My comments seems ridiculous to you? You think vice versa isn't true???? Or only people like you may write here?

              •  they do indeed (0+ / 0-)

                I do not think that only people who agree with me should post here. However, what I would like to know from people like yourself is, what does winning the horse race get you/us/democrats if it doesn't get the policies we/you endorse enacted?

                "If you're scheming on the chance to put a stain on my name/ Don't even think about it cuz ain't no shame in my game" Get well Guru!

                by joey c on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:25:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As i said many times (0+ / 0-)

                  Politics is an art of compromise. So i root for "best candidate who "can win"", not an adstract candidate i theoretically agree with, but without any chance for victory. In addition - i always "play safe": if there is even minimal risk to lose district to absolutely unpalatable candidate (and there IS such risk, for example, in MI-01)- i will not risk. If it's district like CA-08 - i will happily support "progressive", but if it's AL-02 and the only candidate who can win it (and be at least sometimes on "my" side) is Bobby Bright - i will happily support Bobby Bright. And i don't care that he will be "on my side" only 40% of the time, because the only alternative that can win - ultraconservative Republican - will be on "my" side 0% of the time.

                  I hope it's all clear now.

                  •  but what if "playing safe" is defeatist? (0+ / 0-)

                    If you assume that people cannot be convinced to change their minds, then you will never change anyone's mind.

                    And second guessing who "can win" in advance is silly, that's how we got Kerry instead of Dean in 2004. Just because you think other people will like someone does not mean they will, and by the same token you don't know if someone "can win" until they try. Deciding in advance that someone is too liberal to win is like when we took single payer off the table from the start in health care reform negotiations: it moved the entire scope of discussion to the right, and made it seem like "compromise" required Dems to drop the divisive public option, when in reality they had already compromised by dropping single payer.

                    "if there is even minimal risk to lose district to absolutely unpalatable candidate"

                    Your level of risk-aversion strikes me as pretty extreme.

                    "If you're scheming on the chance to put a stain on my name/ Don't even think about it cuz ain't no shame in my game" Get well Guru!

                    by joey c on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 08:42:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's YOUR right (0+ / 0-)

                      to call it "silly" and "defeatist" (though such namecalling is silly itself IMHO), it's MY right "to play safe". We will not agree on that...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site