Let me just say that this diary will probably be controversial and if that's not your cup of tea you might want to save yourself the trouble and click away.
I promise not to take it personally (after all I don't even know often how many people read my diaries in the first place) and more over I wouldn't blame you. Just myself personally but it seems lately that this place too much angst and controversy and too little of the things I came here for.
So if you are sticking around, follow the jump and see what I have to say
I just now as of 5pm EST read the afternoon wrap up by Kos and as is often the case it's an interesting mix of information about things I had yet to hear about.
However mixed in there was a bit about TN-05 and an opinion article about how primarying Cooper would be a 'fool's errand'. Kos then goes on to rail about how Liberman was a 'fool's errand' and how Sestak was silly.
It's an interesting argument and certainly has it's merits it also however is a bit of a straw man and an extremization of matters.
I want to state before I continue that I support the choice of voters to choose their own representatives. I think people should be represented and have know what the people they elect do and don't do.
But as so often the case it's not as simple as people wish to think.
There is a dangerous and quite fine line between trying and replace a democrat with a more progressive one (sorry 'better' is too subjective for me to use) and just primarying an incumbent with someone that can't win in the general.
And if (or more probably when) we cross that line we go from being helpful to being a hindrance.
Have we not sat back and laughed and cheered Club for Growth on as they repeatedly torpedoed moderate republicans only to lose in the general?
Are we so pompously arrogant that we can not see the danger in that for ourselves?
I sincerely hope not because if we as progressives don't then we are blind fools.
Kos' 'examples' are flawed at best. Liberman lost in deep blue CT, it really doesn't matter who you are so long as you're a democrat you'll win. Thus I submit that really does not count for much of anything.
Using Sestak as an example is even worse because not even 6 months ago Specter was not even a democrat. Even worse Specter has shown repeatedly that there's nothing he won't do or say to stay in office. Specter is a political opportunist and probably has made too many enemies on either side. So using Sestak to justify a primary challenge is pretty useless.
These 'examples' are hardly normal and certainly more extreme cases then anything else.
The greatest danger in grappling with something is becoming it and we are starting to flirt with that. Not only in our efforts to throw out moderate members of the people but in the efforts to enforce 'purity' amongst progressives.