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
