A good case can be made that with Democrats like Lincoln who needs Republicans. And Democrats joining forces to defeat her would send a loud message to future Democratic incumbents that even if they survive a primary challenge they aren't safe.Some might claim that defeating Lincoln and electing a Republican is self defeating for Democrats and plays into Republican hands. But that's not the case.
Even with a 60 vote majority, Obama has been so inept and politically incompetent and so lacking in conviction during the healthcare debate that it wouldn't have meant a dimes worth of difference had the Democrats had a 55 vote majority instead of 60.
Obama botched the entire healthcare debate from the beginning, finally cutting a backroom deal with lobbyists to dump the public option, the centerpiece of healthcare reform even though the votes were there in congress to pass it with reconciliation.
So with a president lacking in any real conviction beyond his own political standing, it really doesn't matter whether the Democrats hold a 59 seat majority or 58 or 55 for that matter. Obama had the largest congressional majority in memory and didn't know what to do with 60, so a few either way wouldnt make a difference.
Blanche Lincoln's opposition to the public option was one reason it was left in Obama's hands, the worst place to leave anything. Had she supported it, it might not have been left up to Obama's duplicitousness to not see it through. And she is also no friend of labor, another big Democratic constituency so if Lincoln lost because of opposition by Democrats what would be the loss for the Democratic and especially the liberal agenda? The answer is nothing.
For Democratic liberals though, defeating Lincoln in the fall could be a gain in political power and would send a strong signal to other Democratic members of congress that defeat is a price they risk paying in the future. Think of it as a Green Tea Party movement.
The argument against it is that the Democrats face an uphill climb in the fall but that is not necessarily true. Democrats who distance themselves from Obama ( and there are many who feel that way) will have a much better chance than those who tie their fortunes to him. Joe Sestak who had made it clear he wasnt an Obama Democrat comes to mind.
The conventional wisdom is Bill Halter lost because the Democratic Party machine in Arkansas closed 40 of 42 voting locations in Garland County, a county in which Halter did very well in the first primary. Closing those 40 places meant many primary voters in Garland county had to drive 20 miles to vote and the closeness of Lincoln's margin of victory, 52-48% indicates eliminating those voting centers made the difference.
Meanwhile one of Obama's White House insiders, an unnamed source who showed why the Obama White House and Obama himself has been inept and incompetent in just about everything they do, made a statement mocking labor for spending millions on what turned out to be a losing candidate in Halter. They seem to have forgotten that before Lincoln, every candidate Obama has backed in every election since he's been president has lost, the latest being Joe Sestak's win over Arlen Specter. A losing record like that for a president doesnt qualify them to mock anyone.
Liberals would send a strong message to Obama by working to defeat Lincoln that he might be next.
Posts
5 comments:
Marc, the Democrats lost when the leadership of the party supported Obama. It really doesn't matter anymore, and I've known that since June of 2008.
If Obama was only incompetent, he could find good people and surround himself with them. (Remember during the primary he liked to tell us he knew he was inexperienced but don't worry, he would surround himself with experienced people). Ha-ha-ha. In my opinion, he has the worst admnistration in our history. But my real feeling is that he really doesn't care. That is the root cause of his ineptness, his lack of response, and his slowness to do anything to make our country better. He is out to destroy America, our constitution, and our way of life and just sits back and lets disasters happen and probably is smiling inside while he lets Rome burn. Marc, that is my story and I'm sticking to it.
Give it up. The dimocratic party is dead looooooooooooooooooog time ago. Give it up. There is nothing left to save. D.E.A.D.
"Give it up. The dimocratic party is dead"
They are no bargain but the last time I looked it was the Republicans who have been enbalmed and the Democrats have the biggest majority in congress in decades.
And with all their screwing up and Obama's ineptitude they are still beating Republicans in polls that ask people who they prefer to run congress. It just shows how bad Republicans really are that even with the Democrats screwing up the Republicans are not an option.
The attentions span of the Average american voter is shorter than a stoned add afflicted teenager. Blanche as it is the case with many democratic candidates had to confront the widely coordinated GOP assault on every little step that Obama tried to take to correct all of the conservative missteps that were taken to "secure" and Protect" american liberties and prosperity. Bush place in many positions lobbyists whose goals were to effectively dismantle, declaw bureaucracies buy fiat and by defending them in order to prosecute the wars and fund defense contractors. The GOP Narrative began shortly after the Democratic white house victory when Cheney repeatedly accused Obama of weakening security and emboldening our enemies. As the polls and the GOP language/story line began to gain traction among the GOP faithful they began the time tested method of perpetuating the message. Its an old marketing trick and it worked.
Post a Comment