frontpaged at My Left Wing
...because I got a whole mass to cut through right now.
As I right these words, right above Kos' post making excuses for the power play that stabbed Hackett in the back, is this quote:
Crashing the Gate is a refreshing, bold exposé of the status quo party politics that are threatening to make Democrats the permanent minority party. -- Donna Brazile
Now then, leaving aside for a moment the question of whether or not DONNA FREAKING BRAZILE of all people can ever be an effective or serious critic of status quo politics (by the way Donna, have I thanked you yet for running Gore's campaign with an ineptness that would make Michael Dukakis' campaign manager go "Damn, that was inept"?) does anyone see an inherent contradiction going on here?
I'm not going to talk about the merits or demerits of "Crashing the Gate" because I haven't read it yet. But I can't be the only one to note the incongruity going on here between the subject matter of the book, the quote praising it, and the actual writings that are posted centimeters below it.
In that writing, Kos endorses party power politics as usual in a stunning display of what can only be described as intellectual dishonesty if not out and out mendacity of a level not seen in this country since, um....well, okay, in a level constantly seen in this country every day and every hour.
I mean, really, what else to make of this:
he wasn't backstabbed by his party since Brown's candidacy was announced before his was (if he'd only committed sooner, Brown might've stayed out), and the party wasn't out to screw him, they were out to get him to run in the House.
Um, wow. As I recall this site was up in arms for DAYS over the fact that Brown, after declaring he for-sure-no-way-not-gonna-do-it-wasn't-running, announced his candidacy right AFTER (key word here) Hackett announced his. If what was meant by that was that Brown first made noises about running for Senate before Hackett did, then yeah, that's true. But say so. Making noises is not an official announcement.
As for "the party wasn't out to screw him" bit, I fail to see what else calling someone's donors and telling them to stop giving money could be described as. Maybe a "squeeze play," but that's basically synonymous with "screw job." Hackett didn't want to run for House again and had already promised he wouldn't. Isn't that the man's, you know, RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to run for whatever office he chooses?
Hackett was emblematic of the whole netroots movement. The outsider, the man who owed nothing to nobody in Washington. As I recall, that was touted as one of Dean's great selling points: the man who was owned by no one but the people who donated to him and his constituents. Whether or not you supported him, I can't see how this event is anything but a severe blow to the whole movement we're supposedly all in together here.
For someone who included an entire section on the Great Dean Takedown in his book, I can not see any other excuse for Kos' post--a heap of excuses, generalizations and half-truths that would make Jonah Goldberg blush--than someone who wants to crash through the gates only to get a seat at the Round Table of Power.
And no I'm not saying that Kos or any of us should blindly support every "outsider" candidate that comes along. If you or me or him or ANYONE thought that Brown best represented your beliefs and would make the best candidate, then bully for you. Democracy, man. That's what's great. But that's also precisely what was foiled here. And that's what bothers me: for those who are supposedly all about elbowing out the decrepit party apparatus in favor of more grassroots movement to endorse this maneuver by Schumer & Co. is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Let me raise a tangential issue here for possible discussion: Why the fear of contested primaries? Wasn't that what people were saying about Dean's defeat? "If he can't hack the primaries, then he wouldn't win the general." Okay. Valid criticism. But endorsing this process of playing kingmaker and clearing out all other candidates to the point of actively trying to deny them funding is going against every principle you should hold as a Democrat, a progressive, a liberal, or whatever label you want to assign yourself.
Have a good retirement, Mr. Hackett. After this, I can't say I blame you for not wanting to give any more for the people who have slipped a fratricidal dagger into your ribs.
Band of brothers, indeed.
UPDATE: Talk about waking up to the unexpected. My sincere and hearty thanks to all who recommended, agreed, or intelligently disagreed. Still, after reading every comment that's been posted thus far, as well as several other similar discussions here and elsewhere on the blogosphere, I'm reminded of a story.
There once was a man traveling through some pretty backwoods country. At one point in the course of his journey, he took what he thought was a shortcut trail. As these things so often go, however, he just got hopelessly lost. Soon night came down and a terrible storm of wind, rain, and lightning blew up. Suddenly, one bolt of electricity landed so close to him that the concussive force knocked him off his horse and sent him sprawling face first into the mud.
Normally he was not the sort of man who prayed or asked Divine Favor for anything, but this was altogether more than he could stand. Pulling himself to his knees, he lifted his hands to the heavens and got right to the point, dispensing with any pious homilies "Oh Lord, if it's all the same to you, I'd like a little more light and a little less noise please."
(My highest regards to Mr. Abraham Lincoln, from whom I stole the story.)