Keeping Rand Paul out of the Senate

by: Mike Lux

Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 14:00


I ranked Jack Conway #3 on my recent Senate race rankings post, and while I'm helping behind the scenes, I feel it's important to come out and ask if you'll all pitch in.

The Conway campaign is joining with Blue America, DailyKos, DFA and ActBlue on a moneybomb today. They've raised $137,143 as of this post, but there are dual reasons for chipping in to get them over the top. Some races I help in because I just want to put a good candidate in the Senate- and Jack's race is one of these, I think he is a solid progressive guy. But in this race, I also want so badly to keep Rand Paul out. His comments opposing the Civil Rights Act are appalling, but they are just one example of how extreme he truly is- his dad may or may not have named him for Ayn Rand, but either way he follows her brand of selfishness-is-good libertarianism to a tee. His style of teabaggery is not just extreme for Kentucky, it's extreme for the whole country. We have to keep him out.

As I wrote in my post:

This is a hugely important race. Paul is the top priority for tea partiers around the country, and if he gets a seat in the Senate, their extremist movement will have will have a standard bearer for years to come. I have been very impressed by Conway and the kind of campaign he is running, and he is very much in this race in spite of the toughness of the Kentucky political terrain.

Contribute to Jack's moneybomb today. He'll also be over at Crooks and Liars for a live chat happening right now, starting at 2 PM EST.

Mike Lux :: Keeping Rand Paul out of the Senate

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I appreciate what you're doing (4.00 / 1)
but I think it's telling that the title of this diary is "Keeping Rand Paul out of the Senate" rather than "Getting Jack Conway into the Senate".  It's clear which factor is motivating you in this race.

How progressive would Conway really be?  Hasn't he come out against letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire?

I know Paul would be dreadful, but how different would he be from, say, Tom Coburn, who we've had to put up with for five-plus years now?  If Conway is elected and turns out to be another ConservaDem, on the other hand, he could do as much damage, if not more, than Paul, as we've seen from what's happened in the last two years.

I'm not saying that I'd rather have Paul in that seat than Conway.  What I'm saying is that most of us liberals and progressives are probably fairly poor and unable to contribute widely, and thus should be very picky about who we give to.  Any beneficiary we give to should be top-notch when it comes to progressive bona fides.  If Conway doesn't meet these high standards, it might be better for our interests if, through our help, someone more deserving is elected to the Senate to replace an existing Republican or ConservaDem.

Or, to put it another way:

Super-Progressive + Rand Paul > Conservative + Jack Conway


Hmm, it does, doesn't it? (0.00 / 0)
I have to say that I agree with some of what Kubica/Huey Long said, whether or not they were said with any sincerity.

But, to make it clear that I'm not a Rand Paul staffer lurking on lefty websites, let me do something very un-Rand Paul staffer-like, and offer websites for some recommended progressives that I do hope get elected this fall, where progressives can send their hard earned and precious few political dollars.

http://votesegal.com/
http://www.jonathantasini.com/
http://www.elainemarshall.com/
http://www.russfeingold.org/


[ Parent ]
Here's another equation... (0.00 / 0)
Fill in the operator(denoted by ?):

Super-Progressive + Rand Paul + GOP Controlled Senate ? Conservative (Dem?) + Jack Conway + Dem Controlled Senate

I'm not sure I understand exactly who the conservative is in your equation, since every race is different it seems difficult just to assume a dollar to this race will ensure a progressive loss in another (especially this year).

And obviously, if you don't like Jack Conway, you certainly don't need to give him money.  But it is actually important to prevent Republican holds/pickups even if it means having a relatively moderate Dem instead in order to maintain control of the chamber.  I mean, this is also KY we're talking about, not exactly going to get a Howard Dean-type elected there.

And there's yet another way to look at this... putting money into this race forces the GOP to put more money into it as well, and less money into other races that may be more difficult for them (like WI-SEN).  Going on offense in a surprisingly competitive KY of all places actually helps do some defense for progressive candidates like the ones you mention.  I contributed a few bucks and I'll also be contributing to the progressives I like, including some of the races you've mentioned. Hopefully Dems can get their acts together and avoid a complete meltdown this November where we lose everywhere.


[ Parent ]
Yeah I get what you're saying (0.00 / 0)
To be clear, the "conservative" I mentioned in the original equation is whoever would win instead of the super-progressive, because we failed to provide adequate support to that super-progressive.

Let's take, for example, Elaine Marshall.  I don't keep bringing her up because I'm terribly excited about her, the way I am about, say, David Segal or Jonathan Tasini.  I bring her up because despite not being super-super progressive, she's probably to the left of any other non-incumbent running for the Senate this year, which is really a sad commentary on the caliber of Senate candidates this year (not to mention the ever-regrettable loss of Jennifer Brunner in OH).  Anyway, you can substitute whatever Senate candidate you like in this equation (Joe Sestak or Alexi Giannoulias maybe - again, not super progressive but better than the other sad sack Democrats running), but my point was to say that

Elaine Marshall + Rand Paul > Richard Burr + Jack Conway

because at least with Marshall/Paul you still have a progressive voice in there, representing our views.  With Burr/Conway, yeah Burr isn't quite as insane as Paul, but if Conway is a ConservaDem (and maybe he isn't, so this wouldn't apply as much) then we have no one there really representing us and providing a sort of liberal bulwark against whatever the conservatives are going to be throwing at us.

Anyway, to plug into your new equation, I'd say

Elaine Marshall + Rand Paul + GOP Controlled Senate > Richard Burr + Jack Conway + Dem Controlled Senate

If Conway is truly a ConservaDem (and yes, I'm starting to see that maybe he's alright), Burr/Conway/Dem Senate is really what we've had these last two years, with Democrats not being able to get shit done despite having a 59-60 vote majority.

Marshall/Paul/GOP Senate would be quite scary, yes, but at least when we can't get shit done, we have an excuse - GOP Senate - instead of tearing our hair out at hapless Dems.  More importantly, we'll at least have a progressive fighter in there, who can help filibuster extremist legislation.  With a ConservaDem (Conway?), they might not help with a filibuster.  Hell, some of them (not Conway, but others) might even switch parties (I'm thinking of Ben Nelson specifically).

In any case, either Marshall or Conway would be a Democratic pickup, so the net political effect would be the same.  The question is, if you have to choose, which would maximize not just the Democratic, but the progressive gain in the Senate?

And of course, ideally you would not have to choose.  But I speculate - because I haven't been fortunate enough to be able to donate to political campaigns - that it's probably better to give the maximum to one or two really awesome candidates rather than dilute your contributions among a bunch of merely good candidates.  And I don't think most of us are wealthy enough to donate the max to a whole bunch of candidates.  Which is why I was talking about how we should be choosy in where we send our money.


[ Parent ]
I met with Jack Conway (4.00 / 1)
I must second Mike Lux. I had a long conversation with him about abortion rights. He is prochoice even on the issue of funding, and I am pretty demanding on this issue.  I don't like wishy washy prochoice supporters.

to his credit, he has personally approached the netroots in an open kind of way.

Yes I am disappointed on the matter of the Bush tax cuts, but on lots of other issues he is a progressive and someone who values the progressive voice and wants to both reach out to the netroots and have it reach out to him.

He is running in a border state of the Confederacy.  But he is running a smart camapaign.  I have already donated to him right after he made the primary, but I will add something to this moneybomb.

We can get a good, new Democratic Senator fom the Bluegrass State.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


more from David Dayen at firedoglake (0.00 / 0)
http://news.firedoglake.com/20...

Conway supports Elizabeth Warren and has said so. He is adamantly against Alan Simpson and the Catfood Commission.

He is very worth supporting.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Okay, this is good (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad to see good things coming out about Conway.  My point earlier was not to say that Conway totally sucked or anything (I supported him in the primary over Dan Mongiardo); it was that "NO RAND PAUL!!!" can't be the only reason to support him.  Conway himself has to be a valuable addition to the Senate Democratic caucus and he can't be another ConservaDem ala Ben Nelson, Max Baucus et al.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox