Comments on: Colorado Senate race all Buck’d up

By: Historiann

Historiann — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:02:57 +0000

I’m the one who brought in Feingold–I do think it’s too bad that he lost, but I also agree with Emma that he’s been notably less impressive since ’08 without Bush as a foil. He was the lone vote against the so-called PATRIOT Act in 2001. But, there’s only so much good or damage one Senator can do without majority support. And the Dems lost Congress Tuesday because of their inability or unwillingness to use the political power they were handed in 2006 and 2008.

Use it or lose it.

I linked to this in an earlier post, but the interview Jack Hitt did with Paul Begala is very revealing. Hitt describes how the Dems were cowed from taking a vote before the elections on an issue (middle- and lower-income tax cuts) they win on 2-1. Begala marvels at the cowardice, and points out that there’s no way the Republicans would walk away from an issue they win on 2-1.

By: ej

ej — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 23:15:34 +0000

I never said included Feingold in my list of progressive Dems. I applaud his decision to not take outside money, but I don’t consider him terribly liberal on a lot of issues (i.e. gun rights). I was referring to the number of more recently elected folks who were true progressives, but lost in spite of their opposition to the more centrist Dems.

By: LadyProf

LadyProf — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:56:10 +0000

Seconding Emma, as I am wont to do in this space. I really wanted Russ Feingold to win–Ron Johnson is execrable–and if I lived in Wisconsin I would have voted for him. Living in a state that had less at stake on its ballot, I voted, because I am not apathetic.

But ej, please don’t tell me to care more about a senator who (in the name of presidential prerogative or lord knows what) helped put John Roberts on the Supreme Court. Feingold was all neutral and principled about forcing pregnant women to give birth; I’m all neutral and principled about tolerating whichever WI dude gets more votes.

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:01:40 +0000

“Painting all Dems with the same brush is inaccurate. There were some very good candidates running, and they lost largely because of low turn out. I’m not willing to accept apathy as justification.”

What’s the point of “good” Dems who can’t get anything done because the Dems as party suck. Tell me, what has Feingold accomplished in the Senate in the past 2 years? What has Kucinich accomplished in the House in the past 2 year? Did they get us a good healthcare bill? Stop the war? Protect choice? Stop FISA? How about the Patriot Act? If the Dems suck, it doesn’t matter what individual Dems do or don’t do because it isn’t about individual Dems. It’s about the party sucking and pulling all the “good dems” under with it.

Apathy? You can call it that, I suppose. Or you can call it Dem suckage, which is what it was.

It’s not MY job as a voter to be enthusiastic about crap and dreck and double dealing and my rights being used as a bargaining chip and individual dems who have no power to accomplish their individual goals. It’s not MY job as a voter to play jr. political pundit and excuse away Dem party failures. It’s my job to vote for politicians who get things done for me. And if both the Dems and Repubs can’t or won’t get things done for me, why should I vote? Who is there to vote for?

Sure, Feingold’s gone. But his presence in the Senate was meaningless except as a voice of consience who couldn’t get anything done.

The dems are being held accountable for their failure to exercise the power they have held since at least 2006 for the good of the people who voted for them. If that means that some “good guys” end up shot in the back as collateral damage, oh fucking well. Maybe they should have dumped the party that dumped on them.

By: Western Dave

Western Dave — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:36:09 +0000

In Pennsylvania, Sestak, a true progressive, lost to Toomey by 51-49 (despite being heavily outspent) while Onorato lost by 10 points. If Sestak had even a hint of national progressive support that flooded PA in 2008 he probably would have won. But there were no NYers knocking on doors and the only robo-calls we got were from a leading black republican listing the not inconsiderable things Corbett had done for the black community/my neighborhood (going after check cashing places, prosecuting crooked pols who pocketed considerable amounts of public money funneled through non-profits that bought neighborhood institutions and bankrupted them while lining their pockets – all dems, FYI). If Corbett works with Mayor Nutter to through half the city council in jail in Philly, he’ll probably win my vote next time around. Sigh.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:29:39 +0000

Agreed that sitting out an election is not honorable, especially if one is inclined to b!tch about our sad state of affairs. One can always vote for a write-in or 3rd party candidate. But just because a few progressives didn’t get elected doesn’t necessarily mean that all are doomed. Maybe Alan Grayson was spending too much time on C-SPAN to worry enough about constituent services? Maybe his district changed a lot and he didn’t pay attention? Maybe he’s not good at the retail/shoe leather end of things? I don’t know.

Feingold went down, but Kucinich will be back, Bernie Sanders will be back, Boxer got re-elected, etc. Hell, Governor Moonbeam will be Governor again! (Although I don’t think of Jerry Brown as a liberal so much–so maybe he’s out of place here. I just like calling him “Governor Moonbeam!”)

By: ej

ej — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:20:02 +0000

I’m totally comfortable blaming people for sitting out this election (the “meh”), especially if they turn around and spend their time complaining about the current state of affairs. Painting all Dems with the same brush is inaccurate. There were some very good candidates running, and they lost largely because of low turn out. I’m not willing to accept apathy as justification.

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:04:51 +0000

“I would have hoped that a state whose biggest export is its own citizens would have been smarter.”

What’s so not smart about voting out Dems? Granholm in MI has been a huge disappointment. What have Dems, as a party or as individuals, to earn votes?

The question always comes back to this: what real choices do voters have? I’m not sure how one can blame voters for ping-ponging back and forth between whoever they perceive as the lesser evil of the moment. That’s exactly how the system is set up and exactly how voters are conditioned. It’s like blaming Pavlov’s dogs for salivating at the bell.

This, right here, what happened yesterday, this is how it works because that’s how the people in power designed it to work. This is what all the smoke and mirrors and BILLIONS of dollars is supposed to lead to.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:52:44 +0000

Agree with Emma. Gotta go teach the earnest youth of Colorado.

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:25:06 +0000

“According to your logic, these are the people who have earned Democratic votes, yet they were hung out to dry.”

The repeated back-of-the-hand from the White House and Congress to Democrats, liberals, and progressives meant a whole lotta of “meh” among voters.

Women and gays have been taking a lot of “collateral damage” from the President’s bargaining away our rights. I’m not going to shed a tear because Feingold got caught in the crossfire.