Arkansas Democrats decry outsiders like the Democratic Lt. Governor of Arkansas

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 18:10


In the extended entry, I provide a quick rundown of the Democratic establishment response to Bill Halter's primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln.  It's pretty awesome.
Chris Bowers :: Arkansas Democrats decry outsiders like the Democratic Lt. Governor of Arkansas

  1. The Lt. Governor of Arkansas is an outsider. Arkansas Democrats are upset with the primary challenge because the Lt. Governor of Arkansas is not from Arkansas:

    An Arkansas Democrat familiar with the race told TPMDC today in an interview the primary could do more harm than good for the party's causes.(...)

    "An Arkansas Democrat is a unique Democrat and we're successful here largely when left to our own devices."

    Makes sense.  It really would be a shame if outsiders like the Lt. Governor of Arkansas started meddling in the affairs of Arkansas.

  2. Arkansas Dems will defeat the outsider with their base of support in the great Arkansas city of Washington, D.C. Arkansas Democrats will combat this out of state invasion by their own Lt. Governor by accepting help from D.C.:

    The White House is backing Lincoln and already has done fundraising on her behalf.

    I'm sure, at any moment, Arkansas Democrats who are upset by the out of state invasion by the Lt. Governor of Arkansas will be disavowing this out of state assistance.  Additionally, Blanche Lincoln is just about to return the 61% of her donations that came from out of state.

  3. We will bring change by endorsing every incumbent member of the governing party.  The Obama administration is continuing its crusade of change in Washington, D.C. by endorsing every single member of the governing party:

    "We support Senator Lincoln as an incumbent senator," Gibbs told reporters today during his daily briefing.

    According to this statement, the determining factor in the White House's endorsement of Lincoln is that she is an incumbent.  Nothing says "change" like endorsing every single incumbent simply because they are incumbents.

  4. Because all primaries are bad. It is also important to remember that all primaries are bad:

    "It never helps us to have a primary and if she has to spend all that money in the primary that's a problem," a Democratic strategist said in an interview, speaking privately to be able to freely discuss the intraparty battle.

    Is this Democratic "strategist" too young to remember the 2008 presidential election?

This is some pretty nonsensical stuff.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Arkansas Democrats decry outsiders like the Democratic Lt. Governor of Arkansas | 31 comments
Anonymous Democratic Strategerists (4.00 / 5)
Who are these idiots?  Seriously, that might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read, especially post-2008.
For comedy bonus points (4.00 / 8)
They should say that Halter needs to follow the example set by Harold Ford, Jr.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Speaking of Ford... (4.00 / 3)

 ...I don't recall the Dem party establishment being quite so hostile to HIS now-thankfully-defunct primary challenge of a sitting Democratic Senator -- one that actually was on board with the President's agenda a hell of a lot more than Blanche Lincoln.

  Really, our party leadership is beyond worthless.

   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
maybe just perception (4.00 / 2)
He says he was forced out by the establishment

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03...

The NYT reported the same thing as fact

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03...

Here's Obama clearing out the other challengers in 2009

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Here Gillibrand denies Reid forced Ford out, and then brings up Obama's support himself!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

Here's Ford last month complaining that Obama sent Plouffe to do a fundraiser for her

http://www.thealbanyproject.co...

In short, I think there was plenty of public and private efforts to keep Gillibrand over Ford.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
It is about perception, but... (4.00 / 2)
the difference is that the Democratic establishment was much more polite to Ford than they are being to Halter. This is because Ford is a good old fashioned right of center corporate sellout, while Halter appears to at least be populist on economic matters. As far as DC is concerned, Halter is a dirty, bomb throwing hippy.
[ Parent ]
Echoing Hopeful's statement... (0.00 / 0)
Supposedly Schumer was apoplectic, and all the party bosses, local and D.C. were very unhappy.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
and Obama didn't even want Gillibrand for that seat (4.00 / 1)
he wanted Caroline, hence the coldness between him and Paterson.  
[ Parent ]
Neither do I n/t (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
With someone with her poll numbers, you would think the establishment (4.00 / 4)
would be asking her to step aside.

These people are "pragmatic" right?

I think it is moments like this that are telling of just how slanted the party has become in favor of centrists. "Brand pragmatism" wins out over pragmatism.

It isn't just electability (4.00 / 2)
It's also that Lincoln has been one of the six biggest reasons why Obama hasn't been able to move much of his very modest agenda through the Senate. She routinely votes against the Party or at least threatens to do so. I would hope that Obama is at least getting a pledge of loyalty out of Lincoln in return for his support, but of course he has neither the sense nor the balls to make such a demand.
[ Parent ]
And Obama will be doing appearances .. (0.00 / 0)
all over Arkansas with Lincoln .. right? ...

/crickets

That Might Help Halter (0.00 / 0)
From what I understand, Obama's not the most popular guy in Arkansas.  Not sure how he is with the (D) primary electorate.  But this might end up helping Bill Halter by the optics of it driving his message.
[ Parent ]
Maybe this is 11-dimensional chess? (0.00 / 0)
President Obama actually wants Halter to win, and knowing how unpopular he is in Arkansas he endorses his opponent to tarnish her.  This is actually plausible because 1.) It might work and 2.) It only involves thinking one or two moves ahead, which is doable for our faux brilliant President.
[ Parent ]
Acutally, the White House hypocrisy is worse than you say (4.00 / 7)
It's hard to imagine the principle that says the president and national party must support incumbent Senators who obstructed the Dem agenda and are in horrible electoral shape, but it's ok for the WH to pressure a governor to step down for being in bad electoral shape who did nothing to obstruct the president's (stated) agenda.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
Do you really want to defend David Paterson? (4.00 / 1)
BTW, I'm not sure if you knew this, but Paterson has been pissing on healthcare reform throughout New York for months, even when there was a public option.  
[ Parent ]
Unless the president can see the future (4.00 / 1)
Your point  has a space-time problem.
[ Parent ]
oh yeah (0.00 / 0)
because Paterson's shadiness and ineptness wasn't obvious a year ago?
[ Parent ]
Well, I certainly didn't expect you to double down on the president being psychic (4.00 / 1)
Can you tell me something really important like the lotto numbers?
[ Parent ]
No, which is why I did not do it (4.00 / 1)
You didn't answer my question - the WH and its supporters claim that the WH must support all incumbents, regardless of policy considerations or electoral prospects, but that is clearly false, as the Patterson case makes clear. What principle allows for the one intervention (in state politics) but not the other (in federal politics, where the WH has more justification in doing it)? I am saying that makes them hypocrites. I'm not saying they should or should not intervene in any particular case, or in general.

Any impact Patterson had on health care is peanuts compared to Lincoln. That is not a defense of him either, but it's still true.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
in primaries (4.00 / 2)
the WH and its supporters claim that the WH must support all incumbents, regardless of policy considerations or electoral prospects

In public, yes, that is true. Remember they pushed Chris Dodd and Bill Ritter out of their races too, doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported them if they stayed in...up until they left, the WH openly supported them. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported Paterson if he was the Democratic nominee for Governor...they pretty much said as much.

The WH is never going to double cross incumbents in public, that would be ridiculous. Even LBJ didn't do that. Did Robert Byrd pay a price for obstructing Johnson's agenda?

Besides, having Obama's support isn't going to help Lincoln in Arkansas, it's only going to hurt her, so chill out.  

[ Parent ]
You're not really in a position (4.00 / 1)
to know my emotional state.

As to the rest, it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Double cross? (4.00 / 6)
LBJ recruited an opponent for Willis Robertson, supported the opponent and by golly Robertson went down in the 1966 Democratic Senate primary in Virginia.  LBJ did not double cross the man, it was straight out in the open.

LBJ won Bobby Byrd's support by attending the funeral of Byrd's grandson in god awful weather.  There is more than one way to skin a cat and Lyndon used them.

[ Parent ]
Was that due to policy differences (0.00 / 0)
Or because Robertson was mean to Lady Bird?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Doesn't really matter (0.00 / 0)
He was willing to play the game hard. Standing up to and either defeating or co-opting your internal enemies is what strong leaders do.

For the record, I'd guess it was a bit of both, with the personal probably edging the political.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the HR Abuse (0.00 / 0)
When I get ratings ability, I will pay you back.
[ Parent ]
That was not the only race in which he intervened (4.00 / 1)
To side with one Democrat over another.  
[ Parent ]
True, but you may be putting a positive spin on it! ;) (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Bonus! (4.00 / 6)
The fact that Halter's disliked by insider party hacks is really just an added bonus. Hopefully that'll mean the usual suspect, insider, vanilla media consultants won't be involved.

Keep whining party hacks. If he's smart, Halter will go super populist and piss on the fat-cat-defending insiders all the way to a successful general election.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

fundraising (4.00 / 4)
I see this on dkos:

fdl has something bigger for halter

can we put up one for jennifer brunner?

actblue page: http://www.actblue.com/entity/...

I'm all for punishing a particularly bad Senator (4.00 / 1)
but there are numerous open seats that this same sort of coalition of netroots activists and key Democratic constituency groups could make a huge difference. Brunner in Senate-OH is one of them. Hoeffel in Gov-PA is another.  Marshall in Senate-NC might also be worth it. The Democratic Party will not reform itself - this coalition will have to make it happen.

(I'd also add Winograd replacing Harman as another great opportunity to take out a bad Democrat - and it would mean getting a great progressive in return.)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Obama is irrelevant, OK? (0.00 / 0)
When will WE get over our expectation and by now faux outrage that Obama is not a progressive?

He will support Lincoln and there will be a primary.  I'm supporting Halter, regardless of what Obama does.  That's precisely the comeuppance that Obama deserves.  Any handwringing over this is useless noise.

Chris's diary does point out the need to have our counter-narrative publicized.  The form of that publicity should be on the merits of the two candidates, which Halter wins hands down.

We can support parts of Obama's agenda without following his lead on political matters.  In fact, we need to learn to do this.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Arkansas Democrats decry outsiders like the Democratic Lt. Governor of Arkansas | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox