76°F6:40 AM With Democrats like Ben Chandler, who needs Republicans? [The Arena]
The amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill Ben Chandler [D-KY] voted for on July 7th reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act served no legal purpose. It did not change the law of the land. It did not change Pentagon policy. It was not required in order for the Pentagon to get the money it needs from the larger appropriations bill. The only thing it did was allow a homophobic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to, as if it was necessary to do so yet again, put their bigotry on record.
Shame on him. And shame on the 18 other Democrats who voted with him and 229 Republicans in support of the amendment.
Now more than ever, the Democratic Party is in desperate need of leadership. It is in need of leaders who will defend its core values. It is in need of leaders who will stand for what is right in the long term rather than bowing to what seems expedient in the short term.
During the healthcare debate in 2009, Rep. Chandler explained to a small group of progressives that he had to tread ever so carefully on things like principles (well, he didn't actually put it that way...) because the Democratic electoral margin in his district is very narrow. This is no doubt also his rationale for supporting an anti-gay amendment that had no purpose other than to be anti-gay.
A strong leader, the kind of leader the Democratic Party has too few of these days, would take a Democratic stand. Rather than fear his constituents, he would would explain to them. He would teach them. He would lead. Rather than be afraid of far right wing Christian bigotry, strong leaders go to the mat to make the case that bigotry has no place in Christianity!
The Blue Dog strategy is for Democrats in close districts to move far enough right to win some Republican votes while being simply "better than the alternative" to their base and core constituency. But the lesson of 2010 was that Democrats cannot out-Republican Republicans. When they try, elections become questions of Republican vs Republican-Lite and that just is not a compelling reason for Democrats to leave work early and vote.
November 2012 is now less than 16 months away. The Obama campaign has already, for all intents and purposes, decided not to bother with Kentucky. So any Democratic enthusiasm for Ben Chandler in Lexington is really going to have to come from Ben Chandler. Here's hoping that between now and then he decides to give central Kentucky Democrats a better reason to vote for him than "he's not as bad as the other guy".
You may also like...
Copyright © 2012 Louisville.com, All Rights Reserved
137 W. Muhammad Ali Boulevard, Suite 102, Louisville, KY 40202
502-625-0100
137 W. Muhammad Ali Boulevard, Suite 102, Louisville, KY 40202
502-625-0100
United we stand: US Citizens as Democrats
Democrat 2011
I consider myself to be a Democrat and a Progressive, but in this political climate, I have to be a Democrat first. We have to stand united with the representatives who are at least understanding and sympathetic to our values and our causes.
If you want to come down on Obama for his style of diplomacy, or Ben Chandler for walking the fine line in the middle, then you are splintering our faction. In this political climate, politicians have to choose the path of least destruction, however far that may be from what we would hope for. They are the ones in the hot seat and we cannot see what they are up against with the clarity it takes to second guess every decision they have to vote on.
During President Obama’s campaign, I thought that MoveOn could be a vehicle to bring us all together with an effective data base, but since the 2008 election, it seems that MoveOn is so busy trying to micro-mange the presidency that is is splintering our base.
Consider the alternatives; you could end up with the likes of Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Michelle Bachman, or even Palin (whose odds seems to be dwindling with each passing stop on her trail). Even just 10% of what we might wish for is more desirable.
Let’s stand together behind our elected leaders and offer the support they need to do their job as effectively as possible, considering the clowns they are dealing with on the other side.
Keep Democrats in office!
Democratic values?
Elaine Cook posted asking Democrats to vote for Democrats. These are her exact words,
" I consider myself to be a Democrat and a Progressive, but in this political climate, I have to be a Democrat first. We have to stand united with the representatives who are at least understanding and sympathetic to our values and our causes."
This statement is self contradictory, it says to vote Democratic regardless of the moral and / or ethical values of the person . If you read the history of the Communist Party. U.S.A. in the 50's the majority choose to start using the term progressive instead of Communist. This is true of the man Obama and Hillary Clinton consider their inspirational leader , Saul Alinsky.
The majority of Democrats have no clue what their party truly stands for and most are pro-marriage. To be anti-marriage , to redefine it from the traditional family where 2 people mate for life and raise children with their values to any agreement that involves sex and living together goes against and sense of normality and decency. When we throw away marriage we throw away one of the main things that separates us from the animals . To condone the same acts that free and just societies have ruled immoral , illegal , and shameful and even worse allow those who live in that depraved lifestyle to rear children born of normal parents is the suicide of our society.
America has prospered because of God's blessing. Over 200 times the Supreme Court has verified we are a Christian country with Judeo-Christian values . The courts and anti-American , anti-God Democrats like Obama have tried to convince us otherwise but truth is truth.
There are Democrats with values but those who support this filth have no values at all.
Political Calculus
Elaine,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I totally appreciate where you are coming from.
I often speak of the difficult political calculus all voters (and activists even moreso!) must do when trying to balance getting what they want vs. avoiding what they don't want!
I have come to the conclusion that the Bush legacy of binary political thinking "If you aren't for us, you're against us" is too limiting. We have to be able to criticize our friends without deciding they are enemies. We have to be able to let them know how disappointed in them we are without having it be assumed that we're going to vote for the other side.
Your Obama example is a good one. Progressives are, rightly in my opinion, furious with him on any number of counts. But they are stuck with him. Come 2012 they certainly aren't going to vote for Michelle Bachmann! But at the same time, if they cheer for him because he's all they've got, they will never, ever get what they want. Who would bother giving it to them?
I am absolutely beside myself over the many disappointments I have with the President. I have to let him know. I have to let him know that if there was a more progressive choice, I would be there. But there won't be, and I will campaign for him again when push comes to shove. But to not let him know that he has fallen in my esteem from the candidate I had always been hoping for to the lesser of the two evils would be like lying.
It is the difference between primary tactics and general election tactics. If Ben Chandler ended up opposed in the primary by a true progressive, I'd do anything in my power to get the progressive in. If the progressive lost and the question became Ben or the next fascist down the line... I'd vote for Ben, but with the enthusiasm that goes with him not being as bad as the other guy.