Posts
Pennsyltucky Politics points out a really bad idea from Matt Stoller at Open Left. Matt wants to take a page out of the Club for Growth playbook and run ads against Democrats like Chris Carney who voted for FISA or other things that are disagreeable. I'm as disappointed as some of my friends with some of Carney's votes, particularly his unwillingness to vote to end the Iraq occupation. But spending money on attack ads that are only going to help his Republican opponent is not a good use of limited resources. The Netroots has proven to be an effective way of raising money for Democratic candidates and Carney's contributions from ActBlue seems to have dried up. That's his loss. I agree with this comment on the post :Why single out someone like Carney (PA-10, which you list incorrectly as PA-04 in the main article) whose District is R+8 and is seeking re-election as a freshman?
Here are two options that make more pragmatic sense:
Idea A
Why not focus that same money, time, and energy lobbying members in more Democratic districts where you will (1) likely have more success and (2) not help elect a Republican over an economically progressive Democratic freshman like Carney?....
Note: Carney's District, PA-10, went to Bush 60-40 in 2004. What kind of Republican would replace Democrats who are holding seats like that?
Idea B
Why not focus that same money, time, and energy on electing progressive Dems in current republican-held districts like PA-06 (Gerlach)?
I think Down With Tyranny's strategy is better:
There are various courses of action to take in different districts. Obviously, never vote for a Republican for anything, anywhere. They all stink because their underlying partisan philosophy of Greed, Bigotry, Hatred and Selfishness is just plain toxic. Reactionary and corrupt Democrats who voted like Republicans should never be supported and when primary time comes around they should be opposed.
I doubt if anyone will take on Carney in the primary but if some Democrat ran against him over his Iraq votes it would be interesting.
6 comments:
the party is a big tent. We have guys like Holden (fairly progressive) and people like Schwartz (Schwartz). If we decide to close off parts of the tent, we lose out on the diversity needed to govern.
Personally, none of Carney's votes are surprising after his campaign in 2006. But maybe that's just me.
I agree with you Gort (and that comment from the
Stoller post).
Sometimes it is hard to take him seriously when he says stufff like this.
Oh, and I just launched my new blog, please let me know what you think of it.
http://nepaobserver.blogspot.com/
Always good to see a new blog in the area. I hope you stick with it.
The goal is not to defeat Chris Carney, it's to criticize him so he thinks twice before voting this way again. Politicians will not reconsider their ideas unless they get pressure and criticism, and I think it's worth it to make Carney reconsider his ideas.
That's all.
I'm no fan of Carney, but really, an underlying partisan philosophy of Greed, Bigotry, Hatred and Selfishness. I don't believe that about the right any more than I believe the left is the party of hate http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/20/the-party-of-hate/.
Ok, after watching that, maybe there is some hate in some circles.
But how can you tout bipatisanship with a statement like "never vote for a Republican for anything"!
Just thinking...
Post a Comment