The Leftist Thirst for Blood: Seeing the "Vichy 10" in Perspective
The thirst for blood from the left against the so-called "Vichy 10" is sweeping several blogs and I have to say I find it kind of repulsive. It is the kind of knee jerk reaction, poorly thought out and poorly expressed, that I expect from Bush supporters talking about Clinton's blowjobs. And some of my fellow leftists sure don't like me saying this. Got scolded considerably at My Left Wing for advocating a touch of restraint.
I understand people's frustration. But JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE! HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE! Some of the people you want to target have among the best voting records in Congress on environment, labor and choice. Do we REALLY want to start by targeting those people???
The so-called “Vichy 10
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 Elections | Activism | Blogs | Environment | Government | Labor | Reproductive Rights | SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States
Not against primary challenges per se...
Submitted by mole333 on 3 February 2006 - 2:49pm.
First off, this is a different issue to SOME degree. I say that because if you are anti-war the LAST person you would target is Senator Byrd, one of the so-called Vichy Dems. Do we each compile our own list of "unacceptable" Senators and Balkanize yet more?
But I am not against primary challenges per se. What I am saying is people are way too quick and thoughtless when they start condemning other leftists. The DLC does the same thing going the other way. We get angry and start railing against Democrats forgetting that the MAIN problem is the Halliburton Republican domination of America and thatmany of the Dems we condemn for one thing may be a hero on another issue.
I advocate fighting hard for progressives in the primaries. Help out people like Chris Owens who unequivocally supports impeachment of Bush and opposition to the Iraq war (right down to marching in protests). He is up against corrupt Democratic machine candidates and a pseudo-progressive who is much like Chuck Schumer in positions. So fight for Chris Owens, just for one example. And nationally, supporting candidates like those on the DFA A-list would be a good place to start. Fight hard for the good candidates. There are LOTS of them out there who need our help. But...keep an eye on the general elections. Our primaries should be hard fought...but they should NOT give ammunition to the Republicans. They should NOT split the unity of the left, and here I criticize the leftist purists as well as the DLC. When the general election comes, we should all unite behind the candidate chosen by the voters in the primary and recognize that candidate as having won by a fair vote.
Why should we unite even if that candidate is someone like the "Vichy 10?" Because if we do we won't have appointments like Alito to vote on at all. We would have appointments like we saw under Clinton. Part of the problem would be removed.
It is hard to find a good balance. But knee jerk reactions make us look like fools. We practically worship a politician when he or she does good (like Byrd when he stood up against the war) then damn them as being Republican clones when they do something we don't like. They are the same politician both times. WE are the ones acting fickle and that will give the impression that we cannot be depended on. So no one will be interested in having our support.
I never mean to come off as saying "shut up and toe the line." Those who read my comments on the Democratic Party in Brooklyn know I am all for reform and I am working hard with and for progressives. But I always keep in mind who the real enemy is. The people who ignored the warnings of 9/11. The people who made the initial false statements justifying the invasion of Iraq. The people who nominate extremists like Alito or cronies lie Myers. THOSE are the enemies and we DO need a united front against them. Not a blindly, blandly unified front. But a unified front nonetheless.
Cannibalism
Submitted by Bouldin on 3 February 2006 - 4:04pm.
I'd argue that before going after Dems, who may not be perfect but often are redeemable, they should be going after repugs. We're really talking about a zero-sum game here: the energy you put into a primary challenge is energy that could be put to good use in going after some repug. There's plenty of them. And they are the real problem.
At some point, we need to stop cannibalizing our own flock and start going after the people who are truly dangerous. Instead of Engel, try Chaffee or Santorum.
But what then do anti-war activists, for example, do?
Of late, those opposed to the Bush War in Iraq have been meeting with those members of Congress who in effect support the continuation of the war. For example, a bunch of us met with Elliot Engel, a representative who once claimed that the Iraqi weapons of mass distruction were hidden in Syria. Now afflicted with saddness that he had been misled (If I knew then what I know now...), he still has no criteria for ending the war and -- while he says American troops should leave at some time in the future, he cannot say when and will not even set a decade as long enough. Mr. Engel is otherwise, a more liberal democrat than Senator Leiberman (who has been a staunch enthusiast for extinguishing civil liberties). Unless and until people like Mr. Engel change their views, the overwhelming majority of his constituents who oppose the war are essentially unrepresented. What do you suggest?