What's wrong with Harold Ford?

[quaoar]

I've been reading a lot of negative comments about Ford before and after he declared his candidacy for the Senate in Tennessee.

Seems he's not pure enough of a Democrat for some people. He's opposed to gay marriage, etc.

If anyone here seriously thinks that any Southern state in 2006 is going to elect anyone who favors gay marriage, you are living on another planet. Bill Clinton saw that quite clearly.

Is purity of principle so important that you'd rather see a Democrat with zero chance of getting elected be nominated than someone who has a chance but has some conservative positions like on gay marriage?

So what is it going to be pragmatism or principle?

[gcole]

1. Amen. I see Ford as one of our up-and-coming Dem stars

[babylonsister]

4. I also like Ford; I think he's intelligent

and articulate. I don't expect to agree with every last thing a person or candidate says, but intelligence can and should be a start. It's more than we have going with the current mis-administration. And welcome to DU, gcole! :hi:

[Romulus]

46. I w-a-a-y- prefer Ford over Barack Obama

Guess I just drank Big Dog's kool-aid or something . . .:beer:

[salin]

72. Opposite view, here

prefer Barack by a long shot.

That said, I have no problem with Ford running for Senate in Tennessee. Would certainly back the effort. Just wasn't thrilled with his run for House Leadership - far too conciliatory to the GOP lines for the role of opposing Tom DeLay and company.

Just like I am not thrilled with my Senator, Evan Bayh (he is not his father) and do not support his national ambitions - but I still vote for him and prefer him in Indiana what gets offered up to oppose him in the Senate.

[JI7]

2. i love Harold Ford

i really hope he wins.

[mattclearing]

3. I'm still irritated at him for that whole Congressional leadership thing.

Isn't he a DLC'er?

[JI7]

6. Eliot Spitzer is a member of the DLC also

should we not support him for Governor ?

[mattclearing]

7. I haven't given much thought to Spitzer as a candidate.

But I do like what he has done with his work thus far.

While I accept that it is possible for DLC candidates to do good (See Clinton/Gore), I think that the overall agenda of the DLC drags America to the right by denying the right-wing a proper opposition.

[GOPBasher]

5. I like him a lot.

He's an up and coming star in our party.

[IrateCitizen]

8. It's because he has no real principles outside of his own ambition

He will not hesitate to attack other Democrats for being too "liberal" -- see his attempts to win House Leader over Nancy Pelosi for a good example.

His main strength is not in policy positions or standing for anything, rather his name -- he immediately succeeded his father, Harold Ford, Sr., in taking that House seat. I believe he was elected in 1996, immediately after graduating from Law School at 26 years of age. I don't think he's ever held a job in the real world outside of being a Congressman.

I've never heard him utter a single phrase that comes anywhere close to populism. He helps to reinforce conservative positions by using the same exact frames as the right wing (i.e. demonizing the "liberal" label, "tax relief", etc.)

Would he be an improvement as Senator over Bill Frist? Absolutely! Does he represent the direction that the party should go in the future? Absolutely not! If we're looking for a black standard-bearer, we'd do a lot better to look to the Senator-elect from Illinois.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Or, John Lewis, Cythia McKinney, Maxine Waters, etc.

The "he would be better than" argument is just another sellout to the rightwing.

[IrateCitizen]

12. No, none of those politicians would win outside of a House race

They're far too polarizing. I wanted to throw Jesse Jackson Jr.'s name in there as well, but I refrained for much the same reason.

Obama is in a different class as a politician than all those you listed. He has an extremely broad appeal, and the ability to instantly connect and relate to people from all different walks of life -- poor or rich, urban or suburban or rural, black or white or Hispanic, etc. He also has a gift for taking old-school progressive positions and wrapping them up in new rhetoric that makes people believe in them.

But as for the "he would be better than" argument -- do you honestly believe that Harold Ford would be no better as a Senator than Bill Frist? Do you really believe that? He may only be marginally better to some people, but I don't think you can deny that he would make that seat slightly less conservative.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. We've been running "marginally" better candidates for years.

As a result, we end up with a "marginally" less liberal party that concerns itself with standing for nothing but compromising itself into irrelevance.

Would he be "marginally" better than Frist? Maybe. But, for that "margin" we would pay the price of giving more power to the very forces that are destroying the party.

I'd much rather see a Cynthia McKinney or Jesse Jackson Jr. lose than a Harold Ford win.

But, hey, I live in Washington and I'm registering Green befor 2006. Thanks to the DLC and their very effective campaign to turn the party into the moderate wing of the Republican Party.

[quaoar]

25. You need to see the grays

Instead of just black and white.
Both parties have spectrums. Don't you think true-believing Republicans would rather see someone else besides Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee and Arnold Schwarzenegger? But they back them anyway and they benefit from it.

They recognize that a true believer is not going to win a Senate seat in Rhode Island or the governor's race in California. So they take the best they can get. Sometimes you have to do that.

Politics is the art of compromise. Always has been, always will be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Grays? Right now all I'm seeing is Green.

Compromise is Jim Dandy if you're getting something out of the bargain.
If I ask the boss for a $1.00 an hour raise and he offers a quarter, and we compromise of $.50 that's fine. If I ask for a buck and he offers "only" a dollar cut in my wages, and we compromise on "only" a $.50 cut...

Which is exactly what the Democrats are doing with the likes of Harold Ford.

[quaoar]

37. No.

If you compromise and take Ford, you get a reliable vote for a Democratic majority leader and a progressive vote on issues of importance such as privatization of Social Security.

That's got to be better than having someone who votes the Christian Coalition agenda.

And like I said, show me a Democrat who is more progressive and has a better chance of winning in Tennessee and I will be overjoyed to support him.

[AmerDem]

60. pure bs

"see his attempts to win House Leader over Nancy Pelosi for a good example." ...you make it sound like it was such a bad thing for him to want to be more involved in the leadership of party. Ford felt he could have done a better job then Pelosi and apparently approx. 50 plus other congressmen also thought this way ( estimated amount who were willing to vote for him since he through his name into the ring). As a lifelong Democrat I wanted him in that position because of his drive for new ideas, the energy he has in wanting to confront repukes and willingness to speak out and be abrupt on all of these corporate news outlets. I still get ticked off knowing Polos is in the leadership position. She comes across as weak and acts a bit squirrelly at times.

[KoKo]

64. I agree with what you say Irate...can't add anything...well said..n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. He's a Republican with a (D) after his name.

Remember him calling Pelosi "too liberal"?

[quaoar]

11. So what?

Is that going to destroy the party?

Isn't it better to have Sen. Harold Ford voting for Harry Reid as Majority Leader than some Christian Coalition clown?

I don't agree with everything he says either. But let's start living in the real world. Unless you can name someone in Tennessee with name recognition, money and favorable poll ratings who has a chance at being elected but is less conservative than Ford, that's our best hope.

This is a time to look at the forest and quite examining the trees for termites.

[IrateCitizen]

13. No, him as Senator will not destroy the party...

However, painting him as the "future of the Democratic Party", as some here seem determined to do, WILL hurt the party.

I would fully support him against a Republican to take Bill Frist's Senate seat. However, I would NOT support promoting him or his corporatist ideals for any kind of leadership position within the party.

[quaoar]

16. Fair enough

I didn't particularly like Tom Daschle for caving in to the GOP too often, but I supported him financially because he is light years better than that moron who ran against him.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Agreed. And Daschle should point out the problems...

... with placing people who look to "get along" with the GOP to leadership positions, as opposed to sticking true to basic principles and only working with the other side in instances where those basic values are not compromised.

I see the same dangers -- actually, worse, because he's far more centrist/corporatist -- with elevating the likes of Ford to a party leadership position.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The same argument about "electability".

Sure did provide us with a Democratic President this time.

[Gayla]

18. I like Harold Ford

and here's a reality check from a liberal Alabamian.

Candidates down here just can't come out with a true
liberal platform, no matter their own beliefs. They
wouldn't stand a chance in hades of being elected.
After working very, very closely with a congressional candidate
(who did well against a "values" repuke, but didn't win) this
past election, we've learned..you have to temper your
message toward the broadest appeal and then work the true
agenda if/when elected.

I'm going to say the ends justify the means..we've got to
get our people in...

[quaoar]

19. Welcome to DU from a fellow Alabamian

Yes, we have to get our people in.

And our No. 1 priority needs to be to prevent the election of Roy Moore as governor.

[JI7]

23. Roy Moore is running for Governor ?

is that for sure or just talk ?

[quaoar]

31. He hasn't announced yet

But he'll do it. I have no doubt whatsoever. It is why he didn't run as the Constitution Party's presidential candidate this year. The RNC is pissed off at Bob Riley and likely sold him out in favor of Moore in exchange for Moore not running as a third party and siphoning fundamentalist votes from Bush.

Moore will challenge Riley in the primary and likely beat him. Riley pissed off the state party when he proposed that huge tax increase for schools. He is vulnerable.

Moore's likely Democratic opponent will be Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley. He would likely beat her.

Ironically, the best chance for Riley to be re-elected and the best chance to stop Moore is for Riley to switch parties and take Moore on in the general election. Riley's own Republican support (lots of Republicans think Moore is an opportunist) plus Democrats would be enough. But that ain't gonna happen.

Unfortunately, Charles Barkley is constitutionally prohibited from running because of the 7-year residency requirement. Charles currently lives in Arizona. Can you just imagine a campaign of Roy Moore vs. Charles Barkley?

But Barkley, who grew up in the Birmingham area and went to Auburn, could run for the Senate against Jeff Sessions.

[liberalpragmatist]

41. I wonder if the Democrats Should Offer to Endorse Riley

Even if he doesn't join the party - he can maybe run as an independent with D support.

Yeah, he's quite conservative and I've heard he was VERY right-wing in Congress. But it's Alabama. I REALLY respect Riley for having the balls to try to push that tax package through. That it failed was a stain on democracy. That took courage and many decades from now Alabama denizens are gonna look back and wonder what might have been.

[quaoar]

42. Riley won't leave the GOP

He's a loyal soldier. His heart was in the right place on the tax proposal. He even came out and said it was the Christian thing to do.

But Grover Norquist vowed to make an example out of him to keep other Republicans in line.

[Gayla]

29. Thank you quaoar!

Any chance you're in the 4th district?
I'm in Guntersville - Marshall County.
The candidate I was referring to is my son, Carl Cole.
He ran against Aderholt.

You're right about Roy Moore...danger, danger, danger.

I think Lucy Baxley will prolly be the dem candidate,
and she's another who I wish was demonstatively more liberal,
but she's better than Reilly and way above Moore!

[quaoar]

32. I'm in the Sixth District

And have actually toyed with the idea of running against Spencer Bachus. No one ran against him this year other than the extreme RW primary opponent he got.

[quaoar]

35. BTW

You should check out the Alabama forum and the Southern Democrats forum if you haven't already.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I don't line up with some of his views....

But I am a pragmatic realist who understands that politics is geographical.

The Tennessee Senate options are pretty clear to me.....

We could do much worse than a popular state candidate such as Ford....like running a more liberal candidate....and he/she going down in defeat against a Republican (in which case, we don't even stand a chance).

So our choice is to back Ford.....or to poo-poo him based on principles. Unfortunately, principles do not win elections or can they give us back a majority. Principles that lose are no principles at all....since none of what goes into the "principle" ends up seeing the light of day.

Reality may feel uncomfortable to some.....but fantasy helps no one.

Ford, if he can win this, will caucus with Democrats. As far as I am concerned, that's worth quite a bit these days.

The difference between Bush policies being passed without any checks and balances or a chance that passing those awful policies (that hurt many families and children) will have a harder time.....and compromise will possibibly play a role is a most important principle in these dark times.

Go Ford!

[Catchawave]

17. I'd like to see him run for Gov :) n/t

[spanone]

20. I like Ford but he is totally behind the Iraq war.

I saw him speak this summer and he believes that bushit did the right thing invading Iraq. I find it hard to believe in someone who would agree with invading a sovereign nation that did not invade us. Sorry Harold.

[IrateCitizen]

22. He's also never held a "real" job in his life...

According to his biography, he graduated from Penn in 1992 with a BA and from Michigan Law School in 1996 with his JD.

His father, Harold Ford, Sr., held the House seat Harold Jr. now occupies from 1975 to 1997. Harold Jr. won election to this seat in 1996, taking over for his father immediately upon his retirement.

How is Harold Ford supposed to relate to the concerns of "regular" Americans, when he's lived such a charmed life himself? How can he be presented as a standard-bearer of the party, when he's never had to come anywhere close to dealing with the realities that ordinary folks face on a daily basis?

Am I the only one at DU who is troubled by this feature on Ford's biography?

[AntiLempa]

47. I share that concern

I share that concern with quite a few of our country's politicians. . .

[WI_DEM]

24. Pragnatism or principle?

I guess that is the problem with the Democratic party. We have too many pragmatists and not enough candidates with principles. Maybe you are correct but it is sad that we have to surrender principles just to convince a bunch of narrow minded bigots to vote for us.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Again....

I am living in the real world. I did not set the rules of this game, at this time..... But seeing what the rules are, why should I be a fool and attempt to act like what is there is not?

It is a problem with the Democratic party....which is why we lose. There is no such problem with the Republicans....which is why they have been winning.

Eutopia is not going to show up just because Tennessee decides that Ford is not liberal enough and runs someone else in the primaries that would end up losing.

Again, Geopolitics is not set up as I would have wished....but it is what it is.

What are the priorities is the real question? For me, it's to stop the bleeding if I can. Maybe for you, it's to resurrect the dead.

To each is own. At least, that's one good thing about being a member of the Democratic party....a diversity of opinions.

[Radical Activist]

26. Supported Iraq War, conservative corporate sell-out

He's been so eager to run for US Senate for so long that he forgot to actually stand for something. I think conviction politics works. I'm tired of people who think that standing for nothing and acting like Republicans is a good way to get elected.

The reason I heard him give for voting for the IWR was the worst. He said it didn't matter if Congress passed the resolution because Bush already had the authority to invade without the IWR. Someone with that little understanding of the congressional war power and so little respect for the Constitution does not belong in public office, certainly not the US Senate, which is the body most responsible for checking Presidential power in foreign policy. In fact, it is dangerous to have someone with those kind of views in the Senate because it facilitates an imperial presidency.

[Geek_Girl]

27. I thought the same thing until I actually listened to him

He supported the Iraq war
He voted for the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
He believes that the reason why our tech jobs are being outsourced is because of poor education.
He believes that democrats need to get over what happened in Ohio and move on.
He believes democrats need to get "right with values"

The only issues that I agree with him on is he seemed to be against privatizing social security, and we need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Depending on where the GOP candidate stands on the Iraq war I may be voting republican in '06.

[sampsonblk]

30. Pragmatism is a worthless principle

I don't care what his principles are in every case, but I do care that he has some principles. Something I can count on for sure. Harold Ford's only principle (like yours, apparently) is pragmatism. That's unacceptable. That's garbage.

[quaoar]

34. (like yours, apparently)

You don't know me.

[sampsonblk]

52. I apologize

I was rude.

You're still wrong, though.

[quaoar]

61. Fair enough.

[FrenchieCat]

39. See my opinion if you care to on that theory....

Post #38

Principle is a worthless principle....if in the end, your hands are empty.

It is the difference between going on a hunger strike and dying starved to death

or

determining that compromise may get you some of what you wished.

Of course, I like being alive much better than death.

However, principles are easier to deal with when it's all just talk.

[sampsonblk]

51. That's not the choice we're faced with

A candidate who gives up his principles in order to win an election deserves to lose.

We may not be talking about the same thing here: I am not saying we shouldn't compromise sometimes. Everyone should, when its wise.

But caving in on core issues - civil rights, respect for international law, etc. - is going too far. And to do it to get elected is worse than spineless. Not to mention that it hasn't worked in several cycles and doesn't appear to be helping us now.

Sure, compromise if its going to get you something. But right now our guys are compromising out of fear - and getting nothing in return.

[FrenchieCat]

53. I don't know Ford's

positions well enough to go there....for now. I don't know if he "sacrificed" his "core" principles...

I understand what you are saying otherwise (and it is somewhat different from my point in reference to how do you put up a Democratic candidate in Tennessee that is "liberal" and also get him/her elected)....

In general, I do agree with most of what you are saying.

[sampsonblk]

54. He is well-liked on Fox

I've seen him on there several times, saying stuff Lieberman would be proud of, and concediding on points we should never give up on. He used to be my guy, but now I turn him off immediately.

[MISSDem]

33. When did Harold Ford announce that he is running

for the Senate? I read the Commercial Appeal out of Memphis and hadn't seen this. Have I been asleep at the wheel?

[quaoar]

40. I found it here

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/16/155352/66

[MADem]

43. He's just dancing with the ones what brung him...!

He's reflecting the views of his constituency, and doing it in successful fashion, because he has a firm hold on his seat.

Democrats come in many flavors, from conservative to ultra-liberal. They aren't always going to agree on all aspects of the party platform, and that's fine. Just so long as once the whip is cracked, they enforce party discipline when it means getting a measure passed.

If Democrats start demanding 'purity of principle' then we can count on losing a few elections. All politics is local, as Tip used to say. If you aren't representing the peeps that voted for you, you won't get reelected.

[IrateCitizen]

44. What brung him was his father...

He's the son of Harold Ford, Sr., who held that House seat from 1975-1996.

BTW, Ford graduated from college in 1992 and law school in 1996. He was elected in 1996. The guy has never held a real job in his life. He's only in the House because of his name.

[MADem]

45. The voters brought him

Granted, he got his first shot based solely on his name, just like Al Gore did (thanks to HIS daddy)...like George and Jeb Bush did, like RFK and Ted Kennedy did, like Linc Chaffee did, like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend did...I could go on. Nepotism in politics is nothing new. Often, people get elected just because they are famous and any political skill they may have is unknown or untested (Ahhh-nuld, Sonny Bono, Gopher from Love Boat, e.g.).

But the bottom line is, if you are a no-talent bum, you don't keep your seat (unless you are a Bush, and they rig the vote). Your name can get you a shot, but if you don't deliver for your constituency, you aren't invited back.

[IrateCitizen]

49. His name got his foot in the door, that's true...

However, considering that something like 95% of House races aren't seriously challenged each year due to districting, I don't know if you can say that Ford has kept his House seat solely on his own performance. It may STILL have a lot to do with name recognition.

Furthermore, all the people you named above at least made some kind of foray into the "real world" before entering office. Ford graduated from Univ of Michigan Law School in 1996, and was elected to the House in that same year.

[quaoar]

48. I can think of a few other people who held office

thanks to a family name.

Like Al Gore.

Ted Kennedy, Richard Dailey, Lisa Murkowski, Dubya and Jeb, Jay Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, etc.

Sometimes it's a good thing. And sometimes you get Bush.

[IrateCitizen]

50. I think that rarely is it a good thing...

Even in instances like Al Gore and Ted Kennedy. It's bad because you get people in office who have very little idea what people on the outside of the Beltway do on a daily basis. It's bad enough that politicians get sucked into the Beltway mentality over time -- it's even worse to bring in pols who were born into it and haven't known anything else.

[deadparrot]

55. Yep, baby steps. I am 100% for gay marriage,

but the fact is, a truly liberal candidate will not win in the south. Let's make the south a little bluer, then we'll go from there. We need to pick up Dem seats, especially in the south, and if it means we have to run conservatives or moderates, so be it.

I disagree very much with Harold Ford on many issues, but would we rather have a Republican in there? It's certainly not going to do anything for gay rights to let a Republican win.

[ieoeja]

56. We have a DINO here in Chicago too.

Mayor Daley. His son has openly proclaimed himself a Republican. The mayor himself is anti-abortion and pro-privatization of everything. Abortion is a non-issue here, but privatization is having a major impact. So what are the results?

Being pro-privatization means the man in charge of our local government is not the least bit interested in running the local government efficiently. He has taken the much easier stance of saying that government can NOT be run efficiently and must therefore be privatized. So he doesn't bother modernizing the city's office and computer equipment or looking at ways to ease or even freeze creeping bureaucracy.

Service declines and customers get angrier. Furthermore, by supporting businesses at the expense of city workers he takes away the economic incentive for workers to support the Democratic party.

Why should the workers continue voting Democratic if not for economic reasons? For social liberalism? A socially liberal blue collar worker is practically an oxymoron.

Of course, Chicago has a decent number of white collar workers as well. This is the soccer mom demographic the DLCers have embraced. But this group is Republican to the core. Sure, the older ones oppose things like racism. But it isn't a particularly important issue to them anymore. And the younger ones have become openly racist. I overlap worlds with younger suburbanites who flat out refuse to come to my house because my neighborhood, where housing prices start at 900K, is "too dark". A shout of reality out to the DLC, yuppies don't vote for Democrats.

I don't think Chicago is in any danger of turning Republican tomorrow. But I wouldn't be too surprised to see such a change in a decade or two. Daley may think he is positioning his family to take advantage of this change. But he is actually causing this change by driving voters away from the Democratic party.

Economic conservatives in the Democratic party are driving away a core constituency while gaining us NOTHING.

Clinton did the same. I believe Clinton's politics actually helped push the country right enough for Republicans to take control. Might have worked for him personally, but screwed the party and, more importantly, the country.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I don't know if blaming Clinton

a les Republicans really does any good here. Certainly Clinton won elections....which is more than I can say for many other "straight" up Yellow Dog Democrats that have ran in national races.

So we can point the finger and theorize on what screwed up the party....but in the end, I don't know if the answer should be to poke at Clinton, the last winner of elections for Democrats. It's just too easy.

[AmerDem]

57. Ford is a good guy

We need more people like him in our party.

[tjdee]

59. He's really cute.

And he's just the right age for me.

That's my meaningful contribution to this thread.

:silly:

[Cha]

63. I'll grant you..he is

cute!:silly:

[Cats Against Frist]

65. You stole my meaningful contribution

I have nothing to say about the man, except that he's a straight hottie. :)

[geniph]

62. Ford came and spoke to our delegation at the Convention

He came to one of our delegation breakfasts. He's quite the fiery speaker; I was quite impressed by him. Got a couple pictures of him, too.

[Tinoire]

66. "He speaks so well, he's so well spoken, he speaks so well."

"he speaks so well, he's so well spoken, he speaks so well."

BRING ON THE PAIN!! - Chris Rock

No offense but honestly, is that all they need to do? Find a Black man who speaks well, dresses well, and everyone falls for him twice as hard as we fall for a White man who "speaks so well"?

Colin Powell spoke well too. I remember many "moderate" DUers raving on and on about how they would vote for Powell in a heart-beat if he ran on a Democratic ticket.

Powell is a snake. Harold Ford Jr. is a snake.

Please. Do us Black people a favor and stop going for these snakes just because they look good and they "speak so well". We can do better than these plantation relics.

Not meaning to be pissy but as a Black woman, this really bothers me.

Maybe we should seriously consider running Harry Belafonte on the next ticket - at least he's a real Democrat from the POAC:

[Disturbed]

67. Thank you, Tinoire.

As a Green I sure do get sick and tired of the "get in however you can" mentality. If there are no principles in a candidate what is the point of having that person represent the people. Remember the people? Maybe the Greens won't win Natl. spots in Congress but if all progressive Dems that are sick of Dem (Rethug LITES) voted Green it could happen.

[quaoar]

68. Greens are essentially irrelevant

Until Greens start actually electing people, the party is a non-player.

But, by God, y'all have your ideological purity intact, don't you? Whoopee!

[Disturbed]

69. Thanks for the compliment.

Uh.... that was one, right?

If we had more Dems that are sick of the Dem LITE Party Greens would become more relavent on the Natl. level. A fairer playing field wouldn't hurt either.

[quaoar]

70. No, just an observation

I agree with Greens on many issues, particularly on the environment.

But the party isn't a blip on the national political radar. How can you influence policy without at least a few members of Congress, a governor or two?

[Disturbed]

71. Fair reply.

Greens do have influence on many local levels. Any party must start somewhere.

The Greens made a mistake with Nadar although I agree with most of his perspective, I don't like him on the personal level or his methods. It's young party, so to speak and has a long way to go and I see some progress. As I stated, if more Dems would join it would certainly help. ;0)