It doesn't make sense.
The key paragraph in Glenn's explanation is this one:
The point here, speaking just for myself, was not to put Bill Halter in the Senate. While I am convinced Halter would have at least been marginally better than Lincoln (he certainly couldn't have been worse), I don't know if he would have been substantially better. Nor was the point an ideological one -- the real conflict in politics is not Left v. Right or liberal v. conservative, but rather, insider v. outsider. Lincoln's sin isn't an ideological one, but the fact that she's a corporatist servant of the permanent factions that rule Washington. The purpose here was to remove Lincoln from the Senate, or, failing that, at least impose a meaningful cost on her for her past behavior. That goal was accomplished, and as a result, Democratic incumbents at least know there is a willing, formidable coalition that now exists which can and will make any primary challenge credible, expensive and potentially crippling -- even if it doesn't ultimately succeed. That makes it just a bit more difficult for Democratic incumbents to faithfully serve corporate interests at the expense of their constituents, or at least to do so with total impunity.
Yes. Well.
There are so many problems with this, it's hard to know where to begin.
First of all, if the goal was not to put Bill Halter in the Senate, then the campaign on his behalf was pursued on false pretenses. People were induced to send money and work on behalf of a candidate who was apparently to be a sacrificial lamb for some other purpose. That's deeply cynical, at the least. It is shamefully unprincipled, even on a good day.
If Halter wouldn't have been more than marginally better, if better at all, than Blanche Lincoln, why support him? More to the point, why should anybody else support him?
If the Real Conflict is between "insider and outsider," why support a sitting office holder -- the Lt Governor of Arkansas -- an "insider" by definition, against another insider who has the support of the entire Democratic operation? What is the point of pitting one inside party operative against another when supposedly the Real Conflict is between the "insider and the outsider?" Why not find and promote an outsider?
If Lincoln's Real Sin is not her political ideology but that she serves corporate interest, what, then is her ideology?
If the goal was to "remove Lincoln from office," did anyone bother to look at the polls that showed her losing badly to the Republican candidate? Did it occur to anyone that the voters of Arkansas were already taking care of that little problem, and that in due time, she would lose her seat in the Senate? Did it occur to anyone that the cynical and unprincipled ploy of mounting this kind of primary challenge to her was deeply, morally wrong?
Did it occur to anyone that a lot of people were putting their heart and soul into this campaign based on their belief that Halter was the better candidate, who reflected progressive values, and that he would better represent the people of Arkansas in the Senate? Obviously they were deceived, but who deceived them? And to what purpose?
What is the "cost" imposed on Lincoln for her past behavior? Having to fight a primary opponent at all? Being "exposed" for the corporate whore she was already well known to be? Having to fight a primary opponent when it was already known that she was likely to lose in the fall to the Republican? Punishing her?
What goal was accomplished? Mounting a cynical and unprincipled primary campaign to "punish" the Senator? THAT was the goal? Who knew?
Democratic incumbents have long known their asses would be primaried when they went too far over to the Dark Side; viz: Jane Harman in California's 36th District.
She was first primaried by Marcy Winograd in 2006, a startling development for her. She was primaried by a Los Angeles schooteacher outraged at Harman's public support for Bushevik lawlessness, and she put the Fear into Ms Harman that hasn't let up. Winograd at least was a serious primary opponent whose policy positions fit many of the ideals of someone like Glenn, and a year ago, she said she would primary Harman's ass again because Harman continued to backslide and support wars of aggression and executive lawlessness. The White House and the Democratic Party establishment went after Winograd hammer and tong, but she got a higher percentage of votes on Tuesday than she did in 2006, a very respectable 41%. Now where was Glenn on her campaign? Why didn't he support someone like her instead of an insider like Halter who he admits was at best no more than marginally better than Lincoln?
If it really is "insider v outsider," why not support the outsider? That would be the principled thing to do.
How are Democratic incumbents in any way dissuaded by Halter's loss to Lincoln from supporting their favorite corporate interest? How in fact did that cynical and unprincipled spectacle affect their favorite corporate interest in any way, especially when an even more corporate-beholden Republican candidate is likely to take Lincoln's Senate seat in the fall?
Just what was accomplished here and on behalf of whom?
About the only thing I can say in Glenn's favor here is that he isn't crowing triumphantly, beating his chest and dragging his knuckles about how brave and bold and successful Accountability Now has been in this case, and he is apparently owning up, finally, to what was really going on with this campaign.
Unfortunately, in the process he is revealing such a level of cynicism and contempt for the process and the candidates, including the one he recruited, and such unprincipled practices in pursuit of his goals and objectives that it is very difficult to generate any regard or enthusiasm for his approach to political "change."
Since it wouldn't have resulted in more than cosmetic "change" if it had been successful, no wonder the White House openly jeered the effort.
What a shame and what a waste.
No comments:
Post a Comment