Skip to main content

View Diary: Boston Globe RIPS Rep. Stephen Lynch (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then edit your diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and I'll be happy to tip and rec.

    •  Actually, I don't believe she should. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      riverlover, debedb, ratmach, ETF

      Dengre wrote a diary this evening discussing John Barrow, Democratic rep from Georgia's 12th.  Barrow appears to be on the verge of voting "no" in order to polish his creds in a conservative district.

      While dengre clearly expressed the view that a successful primary challenge was the preferred result, he also said:

      If Barrow votes NO, I would rather see the 12th District in Republican hands than see John re-elected.  Such a cowardly act can not be rewarded.

      I responded that, "...I whole heartedly agree that ... we must NOT be afraid of delivering electoral consequences to conservadems even at the risk of losing a seats.

      "Too many on this site seem to give equal weight to more and better.  I think if we're going to see the progressive agenda advanced we need to be more nuanced.  We must have the courage to sacrifice seats to ensure that bad actors in our party are not rewarded.

      "Here's the nuance part:  We must not risk losing the majority.  Control of the agenda and the committees is critical.  BUT, strategic losses are actually long term wins.  Our representatives MUST be taught that defections on key Democratic principles will have consequences."

      I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I think this topic deserves further discussion in the months to come.

      ERROR: Sig line failed to load. Please refresh comment thread.

      by WisePiper on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:37:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  These are foolish thoughts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ETF, taiping1

        Knowing how everyone reacted to Scott Brown's Senatorial victory, think about how people would react to a Republican winning a House seat in Massachusetts. And you're counting on the idea that losing a seemingly safe seat will come without a loss of the Speaker's chair? I'll tell you right now that if the Republicans take this seat, they will have swept to a majority in the House, because they would have won most of the seats now seen as competitive and others on no-one's radar screen. Emulating the Republicans' Club of Shrinkage, I mean Growth, is a bad idea, and actually, this is WORSE, because calchala proposed to DIRECTLY aid a Republican candidate!

        I can see voting for an honest, competent moderate Republican candidate for Mayor against a Democratic machine hack (and, to be honest, did), but for me to vote for a Republican for the House (almost definitely a right-winger, nowadays, and voting for Boehner for Speaker), the Democrat would have to be either grossly incompetent or intolerably corrupt. For example, I would have voted for the Republican challenger to Rangel in 2008, but knowing he wouldn't win, anyway.

        But to vote for someone even worse politically just because I'm mad at a Democrat for defecting on an important vote or several? Irrational and foolish. "Strategic losses" are NOT "long term wins." Saying things like that makes you sound like DeMint. He'd rather have 30 hard-right Republicans and lose any possibility of influence on the Senate than support moderate Republicans anywhere. I hope he gets his wish and you don't get yours.

        Sorry for the rough tone of this message; it isn't personal, but I really, really dislike this kind of stuff.

        •  Like I said, (0+ / 0-)

          I look forward to having this debate down the road.  Let me just say that what I'm suggesting has nothing to do with an emotional reaction like "mad."  I'm talking about a deliberate strategy of targeting key conservadems, while being mindful of the absolute necessity of retaining the majority.  I'll leave it at that for this evening.

          ERROR: Sig line failed to load. Please refresh comment thread.

          by WisePiper on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:33:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Selectively and intelligently targeting them (0+ / 0-)

            through primaries is a good strategy, if we're careful not to emulate the Club for Shrinkage. "Targeting" them by helping the Republicans defeat Democrats is what the British call an "own goal."

            •  And again, not to belabor this right now, (0+ / 0-)

              but I DO contend that in certain, select circumstances it would be smart, failing at a primary challenge, to vote for a Republican candidate in order to defeat a particular, harm doing member of the Democratic caucus.  I would argue, for example, that promoting the interests of a wingnut challenger to Harry Reid could be justified to remove him from the Majority Leader position.  I think he has been that bad.

              I'm not inviting a discussion here of whether or not Reid is a terrible Majority Leader.  I offer it only as an EXAMPLE of an instance where the strategy may be justified.  It has nothing to do with ideological purity, but, rather, with trying to make the caucus a more effective body.

              ERROR: Sig line failed to load. Please refresh comment thread.

              by WisePiper on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:18:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I think that's a perfect example (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                of how unwise your strategy is. Subtracting a vote from the Democratic Caucus will make people like Lieberman and Ben Nelson even MORE powerful!

                The problem with the leadership in the Senate is that the Democratic Caucus wants a King Log, not a King Snake - or at least that's what's been reported: That they voted for Reid precisely BECAUSE he would be  mellow enough to let each of them do their own thing. And if that remains true, helping the Republicans gain a huge PR boost by defeating another sitting Democratic Majority Leader will not only subtract a seat from the majority and possibly help the Republicans take over the Senate, but won't have the effect of getting a strong leader, except maybe from the Republican side (Majority Leader Mitch McConnell).

                •  Well, we obviously disagree on (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  the aftereffects of a Reid loss, but I appreciate this exchange.  I hope that when financial reform and other contentious issues come to the fore, we can all learn from the HCR experience to advocate for our respective positions without demonizing each other.

                  ERROR: Sig line failed to load. Please refresh comment thread.

                  by WisePiper on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:47:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've been careful not to demonize you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I don't believe you're a demon, of course, only that your opinions are unwise. But unfortunately, as you know, there are quite a few other people on this site who are ready to engage in personal attacks almost anytime. And I don't think that will change.

    •  Thanks for the edit. tipped and recced. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site