Should progressives be angry about Sestak/Romanoff?

[CarlaLevin]

I am and I think progressives should be angry about this. The powers that be (AKA old boys network) offers various 'carrots' (bribes would be too inflammatory but I am not sure it is not apporpriate) to candidates NOT to run against incumbents? I understand the desire to preserve Democratic (capital D) legislative majorities, but this smacks of being anti democratic. Form a purely progressive point of view, I think challenges to incumbents should be encouraged as in the Democrtaic party, they are more often than not from the left and at a minimum pull the incumbent further left. Of course, party regulars argue that divisive primaries where you must appeal to your base can leave the candidate vulnerable in the general election, but do we really want to win elections by electing wishy washy 'republican light' candidates?

[alfredo]

1. Politics is, in part, the power of persuasion. I don't like what

they did, but I understand the reasoning behind their actions. It becomes important in races where money is tight. You don't want to exhaust funds and volunteers on a primary that might have been unnecessary.

[HopeHoops]

2. No, because in neither case did Obama do what the GOP is accusing him of doing. REAGAN DID!

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

Not only did Reagan offer Hayakawa a job in his administration or as an ambassador, but Reagan wanted him to drop out because his daughter, Maureen, was running against Hayakawa.

Where the FUCK were the right wing screaming-meanies when that happened?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I'm not angry about it. It's something that has been done for decades.

[Warpy]

4. Is Sestak any better than a Republican?

Considering how crazy that party is, especially in Pennsylvania (think Santorum), he probably is. He's certainly better than Toomey, who is certifiable.

In any case, freshman Senators don't have a hell of a lot of power, so he's less likely to do damage than Specter would have.

As for the corruption you're talking about, don't forget that this has been standard practice for a long time, offering jobs to clear the way for more favored candidates. You don't have to like it, but trying to condemn it as something particular to Sestak is disingenuous.

[CarlaLevin]

10. Let me clarify.

I am certainly not saying that the RW does not do the same or worse. I am certainly not saying that the Obama administration invented this or is the worst offender, but it has come to the surface rather graphically in the past week. I even understand that it makes a certian amount of tactical sense to save money by not running primaries. But doesn't this practice just further entrench incumbents. And if you are like me and feel that very few incumbetns are real progressives, that's not necessarily good, especially when its done with the power of the national party.

[Iggo]

5. I know you are. But progressives aren't.

[donco6]

24. I'm a progressive, and I am.

I like Romanoff over Bennet. Bennet is a lap dog to Duncan and his dismantling of public ed. For the administration to try to lure Romanoff away with shiny baubles is low. Glad he didn't fall for it.

[Iggo]

28. Fair enough.

Mine was a knee-jerk reply.

[donco6]

29. It's an issue that's being confused by the RW, too.

There's all the hullabaloo about it being "impeachable" blah blah. That's all nonsense. So I can see where people might be thinking along that track when someone posts something like this. But that's not the issue for me. It's the manipulation from outside Colorado that bugs me. I think they should leave us alone. Romanoff has a good shot at this, and he's got a lot of good ideas that I like better than Bennet. They're trying to take choice away from us.

[TwilightGardener]

6. It's politics. Jeezus.

[Oregone]

23. And if a liberal party wont field a liberal candidate, politics also dictates voters will look away

But thats ok....keep blaming Nader for 2000. Thats politics too.


Using "politics" to suppress the will of the people and take away choices of representation can also have some shitty consequences. I hope you are OK with those as well.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. Anyone angry about that should grow up.

The party leaders will obviously influence which candidates receive support. If anything they should be angry about the mindset of the leadership not the ways in which they use their influence.

[CarlaLevin]

13. I have no problem with party leaders backing candidates

or using resources to promote them. My issue is with annointing someone as THE candidate and then doing everything in their power to prevent competition. And I fully understand that this has gone on before and will go on in the future. But it is too cynical for my tastes. Especially when they get into very actively discouraging competing candidates from running for the nomination.

[eleny]

8. Don't get mad - get even. Vote for Romanoff...

I am!

[rurallib]

9. Why is my crap detector going off in blazes?

In neither case was there any real offer, ergo nothing to get excited about.
But I passed by FUX for 2 seconds last night and heard just about this same message.

[CarlaLevin]

12. definitely did not get this news from Faux News

and if I havent stated it right my apologies. I know there was no money offered and they are not even paid jobs, but am I right that there was at least an overture of an administration position for both Sestak and Romanoff if they did not run in the primary? If I am wrong, tell me how?

[emulatorloo]

18. If Fox is manufacturing outrage over this (and they are), that should give you pause.

Honestly this is a huge tempest in a teapot. Republicans are trying to turn it into an "impeachable offense" when it is nothing of the sort.

My guess is both Fox and GOPERs are trying to turn this into a Toomey win by making this all look dirty somehow.

Obama gambled on Specter, he lost. They asked Sestak to stay in the house, he didn't. End of story.

Sestak says he supports Obama, White House supports Sestak in the general. I don't know what more they can do.

[donco6]

25. That's not the point for me at all.

I don't think it's illegal or impeachable or any of that bullshit.

What I *don't* like is that they're shoving a more progressive candidate (Romanoff) out of the way to keep their lap dog (Bennet) in place. That's not OK. It should be a fair matchup between two Colorado candidates - not some sort of machinated "coronation" from on High.

[emulatorloo]

34. People will vote the way they want to vote, so it will all work out in the end.

[donco6]

35. Thankfully, it will now.

Since Romanoff didn't back out of the race. Without someone to vote for, that choice would have been eliminated by outside intervention.

[emulatorloo]

36. "that choice would have been eliminated by outside intervention" Romanoff and Sestak have free will

It is not as if the White House was going to throw them in prison or threatened their families with harm

As far as I can tell they made some suggestions (we need you elsewhere), which both Romanoff and Sestak turned down.

[donco6]

37. And that's good on them.

Too bad it's going to foil the Admin's plans to cement the appointed Bennet in place. Romanoff will be Colorado's choice.

[emulatorloo]

38. Romanoff sounds terrific!

[OregonBlue]

31. By Issa's reasoning it would be illegal to make a job offer to ANYONE with an announced interest in

running for a public office. Obviously it is not so no, it is not illegal and it is fake outrage.

[TwilightGardener]

15. When people say, "Should we be angry?", they clearly want us to be angry.

So, yeah, your crap detector is spot-on.

[alc]

11. I don't think it's just a progressive issue.

Anyone expecting the end of "business as usual" and more transparency has another reason to be disappointed.

Divisive primaries aren't just a way to select the winner, but also a way for the minority of the party to say "we exist". So I completely agree with you that challenges should be encouraged.

[CarlaLevin]

14. definitely not just a progressive issue!

The old boys network is more active on the right, I am sure.

[emulatorloo]

16. I think you should prioritize your Anger-Units. Don't waste them on everything

you could run out when you actually need one.

[Celebration]

17. +1

[Bitwit1234]

19. I think it is a bunch of manufactured crap because what

happened with the Obama White House is done all the time. AND by other administrations. The only difference is the republicans are just trying to spew crap against this White HOuse and the MSM is jumping on the band wagon. If they went back to previous administrations just think how many they could document about these actions.

IT IS NOTHING AND ANYBODY WHO IS "MAD" ABOUT IT SHOULD LOOK UP THE FACTS.

[emulatorloo]

20. GOP and Fox want to turn it into a Toomey win

Smear Obama, Smear Sestak because he supports Obama. At least that seems like it is part of the motivation.

[notesdev]

21. It's a blatantly corrupt practice

and it strikes at the heart of what elections are about - people being represented. If their choices are narrowed through bribery, threats, and who knows what else, what we have isn't democracy, it's a farce masquerading as democracy. What compounds the problem severely is that it is public trust and money which is being used as the bribe.

What I am very interested in knowing is how many candidates accepted such an offer and what positions do they hold now?

[zipplewrath]

22. I agree with your basic premise

Angry might be a strong word, but I've objected to this practice since Rahm used it at the DCCC. The national party picking and choosing who will run in effectively "local" races is anti-democratic and shouldn't be a practice of the Democratic party. I understand that it goes on, and I object to it. I don't give the DSCC or the DCCC any money for exactly that reason, and I am always hesitent to give money to the DNC for the same reason. Primary challengers move parties, even if they don't win.

In some parlimentary systems, there are lots of parties, and after an election they "form governments" by joining with other parties. In our system, we "form governments" so to speak in our primaries. It is the chance for the "greens" or "progressives" to at least "have a say". When you try to prevent primaries, you prevent this coalition building from taking place, and ultimately you end up with very disenfrachised voters. That's when you start to get Ralph Naders popping up.

We have an ethanol industry in this country because Iowa is an early primary. Without primaries, Iowa would have no influence at all.

[donco6]

27. The thing is, in this case, Romanoff has a really good shot.

He's not just a nobody from nowhere. He was Speaker for years. He's well-known - far more so than Bennet. He took the Dem Convention. So, it's even more egregious to basically subvert the apparent (albeit unofficial) will of Coloradoans in favor of their own DNC candidate.

[OregonBlue]

26. I believe this has been going on since the beginning of time so no, I'm not shocked or angry.

[krispos42]

30. There is no perspective with the story.

We've noticed multiple times that Fux News trumpets common, everyday things that Obama does as if they're shockingly unusual, such as the recent laying of the wreath at Arlington National Cemetery. According to Fux News, this was an unprecedented and mortal insult to the fallen American soldier or whatever, when in fact the Prez and the Veep alternate the job fairly regularly.

So I have no doubt it was done. I also will refused to get outraged about it without more input from the progressive blogs. And since the progressive blogs, which are not afraid to critisize Obama, don't seem to be erupting with outrage...

I'm not worried about it.

[LynneSin]

32. Sestak isn't very progressive. In fact Specter's year as a Dem was more to the left than Sestak.

Just saying!

[eridani]

33. No. Incumbents always stick up for other incumbents

Never heard of it being otherwise.