Oh, look. Comments from an “anonymous White House official” are going to lead to a couple weeks of another circular firing squad.
Serenity now.
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
Oh, look. Comments from an “anonymous White House official” are going to lead to a couple weeks of another circular firing squad.
Serenity now.
Comments are closed.
El Cid
Release the tape or it didn’t happen.
homerhk
Silly thing to say but they’re not wrong are they?
Hunter Gathers
Like the cleaning of a house, It Never Ends.
Brien Jackson
I like how no one is stopping to recognize that the WH official is 110% right. Labor just blew a bunch of money on a fundamentally un-winnable race for a candidate who wouldn’t even endorse their top priority in a state that’s very anti-Labor. That. Is. Dumb.
I’m done with the netroots. All of em. From Kos to OpenLeft, all the way through Digby. Their “pay attention to us, we’re important, really, progressive primary!” whining is just tired and old. If they want to play make believe then let them, but I do hope they don’t pull Labor into their delusion.
Brien Jackson
@homerhk:
Of course they’re not wrong. And 72 hours ago, when we were talking about Israel, the people doing the bitching understood perfectly well that good friends tell you when you’re doing something stupid. Now that it’s directed at them though, if you’re not an enabler you’re punching hippies.
Fuck em.
mai naem
I wonder if the WH now agrees that they flushed down even more money for Specter? Uhm, I somehow doubt it. BTW, its not like Lincoln won overwhelmingly either and she’s the incumbent senator with no significant issues like Ensign’s affair or Specter’s party switch.
funluvn
The White House and DNC don’t own Labor. It’s actually quite the other way around. If I were them, I wouldn’t be quite so fucking smug about their candidate winning. I mean, since she is gonna get smoked by a Republican in November, you might think they would be less myopic.
PeakVT
A senior White House official just called me with a very pointed message for the administration’s sometime allies in organized labor,
Said senior administration official is a coward.
Brien Jackson
@mai naem:
However much money got spent on Specter, it bought the 60th vote for the party’s agenda in Congress. What is Labor getting today?
Captain Haddock
Ha, the article cracked me up:
Organized labor isn’t an arm of the democratic party.
Sure, and the Tea Party isn’t Republican.
Tyro
Political power depends on your ability to follow through on your threats. The right drummed Specter out of the party. Republicans are too afraid to cross Grover Norquist, because he’ll support well funded primary challenges against dissenters. Not sure there’s anything wrong with forcing people like Lincoln to fight for her seat when she misbehaves. That $10 million? There’s more where that came from, and any democrats willing to toe labor’s line are entitled to get some of that money.
Nick
@funluvn: Why? What are they going to do? Run a third party challenge because they’re angry someone called them out on a stupid move.
homerhk
The whole thing is a bit of a clusterfuck because just like the AFL-CIO says that it is not an arm of the Democratic party, the Democratic party is also not an arm of labour either. Obama has to govern the country in the way that he thinks benefits the country as a whole; by definition he has to deal in abstractions and he also has to prioritise. So, while he may want to fulfil everything on labour’s wishlist – other things may take priority. If Labour can’t understand it, tough shit I say – but of course they do understand it and their job is to try to do anything that maximises their contributions. A bit of a fight with the WH may not be bad for their revenue rates.
And as an aside, for those complaining that the WH can’t direct what labour does or where labour spends their money, this quote doesn’t do that at all. It’s merely pointing out the consequences of what labour did in this race – if it gets to the point where the WH can’t express an opinion on anything without being accused of trying to manipulate or direct things in an underhand way then I’ll be truly concerned.
El Cid
Republican football-holding-and-pulling-away continues. As always.
Who coulda thunk it?
Comrade Jake
Uhm, sure, Halter didn’t win, but he got plenty of votes. I’m no fan of Lincoln and she’ll probably take the wrong message away from this primary, but I’m not sure the “flushing” characterization is completely accurate.
I mean, what’s organized labor going to do next time Lincoln’s up if she continues her centrist BS? They’re going to redouble their efforts in the hopes of knocking her off.
Brien Jackson
@Tyro:
You also want to take care what message you send. Blanche Lincoln just ran a Democratic primary by quite frankly running against Labor…and she won. If you were an Arkansas/Southern Democrat, what lesson would you be taking about Labor today?
Violet
It was a close race. If Halter had won, we’d be hearing something different. At the very least, it gave Blanche Lincoln a bit of a scare.
This race also demonstrated to other Dem candidates that Labor won’t just roll over and support you if you don’t support Labor’s goals. Although teaching that lesson may have cost $10M, it might be cheap in the long run. Who knows.
Comrade Javamanphil
Meh. The anonymous official is a coward, of course, but the hysterics people get into because people, even allies, disagree about stuff is mystifying to me. Labor fought for what they believed and lost this round. The Dem establish lost with Specter. No harm in any of that. Disagreement is a feature of democracy, not a bug.
Ron
They aren’t wrong in a sense, but in that sense every group that pours money into a candidate that loses is throwing money down the toilet. Lincoln has no chance to win in November. I think this is mostly gloating since the conventional wisdom going into Tuesday night was that Halter was going to win.
Nick
@Tyro:
She was already fighting for the seat to begin with, and this is Arkansas, one of the most unfriendly states to labor, and Halter wasn’t exactly competitive in a general election. Labor could have spent that money on labor friendly candidates who are competitive in open Republican seats in labor friendly states (MO, KY, OH) or labor friendly Democrats running against Republicans in labor friendly states (NC, IA)
D-Chance.
Jon Stewart did some firing of his own last night.
“It’s complicated”, indeed.
tommybones
That WH official can pat himself on the back some more when Lincoln loses to election and the GOP gains a Senate seat. Halter had a better chance to retain the seat.
Brien Jackson
@homerhk:
Right. There’s two big problems here:
1. Republicans are almost certainly going to win this seat either way, so ultimately there’s no value to Labor in this seat.
2. Halter was a conventional Arkansas politician who isn’t an ally of Labor’s agenda.
It’s fine to try to run a candidate against Lincoln, but you have to be smart with your resources. $10 million is a lot to spend on absolutely nothing valuable.
Blue Neponset
I look at it the other way around. The Dem establishment just flushed a bunch of $$ down the shitter because Lincoln is going to lose in November. If they backed Halter they might have kept that seat.
Brien Jackson
@Violet:
That “lesson” only works if you win. Right now, the lesson to Blue Dogs is that if Labor goes after you, run against them.
Ash Can
This strikes me as a non-issue. Everyone knows what this “anonymous WH official” said is true, beginning with organized labor itself. According to the polls, Halter had a decent shot at getting elected, things didn’t work out, and the corporate media’s prize meme of an anti-incumbent tidal wave takes yet another hit.
funluvn
@Nick: I’m not sure what that has to do with my comment, but the point is simple. Labor put up a large chunk of money to defeat an anti-labor Democrat and nearly accomplished that deed. We all know it isn’t easy unseating an incumbent, but they came very closet to knocking out the Senator from Wal-Mart.
I don’t see why the White House or DNC would be giving labor a bunch of grief because of this failed attempt to move one Senate seat further left. In that this was a failed attempt, it certainly had to open some eyes inside the Beltway.
mai naem
@Brien Jackson: Why not offer Specter a position instead of offering it to Sestak and save all that money? They could have done this later and I bet Specter would have taken them up on it.
Napoleon
I would bet $100 that Rahm is the unnamed official. NAFTA was one of the things many think cost the Dems the 1994 midterms yet that jackass is reported to think it was the greatest thing Clinton did. Of course it was all but flying a flag over the White House that said “fuck the white working class”.
First the challenge caused Lincoln to be way more progressive on some issues, like derivatives, then she had been before. Before it she was the financial industries firewall against real financial reform. After it she became their worst nightmare. If tightening it up keeps another melt down from happening, or seriously mitigates it, then the members of those unions will save many times over the $10m they invested.
Longer term even if the unions went into it knowing they would loose but that they could keep it close it was worth it, because threats mean nothing unless you carry them out once and a while. This election will keep others in the future from telling the unions they are with them, taking their money, and when crunch time comes baling on them.
It was a very smart move for the unions, even with the loss.
Brien Jackson
@mai naem:
Because he didn’t want one, I’d imagine.
Nick
@funluvn: Open eyes? Are you kidding me? Labor couldn’t win a primary in the labor-friendly party? That doesn’t open eyes, it makes labor look very weak. Democratic voters in Arkansas apparently aren’t labor friendly, that really is a black eye to labor.
MikeMc
Labor spent 10 million to lose a primary and some guy in SC won without bothering to get a website! I think his slogan was “I’m running for the US Senate….DON’T FUCKING TELL ANYONE!”
Brien Jackson
@funluvn:
Why? They had a more popular state-wide official taking a crack at an unpopular incumbent in a primary. That’s not the slightest bit impressive.
Kryptik
Sounds like a ratfucking to me.
And in case it isn’t…well, fuck the official. Any money spent on a losing candidate is always ‘thrown down the toilet’ because of the winner-takes-all system we have. And even if Blanche Lincoln wins, I hope they enjoy her standing against 75% of the administration agenda.
@Captain Haddock:
Oh…there’s a distinct difference.
The Republican party is essentially held hostage by the Tea Part at this point.
Dems can shit over labor or most of its historical allies with little consequence long as they can get corporate handouts from those with vested interests in keeping Blue Dogs as keystones.
Belgh. The Halter/Lincoln thing just irritates me, because if history tells me anything, it’ll tell me that Lincoln takes away the exact wrong message from this, and tries to out-wingnut the wingnuts.
flotsam
that’s right, keep baggin on the labor unions – keep telling them how dumb they are, keep whining about how they are wasting their time, yadda yadda yadda. Good luck with the GOTV efforts.
PeakVT
Does anyone who is criticizing the backers of Halter have a better way of getting lousy Democratic officeholders to change their voting patterns than challenging them in a primary?
El Cid
@Brien Jackson: That South Carolina Democratic Senate primary winner is definitely the story of this primary. It would be pretty interesting as a non-campaign against DeMint gathered strength simply from the notion among ordinary voters that voting for the silent guy was a vote against ‘politicians’.
Unfortunately, I fear this guy may turn out to be a nut. I know that’s saying a lot when one is talking about Jim DeMint. I mean nuts in not so much the political and ideological ways.
MadRuth
Actually, that $10 million might have bought us all something. There is no way Lincoln would have come up with her derivatives proposal if she hadn’t had a strong primary challenge.
John S.
And Greenwald won’t dissapoint with a 5,000 word screed that fingers Rahm as the source in 3, 2, 1…
Violet
@Brien Jackson:
Not sure that’s completely true. She didn’t exactly win handily. In another race it might go the other way.
I’m not really up on all of this. Does Labor have a history of running for and against Dem candidates in primaries? Or is this a first? If it’s a first, then although they didn’t win, I still think it’s something Dem candidates might want to pay attention to.
flotsam
@PeakVT:
My guess is either wishing on shooting stars or holding their breath…
Kryptik
I’d also like to note: great irony of having a web ad claiming ‘Firefighters and Policemen FORCED to join a UNION?! Click here to oppose Obama’s Big Labor Agenda!’ right above this post on the front page.
Mbleh. Great. We’re gonna have a nice long election season with Republicans hanging the usual bugaboos around every Democrats neck, most of the ‘moderate’ Dems and Blue Dogs doing everything they can to out-Repub the Repubs, and still getting tarred as flighty out there dangerous leftist Marxist evils.
Yay, the wonders of being a sane progressive, where you get to lose no matter what.
Ash Can
As far as I’m concerned, the much bigger story is that now the general-election campaigning between Sharron Angle and Harry Reid can begin. I can hear the popcorn popping!
John
@Nick:
You do understand that both parties in the south are traditionally pretty hostile to labor, right?
MikeMc
Wasn’t Halter suppose to win by 5 pts? Also, why did labor get involved in this primary? Bill Halter isn’t exactly a progressive lion and AK isn’t exactly a progressive state.
demimondian
@Brien Jackson: Remind me who the candidate for Senator in Pennsylvania is?
Labor did the right thing here — went after a Democrat who opposed its key legislative goal, EFCA (after, by the way, claiming to support it in the past.) The AFL-CIO and the SEIU aren’t wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, and the White House official who was crowing yesterday needs to remember that. The “progressive base” is a bunch of preening peacocks — but the AFL-CIO has a LOT of money, and a LOT of votes.
numbskull
@Brien Jackson: Brien, two things:
1. You might want to consider that the Halter campaign was one of months, not the years that Lincoln has had sucking up to corporate money.
2. Primarying Lincoln arguably resulted in her (and her Dem Senate buddies) inserting some pretty good legislation in the financial reform.
numbskull
@PeakVT: Exactly.
Brien Jackson
@Violet:
It’s a Democratic primary. I don’t care if she won by one vote, the fact that she ran against the AFL-CIO and won would have been unfathomable 6 months ago. Now it looks like the smart play. In a Democratic primary. It’s just unbelievable.
Brien Jackson
@demimondian:
Halter wouldn’t endorse EFCA either.
numbskull
Geeze, you guys dinging labor, or dinging activists, or dinging whoever the hell attempted to make something better and just barely failed– tell me, how many citizens have you personally gotten onto the voting roles (often for the first time)? How many little old ladies have you personally driven to the polls on voting days? How many local liberal initiatives have you personally participated in? How many campaigns have you actually, really worked on (sitting in your basements cheering doesn’t count, and sending money just BARELY counts).
>>crickets chirping<<
Because all this this stuff, you know, the stuff that actually gets people elected, is the ONLY stuff, the only tools, we have to push back against corporatism.
Seriously, how in hell do you think this works?
numbskull
@Brien Jackson: So you’re saying no Democrat has ever won in a primary without the support of unions?
Redshirt
And this is why we’ll never have nice things. Evil republicans, though a real minority of the population, march in absolute lock step and thus somehow control…. everything. Dems/liberals/others vastly outnumber the wingnuts, yet would seemingly rather engage in endless squabbles over special interests, ultimately fracturing any coalitions and giving an open invitation for the Repugs to seize power on the following platform:
1. Get elected
2. Mess everything up
3. Let the other guy try and solve the problems you created.
4. But stop him at every turn, so that when he fails
5. You can blame him for all the problems and get elected again.
6. Goto step 1 (Profit?)
flotsam
Quote from GTJHOTL…
and yes, a little bit of my soul died posting that from her, but even a broken watch is right twice a day…
Brien Jackson
@numbskull:
I’m thinking you don’t want to go there.
demimondian
@Violet: It’s pretty much a first, and certainly a first in recent memory.
Nick
@Violet:
In another race it might have been a good idea, but not in this one.
Sure, they did it a lot in the 1930s and 1940s and again in the 1990s after NAFTA, but they were rarely successful.
Violet
@demimondian:
That’s what I thought, but wasn’t sure. In that case, it shows that Labor isn’t afraid to take a stand against candidates who aren’t working for Labor’s goals. Okay, they lost. But not by a lot and Halter’s only had a candidacy of months.
There are a lot of lessons to come from this, but it’s not cut and dried against Labor.
Nick
@numbskull: Many Democrats have won primaries with union support…and many Democrats have won without it. In Arkansas, union support is irrelevant.
Nick
@Violet:
Which no one ever doubted. It also shows labor sometimes has little influence among Democratic voters in some states, which explains why the party isn’t as pro-labor as it should be.
kay
@demimondian:
I agree. It was really, really stupid of the Obama White House to go out with this.
They should do some groveling. An apology would be a good start.
Bobby Thomson
@MikeMc:
True, but what does Alaska have to do with Arkansas?
Nick
@demimondian: Of for Chrissakes, Pennsylvania is a state where unions have a lot of sway, Arkansas is not.
Of course labor did the right thing there, that’s a state that should and can elect a pro-labor Senator (they had one with Specter anyway, but I digress).
Arkansas is probably one of the five biggest anti-labor states. It is NOTHING like Pennsylvania.
Tyro
That “lesson” only works if you win.
Oh, fucking bullshit, Brien. Most every single primary challenge of an incumbent loses. Most every single one– but the threat of it has to be made constant. And Halter got close to 49% of the vote: it could have gone either way. Not only has a threat been made, but the threat will be made again and again, eventually resulting in a couple of wins.
If the only campaigns that were worth running were the one you win, then there’d be no point to most elections. Knocking off an incumbent is hard and takes a lot of resources. This one was definitely worth putting some resources into because the opportunity existed. By reward Lincoln for publicly shooting off her mouth?
Nick
@John: Of course, because the people of the South are pretty hostile to labor. All the more reason to try to elect pro-labor Senators elsewhere instead of wasting money on a lost cause.
mistermix
@numbskull:
Many. In a state tougher for Democrats than Arkansas. I’ve registered voters, driven them to polls, distributed literature, etc.
That’s probably why stupid, ineffective activism bothers me more than most. It’s wasted effort.
Nick
@Tyro:
Yes, which is why the threats never mean anything to anyone and they have done nothing but further isolate progressives.
I ask again, why didn’t labor pour $10 million into Jennifer Brunner/Lee Fisher’s campaign instead? Or how about Roxanne Conlin or Brad Ellsworth or Elaine Marshall. They are all facing far more odious anti-labor candidates than Lincoln.
Mary
@Blue Neponset:
Agreed on this point.
horatius
I believe this anonymous white house official is posting on this blog and his handle is Brien Jackson.
The cocksucking of the establishment makes me sick. The Democratic party just funneled millions down the toilet on a candidate that is essentially unelectable in 2010.
Bye Bye Blanche. Hope all the STDs you got from being a corporate whore were worth it.
4tehlulz
lol no
Nick
@horatius:
So did labor, what’s your point?
cmorenc
Why has no one mentioned the one specific thing Lincoln did that was the spark and petrol for drawing a strong primary challenge? She threatened to join the GOP filibuster against Health Care Reform unless the public option (and some other more progressive provisions) were stripped out, rather than merely voting against it. It wasn’t her anti-labor stance (or a host of other corporatist-friendly, progressive-unfriendly) stances which made the ground ripe enough for a strong challenge to get off the ground. But once labor saw that Halter had realistic enough chances to defeat her, they jumped eagerly aboard the bandwagon.
Why Obama cuddles up to Lincoln and the likes of traitorous assholes like Lieberman is beyond me. Who needs enemies like Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell when you have Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman as your supposed friends?
Brien Jackson
@Nick:
I said this the night of the first contest between Halter and Lincoln; Brunner did everything she could to appeal to the netroots/”base,” and basically got no attention at all. And she was running a winnable contest! By contrast, Halter got overwhelming support for basically nothing in a race that, sooner or later, he was going to lose. It made no sense at all, until you admit the only thing they care about is their dream of “taking on the establishment.”
Brien Jackson
@cmorenc:
Oh Jesus Christ. It’s because Lincoln and Lieberman have actual votes in the Senate that you need to get to pas things through Congress you fucking dumbass.
tomvox1
@flotsam:
You forgot this part, which is what makes this particular stopped clock so hard to listen to:
But, yeah, I have to agree with the Queen of Hearts on this one. Conservadem corporatists suck and should be primaried by Progressives if we want more Progressive representation and less corporate welfare. The simple fact of incumbency and being in “The Club” is not an excuse for consistently voting against the common people’s interests, or for blind support from all factions of the Democratic party.
Lincoln is a terrible Democrat (she voted against HCR, don’t forget) and will probably lose big in November. Trying to find a better candidate and spending money to get him/her into the general is certainly no sin.
That said, the petulance & sense of victimization on the Net Left in the face of their defeat yesterday is a bit hard to stomach.
Brien Jackson
@horatius:
Haha, you think I’m a senior White House aide. That’s, um, insulting I guess. Good job dude.
Brien Jackson
@tomvox1:
The problem isn’t running candidates against bad Democrats, the problem is the inefficient allocation of finite resources.
Tyro
the petulance & sense of victimization on the Net Left in the face of their defeat yesterday is a bit hard to stomach.
Well, after a while you realize as someone who backs insurgents, you have a lot in life to lose a lot of elections. The Halter challenge was causing DC dems a heckuva lot of heartburn: it’s like they didn’t realize that this was possible that Lincoln could come that close to losing. It’s just hilarious to see the Lincoln apologists do an end zone dance over barely making it across the finish line against the Lt Gov. Obviously a large portion of her own party in Arkansas hates her. Maybe next time her cohorts will keep their mouths shut and lose their general elections in peace.
Tom Q
The thing that bothers me most about this whole story is, everyone takes for granted Politico is telling the truth here. We sneer at them all the time, but every time they toss out an anonymous quote, rather than ask it be verified, we run to the person insulted and ask for a rejoinder. I remember things going roughly like that when I was in 4th grade (“Did you hear what Richie said about you?”)
Even granting the quote’s accuracy, it might be from some mid-level jerk-off who lives to undermine the left — a Lanny Davis sort (there are so many of these folk around, certainly one or two have managed to gain employment in the White House). It seems unfair to label this “the White House’s take”. I expect Politico to go that route; I hate that so many on my side allow themselves to be led there so easily.
Morbo
@4tehlulz: Quiet, you’ll ruin the pity party.
Nick
@Tyro:
and obviously a LARGER portion of her own party in Arkansas likes her despite her being, as you guys so nicely describe, a “corporate whore”
Does that makes 52% of Arkansas Democrats “corporate whores?”
dadanarchist
@Napoleon:
What Napoleon said.
If that derivatives language remains in the final bill, Labor’s $10 million was a small investment that will have paid off large dividends, not just for Labor but for all of us.
Brien Jackson
@dadanarchist:
I think that’s vastly overstating the value of what gets done on derivatives.
tomvox1
@Brien Jackson:
Well, I would only add here that sometimes the primary winner is the worse candidate for the general and, in fact, all resources are finite and the only one that counts in politics is money, money, money.
So you take the shot. With Halter, it almost paid off (52% vs. 48% is not exactly a whitewash) and Blanche had to move (slightly) to the left of financial reform. What are you gonna do, never contest a primary from the left? Even if you don’t win, it can force better behavior from the incumbent, which is money well spent really.
As an aside: If Halter has any surplus campaign cash, will he be giving it to Blanche for the general? :D
Kryptik
@Tom Q:
Well, yeah, my first inclination was that it was a ratfucking. But I’m not gonna be surprised if it is true, considering some of the reactions (and the quickness in which Unions have been thrown under the bus as of late).
tomvox1
@Tom Q:
This.
MikeMc
@Tyro: “The Halter challenge was causing DC dems a heckuva lot of heartburn”. Who? If it was so important wouldn’t the President have gone down there? She won the election, but, you’re right, they obviously hate her.
Brien Jackson
@tomvox1:
Neither had a candidate a chance in the general. But whatever, my problem is the amount of money spent. Every dollar of that is a dollar labor doesn’t have to put into races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Missouri, etc. now.
Nick
@tomvox1:
you absolutely contest from the left, in states where the left is applicable, like Connecticut or Pennsylvania, not in the South or the Great Plains where even the Democrats are conservative.
We don’t have a problem with primaries, we have a problem with THIS primary.
dadanarchist
She ran against the AFL-CIO, in a state with the second lowest union density of any state in the union. In this case the AFL-CIO gave money, but could not give what Democrats really want: its GOTV operation and the direct political pressure its members can leverage on public officials. That they almost took her down with so few resources in-state actually proves the opposite of your point: labor remains a potent and effective political force.
Besides which, she also had every other major Democratic establishment institution in her corner, from the current President on down, and including Bill Clinton, who, of course, remains incredibly popular in Arkansas.
Frank Chow
RAHM EMANUEL!!!!!!!!!!!! aka the fire in Jane Hamsher’s underpants.
stillnotking
If their side shoots first, blame them. If your side shoots first, lament the circular firing squad.
Nick
@dadanarchist:
That they almost took down one of the most unpopular incumbents doesn’t make you a potent and effective political force.
If they’re so potent and effective, why can’t they establish a pro-labor base in this state?
PeakVT
No answers for my question above?
Does anyone who is objecting to the Halter candidacy on tactical grounds have another primary in mind?
tomvox1
@Nick:
Who is “We,” kimosabe?
By primarying Lincoln from the (very slightly) left, the financial reform bill became better/stronger because she had to tack left. Imagine that. You can argue that this does not justify the cost of the challenge (and if a better financial reform bill leads to big potential future savings to the nation, that is no a slam dunk). But don’t pretend that the primary challenge did nothing at all and was a pointless exercise in Netroots ego tripping.
Halter’s nobody’s idea of Ralph Nader and really, it was only a 4-point Lincoln win. And maybe all of that margin was attributable to the Big Dog and the establishment showing up in her corner. That’s hardly tilting at windmills, IMO. Not to mention, she will probably lose in the general.
Nick
@tomvox1:
Sorry, but I do think this primary yielded nothing at all and was a pointless exercise in Netroots ego tripping. Of course the netroots are going to try to find any evidence that it helped something, anything, because to admit that it was a fruitless exercise would completely destroy their credibility.
Brien Jackson
@PeakVT:
Why limit it to primaries?
Nick
@PeakVT:
Change the political culture of the state or district they represent. Notice how pro-oil members of Congress from the Gulf Coast are suddenly changing their views?
Or, make them irrelevant by electing better Democrats elsewhere.
Sheila
Read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer if you want to know what truly motivates these circular firing squads. Hint: it’s not progressive politics.
tomvox1
@Nick:
I guess we just disagree on this one, Nick.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35752.html
Allan
Anything that pisses off Jane Hamsher is OK with me.
PeakVT
@Brien Jackson: Because grouping primaries and general elections means never challenging an incumbent. There’s always a tough GE race somewhere that could use some extra cash. Establishment types will argue that all the money should go to the GE race. But if that happens, it leaves incumbents free to tack as far right as they want, to the point where they feel free to undermine the party’s key goals.
@Nick: How do you change the culture of a district without having a prominent advocate of the alternative positions? Should we always wait until some disaster happens?
Bostondreams
@Blue Neponset:
I am not sure how this makes sense. If Halter lost the Democratic primary, meaning that he could not get enough support from Democrats, then how could he win the general election, when he certainly would not have the support of Republicans and the mythical independent?
ruemara
I have no problems with labor going after Blanche Lincoln. My only problem is her not losing. As far as “anonymous White House official”, STFU and get a name. You’re throwing millions away on an unwinnable candidate in the general. Labour’s G-D money, Labour can spend it where it choses. Don’t know who had that brain fart in front of a pundit but, seriously, way to piss off your biggest, most active ally in the months before an important election. As far as Hamster hate, she’s like Palin to me. A woman of very few accomplishments whose opinions are presented as facts by far too many. If there’s anything on the liberal side to be learned by this, it’s:
1. Polls lie. If Halter was polling over Lincoln, then where the fuck are the voters? Losing is not a “win”. Moral victories for your side guarantees nothing will change.
2. If your big progressive plans are simply not gonna pass, then get your ass in there for at least the small progressive plan. Quit bitching at the people who are at least marginally on your side.
3. The press does not care about you. Note the screaming tens that show up for the tea party vs the hundreds & thousands that have been on the progressive side. Who gets more coverage? Its not you. Your elected reps-they seem to notice that.
dadanarchist
Right to work laws + WalMart
Nick
@PeakVT:
you can’t but that prominent advocate doesn’t need to hold or run for elected office.
Do you think anyone would have paid attention to Cesar Chavez or Martin Luther King Jr. if they just ran for political office?
uloborus
@Tom Q:
Yeah, my take on this article has nothing to do with whether or not that 10 million was well spent. My take is that the media is spreading another stupid rumor about the administration.
My god, has any administration ever faced so many ‘anonymous official’ tipoffs that turned out to mean absolutely nothing? And were suspiciously useful to conservatives, because they made Obama look bad?
Brien Jackson
@PeakVT:
This makes no sense. Expending resources should be about returning benefits. What has better return for labor; Halter beating Lincoln in a primary before losing to a Republican, or Lee Fisher picking up Voinovich’s seat?
stillnotking
@uloborus:
Well, the simple solution is for the admin to deny that anyone said it. Which I’m sure they will do — assuming it’s true of course.
Jen7
Wasn’t it politico that said Halter would win this thing…the same politico that claims this WH source???
uloborus
@stillnotking:
…why? What good would that do? Most people think that if you deny something, that makes it more true. The media certainly does, and they’d have a field day. Plus, they’d smell blood in the water and totally made up rumors would quadruple.
LiberalTarian
@funluvn: I’ll say Amen. If Obama thinks he can win again in 2008 without labor, I have to wonder what he is smokin’.
Maybe Obama is planning to switch parties. Between everything else he has done, from letting progressives down re going after the GW Bush administration malfeasance to giving the Republican side concessions on nearly *everything*, even without actually getting them to vote for his proposals, I begin to believe he’s just a gas bag with minty fresh breath.
Obama should have just been a Republican. At least then I wouldn’t feel let down.
And yet they don’t learn–the die-hard Republicans** will always vote Republican, no logic or inducements allowed.
**John Cole is the exception to that rule, but honey, precious few Republicans switched sides after the GW Bush fiasco. They went “independent,” but they still vote Republican.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
Never heard of Tyson Foods or Wal-Mart?
Brien Jackson
This has to be the apex of whiny firebaggers, right?
PeakVT
@Nick: But at some point an official with a new perspective has to run and (hopefully) win. The incumbent might change based just on advocacy in their district, but that would be unusual. Plus, a candidate is more likely to get some free media coverage and to be taken seriously.
As for the example of MLK, he worked outside the system because he wasn’t allowed into the system. That was kind of the whole point of the civil rights movement. Today, nearly everybody is inside the system (though with unequal amounts of power). If somebody is espousing something radical, the system is irrelevant. OTOH, if that person just wants to change some of the policies of the existing system, they might as well run sooner rather than later.
tim
@Brien Jackson:
Oh…I see: you’re a Very Serious Person.
Perhaps you could get a job in government or media inside the Beltway now.
PeakVT
@Brien Jackson: That leads back to my original question: how do you get lousy Democratic officeholders to change their voting patterns other than challenging them in a primary? Vote against them in the general? That would be stupid, because then you’d end up with someone from a party that might represent none of your issues. So if that’s out, primary challenges are what’s left.
Note that I’m not saying that a dissatisfied base should, say, run a Barney Frank against a Ben Nelson. But running a Jim Webb against a Ben Nelson would be reasonable. On Progressive Punch, Nelson rates a 44 for this session vs 69 for Webb. Getting a Webb elected would be quite an improvement, even if the candidate never becomes a progressive hero.
Nick
@PeakVT:
It’s not unusual. Incumbents involve all the time. Look at Robert Byrd (anti-civil rights, now pro), Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich and Dick Durbin (who were pro-life for many years), Chuck Schumer (LGBT).
Incumbents adapt all the time, the problem here is in order to adapt to Arkansas, you have to move to the right.
Nick
@PeakVT: Reasonably sure Jim Webb couldn’t get elected in Nebraska. The only reason Nelson is there at all is because he dates back 20 years in statewide office when he won the 1990 Governor Race by running TO THE RIGHT of the Republican incumbent.
Midnight Marauder
@Tom Q:
When I first saw the headline on the HuffPo front page “WHITE HOUSE MOCKS UNIONS” or whatever sensationalistic garbage they had up there, I thought, “You have to be fucking kidding me. Again?” And then I clicked on the article, and LO AND BEHOLD, I read this as the second and third paragraphs:
Nope. Stopped reading right then and there. Regardless of the statement’s validity, I am playing my bullshit card on unnamed White House officials spreading word of anything to Politico. It’s all so unseemly and dubious in nature.
I really keep wondering about who constitutes this faction in the White House, the group that would be so bold and obtuse as to shit on the AFL-CIO within hours of the primary ending. I mean, who the fuck is that clueless?
Brien Jackson
@PeakVT:
Well my answer is pretty simple; you put your resources towards electing pro-labor candidates in labor friendly states/districts, and in lobbying Democrats to change the anti-majoritarian rules of the Senate that make the Blanche Lincolns of the world so damned important in the first place. But dumping 8 figures on a candidate who won’t endorse your top priority in an unwinnable race in a state that’s hostile to you and your agenda is certainly not the answer.
Nick
@Corner Stone:
But I thought the good people of Arkansas wanted a populist figure to break the chains and free them of the tyranny of Wal-Mart?
Corner Stone
@Nick: Ok, so you honestly didn’t know why labor doesn’t have a stronghold in AR.
Good enough.
Midnight Marauder
@Brien Jackson:
I know it’s long, but goddamn, that would make an AMAZING tag.
EDIT: AMAZING!
FlipYrWhig
@cmorenc:
Seems to me that their thinking is probably pretty clear: if they help to save vulnerable politicians, they can call in favors in return. Looks like it helped A LOT with Specter, though admittedly I can’t say I’ve seen Lieberman doing much constructive since his droopy ass was saved.
I wanted Halter to win. It always DOES seem like a waste of money when you raise a lot, spend a lot, and lose. I haven’t seen the original objectionable quotation but it sounds like standard “fight the real enemy” stuff we hear after every internecine squabble.
Nick
@Corner Stone: You know what I find funny. I find it funny that the netroots decide they’re going to primary a less than friendly to labor politician in a state where they know any politician any more friendly than her will lose.
Reinforces the notion that this isn’t about legislating or making policy, it’s about personal vendettas.
Of course I know why labor doesn’t have a base in Arkansas, what I do want to know if why labor spent $10 million in the state knowing that?
It’s like Jerome Armstrong who yesterday tweeted before polls close that Halter’s impending victory will be the greatest epic victory for the netroots in four years and then after he loses, tweets “Oh, well, Halter was also trailing anyway, he wasn’t going to win.”
So, therefore, is it the greatest epic loss?
FlipYrWhig
@Midnight Marauder: How is that comment “mocking unions”? As opposed to, say, ripping unions’ political strategy? It does sound like someone from the Rahm Emanuel camp, but I don’t see that it’s so surprising or insulting. There’s a swath of people who think it’s a bad idea to pump money into these primary challenges because it weakens the incumbent, and another swath of people who think it’s a good idea because it forces the incumbent in the right direction. They fight. So what?
Nick
@FlipYrWhig: It’s not even that they weakened the incumbent, it’s that by spending the money in Arkansas, labor deprived other candidates, who are much more friendly to them than Halter and have a much better chance of winning their races, of much-needed resources this year. THAT’S what the White House was saying.
PeakVT
@Brien Jackson: Your objections are strictly specific. That’s not what I’m asking about.
Midnight Marauder
@FlipYrWhig:
That’s what I’m saying. Regardless of the merits of labor’s strategy in this primary, I just find it kind of disconcerting to have these kinds of tone-deaf rogue elements frantically seeking out Politico for a gratuitous pot shot at the unions. It’s an entirely counterproductive exercise, from my perspective. And I think there are certainly better ways the sentiments in that particular statement could have been phrased.
I don’t really find it surprising or insulting. I just think it’s dumb.
Paula
Not completely off topic, but Marcy Winograd lost to Jane Harman AGAIN in the Venice/South Bay district of Los Angeles County.
dadanarchist
What are you talking about? $10 million for the AFL-CIO is nothing, pocket change. They spent more than $200 million in 2008. This year they don’t have to spend the $53 million they spent on the presidential race. The Wall Street Journal says they have budgeted $100 million – just for the general. And that is just the AFL-CIO; member unions, the SEIU, the Teamsters and others will undoubtedly spend more.
Union PACs have given Fisher $30,000 already in direct political contributions; more money will be forthcoming now that the primary is over.
This is the most patently stupid of your objections.
Citizen Alan
@4tehlulz:
I always love it when posters put up links which disprove their own position. Your link shows Boozman leading Halter 59.0% to 39.5% with both candidates trending up. The same website also polls Lincoln against Boozman, and he leads her 57.4% to 34.9%, with her trend lines going down markedly. Halter was the stronger candidate, especially since Lincoln’s numbers will probably drop even more if/when her derivatives amendment gets stripped out, invalidating her ludicrous claims to be the “defender of the working class.”
This isn’t about Labor. It’s about whether we have a democracy or a thinly disguised aristocracy. The serfs challenged the right of Lady Blanche of Wal-Mart to rule over the Duchy of Arkansas, and her fellow members of the House of Lords rushed to her aid. Now that she has narrowly preserved her fiefdom (for a few months more, at least), anonymous courtiers at the Palace are snipping about how perhaps now those serfs will remember their place.
Citizen Alan
@Nick:
Well, I suspect a big part of it is that the anti-labor states are also states without a significant manufacturing sector. It is not a coincidence, after all, that most “right to work” states were in the Confederacy. Without a sufficiently large group of employees working in the same field, collective action isn’t feasible, particularly since federal protections for union activities don’t kick in for businesses below a certain size.
Or is it now Labor’s responsibility to help develop the manufacturing potential of a state whose government is openly hostile to worker’s rights in order to create from scratch enough pro-union employees to affect government policy?
Citizen Alan
@Allan:
So you support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, a U.S. invasion of Iran, the legalization of torture and the abolition of habeas corpus, and the Bush v. Gore decision? Because I think all those things probably piss off Jane Hamsher.
I understand that people have issues with her. Frankly, I do to. But a willingness to see the opposing coalition prosper just to anger a member of your own coalition with whom you presently disagree goes beyond “circular firing squad” into the realm of nihilism.
Citizen Alan
@Bostondreams:
Well this is speculative, but I’d really like to see an electoral analysis of this — Arkansas has open primaries. Boozman won his primary, which I assume means that Republicans were free to vote in the Democratic runoff and probably did so in favor of the more conservative of the candidates, or possibly in favor of the candidate who would perform worse against Boozman. Under either theory, that would be Lincoln.
4tehlulz
@Citizen Alan: You’re right; I forgot to factor in Bill Halter’s 20 handicap before mocking any claim that that he could hold the seat.
In that case, the unions definitely spent their money well; I’m sure Senator Halter will stand up to Wal*Mart.
AxelFoley
@Redshirt:
This. Every word you said. THIS is why fuckin’ Dems can’t hold on to power. Say what you will about the GOP, but them sumbitches march lockstep to get their agendas done. They might stab each other in the back behind the scenes, but they put on a public show of solidarity.
Citizen Alan
@Nick:
But the freaking polls show Halter, who has held state wide office, performs better than Lincoln against Boozman! And are you seriously suggesting that Arkansas voters actually base their voting decisions on who is most hostile to labor? Folks who are in a union vote for labor. Business owners who fear unionization vote against labor. Working class folks who aren’t in unions don’t give a shit about the issue and vote based on other factors. If labor could have replaced Lincoln with a candidate who was more pro-union but who appealed to voters based on other issues (even if its just anti-incumbency) it would have been wise to have done so. And btw, it nearly did.
Citizen Alan
@AxelFoley:
Well, yeah. That’s what being an authoritarian cult means, and that’s a big part of why I’m not one of them. I suspect that if Sarah Palin went on TV and asked every patriotic American to drink cyanide-laced koolaid, somewhere between 25% and 30% of the American people would do it without question.
Joseph Nobles
@Allan: Torture pisses Jane Hamsher off. So we’ll put you down as OK with torture?
ETA: Eh, Citizen Alan got there first and better. I just threw a comment down the toilet. Still, I feel better.
Nellcote
The “netroots” should focus on smaller local races like school boards and city councils and such. The Dems need a deeper bench of progressive candidates with experience in politics to support for higher offices. The money raised would go farther and it would help to expand the notion of progressive equals not scary.
Allison W.
This is politics. Any time you spend money on a candidate that loses its a considered a waste of money. Doesn’t matter who backed them or what faction of the Dem party favored the candidate.
AxelFoley
@uloborus:
And it’s funny how those on the left, known for their supposed intelligence, seem to fall for this shit every time.
Give me a name, not an ‘anonymous official’ or shut the fuck up.
AxelFoley
@LiberalTarian:
Good thing he only has to worry about winning in ’12 then, right?
AxelFoley
@Citizen Alan:
Yeah, and that purity is the reason Dems have been getting their asses kicked for the better part of 40 years.
Not saying there can be no dissension, but damn, show more unity so you can get your agendas passed.
LiberalTarian
@AxelFoley:
D’oh. Time has officially passed me by.
liberaltarian
Wow. Obama really took that anon union basher to task, huh??? I mean, he might not necessarily have agreed with that characterization!! I mean, whether or not, and might have been better spent!
Fucking unions. They think they protect the common man from corporate greed or some fucking grandiose bullshit like that. I mean, it’s not like we have history of that kind of thing in this country or anything. Upton Sinclair was on opium when he wrote The Jungle, and you know that silly little story about the Ludlow massacre is just a bunch of shrill firebaggers pissing their panties. Mary Harris Jones was just senile you know, when Reese Blizzard called her the most dangerous woman in America.
Yeah, Obama’s got it right. Who needs unions??? Fuck ’em.
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles:
How can you feel better after “flushing” your resources like that? Your comments are finite you know. How do you expect to impact the November comments now that you’ve flushed this one away? Do you think you can replenish that comment between now and then?
You should’ve saved that comment for a thread about Palin’s boobs. It might have been the one that tipped the scales.