Comments on: If You Fight Dumb, Why Fight At All

By: Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:50:40 +0000

You asserted that I am pleased there is a primary against Kucinich because he isn’t progressive enough. That is false and was not my argument. I do not particularly care about his ideology nor do I have a position in the race. Now, it’s possible that ‘the primary is a waste of time and resources’ is your rationale, but that is a different argument than your first rationale against a primary challenge. These are not of course inconsistent arguments, as one could see a primary both as an unwarranted ideological attack and as a resource diversion, but the ideological claim is simply false.

To make it extra super duper clear, once again, I do not particularly care about Kucinich’s ideology nor do I have a position in the primary. I just think primaries are good things because they make voters and candidates more engaged. I welcome a debate on that level since it’s useful to hash out resource questions.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:56:46 +0000

My impression is that Kucinich’s West Cleveland district is culturally to his right, a blue collar, Reagan Democrat union shop kind of place. Not exactly Cindy Sheehan country, certainly not Takoma Park. NOT a liberal cultural enclave. Kucinich probably represents the high-water mark of possible left-wing politics for that district. He’s no Al Wynn and more importantly it’s not Montgomery or even Prince George’s County.

By: James E. Powell

James E. Powell — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:05:03 +0000

In 2006 the Democrats decided to compete across the board and threw away the litmus tests and pushed candidates all over the country.

I agree with you with respect to the issue with Matt Stoller, but this statement is preposterous.

The Democrats didn’t decide anything. Various Democrats did various things; there was in fact a split on whether the key issue, Iraq, should even be front and center. Up until a few weeks before the election, the Beltway “leadership” were still clutching their hankies over the damage the anti-Iraq forces in their party might do to their chances.

There was not even agreement on whether to compete across the board. Before, during and after the campaign, there were regular reports that the Beltway Democrats, primarily Emanuel and Schumer, were distressed that Dean and the DNC were sabotaging the Democrats by insisting that the party compete everywhere.

What litmus tests did the Democrat throw away? They never had any litmus tests. For better or worse, the Democratic Party in America doesn’t have that kind of unity on any single issue.

The Democrats’ “success” in 2006 was by default. The Republicans failed. Led by the Idiot Prince, wrapped tightly to an unpopular war, stained by corruption, the Republicans could not maintain their control of the congress. Hardly a surprise and definitely not the result of any effective campaign by the Democrats.

By: Mike B.

Mike B. — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:02:16 +0000

What I would prefer is a strategy of going after Democrats gone astray.

Like Kucinich, who has a history of voting his conscience when his party needs him most?

Now, I don’t like the way a lot of the more conservative Democrats vote on issues, but the idea that the remedy to this is a primary challenge is – in most cases – a surefire recipe to give the seat to a Republican.

Which is likely to happen in a district that routinely votes for Dennis Kucinich?

I don’t necessarily disagree with you re. primary strategy, Oliver, but I don’t think you thought this post through. Kucinich, as a problem Democrat, would make a fine target–the “not progressive enough” line is something you made up out of whole cloth and you know it.